1990
DOI: 10.1068/a220039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Location of Fire Stations in a Rural Environment: A Case Study

Abstract: In this paper an application of location-allocation modelling to an emergency service is presented. This study differs in two aspects from earlier work because it covers two neglected fields: (1) it is concerned with a rural environment whereas most case studies are about urban areas; (2) it is a comparison of the performance of several models instead of using only one. Efficiency as well as equity are taken into account. The main conclusions are about the issues of the choice of an appropriate model from 3 ca… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Those NYCRI papers at or below the centre of the network (Kolesar and Blum, 1973;Kolesar and Walker, 1974;Kolesar et al, 1975;Ignall et al, 1982;Swersey, 1982) focus on urban fire services, but related non-NYCRI papers comprising the lower half of the network are not likewise dominated by this particular focus. Unlike the upper region of Figure 2, relatively few publications here represent continuing research into fire service beyond urban settings, such as revisiting the fire station location planning problem in a rural context (Richard et al, 1990). Rather, the original location, travel and allocation NYCRI models are cited in many studies considering the same issues in contexts such as emergency medical services (Daskin and Stern, 1981;Eaton et al, 1985;Zhu and McKnew, 1993;Brotcorne et al, 2003), or search and rescue operations (Armstrong and Cook, 1979;Van der Meer et al, 2005).…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Those NYCRI papers at or below the centre of the network (Kolesar and Blum, 1973;Kolesar and Walker, 1974;Kolesar et al, 1975;Ignall et al, 1982;Swersey, 1982) focus on urban fire services, but related non-NYCRI papers comprising the lower half of the network are not likewise dominated by this particular focus. Unlike the upper region of Figure 2, relatively few publications here represent continuing research into fire service beyond urban settings, such as revisiting the fire station location planning problem in a rural context (Richard et al, 1990). Rather, the original location, travel and allocation NYCRI models are cited in many studies considering the same issues in contexts such as emergency medical services (Daskin and Stern, 1981;Eaton et al, 1985;Zhu and McKnew, 1993;Brotcorne et al, 2003), or search and rescue operations (Armstrong and Cook, 1979;Van der Meer et al, 2005).…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Reilly and Mirchandani (1985) proposed a median model for the selection of fire station locations in Albany, New York, with the aim of maximizing access so that each demand zone would have at least two fire stations within a desired travel time. Richard et al (1990) applied a modified PMP to site fire stations in Luxembourg, Belgium, with a threshold on response time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the more popular accessibility-based criteria are efficiency, equality, equity, and coverage, although a variety of other factors might determine the final spatial configuration of the facility system (Massam 1993). In any case, even when attention is focused solely on accessibility-cost criteria, studies invariably show that different cost criteria will elicit different optimal solutions (Hodgart 1978;Rushton 1979;Massam 1980: Richard et al 1990). For instance, the best spatial configuration based on efficiency (minimizing aggregate or average travel costs to all users) rarely coincides with the best spatial configuration based on equality (minimizing the spread or distribution of these travel costs among all users).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%