Content uploaded by Xiang Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xiang Chen on Nov 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Comparative Analysis of Accessibility Measures by the Two-Step Floating Catchment Area
(2SFCA) Method
Xiang Chen1, *, Pengfei Jia2
1. Department of Emergency Management, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801,
USA Email: chenxiangpeter@gmail.com
2. Academy Information Center of Urban Planning, China Academy of Urban Planning and Design,
Beijing, 100044, China Email: j_pengfei@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author
This paper is the pre-print and may be different than the final version. Please download the
publisher’s version via the link below:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/eji5g9iZI9j58W57qGzV/full?target=10.1080/13658816.20
19.1591415
A Comparative Analysis of Accessibility Measures by the Two-Step Floating
Catchment Area (2SFCA) Method
Abstract: The recent decade has witnessed a new wave of development in the place-based
accessibility theory, revolving around the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method. The
2SFCA method, initially serving to evaluate the spatial inequity of health care services, has been
further applied to other urban planning and facility access issues. Among these applications,
different distance decay functions have been incorporated in the thread of model development,
but their applicability and limitations have not been thoroughly examined. To this end, the paper
has employed a place-based accessibility framework to compare the performance of twenty-four
2SFCA models in a comprehensive manner. Two important conclusions are drawn from this
analysis: on a small analysis scale (e.g., community level), the catchment size is the most critical
model component; on a large analysis scale (e.g., statewide), the distance decay function is of
elevated importance. In sum, this comparative analysis provides the theoretical support
necessary to the choice of the catchment size and the distance decay function in the 2SFCA
method. Justification of model parameters through empirical evidence (e.g., field surveys about
local travel activities) and model validation through sensitivity analysis are needed in future
2SFCA applications for various urban planning, service delivery, and spatial equity scenarios.
Keywords: 2SFCA; accessibility; sensitivity analysis; spatial interaction model; distance decay
1. Introduction
“Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things
(Tobler 1970).” Tobler’s first law of geography has established the theoretical foundation of spatial
interaction (SI) models in the analysis of spatial associations between geographic entities (Miller 2004).
Modeling accessibility to urban facilities, as a proxy for the potential of space for interaction, has been
widely explored for two evaluative purposes: a planning purpose evaluating if land use or transportation
systems can cater to the need of urban population (Geurs and Wee 2004) and a corroborative purpose
identifying if the inequity of patronizing opportunities exists among different social groups (Kwan et al.
2003). Central to the discussion is how opportunities could be articulated and how the spatial separation
could be quantified to better capture the complexities of urban forms and individual mobilities (Kwan
1998).
The origin of accessibility studies can be traced back to Hansen’s (1959) empirical model for land
use planning, considering place-based accessibility as an integrated assessment of urban opportunities
(e.g., employment, shopping opportunities, residential activity). The placed-based accessibility
measures, mainly including cumulative-opportunity models and gravity-type models (Kwan 1998),
evaluate the degree of accessibility for a reference location (i.e., the demand location, such as a
community center) according to the density of or the proximity to surrounding facilities (Talen and
Anselin 1998; Neutens et al. 2010). The other thread of research has shifted the focus to individual-
based accessibility measures, relying on the construct of the space-time prism in time geography
(Hägerstraand 1970). Time-geographic accessibility metrics (i.e., number of opportunities within the
prism, utilities gained from the travel) have been proposed to represent individuals’ capabilities in
reaching opportunities given their motility and time constraints (Miller 2010, Neutens et al. 2010).
Despite the proliferating examples of place-based and individual-based accessibility measurements for
evaluating urban service delivery or justifying issues of social inequities (Kwan et al. 2003, Neutens et al.
2010), the recent decade has witnessed a new wave of development in the place-based accessibility
theory, revolving around the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method (Luo and Wang 2003).
The 2SFCA method, as a special form of the gravity model (i.e., the major type of SI models), considers
accessibility to be mediated by not only the distance decay (“transferability in the parlance of SI theory)
but also the interactions between supply and demand (“complementarity”; Haynes and Fotheringham
1984). It overcomes the caveat of traditional place-based accessibility measures where the demand for
service is largely overlooked. The 2SFCA method, initially serving to evaluate the spatial inequity of
health care services (Wang 2012), has been further applied to other urban planning and facility access
issues, including green space (Dai 2011, Xing et al. 2018), job opportunities (Dai et al. 2018), food stores
(Chen 2017, Chen 2019, Dai and Wang 2011), and emergency shelters (Zhu et al. 2018). In addition, the
formation of the 2SFCA model has been further modified to accommodate other service scenarios, such
as measuring the crowdedness of the facility usage (Wang 2017).
The 2SFCA method as a prototype model has been further developed to capture the
complexities of real-world travel environments, travel behaviors, and diverse service needs. The thread
of development primarily concerns three distinct facets of the method: the catchment size, the regional
competition, and the distance decay (as reviewed in the next section). Specifically, various forms of the
distance decay function, such as the negative linear function (Schuurman et al. 2010), the inverse power
function (Schuurman et al. 2010), the exponential function (Jamtsho et al. 2015), the Gaussian function
(Wan et al. 2012a), and the kernel density function (Dai and Wang 2011), have been incorporated to
improve the 2SFCA method. Although there have been studies testing the sensitivity of the method,
primarily about the distance weight (Mcgrail 2012) and the distance impedance coefficient (Luo and
Wang 2003, Wan et al. 2012a), to date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the different
distance decay functions in the 2SFCA family. Furthermore, the discussion on the applicability and
limitations of different 2SFCA models has yet to be initiated. This research gap poses a considerable
challenge to the overarching understanding of the method.
To this end, the paper fills the gap by performing the sensitivity analysis of typical models in the
2SFCA family. First, we have conceptualized the analytic framework that includes twenty-four 2SFCA
models based on the place-based accessibility theory. Second, we have thoroughly compared and
contrasted these 2SFCA models by state-of-the-art statistical measures. Lastly, based on the analysis
results, we have offered suggestions for the choice of the model parameters. This comparative analysis
is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion on different 2SFCA models and could corroborate the
state of equity measures by the 2SFCA method in various planning scenarios.
2. Development of the 2SFCA method
The 2SFCA method, originated from a gravity model (Joseph and Bantock 1982) and further
inspired by a spatial decomposition method (Radke and Mu 2000), aims to evaluate the physical
accessibility to health care services based on the spatial interaction between the supply and demand
(Luo and Wang 2003). The operation of the 2SFCA method is a two-step search procedure. The first step
evaluates the supply-to-demand ratio Rj by dividing the capacity of a facility Sj (the supply) to all
population Pk (the demand) within a threshold distance d0 (the catchment size), as shown in Equation
(1). This step characterizes the capability of the supply in fulfilling the needs of all population in its
service radius. The second step calculates the accessibility index Ai for the demand point i as a
summation of the Rj derived from the first step, as shown in Equation (2). The summation is based on all
the service providers within the catchment, which conceptualizes the activity space of population living
at location i. The 2SFCA method contributes to the formation of the spatial interaction in previous place-
based accessibility measures, which have invariably overlooked the demand side of the spatial
interaction.
(1)
(2)
The original 2SFCA method has been further extended to capture the complex ways in which
the spatial interaction between the supply and demand is mediated. These improvements are primarily
towards three distinct but cohesive directions: the catchment size, the regional competition, and
distance decay functions. The thread of development, extended from a review article (Tao and Cheng
2016), is summarized below.
The first aspect of improvements considers the variation of the catchment size as a better
approximation of the maximum “transferability.” The foundation of the 2SFCA method, rooted in the SI
economic theory, assumes that the benefit derived from the spatial interaction must outweigh the cost
of travel between the supply and demand. Thus, the catchment size in the 2SFCA method represents a
threshold distance, beyond which the interaction cannot be established. In the original 2SFCA model,
the search procedure in the first and the second steps is based on an arbitrarily defined catchment size.
In reality, the catchment size is beyond a simple delineation of the service area and is mostly dependent
on the utilization pattern of the service and the activity space of the consumer (Yang et al. 2006, Wang
2012). On the one hand, comparing to metropolitan areas, empirical evidence revealed that people
living in rural areas are more willing to travel long distances for services, in cases such as health care
utilization (Arcury et al. 2005; Mcgrail and Humphreys 2009) and food procurement (Mceachern and
Warnaby 2006). In this regard, the dynamic 2SFCA (D2SFCA) method was proposed to differentiate the
catchment size in areas with different population densities (Mcgrail and Humphreys 2014). On the other
hand, the service capacity of facilities varies and may be unable to fulfill the need of all the demand
within a predefined distance buffer. To address the issue, two separate modifications were
implemented, referred to as the variable 2SFCA (V2SFCA) method and the nearest-neighbor modified
2SFCA (NN-M2SFCA) method. The V2SFCA method considers that the supply catchment increases until
the capacity is exhausted by the population under coverage; similarly, the second step of the search is
terminated when the maximum supply-to-demand ratio (Rj) within the demand catchment is met (Luo
and Whippo 2012). The NN-M2SFCA method considers that people are more likely to seek services from
their nearest facilities, so the supply and the demand catchments should only include the nearest few
points (Jamtsho et al. 2015). The V2SFCA and the NN-M2SFCA methods were implemented beyond the
health care system, in cases where the capacity of facility largely dictates the service quality and
planning outcomes, such as the emergency shelter planning (Zhu et al. 2018). In addition, a spatial
disaggregation method was proposed to better estimate the catchment size (Bell et al. 2013). This
method uses a smaller geographic unit to measure the accessibility and then aggregates the accessibility
index to a larger geographic unit which contains the smaller units.
The second aspect of improvements considers the regional competition among comparable
service providers, a facet analogous to the concept of “intervening opportunities” in the SI theory
(Haynes and Fotheringham 1984). In reality, consumers are more likely to patronize a facility in their
immediate proximity in lieu of equalizing the visit possibility within an arbitrary distance. Thus, the 3-
step floating catchment area (3SFCA) method was developed by introducing a selection weight that
represents the probability of the demand point patronizing its nearby supply points (Wan et al. 2012b).
The generation of the selection weight in the 3SFCA method, however, is purely based on the relative
spatial proximity. In reality, the preference for service locations could be determined by not only the
proximity to but also the attractiveness of a facility. Thus, the Huff model (one type of SI models) was
incorporated in developing the selection weight in the 3SFCA method (Luo 2014). In a similar vein, a
facility might not be fully utilized because of the lack of functionality or the limited demand in its
proximity. Then, the modified 2SFCA (M2SFCA) method was proposed to consider the suboptimal
configuration of the supply (Delamater 2013). Although the 3SFCA method and its extensions add
another tier of consideration to estimate the facility utilization pattern, they have been criticized for
causing unnecessary complications in the model formation and therefore, posing considerable technical
challenges to the model implementation (Wang 2017).
The third aspect of improvements considers the form of the distance decay that intervenes in
the supply-demand interaction. To better represent the complex form of “transferability,” the distance
decay function f(d) (i.e., f(dij) and f(dkj)) is added to Equations (1) and (2), respectively, representing the
travel friction that contributes to the formation of Rj in the first step and subsequently Ai in the second
step, as shown in Equations (3) and (4), respectively. The distance decay function in the 2SFCA method
primarily takes three different forms: the binary decay, the continuous decay, and the hybrid decay, as
shown in Fig. 1 (adapted from Wang 2012). The binary decay function (Fig. 1a), primarily the original
2SFCA method (Luo and Wang 2003), is a constant within the catchment and is zero beyond. This
dichotomous approach may cause the edge effect, referring to the statistical bias that including or
excluding points near the boundary would significantly affect the outcome (Chen 2017, Van Meter et al.
2010). The continuous decay (Fig. 1b), such as the Gaussian form (Dai 2010) and the kernel density form
(Dai and Wang 2011), is under the premise that the function value is or converges to zero when
approaching the boundary. This form could alleviate the bias caused by the uncertainty of the
catchment size. The hybrid decay (Fig. 1c) is derived from the context that there is a sharp distinction
between urban and rural travel environments, because of the disaggregated settlement and service
patterns in rural regions (Arcury et al. 2005). For this reason, the enhanced 2SFCA (E2SFCA) method was
proposed by introducing a zone-based discrete distance weight Wr that estimates the distance decay in
different sub-zones (Luo and Qi 2009). Moreover, the hybrid decay could take the form of a piecewise
function composed of both binary and continuous decays, such as combining the binary form with a
negative linear form (Schuurman et al. 2010). To date, there has been no consensus about the best
formulation of the distance decay effect due to the lack of observation on the real-world travel and
service utilization patterns (Wang 2012).
(3)
(4)
Fig. 1. Three different forms of the distance decay function in the 2SFCA method: a) binary decay, b) continuous
decay, and 3) hybrid decay.
Although the 2SFCA family is originated from the SI models, the effect of the distance decay as
the foundation of the SI theory has not been thoroughly examined. There was a limited scope of work
testing the sensitivity of the 2SFCA method to the distance decay effect; and most of the discussion
revolved around the distance weight Wr (McGrail, 2012) or the distance impedance coefficient β (Luo
and Qi 2009, Luo and Wang 2003, Wan et al. 2012a) by a selected 2SFCA model. To date, no existing
research has scrutinized the full range of the distance decay functions in the 2SFCA family, eventually
posing considerable difficulty to the justification of the state of spatial inequity in various planning
scenarios where the 2SFCA method is applied.
3. Data collection
The research chooses the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) authorized food
retailers in the state of Arkansas, United States, as the subject of study. Although the 2SFCA method is
primarily designed for evaluating the accessibility to health care services, the paper chooses food
retailers for the following reasons: (1) comparing to health care centers, food retailers have a larger
quantity, a wider spatial distribution, and fewer spatial gaps, especially in the rural areas. This
consistency in the spatial pattern facilitates systematically testing different 2SFCA models; (2) the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published the Food Access Research Atlas that includes
distance standards for defining efficient food accessibility (USDA 2017), which can guide the evaluation
of the catchment size.
The SNAP food retailer data in the fiscal year of 2017 was collected from the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities (CBPP 2017). This dataset includes food retailers (n = 2808) participating in the SNAP
program (formerly known as “food stamps,” a nutrition improvement program for low-income
populations in the United States). The supply weight (Sj) of the store was estimated by the distribution
of SNAP redemptions in dollar value by store type (USDA 2018). The definition of Sj is further articulated
in the supplemental data.
The demand weight (Pk) in the study was derived from the estimated SNAP recipient data (total
households received SNAP in the past 12 months) sourced from the United States Census Bureau (USCB)
2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates at the block group level as the most refined
unit (USCB 2016). The centroid of the block group was generated for deriving the accessibility index for
the block group. The store data, overlapped with the block groups (n = 2147), was geocoded in Esri
ArcGIS 10.4, as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. SNAP food stores overlapped with demand density (i.e., SNAP households per square miles) on the block
group scale.
4. Analytic framework
The comparative evaluation of the 2SFCA method is situated in the framework of placed-based
accessibility measures (Kwan 1998). Based on past examples in the 2SFCA applications, we have
proposed an analytic framework that includes six distance decay functions: the rectangular cumulative-
opportunity (CUMR), negative-linear cumulative-opportunity (CUML), inverse-power gravity-type
(POW), exponential gravity-type (EXP), and Gaussian gravity-type (GAUSS), and kernel density (KD)
models, generating a total of twenty-four measures, as shown in Table 1. These functions represent f(dij)
and f(dkj) in Equations (3) and (4). Examples drawn from these six models are illustrated in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Mathematical interpretation of different distance decay functions in the 2SFCA method.
Table 1. The analytic framework consisting of twenty-four distance decay functions in the 2SFCA method.
Examples
Cumulative-opportunity,
rectangular (CUMR)
CUMR05
0.5
N/A
Bell et al. 2013,
Ngui and
Apparicio 2011,
Luo and Wang
2003
CUMR1
1
CUMR10
10
CUMR20
20
Cumulative-opportunity,
negative linear (CUML)
CUML05
0.5
N/A
Schuurman,
Bérubé, and
Crooks 2010
CUML1
1
CUML10
10
CUML20
20
Gravity-type
inverse-power (POW)
POW05
0.5
2.0*
Yao, Murray, and
Agadjanian 2013
POW1
1
2.0*
POW10
10
2.0
POW20
20
1.5
Gravity-type
Exponential (EXP)
EXP05
0.5
9.2
Jamtsho, Corner,
and Dewan 2015
EXP1
1
4.6
EXP10
10
0.5
EXP20
20
0.2
Gravity-type Gaussian
(GAUSS)
GAUSS05
0.5
0.05
Dai 2010,
Wan et al. 2012a
GAUSS1
1
0.2
GAUSS10
10
21.7
GAUSS20
20
86.9
Kernel density (KD)
KD05
0.5
NA
Dai and Wang
2011
KD1
1
KD10
10
KD20
20
*If d0 is too small, the β in POW will be extremely large and will thus deviate from the realistic
interpretation of the travel friction (Guy 1983, Kwan 1998). Thus, β = 2.0 is designated for POW05 and
POW1.
Several notes about Table 1 should be mentioned:
(1) The binary decay in the original 2SFCA method can be regarded as the cumulative-
opportunity model (rectangular form) in the place-based accessibility measure (Kwan 1998), because
the demand/supply points within the catchment are fully counted and those beyond are completely
overlooked (i.e., f(d) = 1, if d ≤ d0; f(d) = 0, if d > d0).
(2) The kernel density function as an additional place-based proximity measure is introduced
into the analytic framework. The kernel function includes a bandwidth, which is equivalent to the
concept of the catchment size in the 2SFCA method (Dai and Wang 2011). The kernel density function
can be represented in different forms, such as Exponential, Gaussian, Quartic, Epanechnikov, Polynomial
of Order 5, and Constant. The Epanechnikov form, the shape of which shares a similarity with the
normal distribution (Gibin et al. 2007), is tested in this study.
(3) Although there are different forms of spatial separation (e.g., distance, time, monetary cost)
and health service access usually adopts travel time, this study employs the travel distance in terms of
the shortest path distance (in miles) based on the USDA’s standards for efficient food access using
distance measures. Specifically, USDA defines thresholds of efficient food access as half a mile and one
mile in urban areas and ten miles and twenty miles in rural areas (USDA 2017).
(4) The evaluation only includes the binary decay (CUMR) and the continuous decay (CUML,
POW, EXP, GAUSS, and KD). In cases of the continuous decay, the distance decay function yields a value
of 0 (CUML and KD) or 0.01 (POW, EXP, and GAUSS) at the boundary, where the distance impedance
coefficient β in each model is determined by d0, correspondingly. The choice of 0.01 is based on Wan et
al. (2012a): 0.01 is considered a critical value when the distance decay function converges to 0. The
hybrid decay is not discussed because it is a combination of the binary decay and/or continuous decay.
Exploration of the hybrid decay can be found in McGrail (2012) and Apparicio et al. (2017), where the
fast-step decay, the slow-step decay, and the continuous decay are compared.
5. Results
To implement the proposed analytic framework, we first generated the shortest path O-D cost
matrix between demand points and supply points using the Network Analysis module in ArcGIS 10.4.
Then we calculated the accessibility indices based on the twenty-four 2SFCA models with customized
Python scripts. Lastly, we visualized twenty-four sets of accessibility indices on the block group scale.
The mapping results are included in an online data repository (Chen and Jia 2019).
5.1 Statistical correlations between models
In order to identify the difference in the evaluation outcome between models, we performed
Pearson’s correlation analysis between every two of these twenty-four accessibility measures, as shown
in Table 2. All correlation coefficients (r) are significant at the level of 0.01.
The most remarkable effect is that the correlations between models with the same distance
decay function but different d0 remain significantly low, as can be seen from grey cells in Table 2. On the
other hand, the majority of high correlations (r ≥ 0.80) exist between models with the same d0, as can be
seen from the bold numbers in Table 2. The highest correlation (r ≥ 0.98) is found between CUML and
KD with the same d0. This consistency is very likely the result of their similarity in the mathematical
formulation, where CUML is a first-degree polynomial and KD is a second-degree polynomial. Other
groups of high correlations (r ≥ 0.97) exist between EXP and POW at d0 = 0.5 and 1 and between GAUSS
and EXP at d0 = 10 and 20. In addition, the models are ranked by the average of the correlation
coefficients with other models in descending order, as shown in Table 3. It can be seen from the table
that, POW20 is the highest in the average r ( ), and in contrast, the original model CUMR20 is
relatively low ( ). In general, the average correlations are higher for models at d0 = 10 and 20
than those at d0 = 0.5 and 1.
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between the 2SFCA models. Correlation between models with the same distance decay function is in grey
shading; high correlation (r ≥ 0.80) is in bold text.
CUMR05
1.00
CUMR1
0.27
1.00
CUMR10
0.14
0.20
1.00
CUMR20
0.11
0.16
0.55
1.00
CUML05
0.80
0.20
0.12
0.01
1.00
CUML1
0.33
0.93
0.20
0.15
0.25
1.00
CUML10
0.18
0.25
0.85
0.46
0.15
0.25
1.00
CUML20
0.18
0.23
0.83
0.80
0.15
0.22
0.78
1.00
POW05
0.95
0.24
0.13
0.11
0.88
0.30
0.17
0.17
1.00
POW1
0.34
0.92
0.20
0.15
0.29
0.97
0.25
0.22
0.35
1.00
POW10
0.35
0.41
0.41
0.23
0.31
0.46
0.55
0.40
0.36
0.50
1.00
POW20
0.43
0.45
0.58
0.40
0.36
0.47
0.72
0.65
0.42
0.49
0.88
1.00
EXP05
0.92
0.24
0.13
0.11
0.93
0.29
0.16
0.17
0.99
0.34
0.35
0.41
EXP1
0.33
0.86
0.19
0.14
0.26
0.96
0.23
0.21
0.31
0.98
0.50
0.47
EXP10
0.23
0.34
0.67
0.37
0.18
0.33
0.91
0.64
0.22
0.33
0.67
0.81
EXP20
0.22
0.29
0.84
0.62
0.18
0.28
0.92
0.93
0.21
0.28
0.53
0.79
GAUSS05
0.71
0.18
0.10
0.09
0.93
0.22
0.13
0.14
0.82
0.26
0.27
0.32
GAUSS1
0.25
0.69
0.15
0.11
0.20
0.85
0.19
0.16
0.23
0.87
0.47
0.41
GAUSS10
0.18
0.26
0.73
0.39
0.14
0.26
0.96
0.68
0.17
0.25
0.58
0.73
GAUSS20
0.19
0.25
0.90
0.65
0.16
0.24
0.90
0.96
0.18
0.24
0.47
0.71
KD05
0.85
0.21
0.12
0.10
1.00
0.27
0.15
0.16
0.92
0.31
0.32
0.38
KD1
0.32
0.95
0.20
0.15
0.24
1.00
0.25
0.22
0.29
0.96
0.45
0.47
KD10
0.16
0.23
0.90
0.48
0.13
0.23
0.99
0.80
0.15
0.23
0.51
0.68
KD20
0.16
0.21
0.78
0.87
0.13
0.19
0.68
0.98
0.15
0.20
0.34
0.57
CUMR05
CUMR1
CUMR10
CUMR20
CUML05
CUML1
CUML10
CUML20
POW05
POW1
POW10
POW20
Table 2. (Continued)
CUMR05
CUMR1
CUMR10
CUMR20
CUML05
CUML1
CUML10
CUML20
POW05
POW1
POW10
POW20
EXP05
1.00
EXP1
0.30
1.00
EXP10
0.21
0.32
1.00
EXP20
0.21
0.26
0.84
1.00
GAUSS05
0.89
0.23
0.16
0.17
1.00
GAUSS1
0.23
0.94
0.27
0.20
0.18
1.00
GAUSS10
0.16
0.24
0.97
0.86
0.13
0.20
1.00
GAUSS20
0.18
0.22
0.76
0.98
0.14
0.18
0.81
1.00
KD05
0.95
0.28
0.19
0.19
0.91
0.21
0.15
0.16
1.00
KD1
0.28
0.94
0.33
0.28
0.21
0.81
0.26
0.24
0.26
1.00
KD10
0.15
0.21
0.86
0.91
0.12
0.17
0.92
0.92
0.14
0.23
1.00
KD20
0.15
0.18
0.55
0.85
0.12
0.14
0.59
0.90
0.14
0.20
0.71
1.00
EXP05
EXP1
EXP10
EXP20
GAUSS05
GAUSS1
GAUSS10
GAUSS20
KD05
KD1
KD10
KD20
Table 3. Model ranking by the average of the correlation coefficients with other models (
).
Rank
Model
1
POW20
0.57
2
EXP20
0.54
3
GAUSS20
0.51
4
EXP10
0.51
5
CUML10
0.50
6
KD10
0.49
7
CUML20
0.49
8
GAUSS10
0.48
9
POW10
0.47
10
POW1
0.46
11
CUMR10
0.46
12
KD20
0.45
13
CUML1
0.44
14
EXP1
0.44
15
KD1
0.44
16
CUMR1
0.42
17
EXP05
0.41
18
POW05
0.41
19
CUMR05
0.40
20
KD05
0.39
21
GAUSS1
0.38
22
CUML05
0.38
23
GAUSS05
0.35
24
CUMR20
0.34
5.2 Accessibility by urban-rural status
The evaluation of place-based accessibility concerns the travel environment where the service is
delivered. This consideration stems from the distinction between urban and rural landscapes. In rural
areas, because health-related service facilities are limited in both quantity and density, rural residents
have a higher tolerance for long trips (Arcury et al. 2005, McGrail et al. 2015). The same observation
applies to food procurement (Mceachern and Warnaby 2006); and for this reason, USDA (2017) has
designated different criteria for efficient food access: urban access is defined under 0.5 miles or 1 mile;
rural access is defined under 10 miles or 20 miles. Similar to a comparative study that evaluated
accessibility indices by population size (McGrail 2012), we evaluated the 2SFCA models by urban-rural
status and drew attention to their regional applicability.
Census block groups and urban-rural areas are two sets of administrative units, and their
delineations are not overlapped. Thus, we first categorized the block groups into urban and rural units
by a reclassification method employed by the USDA (2017): A block group is labeled as urban if its
geographic centroid is within the USCB urbanized areas (with population of 50,000 or more) or urban
clusters (with population between 2,500 and 50,000); all other block groups are considered rural.
We then evaluated the results in urban and rural block groups, respectively. First, we selected
urban block groups and derived the average accessibility index for each urban unit i by the twelve
models with d0 = 0.5 and 1. Similarly, we selected rural block groups and derived the average for each
rural unit i by the other twelve models with d0 = 10 and 20. These two average accessibility indices (
)
served as the reference accessibility for urban and rural areas, respectively. We then employed the Root
Mean Square Error (RMSE) to evaluate the goodness of the fit between
and the modeling results, as
shown in Equation (5) and Table 4.
(5)
Table 4. The evaluation of the 2SFCA modeling results by urban-rural status. The RMSE was derived between the
average urban/rural accessibility (
) and each 2SFCA model applied to urban or rural areas, respectively.
Urban areas
Rural areas
RMSE with urban
RMSE with rural
POW1
0.47
GAUSS10
0.84
CUML05
0.34
EXP10
0.54
GAUSS05
0.33
CUML10
0.49
KD05
0.33
POW10
0.46
EXP05
0.32
KD10
0.46
POW05
0.31
CUMR10
0.41
CUMR05
0.27
POW20
0.16
EXP1
0.20
EXP20
0.11
GAUSS1
0.17
GAUSS20
0.10
CUML1
0.14
CUML20
0.09
KD1
0.14
KD20
0.08
CUMR1
0.12
CUMR20
0.08
In urban areas, the POW1 has the best performance (RMSE = 0.47), followed by the CUML05
(RMSE = 0.34). In rural areas, GAUSS10 (RMSE = 0.84) performs significantly better than other models. In
contrast, CUMR1 and CUMR20 have the least level of correspondence with
in urban and rural areas,
respectively.
5.3 Variability analysis of the catchment size
The catchment size d0 dictates the modeling results to a great extent, in that a high correlation
exists between models with the same d0 (Section 5.1) and that different d0 should be applied to urban
and rural areas (Section 5.2). In existing studies, d0 is selected in a relatively arbitrary manner because
the lack of observation on the service area of the supply or the activity data of the demand. In this
regard, we would like to explore the effect of d0 in the 2SFCA method.
Coefficient of variation (CV), defined as the division of the standard deviation to the mean, is
explored in this study as the variability metric, as shown in Equation (6). The coefficient of variation was
originally a measure of price volatility in economic studies (Shiue 2002). It was also employed to test the
variability of landscape pattern in research on urbanization (Luck and Wu 2002). The spatial pattern
becomes consistent when CV becomes convergent. Thus, we examined if the spatial inequity interpreted
by the 2SFCA method could be relatively consistent as the d0 increases. Specifically, CV was calculated for
each model with a specific distance decay function. We then derived a series of CV by changing the d0 of
the model.
(6)
where xi is the accessibility index for a block group, is the average accessibility index for all block
groups, and n is the total number of block groups (i.e., n = 2147).
We conducted our experiments based on a binary decay function (CUMR20) and five continuous
decay functions (i.e., CUML20, POW20, EXP20, GAUSS20, and KD20, as illustrated in Fig. 3). Specifically,
the distance decay function remains uniform in each set of analysis, while the inclusion-exclusion criteria
differ by d0. Fig. 4 is the results of Cv yielded by these six 2SFCA models with different d0 (ranging from
0.5 to 20 at an increment of 0.5). As Fig. 4 illustrates, all models have a large degree of variability with a
small d0; when d0 increases to a certain threshold, Cv becomes relatively convergent (i.e., d0 ≥ 9.5). It is
also observed that POW20 has a different convergence pattern than other functions.
Fig. 4. Coefficients of variation (CV) yielded by six 2SFCA models as the catchment size (d0) increases.
6. Discussion
The comparative analysis of twenty-four 2SFCA models provides useful information for
understanding the intricacy of the model components in the 2SFCA family. Based on the different facets
of statistical analyses, we would like to offer suggestions for the choice of model parameters.
First, the catchment size d0 plays the most significant role in the assessment of accessibility. As
revealed by the correlation analysis in Table 2, there is a relatively high correlation between models with
the same d0, indicating that the accessibility pattern is relatively consistent across different models with
the same d0. This result further reveals that the change of d0 in the 2SFCA model may significantly affect
the evaluation outcome. The variability analysis in Fig. 4 further extends the observation: a small d0
could largely polarize the spatial pattern and introduces a considerable degree of uncertainty; a large d0,
on the contrary, may smooth the spatial pattern but may conceal local clusters of extreme values. This
paper confirms that this spatial smoothing effect (Luo and Wang 2003) exists in all types of 2SFCA
models regardless of the distance decay.
These results necessitate the careful selection of the catchment size in 2SFCA applications.
Specifically, on a small scale (e.g., community level), d0 must be carefully scrutinized because of the high
variability of the accessibility index. On a large scale (e.g., statewide), d0 must be set beyond a certain
threshold to derive a consistent spatial pattern (and this study suggests > 9.5 miles on the state scale). In
most 2SFCA models, the catchment size d0 and the distance impedance coefficient β are mathematically
dependent; a small catchment size d0 corresponds to a large β, signifying a high level of travel friction
that deters the spatial interaction (Luo and Wang 2003). Therefore, when d0 is determined, β must be
adjusted accordingly.
However, the methodological discussion about d0 is only based on the premise that the travel
behaviors are unknown. In reality, the catchment size represents the acceptable distance that people
are willing to travel (Luo and Wang 2003). Not only does the difference in the acceptable travel distance
exist across travel modes but also it differs by individuals. The specification of the catchment size, thus,
relies heavily on the evaluation of individuals’ activity space, which is fundamentally rooted in people’s
social discourses and identities, in aspects of income, car ownership, familiarity with the neighborhood,
and perception of safety (Chen and Kwan 2015). Although it is impossible to generalize these sets of
knowledge in the 2SFCA method as a place-based measurement, we recommend corroborating the
selection of the catchment size with field observations on people’s expected activity space. For example,
McGrail et al. (2015) conducted structured surveys to investigate the maximum time that people are
willing to travel to visit a doctor. Milakis et al. (2015) employed in-depth interviews to examine the
acceptable time for daily commuting. These empirical investigations can be deployed in a local study for
retrieving the realistic catchment size. When such observations are not available, we recommend using
distance thresholds in the literature (Allan 2014), federal definitions of efficient service areas (USDA
2017), and criteria in urban planning guidelines (Chen et al. 2013).
Second, the distance decay function in the 2SFCA method affects the level of accessibility to a
certain degree and is non-negligible under a large d0. One noticeable result is that CUMR20 has the
lowest average correlation with other models (Table 3). Also, CUMR 1 and CUMR 20 have the poorest
model performance in urban and rural areas, respectively (Table 4). Under the context that a high level
of correlation is the ground truth, this finding indicates that the binary decay 2SFCA model with a large
d0 may be relatively ineffective for accessibility evaluation. However, when a distance decay function is
incorporated, the correlation with other models becomes distinctly higher. Specifically, POW20, EXP20,
and GAUSS20 are the top three models in the correlation analysis (Table 3). We therefore recommend
EXP20 and GAUSS20 functions for assessment in areas with a mixed service landscape. We do not
recommend POW20 as it shows a different variability pattern than other models (Fig. 4). Also, we
recommend GAUSS10 for rural areas, as it performs significantly better than other functions (Table 4).
The distance decay function may not be uniform: it could be weighted as different binary decays
in sub-zones (Luo and Qi 2009) or could be a hybrid form combining both the binary and continuous
decays (Schuurman et al. 2010). As the 2SFCA is a special case of the gravity model, the precise
quantification of the distance decay should resort to the long-standing tradition of calibrating the
distance decay parameters in SI models; and a thorough understanding of the interaction data and the
spatial structure becomes a necessity (Fotheringham 1981). Also, the travel between origin and
destination is beyond a simple movement along road networks and is confounded by travel behaviors
and transport systems. Some recent 2SFCA models have attempted to incorporate these real-world
complexities, using trip-chaining (Fransen et al. 2015), public transit (Langford, Fry, and Higgs 2012), and
modal split (Mao and Nekorchuk 2013; Lin et al. 2018). Improvements on the model calibration and
behavioral formulation to demystify the effect of distance decay are still needed in future work.
Third, the last aspect of discussion is model validation. The majority of the 2SFCA model
development has resorted to the comparison with existing models for validation, primarily the
“milestone” models, such as 2SFCA (Luo and Wang 2003), E2SFCA (Luo and Qi 2009), and 3SFCA (Wan et
al. 2012b). Some studies have attempted to validate the 2SFCA results by comparing with existing
accessibility metrics published by federal agencies, such as the USDA Food Access Research Altas (Chen
2017, Chen 2019). The limited scope of validation efforts is very likely due to the lack of generally
accepted classifications on the accessibility index, especially for health-related services in small-area
estimation (McGrail et al. 2015). In the absence of a universal standard for accessibility assessment, we
urge alternative means to evaluate the robustness of the 2SFCA method: testing the sensitivity of the
model to different modeling parameters (Wan et al. 2012a) or different aggregation methods (Apparicio
et al. 2017) to ensure the consistency of the spatial pattern and identify sources of measurement
uncertainties. Only if the methodological validation is undertaken can the evaluative role of the 2SFCA
method for urban planning and equity measures be justified.
7. Conclusions
The paper has employed a place-based accessibility framework to compare the performance of
twenty-four 2SFCA models in a comprehensive manner. This comparison provides the theoretical
support necessary to the choice of model parameters in the 2SFCA’s applications for various urban
planning, service delivery, and spatial equity issues. Two important conclusions are drawn from this
paper. On the one hand, on a small analysis scale, the catchment size is the most critical model
component: variation in the catchment size can introduce a high degree of measurement uncertainties;
under this context, justification and sensitivity analysis of the catchment size become a necessity. On the
other hand, on a large analysis scale, the distance decay function is of elevated importance; using the
binary decay under a large catchment size will likely overestimate the supply-demand interaction and
thus obfuscate the inequity pattern of physical accessibility. Because these facets are scale-dependent,
we urge caution on the selections of analysis scale, aggregation method, and the proximity measure
between supply and demand (see Apparicio et al. 2017 for further discussion). Also, the fundamental
spatial structure of the data can influence the performance of the 2SFCA method to a meaningful
extent; thus, we suggest refining the statistical unit (e.g., Bell et al. 2013; Chen 2019) in future model
implementation.
This exploratory study also has limitations. First, the comparison of 2SFCA models is based on
the topical issue of food accessibility. The conclusions drawn from the study may not apply to other
service types, scales, or regions, because of the heterogeneity of the landscape across different study
areas. Second, the assessment of the accessibility by the 2SFCA method is purely place-based without
accounting for individual travel behaviors or mobilities. How to leverage the supply-demand interaction
articulated by the 2SFCA method for interpreting the level of accessibility actually experienced by
individuals on a daily basis, and reciprocally, using the empirical evidence to corroborate the place-
based accessibility metrics would be an important direction in future work.
Supplemental data. Definition of the supply weight (Sj) in the study.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC0809900).
References:
Allan, D. P. 2014. Catchments of general practice in different countries–A literature review. International
Journal of Health Geographics, 13(1), 32.
Apparicio, P., Gelb, J., Dubé, A. S., Kingham, S., Gauvin, L., Robitaille, É. 2017. The approaches to measuring
the potential spatial access to urban health services revisited: distance types and aggregation-error
issues. International Journal of Health Geographics, 16(1), 32.
Arcury, T. A., Gesler, W. M., Preisser, J. S., Sherman, J., Perin, J. 2005. The effects of geography and spatial
behavior on healthcare utilization among the residents of a rural region. Health Services Research, 40,
135–155.
Bell, S., Wilson, K., Bissonnette, L., Shah, T. 2013. Access to primary health care: does neighborhood of
residence matter. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(1), 85–105.
CBPP 2017. SNAP retailers database [online]. Available from: https://www.cbpp.org/snap-retailers-
database [Accessed 20 December 2018]
Chen, X. 2017. Take the edge off: A hybrid geographic food access measure. Applied Geography, 87, 149–
159.
Chen, X. 2019. Enhancing the two-step floating catchment area model for community food access
mapping: case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Professional Geographer, in
press.
Chen, X., Jia, P. 2019. Available from: Accessibility maps by twenty-four 2SFCA models [dataset].
Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7742813.v2 [Accessed 19 Feb 19]
Chen, X., Kwan, M. P. 2015. Contextual uncertainties, human mobility, and perceived food environment:
the uncertain geographic context problem in food access research. American Journal of Public
Health, 105(9), 1734–1737.
Chen, Z., Chen, X., Li, Q., Chen, J. 2013. The temporal hierarchy of shelters: a hierarchical location model
for earthquake shelter planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27(8),
1612–1630.
Dai, D. 2010. Black residential segregation, disparities in spatial access to health care facilities, and late-
stage breast cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Detroit. Health & Place, 16(5), 1038–1052.
Dai, D. 2011. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to
intervene?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234–244.
Dai, D., Wang, F. 2011. Geographic disparities in accessibility to food stores in Southwest
Mississippi. Environment & Planning B, 38(4), 659–677.
Dai, T. Q., Liu, Z. B., Liao, C., Cai, H. Y. 2018. Incorporating job diversity preference into measuring job
accessibility. Cities, 78, 108–115.
Delamater, P. L. 2013. Spatial accessibility in suboptimally configured health care systems: a modified two-
step floating catchment area (M2SFCA) metric. Health & Place, 24(6), 30–43.
Fotheringham, A. S. 1981. Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 71(3), 425–436.
Fransen, K., Neutens, T., De Maeyer, P., Deruyter, G. 2015. A commuter-based two-step floating
catchment area method for measuring spatial accessibility of daycare centers. Health & Place, 32, 65–
73.
Geurs, K. T., Wee, B. V. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and
research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140.
Gibin, M., Longley, P., Atkinson, P. 2007. Kernel density estimation and percent volume contours in
general practice catchment area analysis in urban areas. In: Proceedings of the Geographical
Information Science Research UK Conference 2007, 11–13 April 2007 Maynooth, Ireland. 270–276.
Guy, C. M. 1983. The assessment of access to local shopping opportunities: a comparison of accessibility
measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 10(2), 219–237.
Hägerstraand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science?. Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), 7–24.
Hansen, W. G. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2),
73–76.
Haynes, K. E., Fotheringham, A. S. 1984. Gravity and spatial interaction models (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
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.
Joseph, A. E., Bantock, P. R. 1982. Measuring potential physical accessibility to general practitioners in
rural areas: a method and case study. Social Science & Medicine, 16(1), 85.
Kwan, M. 1998. Space‐time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using
a point‐based framework. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 191–216.
Kwan, M. P., Murray, A. T., O'Kelly, M. E., Tiefelsdorf, M. 2003. Recent advances in accessibility research:
representation, methodology and applications. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(1), 129–138.
Langford, M., Fry, R., Higgs, G. 2012. Measuring transit system accessibility using a modified two-step
floating catchment technique. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(2), 193–
214.
Lin, Y., Wan, N., Sheets, S., Gong, X., Davies, A. 2018. A multi-modal relative spatial access assessment
approach to measure spatial accessibility to primary care providers. International Journal of Health
Geographics, 17(1), 33.
Luck, M., Wu, J. 2002. A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix
metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology, 17(4), 327–339.
Luo, J. 2014. Integrating the huff model and floating catchment area methods to analyze spatial access to
healthcare services. Transactions in GIS, 18(3), 436–448.
Luo, W., Qi, Y. 2009. An enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method for measuring
spatial accessibility to primary care physicians. Health & Place, 15(4), 1100–1107.
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.
Luo, W., Whippo, T. 2012. Variable catchment sizes for the two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA)
method. Health & Place, 18(4), 789–795.
Mao, L., Nekorchuk, D. 2013. Measuring spatial accessibility to healthcare for populations with multiple
transportation modes. Health & Place, 24(6), 115–122.
Mceachern, M. G., Warnaby, G. 2006. Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative
rurality. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 189–201.
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.
McGrail, M. R., Humphreys, J. S. 2009. A new index of access to primary care services in rural
areas. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(5), 418.
McGrail, M. R., Humphreys, J. S. 2014. Measuring spatial accessibility to primary health care services:
utilising dynamic catchment sizes. Applied Geography, 54, 182–188.
McGrail, M. R., Humphreys, J. S., Ward, B. 2015. Accessing doctors at times of need–measuring the
distance tolerance of rural residents for health-related travel. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1),
212.
Milakis, D., Cervero, R., Van Wee, B., Maat, K. 2015. Do people consider an acceptable travel time?
Evidence from Berkeley, CA. Journal of Transport Geography, 44, 76–86.
Miller, H. J. 2004. Tobler's first law and spatial analysis. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 94(2), 284–289.
Miller, H. J. 2010. Measuring space–time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: basic
theory and computational procedures. Geographical Analysis, 31(1), 1–26.
Neutens, T., Schwanen, T., Witlox, F., De Maeyer, P. 2010. Equity of urban service delivery: a comparison
of different accessibility measures. Environment & Planning A, 42(7), 1613–1635.
Ngui, A. N., Apparicio, P. 2011. Optimizing the two-step floating catchment area method for measuring
spatial accessibility to medical clinics in Montreal. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 166.
Radke, J., Mu, L. 2000. Spatial decompositions, modeling and mapping service regions to predict access to
social programs. Geographic Information Sciences, 6(2), 105–112.
Schuurman, N., Bérubé, M., Crooks, V. A. 2010. Measuring potential spatial access to primary health care
physicians using a modified gravity model. Canadian Geographer, 54(1), 29–45.
Shiue, C. H. 2002. Transport costs and the geography of arbitrage in eighteenth-century China. American
Economic Review, 92(5), 1406–1419.
Talen, E., Anselin, L. 1998. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public
playgrounds. Environment & Planning A, 30(4), 595–613.
Tao, Z., Cheng, Y. 2016. Research progress of the two-step floating catchment area method and extensions
[in Chinese]. Progress in Geography, 35 (5), 589–599.
Tobler, W. R. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic
Geography, 46, 234–240.
United States Census Bureau 2010. Urban and rural [online]. Available from:
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html [accessed 20 December 2018]
United States Census Bureau 2016. TIGER/Line with selected demographic and economic data [online].
Available from: https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html [Accessed 19 February
2019]
United States Department of Agriculture 2017. Food access research atlas [online]. Available from:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/ [Accessed 19 February 2019]
United States Department of Agriculture 2018. Retailer management year end summary 2017 [online].
Available from: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap-retailer-data [Accessed 19 February 2019]
Van Meter, E. M., Lawson, A. B., Colabianchi, N., Nichols, M., Hibbert, J., Porter, D. E., Liese, A. D. 2010.
An evaluation of edge effects in nutritional accessibility and availability measures: A simulation study.
International Journal of Health Geographics, 9(40).
Wan, N., Zhan, F. B., Zou, B., Chow, E. 2012a. A relative spatial access assessment approach for analyzing
potential spatial access to colorectal cancer services in Texas. Applied Geography, 32(2), 291–299.
Wan, N., Zou, B., Sternberg, T. 2012b. A three-step floating catchment area method for analyzing spatial
access to health services. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(6), 1073–
1089.
Wang, F. 2012. Measurement, optimization, and impact of health care accessibility: A methodological
review. Annals of Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 1104–1112.
Wang, F. 2017. Inverted two-step floating catchment area method for measuring facility
crowdedness. The Professional Geographer, 70(2), 251–260.
Xing, L., Liu, Y., Liu, X. 2018. Measuring spatial disparity in accessibility with a multi-mode method based
on park green spaces classification in Wuhan, China. Applied Geography, 94, 251–261.
Yang, D., Goerge, R., Mullner, R. 2006. Comparing GIS-based methods of measuring spatial accessibility to
health services. Journal of Medical Systems, 30, 23–32.
Yao, J., Murray, A. T., Agadjanian, V. 2013. A geographical perspective on access to sexual and
reproductive health care for women in rural Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 60–68.
Zhu, X., Tong, Z., Liu, X., Li, X., Lin, P., Wang, T. 2018. An improved two-step floating catchment area
method for evaluating spatial accessibility to urban emergency shelters. Sustainability, 10(7), 2180.