Abstract
AbstractAcknowledging a paucity of emerging research, and some variation by sub‐field, the geographical measures of exposure used in health and medical geography have largely stagnated often focusing on residence‐based (‘static’) conceptualisations to define an individuals mobility or exposure. Detailed spatiotemporal data, such as smartphone data, allow richer understandings of the influence of the environment, or more broadly of place, on individual health outcomes and behaviours. However, while researchers are increasingly aware of such ‘dynamic’ definitions of place these are seldom employed in empirical evidence. Moreover, there may be differences in mobility by population groups which has not to our knowledge been examined fully. The main aim of this article is to provide a critical review of progress in the conceptualisation of location in health‐related geospatial research to understand the evolution of key concepts and to provoke the reader into considering the utility of a (more) dynamic health geography. We explore the origins of time geography, activity spaces, before moving to recent developments in the area of the exposome and the linked dynamic conceptualisations of exposure in health geography. To illuminate and operationalise findings from our review for readers, we provide a small case study to demonstrate how ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ approaches differ. Moreover, we consider why understanding heterogeneity in mobility could be particularly salient in the field of health geography, and to the discipline of geography more broadly. To conclude, we help readers understand the practical considerations of data privacy, the process of data collection, data processing, and interpretation, and dissemination of findings to offer practical assistance for those who are grappling with ‘dynamic’ definitions of mobility and conceptualisations of exposure.
Highlights
The study of how place influences health is well established (Curtis & Rees Jones, 1998; Pearce et al, 2006; Rundle et al, 2016; Xu & Wang, 2015)
It could be argued that methods in health geography have stagnated (Hobbs & Atlas, 2019) with measures often focusing on residence based conceptualisations (‘static’), such as home address, to define an individual's mobility or exposure (Campbell et al, 2013, 2014; Cummins, 2007; Macintyre et al, 2002; Rosenberg, 2016a; Tobias & Cheung, 2003)
Life course epidemiology has long recognized the role of time in long‐term exposure effects, and that different exposures operate over people's lives and their residential history (Helbich, 2018)
Summary
The study of how place influences health is well established (Curtis & Rees Jones, 1998; Pearce et al, 2006; Rundle et al, 2016; Xu & Wang, 2015). Data on a sample day, for all three individuals at fine spatio‐temporal scales (i.e. daily, every 10 min, and every 200 meters) was used to quantify the extent of the differences in estimated environmental exposure (air quality) between static and dynamic approaches. In order to quantify the range of individual movement ‘away’ from home, we proposed a metric that reported the time spent more than 100 meters from the home address as ‘away’ from home This allowed us to adjust for most of the inaccuracy in the GPS data collected and capture actual incidents of mobility linked to the potential differences in estimated exposure whilst preserving confidentiality. In other words, ‘dynamic’ (non‐residential) exposure and mobility are closely linked
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
