Although classical significance testing is the most commonly used inferential technique in quantitative geography, it is far from the only choice, and in some circumstances may not be the most appropriate. In the statistical literature and other disciplines, its utility has come under question in a number of contexts. This report overviews current progress in the development of quantitative inferential approaches, and considers their use and appropriateness in a number of human geographical contexts.
AkaikeH (1973) Information theory and the maximum likelihood principle. In: PetrovBNCsakiF (eds) Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 267–281.
2.
AndersonC (2008) The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ (accessed 20 April 2016).
3.
BenjaminiYHochbergY (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B57(1): 289–300.
4.
BenjaminiYYekutieliD (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics29(4): 1165–1188.
5.
BergerJOBerryDA (1988) Statistical analysis and the illusion of objectivity. American Scientist76: 159–165.
6.
BrunsdonC (2001) Is ‘statistix inferens’ still the geographical name for a wild goose?Transactions in GIS5(1): 1–3.
7.
BrunsdonC (2015) Quantitative methods I: Reproducible research and human geography. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/0309132515599625.
8.
BrunsdonCCharltonM (2011) An assessment of the effectiveness of multiple hypothesis testing for geographical anomaly detection. Environment and Planning (B)38: 216–230. DOI: 10.1068/b36093.
9.
BrunsdonCComberL (2015) An Introduction to R for Spatial Analysis and Mapping. London: SAGE.
10.
BurnhamKPAndersonDR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11.
BurnhamKPAndersonDR (2004) Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research33(2): 261–304.
12.
Caldas de CastroMSingerB (2006) Controlling the false discovery rate: A new application to account for multiple and dependent tests in local statistics of spatial association. Geographical Analysis38(2): 180–208. DOI: 10.1111/j.0016-7363.2006.00682.x.
13.
DorlingDBarfordANewmanM (2006) Worldmapper: The world as you’ve never seen it before. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics12(5): 757–764.
14.
GaheganM (2003) Is inductive machine learning just another wild goose (or might it lay the golden egg)?International Journal of Geographical Information Science17(1): 69–92.
15.
GastnerMTNewmanMEJ (2004) Diffusion-based method for producing density-equalizing maps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America101(20): 7499–7504.
16.
GetisAOrdK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis24(3): 189–206.
17.
GigerenzerG (2004) Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics33: 587–606.
18.
GouldP (1970) Is statistix inferens the geographical name for a wild goose chase?Economic Geography46: 439–448.
19.
HirschfieldABirkinMBrunsdonCMallesonNNewtonA (2014) How places influence crime: The impact of surrounding areas on neighbourhood burglary rates in a British city. Urban Studies51(5): 1057–1072.
20.
JonkerMFCongdonPVan LentheFDonkersBBurdorfAMackenbachJ (2013) Small-area health comparisons using health-adjusted life expectancy: A Bayesian random-effects approach. Health and Place23: 70–78.
21.
KitchinR (2014) Big data and human geography: Opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography3(3): 262–267.
22.
KulldorfM (1997) A spatial scan statistic. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods26: 1481–1496.
23.
OpenshawSCharltonMWymerCCraftA (1987) A Mark 1 Geographical Analysis Machine for the automated analysis of point data sets. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems1(4): 335–358.
24.
RohdeDCorcoranJChhetriP (2010) Spatial forecasting of residential urban fires: A Bayesian approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems34(1): 58–69.
25.
ŠidàkZ (1967) Rectangular confidence region for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association62: 626–633.
26.
SpicerRCGangloffHJ (2016) Permutation/randomization-based inference for environmental data. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment188(3): 1–12. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5090-0.
SterneJAC (2002) Teaching hypothesis tests – Time for significant change?Statistics in Medicine21(7): 985–994.
29.
SterneJACDavey SmithG (2001) Sifting the evidence: What’s wrong with significance tests?British Medical Journal322: 226–231.
30.
SunS (2013) An optimized rubber-sheet algorithm for continuous area cartograms. The Professional Geographer65(1): 16–30.
31.
TukeyJW (1977) Exploratory Data Analysis. London: Addison-Wesley.
32.
WagenmakersE-JFarrellS (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review11(1): 192–196.
33.
WheelerDC (2007) A comparison of spatial clustering and cluster detection techniques for childhood leukemia incidence in Ohio, 1996–2003. International Journal of Health Geographics13(6). DOI: 10.1186/1476–072X–6–13.
34.
WheelerDCPáezASpinneyJWallerLA (2014) A Bayesian approach to hedonic price analysis. Papers in Regional Science93(3): 663–683.
35.
WickhamHCookeDHofmannHBujaA (2010) Graphical inference for Infovis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics16(6): 973–979.
