Search for: All records

Abstract Multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR) extends geographically weighted regression (GWR) by allowing process heterogeneity to be modeled at different spatial scales. While MGWR improves parameter estimates compared to GWR, the relationship between spatial scale and correlations within and among covariates—specifically spatial autocorrelation and collinearity—has not been systematically explored. This study investigates these relationships through controlled simulation experiments. Results indicate that spatial autocorrelation and collinearity affect specific model components rather than the entire model. Their impacts are cumulative but remain minimal unless they become very strong. MGWR effectively mitigates local multicollinearity issues by applying varying bandwidths across parameter surfaces. However, high levels of spatial autocorrelation and collinearity can lead to bandwidth underestimation for global processes, potentially producing false local effects. Additionally, strong collinearity may cause bandwidths to be overestimated for some processes, which helps mitigate collinearity but may obscure local effects. These findings suggest that while MGWR offers greater robustness against multicollinearity compared to GWR, bandwidth estimates should be interpreted with caution, as they can be influenced by strong spatial autocorrelation and collinearity. These results have important implications for empirical applications of MGWR. 

ABSTRACT GIS and GIScience education have continually evolved over the past three decades, responding to technological advances and societal issues. Today, the content and context in which GIScience is taught continue to be impacted by these disruptions, notably from technology through artificial intelligence (AI) and society through the myriad environmental and social challenges facing the planet. These disruptions create a new landscape for training within the discipline that is affecting not onlywhatis taught in GIScience courses but alsowhois taught,whyit is being taught, andhowit is taught. The aim of this paper is to structure a direction for developing and delivering GIScience education that, amid these disruptions, can generate a capable workforce and the next generation of leaders for the discipline. We present a framework for understanding the various emphases of GIScience education and use it to discuss how the content, audience, and purpose are changing. We then discuss how pedagogical strategies and practices can change how GIScience concepts and skills are taught to train more creative, inclusive, and empathetic learners. Specifically, we focus on how GIScience pedagogy should (1) center on problem‐based learning, (2) be open and accelerate open science, and (3) cultivate ethical reasoning and practices. We conclude with remarks on how the principles of GIScience education can extend beyond disciplinary boundaries for holistic spatial training across academia. 

This paper explores the concepts and computational methods used tomeasure spatial inequality, emphasizing a reproducible approach thatsocial scientists can apply to their research. The analysis focuses ongeographic income disparities at the sub-national level, using Mexico asa case study. By examining various a-spatial and spatially explicitapproaches, the paper highlights the complexities of measuringinequality across places and over time. The discussion includes a reviewof traditional inequality measures and introduces spatial decompositionmethods that account for the geographical distribution of income. Thefindings underscore the importance of integrating spatial considerationsinto inequality analysis to better understand the patterns and driversof regional disparities, thereby informing more effective and equitablepolicy interventions.