Advertisement

Weighted Benefit, Variable Radius, and Gradual Coverage

  • Richard L. Church
  • Alan Murray
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

The previous chapters have primarily focused on application contexts and modeling approaches where predefined, discrete coverage metrics are appropriate. Examples of this include: a fire department adequately serves/covers those properties that are within 5 min of travel from a station, or a surveillance system monitors/covers the areas that can be viewed by one or more cameras. That is, coverage is defined as being achieved or not, a simple binary yes or no property. The fact that coverage is defined as being provided or not to an area or object conceived of as a demand for service makes many coverage problems relatively simple to construct, especially for problems that are discrete in nature. When both demand objects and potential facility sites are discrete locations and finite in number, it is possible to identify which sites are capable of covering specific demand objects. An important question, however, is whether coverage should be so crisply defined. For example, when demand for service requires five and a half minutes to respond to from the closest fire station, it may not be considered covered according to a desired 5 min service time standard. In reality, demand for service along these lines obviously receives some level of degraded response service, but just not complete coverage characteristics associated with an established service standard. This chapter therefore explores how coverage models have been extended to be more flexible by including multiple levels of coverage, or steps of coverage, as well as defining a range where coverage is gradually degraded or lost. The idea that service/coverage is degraded, lost or not provided is itself of potential concern, and raises issues of equity. Essentially, in a public setting, we should be concerned with treating those demands that are not covered as fairly as possible. How do we identify a facility configuration (solution) that is as equitable as possible? This too is a subject of this chapter. Finally, there are cases when the coverage capabilities at a given location can be a function of investment. That is, we might be able to expand what a facility can cover by enhancing or upgrading associated equipment. For example, a viewshed (or coverage range) of a fire lookout tower might be extended by increasing its height. An emergency broadcast tower, as another example, might be outfitted with a superior transmitter providing a stronger signal, thereby increasing its range of reception. Such enhancements or upgrades likely are more costly, but do represent ways service capabilities may be altered. This chapter also addresses modeling where there may be options for increasing the coverage range of a facility along with making location siting decisions.

References

  1. Austin CM (1974) The evaluation of urban public facility location: an alternative to benefit-cost analysis. Geogr Anal 6(2):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell TL, Church RL (1985) Location-allocation modeling in archaeological settlement pattern research: some preliminary applications. World Archaeol 16(3):354–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman O, Krass D (2002) The generalized maximal covering location problem. Comput Oper Res 29(6):563–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman O, Krass D, Drezner Z (2003) The gradual covering decay location problem on a network. Eur J Oper Res 151(3):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman O, Drezner Z, Krass D, Wesolowsky GO (2009a) The variable radius covering problem. Eur J Oper Res 196(2):516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman O, Kalcsics J, Krass D, Nickel S (2009b) The ordered gradual covering location problem on a network. Discret Appl Math 157(18):3689–3707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berman O, Drezner Z, Krass D (2010) Generalized coverage: new developments in covering location models. Comput Oper Res 37(10):1675–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman O, Krass D, Wang J (2011) The probabilistic gradual covering location problem on a network with discrete random demand weights. Comput Oper Res 38(11):1493–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Church R, ReVelle CR (1974) The maximal covering location problem. Pap Reg Sci 32(1):101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Church R, Current J, Storbeck J (1991) A bicriterion maximal covering location formulation which considers the satisfaction of uncovered demand. Decis Sci 22(1):38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Church RL (1974) Synthesis of a class of public facility location models. PhD Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. Church RL, Bell T (1981) Incorporating preferences in location-allocation models. Geogr Perspect 48:22–34Google Scholar
  13. Church RL, Murray AT (2009) Business site selection, location modeling, and GIS. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Church RL, Roberts KL (1983) Generalized coverage models and public facility location. Pap Reg Sci 53(1):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drezner T, Drezner Z, Goldstein Z (2010) A stochastic gradual cover location problem. Nav Res Logist (NRL) 57(4):367–372Google Scholar
  16. Drezner Z, Wesolowsky GO, Drezner T (2004) The gradual covering problem. Nav Res Logist (NRL) 51(6):841–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eiselt HA, Marianov V (2009) Gradual location set covering with service quality. Socio Econ Plan Sci 43(2):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerrard RA, Church RL (1996) Closest assignment constraints and location models: properties and structure. Locat Sci 4(4):251–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodchild MF, Lee J (1989) Coverage problems and visibility regions on topographic surfaces. Ann Oper Res 18(1):175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray AT (2005) Geography in coverage modeling: exploiting spatial structure to address complementary partial service of areas. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(4):761–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murray AT (2013) Optimising the spatial location of urban fire stations. Fire Saf J 62:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peker M, Kara BY (2015) The P-Hub maximal covering problem and extensions for gradual decay functions. Omega 54:158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Setak M, Karimi H (2014) Hub covering location problem under gradual decay function. J Sci Ind Res 73:145–148Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Church
    • 1
  • Alan Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations