Skip to main content

Geospatial Analysis Requires a Different Way of Thinking: The Problem of Spatial Heterogeneity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trends in Spatial Analysis and Modelling

Part of the book series: Geotechnologies and the Environment ((GEOTECH,volume 19))

Abstract

Geospatial analysis is very much dominated by a Gaussian way of thinking, which assumes that things in the world can be characterized by a well-defined mean, i.e., things are more or less similar in size. However, this assumption is not always valid. In fact, many things in the world lack a well-defined mean, and therefore there are far more small things than large ones. This paper attempts to argue that geospatial analysis requires a different way of thinking – a Paretian way of thinking that underlies skewed distribution such as power laws, Pareto and lognormal distributions. I review two properties of spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity, and point out that the notion of spatial heterogeneity in current spatial statistics is only used to characterize local variance of spatial dependence or regression. I subsequently argue for a broad perspective on spatial heterogeneity, and suggest it be formulated as a scaling law. I further discuss the implications of Paretian thinking and the scaling law for better understanding geographic forms and processes, in particular while facing massive amounts of social media data. In the spirit of Paretian thinking, geospatial analysis should seek to simulate geographic events and phenomena from the bottom up rather than correlations as guided by Gaussian thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson C (2006) The Long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more. Hyperion, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (1989) What is special about spatial data: alternative perspectives on spatial data analysis. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geogr Anal 27:93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak P (1996) How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A (2010) Bursts: the hidden pattern behind everything we do. Dutton Adult, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batty M, Longley P (1994) Fractal cities: a geometry of form and function. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Batty M, Carvalho R, Hudson-Smith A, Milton R, Smith D, Steadman P (2008) Scaling and allometry in the building geometries of Greater London. Eur Phys J B 63:303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benguigui L, Czamanski D (2004) Simulation analysis of the fractality of cities. Geogr Anal 36(1):69–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld-Lieberthal E, Portugali J (2010) Network cities: a complexity-network approach to urban dynamics and development. In: Jiang B, Yao X (eds) Geospatial analysis of urban structure and dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner JT (2006) Why size matters: from bacteria to blue whales. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockmann D, Hufnage L, Geisel T (2006) The scaling laws of human travel. Nature 439:462–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho R, Penn A (2004) Scaling and universality in the micro-structure of urban space. Phys A 332:539–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y (2009) Spatial interaction creates period-doubling bifurcation and chaos of urbanization. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 42(3):1316–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51:661–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff AD, Ord JK (1969) The problem of spatial autocorrelation. In: Scott AJ (ed) London papers in regional science. Pion, London, pp 25–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996) Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24:189–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez M, Hidalgo CA, Barabási A-L (2008) Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453:779–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild M (2004) The validity and usefulness of laws in geographic information science and geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94(2):300–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild MF, Mark DM (1987) The fractal nature of geographic phenomena. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77(2):265–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith DA (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guimerà R, Mossa S, Turtschi A, Amaral LAN (2005) The worldwide air transportation network: anomalous centrality, community structure, and cities’ global roles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(22):7794–7799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hack J (1957) Studies of longitudinal stream profiles in Virginia and Maryland. US Geol Surv Prof Pap:294-B

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton RE (1945) Erosional development of streams and their drainage basins: hydrological approach to quantitative morphology. Bull Geogr Soc Am 56:275–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks GF (1967) The data model concept in statistical mapping. Int Yearb Cartogr 7:186–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B (2009) Street hierarchies: a minority of streets account for a majority of traffic flow. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 23(8):1033–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B (2013a) Head/tail breaks: a new classification scheme for data with a heavy-tailed distribution. Prof Geogr 65(3):482–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B (2013b) The image of the city out of the underlying scaling of city artifacts or locations. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 103(6):1552–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B (2015) Geospatial analysis requires a different way of thinking: the problem of spatial heterogeneity. GeoJournal 80(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Brandt A (2016) A fractal perspective on scale in geography. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 5(6):95. doi:10.3390/ijgi5060095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Jia T (2011) Zipf’s law for all the natural cities in the United States: a geospatial perspective. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25(8):1269–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Liu X (2012) Scaling of geographic space from the perspective of city and field blocks and using volunteered geographic information. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26(2):215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Miao Y (2015) The evolution of natural cities from the perspective of location-based social media. Prof Geogr 67(2):295–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Yin J (2014) Ht-index for quantifying the fractal or scaling structure of geographic features. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 104(3):530–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang B, Yin J, Zhao S (2009) Characterizing human mobility patterns in a large street network. Phys Rev E 80:021136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch R (1999) The 80/20 principle: the secret to achieving more with less. Crown Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman P (1996) The self-organizing economy. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakidou V, Michalakelis C, Varoutas D (2011) Applying Zipf’s power law over population density and growth as network deployment indicator. J Serv Sci Manag 4:132–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Lämmer S, Gehlsen B, Helbing D (2006) Scaling laws in the spatial structure of urban road networks. Phys A 363(1):89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y (2013) A comparison study on natural and head/tail breaks involving digital elevation models. Bachelor thesis at University of Gävle, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot B (1967) How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156(3775):636–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot BB, Hudson RL (2004) The (mis)behavior of markets: a fractal view of risk, ruin and reward. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maritan A, Rinaldo A, Rigon R, Giacometti A, Rodríguez-Iturbe I (1996) Scaling laws for river networks. Phys Rev E E53:1510–1515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schonberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey B, Andriani P (2005) Why Gaussian statistics are mostly wrong for strategic organization. Strateg Organ 3(2):219–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Montello DR (2001) Scale in geography. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes (eds) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 13501–13504

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (2011) Resource letter CS-1: complex systems. Am J Phys 79:800–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pareto V (1897) Cours d’économie politique. Rouge, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier JD (1999) Self-organization and scaling relationships of evolving river networks. J Geophys Res 104:7359–7375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pumain D (2006) Hierarchy in natural and social sciences. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salingaros NA, West BJ (1999) A universal rule for the distribution of sizes. Environ Plan B Plan Des 26:909–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer JA, Mahoney AP (2003) Spatial and temporal scaling of population density and animal movement: a power law approach. Ecoscience 10(4):496–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder M (1991) Chaos, fractals, power laws: minutes from an infinite paradise. Freeman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb NN (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Allen Lane, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler W (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Li H (2006) Concepts of scale and scaling. In: Wu J, Jones KB, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principles of least effort. Addison Wesley, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter is a reprint of original paper by Jiang (2015) with the permission of the publisher. The author would like to thank the anonymous referees and the editor Daniel Z. Sui for their valuable comments. However, any shortcoming remains the responsibility of the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bin Jiang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jiang, B. (2018). Geospatial Analysis Requires a Different Way of Thinking: The Problem of Spatial Heterogeneity. In: Behnisch, M., Meinel, G. (eds) Trends in Spatial Analysis and Modelling. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52522-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics