Long
distance between people’s living space and a public resource such as a grocery
store is likely not something desirable. It is also thought to be a health
issue because long distance means it takes longer for people to get what they
need in order to function and live. This notion is what caused a group of
researchers in New Zealand to organize information about areas in the country with
varying distances between citizens’ living spaces and the resources that help
them live.
Summary
of Article and Research
This
article representing a study describes research done in New Zealand by data-collectors
who calculated distances using computer software between living areas and
living resources. These resources were markets for food, medical attention,
personal development, and recreation, to name a few. The study emphasized that
all of these were linked to health and well-being of individuals. A theory that
the distance between citizens’ living spaces and resources they need for
physical and mental health has a direct link to the health of that community is
a main point brought up in this study.
Data that the
researchers pulled were sorted into five categories, ranging in distance to
these resources. Category 1 included areas of the country that were closest to
resources, and category 5 included areas of the country that were the furthest
away. The team of researchers calculated the distance between a living space
and a resource using GIS (Graphing Information Systems). This is basically
software that requires a level of knowledge and practice to use, but once
learned can help make accurate maps of various types. The team made sure to
calculate the distance from living space to public resource using roads instead
of a straight-line distance. This was to provide a more accurate simulation of
a citizen’s travel to the resource.
The researchers
ended up with a map that identified areas of New Zealand according to how well
resourced they were. They concluded that the GIS software which they used to
represent their collections of data as a map was helpful, and that they wanted
to use their organized research as a base to continue exploration into public
health. This highlights the significance of GIS work.
What
I Noticed/Questions Raised
As the
researchers mentioned, it was noticeable that the data they collected about the
country’s citizens and their proximity to these valuable resources came from
sources which are objective. I think a next step would to be to incorporate
subject-oriented information such as reasons behind trends of resource location,
and consumers’ satisfaction level with their resources along with their
dissatisfaction level.
Where
does mental health and psychology come into play?
Are people who live closer to resources happier
because of their quick access to the resources, or possibly more distracted by
noise associated with busy places, stressed because of large crowds, and
disheartened by a trickling pace of transportation in an area of dense
population and traffic? I think mental health is important to a citizenry and
think that mental health resources should also be worked with.
Why are the amount of some resources low
and have a high average of traveling distance from living areas?
Looking at the researchers’ tables, I noticed hospitals
were often further away than most other resources. Is this because they are
more complex facilities to operate, it is a more restricted field of
employment, is it a high-stress job, or for all of these reasons?
Why are the amount of some resources high
and have a low average of traveling distance from living areas?
It
seems like resources such as parks and recreational facilities such as pools
are more spread out, based on what I gathered from the data. Is this because
they are easier to operate and less complex, more enjoyable places to work at,
they are financially easier to sustain, or all of the above?
My
Opinion on the Study
The
team seemed to do as accurate of a job as possible considering all the elements
of error present when compiling data and making sure it was relevant. I think
psychological factors such as media influence, individual experience, and
safety should be looked at more closely in research like this. Some places may
carry negative associations with some of the population for whatever reason,
and therefore they might not want to use the particular resources, making them
irrelevant. Through surveying the population, I suggest highlighting resources
that are known for things such as a high rating of customer service and general
helpfulness. Ideas such as these often play a larger part in the lives of
citizens than can be accounted for in data.
Works
Cited
I consulted this
work to write the above information and give it full-credit towards my
knowledge of the subject:
Pearce, J., Witten, K., & Bartie, P. (2006). Neighbourhoods and health: a GIS approach to measuring community resource accessibility. Journal of epidemiology and community health, 60(5), 389-395.
No comments:
Post a Comment