Next Article in Journal
Job Satisfaction and Hospital Performance Rated by Physicians in China: A Moderated Mediation Analysis on the Role of Income and Person–Organization Fit
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatial Analysis of the Neighborhood Risk Factors for Respiratory Health in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT): Implications for Emergency Planning
Previous Article in Journal
Comprehensive Fungal Community Analysis of House Dust Using Next-Generation Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Geographic Information System-Based Indicator of Waste Risk to Investigate the Health Impact of Landfills and Uncontrolled Dumping Sites
Article

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology

1
University Center for Social and Urban Research, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
2
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3
Drexel University Urban Health Collaborative (UHC), Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
4
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
5
Environmental Medicine and Public Health and Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
6
Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(16), 5845; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17165845
Received: 8 July 2020 / Revised: 5 August 2020 / Accepted: 10 August 2020 / Published: 12 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue GIS and Spatial Modelling for Environmental Epidemiology)
Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the increasing refinement of available exposure models for air pollution and other exposures, geocoding error may account for an increasingly larger proportion of exposure misclassification. We used residential addresses from a reasonably large, dense dataset of asthma emergency department visits from all New York City hospitals (n = 21,183; 26.9 addresses/km2), and geocoded each using three methods (Address Point, Street Segment, Parcel Centroid). We compared missingness and spatial patterning therein, quantified distance and directional errors, and quantified impacts on pollution exposure estimates and assignment to Census areas for sociodemographic characterization. Parcel Centroids had the highest overall missingness rate (38.1%, Address Point = 9.6%, Street Segment = 6.1%), and spatial clustering in missingness was significant for all methods, though its spatial patterns differed. Street Segment geocodes had the largest mean distance error (µ = 29.2 (SD = 26.2) m; vs. µ = 15.9 (SD = 17.7) m for Parcel Centroids), and the strongest spatial patterns therein. We found substantial over- and under-estimation of pollution exposures, with greater error for higher pollutant concentrations, but minimal impact on Census area assignment. Finally, we developed surfaces of spatial patterns in errors in order to identify locations in the study area where exposures may be over-/under-estimated. Our observations provide insights towards refining geocoding methods for epidemiology, and suggest methods for quantifying and interpreting geocoding error with respect to exposure misclassification, towards understanding potential impacts on health effect estimates. View Full-Text
Keywords: geocoding error; exposure misclassification; geographic information systems (GIS); spatial analysis; spatial uncertainty; urban epidemiology geocoding error; exposure misclassification; geographic information systems (GIS); spatial analysis; spatial uncertainty; urban epidemiology
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Kinnee, E.J.; Tripathy, S.; Schinasi, L.; Shmool, J.L.C.; Sheffield, P.E.; Holguin, F.; Clougherty, J.E. Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5845. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17165845

AMA Style

Kinnee EJ, Tripathy S, Schinasi L, Shmool JLC, Sheffield PE, Holguin F, Clougherty JE. Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(16):5845. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17165845

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kinnee, Ellen J., Sheila Tripathy, Leah Schinasi, Jessie L.C. Shmool, Perry E. Sheffield, Fernando Holguin, and Jane E. Clougherty. 2020. "Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 16: 5845. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17165845

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop