Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Services within Indices of Multiple Deprivation: Implications of Applying an Enhanced two-Step Floating Catchment Area (E2SFCA) Approach

被引:0
作者
Nicholas Page
Mitchel Langford
Gary Higgs
机构
[1] University of South Wales,Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) and GIS Research Centre, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science
来源
Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy | 2019年 / 12卷
关键词
Accessibility; Indices of multiple deprivation; Two-step floating catchment area; Reproducible research;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Approaches to calculating spatial accessibility within existing indices of multiple deprivation (IMD) methodologies are based on ‘traditional’ accessibility metrics and tend not to adopt more recent methodological enhancements. In particular, the last decade has seen a relatively large body of studies that have applied floating catchment area (FCA) methods that account for both service supply and potential demand interactions, mediated by the impact of distance, in a wide range of application areas. In this paper, we investigate potential implications of incorporating an FCA-based approach to measuring spatial accessibility within an existing IMD framework. Using the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) as a case study, FCA-derived accessibility scores were substituted for the existing approach used to calculate accessibility and a revised index was computed. The published methodologies used to construct the other ‘domains’ within the WIMD were followed and the implications for the overall deprivation measure were assessed. Statistical and visualisation tools revealed implications for both the access and overall IMD rankings, with sparsely populated (predominantly rural) areas tending to receive higher accessibility scores from FCA-based approaches than more densely populated (predominantly urban) areas. These areas in turn showed the greatest decline in ranking on the WIMD calculations following the application of FCA approaches. Potential reasons for such trends are posited before we conclude by drawing attention to the implications of adopting FCA-based approaches to calculate IMDs particularly for those policies designed to distribute funds or allocate resources to areas of need.
引用
收藏
页码:321 / 348
页数:27
相关论文
共 87 条
[1]  
Caranci N(2010)The Italian deprivation index at census block level: definition, description and association with general mortality Epidemiologia e Prevenzione 34 167-176
[2]  
Biggeri A(1989)Deprivation: explaining differences in mortality between Scotland and England and Wales BMJ 299 886-903
[3]  
Grisotto L(2003)Measuring neighbourhood deprivation: a critique of the index of multiple deprivation Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy 21 883-763
[4]  
Pacelli B(2017)The New Zealand indices of multiple deprivation (IMD): A new suite of indicators for social and health research in Aotearoa, New Zealand PLoS One 12 750-73
[5]  
Spadea T(2016)Incorporating environmental justice into second generation indices of multiple deprivation: lessons from the UK and progress internationally International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13 65-139
[6]  
Costa G(2015)A computer-based two-step floating catchment area method for measuring spatial accessibility of day care centres Health & Place 32 119-120
[7]  
Carstairs V(2004)A literature review of the use of GIS-based measures of access to health care services Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology 5 105-48
[8]  
Morris R(2015)Accessibility to sport facilities in Wales: A GIS-based analysis of socio-economic variations in provision Geoforum 62 42-1709
[9]  
Deas I(2016)Regional deprivation in Germany: Nation-wide analysis of its association with mortality using the German index of multiple deprivation (GIMD) Gesundheitswesen 78 1705-505
[10]  
Robson B(1983)Identification of underprivileged areas British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 286 500-214