SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Assessment of accessibility to urban health service areas based on travel time and distance in Ankara metropolitan region

Ankara metropoliten bölgede seyahat süresi ve mesafe dayalı kentsel sağlık hizmet alanlarına erişebilirliğin değerlendirmesi

Aşır Yüksel Kaya(FIRAT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0398-7069
Pages
74–84
Publication Date
2024-12-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that accessibility to health service areas is high in the Keçiören, Çankaya, Yenimahalle, Altındag, and Mamak districts, whereas it is comparatively low in the Sincan, Pursaklar, and Etimesgut districts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Population growth and urbanization significantly influence the utilization of urban service areas, particularly in developing countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this analysis, the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) and KD2SFCA methods were applied to assess hospital accessibility.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that accessibility to health service areas is high in the Keçiören, Çankaya, Yenimahalle, Altındag, and Mamak districts, whereas it is comparatively low in the Sincan, Pursaklar, and Etimesgut districts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:CBS · Mekansal Analiz · FCA

Abstract

Population growth and urbanization significantly influence the utilization of urban service areas, particularly in developing countries. In metropolitan areas, especially those that are highly developed, the accessibility of these services—measured by the time it takes for urban residents to reach them—is crucial. This paper analyzes the accessibility of city hospitals, research hospitals, university hospitals, and state hospitals in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, from district centers and neighborhoods, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). For this analysis, the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) and KD2SFCA methods were applied to assess hospital accessibility. The study utilized Google Maps Routes API data to calculate driving times to hospitals, with traffic data sets extracted through Python-developed code. These datasets were subsequently analyzed at the neighborhood scale using ArcGIS Pro 3.3.0 software. The analysis generated 542 shortest routes (based on time and distance) from nine districts in Ankara, which were further expanded to cover 484 neighborhoods, resulting in 29,040 optimized routes. The findings indicate that accessibility to health service areas is high in the Keçiören, Çankaya, Yenimahalle, Altındag, and Mamak districts, whereas it is comparatively low in the Sincan, Pursaklar, and Etimesgut districts.

Özet

Nüfus artışı ve kentleşme özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerde kentsel hizmet alanlarının kullanımını doğrudan etkilemektedir. Özellikle gelişmiş metropolitan alanlarda kentli bireylerin bu alanlara erişim süreleri oldukça önemlidir. Bu makale Türkiye’nin başkenti Ankara’da ilçe merkezlerinden ve mahallelerden farklı konumlarda bulunan şehir hastaneleri, araştırma hastaneleri, üniversite hastaneleri ve devlet hastanelerine erişebilirliği Coğrafi bilgi sistemleri kullanarak analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada hastanelere erişebilirliği hesaplamak için iki adımlı servis alanı (two-step floating catchment area) 2SFCA ve KD2SFCA yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında hastanelere erişebilirliği hesaplamak için sürüş süresi analizlerinde Google Haritalar Routes API verileri kullanılmıştır. Analizlerde kullanılan trafik veri setleri Python yazılımında geliştirilen kodlar yardımı ile çekilmiştir. Bu veri setleri daha sonra ArcGIS Pro 3.3.0 yazılımı kullanılarak mahalle ölçeğinde erişilebilirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak Ankara’da 9 ilçeden ilk olarak 542 en kısa (süre ve mesafeye göre) rota oluşturulmuş. Daha sonra bu rotalar 484 mahalleyi kapsayacak şekilde geliştirilmiş ve 29,040 en kısa rota oluşturulmuştur. Bu kapsamda Keçiören, Çankaya, Yenimahalle, Altındağ ve Mamak ilçelerinde sağlık hizmet alanlarına erişebilirlik yüksekken, Sincan, Pursaklar ve Etimesgut ilçelerinde düşüktür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaya, A. Y. (2024). Assessment of accessibility to urban health service areas based on travel time and distance in Ankara metropolitan region. Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.56130/tucbis.1581976

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Adıgüzel, F., & Doğan, M. (2020). Analysis of sufficiency and accessibility of active green areas in Cukurova. Kastamonu University Journal of Engineering and Sciences, 6(2), 95-106. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kastamonujes/issue/58573/826508
  2. Azzopardi, J. (2018). Effect of distance measures and feature representations on distance-based accessibility measures [Master Thesis, Lund University] Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science Centre for Geographical Information Systems. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8946364&fileOId=8946391
  3. Baier, N., Pieper, J., Schweikart, J., Busse, R., & Vogt, V. (2020). Capturing modelled and perceived spatial access to ambulatory health care services in rural and urban areas in Germany. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113328
  4. Bayraktar, A. N. (2016). Başkent Ankara'da Cumhuriyet sonrası yaşanan büyük değişim: Modern yaşam kurgusu ve modern mekânlar. Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 67-80.
  5. Bihin, J., De Longueville, F., & Linard, C. (2022). Spatial accessibility to health facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa: comparing existing models with survey-based perceived accessibility. International Journal of Health Geographics, 21(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-022-00318-z
  6. Cheng, G., Zeng, X., Duan, L., Lu, X., Sun, H., Jiang, T., & Li, Y. (2016). Spatial difference analysis for accessibility to high level hospitals based on travel time in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 53, 485-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.12.023
  7. Cetin, M., Kaya, A. Y., Elmastas, N., Adiguzel, F., Siyavus, A. E., & Kocan, N. (2024). Assessment of emergency gathering points and temporary shelter areas for disaster resilience in Elazıg, Turkey. Natural Hazards, 120(2), 1925-1949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06271-9
  8. Deniz, M. (2018). Uşak şehrinde aile sağlığı merkezlerine erişilebilirliğin CBS ile analizi. Turkish Studies Social Sciences, 13(26), 475-791. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.14404
  9. Eceral, T. Ö., Eçer, A. G., & Sönmez, Z. (2005). Ankara metropoliten bölge ve metropoliten kent planlaması. Planlama, 62-72.
  10. ESRI, (2024). Ağ analizleri. Erişildi 5 Kasım, 2024, https://www.esri.com.tr/tr-tr/urunler/networkanalyst/genel-bakis
  11. Geurs, K. T., & Van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005
  12. Google Maps Platform (2024). Google Map. Erişildi 5 Kasım, 2024, https://mapsplatform.google.com/
  13. Guagliardo, M. F. (2004). Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072x-3-3
  14. İlhan, Ö. A. (2020). Türkiye’de sağlık hizmetleri ve hastanelere erişebilirliğin mekansal profili: Sosyal refah açısından bir analiz. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 29(2), 259-271.
  15. Jamtsho, S., Corner, R., & Dewan, A. (2015). Spatio-temporal analysis of spatial accessibility to primary health care in Bhutan. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(3), 1584-1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4031584
  16. Jörg, R., & Haldimann, L. (2023). MHV3SFCA: A new measure to capture the spatial accessibility of health care systems. Health & Place, 79, 102974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.102974
  17. Kemeç, S., Karahan, E. K., & Mert, Y. (2019). Van kenti acil sağlık birimlerinin mekansal erişilebilirlik durum analizi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(1), 22-32.
  18. Kim, Y., Byon, Y.-J., & Yeo, H. (2018). Enhancing healthcare accessibility measurements using GIS: A case study in Seoul, Korea. PLoS One, 13(2), e0193013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193013
  19. Kwan, M. P. (1998). Space‐time and ıntegral measures of ındividual accessibility: A comparative analysis using a point‐based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
  20. Kwan, M.-P., & Weber, J. (2008). Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use–travel interaction. Applied Geography, 28(2), 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2007.07.002
  21. Luo, W., & Wang, F. (2003). Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS Environment: Synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(6), 865-884. https://doi.org/10.1068/b29120
  22. McGrail, M. R. (2012). Spatial accessibility of primary health care utilising the two step floating catchment area method: an assessment of recent improvements. International Journal of Health Geographics, 11(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072x-11-50
  23. Oğultürk, N. (2020). Erişilebilir kentsel ve kamusal alanlar bir yerel deneyim: Çankaya Belediyesi. Kentli Dergisi, 37, 82-88.
  24. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00234-7
  25. Pan, X., Kwan, M.-P., Yang, L., Zhou, S., Zuo, Z., & Wan, B. (2018). Evaluating the accessibility of healthcare facilities using an ıntegrated catchment area approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 2051. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15092051
  26. Stacherl, B., & Sauzet, O. (2023). Gravity models for potential spatial healthcare access measurement: a systematic methodological review. International Journal of Health Geographics, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-023-00358-z
  27. Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: An evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(4), 595-613. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300595
  28. TUİK (2022). Sağlık İstatikleri. Erişildi 5 Kasım, 2024, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=saglik-ve-sosyal-koruma-101&dil=1
  29. TUİK (2023). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sonuçları. Erişildi 5 Kasım, 2024, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr
  30. Uyaroğlu, İ. D. (2023). Mahallede kapsayıcı kamusal yaşam için erişilebilirlik denetimi. Planlama, 33(1), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.14744/planlama.2022.15045
  31. Vale, D. S., & Pereira, M. (2017). The influence of the impedance function on gravity-based pedestrian accessibility measures: A comparative analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(4), 740-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516641685
  32. Zheng, Z., Shen, W., Li, Y., Qin, Y., & Wang, L. (2020). Spatial equity of park green space using KD2SFCA and web map API: A case study of zhengzhou, China. Applied Geography, 123, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102310