The Impact of Data Aggregation on Potential Accessibility Values

The paper focuses on an investigation of the Modified Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) in a potential accessibility case study of the Mazovia region. Three different potential accessibility models were prepared based on the same theoretical background and coherent spatial data: a municipal model, a grid model and a population-weighted average travel time model. We concentrated on two main issues: the differences in the results produced by the three different models, and the impact of different methods of calculation of self-potential on these differences. The results show significant differences in accessibility values produced by the three models tested. The municipal model produced underestimated values of potential accessibility indicator in all spatial units. The differences are first of all a consequence of taking into consideration the densely populated peripheral districts of Warsaw that are ‘visible’ in grid-based models, but ‘not visible’ (i.e. averaged) in the central-location oriented municipal model. As a consequence, the total travel time between the average (population-weighted) origin-destination grid nodes is shorter than that calculated at the municipal level and the potential accessibility values are higher in both grid-based models. However, in general, the main cause of the differences of accessibility values observed is not the self-potential but rather the complexity of transportation and land use relations between neighbouring municipalities.

[1]  M. Kwan.  Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework , 2010 .

[2]  Elena López,et al.  Measuring territorial cohesion impacts of High-Speed Rail at different planning levels , 2011 .

[3]  M. Kwan,et al.  Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction , 2008 .

[4]  O. Kotavaara,et al.  Population change and accessibility by road and rail networks: GIS and statistical approach to Finland 1970-2007 , 2011 .

[5]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in Regional Studies , 2012 .

[6]  David W. S. Wong,et al.  Exploring the Variability of Segregation Index D with Scale and Zonal Systems: An Analysis of Thirty US Cities , 1999 .

[7]  G. Tóth,et al.  NEW ASPECTS OF EUROPEAN ROAD ACCESSIBILITY , 2011 .

[8]  Aura Reggiani,et al.  Accessibility and Impedance Forms: Empirical Applications to the German Commuting Network , 2011 .

[9]  C. D. Harris.  The, Market as a Factor in the Localization of Industry in the United States , 1954 .

[10]  Johannes Bröcker,et al.  Assessing Spatial Equity and Efficiency Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Projects , 2010 .

[11]  Adelheid Holl,et al.  Manufacturing location and impacts of road transport infrastructure: empirical evidence from Spain , 2004 .

[12]  Elena López,et al.  Measuring Regional Cohesion Effects of Large-scale Transport Infrastructure Investments: An Accessibility Approach , 2008 .

[13]  C. Justice,et al.  Selecting the spatial resolution of satellite sensors required for global monitoring of land transformations , 1988 .

[14]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  The accuracy of spatial databases , 1991 .

[15]  Carsten Schürmann,et al.  Towards a European Peripherality Index , 2000 .

[16]  John Fortney,et al.  Comparing Alternative Methods of Measuring Geographic Access to Health Services , 2000, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[17]  N. Spence,et al.  The Rediscovery of Accessibility and Economic Potential: The Critical Issue of Self-Potential , 1995 .

[18]  Marcin Stępniak,et al.  Accessibility improvement, territorial cohesion and spillovers: a multidimensional evaluation of two motorway sections in Poland , 2013 .

[19]  Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method edited by Eric Sheppard and Robert B. McMaster. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. , 2016 .

[20]  P. Rosik.  Dostępność lądowa przestrzeni Polski w wymiarze europejskim = Surface accessibility of the space of Poland in the European dimension , 2012 .

[21]  F. R. Bruinsma,et al.  The Accessibility of European Cities , 1996 .

[22]  J. Bröcker.  How to Eliminate Certain Defects of the Potential Formula , 1989 .

[23]  David W. S. Wong.  The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) , 2004 .

[24]  O. Kotavaara,et al.  Scale in the effect of accessibility on population change: GIS and a statistical approach to road, air and rail accessibility in Finland, 1990–2008 , 2012 .

[25]  W. G. Hansen.  How Accessibility Shapes Land Use , 1959 .

[26]  M. Charlton,et al.  Quantitative geography : perspectives on spatial data analysis by , 2001 .

[27]  Andres Monzon,et al.  Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS , 2011 .

[28]  P. Rogerson,et al.  The Sage handbook of spatial analysis , 2009 .

[29]  D. I. Heywood,et al.  An Introduction to Geographical Information Systems , 2002 .

[30]  David R. Thompson,et al.  Draft Final Report , 2011 .

[31]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  Modifiable Areal Unit Problem , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[32]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  Evaluating the Temporal Organization of Public Service Provision Using Space-Time Accessibility Analysis , 2010 .

[33]  L. Anselin.  Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models , 1988 .

[34]  N. Wrigley,et al.  Quantitative geography : a British view , 1981 .

[35]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  Relationship between Spatial Proximity and Travel-to-Work Distance: The Effect of the Compact City , 2012 .

[36]  Adelheid Holl,et al.  Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building programme , 2007 .

[37]  I. Thomas,et al.  Mapping accessibility in Belgium: a tool for land-use and transport planning? , 2009 .

[38]  Stewart Fotheringham,et al.  Scale-independent spatial analysis , 1989 .

[39]  A. Fotheringham.  Spatial Interaction Models , 2001 .