Moving out of the Linear Rut: The Possibilities of Generalized Additive Models

Author(s): Kelvyn Jones and Simon Almond

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1992),
pp. 434-447
Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622709 .
Accessed: 27/08/2012 06:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
434

Movingoutofthelinearrut:thepossibilities
of
Generalized
Additive
Models
KELVYN JONES and SIMON ALMOND
ReaderinGeography,
andHeadofSystemsDevelopment, ofGeography,
Department University
of
Portsmouth, HantsPO1 3HE
Portsmouth,

Revised 19May, 1992

MS received

ABSTRACT
Generalized modelsin whichtheusuallinearrelationships
AdditiveModelsarestatistical betweentheresponseand
variables
predictor arereplacedbynon-linear
'smooths'.Thispaperdiscusses inwhichthistechnique
thecontext hasbeen
andprovides
developed, Thefirst
twoillustrations. isananalysis
illustration inCalifornia
ofprecipitation a
whichrequires
normal-theorymodel.Thesecondis theprediction
ofland-use fromsatellite
imagery; nature
thediscrete oftheresponse
ofa GAMwitha logitlinkanda binomial
thefitting
necessitates randomterm.

KEYWORDS:Statistical
modelling, dataanalysis,
Exploratory Non-linearity, Remote
Smoothing, sensing

INTRODUCTION THE GAM IN CONTEXT

In his polemicaland entertaining essay on statistical The GAM has been developed in a statisticalen-
inference,Gould (1969) accuses geographersof vironmentthat has seen profoundchanges since
being stuckin a linearrut.This articleis centrally Gould's paper.These changesinvolvemodifications
concernedwithgettingout of thatrutby replacing of outlook,as well as substantiveinnovation,both
linearequationswith'smooth'functions in whatare aspectsbeingenabledby improvedtechnology.It is
called Generalized Additive Models (Hastie and particularly importantthatthese developmentsare
Tibshirani,1986, 1990a).1 In the belief that the appreciatedifthe growingrapprochement between
world may be naughtybut not malicious,the re- qualitativeand quantitative approaches(forexample,
sponsevariableis postulatedinsuchmodelsto be the Bryman,1988; Pratt,1989) is not to be made on the
outcomeof theadditionofnon-linear termsforeach basis of simplistic, outdatedand mistakenideas of
predictor variable.Thisintroduction to thetechnique whatconstitutes a quantitative,
statistical
approach.
has threeparts.Afterdealingwiththestatistical con- In termsof technologicalchanges,developments
textin whichthe GAM has been developed,simple in computingpowerand graphicsdevicesarehaving
linearmodelsare thencontrasted withtheiradditive a majorimpacton statisticalpractice.The majority
counterparts which are by the analysisof of techniquesto be found in the textbooks of
illustrated
precipitationdata for California.Generalized linear quantitative geographywere developed in the pre-
modelsare thenoutlinedand generalizedfurther to computerera of the earlypartof thiscentury.As a
takea non-linearbutadditiveformwhichis illustrated resultmostare based on demandingand unrealistic
by a model designedto predictthepresence/absence assumptions(forexample,linearityand normality)
of woodland from satelliteimagery.This paper that were deliberatelychosen to ease the compu-
does not attemptto provide rigorousproofsand tationaland mathematical burden.Moreover,ifthe
derivations,but aims to introducethe data-analytic calculationshad taken hours or days, it was very
potentialitiesof the GAM in an informal man- to
difficult takea highlyscepticalview of theresults
ner, while being mindfulof its assumptionsand thatwould entailfurther computation. For example,
limitations. Fisher(Box, 1978) in derivingtheexactdistributions

Trans.Inst.Br.Geogr.N.S. 17: 434-447 (1992) ISSN: 0020-2754 Printedin GreatBritain

 outofthelinear
Moving rut 435
ofthet andF tests,madetheassumptionofGaussian considering theactualoutcomeinrelationto possible
randomdistributions in thefaceof thenearubiquity outcomes(Jones,1990). While the two approaches
of non-normaldistributions. He did so because the aredistinct, theyneed to be used intandem.The data
Gaussian assumptionapproximatedto the results explorerworkslikea numerical and
detective,sifting
thatwould be derivedfromrandomization, thatis sortingthroughthe data so as to produceevidence
the resultbased on all possiblearrangements of the forthejudicialproceduresof confirmatory analysis.
data. Such randomizationwould be far too time- Continuingthe analogy, graphs and particularly
consumingto do by hand,especiallywhenit would graphs of residuals are to the exploratorydata
have to be done for each unique problem.Fisher analystwhatmagnifying lensesareto thestory-book
realizedthatthenormalapproximation onlyworked detective.Graphsreveal overallpatternas well as
well ifdata were independent;a crucialassumption considerabledetail,oftenprovidingclues to what
thatwas ignoredin muchof theuse ofthesetestsin needs to be done next. GAMs draw on both
geography(Cliffand Ord, 1975). Today, such ran- approaches:theystresstheneedforlookingatgraphs
domizationcanbe achievedreadilyevenon a desktop to develop an improvedmodel and theyallow the
computer,and as Noreen (1988) makes clear,such data to decidetheappropriate functional
form;while,
computer-intensive andless-restrictive
testingis now in using statisticalsummariesto measuremodel fit,
beingdevelopedandused widely.Ingeography,this theyattemptto providea morerigorousinferential
approachhas been espoused by Openshaw (1990) framework formodelevaluation.
in his geographicalanalysismachine.In the present In substantiveterms,the single most important
context, Generalized Additive Models must be statisticalinnovation of the last twenty years
solved in an iterativemannerthatrequireslengthy appearsto be applicationof statistical modellingto
calculations,while a vital part of the output situationswhere the responsevariableis not con-
requireshigh-resolution plotting.None ofthiswould tinuous (Wrigley, 1985). Modelling has been
be possible in routineanalysis withouta digital extendedto non-Gaussiandistributions so thatthe
computer. responsevariablecan be proportions,categoriesand
Such improvements in technologyhave enabled counts in what is now known as the Generalized
the distinctchange of outlookentailedin adopting LinearModel (GLM) (NelderandWedderburn, 1972;
theexploratoryapproach(TukeyandWilk,1966; Cox O'Brien,1983; O'Brien and Wrigley,1984). Conse-
and Jones,1981; Haining,1990,pp. 4-13). Statistical quently,theanalysisof categoricaldata is no longer
practiceand teachinghad become dominatedby limitedto testingfor differences in a chi-square
what Tukey called confirmatory statistics,that is analysis,forthemodellingapproachcan be used to
significancetesting.Suchan approachpresumesthat uncover underlyingpatterns,measure magnitude
thecorrectformof themodelis alreadyknown,and of effects,expose anomalieswhile takingaccount
thatall thatis needed is an inferential
testto allow of the inherentstochasticfluctuations in the data.
for samplingfluctuations. In reality,geographical Currently, majorefforts are being made to develop
researchersusually only have vague ideas of an the GLM in a numberof ways. For example,the
appropriatemodel,while the data theyanalyseare applicabilityof these models is being extendedto
often 'messy', having more than just stochastic deal with a numberof different researchdesigns
randomvariation.Therefore, exploratory procedures (Jonesand Moon, 1987, chapter2), such as case-
are requiredto diagnose model ills, suggest ap- controland longitudinalstudies(Breslowand Day,
propriateremediesand generallyuncoverpatternsin 1980, 1987). Moreover, the GLM is itselfbeing
the data. The acceptanceof the validityof such an generalized,for example,to deal with models at
approachhas licensedan enormousresearcheffort, several differentscales or levels simultaneously
with a rich harvestof new diagnostictools and (Jones,1991a,b; Joneset al., 1992), and to replace
proceduresthat are robustto the nonfulfilment of the linearformwithsomethingless restrictive, the
assumptions(Wrigley,1983, 1984; Dunn, 1989; subjectofthepresentpaper.
Berk,1990; Bollen and Jackman, 1990). Indeed,the
pendulummaybe indangerofswingingtoo farinthe
otherdirection,fortherearenow statistics textbooks NORMAL-THEORY MODELS
(e.g.Marsh,1988) inwhichthereareno confirmatory
proceduresat all, and thatmeans an impoverished To help explainthe underlyingideas, let us begin
discussion of the basic statisticalstandpointof witha simplenormal-theory linearregressionmodel
436 KELVYN]JONES andSIMONALMOND
withone response,Y and two predictors, X1 and X2 Partialresiduals
fori observations: Partialresidualplots are a veryusefulexploratory
procedurewhichhave been discussedin thegeogra-
Yi = PIXli+-2X2i+ i (1) phicalliterature by Jones(1984). To appreciatethe
o-+ motivationfor their use, consider the following
wheree is an independently distributed randomterm
withan expectationofzero.2In termsof generalized equation:
additivemodels,model(1) makesone demandingand
Yi = 10 - 2X1i+ IX2i(3)
perhapsunjustified assumption, namelythatthe re-
lationshipsbetweenthe responseand thepredictors This relationshipis an exact linearone in which
are linearones, that can be capturedin the slope thereis no randomterm.Figurela showstwo simple
terms, fl, ,2.Butifthetruerelationship has a marked scatter-plots oftheresponseagainsteachpredictor in
U-shape,the linearparametermay be close to zero turn for 10 observationsgeneratedaccordingto
indicatingno relationship. The linearity assumption equation3. Theyare veryun-informative ofthetrue
can be relaxedby assumingthattherelationship is a underlyingrelations.In contrast,Figure lb which
'smooth'one,and theresultant GAM can be written representspartialresidualplots for the same ten
as observations,reveals both the linearityof the
relationsand the differential size and sign of the
Yi =flO+ 6iXi+ 2X2i+ Ei (2) slopes. In thelinearOLS model,thepartialresiduals
forvariableX1aredefinedas:
where the linearslope parameters(f's) have been
replacedby 'smooth'functions (6's). Thisformulation
stressesthesimilarity and yetthedifference between p,li = i+ lXii (4)

the GAM and the usual linearmodel. The general wherethe -signifies an estimatedvalue. The partial
formof themodelremainsunchanged:theintercept residualsare simplytheestimatedresidualsplus the
and randomterm(e) are thesame;3therelation- productof the estimatedslope and the predictor
(f0)
shipbetweentheresponseand each predictoris still variable.The partialresidualswhen plottedagainst
additive,but the natureof the relationships is no theirassociatedpredictorvariableessentiallyshow
longer linearin the parameters.Instead of simple therelationship betweentheresponseand thepredic-
linearrelations,the functionalformbetween each toraftertheeffects ofotherpredictors inthemodel(in
predictorand the responsemay be different and thiscase,X2)havebeen 'removed'.Thus,thecloudof
complex,with asymmetry and 'bends'.4The exact points in a partialresidualplot show the scatter
formoftheserelationships is notpre-determined, but throughwhichthepartiallinearregressionhas been
is derivedduringempiricalanalysis.That is whythe fitted.Partialresidualplots representmulti-variate
term'smooth'is leftdeliberatelyvague. It simply relationshipsas a set of bivariatescatter-plots. It
means less smooth than a straightline,but more is thesepartialresidualsthatare 'smoothed'in the
smooththanjoiningup thepointsina scatter-plot of estimation oftheGAM equations.
theresponseand thepredictor.
Clearly,themoreflexiblespecification ofequation Smoothers
(2) includesthelinearmodelas a specialand limiting The second buildingblock of the GAM estimation
case. The linearmodel,however,has one overwhelm- processis theuse ofscatter-plot smoothers whichcan
ing advantagein termsofease ofcomputation, there operateon the bivariaterelationship of the partial-
is an exact ordinary-least-squares (OLS) solution residualplot.5Thereis a verywidechoiceofdiffering
wherebyparameter estimatescanbe derivedbymini- smoothers(Titterington,1985) and geographers
mizingthe sumsof thesquaredresiduals,thatis the have previouslyused a numberof different typesin
differences betweenthe actual and fittedvalues of theirwork.Localizedfitting is characterized by the
theresponsevariable.No suchexactsolutionis avail- smoothedestimateof a particular observationbeing
able forGAM models,and the equationhas to be derivedon the basis of 'nearby'values. The classic
estimatedin an iterativemanner,withan increased example of thisis runningmeans (Gregory,1963,
burdenof computation,whichis oftenlarge.This pp. 241-3) in whichthe arithmetic average is esti-
iterativeestimationprocess is based on the two mated for successive, fixed length, sequences.
building blocks: partial residualsand scatter-plotAnotherexampleis 'running medians'whicharepre-
smoothers, whichwillnow be discussedin turn. ferredby some due to their'resistance'to outlying,
 Movingoutofthelinear
rut 437
a) Y unusuallysmallorlarge,values(Cox andJones,1981;
20 - * Wrigleyand Dunn, 1986). Anotherapproach,is to
use all the observationsin derivingthe smoothfor
anyone observation, thatis 'global'fitting.
Ingeogra-
10 phy, the most commonly-used global methods are
polynomialexpansionswhichformthecoreoftrend-
surfacemodels (Unwin,1975). Afteran exhaustive
0 -* surveyofmanydifferent typesofsmoother, Bujaetal.
(1989,p. 549) conclude
I I I I
I
0 6 12 18 24
! 30 in ourexperience withrelatively
noisydata,in most
casesthechoiceis nottooimportantinthatdifferences
betweensmoothers aresmallrelative
to thedifference
Y betweenthesmoother anda parametric fit.
(say,linear)
20 * *
In practice,and certainlyin the developmentof
* software, itis smoothsbasedon cubicsplines(Eubank,
10-
1988; Silverman, 1985) thathave mainlybeen devel-
oped. Indeed,theyareused intheGAMFIT software
0- * * thatis used laterto calibratesomeillustrative models.
The preference forcubic splinesis motivatedby a
I I I I X numberof arguments. They are fastand efficientto
I
0 6 12 18 24 30 compute, and being symmetrical linear smoothers
theyare analytically tractableso thatan inferential
and theoretical framework can be developed.More-
over,theyrepresent a compromise betweenlocaland
global fitsin which the of
degree smoothingis data
b) Ep,1
dependent.In areas of the scatter-plot where data
0- densityis high, the smooth will reflectthe local
pattern, butifdata aresparse,thesplinewillbe linear
in that area. As Goodall (1990, p. 173) concludes
-10-
'splinesare a particularly versatilechoice'.
The aim in a good smoothis to capturefullythe
trendwhilenot payingtoo muchatten-
-20- 1 underlying
tion to the surroundingnoise. Severe smoothing
potentially leads to bias and thederivedtrendbeing
I I I I i I
0 6 12 18 24 30 off-target, whileinsufficient smoothingleads poten-
tiallyto a large varianceand 'jerkiness'aroundthe
truesmooth.Theseconceptsareshowngraphically in
Ep,2 Figure2. whichshows(a) thetrueunderlying curved
30- relationship;(b) a particularempirical,stochastic
realizationof that relationship;(c) a biased 'over'
smoothwhichmisses the underlyingtrend;(d) an
20- 'under'smoothin whichthereis too muchimpre-
cision. Technically,therefore, a good smooth is a
compromise betweenbias(accuracy)and imprecision.
10- What thereforeis requiredin any smootheris an
abilityto 'tune'thedegreeofsmoothnessimposedon
I I I I the data, and a means of assessingan appropriate
I I X22
0 6 12 18 24 30 choice.
FIGURE1. Scatterandpartial-residual
plotsforequation(3). (a) A veryusefulconceptin specifying the required
Bivariate
scatter residual
plots,(b)partial plots smoothnessis the degreesoffreedom consumedby
438 KELVYN]ONESandSIMONALMOND
a) the smooth. The smoothestpossible relationship
betweena setofpointsis a straight line;more'rough'
butstillverysmoothis a quadraticpolynomial;while
1600 theroughestofallis a running meanbasedon a single
point,which merely joinsup theoriginaldata.In a
all
fittedmodel,theoverallmeanor intercept consumes
800
one degreeof freedom, whilethe linearequationof
thestraight lineconsumesan extradegreeoffreedom
for the slope term.The quadraticconsumesthree
x (interceptand two slopes),whilethe one-pointrun-
-80 -40 0 40 80 ningmean consumesthemall. Thus,the degreesof
freedomis therequired'tuning'parameter; ifit is set
low,verysmoothresultsareobtained;ifitis sethigh,
b) y the smoothwillbe veryroughand complex.In the
GAMFIT software,withthe smoothingperformed
by cubic splines,it is convenientto controlthe
1600-
S *
amount of smoothingby selectinga reasonable
approximate degreesoffreedomforeachpredictor in
800 -? relationto thenumberof observationsinvolved.6In
subsequentanalysisa higheror lower value can be
0 * chosenand theresultant changein theresidualsums
ofsquarescanbe inspectedto revealtheappropriate-
x nessoftheoriginalchoiceintermsofgoodnessoffit.
-80 -40 0 40 80
The choiceof the smoothingparameteris therefore
determined empiricallyfromthedata;a highdegrees
C) of freedom,weak smoothing,and complex fitted
y curvesonlybeingjustified ifthisresultsina good fit,
witha smallresidualsums-of-squares.
1600
'Backfitting'
algorithm
are usually derived froma single
Partial-residuals
800-
overall fit,and the plots are inspectedfor non-
linearitieswhich are then accommodatedin an
0- improvedlinearmodelby a transformation ofone or
x moreofthepredictor variables(Jones,1984;Wrigley
-80 -40 0 40 80 and Dunn, 1986). Unfortunately, such an approach
mayfaildue to non-linearity inone partofthemodel,
maskingnon-linearities elsewhere.This problemis
d) overcomeinGAM modelsby employingan iterative
y schemethateffectively deals withall the variables
simultaneously. In this scheme,the smoothersare
1600 combinedwiththepartialresidualto forma general
'backfitting'
algorithm.Schematically, thisalgorithm
800 has the followingformforthe GAM of equation
(2):7

0 - -4 1. Derive initial estimatesand partial residuals

x froma linearmodel,thatis equation(1);
-80 -40 0 40 80 2. Smooth the partialresidualsfor variable X,,
FIGURE 2. Smooths,bias and imprecision. (a) Truerelationship,(b) derivingrevisedestimatesof the overall resi-
betweenthe actual
duals,thatis the difference
empiricalrealization,(c) biased'over' smooth,(d) imprecise'under'
smooth and fittedvaluesoftheresponsevariable;
 outofthelinear
Moving rut 439
3. Using these revised residuals based on the exact distribution theoryhas been derived,and the
smoothof calculatepartialresidualsforX,, rule-of-thumb is thatratiosinexcessof2 areregarded
XI,
smooththese,andderiverevisedestimatesofthe at the0-05probability
as significant level.When the
overallresiduals; degrees of freedomare set to 1, the estimatesare
4. Cyclethroughsteps3 and 4 untilconvergence.8 interceptor slope termsof the linearequation,but
whentheyaregreaterthan1,theestimaterepresents
Afterconvergence,the iterativepartialsmoothsare the linearpart of the overall smoothfit.All three
plottedagainsttheassociatedpredictor variablesand models give similar,and intuitivelyreasonable
inspected fornon-linearity.A particularly appealing results:increasingprecipitation withhigheraltitude
aspect of thisalgorithmis its flexibility in thatit is and 'northernness', lowerprecipitation inlandand in
possible to have different degreesof smoothingfor rain-shadow.
each predictor.Indeed,in whatis knownas a 'semi- The finalcolumnofTable I providestheresultsof
parametric' model,some relationships may be kept an approximatetest of the null hypothesisthat a
linear,merelyby specifying one degreeof freedom relationshipis linear,when a 'smooth' non-linear
foreach ofthevariablesinvolved. relationshipis postulated.In Model B, thelow prob-
Care is obviouslyneededindistinguishing import- abilitysuggeststherejectionof thisnullhypothesis
ant non-linearity fromnoise; two complimentary foraltitude.Thisis supportedby Model C, and there
approaches are used. First,there is the graphical is someevidence,thoughlessstrong,ofnon-linearity
exploratoryapproachbased on examininga plot of forlatitudeand distance-from-the-coast. Hypotheses
the smooth,one standard-error bands around the concerning theimprovement intheoverallgoodness
smooth,and the partialresidualsforthe converged of fitare evaluatedby calculatingF tests.These are
estimation.Non-linearity associated with few data based on comparingthe reductionin the variation
points and largeerror bands shouldbe treatedwith remaining unaccountedfor(thedifference in theresi-
caution. The second confirmatory approach, as dual sumsof squares)withtheincreasedcomplexity
alreadyoutlined,is to fitboth a linearand GAM of the 'extra'parametersrepresented as degreesof
model,and thento test whetherthe more compli- freedom consumed in the smooth. Comparing
cated GAM, with its extra degrees of freedom Models A and B, the smoothforaltitudeconsumes
consumedinthefit,has led to a significant decreasein 2 extradegreesof freedom, and thereductionin the
thesize of theresidualvariation,thatis a significant residualvarianceis more than can be expected to
increasein thegoodnessoffit. occurbychancefivetimesoutofa hundred.Model C
has fourmoreparameters thanB, and thisadditional
Illustration:
Californian
precipitation complexity canbe judgedto haveresultedina signifi-
Table I and Figure 3 provide an analysis of cantimprovement inthefit,ifwe arewillingto adopt
Californianprecipitation data as it is presentedby a 0-10 cutofffortheprobabilitylevel (remembering
the GAMFIT public-domainsoftware.9 These data thattheseF testsare approximations). The evidence
were originallyused by Taylor(1980) to illustrate a fromthisconfirmatory approachsuggeststhatnon-
pedagogic articleon multipleregressionbetweena linearmodelsare to be preferred as a descriptionof
continuousresponsevariable(precipitation) and four the Californiandata; the strongestevidence for
predictors,threeof whichare continuous(altitude, non-linearity is foraltitude.
latitude,distance-from-coast), and one categorical Turningnow to a graphicalexploratoryevalu-
(rain-shadow).'o Table I providesa summaryof the ation,Figure3 shows forModel C thesmoothplots
resultsderived by GAMFIT for three models of and standard-error bandsforeach of thecontinuous
increasingcomplexity.Model A is, in effect,the predictors, and the partialresidualsforaltitude.To
standardlinear model estimatedby OLS, as the facilitate comparisonof effects, each of theplots for
smooth degrees of freedomis set to 1, a linear the smoothsare drawnwiththe same scale forthe
relationship.Model B has a smoothtermforaltitude verticalaxis.To drawattentionto wherethesmooth
withthedegreesof freedomset to 3, whileModel C is basedon sparsedata,thefitted valuesofthesmooth
has smoothtermsforall the continuouspredictors, are joined by straightlines and not local curves.
each with 3 degrees of freedom.The table gives Visually,thesmooth(a) forlatitudedoes not depart
estimatesand the ratio of these estimatesto their markedlyfromlinearity, and thesame can be said of
standarderrors, whicharejudgedagainstthet distri- thesmooth(b) fordistance,exceptfarinlandwhere
butionin the OLS case. For the GAM models,no the slope steepens.The curvein the smooth(c) for
440 KELVYNJONESandSIMONALMOND
TABLEI.Analysis
ofCalifornian
precipitation

Residual Smooth Pseudo Non-lin

SS DF Term DF Estimate T ratio P-val

ModelA
545 23
Intercept 1 -
Altitude 1 87.2
0.003 5.4
Latitude 1 7.6
Distance 1 - 3.05
006 - 27
Rain-shad 1 - 11-3 - 4-7
Total parameters 5

ModelB
412 21
Intercept 1 -
Altitude 3 85.2
0.003
Latitude 1 6.1 0.05
Distance 1 2.97 - 8.2
-- 006
Rain-shad 1 - - 3.7
4.3
Total parameters 7 9.40

ModelC
261 17
Intercept 1 -
Altitude 3 82.9
0.003 6-6
Latitude 3 0.03
2-89 9.0
Distance 3 - - 0.13
Rain-shad 1 - 0.06 - 3.5 0.12
Total parameters 11 8.17 4.2

Model in
Change
comparison DF SS F-ratio Prob

(B)-(A) 2 133 3.38

4 151 0.05
(C)-(B) 0.09
2.46

Model (A) fullylinearmodel,

(B) additivemodel withsmoothrelationship
foraltitude,
(C) additivemodelwithsmoothrelationships latitudeand distance-from-the-coast
foraltitude,

altitude is more marked. However, the partial- We certainlyneed to examine the evidence for
residualplot (d) revealsthatthe most pronounced mid-altitude we willreturnto this
stationscarefully;
between2000 and 5000 feetis based
'non-linearity' matterlater.
on only a few observations.At lower altitudes,
below 2000 feet,withmore observationsreflected
in narrowerstandard-error bands, the smooth (c) GENERALIZED MODELS
appearslinear.Whiletheconfirmatory testsindicate
non-linearity,the plots in providingdetail as well Generalizedlinearmodels
as overall pattern,suggest that the evidence for The responseintheCalifornian precipitationexample
non-linearity must be treatedwith cautionas the itis reasonable
is a continuousvariable,and therefore
non-linearity based on few observations.Witha
is to choose a Gaussian distribution for the random
model of eleven parameters being fittedto only 28 term.However,muchgeographicalresearchis con-
observations,we are in danger of producinga cerned with counts, proportionsand categorical
'noisy overfit'with every 'aberration'or outlier outcomes,for which the choice of normal-theory
in the data being accommodatedin the smoothfit. modelwouldbe unwarranted. The generalizedlinear
 Movingoutofthelinearrut 441
a) 30- TABLEII. Components linear
ofgeneralized models

20- Linear
model Link Random
term

- Linearregression Identity Gaussian

._
c
0-- Log-linearmodel of counts Logarithmic Poisson
- - Logitmodel forproportions Logit Binomial
-10-
Logitmodel forbinaryresponse Logit Binomial
Randomeffectsanalysisof variance Identity Gamma

-20 4 I I
32 34 36 38 40
Latitude
model,however,dealswithallthesedifferent typesof
b)30- responsevariablesin a unifiedand flexiblemanner
(Dobson, 1990; McCullaghand Nelder,1989). This
20- derivesfrombeing able to specifysepar-
flexibility
O atelythethreecomponentsthatconstitute theGLM,
C
whichin thetwo-predictorcase is givenas:

aL- Yi= g-(o+fXlXli +2X2i)+Ei (5)

-10
or in verbalterms:

response= link(linear + randomterm

predictor)
0 40 120 160 200
80 The linearpredictoris thelinearequationofthesumof
Distance
theeffectsforpredicting theresponse.The linkscales
or transforms thelinearequationso thatit conforms
to therequirements oftheformoftheresponsevari-
20-
able. Thus,it is commonin theanalysisof a binary,
presence/absence response,fora logitlinkto be used
so thatthepredictors are relatedto thelogarithm of
10- -.
oL the 'odds' of a presenceas opposed to an absence
0 response.The random termcan be anymemberofthe
exponentialfamilyofdistributions and therefore itis
possible to specifythe appropriatedistribution for
-20 .0 0
* different of
types response; thus Gaussian for con-
i i
-1000
-00 1
0 1000 3000 5000 7000 tinuous,Poissonforcounts,Binomialforproportions.
Altitude Table II gives some 'natural'combinationsof the
three componentsto performGLM's for a wide
d)
30- rangeof analyses.Clearly,themodelof equation(1)
is a special case of the GLM with a Gaussian
20- randomterm,and an identitylinkwhichmeansthat
linear predictoris relatedto the response on an
10
DU untransformed scale.
0-
Generalized additivemodels
-10- The generalizedadditivemodelin thetwo-predictor
case is specified
as follows:
-20
-1000 0 1000 3000 5000 7000
Altitude Yi= g- 1(0 + 51Xli+ 2X2i)+ Ei (6)
the linearequationsof (5) have become the smooth
FIGURE 3. Smoothsand partialresiduals;Californian precipitation,
modelC. (a) Smooth(df:3)forlatitude,(b) smooth(df:3)fordistance functions of (6). Equation(6) standsin the same re-
fromthecoast,(c) smooth(df:3)foraltitude,(d) partial-residual
plot lationshipto (5), as equation(2) to (1), and therefore
foraltitude conceptually thereis littlenewhere.However,before
442 KELVYNJONESandSIMONALMOND
progressing to the illustration, pointsneed to be
two TABLE III. Analysisofwoodlandpresence/absence
noted. First,unlikethe linearmodel and ordinary-
least-squares,thereis no exactsolution,and even the Smooth Pseudo Non-Lin
GLM has to be estimatedinan iterativemannerby a Term DF Estimate T ratio P-val

procedure that is known as iterative weighted least

squares.Consequentlyin estimatingGAM models, Intercept 1
16.3
therehas to be a doubleloop ofiteration (Hastieand Band 1 4.03
0-021 2-5 0.0000
Band 2 - 049 - 489 0-0000
Tibshirani,1990a, chapter6). The outer one is for 4.82
Band 3 - - 0-0000
convergenceof theGAM estimates, theinnerone is 4.94 0.015 12.3
forthe backfitoperationforsmoothingthe partial
residuals.Second,the lack of fit,whichis measured
by the residualsums-of-squares in the OLS model, thesatelliteimage.Fulldetailsof theproceduresare
is known as the deviance in the GLM and the giveninAlmondandJones(1992).
GAM. When a more complicatedmodel is com- The responsevariableis therefore a binaryout-
pared to a simplerversion,the difference in the come,andthereis no reasonto expectthatitis related
deviance can be comparedto a chi-squaredistri- to thecontinuouspredictors in a linearmanner.The
bution,withdegreesoffreedomequal to thenumber appropriatetechniqueis thereforea generalized
'consumed' by the additionalparameters(Healy, additivemodel witha binomialrandomtermand a
1988,chapter7). logit link.The GAMFIT programwas used to cali-
brate the model,with the approximatedegrees of
Illustration:
modelling land-use withsatellite
imagery freedomset at 5 foreach of thethreepredictor vari-
The aim of thisexampleis to predictthe presence/ ables. In practicea totalof 14-8degreesof freedom
absence of woodland on the groundfromsatellite were consumed;"1six iterationsof the outer loop
imagery.Traditionally, techniqueshave were requiredto minimizethe deviance,while the
classification
been widelyused in remotesensingapplications, but inner smoothingloop needed a total of sixteen
there is an increasinguse of explicit statistical iterations. Table III presentsa summary outputfrom
models to relate some aspect of ground truthto GAMFIT. As before,theestimatesare thelinearpart
sensedimages(Williamson,1992; Miles etal., 1992). of thefit,and thepseudo t valuesare theratioof the
In thisapplicationthepredictors values estimateto the standarderror.As mightbe antici-
are intensity
measuredon the scale 0 to 255, dark to lightfor pated withsucha largenumberof observations, all
three'bands'ofdifferent wavelengths, green,red and three estimates are significant, with the greatest(and
infra-red.These values are derived fromSPOT-1 negative)effectforBand 2, and the smallest(also
multi-spectralimagery, recordedon 4thJuly, 1987 for negative)effect forBand3. The latteris surprising for
an area of 9 kilometre2 in the Forestof Bere to the it is thisinfra-red band thatis usuallyused to detect
northof Portsmouth, England.In termsof imagery, thepresenceofvegetation.However,theprobability
thesquareis dividedinto 150 by 150 pixelsso that valuesforthenullhypothesis oflinearity suggestthat
eachofthe22 500 pixelscoversa 20 metresquareon the underlying relationships forall threepredictors
theground.The satelliteimagerywas geo-registered are veryunlikelyto be linear.
using the ERDAS (1990) digitalimage processing Followingtherulesestablishedearlierof identical
system.The responsevariable,the ground-truth of verticalaxes,andjoiningup thesmoothfitbystraight
woodland presence/absence derivesfromspecially- lines,Figure4 shows thesmoothand one standard-
flown,colourinfra-red photographyat I to 10 000 errorbands for each predictor;for clarity(!), the
scale for6th September,1988. Using an analytical 22 500 partialresidualsarenotshown.12It is import-
photogrammetric plotter (Kern DSR14), KORK antto realizethatin interpreting theseplotsthatthe
KDMS software(1990) was used to derivedigital verticalaxis is measuredon thelogitscale,so thata
boundarylinesseparatingwoodlandfromotherland value of 0 correspondsto a 0-50 probabilitythata
uses. This digital informationwas then cleaned, pixel is woodland,whilea value of plus and minus
editedandmanipulated withARC/INFO Geographi- 4-49 correspondsto a 0-99 and 0-01 probability re-
cal Information System(ESRI,1990) to forma poly- spectively.The mostnoticeableeffectis forBand 2
gon topologyofdifferent land-uses.The ARC/INFO (red),with the model predictinga very low prob-
software was also used to produce a grid file of abilityof woodland when intensitylevels exceed
presence/absence that matches thepixelresolution of 35. In contrast,a high probabilityof woodland is
 Movingoutofthelinearrut 443

Band 1 - Green removedas a resultoftheseveregale experiencedin

an approxi-
the area in October 1987. Statistically,

L
S2 -..----------------- mate guide to the goodness of fitis the pseudo
R-squared,or rho-squareas it is known (Wrigley,
1985,pp. 49-50). Thiscan be derivedas:
T
_4 -2

-6-
Rho-square= 1 --
(Deviance frompostulatedmodel)
(Deviance fromnull,intercept-only
model)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 DN.
whichin thiscase givesa figureof0-52.Whiletheor-
Band 2 - Red eticallythisstatisticcan varybetween0 and 1, the
lattervalue can only be achievedby the ratherun-
6-
likelyoutcomeofall thepredictedprobabilities being
L 2-
correctat either0 or 1. Consequently,McFadden
S0- (1974) has suggestedthata value between0-2 and
I
-2
0-4 representsa 'good fit',whileFotheringham and
T
Knudsen(1987) state that it is rare to see values
4- thatexceed 0-4. In termsof statisticalfit,the three
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 DN.
intensityvariables thereforeperformexceedingly
or morecorrectly,
well in predicting, fittinga model
Band 3 - Infra-red forwoodland. The apparentsuccess of this GAM
-6- approachjustifiesfurther developments.Attempts
are currentlybeing made to improvethe model by
includingfurther predictorssuch as aspect (derived
froma digital terrainmodel), and by lettingthe
relationshipsbetween responseand the predictors
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 N. varyspatiallyin a GAM developmentof an expan-
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 DN.
sion model(Miles etal., 1992). It is also intendedto
evaluate the procedureas a predictivedevice for
FIGURE 4. SmoothsforGAM model fittedto woodland data (df:5
foreach Band)
differentspeciesof woodland,and to cross-validate
thepresentmodelby predicting woodlandpresence/
absencein otherareaswithknowngroundtruth.

predictedat highlevels of Band 1 (green),although

thesepredictions areaccompaniedby wide standard- CONCLUSIONS
errorbandsas thereare fewpixelsat highintensities
in thisreflectance band.The markedlynon-linear and The importance oftheGAM liesin relaxingthenear
well-estimated responsecurveforBand 3 (infra-red) universal statisticalassumptionof linearity,and
shows thehighestprobabilities forwoodlandoccur- thereby potentially allowing the discovery of
renceare to be foundbetweenintensities of 65 and important'structure' thatmay have been missedin
95. It mustbe stressedthattheinvertedU-shapeof traditional analyses.In assumingless about relation-
Band 3 is exactlythetypeof relationship thatlinear shipswithinthemodel,the GAM hopefullyreveals
logisticmodelsfailto detect,and it is not surprising more.Butas withallexploratory proceduresthereis a
therefore thatthelinearpartof thesmoothgivenin priceto be paid forallowingdata to guidethechoice
Table III is so 'shallow'. of model specification.In particular,
the dangersof
In combinationthe responsecurvesperform well over-interpreting thesmoothedfitmustbe stressed.
in predicting woodland,as can be judged fromcom- Thiscan be particularly severeforthebinarylogistic
paring the ground truthof Figure 5a with the modelwithsmallsamples.In suchcases theremaybe
predictionsof 5b. A carefulexaminationof marked local regions of the predictorspace that have a
discrepancies revealedthatareasofpoor fitwerethe responsethatis exclusivelyone typeofoutcome(be
resultsof the mismatchbetweenthe earliersatellite itpresenceorabsence).Consequently, thefitted
func-
imageand thelaterground-truth, fortherehad been tionsmay 'blow-up'being muchlargerin absolute
plannedfellingin thisarea,and manytreeshad to be size than the trueparameter, perhapsemphasizing
444 KELVYN JONESand SIMON ALMOND

0 : OtherLandUse 1: Woodland AeL(a)

Predicted
Probabiity
0.75 1.00

0.25 0.50

0.00 0.25

.(b)
i.

FIGURE 5. Ground truthand predictedprobabilitiesfor woodland, Forest of Bere. (a) Ground truth:woodland presence/absence,
(b) predictedprobabilitiesforwoodland
 Moving outofthelinear rut 445
non-linearities where there are none. Hastie and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Tibshirani(1990a, pp. 164, 286) give some graphical
examplesofthisproblem."3 Suchcasesofextremebias Bothauthorsthanktwo refereesfortheircomments,
can be foundfrominspectionof the partialresidual and Steve Framptonfor his considerablehelp in
the the ofa
plots; the smooth will have wide standard-errorprocessing data;KJacknowledges support
bands,and theresidualswilltrackthefitted functions Nuffield Social ScienceFellowship,1991-2.
in the'pure'local regionsofzeroesor ones.
More generally,while the GAM relaxesthe as- NOTES
sumptionof linearity, otherassumptionsassociated
withthe linearmodel,such as independenceof the 1. The use of the acronymGAM is unrelatedto
randomtermand no collinearity (or,concurvity as it Openshaw's (1990) use in which GAM stands for
becomes) stillneedto be fulfilled
(Poole and O'Farrell, geographicalanalysismachine.
1971). Moreover,apparentnon-linearity maybe the 2. The phrase'randomterm'is preferred to otherepithets
result of other formsof model mis-specification. such aserrors, disturbances,nuisances, becausetheyare
not'wrong' andareoften ofsubstantive importance. In
Returningto graphsforCalifornian precipitation in
thiscontext theword'random' meansallowedtovary,
Figure3, itcan be seenon closerinspection, thattwo
andinthismodelthevaluesoftheresponse areallowed
points between 1000 and 4000 feet are influentialin
to varyaroundtheintercept (&o)after allowing forthe
producingthe curveforaltitude.It just so happens effects associated withthetwopredictor variables.
thatboththesepointsrepresent stationsthatare the 3. Otherassumptions of thelinearmodelare usually
furthest inlandand in rain-shadow. A modelwithan carriedover to the GAM; thusthelatterassumesthat
additionalvariablefor rain-shadow/distance inter- all relevantpredictors have been included,and thatthe
action may therefore be preferred to a non-linear errorsare independent.Any empiricalanalysisusing
model.WhileHastieand Tibshirani (1986, p. 297) in theGAM mustbe mindful, therefore, ofbreakingthese
theirearlypaperon the GAM extol thevirtuesof a assumptions.
techniquethatis 'completely automatic, thatis nodetec- 4. The GAM is 'intrinsically non-linear' forit is specified
tivework',it mustbe stressedthe resultsshouldbe to be non-linearin theparameters; thiscontrastswith
the usual approachof transformation of the response
subjectto rigorousscrutiny, forit is possible that and/orthe predictors(Johnston, 1978, pp. 38-41) in
exploratoryprocedurescan capitalizeon a chance which the models remain 'intrinsically linear'. The
resultand lead theresearcher astray.14The appropri- choice of a particulartransformation (logarithms,
ate strategyforguardingagainstsuch problemsis square roots etc.) is a matterof guessworkalthough
cross-validation, whereexploratoryworkis under- suchdevicesas the'ladderofpowers'(Jones,1984) are
takenon partof thedata,and theresultant modelis a help. The transformation must be chosen before
thensubjectedto rigorousconfirmatory analysison model calibration;in contrast,in the GAM approach,
theremaining part. thedata areused to revealan appropriateform.
This paper has sought to demonstratethat the 5. An alternativeis to fit a general smooth surface
GAM providesan effective andhighlyflexible means throughthe multi-dimensional space of the predictor
variables in place of the additive smooths of one
of calibratingnon-linearmodels withina unified
variableat a time.Whilethismaybe reasonablefortwo
statistical
framework. It remainsto be stressed,how-
predictors,the approachrapidlygets unwieldlyand
ever,thatthese methodsare currently undergoing unstable.Unlessthedata are exceedinglyplentiful and
activedevelopment. Most importantly, theGAM has well distributed, the smoothin any partof the space
recentlybeen extendedto otherdata structures and will be based on few observationsand therefore will
to otherresearchdesigns.These includesituations be unstable.Alternatively, the procedurewillhave to
wheretheresponseis orderedover time(Cleveland look further and further for 'neighbours'so that the
etal., 1991), wheretheresponseis an orderedseries estimatedsmoothmaybe severelybiased.Moreover,
of categories,theso-calledproportional-odds model in suchmodelsit is verydifficult to assess theseparate
influence of a particular
predictor variable.
(Hastieetal.,1989),wheretheobservations consistof
6. The program estimates how many degrees have
cases and matched-comparisons (Breslow,1987),and
survivaldata, where timeto the occurrenceof the actuallybeen consumedin thefitting process.As with
all linearsmoothers, smoothsbased on thecubicsplines
responseeventis veryskewand subjectto censoring can be writtenas a function of theactualvalues.The n
so thatforsome unitsthe event has not occurred by n matrixthat'maps' the smoothon to the actual
by the end of the observationalperiod(Hastie and valuesis knownas thesmoothingmatrix;itis thetrace
Tibshirani,1990b). of thismatrix(thesumof its eigenvalues)thatis used
446 KELVYN ]JONESand SIMON ALMOND
to estimate the degrees of freedom that have been BRESLOW, N. S. and DAY, N. E. (1980) Statistical methods
consumedin thefit.An important consequenceis that in cancerresearch, volumeII, theanalysisof case-control
theeffective degreesoffreedomconsumedduringthe studies(International Agency for Researchon Cancer,
fittingprocess is continuous,and not restrictedto Lyon)
integernumbers.The detailsare given in Hastie and BRESLOW, N. S. and DAY, N. E. (1987) Statistical methods
Tibshirani(1990a, AppendixB). incancerresearch,volume II, thedesignandanalysisofcohort
7. The schemeis intendedto conveyconceptuallywhat studies(International Agency for Researchon Cancer,
is happeningduringmodel calibration.In practicea Lyon)
moreefficient algorthim is used,thedetailsaregivenin BRYMAN, A. (1988) Quantity and qualityinsocialresearch
Hastieand Tibshirani(1990a, p. 125). (UnwinHyman,London)
8. For the class of smootherswhichincludesthe cubic BUJA,A., HASTIE, T. and TIBSHIRANI,R. (1989) 'Linear
spline,Buja et al. (1989) have proved thatthe back- smoothers and additive models', Ann. Statist. 17:
fittingalgorithm willconverge. 453-555
9. Details on softwarearegiveninAppendixC ofHastie CLEVELAND, R. B.,CLEVELAND, W. S.,McRAE,J.E. and
and Tibshirani(1990a); Nelder(1989) providesappro- TERPENNING, I. (1991) 'STL: a seasonal trend de-
priate code for the softwarepackage GLIM, with compositionprocedurebased on LOESS', i. Offic. Statist.
amendments in Stasinopoulos(1990). 6: 3-73
10. The originalanalysisused 29 rainfallstations,butthe CLIFF,A. D. and ORD, J.K. (1975) 'The comparisonsof
two most northernones were omittedin the present meanswhensamplesconsistof spatiallyautocorrelated
analysis. These were obvious outliers,reflectinga observations', Environ. Plann.A 7: 725-34
different climaticregimein the extremenorthof the COX, N. J.andJONES,K. (1981) dataanalysis'
'Exploratory
state. in WRIGLEY,N. and BENNETT, R. J.(eds) Quantitative
11. For an explanationof non-integer degreesof freedom geography: a Britishview (Routledgeand Kegan Paul,
see note6. London),pp. 135-43
12. GAMFIT when calibratingthe model does not work togeneralizedlinear
DOBSON, A. J.(1990) An introduction
on the individualpixelsbut on all the unique combi- models(Chapmanand Hall,London)
nationsofthepredictor variables.Thus,itis thelogitof
DUNN, R. (1989) 'Buildingregressionmodels:theimport-
the proportionof pixels that are woodland at each ance ofgraphics',J.Geogr.HigherEduc.13: 15-30
unique combinationof the predictorvariablesthatis ERDAS (1990) PC ERDAS 7.4systems manuals(ERDAS Inc.,
actuallymodelledin theprogram. Atlanta)
13. This 'blowing-up'does occur where there are few
ESRI (1990) PC ARC/INFO 3.4D manualset(ESRI Institute,
pixels at the extremesof the graphsin Figure4, es- Redlands,California)
peciallyat highvaluesoftheGreenband;theyarenot,
however,associatedwithanymarkednon-linearities.
EUBANK, R. L. (1988) Smoothing splinesand nonparametric
regression(Marcel Dekker, New York)
14. By 1990, themessagewas 'we need to use ourflexible
A. S. and KNUDSEN, C. (1987)
models with some caution' Hastie and Tribshirani FOTHERINGHAM,
'Goodness-of-fit statistics'Conceptsand Techniquesin
(1990a, p. 287).
Modern Geography46 (EnvironmentalPublications,
Norwich)
REFERENCES GOODALL, C. (1990) 'A surveyofsmoothingtechniques'
in FOX, J. and LONG, J. S. (eds) Modern methods
ALMOND, S. and JONES,K. (1992) 'Predictingland-use
fromsatelliteimagery:a non-parametric of data analysis (Sage, Newbury Park, California),
logitapproach
based on additive smooths',mimeo (Departmentof pp. 126-76
of GOULD, P. R. (1969) 'Is Statistix inferensthegeographical
Geography,University Portsmouth)
name for a wildgoose? Econ. Geogr. 46: 439-48
BERK,R. A. (1990) 'A primeron robustregression'inFOX,
Statistical methods and thegeographer
J.and LONG, J.S. (eds) Modernmethods ofdataanalysis GREGORY, S. (1963)
(Sage,NewburyPark,California), pp. 292-324 (Longman,London)
in thesocialand
BOLLEN, K. A. and JACKMAN,R. W. (1990) 'Regression HAINING, R. (1990) Spatialdata analysis
an of outliersand environmental sciences (Cambridge University Press,
diagnostics: expositorytreatment
influentialcases' inFOX,J.and LONG, J.S. (eds) Modern Cambridge)
R. (1986) 'Generalized
methods ofdataanalysis(Sage,NewburyPark,California), HASTIE, T. and TIBSHIRANI,
additivemodels',Statist.Sci. 1: 297-318
pp. 25 7-91
BOX, J.F. (1978) R. A. Fisher:thelifeofa scientist (Wiley, HASTIE, T. and TIBSHIRANI, R. (1990a) Generalized
New York) additivemodels(Chapmanand Hall,London)
BRESLOW, N. S. (1987) 'Statisticaldesignand analysisof HASTIE, T. and TIBSHIRANI, R. (1990b) 'Exploringthe
epidemiologicalstudies',(Departmentof Biostatistics natureof covariateeffectsin the proportionalhazards
Technicalreport81, University ofWashington) model',Biometrics 46: 1005-16
 Movingoutofthelinearrut 447
HASTIE, T., BOTHA, J.L. and SCHITZLER, C. M. (1989) tunities'in THOMAS, R. W. (ed.) Spatialepidemiology
'Regression with an ordered categorical response', (Pion,London)pp. 48-78
Statist.Medic.8: 785-94 O'BRIEN, L. G. (1983) 'Generalizedlinearmodellingusing
HEALY, M. J.R. (1988) GLIM: an introduction (Clarendon theGLIM system'Area 15: 327-36
Press,Oxford) O'BRIEN, L. G. and WRIGLEY, N. (1984) 'A GLM
JOHNSTON, R. J.(1978) Multivariate statistical
anlysisin approach to categorical data analysis: theory and
geography (Longman,London) applications in geography and regional science' in
JONES, K. (1984) 'Graphical methods for exploring BAHRENBERG,G., FISCHER,M. M. and NIJKAMP,P.
relationships'in BAHRENBERG,G., FISCHER, M. M. (eds) Recentdevelopments inspatialdata analysis(Gower,
and NIJKAMP,P. (eds) Recent developmentsinspatialdata Aldershot),pp. 231-51
analysis(Gower,Aldershot),pp. 215-27 POOLE, M. A. and O'FARRELL,P. N. (1971) 'The assump-
JONES,K. (1990) 'What'shidingbehindstatisticalmaps?', tions of the linearregressionmodel', Trans.Inst.Brit.
Bull.Soc. Univers.Cartog.24: 23-30 Geogr.52: 145-58
JONES, K. (1991a) 'Specifyingand estimatingmultilevel PRATT, G. (1989) 'Quantitative techniques and
modelsforgeographicalresearch',Trans.Inst.Brit.Geogr. humanistic-historicalmaterialist perspectives' in
NS 16: 148-59 KOBAYASHI, A. and MACKENZIE, S. (eds) Remaking
JONES, K. (1991b) 'Multilevelmodels for geographical humangeography (UnwinHyman,Boston)pp. 101-15
research',Concepts and Techniques in ModernGeography SILVERMAN, B. W. (1985) 'Some aspects of the spline
54 (Environmental Publications,Norwich) smoothingapproachto nonparametric regressioncurve
JONES, K., JOHNSTON, R. J.and PATTIE, C. J.(1992) J.Roy.Statist.Soc.SeriesB 47: 1-52
fitting',
'People,places,regions:exploringtheuse of multilevel STASINOPOULOS, M. (1990) 'Correctionto "General-
modellingin the analysisof electoraldata', Brit.J.Polit. ised Additive Models and GLMS",' GLIM Newsletter
Sci. (inpress) 20: 4
JONES,K. and MOON, G. (1987) Health,diseaseandsociety TAYLOR, P. J. (1980) 'A pedagogic application of
(Routledge,London) multipleregressionanalysis:precipitation in California',
KORK (1990) KorkDigitalMappingSystem, KDMS reference Geography 65: 203-12
guide,(KorkSystemsInc.,Bangor,ME) TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1985) 'Common structureof
MARSH, C. (1988) Exploring data(PolityPress,Oxford) smoothingtechniquesin statistics', Statist.Rev.
Internat.
McCULLAGH, P. and NELDER, J.A. (1989) Generalized 53: 141-70
linearmodels, 2nd edition(Chapmanand Hall,London) TUKEY, J.W. and WILK, M. B. (1966) 'Data analysisand
McFADDEN, D. (1974) 'Conditionallogitanalysisofquali- statistics:an expositoryoverview',Amer.Feder.Inform.
tativechoicebehaviour'inZAREMBKA,P. (ed.)Frontiers Process.Soc.Confer. Proc.29: 695-709
ineconometrics (AcademicPress,New York)pp. 105-42 UNWIN, D. J. (1975) 'An introductionto trendsurface
MILES,M., STOW, D. A. andJONES,J.P. (1992) 'Incorpor- analysis',Concepts and Techniques inModernGeography 5
atingthe expansionmethodintoremotesensing-based (Geo Abstracts, Publications,Norwich)
waterqualityanalyses'in CASETTI, E. and JONES,J.P. WILLIAMSON, H. D. (1992) 'Developing a methodology
(eds) Applicationsof the expansionmethod(Routledge, forestimating grasslandvariableswithremotelysensed
London)pp. 279-96 data',Area24: 36-44
NELDER, J.A. (1989) 'Generalizedadditivemodels and WRIGLEY, N. (1983) 'Quantitativemethods:on data and
GLM's', GLIM Newsletter 18: 4-13 diagnostics',Prog.Hum.Geogr.7: 567-77
NELDER, J. A. and WEDDERBURN, R. W. M. (1972) WRIGLEY, N. (1984) 'Quantitativemethods:diagnostics
'Generalizedlinearmodels',J.Roy.Statist.Soc. SeriesA revisited',Prog.Hum.Geogr.8: 525-35
135: 370-84 WRIGLEY, N. (1985) Categorical data analysisforgeogra-
NOREEN, E. W. (1988) Computer-intensive methodsfor phersandenvironmental scientists
(Longman,London)
testing (Wiley,New York)
hypotheses WRIGLEY,N. and DUNN, R. (1986) 'Graphicaldiagnostics
OPENSHAW, S. (1990) 'Automatingthesearchforcancer for logistic oil exploration models', Mathematical
clusters:a review of problems,progressand oppor- Geology18: 355-74