评估中心点分配方法对测量空间可达性的影响

IF 2.1 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY
Kyusik Kim, Mark W. Horner
{"title":"评估中心点分配方法对测量空间可达性的影响","authors":"Kyusik Kim, Mark W. Horner","doi":"10.1111/tgis.13228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an abstract sense, researchers have assumed that a population‐based centroid better represents a given polygon than a purely geometric centroid (GC) because it accounts for the internal distribution of the local population. In specific application contexts, when measuring place‐based spatial accessibility, for example, using a GC might be misleading because this practice could overestimate travel costs in large polygons; however, this assumption has not been quantitatively tested. In this article, we examine the role of centroid definition types by comparing the accessibility values of three different centroid estimation approaches. The analysis indicated that, in comparison to population‐based centroids, the GC typically underestimated accessibility values, particularly in sparsely populated polygons, and accentuated spatial disparities. The findings suggest that researchers need to pay more cautious attention to the potential impact of centroid methods when measuring spatial accessibility.","PeriodicalId":47842,"journal":{"name":"Transactions in GIS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the effects of centroid assignment methods on measuring spatial accessibility\",\"authors\":\"Kyusik Kim, Mark W. Horner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tgis.13228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an abstract sense, researchers have assumed that a population‐based centroid better represents a given polygon than a purely geometric centroid (GC) because it accounts for the internal distribution of the local population. In specific application contexts, when measuring place‐based spatial accessibility, for example, using a GC might be misleading because this practice could overestimate travel costs in large polygons; however, this assumption has not been quantitatively tested. In this article, we examine the role of centroid definition types by comparing the accessibility values of three different centroid estimation approaches. The analysis indicated that, in comparison to population‐based centroids, the GC typically underestimated accessibility values, particularly in sparsely populated polygons, and accentuated spatial disparities. The findings suggest that researchers need to pay more cautious attention to the potential impact of centroid methods when measuring spatial accessibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions in GIS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions in GIS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13228\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions in GIS","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13228","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从抽象意义上讲,研究人员认为,基于人口的中心点比纯粹的几何中心点(GC)更能代表给定的多边形,因为它考虑了当地人口的内部分布。在具体应用中,例如在测量基于地点的空间可达性时,使用几何中心点可能会产生误导,因为这种做法可能会高估大型多边形的旅行成本;然而,这一假设尚未得到定量检验。在本文中,我们通过比较三种不同中心点估算方法的可达性值,研究了中心点定义类型的作用。分析表明,与基于人口的中心点相比,GC 通常低估了可达性值,尤其是在人口稀少的多边形中,并突出了空间差异。研究结果表明,研究人员在测量空间可达性时,需要更加谨慎地关注中心点方法的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the effects of centroid assignment methods on measuring spatial accessibility
In an abstract sense, researchers have assumed that a population‐based centroid better represents a given polygon than a purely geometric centroid (GC) because it accounts for the internal distribution of the local population. In specific application contexts, when measuring place‐based spatial accessibility, for example, using a GC might be misleading because this practice could overestimate travel costs in large polygons; however, this assumption has not been quantitatively tested. In this article, we examine the role of centroid definition types by comparing the accessibility values of three different centroid estimation approaches. The analysis indicated that, in comparison to population‐based centroids, the GC typically underestimated accessibility values, particularly in sparsely populated polygons, and accentuated spatial disparities. The findings suggest that researchers need to pay more cautious attention to the potential impact of centroid methods when measuring spatial accessibility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transactions in GIS
Transactions in GIS GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: Transactions in GIS is an international journal which provides a forum for high quality, original research articles, review articles, short notes and book reviews that focus on: - practical and theoretical issues influencing the development of GIS - the collection, analysis, modelling, interpretation and display of spatial data within GIS - the connections between GIS and related technologies - new GIS applications which help to solve problems affecting the natural or built environments, or business
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信