| Popis: |
Abstract Rapid restoration of access to essential goods and services has long been regarded as paramount for community recovery. Yet, there remains ambiguity in how access should be defined, measured, or operationalized. Defining accessibility as the ability to use available goods and services with a reasonable level of effort and cost requires evaluating it across six dimensions (proximity, availability, adequacy, acceptability, affordability, and awareness) while considering the perspective of both users and providers in the evaluation. But common distance-based metrics that focus solely on physical access and travel time often fall short of fully capturing these requirements, overlooking the user's perception. This paper introduces a new spatio-temporal accessibility metric that combines four out of these six dimensions, including proximity, acceptability, adequacy, and availability. The metric considers uncertainty in measuring each dimension and addresses both user and provider perspectives in measuring the acceptability and adequacy dimensions. The variation in the metric across the disaster timeline serves as a proxy for community recovery. The metric aligns with common engineering-oriented functionality-based resilience frameworks as the functionality level of the providers has been incorporated in its development. Operating at the household level, the metric determines the ratio of post-disruption access time to the intended good or service against its pre-disruption access time and yields a unitless ratio between zero and one, with zero expressing a total loss in accessibility and one signifying the same level of accessibility as pre-disruption. The proposed metric, while being scientifically principled, is a practical tool whose output is easily understood even by non-expert individuals. The metric is illustrated for schools and pharmacies using the Lumberton Testbed and data collected following the 2016 flood in Lumberton, North Carolina after Hurricane Matthew. Findings provide new insight into recovery plan prioritization and can be used to trigger protective actions. The paper concludes by discussing issues and barriers related to developing and validating accessibility metrics while highlighting areas for future research. |
Full text from SpringerLink