arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.27390

Choose your own adventure: How data source selection shapes urban accessibility analyses

Geoff Boeing·Jiyoon Kim·Daniele Simon-Thompson·Jaehyun Ha·Ruoyu Chen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Urban park accessibility shapes mental health, physical well-being, and community cohesion. Measuring it is thus central to urban and landscape planning. Although researchers have debated the impacts of different accessibility measures on analysis results, scant attention has been paid to variability from data source selection. Do the results of accessibility analyses vary depending on the dataset used to define park locations and attributes? We compare four widely used geospatial data sources - OpenStreetMap, Esri, SafeGraph, and The Trust for Public Land - by validating their data and measuring park access across two cities. These datasets purport to cover the same spatial features, but our findings reveal wide discrepancies in accessibility results, driven by differences in dataset completeness, coverage, and accuracy between the sources. We provide guidelines for selecting and carefully validating data for accessibility analyses, as these decisions directly impact the accuracy and equity of downstream urban park planning and decision-making.

Explore related subjects

stat.APcs.CYecon.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Geoff Boeing, Jiyoon Kim, Daniele Simon-Thompson, Jaehyun Ha, Ruoyu Chen. 2026-10-19. Choose your own adventure: How data source selection shapes urban accessibility analyses. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27390

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A simple sensitivity analysis for observational studies

Drawing causal conclusions from non-experimental (observational) data is a central aim in science but is extremely challenging. Without control over treatment assignment (as in an experiment), treated and control groups may not be comparable on unmeasured factors affecting treatment and outcome. To address such concerns, sensitivity analyses can be performed; sensitivity analyses acknowledge the existence of unmeasured factors but ask how strong they must be to overturn causal conclusions. We (re)introduce a particularly simple form of sensitivity analysis which can be performed by any reader of an observational study with access to only an estimate and confidence interval for a causal effect. This simple sensitivity analysis may serve as an effective tool for readers wishing to gauge the robustness of conclusions from an observational study.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Length-Preserving Vessel Trajectory Simplification With Controllable Compression-Precision Bound

Vessel trajectory data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS) is important for a wide range of maritime analysis and management applications. As AIS datasets continue to grow in scale, trajectory simplification (or compression) algorithms have become indispensable tools for managing their computational demands. Existing approaches, however, largely overlook the preservation of trajectory length, a critical metric of direct relevance to maritime environmental auditing and voyage management. We address this gap by framing trajectory simplification as a pair of dual optimization problems subject to error constraints: Compression-Driven Simplification (CDS), which minimizes data volume for a given length-error tolerance, and Precision-Driven Simplification (PDS), which minimizes length approximation error for a given compression target. Both problems are solved within a unified dynamic programming framework, and we provide mathematical proofs establishing that our formulation yields globally optimal solutions. This guarantees flexible, direct control over both compression ratio and length-approximation fidelity. { We benchmark CDS and PDS on real-world AIS datasets spanning diverse navigation scenarios and representative water area, comparing against state-of-the-art baselines. Experimental results on public benchmark datasets demonstrate that even under a small length error tolerance ($ε=0.1$ nmi), our methods achieve about 91\% data compression rate, approximately 14\% higher than the best-performing baseline, which implies that our methods are capable of maximally preserving the trajectory length while reducing data redundancy significant.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Statistical Elements of a Successful Farm-scale Trial

Growers and advisers increasingly run large strip trials on their own paddocks, but the rules used to design them come from small-plot research. We simulated strip trials on a spatially autocorrelated field, varying trial length (L), replication (r), randomised or systematic allocation, and long-strip or stacked layout, for a nitrogen response that was uniform or varied across within-field pseudo-environments (PEs). Analyses of strip-plot means and of yield pixels were first checked for Type I error, and designs were then compared by the smallest response that a valid analysis detects with 80% power. Follow-up runs added gaps, unequal strip lengths, trends, spatially varying responses and alternative field structures; more than 3 million models were fitted. Treating pixels as independent replicates gave false positives in 32-40% of null trials. Replication was the strongest design lever: the detectable response scaled as $r^{-0.60}$ to $r^{-1.02}$ but only as $L^{-0.45}$ or more slowly, and at equal plot area more, shorter replicates won all 66 comparisons. With complete data, strip means with an autoregressive residual were the most precise analysis; when strips contained gaps, pixel-level spatial models with a strip effect halved the detectable response, while the spatial analysis of strip means became liberal. For PE-varying responses, spatial PE models detected per-PE effects 33-46% smaller than PE means without a spatial term. Randomisation did not improve precision but kept tests valid (systematic allocation: Type I error up to 23%), whereas systematic allocation gave more accurate response maps. The results are condensed into a design table and a detectable-gain chart for use before a trial is sown.

stat.AP↗