Advertisement

The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP)

  • David W. S. Wong

Abstract

Even though Gehlke and Biehl (1934) discovered certain aspects of the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP), the term MAUP was not coined formally until Openshaw and Taylor (1979) evaluated systematically the variability of correlation values when different boundaries systems were used in the analysis. The problem is called “the modifiable areal unit” because the boundaries of many geographical units are often demarcated artificially, and thus can be changed. For example, administrative boundaries, political districts, and census enumeration units are all subject to be redrawn. When data are gathered according to different boundary definitions, different data sets are generated. Analyzing these data sets will likely provide inconsistent results. This is the essence of the MAUP.

Keywords

Census Tract Block Group Areal Unit Modifiable Areal Unit Problem Zonal System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Fisher, P. F. and M. Langford, 1995. Modelling the Errors in Areal Interpolation Between Zonal Systems by Monte Carlo Simulation. Environment and Planning A 27 (2): 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fotheringham, A. S. 1989. Scale-independent Spatial Analysis. In M. F. Goodchild and S. Gopal, eds. Accuracy of Spatial Databases, 221–228. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Fotheringham, A. S. and D. W. S. Wong, 1991. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Environment and Planning A 23: 1025–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gehlke, C. E., and K. Biehl, 1934. Certain Effects of Grouping Upon the Size of the Correlation Coefficient in Census Tract Material. Journal of the American Statistical Association Supplement 29: 169–170.Google Scholar
  5. King, G. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Openshaw, S. and P. J. Taylor, 1979. A Million or so Correlation Coefficients: Three Experiments on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. In N. Wrigley, ed. Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences, 127–144. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  7. Quattrochi, D. A. and M. F. Goodchild. eds. 1997. Scale in Remote Sensing and GIS. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  8. Tate, N. J. and P. M. Atkinson, eds. 2001. Modelling Scale in Geographical Information Science. West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Tobler, W. 1989. Frame Independent Spatial Analysis. In M. F. Goodchild and S. Gopal, eds. Accuracy of Spatial Databases, 115–122. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Wong, D. W. S. 2001. Location-Specific Cumulative Distribution Function (LSCDF): An Alternative to Spatial Correlation Analysis. Geographical Analysis 33(1): 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. S. Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations