Location is a vital factor when
looking at people’s accessibility to resources and even healthiness. There are many ways to examine the
relationship between health and location, and distance to health facilities and
community resources is one of them. In
addition to the benefits gained from living closer to the facilities, people
would also have more free time if they were closer to them. On the other side of the distance spectrum,
there are “food deserts” – areas where grocers are difficult to access. The point of this article was to showcase the
ability of GIS to map neighborhood access to community resources, and the
importance this will have to health researchers who can use this data to investigate
the effects of distance to community resources and health facilities.
In their study, the
setting of the data and maps span all of New Zealand, including rural and urban
settings. The data were gathered from
the smallest unit of measurement in the New Zealand census, the meshblock. There
were 16 types of facilities within five domains chosen to be categorized as
health related. The authors found their data from a variety of governmental
resources in New Zealand. The first domain was for recreational amenities,
including parks, sports/leisure areas, and beaches. The second was for shopping facilities,
comprised of supermarkets and dairy/fruit/vegetable vendors. The third was for educational facilities: Daycare/playgrounds,
elementary schools, middle/high schools, and colleges. The fourth was for specific health
facilities: general practitioners, pharmacies,
accident and emergency, child care services, ambulances, and fire stations. The final category was reserved for the
Marae, which are facilities meant for the service of Maori people and culture.
Unsurprisingly, the map shows easy
access in New Zealand’s big cities.
Coastal areas also seem to have more access to community resources than
inland areas. Using means, the most
accessible resource was parks at only 2.83 minutes to get there. Beaches were the least accessible, at an
average of 23.22 minutes to get there. One
of the problems with the study was that public transportation was not included
in any way, nor was car ownership. In conclusion,
this type of mapping could be very valuable to further research on location and
health, and it should be pursued further.
Citations:
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. file:///C:/Users/rossd/Downloads/Pearce-2006-NeighborhoodEffects_GIS.pdf
I thought it was interesting that recreational facilities like parks were included on this map. Recreational facilities don't seem like they would have an effect on a populations health, but I suppose having easy access to a park can provide a place for people to exercise, and the population might be healthier.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it would have made the map more complicated it would have been interesting to see public transit and car ownership factored in. If a facility is a 20 minute car ride away, but there is no access to public transit and the person doesn't own a car that facility becomes a lot less accessible.
ReplyDelete