Journal of Criminal Justice Education

ISSN: 1051-1253 (Print) 1745-9117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

How Exactly Does Place Matter in Crime Analysis?
Place, Space, and Spatial Heterogeneity
Carlos J. Vilalta
To cite this article: Carlos J. Vilalta (2013) How Exactly Does Place Matter in Crime Analysis?
Place, Space, and Spatial Heterogeneity, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24:3, 290-315,
DOI: 10.1080/10511253.2012.715659
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.715659

Published online: 21 Aug 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 270

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcje20
Download by: [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C.]

Date: 21 October 2015, At: 19:12

JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION, 2013
Vol. 24, No. 3, 290–315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.715659

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C.] at 19:12 21 October 2015

How Exactly Does Place Matter in Crime
Analysis? Place, Space, and Spatial
Heterogeneity
Carlos J. Vilalta

This article has four aims. First is to clarify the origins and different meanings
of place, space, and other basic concepts in spatial analysis. The second aim
is to reiterate the illogicality of the spatial homogeneity assumption in ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. An illustration of the comparison between
traditional OLS and geographically weighted regression modeling is included
for this purpose. The third aim is to explain that place matters in crime analysis not only when crime data are spatially clustered, but when relationships
between correlates are found to be conditional upon place. The final aim is to
convince criminology and criminal justice faculty to begin discussing the
inclusion of spatial modeling as a compulsory topic in the curriculum.

Introduction
In 2005, an article was published on how to teach spatial dependence in a
cost-effective manner (i.e. without Geographical Information Systems [GIS]
software).1 The main argument in that article was that the teaching of spatial
autocorrelation in traditional statistics courses has become more and more
necessary over time. Today, this argument is taken one step further by emphasizing the convenience of including the teaching of spatial heterogeneity as
well. Spatial heterogeneity refers to the variation in relationships across space
(O’Loughlin & Anselin, 1992). Its teaching is important due to the crucial theoretical and methodological implications it carries. Briefly put, substantive spatial heterogeneity demonstrates that place matters.
Two articles in this journal have already introduced the topics of spatial
dependence and spatial heterogeneity (Althausen & Mieczkowski, 2001; Fornango, 2010). However, these articles do not deal at great length with the theoretical and methodological implications of the latter. No article was found in
1. See Vilalta (2005).

Ó 2012 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Third. Another frequent confusion. The objective of this section is to clarify the confusion surrounding these concepts and others by means of definitions and examples. A. A common confusion is to mistake place for space. One section summing up all the concepts discussed is included at the end of the article. one analytical method for testing spatial heterogeneity. that is. Both spaces and places are . Definitional Necessities: Place and Space in Crime Analysis Defining usually means reducing a concept to other concepts (Reichenbach. However. we have seen a strengthening in the teaching of GIS and spatial statistics at all university levels in different countries. In the past years. the precise meaning of “spatial effect” and the theoretical and methodological implications of spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity are explained. The article is divided as follows. 1958).] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 291 this journal either using geographically weighted regression (GWR) analysis in spite of its growing popularity. in an attempt to ensure quality and relevance. Location is the position in space (i.C. is the failure to distinguish between spatial and a-spatial data with all the implications this carries. this article lays out the background from where the teaching of spatial heterogeneity begins. An illustration is included to show how GWR. some fundamental misunderstandings can be seen time and again in the field of crime analysis. material form. we have the obligation to prepare students for a world in which the knowing of spatial statistics is not anymore a competitive advantage but a practical need. Let us carefully explain these elements. The latitude is the geographic coordinate of the northsouth position and the longitude is the geographic coordinate of the eastwest position. places are perceptibly unique in three elements: location. the where of something). This method is called GWR analysis. This illustration is theoretically simple yet sufficient as its purpose is to introduce the topic of spatial heterogeneity and the GWR technique in the most accessible terms. 2000). and meaning and value (Gieryn. is used to provide evidence of spatial heterogeneity. in comparison to ordinary least squares regression analysis (OLS). As such. Place is the distinction between here and there (Gieryn. Second. Very often it escapes scientific inquiry. that is. by saying that the inclusion of spatial statistics topics in regular statistics courses is necessary. possibly more basic for data analysts. More and more. In this respect. Taking this as a point of departure. The location is fundamental in spatial analysis as it is used for organizing human behavioral data.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. if place matters. This introduction finishes in the same way it started. scientific journals contain articles based on spatial statistical methods. First. the origins and meanings of several concepts in spatial analysis are clarified. 2000). because it is so perceptibly present to all. Location on a map is given by the latitude and longitude. is presented.e.

yet their residents may not think and behave the same.e.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 292 VILALTA referenced. It is circumstantial. it must be emphasized that places are unique not only due to their demographic and socioeconomic composition. as any other social process. A place can be a street. by their longitude and latitude. cities and neighborhoods illustrate the long-lasting effects of the ideologies. These past choices become. and means. There are other definitions of location as a site or toponym. a place is a state of mind. first of all. Interestingly enough. Classical Greek had no word for space (Elden. the absolute space). and the (often unpredictable) behaviors of the people living within them. 1994. 2000). Places represent a meaningful location (Agnew. These choices accumulate over time providing places with an identity. cultural tastes. In classical Latin.C. Habraken (1998) makes this statement in reference to social processes. Metropolitan areas in their case. design trends. A. 2010). basically vote buying and vote coercion. Spaces have 2. norms. and even moods of their residents over time. such as streets and corners. 6. and so on. Criminal activity. 2010) or tract. In this sense. 5. p. 4. emotions. . which noticeably differ from one place to another. Places have a material existence either as built or natural environments. a park.3 However. a city. they are mutually dependent as places require spaces in which to be. in time. In this sense. Likewise. or circumference. as places are “networks of social relations” (Massey. However. in ancient Rome. The essence of human behavior is shown in their biographies and places are biographical representations. not concrete. networks vary from one place to another. 1987).5 Places mutually organize and represent our emotional lives. They also have an emotional existence. Place and space are not the same. which are in part consequences of accumulated past events or local histories of choices. patterns of socialization. happens through the material forms that we build and assemble (Habraken. but because of the practices. 3. ambitus was also the term given to a crime of political corruption.2 Location gives the where of what and crime always has a location. so much that different places may have the same demographic and socioeconomic composition. 120).4 People in places influence other people’s behavior. attitudes.6 In the most absolute and simple terms.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. space is anything with an area and volume (i. a neighborhood. A material form is anything with a physical representation. spatium is synonym to ambitus in the sense that it means extent (Elden. These three elements create the uniqueness of place. People in places create (and debate) their own beliefs. a corner. cited in Gieryn. the difference is ontological and not only semantic or a matter of perception. This is a mathematical definition of location. places are more than just a location with a physical representation. Strictly speaking. This is important to understand because social relations structure the mind and its processes. 1999). This is why it is argued that places exert transformative effects on their residents (Sauerzopf & Swanstrom. technologies. ideologies. 1998. For instance. a state.

the term spatial analysis is not misleading as it is indeed the study of “the patterns of points. p. . Another position is to think of space in relative or cognitive terms. Brunsdon.9 And since the methods of spatial analysis had its origin in physical geography and were later imported into human geography. 10. 1973. place and space may be considered synonyms. and polygons. namely. cited in Unwin.g. why are the methods of spatial analysis in crime analysis7 called as such instead of place-analysis methods? This is a matter of custom. 1992.). Humans relate to each other and the physical environment (Tuan. There is no sense of place in a census tract.8 When depth is added to length and width. where aspatial data have only attribute data. space can be understood in opposition to place: where places are objects of study. But they do not have cultural meaning or value attributes per se. spatial data 7. 18) In other words. Typical examples of spatial data in crime analysis are geographically aggregated data units such as census blocks and tracts. So. So if crime analysis is the study of crime in places. When depth is incorporated in polygons we enter the third dimension of things. Spatial data “consists of observations on geographical individuals which may only be interpreted satisfactorily when their locations have been taken into consideration” (O´Brien. area. it seems that it was Fisher the first to warn about the issue of spatial dependence (see p. 2002). Rose (1936. places are units of analysis and spaces are units of information. space can only be seen in three dimensions. and Brown (1967). McConnell. lines.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.10 The difference between the two is that the former is an application of aspatial traditional statistics to spatial data. then we move from plane to space perspective (three-dimensional). 90) was probably the first geographer “… to illustrate the possibilities of what may well be called statistical method in geography” by using linear correlation analysis. angles. quantitative geographic methods in human geography came much before spatial analysis methods. and only in this relative or relational sense. attending to the relational aspect of it. However. 1997). as in other areas of study. And in other disciplines in the social sciences. etc. lines. whereas the latter includes location as an attribute of the data. In this sense. areas and surfaces … defined by coordinates in a two or three-dimensional space” (Hagerstrand. p. & Charlton. spatial data represent behavior variation identifiable in a geographic coordinate system.C. historically speaking. Note that these are spaces not places. It should be added that.e. In absolute terms then. volume. The basic (two-dimensional) concepts of Euclidean geometry are points. This leads to the definition of spatial data. 9. 69. 73 in his 1937 book on the Design of Experiments). However.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 293 geometrical attributes (e. 1981). 8. For a wonderful account of the history of quantitative geography see Lavalle. In crime analysis. A. spatial analysis remained as the term in use. particularly Euclidean geometry. p. In Euclidean geometry. They are census bureau statistical subdivisions of a county (i. We have to remember that the basis of spatial analysis and spatial statistics is geometrical thinking. spatial data have both attribute and location data (Fotheringham. spaces are containers of that to be studied.

structures). As it was explained. As such. 12. the decision to merge place (neighborhood) with space (census tract) was purely methodological. The geography of crime is a geography of opportunity in which places may be seen as markets for crime (Wilcox.g. Place matters because it organizes the way we behave (Pred 1990.13 One possible reason is that both are often taught in a regression context. A. Both are often confounded with the concept of spatial effect. according to routine activities theory. substantively speaking. & Skubak-Tillyer.e. This is why place matters in crime analysis. For example see Anselin’s (1999). In this sense. Otherwise. Why does place matter in crime analysis? There is just one fundamental reason. From a “routine activities” perspective. A spatial effect. In that case. 1979). One last clarification is needed before we go on with the next section. 2007. Substantive in this case is understood as an effect unrelated to the compositional characteristics (e. crimes are indeed place unique in the sense that they happen due to the ill-timed combination of a motivated offender. Quisenberry.12 Again. 13. Let us proceed now with how place matters. crime is structured by situational factors. let us consider that the analysis of spatial data carries two fundamental theoretical and methodological implications: spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity (Anselin. How Does Place Matter? The Theoretical and Methodological Implications of Spatial Dependence and Heterogeneity We now know why place and space matter. & Jones. although they indeed warn the reader about the conceptual difference between neighborhoods and census tracts (see Footnote 4 in p. Firstly.C. Harrower. They understand markets for crime as “aggregate units”. Madensen. Spatial patterns sometimes may simply be a statistical nuisance resulting from a regression model suffering from oversimplifying assumptions. place is a key organizing concept for crime research. They are units of information rather than units of analysis. That is the place of crime. there are definite differences between places in terms of routine activities.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 294 VILALTA units) lacking any meaning to the individuals residing within their boundaries.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. places become units of analysis when they are understood as patterns of relationships (i. This is why crime variation across places is to a certain extent a function of the variation of crime opportunities. Let us explain this with an example. 2003). 780). 1999). & Edsall. we are rather dealing with a compositional effect which is translating into a statistical nuisance that must be controlled or suppressed. demographic and socioeconomic) of the resident population.11 In fact. In this sense. places either facilitate or impede crime from happening. cited in Flint.14 11. The role that situational factors play naturally varies from one place to another. a suitable target. a spatial effect is an outcome that can be linked to an action traceable to a specific place. and the lack of guardianship (Cohen & Felson. 14. 2000). Wilcox. must be substantive. . However. they merge place with spatial aggregate units of information such as census tracts. to be considered as such.

In this case. Fornango. as neighboring spatial data units carry duplicate sample information about the parameter. For example. 15. . 2001. measurements will neither reflect nor add variation on the phenomenon under study. then one place may predict what occurs in others. These spatial effects can happen simultaneously. it has also been demonstrated that social capital differences between neighborhoods helps explain neighborhood variations in crime (Bursik & Grasmick. 4). If data are spatially dependent.e. 1988). diffusion is never spatially random. 2000. spatial dependence and heterogeneity). 16. Sampson. Wilson.. 1993.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Sampson & Groves. and diffusion. heterogeneity.16 One important point to be made here is that neighboring places could not benefit from the spillover effects of social capital unless they had some capacity to absorb it. one community is having a (spatial) effect on crime rates. 2010). Spatial dependence may be tested via spatial autocorrelation analysis. in and around the place in which it resides. Spatial dependence exists when “the value of the dependent variable in one spatial unit of analysis is partially a function of the value of the same variable in neighboring units” (Flint et al. A. Spillover effects are the same as diffusion effects. One undesirable implication of positive spatial autocorrelation is that it significantly increases type I error rates due to an underestimation of the sample variance (Haining. variance underestimation also increases (Haining. and they can also be tested and measured. Spatial diffusion may be contagious o hierarchical. Negative spatial autocorrelation has the opposite effect: sampling variance is overestimated. emphasizing the importance of the latter. and operate either by relocation or expansion. This paper only deals with spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. As Clifford and Richardson (1985. p.15 The three may operate at the same time. Suffice will be to remind the reader that spatial autocorrelation may be positive or negative. That is.C. Typical measures of spatial autocorrelation are Moran’s I and Geary’s global and local autocorrelation coefficients. diffusion effects). Spatial autocorrelation techniques measure the degree of similarity of objects or activities across geographical units (Goodchild. Likewise. 1987). 1987. it has been demonstrated social capital is beneficial and variable over space and time (i.e. 1989. For more than 20 years. the effective sample size is smaller than the number of spatial data units that are sampled. 1990). It may even help explain crime variation in physically adjacent or nearby neighborhoods (i. Significant positive autocorrelation indicates a nonrandom clustering of values and significant negative autocorrelation indicates a nonrandom dispersion of values. These have already been addressed in this journal (Althausen & Mieczkowski. 2004). since positive spatial autocorrelation implies that neighboring places are alike. cited in Haining.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 295 There are three kinds of spatial effects: dependence. 2004) stated long time ago. As positive spatial autocorrelation increases.

Model misspecification occurs when relevant correlates have been either omitted from the model or modeled with an incorrect functional form. it is unrealistic to expect equivalent estimates from significantly different 17. Of course model misspecification is difficult to deal with as the analyst is actually investigating which correlates provide the best fit to the data. One example is the statistically significant relationship found between income per capita and murder crime rates in Canadian provinces that is illustrated later in this article. the relationship is much stronger than in other subsets. the true number of degrees of freedom necessary for testing statistical significance will be unknown. OLS residuals may be mapped in order to see which places fit the data better or worse. In this sense. spatial heterogeneity may be due to three different reasons (Fotheringham et al. . the statistical significance of an OLS regression model as judged by the F-values will be inaccurate. the only possible solutions are either to modify it or to choose a completely different model. 19. Spatial regimes exist as different sets of neighboring places or regions display different relationships between variables. 2002). this correspondingly serves as evidence of a spatial regime. but rather the result of a statistical nuisance. 1992). In other words.. is that as sampling statistics depend upon sampling variation.e. R2 goodness of fit measures will also be either inflated or deflated. 20. It implies the presence of distinctive and sometimes even divergent spaces or places. it is simply defined as the variation in relationships across space (O’Loughlin & Anselin. However. If. for example. If the researcher suspects that the model is misspecified. In one subset of Canadian provinces. spatial dependence will produce misleading confidence and prediction intervals. Another unwanted implication is that. whether substantive or not. Intervals will be either too wide or too narrow. then this might serve as evidence of a place effect (i. if the regression model is thought to be well specified18 and still the model cannot account for other types of spatiality in the data such as dependency and heterogeneity. as spatially dependent data units duplicate sampling information. In the same vein. 18. the spatial autocorrelation present in the residuals of a regression model is due to misspecification (Cliff & Ord. Most likely inflated as spatial dependence tends to be positive.17 This is why all types of spatial effects must be understood and accounted for on a constant basis.C. Model misspecification may create the “illusion” of as spatial effect. Two are purely methodological and one is theoretical. A. 1981) then we do not have evidence of a spatial effect.20 In this case.19 Passing now to the issue of spatial heterogeneity. Finally. this is evidence that place matters.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Nonfactual or unsubstantial spatial nonstationarity.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 296 VILALTA The most undesirable statistical implication of spatial dependence. At a minimum. One methodological reason is sampling variation again. which is above and beyond compositional variables. there is no evidence of violation of OLS assumptions. a substantive spatial effect). If spatial heterogeneity is substantive and subsets of relationships are geographically contiguous.

Data simply will not adequately fit the OLS model and significance tests will be deceptive. In terms of theory. Traditional statistical techniques like OLS regression cannot detect spatial heterogeneity as relationships are assumed to be spatially stationary (i. This. Factual spatial nonstationarity.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 297 Figure 1 Types and methodological causes and effects of spatiality. More precisely.C. OLS intercept and slope estimates will be biased. if spatial heterogeneity is present in the data-set. The reason is that local relationships will cancel each other out in the calculation of the global estimates. but near things are more related to each other” (Tobler. These are: (1) the model is linear in parameters and correctly specified. p. space independent).e. (5) expected values average to zero. Spatial heterogeneity does not seem to depend on sample size.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. (4) errors are independent. Substantive spatial heterogeneity means that behaviors are determined “not only by social position (structural effects) but by the socialization experienced within the context of a particular place” (Flint. and 6–8 may not be justified. But one assumption not well taught is spatial homogeneity. 22. Another methodological reason is model misspecification. (2) data are a random sample. this statistical nuisance is characterized by heteroskedasticity that is nonconstant error variance.21 In OLS regression analysis. 236). (6) residuals have constant variance. (7) errors are normally distributed. whether substantive or not. constitutes evidence that place matters (Figure 1). 1281). (3) correlates are independent from each other. 1998. Eight assumptions of OLS regression are well taught in criminology and criminal justice statistics courses. If spatial heterogeneity is present. assumptions 1. A. p. The third and final reason for spatial heterogeneity is substantive spatial variation in relationships. 1970. and (8) errors average to zero. 4. both substantive spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity prove Tobler’s first Law of Geography that “everything is related to everything else.22 This means that relationships are inherently different across space as a result of a place or local contextual effect. crime rates in one place may be higher because 21. . samples or subsets of spatial data. again. In other words.

). That is to say explanations may be different depending on place.23 Finally. spatial heterogeneity implies that policy interventions may bring different results in different places. they might be entirely the opposite). and attitudes towards the community. sometimes. It is often believed that best practices in one place will have.g. 24. etc. it still has methodological implications. substance abuse treatment. or the entire criminal justice system may not be only different in degree but also in kind (i.e. when analyzing the persistence of high levels of criminal activity in some places (i. the spatial homogeneity of policy effects conjecture. In this sense. In terms of public policy. if not the same. namely. is precisely the notion that place does not matter. the police. It is important to strengthen evidence-based research by incorporating new ways of thinking and understanding data. if spatial heterogeneity is found not to be substantive. Furthermore. the key in future crime analyzes may lie at the heart of cognitive research. it may be a spatial effect of (1) lack of synchronicity and/or (2) uneven funding in different areas of policy (e. policing. . rehabilitation courses. This notion is a conjecture. One valuable contribution would be a comparative study focusing on the spatiality of crime prevention policy outcomes. countries. best practices are just best guesses.). We must acknowledge that spatial homogeneity is hypothetical. A. mindsets. unless proven otherwise. the risk of ecological fallacy may be even higher when pieces of individual data are also available as the process of combining high level of analysis data with low level of analysis data may disguise other important spatial variations. cities. no comparative study has been produced to systematically test the validity of the assumption of spatial homogeneity of policy effects in criminology or criminal justice. endemic crime hotspots) if substantial spatial heterogeneity is found. or only some do. Still many practices and policies are exported for immediate “consumption” in different countries. I am not aware of a previous publication dealing with this issue. etc. at least similar positive effects everywhere elseeven across multiple levels of spatial analysis and governance (e. police sectors.C. But very often.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. One problem with replicating the so-called best practices in crime prevention in an international context.g.24 How to Test if Place Matters: Testing for Spatial Heterogeneity Using GWR The traditional OLS model is written as: k X y^ ¼ a þ b j xj þ e j¼1 23. neighborhoods. For example.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 298 VILALTA perceptions. To my knowledge. as causal mechanisms affecting the spatial distribution of crime would be actually found in the manner in which offenders and victims organize their perceptions and awareness of place. One step is to stop assuming that relationships among variables are the same across space.e.

A spatial kernel is both a measure of density and a method for density analysis.e. This is the conceptual difference between a weighted least squares estimation method and an OLS method. The GWR model extends the traditional OLS model by allowing parameters to vary across space (Fotheringham et al.26 Some places will be considered neighbors and assigned specific weights in the local probabilistic models.e. the goal of GWR is local estimation). Location is given by the geographic coordinates (i. constant rate of increase or decrease) across space or there is no relationship. The stochastics of the OLS model are plain: either the relationship is linear (i. In GWR. that is. The kernel density function calculates the density of a variable within a radius.e. 2003): 25. for k number of independent variables. and x is the observed value of the independent variable for the j observation. The GWR model is written as: y^i ¼ ai þ k X bi jxij þ ei ðj¼1Þ where notation is the same as above with the only difference that y^ is the predicted value of the dependent variable in location i and ij represents the observation on the independent variable j at location i. In a GWR context. A binary weighting function is defined by (Sikdar.e.e. GWR provides a probabilistic model for each location (i. Local parameters are the probability distribution characteristics utilized for estimating the constant and slopes per location. b is a coefficient representing the slope of the line. spatial kernels are used to define spatial neighbors and their weights. 2003).] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 299 where y^ is the predicted value of the dependent variable y. First. 26. spatially stationary). Parameters are spatially invariant. . A. a is the constant (i. This model assumes that observations in places are independent of each other (i. GWR analysis allows parameters to vary over space. latitude and longitude).. the point at which the line crosses the predicted values when x is equal to zero).25 GWR is run in several steps. A parameter is a statistical attribute of an entire population. The geographic centroid of an area is the optimal location in the sense that it represents the closest point to all its limits. This can be done as GWR incorporates spatial nonstationarity by using local parameters in opposition to global parameters (like OLS). A spatial kernel has shape and width (i. The choice of the weighting function or Kernel is central for estimation of local coefficients and to later investigate spatial variability (Sikdar.C. Kernel functions are used to estimate probability density functions of random variables. 2002). The location of an area is given by its geographic centroid or arithmetic mean center of the spatial data unit. kurtosis and variance). There are two different weighting functions: binary and continuous. weighting functions are called Kernel functions. In opposition to OLS regression. it is necessary to find an appropriate weighting function.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.e.

it means that an optimal fixed (Euclidean) distance will be applied to GWR. and r is the radius limit distance. if places are not regularly spaced (e. & Charlton. if the function is fixed. that is. rows and columns).. In traditional OLS. Fotheringham. 1998). A. The weighting function is written as (Fotheringham et al. GWR coefficients could change drastically as places move into or out of the area of influence around each place (Fotheringham. so that results will be unique to that place (Fotheringham et al. spatially clustered) as is normally the case. However.27 Naturally. then it might be better to allow the Kernel function to be adaptive in the number of neighbors. that is. all places have the same weight as if all places shared the same location (b = 0). like squares in a chessboard) then a kernel with a fixed distance bandwidth may be a suitable choice for modeling. This creates the problem of discontinuity in spatial analysis. it is assumed constant across space (Brunsdon. distance would be irrelevant for analysis. 2002). A binary scheme implies the notion that space is discrete or discontinuous. d is the Euclidean distance between both. If places are regularly spaced (e.29 Spatial kernels may have different shapes. 2009). this might not be the optimal. In contrast.300 VILALTA  Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. This is so because if distances among places were similar. then an optimal 27.e. In this way larger weights are given to closer places and smaller weights to farther places.. 28. . Notice that the distances are generally Euclidean distances when Cartesian coordinates are used (Charlton & Fotheringham. One example is when using raster data where data are organized into a grid (i. they may be fixed or adaptive. 2002).g. that is. for each place the data will be weighted differently.. and b is the bandwidth. this assumption is avoided in order to conform to Tobler’s first Law of Geography.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 wik 1 if dik\r 0 otherwise where dik represents the linear distance between ith and kth locations. places within each local space are given a weight of “1” and places outside the space are given a weight of “0” (Fotheringham et al. In GWR. 2009). Under a discrete or dichotomous definition of location. 1996). Briefly put. if space is considered continuous. Yet. If the function is adaptive. to increase its bandwidth when locations are sparser and decrease it when they are concentrated (Charlton & Fotheringham.g. It must be considered that the weighting function. 29.C. & Charlton. Note that a traditional OLS model is given when distance is 1 (d = 1). weights are calculated with a negative exponential continuous function of the square distance among geographic centroids. Brunsdon. once it is calibrated. 1998):28 ! dij2 wij ¼ exp  2 b where wij are the weights given between places i and j.

the trace is the sum of the diagonal elements of the smoothing matrix) which is defined by the following relation: y^i ¼ Sy ^ is defined by: and r sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P ^ 2 i ½yi  yi  ^ r¼ nh 30. greater smoothing) produce estimates with little spatial variation (Longley & Tobon.e. slighter smoothing) produce estimates with large local variation. The weight of each location will then be computed using the specified kernel.e. local estimates will increasingly depend on observations near to each regression point resulting in variance inflation. as the bandwidth becomes smaller. large bandwidths will result in highly biased and low variance local coefficient estimates. There are different methods or algorithms for choosing the bandwidth method or degree of smoothing of the model. The bandwidth is the size of the radius or distance between the center and the limit of the area of influence of each place.e. As such.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. In a regression context. small bandwidths (i. 2005). As the bandwidth is a measure of the distance decay effect in the weighting function. that is.C. 2004). & Charlton. 2009). 1996). 2000): ^Þ þ AICc ¼ 2n logða n þ TrðSÞ n þ 2  TrðSÞ where Tr(S) is the trace of the smoothing matrix S (i. In contrast. Each criterion is calculated in a partially different manner. that is. The logic behind this is the same as dealing with spatially autocorrelated data. Fotheringham. The AICc method is defined by (Brunsdon. Not to be confused with the AIC in OLS. In other words. meaning also a rapid distance decay function. whereas large bandwidths (i. larger bandwidths will make local coefficient estimates similar to OLS global estimates. the next step is to choose a bandwidth method. The choice of bandwidth is central as the bandwidth method dictates the degree of smoothing in the model.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 301 adaptive number of neighbors will be applied. the size of the bandwidth defines the amount of smoothing (Lentz. A. thus a “smoother” weighting scheme. and small bandwidths will result in the opposite. As such. It defines the area for which each local model will be calibrated. it has been reported that GWR results are more sensitive to the bandwidth of the weighting function than to the weighting function itself (Lentz. . A small bandwidth means a small area of influence. Simonoff. 2009. in local coefficient estimates with large variance and low bias. As said above. whereas a large bandwidth implies a larger area of influence. The two most frequent are the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc)30 and cross-validation (CV). the bandwidth can be also understood as the area of influence of each place (Mennis & Jordan.

A. This can be answered by focusing on the new evidence available. This method involves choosing the bandwidth for which the sum of squares attains a minimum.31 In any event. for any method. Notice that typically there are much fewer parameters to be estimated than spatial units or places in the data-set.e. meaning that other ways to contrast local models may be more appropriate. . the AICc method tends to be preferred over the CV method. Spatial heterogeneity may be tested using the following t-test: t¼ bij SEij where bij is the local slope coefficient and SEij is the corresponding local standard error. how do we know if spatial heterogeneity. the model with the lowest AICc or CV can be considered the most appropriate as it will determine which radius size (i. 2006). how do we know if GWR offers a better fit to the data than OLS modeling? An ANOVA test on the squared sum of the residuals can be used to determine which method provides the best fit. Therefore. 31. when comparing between GWR models with different bandwidths.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. 2003): X SSðbÞ ¼ ½yi  y^i ðbÞ2 i where notation is the same as above yet hatyi is in this case the predicted value of yi as a function of the bandwidth (b). Likewise a set of CV algorithms is solved for all places. In practice.e.C. Once we have fitted the data to the best theoretical based model. is not a statistical nuisance but the very element that makes places different? This is the same as asking if local estimates show significant spatial variation. number of parameters) into account so that different models can be more accurately compared (Lentz. The bandwidth method with the lowest AICc value indicates the optimal smoothing method. however. the final objective is to minimize the AICc or CV scores in such a way that an optimal distance or number of neighbors is achieved. the numerical difference between parameters and spatial units is not quite large. bandwidth) is optimal. Similarly. how do we know which GWR modeling method available actually offers the better fit? In fact. In the illustration that follows on Canadian provinces. 2009). A set of such algorithms is solved for all places in order to find the optimal bandwidth. The CV method is mathematically simpler in the sense that it represents a sum of squared (SS) errors defined by (Sikdar. There is also the option of defining the bandwidth manually (Mennis. if present. because it takes the degrees of freedom (i.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 302 VILALTA regarding y^ once again as the predicted value of the dependent variable in location i and h as the degrees of freedom.

000 inhabitants). in particular for the study of spatial heterogeneity. how to detect spatial heterogeneity will be illustrated with an analysis of murder crimes in Canadian provinces and territories (N = 12). a local slope coefficient for each independent variable. meaning that the model is tested in all places.HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 303 Evidence of substantive spatial heterogeneity can be established this way. OECD data integrates the Northwest Territories with the Nunavut territory. 32. . Figure 2 Murder rates in Canadian provinces⁄ (Data source: OECD. A.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 An Illustration We know now that GWR offers a number of advantages for the study of spatial variation. Only then other questions about what place or contextual factors cause the observed spatial variations can be addressed.C. However. First of all. Now. Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Since the local model is calibrated independently for each place. (⁄Murders per 100. each place is given a local intercept coefficient. One OLS and four GWR descriptive models will be compared. Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories. and a local coefficient of determination (Local R2).32 Several models will be presented and their benefits and limitations will be discussed. Data are for year 2009). GWR provides a local linear equation for each spatial data unit or place.

The Yukon Territory and the province of Manitoba were also above the provincial average of 3.6 1.6 1. Author’s own calculations). a visual inspection of the map suggests that murder crimes did not have a spatially homogeneous distribution.022) (0.7 4. All data are for year 2009. Murder rates were particularly high in the Northwest and Nunavut territories (see also Table 1). (Data source: OECD.428 0.589 0. The neighbor matrix followed an inverse distance function.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 Murder rate Alberta British Columbia Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Northwest Territories and Nunavut Nova Scotia Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan Yukon Territory Provincial average 2.049) (0.0 murders per 100.1 3. per capita income.000 inhabitants.5 5.6 2. Table 2 Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficients1 Coefficients Murder rates Population density Per capita income Youth unemployment rates Unemployment rates 0. As most variables exhibited spatial dependency.001) (0.7 1. murder rates were spatially dependent.080) 1 N = 12.9 3. spatial effects . However.0 1.C.0 1 Murders per 100.4 0. as well as in Prince Edward Island.390 (0.048) (0.923 0. Data are for year 2009). Indeed. Population density.479 0. A. In contrast. it may be that when regressing murder rates on these variables. Global Moran spatial autocorrelation analysis also suggests that murder rates were spatially clustered (see Table 2).2 10. that is. were much below the average. murder rates in the Newfoundland and Labrador province. (Data source: OECD.304 VILALTA Table 1 Murder rates in Canadian provinces1 Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of murder rates in Canadian provinces and territories. not only murder rates were spatially dependent. Significance in parentheses. and youth unemployment rates were also spatially dependent (refer to Table 2).000 inhabitants.6 0.

However. would a higher population density affect murder rates in a different way in the Northwest and Nunavut territories than in the Newfoundland and Labrador. However. 33. By not modeling spatial dependency and spatial heterogeneity. Consider first the results of bivariate linear correlations among different compositional factors with murder rates (see Table 3). with two contextual factors statistically associated (population density and per capita income) there is a risk of multicollinearity. The purpose of this comparison is to illustrate how to assess a GWR model rather than to provide an explanatory analysis of these data.33 Coefficients show that linear associations between these factors with murder rates were generally strong. 90% level of confidence to reject the null hypothesis of no correlation). crime analyses may be concealing valuable spatial information (Deller & Deller. Four alternatives of GWR modeling were applied considering the four possible combinations between the two different types of kernels (fixed or adaptive) and the two different bandwidth methods (AICc or CV). OLS and GWR models 1 and 2 obtained similar adjusted R2 values (refer again to Table 4). OLS residuals were normally distributed and spatially random. GWR model 2 using a fixed kernel with a CV bandwidth method offered a much lower SS residuals.e. The OLS model contained only one statistically significant correlate that is per capita income (see Table 4). per capita income.e. Three factors were significantly correlated with provincial murder rates: population density. The model correlates used were the previously statistically significant bivariate correlates of murder rates: population density. were retained in the models because of their known criminological significance. Due to the small sample size significance cut-off was established at = 0.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 305 may emerge. meaning that the impact of near places was not much different from the impact of farther places. This statistic is a good measure of model adequacy.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. spatial match or mismatch) between murder rates and local compositional population and economic factors in Canadian provinces? This spatial relationship will be tested in two different ways: traditional OLS regression analysis and GWR analysis. Population density was also associated with per capita income. or Prince Edward Island provinces? Then the first question to be asked in this illustration is the following: is there a significant spatial relationship (i. the latter was not associated with murder rates. The other two correlates although not significant. Youth unemployment rates were also associated with unemployment rates. Still.C. The results of fitting the data-set to different OLS and GWR descriptive models are shown below.10 (i. per capita income. It must be said that the weight function was also lower in GWR model 2 than in GWR model 1 as the bandwidth was smaller. A. and youth unemployment rates. Variance inflation factors (VIF) showed no potential problems with multicollinearity. meaning that it provided a better fit to the data. . However. For example. 2010). and youth unemployment rates.

452 (0.e. the two GWR models using adaptive kernels. With the use of an adaptive kernel (i. rates Unemployment rates Murder rates Population density Per capita income Youth unemployment rates 0. Only GWR (adaptive kernel) models 3 and 4 provided evidence of statistically significant differences among local slopes (see Table 6). GWR models 3 and 4). for example. This was so because the number of neighbors was the same. Results show that models do not differ significantly on average in terms of their fitting capacity (see Table 6). In fact.343 (0. it is necessary to test the significance of local relationships. .356 (0. In contrast. However. However.404 (0. A. OLS’s AIC cannot be compared to GWR’s AICc as they are calculated differently.767 (0. Consistent with OLS.651 (0. every Canadian province showed evidence of spatial heterogeneity. The corrected AICc method can be used for comparing which GWR model provides a better fit to the data as well. All data are for year 2009. As the distribution of Canadian provinces is sparse. However. models GWR 3 and 4 provided even lower sums of squared residuals. Levene’s test on homogeneity of variance detected unequal variance among models. both GWR models 3 and 4 offered the exact same results. its spatial context is also large.192) 0.539 (0. GWR models 1-4 showed that per capita income is a relevant correlate in all Canadian provinces as the magnitude and sign of all local coefficients were comparable across the country.294 (0.C. A t test was applied for this purpose.354) 0. Residual variation was much higher in OLS and GWR (fixed kernel) models 1 and 2 than in GWR (adaptive kernel) models 3 and 4 (which are identical) (Table 5). Author’s own calculations).568 (0. Intercepts were also of different sign and magnitude.255) – 0.930 (0.004) 1 N = 12. an ANOVA test was performed to check whether significant differences could be detected among residuals from OLS and GWR models altogether. Significance in parentheses.34 It is no surprise to find opposite local relationships in GWR analysis.001) 0.141) 0.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 Table 3 Linear Pearson correlation coefficients1 Population density Per capita income Youth unempl. is that a reduction in youth unemployment rates in Prince Edward 34. What this means.022) 0.306 VILALTA Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.275) 0.054) – – – – – 0. (Data source: OECD. Therefore. population density and youth unemployment rates showed positive and negative local slopes in GWR models 2-4.071) 0.

108 to 0. GWR model 4: adaptive kernel and CV as bandwidth method.468 to 21.052 (0.470) 0.866 16.545 31.011 (0.001 (0.002 7.545 31.560 23.230 to 0.242 0. n.325 to 0.699 72.678 0. 0.a.877) 0.917 to 0.876) 0.012 GWR model 2 0.242 (0.392 12 neighbors 17.938 (0.925) 0. A.243 to 0.924 to 17.771 10.263) 0.325 to 0. 1 Youth unempl.108 to 0.916) VIF = 1.001 to 0.028 GWR model 4 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 307 . Notes.0.796 800.011 to 0.771 10.779 45.392 12 neighbors 17.917 (0. GWR model 3: adaptive kernel and AICc as bandwidth method.146 0.817 to 19.220)VIF = 1.099 (0.C. 3 Test for residuals spatial randomness.447 to 0.657 to 0.468 to 21. rates Diagnostics Adjusted R2 Residual squares AICc1 Bandwidth Condition numbers Shapiro-Wilks Statistic2 Global Moran’s I Statistic3 Per capita income GWR model 1 OLS model 0.208 78.217 OLS and GWR results Constant Population density Table 4 Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.291 17.a.845 0.657 to 0.001 to 0.935 0. Test for residuals normality.626) 0.146 0.028 GWR model 3 2 OLS’s AIC and GWR’s AICc cannot be compared.967 (0.439 0.099 (0.306 0.002 1.499) 0. This test was selected due to small sample size (N = 12).967 (0.052 (0.002 0.394 0.499) 0.678 0.045) VIF = 1.887 53. GWR Model 1: fixed kernel and AICc as bandwidth method.217 0.026 0.855 65.626) 0.541) 0.079 (0.782 n.001 to 0.064 0.002 7.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 0.470) 0.001 to 0. The neighbor matrix followed an Inverse Distance function.443 (0.322 to 0.208 78.GWR model 2: fixed kernel and CV as bandwidth method.938 (0.768 0.306 0.

351 (0.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 Table 5 Anova test on for all models1 OLS model GWR model 1 GWR model 2 GWR model 3 GWR model 4 Total F statistic: Levene statistic2 1 2 Mean of squared residuals Standard deviation of squared residuals 2.040) 2. .040) 2.851 1. Same effects could be expected in Newfoundland and Labrador.047) (0.315 1.041) 1.073 (0.765) (0.022 3. Ontario. These regional patterns serve as evidence of spatial regimes.266 3.657 2.286 0.144 (0.689 (0.065) 1 GWR model 3 used an adaptive kernel and AICc as bandwidth method and the GWR Model 4 used an adaptive kernel and CV as bandwidth method. Saskatchewan.386 (0.779) (0. However.655 1.35 In other words. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.941 2.308 VILALTA Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.022 1.005) Significance in parentheses.421) 4.349) 1.C.851 0. Island may bring a reduction in murder rates.341 (0. Degrees of freeedom = 10.258) 0.041) 2. youth unemployment is unrelated to murder crimes in the western provinces. A.299 0.798 4. only in the eastern Canadian provinces.296 4.288 2.122) 1.729) (0.040 0.010) Youth unemployment rates 2. higher levels of youth unemployment seem to place upward pressure on murder rates. while a change in population density may not have an impact.341 2.969) (0.155) 0.780) (0.200 (0. Quebec.018) (0. British Columbia.030) (0. In contrast. and Manitoba.528 2. Test of homogeneity of variances.822 2.356 0. Nova Scotia. Table 6 Student’s t test on local slopes for GWR models 3 and 41 Population density Prince Edward Island Newfoundland and Labrador Quebec Ontario Nova Scotia New Brunswick Alberta British Columbia Saskatchewan Manitoba Yukon Territory Northwest Territories and Nunavut 0.198 (0.990 (0.293 3. and New Brunswick.307 0.983 (0.975 0. 35. both correlates can be expected to have an impact on murder rates.845 (0. this could not be expected to occur in Alberta.015) (0.038) 2.057 (0.539 (0.160 0.771) (0.041) (0.361 (0.358 (0.067) 2.418) 2.

Lu. This was the case particularly for GWR models 2-4 (see Maps in Figures 3-6).g.36 None of the GWR models presented condition values above 21. the descriptive model properly captured the asymmetries in the distribution of residuals. 37. it must be reminded that the weighted least squares method in GWR may solve some statistical implications of spatial heterogeneity in the data-set (e. Note that GWR also assumes that the model residuals are independently and equally distributed as a standard normal distribution with zero mean and constant variance at each location (Fotheringham et al. biased coefficients).Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Even though GWR is not designed to remove the spatial autocorrelation in the residuals37.. results may be unstable due to local multicollinearity. The condition numbers presented in Table 4 do not highlight some of the potential problems in fitting a model with spatial heterogeneity. when condition numbers are above 30. two-thirds the rule of thumb. 2010).C. A.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 309 Figure 3 GWR model 1: map of local coefficients of determination with the use of a fixed kernel and AICc as the bandwidth method. I want to thank one of the reviewers for this observation. As such. it helped to reduce it (see the nonsignificant Global Moran statistics for GWR models 2 to 4). In this sense. namely. that the local slopes are highly sensitive to local multicollinearity. . local coefficients of determination (local R2) also varied among provinces. As a rule of thumb. Finally. In addition to local slope variations. OLS and GWR models were all able to produce normally distributed residuals (see the nonsignificant Shapiro-Wilks statistics). but it cannot 36. that is. 2002.

it cannot account for spatial heterogeneity as GWR does. 2010). It is very difficult. To conclude with this section. it cannot be automatically and systematically assumed that spatial heterogeneity results from omitted-variables bias. temporal autocorrelation. However. A. The inclusion of spatiality in crime analysis 38.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. they provide us with more realistic evidence-based results. As such. it can always be the case that spatial regimes are caused by omitted-variables bias or other factors such as the type and scale of the unit of analysis. although spatially autoregressive modeling (SAM) can account for spatially autocorrelated data. Aside of the sophistication of spatial statistics. SAM cannot account for spatial heterogeneity. to devise a descriptive model to describe the spatial variation all in one. and seasonality. if not impossible.38 Conversely. Unlike SAM.C. Concluding Comments The search for accurate descriptions of places is an objective of crime analysis. solve some other implications in spatially autocorrelated data (Lu.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 310 VILALTA Figure 4 GWR model 2: map of local coefficients of determination with the use of a fixed kernel and CV as bandwidth method. . Any descriptive model is always provisional as it is only a set of testable hypotheses.

only in some provinces the higher the youth unemployment rate. Population density seemed to negatively impact murder crimes in some provinces but not in others. Likewise. The most important application of GWR analysis is the detection of spatial heterogeneity.C. from the illustration we discovered that the relationship of per capita income with murder rates was spatially homogeneous across Canadian provinces. this relationship would not have showed up. However. The detection of spatial heterogeneity is necessary for the identification of place effects. It was explained too that spatial regimes are sets of places or regions that exhibit different relationships between variables. as neither population density nor youth unemployment showed statistical significance. OLS canceled out these local relationships . One may have concluded then that OLS results for the exact same descriptive model conformed poorly with the underlying spatial structure of the data. the higher the murder rate. while no statistically significant association was found in the OLS model. youth unemployment positively correlated with murder crimes in some provinces only. also called spatial regimes. 1992). enriches our understanding of criminal activity by further explaining the variability of crime data. In this sense.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. A. It was explained already that spatial heterogeneity refers to the variation in relationships across space (O’Loughlin & Anselin. a pattern of spatial heterogeneity in the relationships between population density and youth unemployment rates with murder rates was also detected.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 311 Figure 5 GWR model 3: map of local coefficients of determination with the use of an adaptive kernel and AICc as bandwidth method. Furthermore. Without the GWR approach.

. one lesson learned is that a combination of GWR with SAM modeling may be the most powerful approach for modeling spatial data. These differences in sign and magnitude indicate. First.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 312 VILALTA Figure 6 GWR model 4: map of local coefficients of determination with the use of an adaptive kernel and CV as bandwidth method. See Fornango’s (2010) paper in this journal for an illustration of spatial regression in crime studies. it was explained that places matter not only when 39. Even though GWR does not resolve the issue of spatial autocorrelation and SAM does not resolve the issue of spatial heterogeneity. Furthermore. it was shown that OLS regression is not designed to deal with spatial data. spatial homogeneity was demonstrated to be at best hypothetical and in need of statistical testing as any other assumption in OLS regression. Similarly.39 Third. spatial heterogeneity as well as other concepts was satisfied in the way of definitions and examples. Second. the existence of diverse local economy and criminological conditions across the country. the need to clarify the differences between place. This also pointed out that the distribution of relationships among variables were not spatially uniform as OLS implies. In sum. space. we discovered that relationships (Local R2) seemed to be stronger in the eastern provinces and weaker in the western provinces. In this sense. spatial regimes in Canada. A. OLS does not solve any of the previous issues.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas.C. the four aims intended in this paper were accomplished. that is. again. obscuring the existence of spatial heterogeneity.

Department of Geography. C. C.J. Charlton. Fourth. MA: Allen and Unwin. S. A. Urbana. Spatial data analysis with SpaceStatTM and arcview. Deller.. Rural crime and social capital. Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. in a much better article. J. and T. and M. A.. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 12: 367-383. and M. National Centre for Geocomputation: National University of Ireland. J. Ord. Clifford. Progress in Human Geography 34: 799-817. The merging of criminology and geography into a course on spatial crime analysis. Elden.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Geographical Analysis 28: 281-298.S. as the central message has been that spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity are facts.. Richardson. University of NewcastleUpon-Tyne. territory. whose suggestions and comments resulted. Jr. I must also thank two reviewers. E Charlton. Cohen. University of Illinois. S. 1981. and H. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.C. P. In particular I must thank Devon Willis (BA. 1987. IL: Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics.. all errors are mine alone.3 and White Paper. Unpublished manuscript. Bursik. Deller. 2009. Cliff. L. I hope. spatial heterogeneity is a sufficient condition for the argument. Brunsdon. Testing the association between two spatial processes. and S. R. Althausen. K. Clearly.. Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Land.. Charlton M. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. L. 1996. and J. Fotheringham. NY: Lexington Books. and M. Fotheringham. 1979. Brunsdon. Fotheringham. M.. Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston. London: Pion. A. Acknowledgements I want to thank Professor Ahmed El-Geneidy and his team of graduate research students at McGill University for their warm welcoming to their spatial analysis lab. Spatial processes: models and applications. Anselin. not only ideas. D. and S. Mieczkowski. 2000. American Sociological Review 44: 588-608. Statistics and Decisions 2: 155-160. 1999. 1993. References Agnew. S.. 2010. A. New York. In the same way that spatial dependence is a necessary condition to argue that places matter. 2010. and M. Geographically weighted regression as a statistical model. Growth and Change 41: 221-275. Grasmick. Geographically weighted regression: A tutorial on using GWR in ArcGIS 9. E. 2001. . McGill) for her proof-reading of the manuscript. 1985. Spatial Analysis Research Group. then I hope that I have made the case that criminology and criminal justice degrees need to include spatial modeling as a compulsory topic in their curriculum. Felson. terrain.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 313 crime data are spatially dependent but when relationships vary across space.G.

The urban electorate in presidential elections. P. J. F. Geographical Review 26: 88112. Unpublished document. New York. and M. R. Coast & environment graduate organization (CEGO).Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Geospatial terminology.D. MN: University of Minnesota Press. and R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). New York. 1958. C. Lavalle. P. 1992.C. A space for place in sociology. and R. 1996. and W.). O’Brien. Mennis. Application of geographically weighted regression for assessing spatial non-stationarity. place.. Gieryn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Cartographic Journal 43: 171-179. London: Methuen. E. Sikdar. R. The domain of human geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57: 423-436. Groves. and L. Louisiana State University. Mapping the results of geographically weighted regression. Positive criminology (pp. Sampson. The new geopolitics. H. Sauerzopf. Haining. Communities and crime. and M. Chichester: Wiley. Hirschi (Eds. In M. J. 1973. J. In M.. R. H. 1992.. Lentz. Directions in geography (pp. Environment and Planning A 30: 1905-1927. When space matters: Spatial dependence. 1967. Rose. and L. Spatial autocorrelation. Beverly Hills. Fornango. E. and regression models.. P. Mennis. 1920-1996. K.. Ward (Ed. NY: Springer. Fotheringham. Charlton. Spatial dependence and heterogeneity in patterns of hardship: an intra-urban analysis. 2009. methods and generalised linear models. 91-114).. J. 1988. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95: 249-268. Community structure and crime. But how does place matter? Using bayesian networks to explore a structural definition of place. . S. 1990. 1987. R.. Geographically weighted regression: A natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis. Fotheringham. Goodchild. C. and gender. Hagerstrand. Corn yields and climate in the corn belt. J. Paper presented at the New Methodologies for the Social Sciences Conference. Introducing quantitative geography: Measurement. and C. American Journal of Sociology 94: 744-802. S. Jordan. Concepts and techniques in modern geography. Geography of international conflict and cooperation: Theory and methods. theory and practice. The philosophy of space and time. Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Longley. 2004. P. A. London: Routledge/Chapman and Hall. Charlton. Annual review of Sociology 26: 463-496. Sampson. 1998. CA: Sage. Smoothing methods in statistics. University of Colorado.. Edsall. R.). Swanstrom. 1998. J. In R. Habraken. 67-87). 1989. J. 2003. London: Gordon and Breach. 1999. A. Brown. Harrower. M. Minneapolis. Unpublished Dissertation. Memorial University of Newfoundland.. diagnostics. The distribution of environmental equity: Exploring spatial nonstationarity in multivariate models of air toxic. Simonoff. J. 2004. The structure of the ordinary. R. and T. 1936. 2000. Tobo ´n. NY: Dover. T. D. Brunsdon. Brunsdon. R. C. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 21: 117-135.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 314 VILALTA Flint. 2006.A. A. Massey. Space. Spatial data analysis in the social and environmental sciences. Reichenbach. 2000. Boulder. M. 2002. Gottfredson and T. L. J. Certain aspects of the expansion of quantitative methodology in American geography. Cambridge: MIT Press. Urban Affairs Review 35: 72-91. Chorley (Ed. B. K. Testing social disorganization theory. Anselin. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94: 503-19. 2005. 1994. McConnell. Spatial data analysis. Haining. 2010. T. Norwich: Geobooks. O’Loughlin.

1987. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 321-345. and M. 1970. C. Madensen. N. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Jones. Y. W. P. The built environment and crime risk interpretation. Introductory spatial analysis.. T. The truly disadvantaged. and S. Criminology 45: 771-804. 2005. Minneapolis. Quisenberry. Wilcox.J. Economı´a. Wilcox. 1981.. Co ´mo ensen ˜ar autocorrelacio ´n espacial (How to teach spacial autocorrelation). Unwin. Skubak-Tillyer. D.Downloaded by [Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas. Sociedad y Territorio 5: 323-333. London: Methuen. 2003. Space and place: The perspective of experience. W. Economic Geography 46: 234-240. Tuan. 1997. Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary risk and prevention. P. Vilalta. Wilson. IL: University of Chicago Press. A. Chicago. MN: University of Minnesota Press.C.] at 19:12 21 October 2015 HOW DOES PLACE MATTER? 315 Tobler. . 2007.