IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p10908-d1542475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Difference Between Spatial Accessibility and Perceived Accessibility of Public Service Facilities in Coastal Towns and Villages

Author

Listed:
  • Jia-Bing Wang

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
    Key Laboratory of Southeast Coast Marine Information Intelligent Perception and Application, Ministry of Natural Resources, Zhangzhou 363000, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Li-Yi Feng

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
    Key Laboratory of Southeast Coast Marine Information Intelligent Perception and Application, Ministry of Natural Resources, Zhangzhou 363000, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ling Guo

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China)

  • Bin-Yan Liu

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China)

  • Xin-Chen Hong

    (School of Architecture and Urban-Rural Planning, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
    Key Laboratory of Southeast Coast Marine Information Intelligent Perception and Application, Ministry of Natural Resources, Zhangzhou 363000, China)

Abstract

The discrepancy between the physical accessibility and perceived accessibility of public service facilities in coastal towns and villages of Fujian, China, was investigated in this study. Through a spatial distribution analysis of education and medical service facilities in Liushui Town and Xingchen Town, the equity and coverage levels of various facilities were evaluated based on the residents’ physical travel costs and perceptions. The results show pronounced spatial heterogeneity between the physical and perceived accessibility across different regions. Our findings suggest that, while certain areas boast a lot of physical access to facilities, the residents’ perceived access is significantly influenced by factors such as the terrain, transportation conditions, and the types of available travel tools. The findings of this study provide a scientific basis for optimizing the allocation of rural public service facilities, aiming to bridge the foundational service gap between urban and rural areas and promote the equitable development of rural living environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia-Bing Wang & Li-Yi Feng & Ling Guo & Bin-Yan Liu & Xin-Chen Hong, 2024. "Understanding the Difference Between Spatial Accessibility and Perceived Accessibility of Public Service Facilities in Coastal Towns and Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10908-:d:1542475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10908/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10908/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jehle, Ulrike & Baquero Larriva, María Teresa & BaghaiePoor, Mahtab & Büttner, Benjamin, 2024. "How does pedestrian accessibility vary for different people? Development of a Perceived user-specific Accessibility measure for Walking (PAW)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Treb Allen & Costas Arkolakis, 2014. "Trade and the Topography of the Spatial Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1085-1140.
    3. Bo Xu & Alaa Nimer Abukhalifeh & Xiaoling Lu & Biao Gao & Hongyan Cui & Yichao Wu & Wen-Tsao Pan, 2022. "Rural Tourism Public Service Performance Evaluation Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-9, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehrotra, Neil & Turner, Matthew A. & Uribe, Juan Pablo, 2024. "Does the US have an infrastructure cost problem? Evidence from the interstate highway system," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Marta Aloi & Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & Frédéric Tournemaine, 2022. "The Geography of Knowledge and R&D-led Growth [Real effects ofacademic research: comment]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(6), pages 1149-1190.
    3. Stephan Heblich & Stephen J Redding & Daniel M Sturm, 2020. "The Making of the Modern Metropolis: Evidence from London," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(4), pages 2059-2133.
    4. Kondo, Illenin O., 2018. "Trade-induced displacements and local labor market adjustments in the U.S," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 180-202.
    5. Ferdinando Monte & Stephen J. Redding & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2018. "Commuting, Migration, and Local Employment Elasticities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3855-3890, December.
    6. Liu, Chen & Ma, Xiao, 2018. "China's Export Surge and the New Margins of Trade," MPRA Paper 103970, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2020.
    7. Farrokhi, Farid & Jinkins, David, 2019. "Wage inequality and the location of cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-92.
    8. Joan Monras, 2020. "Immigration and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from the Mexican Peso Crisis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 3017-3089.
    9. Pablo D. Fajgelbaum & Edouard Schaal, 2020. "Optimal Transport Networks in Spatial Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1411-1452, July.
    10. Lorenzo Caliendo & Luca David Opromolla & Fernando Parro & Alessandro Sforza, 2021. "Goods and Factor Market Integration: A Quantitative Assessment of the EU Enlargement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(12), pages 3491-3545.
    11. Vittorio Bassi & Raffaela Muoio & Tommaso Porzio & Ritwika Sen & Esau Tugume, 2022. "Achieving Scale Collectively," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2937-2978, November.
    12. Xiao Chen & Hanwei Huang & Jiandong Ju & Ruoyan Sun & Jialiang Zhang, 2022. "Endogenous cross-region human mobility and pandemics," CEP Discussion Papers dp1860, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Redding, Stephen J., 2016. "Goods trade, factor mobility and welfare," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 148-167.
    14. Stephen J. Redding & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2017. "Quantitative Spatial Economics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 21-58, September.
    15. Albouy, David & Behrens, Kristian & Robert-Nicoud, Frédéric & Seegert, Nathan, 2019. "The optimal distribution of population across cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 102-113.
    16. Fajgelbaum, Pablo & Redding, Stephen, 2014. "External integration, structural transformation and economic development: evidence from Argentina," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60285, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. César Ducruet & Réka Juhász & David Krisztián Nagy & Claudia Steinwender, 2019. "All aboard: The aggregate effects of port development," Economics Working Papers 1708, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2022.
    18. Gollin, Douglas & Lagakos, David & Kirchberger, Martina, 2017. "In Search of a Spatial Equilibrium in the Developing World," CEPR Discussion Papers 12114, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Akihiko Yanase & Ngo Van Long & Ngo Van Long, 2020. "Trade Costs and Strategic Investment in Infrastructure in a Dynamic Global Economy with Symmetric Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 8707, CESifo.
    20. Benjamin Faber & Cecile Gaubert, 2019. "Tourism and Economic Development: Evidence from Mexico's Coastline," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(6), pages 2245-2293, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10908-:d:1542475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.