Geographically Weighted Regression

  • David C. WheelerEmail author
Living reference work entry


Geographically weighted regression (GWR) was proposed in the geography literature to allow relationships in a regression model to vary over space. In contrast to traditional linear regression models, which have constant regression coefficients over space, regression coefficients are estimated locally at spatially referenced data points with GWR. The motivation for the introduction of GWR is the idea that a set of constant regression coefficients cannot adequately capture spatially varying relationships between covariates and an outcome variable. GWR is based on the appealing idea from locally weighted regression of estimating local models for curve fitting using subsets of observations centered on a focal point. GWR has been applied widely in diverse fields, such as ecology, forestry, geography, and regional science. At the same time, published work from several researchers has identified methodological issues and concerns with GWR and has questioned the application of the method for inferential analysis. One of the concerns with GWR is the strong correlation in estimated coefficients for multivariate regression terms, which makes interpretation of map patterns for individual terms problematic. The evidence in the literature suggests that GWR is a relatively simple and effective tool for spatial interpolation of an outcome variable and a more problematic tool for inferring spatial processes in regression coefficients. The more complex approach of Bayesian spatially varying coefficient models has been demonstrated to better capture spatial nonstationarity in regression coefficients than GWR and is recommended as an alternative for inferential analysis.


Spatial nonstationarity Spatially varying relationships Local regression Spatial interpolation 


  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petran B, Csaaki F (eds) International symposium on information theory. Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee S, Carlin BP, Gelfand AE (2004) Hierarchical modeling and analysis for spatial data. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Belsley DA (1991) Conditioning diagnostics: collinearity and weak data in regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr Anal 28(4):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrico C, Gennings C, Wheeler DC, Factor-Litvak P (2015) Characterization of a weighted quantile sum regression for highly correlated data in a risk analysis setting. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 20(1):100–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83:596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colt JS, Severson RK, Lubin L, Rothman N, Camann D, Davis S, Cerhan JR, Cozen W, Hartge P (2005) Organochlorines in carpet dust and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology 16(4):516–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colt JS, Davis S, Severson RK, Lynch CF, Cozen W, Camann D, Engels EA, Blair A, Hartge P (2006) Residential insecticide use and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 15(2):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Congdon PD (2010) Applied Bayesian hierarchical methods. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czarnota J, Wheeler DC, Gennings C (2015) Evaluating geographically weighted regression models for environmental chemical risk analysis. Cancer Informat 14(Suppl 2):117–127Google Scholar
  11. Datta A, Banerjee S, Finley AO, Gelfand AE (2016) Hierarchical nearest-neighbor Gaussian process models for large geostatistical datasets. J Am Stat Assoc 111:800–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farber S, Páez A (2007) A systematic investigation of cross-validation in GWR model estimation: empirical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations. J Geogr Syst 9(4):371–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finley AO (2011) Comparing spatially-varying coefficients models for analysis of ecological data with non-stationary and anisotropic residual dependence. Methods Ecol Evol 2:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith D (2008) Spatial filtering-based contributions to a critique of geographically weighted regression (GWR). Environ Plann A 40:2751–2769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leung Y, Mei CL, Zhang WX (2000a) Statistical tests for spatial nonstationarity based on the geographically weighted regression model. Environ Plan A 32(1):9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leung Y, Mei CL, Zhang WX (2000b) Testing for spatial autocorrelation among the residuals of the geographically weighted regression. Environ Plan A 32(5):871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu B, Brunsdon C, Charlton M, Harris P (2017) Geographically weighted regression with parameter-specific distance metrics. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 31(5):982–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu B, Yang W, Ge Y, Harris P (2018) Improvements to the calibration of a geographically weighted regression with parameter-specific distance metrics and bandwidths. Comput Environ Urban Syst 71:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Páez A, Uchida T, Miyamoto K (2002) A general framework for estimation and inference of geographically weighted regression models: 2. Spatial association and model specification tests. Environ Plan A 34(5):883–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Páez A, Long F, Farber S (2008) Moving window approaches for hedonic price estimation: an empirical comparison of modelling techniques. Urban Stud 45(8):1565–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waller L, Zhu L, Gotway C, Gorman D, Gruenewald P (2007) Quantifying geographic variations in associations between alcohol distribution and violence: a comparison of geographically weighted regression and spatially varying coefficient models. Stoch Env Res Risk A 21(5):573–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wheeler DC (2007) Diagnostic tools and a remedial method for collinearity in geographically weighted regression. Environ Plan A 39(10):2464–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wheeler DC (2009) Simultaneous coefficient penalization and model selection in geo-graphically weighted regression: the geographically weighted lasso. Environ Plan A 41:722–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wheeler DC, Calder C (2007) An assessment of coefficient accuracy in linear regression models with spatially varying coefficients. J Geogr Syst 9(2):145–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wheeler DC, Tiefelsdorf M (2005) Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. J Geogr Syst 7:161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wheeler DC, Waller L (2009) Comparing spatially varying coefficient models: a case study examining violent crime rates and their relationships to alcohol outlets and illegal drug arrests. J Geogr Syst 11(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wheeler DC, De Roos AJ, Cerhan JR, Morton LM, Severson RK, Cozen W, Ward MH (2011) Spatial-temporal cluster analysis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the NCI-SEER NHL Study. Environ Health 10:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood S (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang W (2014) An extension of geographically weighted regression with flexible bandwidths. PhD thesis. University of St AndrewsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiostatisticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations