Search or ask a question
Pricing
Login
Sign up
Home
Notebook
BETA
Profile
Citation booster
Literature Review
Copilot
Citation generator
Paraphraser
AI Detector
Chrome Extension
Talk with us
Use on ChatGPT
All figures (10)
Figure 5: BA plots showing the difference in values between the CHALICE density method and Outlets per 1000 population, Outlets per KM2 and KDE. Stratified by Rural (n=321) Urban (n=1238) classification
Figure 6: BA plots showing the difference in values between the CHALICE density method and: Outlets per 1000 population, Outlets per KM2 and KDE. Stratified by Least Deprived (n=758) and Most Deprived (n=759) using the WIMD.
Table 1: Framework scores for five AOD methods. The CHALICE ethod CHALICE Density ; the CHALICE methodology using a populatio weighted e troid as the a ess easure poi t CHALICE (PWC) , Kernel density estimates ( KDE ); Outlet counts per 1000 LSOA populatio Outlets per 1000 ); Outlet counts per geographi al area Outlets per km2 ).
Figure 3: Density scores stratified by deprivation.
Figure 2: Density scores stratified by rural urban classification.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for five measures of AOD at LSOA-level (n=1896).
Table 3: Descriptive statistics for five measures of AOD at LSOA-level. Urban-Rural Split LSOA s Ur a U = 8, ‘ural ‘ =
Figure 1: CHALICE method conceptual framework
Figure 7: Population location estimates using PWC resulting in null values for density calculations
Figure 4: BA plots showing the difference in values between the CHALICE density method and Outlets per 1000 population, Outlets per km2 and KDE.
Journal Article
•
DOI
•
A best practice framework to measure spatial variation in alcohol availability
[...]
Richard Fry
1
,
Scott Orford
2
,
Sarah Rodgers
1
,
Jennifer Morgan
2
,
David Lawrence Fone
2
- Show less
+1 more
•
Institutions (2)
Swansea University
1
,
Cardiff University
2
01 Mar 2020
-