Geospatial analysis requires a different way of thinking: the problem of spatial heterogeneity

被引:81
作者
Jiang B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Division of Geomatics, Department of Technology and Built Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle
关键词
Big data; Head/tail breaks; Heavy-tailed distributions; Power laws; Scaling of geographic space;
D O I
10.1007/s10708-014-9537-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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. 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 of 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. © 2014, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 13
页数:12
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Anderson C., The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more, (2006)
[2]  
Anselin L., What is special about spatial data: Alternative perspectives on spatial data analysis, (1989)
[3]  
Anselin L., Local indicators of spatial association—LISA, Geographical Analysis, 27, pp. 93-115, (1995)
[4]  
Bak P., How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality, (1996)
[5]  
Barabasi A., Bursts: The hidden pattern behind everything we do, (2010)
[6]  
Barabasi A.-L., Albert R., Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science, 286, 5439, pp. 509-512, (1999)
[7]  
Batty M., Carvalho R., Hudson-Smith A., Milton R., Smith D., Steadman P., Scaling and allometry in the building geometries of Greater London, The European Physical Journal B, 63, 3, pp. 303-314, (2008)
[8]  
Batty M., Longley P., Fractal cities: A geometry of form and function, (1994)
[9]  
Benguigui L., Czamanski D., Simulation analysis of the fractality of cities, Geographical Analysis, 36, 1, pp. 69-84, (2004)
[10]  
Blumenfeld-Lieberthal E., Portugali J., Network cities: A complexity-network approach to urban dynamics and development, Geospatial analysis of urban structure and dynamics, pp. 77-90, (2010)