Scale as Artifact: GIS, Ecological Fallacy, and Archaeological Analysis
Scale as Artifact: GIS, Ecological Fallacy, and Archaeological Analysis
复制标题
尺度作为人工制品：GIS、生态谬误和考古分析
DOI：
10.1007/0-387-32773-8_4
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Harris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Harris
规模的概念令人困惑、令人沮丧、了解甚少，但…… 。 。有趣的。地理学作为一门以空间格局和关系为核心的学科，传统上一直接受和面对规模给研究带来的意义、解释、解释力，以及一些人认为的棘手性。还有许多其他与空间相关的学科，例如考古学，它们与地理学一样，需要在从地方到区域、国家和国际层面的连续尺度上运作。事实上，正如 Mcmaster 和 Sheppard（2004）指出的那样，很难确定一个完全“无规模”的学科。我们对地理和考古模式、社会进程和空间异质性的理解高度依赖于规模。由于地球表面的范围和复杂性，研究人员必须不断地采样、概括或汇总才能理解现实。人们早已认识到，确定研究中使用的数据采集和分析的适当规模，以及管理在将资源与数据采集相匹配时必须进行的权衡。但是，虽然规模很容易与地理描述的详细程度联系起来，但大多数研究都缺少对分析规模的代表性如何进行讨论，因为没有与特定分析规模相关的不确定性标准衡量标准（Tate 和 Atkinson 2001）。事实上，Meentemeyer (1989) 认为研究量表似乎是无意识地选择的，因此可能看起来完全是任意的。沃森（Watson，1978）观察到，我们倾向于只在一个分析层面上隐含地工作，而不考虑其他选择，几乎作为一种信仰行为。与线概括、数据捕获和数据显示的规模相关的规模问题，以及生态谬误及其衍生问题（可修改面积单位问题）的鲜为人知的问题，都很少得到承认。
The concept of scale is confusing, frustrating, little understood, and yet . . . intriguing. Geography, as the discipline with spatial pattern and relationships as its core focus, has traditionally embraced and confronted the meaning, interpretation, explanatory power, and some would suggest, intractability, that scale brings to studies. There are many other spatially related disciplines such as archaeology that share with geography the need to operate across a scale continuum ranging from the local to the regional, national, and international levels. Indeed, as Mcmaster and Sheppard (2004) point out, it is difficult to identify a completely ‘‘scaleless’’ discipline. Our understanding of geographical and archaeological patterns, societal processes, and spatial heterogeneity, are highly dependent on scale. Because of the extent and complexity of the Earth’s surface, researchers must invariably sample, generalize, or aggregate in order to comprehend reality. Identifying an appropriate scale of data capture and analysis to use in a study, and managing the trade-offs that must occur in matching resources with data capture, have long been acknowledged. But while scale is readily associated with the level of detail involved with geographical description, what is missing from most studies is any discussion of how representative that scale of analysis is, given that there are no standard measures of uncertainty related to particular scales of analysis (Tate and Atkinson 2001). Indeed, Meentemeyer (1989) suggests that it seems that study scales are selected unconsciously and therefore may seem to be completely arbitrary. Watson (1978) observes that we tend to work at one analytical level exclusively and implicitly, without considering other alternatives, almost as an act of faith. Scale issues associated with line generalization, scale of data capture and data display, and with the even less well-known issues of ecological fallacy and its derivative, the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, are only rarely acknowledged.
影响因子：
5
作者：
Krieger, N;Chen, JT;Carson, R
通讯作者：
Carson, R
影响因子：
12.7
作者：
SCHWARTZ, S
通讯作者：
SCHWARTZ, S