While the use of spatially referenced data for the analysis of epidemiological data is growing, issues associated with selecting the appropriate geographic unit of analysis are also emerging. A particularly problematic unit is the ZIP code. Lacking standardization and highly dynamic in structure, the use of ZIP codes and ZIP code tabulation areas (ZCTA) for the spatial analysis of disease present a unique challenge to researchers. Problems associated with these units for detecting spatial patterns of disease are explored. A brief review of ZIP codes and their spatial representation is conducted. Though frequently represented as polygons to facilitate analysis, ZIP codes are actually defined at a narrower spatial resolution reflecting the street addresses they serve. This research shows that their generalization as continuous regions is an imposed structure that can have serious implications in the interpretation of research results. ZIP codes areas and Census defined ZCTAs, two commonly used polygonal representations of ZIP code address ranges, are examined in an effort to identify the spatial statistical sensitivities that emerge given differences in how these representations are defined. Here, comparative analysis focuses on the detection of patterns of prostate cancer in New York State. Of particular interest for studies utilizing local, spatial statistical tests, is that differences in the topological structures of ZIP code areas and ZCTAs give rise to different spatial patterns of disease. These differences are related to the different methodologies used in the generalization of ZIP code information. Given the difficulty associated with generating ZIP code boundaries, both ZIP code areas and ZCTAs contain numerous representational errors which can have a significant impact on spatial analysis. While the use of ZIP code polygons for spatial analysis is relatively straightforward, ZCTA representations contain additional topological features (e.g. lakes and rivers) and contain fragmented polygons that can hinder spatial analysis. Caution must be exercised when using spatially referenced data, particularly that which is attributed to ZIP codes and ZCTAs, for epidemiological analysis. Researchers should be cognizant of representational errors associated with both geographies and their resulting spatial mismatch, especially when comparing the results obtained using different topological representations. While ZCTAs can be problematic, topological corrections are easily implemented in a geographic information system to remedy erroneous aggregation effects.

A common theme in analysis and evaluation of network-based critical infrastructure is the assessment of system vulnerability. Graph theoretic, simulation, and optimization-based techniques have played a significant role in examining potential network vulnerabilities given the insights they can provide for mitigating facility loss and prioritizing fortification efforts. Central to these approaches is the concept of facility (arc—node) importance or criticality to system survivability. Assessments of network vulnerability can dramatically differ based on how facility importance is characterized. In this review, various approaches for assessing facility importance and network vulnerability are examined. The key differences in these approaches are the ways in which a facility's role in maintaining network operability is evaluated given arc—node disruption. Comparative results suggest significant differences exist among measures of facility importance and network performance. Furthermore, the subsequent incongruities in these measures and their implications need to be clearly understood to support interdiction risk and vulnerability assessment for critical infrastructures.

Cluster analysis continues to be an important exploratory technique in scientific inquiry. It is used widely in geography, public health, criminology, ecology, and many other fields. Spatial cluster detection is driven by geographic information corresponding to the location of activities, requiring appropriate and meaningful treatment of space and spatial relationships combined with observed attributes of location and events. To date, this has meant utilizing dedicated measures and techniques to structure and account for distance, neighbors, contiguity, irregular geographic morphology, and so on. Unfortunately, all spatial clustering approaches, regardless of their theoretical underpinning, statistical foundation, or mathematical specification, have limitations in accuracy, sensitivity, and the computational effort required for identifying clusters. As a result, a major challenge in practice is determining which technique(s) will provide the most meaningful insights for a particular substantive issue or planning context. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview and evaluation of spatial clustering techniques, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the most widely applied approaches. Results suggest that performance varies significantly in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and computational expense. This is noteworthy because the misidentification of clusters, whether false positives or false negatives, has the potential to bias not only hypothesis formulation but also pragmatic facets of policy, process, and planning efforts within a region.