Table 1 Summary of strengths and weaknesses of the RRMA, ARIA and ASGC Remoteness classifications
From: Geographical classifications to guide rural health policy in Australia
| Classification | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| RRMA | • RRMA is a simple tool to apply both for research and administration purposes, including the allocation of health resources. | • The restriction to SLA boundaries, resulting in large, heterogeneous areas being equally classified. |
| • Due to the strong influence of population size, RRMA often equally classifies towns of similar size (intuitive). | • The use of straight-line distances and SLA centroids, which can result in highly imprecise measures. | |
| • The use of three zones (metropolitan, rural and remote) is reasonably logical. | • The use of population density is meaningless because of the varying size and nature of SLA boundaries. | |
| • RRMA is preferred by many national organisations over ASGC Remoteness | • RRMA has never been updated and still uses 1991 population counts. | |
| ARIA | • The flexibility to measure remoteness at any geographic boundary level by using a one kilometre grid. | • Only measures geographical remoteness, giving many examples of highly dissimilar towns having the same classification (e.g. Port Macquarie and Gundagai). |
| • The additional precision from using road distances and service town locations, rather than straight line distances and SLA centroids. | • The separation of the five remoteness categories is somewhat subjective. | |
| • The clearer conceptualisation of measuring only geographical remoteness of localities (e.g. not muddied by also measuring density). | • Penalises smaller, more densely populated states (e.g. over 75% of rural Victoria's population is defined as 'highly accessible'. | |
| • Use of the category label 'accessible' and the term 'accessibility' within its name (it is not a measure of access) | ||
| ASGC-RA | • All points listed under ARIA, plus: | • All points listed under ARIA (except the last point), plus: |
| • More refined methodology (additional service centre category, better separation of major cities) | • Extreme heterogeneity within some areas, especially Inner Regional and sometimes Outer Regional | |
| • A change of labels including the use of 'regional' rather than 'accessible' | ||
| • Updated by ABS as part of the ASGC |
