Abstract
To determine whether the inclusion of spatial neighbourhood comparison factors in Preference Modelling allows spatial decision support systems (SDSSs) to better address spatial equity, we introduce Spatial Preference Modelling (SPM). To evaluate the effectiveness of this model in addressing equity, various standardisation functions in both Non-Spatial Preference Modelling and SPM are compared. The evaluation involves applying the model to a resource location-allocation problem for transport infrastructure in the Special Province of Yogyakarta in Indonesia. We apply Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to define opportunity to mobility as a non-income indicator. Using the extended Moran’s I interpretation for spatial equity, we evaluate the distribution output regarding, first, ‘the spatial distribution patterns of priority targeting for allocation’ (SPT) and, second, ‘the effect of new distribution patterns after location-allocation’ (ELA). The Moran’s I index of the initial map and its comparison with six patterns for SPT as well as ELA consistently indicates that the SPM is more effective for addressing spatial equity. We conclude that the inclusion of spatial neighbourhood comparison factors in Preference Modelling improves the capability of SDSS to address spatial equity. This study thus proposes a new formal method for SDSS with specific attention on resource location-allocation to address spatial equity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68(10):2535–2548. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010
Barrios E (2008) Infrastructure and rural development: household perceptions on rural development. Prog Plann 70(1):1–44. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2008.04.001
Beedasy J, Whyatt D (1999) Diverting the tourists: a spatial decision-support system for tourism planning on a developing island. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 1(3):163–174. doi:10.1016/S0303-2434(99)85009-0
Benferhat S, Dubois D, Kaci S, Prade H (2006) Bipolar possibility theory in preference modelling: representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Inffus 7(1):135–150. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2005.04.001
Bibi S, Duclos J (2007) Equity and policy effectiveness with imperfect targeting. J Devel Econ 83(1):109–140. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.12.001
Bivand R, Müller WG, Reder M (2009) Power calculations for global and local Moran’s I. Comput Stat Data Anal 53(8):2859–2872. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2008.07.021
BPS (2006) PODES. BPS-Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta
Cabrales A, Calvó-Armengol A (2008) Interdependent preferences and segregating equilibria. J Econ Theory 139(1):99–113. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2007.08.003
Chen A (2010) Reducing China’s regional disparities: is there a growth cost? China Econ Rev 21(1):2–13. doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2009.11.005
Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, Nicaise I (2010) Efficiency and equity in private and public education: a nonparametric comparison. Eur J Oper Res 202(2):563–573. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.06.015
Chitwood SR (1974) Social equity and social service productivity. Public Admin Rev 34(1):29–35
Cho C (1998) An equity-efficiency trade-off model for the optimum location of medical care facilities. Socio Econ Plan Sci 32(2):99–112. doi:10.1016/S0038-0121(97)00007-4
Deneulin S (2008) Beyond individual freedom and agency: structures of living together in the capability approach. In: Comim F, Qizilbash M, Alkire S (eds) The capability approach concepts, measures and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 105–124
Dworkin R (1981a) What is equality? Part 1: equality of welfare. Philos Public Aff 10(3):185–246
Dworkin R (1981b) What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos Public Aff 10(4):283–345
Feser E, Sweeney S (2006) Regional industry cluster analysis using spatial concepts, space as indicator. Pre-conference training, ACCRA 46th annual conference, 7 June 2006, Charlotte, NC. http://www.urban.illinois.edu/faculty/feser/ESEBA/ESEBA_All.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2013
Frederickson HG (1990) Public administration and social equity. Public Admin Rev 50(2):228–237. doi:10.2307/976870
Garcia-Valinas MA, Llera RF, Torgler B (2005) More income equality or not? An empirical analysis of individuals’ preferences. CREMA working paper series, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA), http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:cra:wpaper:2005-23. Accessed 18 March 2013
Gasper D (2007) What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. J Socio-Econ 36(3):335–359. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.001
Golob TF, McNally MG (1997) A model of activity participation and travel interactions between household heads. Transp Res B-Meth 31(3):177–194. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(96)00027-6
Grosse M, Harttgen K, Klasen S (2008) Measuring pro-poor growth in non-income dimensions. World Dev 36(6):1021–1047. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.009
Grubesic TH (2008) The spatial distribution of broadband providers in the United States: 1999–2004. Telecommun Policy 32(3):212–233. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2008.01.001
Kakwani N, Silber J (2008) Introduction: multidimensional poverty analysis: conceptual issues, empirical illustrations and policy implications. World Dev 36(6):987–991. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.10.004
Kyriacou AP, Roca-Sagalés O (2011) Fiscal decentralization and government quality in the OECD. Econ Lett 111(3):191–193. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2011.02.019
Lelkes O (2006) Knowing what is good for you, Empirical analysis of personal preferences and the “objective good”. J Socio-Econ 35(2):285–307. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.002
Lorant V, Thomas I, Delie`ge D, Tonglet R (2001) Deprivation and mortality: the implications of spatial autocorrelation for health resources allocation. Soc Sci Med 53(12):1711–1719. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00456-1
Malczewski J (2004) GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Prog Plann 62(1):3–65. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2003.09.002
Marchetti C (1993) On mobility. Final status report, contract no. 4672-92-03 ED ISP A, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. http://www.cge.uevora.pt/energia/marchetti/MARCHETTI-057_Pt.1.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2013
Mokhtarian PL, Chen C (2004) TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets. Transport Res A-Pol 38(9/10):643–675. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2003.12.004
Neyapti B (2010) Fiscal decentralization and deficits: international evidence. Eur J Polit Econ 26(2):155–166. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.01.001
Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9(2/3):33–59. doi:10.1080/1354570022000077926
Ohana S (2010) Modeling global and local dependence in a pair of commodity forward curves with an application to the US natural gas and heating oil markets. Energ Econ 32(2):373–388. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2009.08.015
Overmars KP, de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A (2003) Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecol Model 164(2):257–270. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00070-X
Perny P, Roy B (1992) The use of fuzzy outranking relations in preference modelling. Fuzzy Set Syst 49(1):33–53. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(92)90108-G
Phua M, Minowa M (2005) A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landsc Urban Plan 71(2/4):207–222. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.004
Piccolo D, D’Elia A (2008) A new approach for modelling consumers’ preferences. Food Qual Prefer 19(3):247–259. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.07.002
Ping JL, Green CJ, Zartman RE, Bronson KF (2004) Exploring spatial dependence of cotton yield using global and local autocorrelation statistics. Field Crop Res 89(2/3):219–236. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.02.009
Qizilbash M (2011) Sugden’s critique of the capability approach. Util 23(1):25–51. doi:10.1017/S0953820810000439
Roberts F, Tsoukiás A (2009) Voting theory and preference modelling. Math Soc Sci 57(3):289–291. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2008.12.005
Schafer A (1998) The global demand for motorized mobility. Transport Res A-Pol 32(6):455–477. doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(98)00004-4
Sen AK (1980) Equality of what. In: McMurrin SM (ed) The tanner lectures on human value. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 195–220
Sen AK (1992) Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sen AK (2004) Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation. Fem Econ 10(3):77–80. doi:10.1080/1354570042000315163
Sharifi A, van Herwijnen M (2001) Spatial decision support systems. International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC), Enschede
Shortridge A (2007) Practical limits of Moran’s autocorrelation index for raster class maps. Comput Environ Urban Syst 31(3):362–371. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2006.07.001
Sudgen R (2006) What we desire, what we have reason to desire, whatever we might desire: Mill and Sen on the value of opportunity. Util 18(1):33–51. doi:10.1017/S0953820805001810
TRB (2004) Design speed, operating speed, and posted speed practices. TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report 504, Transportation Research Board of The National Academies
Tsai Y (2005) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ‘sprawl’. Urban Stud 42(1):141–161. doi:10.1080/0042098042000309748
Tsou K, Hung Y, Chang Y (2005) An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities 22(6):424–435. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.004
Tsoukiás A (1991) Preference modelling as a reasoning process: a new way to face uncertainty in Multiple Criteria Decision Support Systems. Eur J Oper Res 55(3):309–318. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(91)90201-6
Wismadi A, Brussel M, Zuidgeest M, Sutomo H, Nugroho LE, van Maarseveen M (2012) Effect of neighbouring village conditions and infrastructure interdependency on economic opportunity: a case study of the Yogyakarta region, Indonesia. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(5):371–385. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.02.001
Xiang W (2001) Weighting-by-choosing: a weight elicitation method for maps overlays. Landsc Urban Plan 56(1/2):61–73. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00169-4
Yuan J, Kang J, Zhao C, Hu Z (2008) Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from China at both aggregated and disaggregated levels. Energ Econ 30(6):3077–3094. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.007
Acknowledgments
This publication is part of the research activities funded through the Indonesia Facility (INDF) of the Netherlands EVD agency to establish a new Master of Science Program on Management of Infrastructure and Community Development—MICD (http://pipm.pasca.ugm.ac.id). The project is a joint research activity between ITC the Netherlands, PUSTRAL UGM (The Centre for Transport and Logistics Studies—Gadjah Mada University) Indonesia, and Keypoint Consultancy BV the Netherlands.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wismadi, A., Zuidgeest, M., Brussel, M. et al. Spatial Preference Modelling for equitable infrastructure provision: an application of Sen’s Capability Approach. J Geogr Syst 16, 19–48 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-013-0185-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-013-0185-4
Keywords
- Capability Approach
- Spatial and social equity
- Location-allocation
- Spatial Preference Modelling
- Spatial decision support system