Skip to main content

Weighted Benefit, Variable Radius, and Gradual Coverage

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Location Covering Models

Part of the book series: Advances in Spatial Science ((ADVSPATIAL))

  • 709 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Austin CM (1974) The evaluation of urban public facility location: an alternative to benefit-cost analysis. Geogr Anal 6(2):135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell TL, Church RL (1985) Location-allocation modeling in archaeological settlement pattern research: some preliminary applications. World Archaeol 16(3):354–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman O, Krass D (2002) The generalized maximal covering location problem. Comput Oper Res 29(6):563–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman O, Krass D, Drezner Z (2003) The gradual covering decay location problem on a network. Eur J Oper Res 151(3):474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman O, Drezner Z, Krass D, Wesolowsky GO (2009a) The variable radius covering problem. Eur J Oper Res 196(2):516–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman O, Kalcsics J, Krass D, Nickel S (2009b) The ordered gradual covering location problem on a network. Discret Appl Math 157(18):3689–3707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman O, Drezner Z, Krass D (2010) Generalized coverage: new developments in covering location models. Comput Oper Res 37(10):1675–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1493–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church R, ReVelle CR (1974) The maximal covering location problem. Pap Reg Sci 32(1):101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church R, Current J, Storbeck J (1991) A bicriterion maximal covering location formulation which considers the satisfaction of uncovered demand. Decis Sci 22(1):38–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church RL (1974) Synthesis of a class of public facility location models. PhD Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Church RL, Bell T (1981) Incorporating preferences in location-allocation models. Geogr Perspect 48:22–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Church RL, Murray AT (2009) Business site selection, location modeling, and GIS. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Church RL, Roberts KL (1983) Generalized coverage models and public facility location. Pap Reg Sci 53(1):117–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner T, Drezner Z, Goldstein Z (2010) A stochastic gradual cover location problem. Nav Res Logist (NRL) 57(4):367–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner Z, Wesolowsky GO, Drezner T (2004) The gradual covering problem. Nav Res Logist (NRL) 51(6):841–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiselt HA, Marianov V (2009) Gradual location set covering with service quality. Socio Econ Plan Sci 43(2):121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrard RA, Church RL (1996) Closest assignment constraints and location models: properties and structure. Locat Sci 4(4):251–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF, Lee J (1989) Coverage problems and visibility regions on topographic surfaces. Ann Oper Res 18(1):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray AT (2005) Geography in coverage modeling: exploiting spatial structure to address complementary partial service of areas. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95(4):761–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray AT (2013) Optimising the spatial location of urban fire stations. Fire Saf J 62:64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peker M, Kara BY (2015) The P-Hub maximal covering problem and extensions for gradual decay functions. Omega 54:158–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setak M, Karimi H (2014) Hub covering location problem under gradual decay function. J Sci Ind Res 73:145–148

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Church, R.L., Murray, A. (2018). Weighted Benefit, Variable Radius, and Gradual Coverage. In: Location Covering Models. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99846-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics