The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks
The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Ortega, Emilio [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
10 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Tau kinetics in the human cns - Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER, 2015, putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective, New York, NY [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:94 ; year:2018 ; pages:241-250 ; extent:10 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV042740851 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV042740851 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626002210.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180726s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBV00000000000492.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV042740851 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 530 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 52.56 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ortega, Emilio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 10 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. | ||
| 520 | |a The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Accessibility |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a High speed rail (HSR) |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Spatial data allocation procedures |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Monzón, Andrés |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a López, Elena |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |a Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER |t Tau kinetics in the human cns |d 2015 |d putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective |g New York, NY [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV01283484X |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:94 |g year:2018 |g pages:241-250 |g extent:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2547 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 52.56 |j Regenerative Energieformen |j alternative Energieformen |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 94 |j 2018 |h 241-250 |g 10 | ||
| author_variant |
e o eo |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
ortegaemiliomonznandrslpezelena:2018----:hifunefptadtalctopoeueoacsiiiyeuttea |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
52.56 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 doi GBV00000000000492.pica (DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl Ortega, Emilio verfasserin aut The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks 2018transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier Monzón, Andrés oth López, Elena oth Enthalten in Elsevier Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER Tau kinetics in the human cns 2015 putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV01283484X volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 94 2018 241-250 10 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 doi GBV00000000000492.pica (DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl Ortega, Emilio verfasserin aut The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks 2018transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier Monzón, Andrés oth López, Elena oth Enthalten in Elsevier Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER Tau kinetics in the human cns 2015 putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV01283484X volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 94 2018 241-250 10 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 doi GBV00000000000492.pica (DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl Ortega, Emilio verfasserin aut The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks 2018transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier Monzón, Andrés oth López, Elena oth Enthalten in Elsevier Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER Tau kinetics in the human cns 2015 putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV01283484X volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 94 2018 241-250 10 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 doi GBV00000000000492.pica (DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl Ortega, Emilio verfasserin aut The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks 2018transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier Monzón, Andrés oth López, Elena oth Enthalten in Elsevier Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER Tau kinetics in the human cns 2015 putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV01283484X volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 94 2018 241-250 10 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 doi GBV00000000000492.pica (DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl Ortega, Emilio verfasserin aut The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks 2018transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier Monzón, Andrés oth López, Elena oth Enthalten in Elsevier Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER Tau kinetics in the human cns 2015 putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective New York, NY [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV01283484X volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 94 2018 241-250 10 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Tau kinetics in the human cns New York, NY [u.a.] volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Tau kinetics in the human cns New York, NY [u.a.] volume:94 year:2018 pages:241-250 extent:10 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Accessibility High speed rail (HSR) Spatial data allocation procedures |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Tau kinetics in the human cns |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Ortega, Emilio @@aut@@ Monzón, Andrés @@oth@@ López, Elena @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV01283484X |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV042740851 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV042740851</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626002210.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180726s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000492.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV042740851</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ortega, Emilio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Accessibility</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">High speed rail (HSR)</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Spatial data allocation procedures</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Monzón, Andrés</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">López, Elena</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Tau kinetics in the human cns</subfield><subfield code="d">2015</subfield><subfield code="d">putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV01283484X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:94</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:241-250</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2547</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">94</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">241-250</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Ortega, Emilio |
| spellingShingle |
Ortega, Emilio ddc 610 ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| authorStr |
Ortega, Emilio |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV01283484X |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health 530 - Physics |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 610 ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 ddc 530 bkl 52.56 Elsevier Accessibility Elsevier High speed rail (HSR) Elsevier Spatial data allocation procedures |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
a m am e l el |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Tau kinetics in the human cns |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV01283484X |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health 530 - Physics |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Tau kinetics in the human cns |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV01283484X |
| title |
The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV042740851 (ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9 |
| title_full |
The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| author_sort |
Ortega, Emilio |
| journal |
Tau kinetics in the human cns |
| journalStr |
Tau kinetics in the human cns |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 500 - Science |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
241 |
| author_browse |
Ortega, Emilio |
| container_volume |
94 |
| physical |
10 |
| class |
610 VZ 530 VZ 52.56 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Ortega, Emilio |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |
| dewey-full |
610 530 |
| title_sort |
influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: the case of high-speed rail networks |
| title_auth |
The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| abstract |
The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. |
| abstractGer |
The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2547 |
| title_short |
The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Monzón, Andrés López, Elena |
| author2Str |
Monzón, Andrés López, Elena |
| ppnlink |
ELV01283484X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T16:58:34.079Z |
| _version_ |
1803849683781550080 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV042740851</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626002210.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180726s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBV00000000000492.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV042740851</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0143-6228(18)30216-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ortega, Emilio</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The influence of spatial data allocation procedures on accessibility results: The case of high-speed rail networks</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The computation of accessibility indicators requires the analyst to decide how spatial data are to be allocated in the defined areal units. This implies the selection of a geographical representation system and a spatial data distribution procedure to allocate data in each unit. However, there is no consensus on a “best choice” from the set of available spatial data allocation procedures, resulting in a significant heterogeneity across accessibility studies. In addition, so far little research has been done evaluating how accessibility results differ when computed under alternative procedures. Our approach addresses this gap and combines different geographical representation and population distribution procedures to produce different spatial data allocation methods for testing in case studies. In the case accessibility to high speed rail (HSR) networks is computed under five alternative population allocation procedures, in two rural areas in Spain served by a HSR line: Ciudad Real and Cuenca. Our results show that decisions related to spatial data allocation procedures must be carefully addressed when conducting accessibility analyses. Specifically, the population distribution method may in many cases produce differences of over 100% on accessibility values. We conclude that differences between dasymetric and vector procedures tend to be larger in highly populated and sprawling cities, and appear to be less relevant if the size of the cell is small. The results of the paper provide useful guidelines to interpret the influence on the results of different geographical representation and population disaggregation methods. Based on these findings we recommend that the selection of the most appropriate procedure should be explicitly taken into consideration in accessibility analysis methodologies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Accessibility</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">High speed rail (HSR)</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Spatial data allocation procedures</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Monzón, Andrés</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">López, Elena</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Sato, Chihiro ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Tau kinetics in the human cns</subfield><subfield code="d">2015</subfield><subfield code="d">putting the world's human and physical resource problems in a geographical perspective</subfield><subfield code="g">New York, NY [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV01283484X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:94</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:241-250</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.020</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2547</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">94</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="h">241-250</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3989124 |