A Geospatial Analysis of Accessibility to Primary Education

Abstract

Geographic information systems (GIS) have started to be used in developing information to be used for national and regional development in many areas; however, the use of this system for educational planning has been under-researched. Adopting the case study design, this study evaluated the current locations of primary schools in Afyonkarahisar and offered alternative locations in order to improve access to primary education for the school-aged population using heuristic location-allocation modelling approaches. An intelligent areal interpolation approach was performed to generate the population surface. The demand surface was used as input to a location-allocation analysis, and alternative locations were suggested. With the current distribution of primary schools, the primary school-aged population would have to travel an average distance of 1466.81m to access primary education. The results show that alternative primary school locations decreased the average travel distance by 339.69m, improving overall accessibility to primary schools. The results suggest that geospatial methods can be used to provide documentary evidence to support education planners and policymakers.

Keywords

• GIS
• Educational planning
• Primary schools
• Accessibility
• Geospatial analysis
• Afyonkarahisar.

İlköğretime erişimin mekansal bir analizi

Öz

Coğrafi bilgi sistemleri (CBS) birçok alanda ulusal ve bölgesel kalkınma için kullanılacak bilgilerin geliştirilmesinde kullanılmaya başlanmış; ancak bu sistemin eğitim planlaması için kullanımı yeterince araştırılmamıştır. Durum çalışması deseni kullanılarak bu çalışmada, Afyonkarahisar merkez ilçesinde yer alan ilkokulların mevcut konumları değerlendirilmiş ve buluşsal konum tahsis modelleme yaklaşımlarını kullanarak okul çağındaki nüfusun ilköğretime erişimini iyileştirmek için alternatif konumlar sunulmuştur. İlköğretim çağındaki nüfusun dağılışını oluşturmak için mekânsal enterpolasyon yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Okullara olan talep yüzeyi, yeni bir yer tahsisi analizinde girdi olarak kullanılmış ve yeni okullar için alternatif lokasyonlar önerilmiştir. İlkokulların mevcut konumuna göre, ilköğretim çağındaki öğrencilerin okullarına erişmek için ortalama 1466,81m mesafe kat etmesi gerekmektedir. Uygulanan konum tahsis model sonuçları, alternatif ilkokul lokasyonlarının ortalama erişim mesafesini 339,69m azalttığını ve okullara genel erişilebilirliği iyileştirdiğini göstermektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, jeo-uzamsal yöntemlerin eğitim planlayıcıları ve politika yapıcıları desteklemek için belgesel kanıt niteliğinde kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CBS
• Eğitim planlaması
• İlkokullar
• Erişilebilirlik
• Jeo-uzamsal analiz
• Afyonkarahisar

References

1. Bejleri, I., Steiner, R. L., Fischman, A. & Schmucker, J. M. (2011). Using GIS to Analyze the Role of Barriersand Facilitators to Walking in Children’s Travel to School. Urban Design International, 16(1): 51–62.
2. Bennell, P. (2021). The Political Economy of Attaining Universal Primary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Social Class Reproduction, Educational Distancing and Job Competition. International Journal of Educational Development 80 (January): 102303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102303.
3. Birdsall, N., Levine, R. & Ibrahim, A. (2005). Towards Universal Primary Education: Investments, Incentives, and Institutions. European Journal of Education, 40(3), 337–49.
4. Burgess, S., Greaves, E. Vignoles, A. & Wilson, D. (2011). Parental Choice of Primary School in England: What Types of School Do Different Types of Family Really Have Available to Them? Policy Studies, 32(5), 531–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2011.601215.
5. Chamberlin, J. (2007). Editorial: Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Information for Rural Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Information Development, 23(2/3), 91–95.
6. Châu, T-N. (2003). Demographic Aspects of Educational Planning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000129355.
7. Chillón, P., J. Panter, K. Corder, A. P. Jones, and E. M. F. Van Sluijs. (2015). A Longitudinal Study of the Distance That Young People Walk to School. Health & Place, 31, 133–37.
8. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

9. Eurydice. (2021). Turkey Overview. 2021. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/turkey_en. Fainstein, S. S. (2009). Spatial Justice and Planning. Justice Spatiale, Spatial Justice 1, 1–13. https://www.jssj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/JSSJ1-5en1.pdf.
10. Gültekin, M. (2007). İlköğretim I: 1923-1972 [Primary Education I: 1923-1972]. In Türk Eğitim Tarihi [History of Turkish Education], edited by Mustafa Sağlam. Eskişehir: Anadolu University Press.
11. Higgs, G., Fry, R. & Langford, M. (2012). Nvestigating the Implications of Using Alternative GIS-Basedtechniques to Measure Accessibility of Green Space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39, 326–43.
12. Ilgaz Sümer, S., Sümer, E. & Atasever, H. (2016). Promoting Development through a Geographic Information System-Based Lodging Property Query System (LPQS) for Antalya, Turkey.” Information Development 32 (4): 1055–67. Independent Evaluation Group. (2006). From Schooling Access to Learning Outcomes: An Unfinished Agenda: An Evaluation of World Bank Support to Primary Education. Washington DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7083.
13. Israel, E. & Frenkel, A. (2018). Social Justice and Spatial Inequality: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Progress in Human Geography, 42(5) 647–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517702969.
14. Jega, I. M., Comber, A. J. & Tate, N. J. (2017). Spatial Planning under Data Paucity: Dasymetric Interpolation of Population, Validated by Google Earth, to Support Health Facility Location Modelling. SSRG International Journal of Geoinformatics and Geological Science, 4(3), 1–11.
15. Kelly, M. G. (2019). A Map Is More than Just a Graph: Geospatial Educational Research and the Importance Ofhistorical Context. Aera Open. 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419833346.
16. Köse, M., Koçyiğit, M., Erdem, C. & Jega, M. I. (2021). An Evaluation of Accessibility to Preschool Education Institutions Using Geographic Information Systems. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10482-7.
17. Lee, J. & Lubienski, C. (2017). The Impact of School Closures on Equity of Access in Chicago. Education and Urban Society, (49)1, 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630601.
18. Lincove, J. A. (2009). Determinants of Schooling for Boys and Girls in Nigeria under a Policy of Free Primary Education. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 474–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.10.001.
19. Maarseven, R. V. (2021). The Urban–Rural Education Gap: Do Cities Indeed Make Us Smarter? Journal of Economic Geography, (21)5, 683–714. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbaa033.
20. Macintyre, S., Macdonald, L. & Ellaway, A. (2008). Do Poorer People Have Poorer Access to Local Resources and Facilities? The Distribution of Local Resources by Area Deprivation in Glasgow, Scotland. Social Science and Medicine, 67(6), 900–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.029.
21. Magistro, J., Bassole, A. & Weight, E. (2007). The Application of GIS as an Assessment and Planning Tool for Smallholder Irrigation Market Development: A Case Study from the West African Sahel. Information Development, 23(2/3), 137–50.
22. Mann, B., & Saultz, A. (2019). The Role of Place, Geography, and Geographic Information Systems in Educational Planning. Aera Open 5(3): 1–15.
23. Marques, J. L., Wolf, J. & F. Feitosa. (2021). Accessibility to Primary Schools in Portugal: A Case of Spatial Inequity? Reg Sci Policy Pract, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12303.
24. Mennis, J. (2009). Dasymetric Mapping for Estimating Population in Small Areas. Geography Compass, 3(2), 727–45.
25. MoNE. (2020). National Education Statistics: Formal Education. http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=396.
26. Neutens, T. (2015). Accessibility, Equity and Health Care: Review and Research Directions for Transport Geographers. Journal of Transport Geography. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.12.006.
27. Newby, P. (2014). Research Methods for Education. Routledge.
28. Ramachandran, V. (2004). Gender and Social Equity in Primary Education: Hierarchies of Access. Sage Publications.
29. Sağlam, M. (2011). Türk Eğitim Sisteminde ve Öğretmen Eğitiminde Yapısal Düzenlemeler ve Program Geliştirme Çalışmaları [Structural Regulations in Turkish Education System and Teacher Education, and Curriculum Development Efforts]. In Türkiye’de Öğretmen Yetiştirme [Teacher Training in Turkey], edited by Songül Aynal Killimci. Ankara: Pegem.
30. Sifuna, D. N. (2007). The Challenge of Increasing Access and Improving Quality: An Analysis of Universal Primary Education Interventions in Kenya and Tanzania since the 1970s. International Review of Education 53, 687–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9062-z.
31. Talen, E. (2001). School, Community, and Spatial Equity: An Emprical Investigation of Access to Elementary Schools in West Virginia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(3), 465–86.
32. Teitz, M. B. & Bart, P. (1968). Heuristic Methods for Estimating the Generalized Vertex Median of a Weighted Graph. Operations Research, 16(5), 955–61.
33. TSI. (2020). Turkish Statistical Institute Statistics Data Portal. 2020. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=Nufus-ve-Demografi-109.
34. UNESCO. 2004. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All: The Quality Imperative. Paris.
35. Yoon, E. S., Gulson, K. & Lubienski, C. (2018). A Brief History of the Geography of Education Policy: Ongoing Conversations and Generative Tensions. AERA Open 4 (4): 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2332858418820940.
36. Zuilkowski, S. S., Piper, B., Ong, S. & Kiminza, O. (2018). Parents, Quality, and School Choice: Why Parents in Nairobi Choose Low-Cost Private Schools over Public Schools in Kenya’s Free Primary Education Era Parents, Quality, and School Choice: Why Parents in Nairobi Choose Low-Cost Private Schools over Public S. Oxford Review of Education, 44(2), 258–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1391084.