Cited by 1,413Spatial and Panel Data AnalysisHealth disparities and outcomesUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies

The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem

Kwan, Mei-Po·2012·Annals of the Association of American Geographers

Abstract

Any study that examines the effects of area-based attributes on individual behaviors or outcomes faces another fundamental methodological problem besides the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). It is the problem that results about these effects can be affected by how contextual units or neighborhoods are geographically delineated and the extent to which these areal units deviate from the true geographic context. The problem arises because of the spatial uncertainty in the actual areas that exert the contextual influences under study and the temporal uncertainty in the timing and duration in which individuals experienced these contextual influences. Using neighborhood effects and environmental health research as a point of departure, this article clarifies the nature and sources of this problem, which is referred to as the uncertain geographic context problem (UGCoP). It highlights some of the inferential errors that the UGCoP might cause and discusses some means for mitigating the problem. It reviews recent studies to show that both contextual variables and research findings are sensitive to different delineations of contextual units. The article argues that the UGCoP is a problem as fundamental as the MAUP but is a different kind of problem. Future research needs to pay explicit attention to its potential confounding effects on research results and to methods for mitigating the problem.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00045608.2012.687349

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The segregation analysis was conducted at the statistical sector level, which introduces uncertainties due to variations in geography and scale.

    “Another limitation is that the segregation analysis was conducted at the statistical sector level, which introduces uncertainties due to variations in geography and scale (Kwan 1998(Kwan , 2012)).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwan, M.-P.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Kwan, Mei-Po
Venue
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
Published
2012-09
Volume
102
Issue
5
Pages
958-968
ISSN
  • 0004-5608 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8306
OpenAlex
W1987264627
Cited by
1,413
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 182 · 2025: 138 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 113 · 2022: 122 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 4
FWCI
116.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the Association of American Geographers (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Keywords
modifiable areal unit problem, neighborhood effects, spatial uncertainty, temporal uncertainty, environmental health, confounding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review