Where is my neighborhood? A dynamic individual-based definition of home ranges and implementation of multiple evaluation criteria |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Sociology, 468 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA;2. Department of Sociology, MS-28, Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005, USA;1. Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael''s Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1T8;2. Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M6;3. Department of Human Geography, University of Toronto at Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M1C 1A4;4. Department of Geography & Planning, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3;5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King''s College Circle, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3;1. Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, Finland;2. Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Finland;1. Population Research Centre, Urban and Regional Studies Institute, University of Groningen, The Netherlands;2. Department of Cultural Geography, Urban and Regional Studies Institute, University of Groningen, The Netherlands;1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Epidemiology, 137 East Franklin Street Suite 306, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA;2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Biostatistics, 137 East Franklin Street Room 6702, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA;3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Departments of Geography and Epidemiology, 206 Carolina Hall CB #3220, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA;4. University of California, Berkeley, Department of City and Regional Planning, 313B Wurster Hall #1820, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA;1. Spatial Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group, School of Population Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, SA, Australia;2. CRCHUM, Montreal School of Public Health, Montreal Hospital University Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada H2L 1V1;3. Department of Civil, Geological and Mining Engineering, École Polytechnique de Montréal, C.P. 6079, succ. Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, Canada H3C3A7;4. Research Center of the Douglas Mental Health Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada H4H 1R2;5. Department of Medicine, St.Vincent’s Hospital, The University of Melbourne, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy 3065, VIC, Australia. |
| |
| Abstract: | With the growing interest in studying characteristics of geographical context and its influence upon people, the concept of home range has been a focus of scholarly research. Home ranges are studied extensively across multiple disciplines, with literature supporting different operationalization techniques. This article argues that many of the existing approaches are not dynamic and versatile enough and do not provide reliable solutions for estimating individual home ranges. We additionally argue that many of current studies lack robust evaluation approaches. Recent evidences suggest that the usual approaches, which often exclusively rely on a single validation criterion, are not reliable and may be influenced by inferential errors. This study aims to tackle the exiting limitations in definition and operationalization of individual-based home range models and provide a more robust solution for their evaluation and comparison. Using data collected through public participation GIS we develop an applied, dynamic, and parametric model of individual home ranges. Subsequently, we propose multiple criteria comprising five validation hypotheses to evaluate model's effectiveness. We argue that application of this approach in evaluating spatial delimitation models can ameliorate the risk of biased validation resulting from inferential errors. The evaluation results indicate a substantial improvement in coverage of visited points compared to previously used static methods. Consequently, this paper draws a number of conclusions that can serve as guidelines for future research. This paper highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed method and explains how it can be improved and employed in future studies investigating contextual effects on residents. |
| |
| Keywords: | Home range PPGIS Dynamic neighborhood Evaluation Activity space |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
