Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 403–419 | Cite as

Boundaries, links and clusters: a new paradigm in spatial analysis?

  • Geoff M. Jacquez
  • Andy Kaufmann
  • Pierre Goovaerts


This paper develops and applies new techniques for the simultaneous detection of boundaries and clusters within a probabilistic framework. The new statistic “little b” (written b ij) evaluates boundaries between adjacent areas with different values, as well as links between adjacent areas with similar values. Clusters of high values (hotspots) and low values (coldspots) are then constructed by joining areas abutting locations that are significantly high (e.g., an unusually high disease rate) and that are connected through a “link” such that the values in the adjoining areas are not significantly different. Two techniques are proposed and evaluated for accomplishing cluster construction: “big B” and the “ladder” approach. We compare the statistical power and empirical Type I and Type II error of these approaches to those of wombling and the local Moran test. Significance may be evaluated using distribution theory based on the product of two continuous (e.g., non-discrete) variables. We also provide a “distribution free” algorithm based on resampling of the observed values. The methods are applied to simulated data for which the locations of boundaries and clusters is known, and compared and contrasted with clusters found using the local Moran statistic and with polygon Womble boundaries. The little b approach to boundary detection is comparable to polygon wombling in terms of Type I error, Type II error and empirical statistical power. For cluster detection, both the big B and ladder approaches have lower Type I and Type II error and are more powerful than the local Moran statistic. The new methods are not constrained to find clusters of a pre-specified shape, such as circles, ellipses and donuts, and yield a more accurate description of geographic variation than alternative cluster tests that presuppose a specific cluster shape. We recommend these techniques over existing cluster and boundary detection methods that do not provide such a comprehensive description of spatial pattern.


Boundary analysis Cluster detection Local Moran Wombling Statistical power 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aroian LA (1947). The probability function of a product of two normally distributed variables. Ann Math Stat 18: 265–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besag J and Newell J (1991). The detection of clusters in rare diseases. J Roy Stat Soc Ser A 154: 143–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craig CC (1936). On the frequency function of xy. Ann Math Stat 7: 1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csillag C, Boots B, Fortin M-J, Lowell K and Potvin F (2001). Multiscale charaterization of boundaries and landscape ecological patterns. Geomatica 55: 291–307 Google Scholar
  5. Glen AG, Leemis LM and Drew JH (2004). Computing the distribution of the product of two continuous random variables. Comput Stat Data Anal 44: 451–464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goovaerts P and Jacquez GM (2004). Accounting for regional background and population size in the detection of spatial clusters and outliers using geostatistical filtering and spatial neutral models: the case of lung cancer in Long Island, New York. Int J Health Geogr 3: 14 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greiling DA, Jacquez GM, Kaufmann AM and Rommel RG (2005). Space time visualization and analysis in the Cancer Atlas Viewer. J Geogr Syst 7: 67–84 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacquez GM (2004). Current practices in the spatial analysis of cancer: flies in the ointment. Int J Health Geogr 3: 22 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacquez GM and Greiling DA (2003a). Geographic boundaries in breast, lung and colorectal cancers in relation to exposure to air toxics in Long Island, New York. Int J Health Geogr 2: 4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacquez GM and Greiling DA (2003b). Local clustering in breast, lung and colorectal cancer in Long Island, New York. Int J Health Geogr 2: 3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacquez GM, Waller LA, Grimson R and Wartenberg D (1996). The analysis of disease clusters, Part I: state of the art. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 17: 319–327 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacquez GM, Maruca SL and Fortin MJ (2000). From fields to objects: a review of geographic boundary analysis. J Geogr Syst 2: 221–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kulldorff M, Heffernan R, Hartman J, Assuncao R and Mostashari F (2005). A space-time permutation scan statistic for disease outbreak detection. PLoS Med 2: e59 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kulldorff M, Huang L, Pickle L and Duczmal L (2006). An elliptic spatial scan statistic. Stat Med 25(22): 3929–3943 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lu H and Carlin BP (2005). Bayesian areal wombling for geographical boundary analysis. Geogr Anal 37(3): 265–285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maruca SL and Jacquez GM (2002). Area-based tests for association between spatial patterns. J Geogr Syst 4: 69–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ord J and Getis A (1995). Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distributional issues and an application. Geogr Anal 27: 286–306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Patil GP, Modarres R, Myers WL and Patankar AP (2006). Spatially constrained clustering and upper level set scan hotspot detection in surveillance geoinformatics. Environ Ecol Stat 13(4): 365–377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rohatgi VK (1976). An introduction to probability theory and mathematical statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York Google Scholar
  20. Tango T. (2007). A class of multiplicity-adjusted tests for spatial clustering based on case-control point data. Biometrics. 63: 119–127 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tango T and Takahashi K (2005). A flexibly shaped spatial scan statistic for detecting clusters. Int J Health Geogr 4: 11 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ware B, Ladd F (2003) Approximating the distribution for sums of products of normal variables. University of Canterbury Mathematics and Statistics DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  23. Womble WH (1951). Differential systematics. Science 114: 315–322 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoff M. Jacquez
    • 1
  • Andy Kaufmann
    • 1
  • Pierre Goovaerts
    • 1
  1. 1.BioMedwareAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations