Context in human geography: A multilevel approach to study human-environment interactions

Professional Geographer

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 336-349

  Zolnik, Edmund J ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Context; Multilevel models; Transportation geography

Indexed keywords

GEOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN GEOGRAPHY; MODELING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 70149124067     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00330120902931978     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Barnes, T. 2001. Lives lived and lives told: Biographies of geography's quantitative revolution. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 (4): 409-19.
2. Barnett, C. 1999. Deconstructing context: Exposing Derrida. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24 (3): 277-93.
3. Best, N., D. Spiegelhalter, A. Thomas, and C. Brayne. 1996. Bayesian analysis of realistically complex models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 159 (2): 232-42.
4. Blumen, O. 1994. Gender differences in the journey to work. Urban Geography 15 (3): 223-45.
5. Bottai, M., N. Salvati, and N. Orsini. 2006. Multilevel models for analyzing people's daily movement behavior. Journal of Geographical Systems 8 (1): 97-108.
6. Brunsdon, C., A. Fotheringham, and M. Charlton. 1996. Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis 28 (4): 281-98.
7. Bullen, N., K. Jones, and C. Duncan. 1997. Modelling complexity: Analyzing between-individual and between place variation-A multilevel tutorial. Environment and Planning A 29 (4): 585-609.
8. Casetti, E. 1972. Generating models by the expansion method: Applications to geographic research. Geographical Analysis 4 (1): 81-91.
9. Chow, S. 1996. Statistical significance: Rationale, validity and utility. London: Sage.
10. Deka, D. 2004. Social and environmental justice issues in urban transportation. In The geography of urban transportation, ed. S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, 332-55. New York: Guilford.
11. Dixon, D., and J. Jones. 1998. My dinner with Derrida, or spatial analysis and poststructuralism do lunch. Environment and Planning A 30 (2): 247-60.
12. Duncan, C., and K. Jones. 2000. Using multilevel models to model heterogeneity: Potential and pitfalls. Geographical Analysis 32 (4): 279-305.
13. Duncan, C., K. Jones, and G. Moon. 1993. Do places matter? A multi-level analysis of regional variations in health-related behaviour in Britain. Social Science in Medicine 37:725-33.
14. Foster, S. 1991. The expansion method: Implications for geographic research. The Professional Geographer 43 (2): 131-42.
15. Fotheringham, A. 1997. Trends in quantitative methods I: Stressing the local. Progress in Human Geography 21 (1): 88-96.
16. Fotheringham, A. 1998. Trends in quantitative methods II: Stressing the computational. Progress in Human Geography 22 (2): 283-92.
17. Fotheringham, A. 1999. Trends in quantitative methods III: Stressing the visual. Progress in Human Geography 23 (4): 597-606.
18. Fotheringham, A., C. Brunsdon, and M. Charlton. 1997. Measuring spatial variations in relationships with geographically weighted regression. In Recent developments in spatial analysis, spatial statis-tics, behavioural modeling and neurocomputing, ed. M. Fischer and A. Getis, 60-82. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
19. Fotheringham, A., C. Brunsdon, and M. Charlton. 1998. Geographically weighted regression: A natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data analysis. Environment and Planning A 30 (11): 1905-27.
20. Fotheringham, A., C. Brunsdon, and M. Charlton. 2000. Quantitative geography: Perspectives on spatial data analysis. London: Sage.
21. Fotheringham, A., C. Brunsdon, and M. Charlton. 2002. Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
22. Goldstein, H. 1994. Multilevel cross-classified models. Sociological Methods and Research 22 (3): 364-75.
23. Gould, M., K. Jones, and G. Moon. 1997. The scope of multilevel models. Environment and Planning A 29 (4): 581-84.
24. Gould, P. 1970. Is statistix inferens the geographical name for a wild goose? Economic Geography 46:439-48.
25. Gould, P. 1999. Becoming a geographer. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
26. Hanson, S., and I. Johnston. 1985. Gender differences in work-trip length: Explanations and implications. Urban Geography 6:193-213.
27. Hanson, S., and G. Pratt. 1995. Gender, work and, space. London and New York: Routledge.
28. Harlow, L., S. Mulaik, and J. Steiger. 1997. What if there were no significance tests? London: Erlbaum.
29. Harvey, D. 1982. The limits to capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Hauer, E. 1983. Reflections on methods of statistical inference in research on the effect of safety coun- termeasures. Accident Analysis and Prevention 15 (4): 275-85.
31. Hauer, E. 2004. The harm done by tests of significance. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36 (3):495-500.
32. Hettner, A. 1907. Die Geographie des Menschen [Human geography]. Geographische Zeitschrift 13 (8): 401-25.
33. Huckfeldt, R., E. Plutzer, and J. Sprague. 1993. Alternative contexts of political behavior: Churches, neighborhoods and individuals. The Journal of Politics 55 (2): 365-81.
34. Jones, A., and S. Jorgensen. 2003. The use of multilevel models for the prediction of road accident outcomes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (1): 59-69.
35. Jones, J., and E. Casetti. 1992. Applications of the expansion method. London and New York: Routledge.
36. Jones, J., and R. Hanham. 1995. Contingency, realism, and the expansion method. Geographical Analysis 27 (3): 185-207.
37. Jones, K. 1991. Specifying and estimating multilevel models for geographical research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 16 (2): 148-59.
38. Jones, K., and N. Bullen. 1994. Contextual models of house prices: A comparison of fixed- and random- coefficient models developed by expansion. Economic Geography 70 (3): 252-72.
39. Jones, K., and C. Duncan. 1996. People and places: The multilevel model as a general framework for the quantitative analysis of geographic data. In Spatial analysis: Modeling in a GIS environment, ed. P. Longley and M. Batty, 79-104. Cambridge, UK: Longman.
40. Kwan, M. 2004. Beyond difference: From canonical geography to hybrid geographies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (4): 756-63.
41. Law, R. 1999. Beyond women and transport: Towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23 (4): 567-88.
42. Madden, J. 1981. Why women work closer to home. Urban Studies 18 (2): 181-94.
43. Mason, W. 1995. Comment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 20 (2): 221-27.
44. Massey, D. 1984. Spatial divisions of labor. London: Methuen.
45. Mason, W. 1991. The political place of locality studies. Environment and Planning A 23 (2): 267-81.
46. Peck, J. 1996. Work-place: The social regulation of labor markets. New York: Guilford.
47. Pilkey, O., and L. Pilkey-Jarvis. 2007a. Mathematical models just don't add up. The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 May:B12.
48. Pilkey, O., and L. Pilkey-Jarvis. 2007b. Useless arithmetic: Why environmental scientists can't predict the future. New York: Columbia University Press.
49. Poon, J. 2003. Quantitative methods: Producing quantitative methods narratives. Progress in Hu-man Geography 27 (6): 753-62.
50. Poon, J. 2004. Quantitative methods: Past and present. Progress in Human Geography 28 (6): 807-14.
51. Poon, J. 2005. Quantitative methods: Not positively positivist. Progress in Human Geography 29 (6): 766-72.
52. Raudenbush, S., and A. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical lin- ear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.
53. Rice, N., R. Carr-Hill, P. Dixon, and M. Sutton. 1998. The influence of households on drinking behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Social Science in Medicine 46 (8): 971-79.
54. Schaefer, F. 1953. Exceptionalism in geography: A methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 43 (3): 226-49.
55. Schwanen, T., F. Dieleman, and M. Dijst. 2004. The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands: A multilevel approach. Growth and Change 35 (3): 304-33.
56. Schwanen, T., M. Dijst, and F. Dieleman. 2002. A microlevel analysis of residential context and travel time. Environment and Planning A 34 (8): 1487-507.
57. Smith, N. 1984. Uneven development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
58. Soja, E. 1980. The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70 (2): 207-25.
59. Sunley, P. 1996. Context in economic geography: The relevance of pragmatism. Progress in Human Geography 20 (3): 338-55.
60. Thrift, N. 1996. Spatial formations. London: Sage.
61. Turner, B. 2002. Contested identities: Human-environment geography and disciplinary implica-tions in a restructuring academy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92 (1): 52-74.
62. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. Rising fuel cost-A big impact. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
63. van de Coevering, P., and T. Schwanen. 2006. Reevaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North-America. Transport Policy 13 (3): 229-39.
64. Weber, J., and M. Kwan. 2003. Evaluating the effects of geographic contexts on individual accessibility: A multilevel approach. Urban Geography 24 (8): 647-71.
65. Wilson, A. 1984. One man's quantitative geography: Frameworks, evaluations, uses and prospects. In Recollections of a revolution: Geography as a spatial science, ed. M. Billinge, D. Gregory, and R. Martin, 200-26. New York: St. Martin's.
66. Wyly, E. 1998. Containment and mismatch: Gender differences in commuting in metropolitan labor markets. Urban Geography 19 (5): 395-430.