GWR results

Discussion created by lts202 on Oct 7, 2012

I am working with GWR to identify if there are any relationships between 'extreme' events and disease incidence. The use of GWR has been employed because I am working in a region where local differences occur for for selected variables. It is slightly different to trying to find all the variables that explain the incidence rates, rather I am looking at specific variables to see if they do impact or not.

I am getting good results for the St. Residuals, local r2 and coefficient rasters, however I am concerned about the results in the results box. I've read the literature about these results and it says for the residualsquares and sigma the smaller the value the better. My results for these two measures aren't what I would consider small. Is this vital or are the results I actually map more important? The AICc value is lower for GWR than OLS. I feel positive about the st. residuals, local r 2 and coefficient rasters but don't want to put these in results in my work if actually underlying those the model is no good.

Also, I know it is advised to start with OLS to find a good model, but is this essential if I am not looking to explain the incidence rates fully, rather I am looking to see if the selected variables do impact the incidence rate or not.