首页> 外文期刊>The Professional Geographer >A Nationwide Comparison of Driving Distance Versus Straight-Line Distance to Hospitals
【24h】

A Nationwide Comparison of Driving Distance Versus Straight-Line Distance to Hospitals

机译:全国行车距离与到医院的直线距离的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Many geographic studies use distance as a simple measure of accessibility, risk, or disparity. Straight-line (Euclidean) distance is most often used because of the ease of its calculation. Actual travel distance over a road network is a superior alternative, although historically an expensive and labor-intensive undertaking. This is no longer true, as travel distance and travel time can be calculated directly from commercial Web sites, without the need to own or purchase specialized geographic information system software or street files. Taking advantage of this feature, we compare straight-line and travel distance and travel time to community hospitals from a representative sample of more than 66,000 locations in the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The measures are very highly correlated (r ~2 > 0.9), but important local exceptions can be found near shorelines and other physical barriers. We conclude that for nonemergency travel to hospitals, the added precision offered by the substitution of travel distance, travel time, or both for straight-line distance is largely inconsequential.
机译:许多地理研究使用距离作为可访问性,风险或差异的简单度量。直线(欧几里得)距离是最常用的,因为它易于计算。尽管从历史上看,这是一项昂贵且劳动密集的工作,但通过道路网络的实际行驶距离是一种更好的选择。这不再是事实,因为可以直接从商业网站计算出行进距离和行进时间,而无需拥有或购买专门的地理信息系统软件或街道文件。利用此功能,我们从美国五十个州,哥伦比亚特区和波多黎各的66,000多个地点的代表性样本中比较了社区医院的直线距离,旅行距离以及旅行时间。这些措施具有高度相关性(r〜2> 0.9),但是可以在海岸线和其他物理障碍附近找到重要的局部例外情况。我们得出的结论是,对于非紧急情况的医院旅行,用直线距离代替旅行距离,旅行时间或两者都可以提供更高的精度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号