The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing Spatial Equity: An Evaluation of Measures of Accessibility to Public Playgrounds
Abstract
Geographical and political research on urban service delivery—who benefits and why—has proliferated during the past two decades. Overall, this literature is not characterized by a particular attention to the importance of method in drawing conclusions about spatial equity based on empirical studies. Specifically, there has been scant interest in the effect of geographic methodology on assessing the relationship between access and socioeconomic characteristics that are spatially defined. In this paper we take a spatial analytical perspective to evaluate the importance of methodology in assessing whether or not, or to what degree the distribution of urban public services is equitable. We approach this issue by means of an empirical case study of the spatial distribution of playgrounds in Tulsa, Oklahoma, relative to that of the targeted constituencies (children) and other socioeconomic indicators. In addition to the ‘traditional’ measure (count of facilities in an areal unit), we consider a potential measure (based on the gravity model), average travel distance, and distance to the nearest playground as indicators of accessibility. We find significant differences between the spatial patterns in these measures that are suggested by local indicators of spatial association and other techniques of exploratory spatial data analysis. The choice of access measure not only implies a particular treatment of spatial externalities but also affects conclusions about the existence of spatial mismatch and inequity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges
Guagliardo, M. F. (2004) · International Journal of Health Geographics · doi:10.1186/1476-072x-3-3 · Cited by 1,533
Parks and People: An Environmental Justice Inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland
Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1080/00045600903102949 · Cited by 828
The built environment and obesity: A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence
Feng, J., Glass, T. A., Curriero, F. C., Stewart, W. F., & Schwartz, B. S. (2010) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.09.008 · Cited by 806
Apparicio, P., Abdelmajid, M., Riva, M., & Shearmur, R. (2008) · International Journal of Health Geographics · doi:10.1186/1476-072x-7-7 · Cited by 567
McGrail, M. R., & Humphreys, J. S. (2009) · Applied Geography · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.12.003 · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Talen, E., & Anselin, L.
- Venue
- Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 595-613
- ISSN
- 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
- 1472-3409
- OpenAlex
- W2171405196
- Cited by
- 821
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 63.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Spatial Equity: An Evaluation of Measures of Accessibility to Public Playgrounds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1068/a300595
- The paper
- Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing Spatial Equity: An Evaluation of Measures of Accessibility to Public Playgrounds. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300595
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.