Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10137/404
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhao Yen
dc.contributor.authorGuthridge Sen
dc.date.accessioned2010-03-08T01:49:11Zen
dc.date.available2010-03-08T01:49:11Zen
dc.date.issued2008-12en
dc.identifier.citationZhao Y, Guthridge S. Rethinking remoteness: a simple and objective approach. Geographical research 2008 Dec.; 46(4): 413-420.en
dc.identifier.issn1745-5863en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10137/404en
dc.descriptionWiley-Blackwell, the publishers of the journal Geographical Research on behalf of the Institute of Australian Geographers, don't permit articles as published in this journal to be deposited in a digital repository. The article as accepted for publication has been deposited 12 months after publication, as authorised by Wiley-Blackwell. The definitive version of the article is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121542488/PDFSTART.en
dc.description.abstractThis paper re-examines the characteristics and assumptions of current remoteness/ accessibility classifications in Australia and proposes a simple and easily understandable alternative measure for remoteness. In this study, remoteness is redefined simply as the average distance between two nearest people within an appropriate spatial unit where population distribution is assumed to be homogenous. By definition, the most straightforward remoteness and incapacity index (RII) would be remoteness times a measure of the incapacity for social and commercial interaction, where remoteness is gauged by the square root of the area divided by the population, and incapacity is measured by the reciprocal of population. Australian Bureau of Statistics Statistical Local Area (SLA) level population data and digital boundaries have been utilised for assessment of this index. The utility of the RII is demonstrated with two examples of activity measures for general practitioner services and businesses. At the State/Territory level, RIIs are negatively related to both general practitioner services per person (Pearson correlation coefficient r = − 0.873), and the number of businesses per person ( r = − 0.546). The correlation can be further enhanced by normalising the distributions of the remoteness scores with a simple logarithmic function. The strong correlations confirm that remoteness has a substantial inverse impact on daily activities. Greater distance means longer time and higher costs for travelling, diseconomy of scale, and higher personnel costs. The RII provides an alternative measure of remoteness that is both intuitive and statistically straightforward and, at an SLA level, closely coincides with the commonly used but complex Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia Plus (ARIA + ). Significantly, the RII is free of the service specific and policy sensitive adjustments justified by accessibility that have been introduced into existing measures.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesGeographical researchen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVol. 46 no. 4en
dc.subjectRemote areasen
dc.subjectPopulation dynamicsen
dc.subjectGeographyen
dc.subjectClassificationen
dc.subjectAccessen
dc.titleRethinking remoteness: a simple and objective approachen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.sourceStrategy & Reform Divisionen
dc.kohastatus.transfertokohayesen
Appears in Collections:(b) NT General Collection

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
RethinkingRemoteness.doc124 kBMicrosoft WordView/Open


Items in ePublications are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing