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 Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.]

Date: 21 October 2015, At: 19:12

JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 3, 290315, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.715659

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, 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
(OLoughlin & 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).

2012 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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.
Taking this as a point of departure, this article lays out the background from
where the teaching of spatial heterogeneity begins. The article is divided as
follows. First, the origins and meanings of several concepts in spatial analysis
are clarified. Second, the precise meaning of spatial effect and the theoretical and methodological implications of spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity are explained. Third, one analytical method for testing spatial
heterogeneity, that is, if place matters, is presented. This method is called
GWR analysis. An illustration is included to show how GWR, in comparison to
ordinary least squares regression analysis (OLS), is used to provide evidence of
spatial heterogeneity. 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. One section summing up all the concepts discussed is included at the end of the article.
This introduction finishes in the same way it started, that is, by saying
that the inclusion of spatial statistics topics in regular statistics courses is
necessary. In the past years, we have seen a strengthening in the teaching
of GIS and spatial statistics at all university levels in different countries.
More and more, in an attempt to ensure quality and relevance, scientific
journals contain articles based on spatial statistical methods. As such, 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.

Definitional Necessities: Place and Space in Crime Analysis

Defining usually means reducing a concept to other concepts (Reichenbach,
1958). In this respect, some fundamental misunderstandings can be seen time
and again in the field of crime analysis. A common confusion is to mistake
place for space. Another frequent confusion, possibly more basic for data analysts, is the failure to distinguish between spatial and a-spatial data with all
the implications this carries. The objective of this section is to clarify the confusion surrounding these concepts and others by means of definitions and
examples.
Place is the distinction between here and there (Gieryn, 2000). Very often it
escapes scientific inquiry, because it is so perceptibly present to all. However,
places are perceptibly unique in three elements: location, material form, and
meaning and value (Gieryn, 2000). Let us carefully explain these elements.
Location is the position in space (i.e. the where of something). Location on
a map is given by the latitude and longitude. The latitude is the geographic
coordinate of the northsouth position and the longitude is the geographic coordinate of the eastwest position. The location is fundamental in spatial analysis
as it is used for organizing human behavioral data. Both spaces and places are

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

292

VILALTA

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

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

293

geometrical attributes (e.g. area, volume, etc.). But they do not have cultural
meaning or value attributes per se. In absolute terms then, space can be
understood in opposition to place: where places are objects of study, spaces
are containers of that to be studied. In crime analysis, as in other areas of
study, places are units of analysis and spaces are units of information.
Another position is to think of space in relative or cognitive terms, namely,
attending to the relational aspect of it; Humans relate to each other and the
physical environment (Tuan, 1997). In this sense, and only in this relative or
relational sense, place and space may be considered synonyms.
So if crime analysis is the study of crime in places, why are the methods of
spatial analysis in crime analysis7 called as such instead of place-analysis methods? This is a matter of custom. We have to remember that the basis of spatial
analysis and spatial statistics is geometrical thinking, particularly Euclidean
geometry. The basic (two-dimensional) concepts of Euclidean geometry are
points, lines, angles, and polygons.8 When depth is added to length and width,
then we move from plane to space perspective (three-dimensional).9 And since
the methods of spatial analysis had its origin in physical geography and were
later imported into human geography, spatial analysis remained as the term in
use. However, the term spatial analysis is not misleading as it is indeed the
study of the patterns of points, lines, areas and surfaces defined by coordinates in a two or three-dimensional space (Hagerstrand, 1973, p. 69, cited in
Unwin, 1981). It should be added that, historically speaking, quantitative geographic methods in human geography came much before spatial analysis methods.10 The difference between the two is that the former is an application of
aspatial traditional statistics to spatial data, whereas the latter includes location as an attribute of the data.
This leads to the definition of spatial data. Spatial data consists of observations on geographical individuals which may only be interpreted satisfactorily
when their locations have been taken into consideration (OBrien, 1992, p.
18) In other words, spatial data represent behavior variation identifiable in a
geographic coordinate system. So, where aspatial data have only attribute
data, spatial data have both attribute and location data (Fotheringham, Brunsdon, & Charlton, 2002). Typical examples of spatial data in crime analysis are
geographically aggregated data units such as census blocks and tracts. Note
that these are spaces not places. There is no sense of place in a census tract.
They are census bureau statistical subdivisions of a county (i.e. spatial data

7. And in other disciplines in the social sciences.

8. When depth is incorporated in polygons we enter the third dimension of things.
9. In Euclidean geometry, space can only be seen in three dimensions.
10. Rose (1936, p. 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. However,
it seems that it was Fisher the first to warn about the issue of spatial dependence (see p. 73 in his
1937 book on the Design of Experiments). For a wonderful account of the history of quantitative
geography see Lavalle, McConnell, and Brown (1967).

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

294

VILALTA

units) lacking any meaning to the individuals residing within their boundaries.
They are units of information rather than units of analysis.
One last clarification is needed before we go on with the next section. Why
does place matter in crime analysis? There is just one fundamental reason.
Place matters because it organizes the way we behave (Pred 1990, cited in
Flint, Harrower, & Edsall, 2000). As such, place is a key organizing concept for
crime research. As it was explained, places become units of analysis when they
are understood as patterns of relationships (i.e. structures). Let us explain this
with an example. From a routine activities perspective, crime is structured
by situational factors. The role that situational factors play naturally varies
from one place to another. In this sense, places either facilitate or impede
crime from happening. This is why crime variation across places is to a certain
extent a function of the variation of crime opportunities. The geography of
crime is a geography of opportunity in which places may be seen as markets
for crime (Wilcox, Madensen, & Skubak-Tillyer, 2007; Wilcox, Quisenberry, &
Jones, 2003).11 In fact, according to routine activities theory, crimes are
indeed place unique in the sense that they happen due to the ill-timed combination of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the lack of guardianship
(Cohen & Felson, 1979).12 Again, there are definite differences between places
in terms of routine activities. This is why place matters in crime analysis.

How Does Place Matter? The Theoretical and Methodological Implications of Spatial Dependence and Heterogeneity
We now know why place and space matter. Let us proceed now with how place
matters. Firstly, let us consider that the analysis of spatial data carries two
fundamental theoretical and methodological implications: spatial dependence
and spatial heterogeneity (Anselin, 1999). Both are often confounded with the
concept of spatial effect.13 One possible reason is that both are often taught
in a regression context. However, substantively speaking, a spatial effect is an
outcome that can be linked to an action traceable to a specific place. A spatial
effect, to be considered as such, must be substantive. Substantive in this case
is understood as an effect unrelated to the compositional characteristics (e.g.
demographic and socioeconomic) of the resident population. Otherwise, we
are rather dealing with a compositional effect which is translating into a statistical nuisance that must be controlled or suppressed.14
11. They understand markets for crime as aggregate units. In this sense, they merge place with
spatial aggregate units of information such as census tracts, although they indeed warn the reader
about the conceptual difference between neighborhoods and census tracts (see Footnote 4 in p.
780). In that case, the decision to merge place (neighborhood) with space (census tract) was purely
methodological.
12. That is the place of crime.
13. For example see Anselins (1999).
14. Spatial patterns sometimes may simply be a statistical nuisance resulting from a regression
model suffering from oversimplifying assumptions.

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

295

There are three kinds of spatial effects: dependence, heterogeneity, and

diffusion.15 The three may operate at the same time. For example, it has been
demonstrated social capital is beneficial and variable over space and time (i.e.
spatial dependence and heterogeneity). For more than 20 years, it has also
been demonstrated that social capital differences between neighborhoods
helps explain neighborhood variations in crime (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993;
Sampson, 1987; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Wilson, 1987). It may even help
explain crime variation in physically adjacent or nearby neighborhoods (i.e.
diffusion effects).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. That is, diffusion is never spatially random. In
this case, one community is having a (spatial) effect on crime rates, in and
around the place in which it resides. These spatial effects can happen simultaneously, and they can also be tested and measured. This paper only deals with
spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity, emphasizing the importance of
the latter.
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., 2000, p. 4). Spatial dependence may be
tested via spatial autocorrelation analysis. Spatial autocorrelation techniques
measure the degree of similarity of objects or activities across geographical
units (Goodchild, 1988). Typical measures of spatial autocorrelation are Morans I and Gearys global and local autocorrelation coefficients. These have
already been addressed in this journal (Althausen & Mieczkowski, 2001; Fornango, 2010). Suffice will be to remind the reader that spatial autocorrelation
may be positive or negative. Significant positive autocorrelation indicates a
nonrandom clustering of values and significant negative autocorrelation indicates a nonrandom dispersion of values.
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, 2004). If data are spatially dependent, measurements will
neither reflect nor add variation on the phenomenon under study. Likewise,
since positive spatial autocorrelation implies that neighboring places are alike,
then one place may predict what occurs in others. As Clifford and Richardson
(1985, cited in Haining, 2004) stated long time ago, as neighboring spatial data
units carry duplicate sample information about the parameter, the effective
sample size is smaller than the number of spatial data units that are sampled.
As positive spatial autocorrelation increases, variance underestimation also
increases (Haining, 1990). Negative spatial autocorrelation has the opposite
effect: sampling variance is overestimated.

15. Spatial diffusion may be contagious o hierarchical, and operate either by relocation or expansion.
16. Spillover effects are the same as diffusion effects.

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

296

VILALTA

The most undesirable statistical implication of spatial dependence, whether

substantive or not, is that as sampling statistics depend upon sampling variation, spatial dependence will produce misleading confidence and prediction
intervals. Intervals will be either too wide or too narrow. Another unwanted
implication is that, as spatially dependent data units duplicate sampling information, the true number of degrees of freedom necessary for testing statistical significance will be unknown. In the same vein, the statistical significance
of an OLS regression model as judged by the F-values will be inaccurate.
Finally, R2 goodness of fit measures will also be either inflated or deflated.17
This is why all types of spatial effects must be understood and accounted
for on a constant basis. If, for example, the spatial autocorrelation present in
the residuals of a regression model is due to misspecification (Cliff & Ord,
1981) then we do not have evidence of a spatial effect, but rather the result
of a statistical nuisance. Model misspecification occurs when relevant correlates have been either omitted from the model or modeled with an incorrect
functional form. Model misspecification may create the illusion of as spatial
effect. Of course model misspecification is difficult to deal with as the analyst
is actually investigating which correlates provide the best fit to the data. If
the researcher suspects that the model is misspecified, the only possible solutions are either to modify it or to choose a completely different model. However, 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, then this might serve as evidence of a place effect
(i.e. a substantive spatial effect), which is above and beyond compositional
variables. In other words, this is evidence that place matters.19
Passing now to the issue of spatial heterogeneity, it is simply defined as the
variation in relationships across space (OLoughlin & Anselin, 1992). It implies
the presence of distinctive and sometimes even divergent spaces or places.
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. In one subset of Canadian provinces, the relationship is
much stronger than in other subsets. If spatial heterogeneity is substantive and
subsets of relationships are geographically contiguous, this correspondingly
serves as evidence of a spatial regime. Spatial regimes exist as different sets
of neighboring places or regions display different relationships between
variables.
In this sense, spatial heterogeneity may be due to three different reasons
(Fotheringham et al., 2002). Two are purely methodological and one is theoretical. One methodological reason is sampling variation again.20 In this case,
it is unrealistic to expect equivalent estimates from significantly different
17.
18.
19.
20.

Most likely inflated as spatial dependence tends to be positive.

At a minimum, there is no evidence of violation of OLS assumptions.
OLS residuals may be mapped in order to see which places fit the data better or worse.
Nonfactual or unsubstantial spatial nonstationarity.

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

297

Figure 1 Types and methodological causes and effects of spatiality.

samples or subsets of spatial data.21 In OLS regression analysis, this statistical

nuisance is characterized by heteroskedasticity that is nonconstant error variance. Another methodological reason is model misspecification. The third and
final reason for spatial heterogeneity is substantive spatial variation in relationships.22 This means that relationships are inherently different across space
as a result of a place or local contextual effect. This, again, constitutes evidence that place matters (Figure 1).
Traditional statistical techniques like OLS regression cannot detect spatial
heterogeneity as relationships are assumed to be spatially stationary (i.e.
space independent). Eight assumptions of OLS regression are well taught in
criminology and criminal justice statistics courses. These are: (1) the model is
linear in parameters and correctly specified; (2) data are a random sample; (3)
correlates are independent from each other; (4) errors are independent; (5)
expected values average to zero; (6) residuals have constant variance; (7)
errors are normally distributed; and (8) errors average to zero. But one
assumption not well taught is spatial homogeneity. If spatial heterogeneity is
present, assumptions 1, 4, and 68 may not be justified. Data simply will not
adequately fit the OLS model and significance tests will be deceptive. More
precisely, if spatial heterogeneity is present in the data-set, whether substantive or not, OLS intercept and slope estimates will be biased. The reason is
that local relationships will cancel each other out in the calculation of the global estimates.
In terms of theory, both substantive spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity prove Toblers first Law of Geography that everything is related to
everything else, but near things are more related to each other (Tobler,
1970, p. 236). 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, 1998, p.
1281). In other words, crime rates in one place may be higher because
21. Spatial heterogeneity does not seem to depend on sample size.
22. Factual spatial nonstationarity.

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

298

VILALTA

perceptions, mindsets, and attitudes towards the community, the police, or

the entire criminal justice system may not be only different in degree but also
in kind (i.e. they might be entirely the opposite). In this sense, the key in
future crime analyzes may lie at the heart of cognitive research, 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.
In terms of public policy, spatial heterogeneity implies that policy interventions may bring different results in different places. One problem with replicating the so-called best practices in crime prevention in an international
context, is precisely the notion that place does not matter, or only some do,
sometimes. This notion is a conjecture, namely, the spatial homogeneity of
policy effects conjecture. It is often believed that best practices in one place
will have, if not the same, at least similar positive effects everywhere elseeven across multiple levels of spatial analysis and governance (e.g. police sectors, neighborhoods, cities, countries, etc.). But very often, best practices are
just best guesses. To my knowledge, 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. Still many practices and policies are exported for immediate consumption in different countries.23
Finally, if spatial heterogeneity is found not to be substantive, it still has
methodological implications. Furthermore, 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. It is important to strengthen evidence-based research by incorporating new ways of thinking and understanding
data. One step is to stop assuming that relationships among variables are the
same across space, unless proven otherwise. We must acknowledge that spatial
homogeneity is hypothetical. That is to say explanations may be different
depending on place.24

How to Test if Place Matters: Testing for Spatial Heterogeneity Using

GWR
The traditional OLS model is written as:
k
X
y^ a
b j xj e
j1

23. I am not aware of a previous publication dealing with this issue. One valuable contribution
would be a comparative study focusing on the spatiality of crime prevention policy outcomes.
24. For example, when analyzing the persistence of high levels of criminal activity in some places
(i.e. endemic crime hotspots) if substantial spatial heterogeneity is found, it may be a spatial
effect of (1) lack of synchronicity and/or (2) uneven funding in different areas of policy (e.g. policing, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation courses, etc.).

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

299

where y^ is the predicted value of the dependent variable y, a is the constant

(i.e. the point at which the line crosses the predicted values when x is equal
to zero), b is a coefficient representing the slope of the line, and x is the
observed value of the independent variable for the j observation, for k number
of independent variables. This model assumes that observations in places are
independent of each other (i.e. spatially stationary). Parameters are spatially
invariant. The stochastics of the OLS model are plain: either the relationship is
linear (i.e. constant rate of increase or decrease) across space or there is no
relationship.
The GWR model extends the traditional OLS model by allowing parameters
to vary across space (Fotheringham et al., 2002). The GWR model is written
as:
y^i ai

k
X

bi jxij ei

j1

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. Location is given by
the geographic coordinates (i.e. latitude and longitude). The location of an
area is given by its geographic centroid or arithmetic mean center of the spatial data unit. The geographic centroid of an area is the optimal location in
the sense that it represents the closest point to all its limits.
In opposition to OLS regression, GWR provides a probabilistic model for each
location (i.e. the goal of GWR is local estimation). This can be done as GWR
incorporates spatial nonstationarity by using local parameters in opposition to
global parameters (like OLS), that is, GWR analysis allows parameters to vary
over space. Local parameters are the probability distribution characteristics
utilized for estimating the constant and slopes per location.25
GWR is run in several steps. First, it is necessary to find an appropriate
weighting function. In a GWR context, weighting functions are called Kernel
functions. Kernel functions are used to estimate probability density functions
of random variables. In GWR, spatial kernels are used to define spatial neighbors and their weights.26 Some places will be considered neighbors and
assigned specific weights in the local probabilistic models. This is the conceptual difference between a weighted least squares estimation method and an
OLS method. The choice of the weighting function or Kernel is central for estimation of local coefficients and to later investigate spatial variability (Sikdar,
2003).
There are two different weighting functions: binary and continuous. A binary
weighting function is defined by (Sikdar, 2003):
25. A parameter is a statistical attribute of an entire population.
26. A spatial kernel is both a measure of density and a method for density analysis. The kernel density function calculates the density of a variable within a radius. A spatial kernel has shape and
width (i.e. kurtosis and variance).

300

VILALTA


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

wik

1 if dik\r
0 otherwise

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

27. Under a discrete or dichotomous definition of location, 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.,
2002).
28. Note that a traditional OLS model is given when distance is 1 (d = 1).
29. Yet, this might not be the optimal.

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

301

adaptive number of neighbors will be applied. The weight of each location will
then be computed using the specified kernel.
As such, the next step is to choose a bandwidth method. The bandwidth is
the size of the radius or distance between the center and the limit of the area
of influence of each place. It defines the area for which each local model will
be calibrated. The choice of bandwidth is central as the bandwidth method dictates the degree of smoothing in the model. In other words, the size of the
bandwidth defines the amount of smoothing (Lentz, 2009). As the bandwidth is
a measure of the distance decay effect in the weighting function, it has been
reported that GWR results are more sensitive to the bandwidth of the weighting
function than to the weighting function itself (Lentz, 2009; Simonoff, 1996).
As said above, the bandwidth can be also understood as the area of influence of each place (Mennis & Jordan, 2005). A small bandwidth means a small
area of influence, meaning also a rapid distance decay function, whereas a
large bandwidth implies a larger area of influence, thus a smoother weighting scheme. In a regression context, small bandwidths (i.e. slighter smoothing)
produce estimates with large local variation, whereas large bandwidths (i.e.
greater smoothing) produce estimates with little spatial variation (Longley &
Tobon, 2004). As such, large bandwidths will result in highly biased and low
variance local coefficient estimates, and small bandwidths will result in the
opposite, that is, in local coefficient estimates with large variance and low
bias. The logic behind this is the same as dealing with spatially autocorrelated
data, that is, as the bandwidth becomes smaller, local estimates will increasingly depend on observations near to each regression point resulting in variance inflation. In contrast, larger bandwidths will make local coefficient
estimates similar to OLS global estimates.
There are different methods or algorithms for choosing the bandwidth
method or degree of smoothing of the model. The two most frequent are the
corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc)30 and cross-validation (CV).
The AICc method is defined by (Brunsdon, Fotheringham, & Charlton, 2000):
^
AICc 2n loga

n TrS
n 2  TrS

where Tr(S) is the trace of the smoothing matrix S (i.e. the trace is the sum
of the diagonal elements of the smoothing matrix) which is defined by the following relation:
y^i Sy
^ is defined by:
and r

s
P
^ 2
i yi  yi 
^
r
nh

30. Not to be confused with the AIC in OLS. Each criterion is calculated in a partially different
manner.

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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. A set of such algorithms is solved
for all places in order to find the optimal bandwidth. The bandwidth method
with the lowest AICc value indicates the optimal smoothing method.
The CV method is mathematically simpler in the sense that it represents a
sum of squared (SS) errors defined by (Sikdar, 2003):
X
SSb
yi  y^i b2
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. This method involves choosing the bandwidth for which
the sum of squares attains a minimum.
Therefore, when comparing between GWR models with different bandwidths, the model with the lowest AICc or CV can be considered the most
appropriate as it will determine which radius size (i.e. bandwidth) is optimal.
In practice, the AICc method tends to be preferred over the CV method,
because it takes the degrees of freedom (i.e. number of parameters) into
account so that different models can be more accurately compared (Lentz,
2009).31 In any event, for any method, 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. There is also the option of defining the bandwidth manually
(Mennis, 2006).
Once we have fitted the data to the best theoretical based model, how do
we know which GWR modeling method available actually offers the better fit?
In fact, 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.
Similarly, how do we know if spatial heterogeneity, if present, 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. This can be
answered by focusing on the new evidence available. Spatial heterogeneity
may be tested using the following t-test:
t

bij
SEij

where bij is the local slope coefficient and SEij is the corresponding local standard error.

31. Notice that typically there are much fewer parameters to be estimated than spatial units or
places in the data-set. In the illustration that follows on Canadian provinces, however, the numerical difference between parameters and spatial units is not quite large, meaning that other ways to
contrast local models may be more appropriate.

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

303

Evidence of substantive spatial heterogeneity can be established this way.

Only then other questions about what place or contextual factors cause the
observed spatial variations can be addressed.

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

An Illustration
We know now that GWR offers a number of advantages for the study of spatial
variation, in particular for the study of spatial heterogeneity. First of all, GWR
provides a local linear equation for each spatial data unit or place, meaning
that the model is tested in all places. Since the local model is calibrated independently for each place, each place is given a local intercept coefficient, a
local slope coefficient for each independent variable, and a local coefficient of
determination (Local R2). Now, how to detect spatial heterogeneity will be
illustrated with an analysis of murder crimes in Canadian provinces and territories (N = 12).32 Several models will be presented and their benefits and limitations will be discussed. One OLS and four GWR descriptive models will be
compared.

Figure 2 Murder rates in Canadian provinces

(Data source: OECD. Data are for year 2009); (Murders per 100,000 inhabitants).
32. Canada has 10 provinces and 3 territories. However, OECD data integrates the Northwest
Territories with the Nunavut territory.

304

VILALTA

Table 1 Murder rates in Canadian provinces1

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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

2.6
2.7
4.7
1.6
0.2
10.6
1.6
1.4
0.0
1.1
3.5
5.9
3.0

Murders per 100,000 inhabitants.

(Data source: OECD. Data are for year 2009).

Table 2 Morans I spatial autocorrelation coefficients1

Coefficients
Murder rates
Population density
Per capita income
Youth unemployment rates
Unemployment rates

0.428
0.923
0.589
0.479
0.390

(0.049)
(0.001)
(0.022)
(0.048)
(0.080)

N = 12. Significance in parentheses. The neighbor matrix followed an inverse distance function.
(Data source: OECD. All data are for year 2009. Authors own calculations).

Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of murder rates in Canadian provinces

and territories. Murder rates were particularly high in the Northwest and Nunavut territories (see also Table 1). The Yukon Territory and the province of
Manitoba were also above the provincial average of 3.0 murders per 100,000
inhabitants. In contrast, murder rates in the Newfoundland and Labrador province, as well as in Prince Edward Island, were much below the average.
Indeed, a visual inspection of the map suggests that murder crimes did not
have a spatially homogeneous distribution. Global Moran spatial autocorrelation analysis also suggests that murder rates were spatially clustered (see
Table 2); that is, murder rates were spatially dependent.
However, not only murder rates were spatially dependent. Population density, per capita income, and youth unemployment rates were also spatially
dependent (refer to Table 2). As most variables exhibited spatial dependency,
it may be that when regressing murder rates on these variables, spatial effects

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

305

may emerge. By not modeling spatial dependency and spatial heterogeneity,

crime analyses may be concealing valuable spatial information (Deller & Deller,
2010). For example, would a higher population density affect murder rates in a
different way in the Northwest and Nunavut territories than in the Newfoundland and Labrador, 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.e. 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.
Consider first the results of bivariate linear correlations among different
compositional factors with murder rates (see Table 3). Three factors were significantly correlated with provincial murder rates: population density, per
capita income, and youth unemployment rates.33 Coefficients show that linear
associations between these factors with murder rates were generally strong.
Population density was also associated with per capita income. Youth unemployment rates were also associated with unemployment rates. However, the
latter was not associated with murder rates. Still, with two contextual factors
statistically associated (population density and per capita income) there is a
risk of multicollinearity.
The results of fitting the data-set to different OLS and GWR descriptive
models are shown below. The purpose of this comparison is to illustrate how
to assess a GWR model rather than to provide an explanatory analysis of these
data. The model correlates used were the previously statistically significant
bivariate correlates of murder rates: population density, per capita income,
and youth unemployment rates. 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).
The OLS model contained only one statistically significant correlate that is
per capita income (see Table 4). The other two correlates although not significant, were retained in the models because of their known criminological significance. Variance inflation factors (VIF) showed no potential problems with
multicollinearity. OLS residuals were normally distributed and spatially random.
OLS and GWR models 1 and 2 obtained similar adjusted R2 values (refer
again to Table 4). However, GWR model 2 using a fixed kernel with a CV bandwidth method offered a much lower SS residuals, meaning that it provided a
better fit to the data. This statistic is a good measure of model adequacy. 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, meaning that the impact of near
places was not much different from the impact of farther places. However,
33. Due to the small sample size significance cut-off was established at = 0.10 (i.e. 90% level of
confidence to reject the null hypothesis of no correlation).

306

VILALTA

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

Table 3 Linear Pearson correlation coefficients1

Population
density
Per capita
income
Youth unempl.
rates
Unemployment
rates

Murder rates

Population
density

Per capita
income

Youth
unemployment
rates

0.568 (0.054)

0.539 (0.071)

0.651
(0.022)
0.404 (0.192)

0.356 (0.255)

0.452 (0.141)

0.343 (0.275)

0.294 (0.354) 0.930 (0.001)

0.767 (0.004)

N = 12. Significance in parentheses.

(Data source: OECD. All data are for year 2009. Authors own calculations).

the two GWR models using adaptive kernels, models GWR 3 and 4 provided
even lower sums of squared residuals. In fact, both GWR models 3 and 4
offered the exact same results. This was so because the number of neighbors
was the same. As the distribution of Canadian provinces is sparse, its spatial
context is also large.
The corrected AICc method can be used for comparing which GWR model
provides a better fit to the data as well. However, OLSs AIC cannot be compared to GWRs AICc as they are calculated differently. Therefore, an ANOVA
test was performed to check whether significant differences could be detected
among residuals from OLS and GWR models altogether. Results show that models do not differ significantly on average in terms of their fitting capacity (see
Table 6). However, Levenes test on homogeneity of variance detected
unequal variance among models. 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).
Consistent with OLS, 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. In contrast, population
density and youth unemployment rates showed positive and negative local
slopes in GWR models 2-4.34
It is no surprise to find opposite local relationships in GWR analysis. However, it is necessary to test the significance of local relationships. A t test was
applied for this purpose. Only GWR (adaptive kernel) models 3 and 4 provided
evidence of statistically significant differences among local slopes (see
Table 6). With the use of an adaptive kernel (i.e. GWR models 3 and 4), every
Canadian province showed evidence of spatial heterogeneity. What this means,
for example, is that a reduction in youth unemployment rates in Prince Edward
34. Intercepts were also of different sign and magnitude.

0.322 to 0.064

0.243 to 0.242
0.545
31.855
65.796
800.291
17.924 to 17.935
0.967 (0.876)
0.099 (0.499)

0.545
31.887
53.782
n.a.
n.a.
0.967 (0.877)
0.099 (0.499)

0.560
23.699
72.779
45.866
16.817 to 19.394
0.917 (0.263)
0.079 (0.541)

0.001 to 0.002

1.917 to 0.217
0.230 to 0.026

0.001 to 0.002

0.447 to 0.439
0.011 to 0.012

GWR model 2

0.771
10.208
78.392
12 neighbors
17.468 to 21.306
0.938 (0.470)
0.052 (0.626)

0.325 to 0.678

0.001 to 0.002

7.108 to 0.146
0.657 to 0.028

GWR model 3

OLSs AIC and GWRs AICc cannot be compared.

Test for residuals normality. This test was selected due to small sample size (N = 12).
3
Test for residuals spatial randomness. The neighbor matrix followed an Inverse Distance function.
Notes. GWR Model 1: fixed kernel and AICc as bandwidth method;GWR model 2: fixed kernel and CV as bandwidth method.
GWR model 3: adaptive kernel and AICc as bandwidth method.
GWR model 4: adaptive kernel and CV as bandwidth method.

Youth unempl. rates

Diagnostics
Adjusted R2
Residual squares
AICc1
Bandwidth
Condition numbers
Shapiro-Wilks Statistic2
Global Morans I Statistic3

Per capita income

GWR model 1

OLS model

0.443 (0.925)
0.011 (0.916)
VIF = 1.845
0.001 (0.045)
VIF = 1.768
0.242 (0.220)VIF = 1.217

OLS and GWR results

Constant
Population density

Table 4

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

0.771
10.208
78.392
12 neighbors
17.468 to 21.306
0.938 (0.470)
0.052 (0.626)

0.325 to 0.678

0.001 to 0.002

7.108 to 0.146
0.657 to 0.028

GWR model 4

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

307

308

VILALTA

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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

2.657
2.655
1.975
0.851
0.851
1.798

4.296
4.293
3.315
1.022
1.022
3.160
0.990 (0.421)
4.144 (0.005)

Significance in parentheses.
Test of homogeneity of variances.

Table 6 Students 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

0.307
0.356
0.286
0.040
0.299
0.288
2.528
2.341
2.941
2.822
2.266
3.198

(0.765)
(0.729)
(0.780)
(0.969)
(0.771)
(0.779)
(0.030)
(0.041)
(0.015)
(0.018)
(0.047)
(0.010)

Youth unemployment rates

2.361 (0.040)
2.386 (0.038)
2.341 (0.041)
2.057 (0.067)
2.358 (0.040)
2.351 (0.041)
1.200 (0.258)
0.983 (0.349)
1.689 (0.122)
1.539 (0.155)
0.845 (0.418)
2.073 (0.065)

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. Degrees of freeedom = 10.

Island may bring a reduction in murder rates, while a change in population

density may not have an impact. Same effects could be expected in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. However, this could not be expected to occur in Alberta, British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.35 In other words, only in the eastern Canadian
provinces, higher levels of youth unemployment seem to place upward pressure on murder rates. In contrast, youth unemployment is unrelated to murder
crimes in the western provinces. These regional patterns serve as evidence of
spatial regimes.
35. In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, both correlates can be expected to have an impact
on murder rates.

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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.

The condition numbers presented in Table 4 do not highlight some of the

potential problems in fitting a model with spatial heterogeneity, namely, that
the local slopes are highly sensitive to local multicollinearity. As a rule of
thumb, when condition numbers are above 30, results may be unstable due to
local multicollinearity.36 None of the GWR models presented condition values
above 21, that is, two-thirds the rule of thumb.
In addition to local slope variations, local coefficients of determination
(local R2) also varied among provinces. This was the case particularly for GWR
models 2-4 (see Maps in Figures 3-6).
Finally, OLS and GWR models were all able to produce normally distributed
residuals (see the nonsignificant Shapiro-Wilks statistics). As such, the descriptive model properly captured the asymmetries in the distribution of residuals.
Even though GWR is not designed to remove the spatial autocorrelation in the
residuals37, it helped to reduce it (see the nonsignificant Global Moran statistics for GWR models 2 to 4). In this sense, 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.g. biased coefficients), but it cannot
36. I want to thank one of the reviewers for this observation.
37. 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., 2002; Lu, 2010).

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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.

solve some other implications in spatially autocorrelated data (Lu, 2010).38

Conversely, although spatially autoregressive modeling (SAM) can account for
spatially autocorrelated data, it cannot account for spatial heterogeneity as
GWR does.
To conclude with this section, 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, temporal autocorrelation, and seasonality. It is
very difficult, if not impossible, to devise a descriptive model to describe the
spatial variation all in one. Any descriptive model is always provisional as it is
only a set of testable hypotheses. As such, it cannot be automatically and systematically assumed that spatial heterogeneity results from omitted-variables
bias.

Concluding Comments
The search for accurate descriptions of places is an objective of crime analysis. Aside of the sophistication of spatial statistics, they provide us with more
realistic evidence-based results. The inclusion of spatiality in crime analysis
38. Unlike SAM. However, SAM cannot account for spatial heterogeneity.

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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.

enriches our understanding of criminal activity by further explaining the variability of crime data.
The most important application of GWR analysis is the detection of spatial
heterogeneity. It was explained already that spatial heterogeneity refers to
the variation in relationships across space (OLoughlin & Anselin, 1992). The
detection of spatial heterogeneity is necessary for the identification of place
effects, also called spatial regimes. It was explained too that spatial regimes
are sets of places or regions that exhibit different relationships between variables. In this sense, from the illustration we discovered that the relationship
of per capita income with murder rates was spatially homogeneous across
Canadian provinces. However, a pattern of spatial heterogeneity in the relationships between population density and youth unemployment rates with murder rates was also detected. Population density seemed to negatively impact
murder crimes in some provinces but not in others. Likewise, youth unemployment positively correlated with murder crimes in some provinces only.
Furthermore, while no statistically significant association was found in the
OLS model, only in some provinces the higher the youth unemployment rate,
the higher the murder rate. Without the GWR approach, this relationship
would not have showed up. One may have concluded then that OLS results for
the exact same descriptive model conformed poorly with the underlying spatial
structure of the data, as neither population density nor youth unemployment
showed statistical significance. OLS canceled out these local relationships

Downloaded by [Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, A.C.] 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.

obscuring the existence of spatial heterogeneity, that is, spatial regimes in

Canada.
Similarly, we discovered that relationships (Local R2) seemed to be stronger
in the eastern provinces and weaker in the western provinces. This also
pointed out that the distribution of relationships among variables were not
spatially uniform as OLS implies. These differences in sign and magnitude indicate, again, the existence of diverse local economy and criminological conditions across the country.
In sum, the four aims intended in this paper were accomplished. First, the
need to clarify the differences between place, space, spatial heterogeneity as
well as other concepts was satisfied in the way of definitions and examples.
Second, spatial homogeneity was demonstrated to be at best hypothetical and
in need of statistical testing as any other assumption in OLS regression. Furthermore, it was shown that OLS regression is not designed to deal with spatial
data. Even though GWR does not resolve the issue of spatial autocorrelation
and SAM does not resolve the issue of spatial heterogeneity, OLS does not solve
any of the previous issues. In this sense, one lesson learned is that a combination of GWR with SAM modeling may be the most powerful approach for modeling spatial data.39 Third, it was explained that places matter not only when
39. See Fornangos (2010) paper in this journal for an illustration of spatial regression in crime
studies.

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

313

crime data are spatially dependent but when relationships vary across space.
In the same way that spatial dependence is a necessary condition to argue that
places matter, spatial heterogeneity is a sufficient condition for the argument.
Fourth, as the central message has been that spatial dependence and spatial
heterogeneity are facts, not only ideas, 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.

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. In particular I must thank Devon Willis (BA, McGill) for her proof-reading
of the manuscript. I must also thank two reviewers, whose suggestions and
comments resulted, I hope, in a much better article. Clearly, all errors are
mine alone.

References
Agnew, J. 1987. Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society.
Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin.
Althausen, J. D., and T. M. Mieczkowski. 2001. The merging of criminology and geography into a course on spatial crime analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 12:
367-383.
Anselin, L. 1999. Spatial data analysis with SpaceStatTM and arcview. Urbana, IL:
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois.
Brunsdon, C., A. S. Fotheringham, and M. E. Charlton. 1996. Geographically weighted
regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis 28:
281-298.
Brunsdon, C., A.S. Fotheringham, and M. E Charlton. 2000. Geographically weighted
regression as a statistical model. Unpublished manuscript. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne,
Spatial Analysis Research Group, Department of Geography, University of NewcastleUpon-Tyne.
Bursik, R.J. Jr., and H.G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of
effective community control. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Charlton M. and S. Fotheringham. 2009. Geographically weighted regression: A tutorial
on using GWR in ArcGIS 9.3 and White Paper. National Centre for Geocomputation:
National University of Ireland.
Cliff, A., and J. K. Ord. 1981. Spatial processes: models and applications. London:
Pion.
Clifford, P., and S. Richardson. 1985. Testing the association between two spatial processes. Statistics and Decisions 2: 155-160.
Cohen, L., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588-608.
Deller, S., and M. Deller. 2010. Rural crime and social capital. Growth and Change 41:
221-275.
Elden, S. 2010. Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human Geography 34: 799-817.

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

314

VILALTA

Flint, C., M. Harrower, and R. Edsall. 2000. But how does place matter? Using bayesian
networks to explore a structural definition of place. Paper presented at the New
Methodologies for the Social Sciences Conference. University of Colorado, Boulder.
Fornango, R. J. 2010. When space matters: Spatial dependence, diagnostics, and regression models. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 21: 117-135.
Fotheringham, A. S., C. Brunsdon, and M. E. Charlton. 1998. Geographically weighted
regression: A natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis.
Environment and Planning A 30: 1905-1927.
Fotheringham, A. S., C. Brunsdon, and M. E. Charlton. 2002. Geographically weighted
regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Chichester: Wiley.
Gieryn, T. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual review of Sociology 26: 463-496.
Goodchild, M. F. 1988. Spatial autocorrelation. Concepts and techniques in modern
geography. Norwich: Geobooks.
Habraken, J. 1998. The structure of the ordinary. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hagerstrand, T. 1973. The domain of human geography. In R. J. Chorley (Ed.), Directions in geography (pp. 67-87). London: Methuen.
Haining, R. P. 1990. Spatial data analysis in the social and environmental sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haining, R. P. 2004. Spatial data analysis, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lavalle, P., H. McConnell, and R. Brown. 1967. Certain aspects of the expansion of
quantitative methodology in American geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57: 423-436.
Lentz, J. 2009. Geospatial terminology. Coast & environment graduate organization
(CEGO). Unpublished document, Louisiana State University.
Longley, P.A., and C. Tobo
n. 2004. Spatial dependence and heterogeneity in patterns of
hardship: an intra-urban analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
94: 503-19.
Massey, D. B. 1994. Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Mennis, J. 2006. Mapping the results of geographically weighted regression. The Cartographic Journal 43: 171-179.
Mennis, J., and L. Jordan. 2005. The distribution of environmental equity: Exploring
spatial nonstationarity in multivariate models of air toxic. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 95: 249-268.
OBrien, L. 1992. Introducing quantitative geography: Measurement, methods and generalised linear models. London: Routledge/Chapman and Hall.
OLoughlin, J., and L. Anselin. 1992. Geography of international conflict and cooperation: Theory and methods. In M.D. Ward (Ed.), The new geopolitics. London: Gordon
and Breach.
Reichenbach, H. 1958. The philosophy of space and time. New York, NY: Dover.
Rose, J. K. 1936. Corn yields and climate in the corn belt. Geographical Review 26: 88112.
Sampson, R. 1987. Communities and crime. In M. R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi (Eds.),
Positive criminology (pp. 91-114). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sampson, R., and W. Groves. 1989. Community structure and crime. Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology 94: 744-802.
Sauerzopf, R., and T. Swanstrom. 1999. The urban electorate in presidential elections,
1920-1996. Urban Affairs Review 35: 72-91.
Sikdar, K. 2003. Application of geographically weighted regression for assessing spatial
non-stationarity. Unpublished Dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Simonoff, J. 1996. Smoothing methods in statistics. New York, NY: Springer.

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

HOW DOES PLACE MATTER?

315

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