| Literature DB >> 33153047 |
Abstract
As the population is aging rapidly, the irrationality of residential care facility (RCF) configuration has impacted the efficiency and quality of the aged care services so significantly that the optimization of RCF configuration is urgently required. A multi-objective spatial optimization model for the RCF configuration is developed by considering the demands of three stakeholders, including the government, the elderly, and the investor. A modified immune algorithm (MIA) is implemented to find the optimal solutions, and the geographic information system (GIS) is used to extract information on spatial relationships and visually display optimization results. Jing'an District, part of Shanghai, China, is analyzed as a case study to demonstrate the advantages of this integrated approach. The configuration rationality of existing residential care facilities (RCFs) is analyzed, and a detailed recommendation for optimization is proposed. The results indicate that the number of existing RCFs is deficient; the locations of some RCFs are unreasonable, and there is a large gap between the service supply of existing RCFs and the demands of the elderly. To fully meet the care demands of the elderly, 6 new facilities containing 1193 beds are needed to be added. In comparison with the optimization results of other algorithms, MIA is superior in terms of the calculation accuracy and convergence rate. Based on the integration of MIA and GIS, the quantity, locations, and scale of RCFs can be optimized simultaneously, effectively, and comprehensively. The optimization scheme has improved the equity and efficiency of RCF configuration, increased the profits of investors, and reduced the travel costs of the elderly. The proposed method and optimization results have reference value for policy-making and planning of RCFs as well as other public service facilities.Entities:
Keywords: facility configuration; geographic information systems (GIS); modified immune algorithm (MIA); multi-objective; residential care facility (RCF); spatial optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33153047 PMCID: PMC7662911 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The framework of integrating modified immune algorithm (MIA) and geographic information system (GIS).
Figure 2Location of Jing’an District and the spatial distribution of existing residential care facilities (RCFs).
Descriptive statistics of accessibility to the optimized RCFs.
|
| Accessibility | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | Minimum | Standard Deviation | |
| 0.8 | 2.3879 | 0.3917 | 0.6854 |
| 1 | 4.1041 | 0.4799 | 0.5018 |
| 1.2 | 7.2491 | 0.3702 | 0.8662 |
| 1.4 | 12.4549 | 0.2694 | 1.4351 |
| 1.6 | 20.2442 | 0.1849 | 2.2596 |
| 1.8 | 30.8292 | 0.1206 | 3.3662 |
| 2 | 44.0078 | 0.0756 | 4.7404 |
| 2.2 | 59.2022 | 0.0460 | 6.3264 |
| 2.4 | 75.5945 | 0.0275 | 8.0405 |
β is Distance-decay Parameter.
Figure 3The rationality analysis of the existing RCFs. (a) The number of beds per 100 elderly people in each population center; (b) the gaps between the service scales and the demands on RCFs; (c) the comparison of the existing with optimal locations of RCFs.
Figure 4Results obtained by preliminary optimization in step 1. (a) The RCFs needed to be optimized; (b) the locations of population centers whose demands are met and unmet after preliminary optimization.
The comparison of objective function values for different numbers of RCFs.
| The Number of RCFs | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.6722 | 0.6323 | 0.6012 | 0.6283 | 0.6501 | 0.6766 | 0.7149 | 0.7364 | 0.7626 | 0.7943 | 0.8243 |
Figure 5The locations of newly-added RCFs and their service relationship with population centers.
The numbers of beds in newly-added RCFs.
| RCF No. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 285 | 181 | 257 | 247 | 143 | 80 |
Comparison of optimized results with the current situation.
| Objectives | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Current Situation | Optimized Scheme | Optimization Rate | |
| Equity | 56.2886 | 17.2883 | 64.23% |
| Efficiency (%) | — | 84.24 | 84.24% |
| Travel cost (m/person) | 544.9192 | 389.4611 | 18.53% |
| Profits of investor (RMB/month/RCF) | 111,785 | 145,120 | 29.82% |
| Gini coefficient | 0.5563 | 0.1225 | 77.98% |
| Max travel distance to nearest RCF (m) | 2150 | 1374 | 36.09% |
| Average travel distance to nearest RCF (m) | 526 | 373 | 29.09% |
| The average number of beds available within one-hour service radius (beds/person) | 1.5624 | 3.3986 | 117.52% |
Figure 6Analysis of optimization results. If there are multiple panels, they should be listed as: (a) Ratio of accessibility and the average value; (b) ratio of per capita travel costs before and after optimization.
Comparison of optimization results obtained by different algorithms.
| Objectives | Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA | PSO | IA | MIA | |
| Equity (number of beds/person)2 | 19.6840 | 20.5275 | 18.2745 | 17.2883 |
| Efficiency (%) | 82.41 | 83.14 | 83.67 | 84.24 |
| Travel cost (m/person) | 408.4216 | 424.4999 | 411.8927 | 389.4611 |
| Profits of investor (RMB/ month) | 141,970 | 138,940 | 145,120 | 145,120 |
| Comprehensive objective value | 0.7323 | 0.8064 | 0.6401 | 0.6012 |
| Number of iterations | 650 | 680 | 700 | 480 |