Replication is a means of assessing the credibility and generalizability of scientific results, whereby subsequent studies independently corroborate the findings of initial research. In the study of geographic phenomena, a distinct form of replicability is particularly important – whether a result obtained in one geographic context applies in another geographic context. However, the laws of geography suggest that it may be challenging to use replication to assess the credibility of findings across space and to identify new laws. Many geographic phenomena are spatially heterogeneous, which implies they exhibit uncontrolled variance across the surface of the earth and lack a characteristic mean. When a phenomenon is spatially heterogeneous, it may be difficult or impossible to establish baselines or rules for study-to-study comparisons. At the same time, geographic observations are typically spatially dependent, which makes it difficult to isolate the effects of interest for cross-study comparison. In this paper, we discuss how laws describing the spatial variation of phenomena may influence the use of replication in geographic research. Developing a set of shared principles for replication assessment based on fundamental laws of geography is a prerequisite for adapting replication standards to meet the needs of disciplinary subfields while maintaining a shared analytical foundation for convergent spatial research.

Did the novel planning arrangements in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) enable stakeholders to substantively influence adaptation planning? If so, does the observed influence have potential for more transformational adaptation? We inform these questions by reviewing and coding the first 50 NAPAs, prepared by the world’s poorest nations with support from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We then apply categorical statistics and qualitative comparative analysis to test for stakeholder influence on the planning process and outcomes. We find little evidence that the composition of stakeholder participation influenced climate vulnerability analysis or adaptation planning in the NAPAs. Although the NAPAs were designed to be participatory and country-driven, they were constrained by limited budgets, prescribed guidelines from the UNFCCC, and the challenges of cultivating effective stakeholder participation. Key aspects of NAPAs even worked against generating transformational adaptation. Chief amongst these, risk exposure and sensitivity were emphasized over adaptive capacity in assessing vulnerability, and cost- effectiveness and synergies with existing development and environmental policies were priorities for selecting adaptation actions. These barriers to effective stakeholder engagement and transformational adaptation are timely reminders for those countries currently in the process of preparing their National Adaptation Plans to the UNFCCC.

Despite recent calls to make geographical analyses more reproducible, formal attempts to reproduce or replicate published work remain largely absent from the geographic literature. The reproductions of geographic research that do exist typically focus on computational reproducibility—whether results can be recreated using data and code provided by the authors—rather than on evaluating the conclusion and internal validity and evidential value of the original analysis. However, knowing if a study is computationally reproducible is insufficient if the goal of a reproduction is to identify and correct errors in our knowledge. We argue that reproductions of geographic work should focus on assessing whether the findings and claims made in existing empirical studies are well supported by the evidence presented. We aim to facilitate this transition by introducing a model framework for conducting reproduction studies, demonstrating its use, and reporting the findings of three exemplar studies. We present three model reproductions of geographical analyses of COVID‐19 based on a common, open access template. Each reproduction attempt is published as an open access repository, complete with pre‐analysis plan, data, code, and final report. We find each study to be partially reproducible, but moving past computational reproducibility, our assessments reveal conceptual and methodological concerns that raise questions about the predictive value and the magnitude of the associations presented in each study. Collectively, these reproductions and our template materials offer a practical framework others can use to reproduce and replicate empirical spatial analyses and ultimately facilitate the identification and correction of errors in the geographic literature.

Pharmacies are more accessible than other health care services, providing frontline primary and preventative health care. Recent research has underscored the importance of pharmacy access for reaching underserved and rural populations. However, minimal attention has been given to the spatial and temporal dimensions of access to pharmacy care despite evidence that geographic accessibility impacts the utilization of healthcare services. This study measured spatiotemporal variation in access to pharmacy care across Vermont using the enhanced two-step floating catchment area (E2SFCA) method. We surveyed 102 (87%) Vermont pharmacy locations for data on hours of operation and staffing levels during Fall 2023, and we completed data for an additional 15 in-state and 75 out-of-state locations with public data and imputation. Population data was sourced from the Census and road data from OpenStreetMap. We computed hourly spatial accessibility scores by county subdivision for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and compared results for metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, testing for significance using the Kruskal–Wallis H Test. Our findings reveal significant disparities in pharmacy access between rural and urban areas. Access also dropped significantly on Saturdays and Sundays compared to weekdays. We found proportionately greater reductions in access on weekends for rural areas than for urban areas. Virtually all Vermonters lack access to community pharmacies at night, while the daily cycles of access are similar across urban and rural areas. Our study revealed important urban-rural differences in the spatial accessibility of pharmacies across Vermont and highlighted how temporal accessibility compounds with spatial accessibility in rural areas. The results are useful for informing public health policy and the provision of health services. We have also demonstrated the importance of data on pharmacy operating hours and service levels for modeling spatiotemporal pharmacy accessibility, highlighting the need for further research and improving centralized databases to facilitate research in this field.