This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 19:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Geography
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Applying Descriptive Statistics to Teaching the

Regional Classification of Climate
Peter S. Lindquist & Daniel J. Hammel
Published online: 16 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Peter S. Lindquist & Daniel J. Hammel (1998) Applying Descriptive Statistics to Teaching the Regional
Classification of Climate, Journal of Geography, 97:2, 72-82, DOI: 10.1080/00221349808978830

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221349808978830

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Applying Descriptive Statistics to Teaching
the Regional Classification of Climate
Peter S . Lindquist and Daniel J. Hammel
ABSTRACT
This article describes an exercise
for college undergraduate and high
school students which relates descrip-
tive statistics measuring central tenden-
cy and dispersion to the regional classi-
fication of climate. In the exercise stu-
dents are assigned a set of mean
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
monthly temperature and precipitation
statistics for 65 weather stations
throughout the conterminous United
States. Mean annual temperature and
precipitation and their standard devia-
tions are computed for each weather
station. These statistics are used to con-
struct two scatter plots of means and
standard deviations for both tempera-
ture and precipitation. Clusters of
points within each scatter plot are then
identified to form climatic categories
for temperature and precipitation,
which are mapped out into tempera-
ture and precipitation regions. These
maps are overlayed to produce a com-
posite climatic region map. The open-
ended nature of the exercise forces stu-
dents to struggle with the regional clas-
sification problem in geography which
is not always clearly defined and sim-
ple to resolve.
Key Words: descriptive statistics, mean,
standard deviation, scatter plot, climate,
regional classification
Peter Lindquist is Assistant Professor in
the Department of Geography and
Planning, University of Toledo, Toledo,
Ohio 43606.
Daniel 1. Hammel is Assistant Professor in
the Department of Geography-Geology,
lllinois State University, Normal, Illinois
61 790.
Journal of Geography 97:72-82
01998 National Council for Geographic Education
Descriptive statistics are among the most basic yet useful tools that
geographers use to understand the world. Teaching the application of
these tools in a meaningful and appropriate way, however, can be a vex-
ing problem for the undergraduate instructor or high school teacher
when students fail to see how they can be applied in a spatial context.
The exercise described here was designed to show undergraduate stu-
dents how simple descriptive statistics for measuring central tendency
and dispersion can be applied in the classification of observations of a
given geographic variable or set of variables. In this case, students are
required to classify the Conterminous United States into climatic
regions using the mean and standard deviation of temperature and pre-
cipitation from a sample of 65 urban weather stations.
BACKGROUND
This exercise was developed as part of a new sophomore-level
introductory geography course at Illinois State University entitled
Geographic Techniques. Students enrolling in the course are required to
have completed introductory courses in world geography and earth sci-
ence. An important component of this techniques course is an introduc-
tion to basic statistics. Students are introduced to the rudiments of data
sampling, data description and mapping, and drawing inferences about
geographical populations. Classroom sessions are supplemented with
readings from Robinson, et al. (1995) and Earickson and Harlin (1994).
The exercise described in this article is used early in the course to draw
the techniques of data description and mapping together. The exercise
provides valuable practical experience in the use of spreadsheets and
word processors. Furthermore, the exercise forces students to struggle
with classification issues often encountered in geographic work that are
not always clearly defined and simple to resolve. To this end, students
benefit from this exercise by:
1. applying simple descriptive statistics in a geographical con-
text;
2. constructing and using scatter plots as a tool for classifica-
tion;
3. using spatial overlay as a technique for regional classifica-
tion;
4. developing geographic decision-making skills by generat-
ing regions based on classification of a limited set of geo-
graphic variables;
 Applying Basic Descriptive Statistics
5. increasing critical thinking skills
through discussion of results of analy-
sis, formulation of conclusions, and
recognition of the limitations of the
data and techniques used in the study;
and
6. mastering spreadsheet operations for
simple computations, sorting, and the
generation of graphs and charts.
RATIONALE
This exercise confronts students with a number
of challenges typically encountered in geographical
inquiry: regionalization, the use of real-world data,
familiarization with an appropriate analytical tech-
nique (i.e., basic descriptive statistics), and the
application of an appropriate tool (computer
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
spreadsheets). Regionalization is commonly taken
for granted in geography (Fleming 1973),yet it is an
important skill for nascent geographers to acquire.
This exercise asks students not just to classify data,
but to apply that classification to an actual geo-
graphic area. Thus, what appears at first to be a
rather simple and arbitrary procedure soon
becomes a challenging, thought-provoking problem
that requires significant rigor to solve. Students
develop an appreciation that geographers can
define regions using a set of quantitative techniques
coupled with substantial professional judgment
based on an understanding of the complex nature
of the data (Macdonald and Lemaire [1995] provide
another manner in which students must wrestle
with this issue).
Real data also introduce an important complex-
ity to the exercise that is not often present in text-
book exercises. While the data in this exercise do
not present any issues of non-normal distributions,
such difficulties can be addressed in discussion
about the exercise (Burn and Fox 1986). The use of
means, standard deviations, scatter plots, and spa-
tial overlay operations also introduces students to
powerful basic analytical techniques that form the
basis for many more sophisticated analyses that
geographers perform. Discussions of problems that
arise within the exercise can also help students
learn about the limitations and the potential for
serious misuse of even the simplest analytical meth-
ods.
The use of computers is almost essential to the
modern geography student (Fitzpatrick 1990,1993;
Nellis 1994), especially when attempting to solve
real-world problems (Gold et al. 1991). In particular,
spreadsheets have long been accepted as a crucial
73
tool in the geography classroom (Wiegand 1987,
Rudnicki 1990).This exercise provides a way for
students to see computers and spreadsheets as an
aid in solving the problem at hand as opposed to a
technology that makes the simplest tasks more diffi-
cult and confusing. Overall, the exercise presented
here (and the course for which it was developed)
seeks to balance technology with a broader liberal-
arts-and-sciences content that is key to success in
today’s rapidly changing job market (Gober et al.
1995).
The decision to base this exercise on the classifi-
cation of climate in the conterminous United States
is grounded on the assumption confirmed in the
classroom that most Illinois State University stu-
dents have at least a passing familiarity with cli-
mate through travel, previous course work, or vari-
ous forms of popular news or entertainment. Such
familiarity permits students to focus more on the
techniques presented in the exercise and less on the
substantive nature of the data being analyzed.
These data are relatively easy to acquire, summa-
rize, classify, and ultimately map.
EVALUATION
Students are informed at the outset of the exer-
cise that the classification activity is open ended;
there is no predefined correct or incorrect classifica-
tion. Instead, they are evaluated on the logical
structure of their classification scheme, the quality
and thoroughness of the explanation of their classi-
fication, their ability to interpret what they see in
the scatter plots, their critical evaluation of the
effectiveness of the techniques they employ, and the
neatness and clarity of their charts, tables, and final
map. Students are also encouraged to utilize addi-
tional non-statistical criteria to refine their classifica-
tion (e.g., coastal location, latitude, elevation, etc.)
after the initial classification steps are completed. In
addition, students are given the opportunity to
complete the assignment in small groups which
capitalizes on the well known advantages of active
group learning (Johnson and Johnson 1991).Group
learning also helps the students meet the challenges
posed by the somewhat open-ended nature of the
exercise derived from the use of real data.
The exercise is intended for students with a
basic background in geography but could be modi-
fied and made appropriate for general undergradu-
ates or high school students. The most important
simplification would be to provide more direction
in the development of the classification categories.
The instructor could, for example, present the stu-
 74
dents with a complete list of fixed categories in
which to place each weather station.
DATAANALYSIS
Computation of Statistics
The exercise packet includes data containing
mean monthly temperature (Table 1)and mean
monthly precipitation (Table 2) statistics for each of
the 65 cities’ weather stations in the sample set. A
map of the weather station locations is shown in
Figure 1. These data were taken from the 1989
World Almanac (Hoffman 1988);similar data sets
can be used from more recent editions of this or
other publications, or more extensive data can be
obtained via FTP from the National Climatic Data
Center (http:/ /www.ncdc.noaa.gov). More ambi-
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
tious students may use these additional sources to
add stations to their data set if they desire. These
data tables have been made available to students in
a spreadsheet file located in the course data directo-
ry in the departmental computing lab to facilitate
data computation and to avoid data entry errors.
Instructors should also provide students with three
Figure 1. Base map showing 65 cities comprising the data set.
Lindquist and Hammel
copies of a map of the conterminous United States
to complete all of the classification steps described
in this article. Although Figure 1 shows the loca-
tions of the weather stations in the data set, the
map distributed to students could be left blank in
order to require the students to locate the weather
stations themselves.
The analysis begins with computation of mean
annual temperatures using the following formula in
a spreadsheet:
For each city:
where:
x = Mean annual temperature or precipita-
tion for each individual city;
xi = ith monthly temperature or precipita-
tion for the set of twelve months (n) for
each city; and
n = 12 months (sample size for each city).
 Applying Basic Descriptive Statistics 75

Table 1. Mean Monthly Temperatures for 65 Weather Station Set (1989 World Almanac)

Mean Monthly Temperature (degrees F) Standard

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Deviation Mean

Albany, New York 21 23 34 47 58 67 71 69 61 51 39 26 18.39 47.3

Albuquerque, New Mexico 35 39 46 55 64 75 79 76 69 57 44 36 16.23 56.3
Asheville, North Carolina 37 39 46 56 63 70 73 73 70 56 46 39 14.00 55.7
Atlanta, Georgia 42 45 53 62 69 76 79 78 73 62 52 45 13.70 61.3
Baltimore, Maryland 33 35 43 54 63 72 77 76 69 57 46 37 16.27 55.2
Birmingham, Alabama 42 46 54 63 70 77 80 80 74 62 52 45 14.11 62.1
Bismarck, North Dakota 7 15 26 43 55 64 70 69 57 46 29 15 22.38 41.3
Boise, Idaho 30 36 41 49 57 66 75 72 63 52 40 32 15.59 51.1
Boston, Massachusetts 30 31 38 49 59 68 74 72 65 55 45 34 16.15 51.7
Buffalo, New York 24 25 33 45 56 66 71 69 62 52 40 29 17.41 47.7
Burlington, Vermont 17 18 29 43 55 65 70 67 59 48 37 23 19.37 44.3
Charleston, South Carolina 49 51 57 66 73 79 82 81 77 68 59 52 12.30 66.2
Chicago, Illinois 21 26 36 49 59 69 73 72 65 54 40 28 18.80 49.3
Cleveland, Ohio 26 27 37 48 58 68 72 70 64 53 42 31 17.00 49.7
Columbus, Ohio 27 30 40 51 61 70 74 72 66 54 42 32 17.16 51.6
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas 44 49 56 66 74 82 86 86 79 68 56 48 15.34 66.2
Denver, Colorado 30 34 38 47 57 67 73 71 63 52 39 33 15.66 50.3
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014

Des Moines, Iowa 19 25 35 51 62 72 76 74 65 54 39 26 20.52 49.8

Detroit, Michigan 23 26 35 47 58 68 72 71 63 52 40 29 17.95 48.7
Dodge City, Kansas 30 35 42 54 64 75 80 78 69 58 43 34 18.14 55.2
Duluth, Minnesota 6 12 23 38 50 59 65 63 54 44 28 14 20.96 38.0
Eureka, California 47 49 48 49 52 55 56 57 57 54 51 48 3.75 51.9
Fresno, California 46 51 54 60 68 75 81 79 74 65 53 45 12.86 62.6
Grand Junction, Colorado 26 34 42 52 62 72 79 76 67 55 40 28 18.71 52.8
Grand Rapids, Michigan 22 24 33 46 58 67 71 70 62 51 39 27 18.29 47.5
Helena, Montana 18 26 32 42 52 60 68 66 56 45 31 23 17.26 43.3
Houston, Texas 51 55 61 69 75 81 83 83 78 70 60 54 11.83 68.3
Huron, South Dakota 11 18 29 46 57 68 74 72 61 49 32 19 22.36 44.7
Indianapolis, Indiana 26 30 40 52 63 72 75 73 67 55 42 32 17.91 52.3
Jackson, Mississippi 46 49 56 65 73 79 82 81 76 65 55 49 13.41 61.7
Kansas City, Missouri 26 32 42 55 65 76 79 77 68 58 43 32 19.04 54.4
Knoxville, Tennessee 38 42 50 60 67 74 78 77 72 60 49 41 14.71 59.0
Lander, Wyoming 20 26 32 42 53 62 71 69 58 47 31 23 18.14 44.5
Little Rock, Arkansas 40 44 52 62 71 79 82 81 74 63 51 43 15.57 61.8
Los Angeles, California 57 59 60 62 65 69 74 75 73 69 63 58 6.49 65.3
Louisville, Kentucky 33 36 45 57 65 74 78 76 70 58 46 37 16.52 56.3
Memphis, Tennessee 40 44 52 63 71 79 82 81 74 63 51 43 15.57 61.9
Miami, Florida 67 68 72 75 79 81 83 83 82 78 73 69 5.97 75.8
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 19 23 32 45 55 65 71 69 62 51 37 25 18.72 46.2
Minneapolis, Minnesota 11 18 29 46 59 68 73 71 61 50 33 19 22.21 44.8
Moline, Illinois 20 25 36 50 61 71 75 73 65 54 39 26 19.94 49.6
Nashville, Tennessee 37 40 49 60 68 76 79 78 72 60 49 41 15.58 59.1
New Orleans, Louisiana 52 55 61 69 75 80 82 82 79 69 60 55 11.34 68.3
New York, New York 32 33 41 53 62 71 77 75 68 58 47 36 16.52 54.4
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 36 41 49 60 68 77 82 81 73 62 49 40 16.60 59.8
Omaha, Nebraska 19 25 35 50 62 71 76 74 64 54 38 26 20.40 49.5
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 31 33 42 53 63 72 77 75 68 57 46 36 16.74 54.4
Phoenix, Arizona 52 56 61 68 77 87 92 90 85 73 61 53 14.81 71.3
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 27 29 39 50 60 68 72 71 64 53 42 31 16.70 50.5
Portland, Oregon 39 43 46 50 57 63 68 67 63 54 46 41 10.38 53.1
Raleigh, North Carolina 40 42 49 59 67 74 78 77 71 60 50 42 14.27 59.1
Rapid City, South Dakota 21 26 33 45 56 65 73 71 61 50 35 26 18.50 46.8
Reno, Nevada 32 37 41 46 55 62 70 67 60 50 40 33 13.26 49.4
Richmond, Virginia 37 39 47 58 66 74 78 77 70 59 49 40 15.24 57.8
Salt Lake City, Utah 29 34 41 49 59 68 78 75 65 53 40 30 17.29 51.8
San Antonio, Texas 50 54 62 70 76 82 85 84 79 70 60 53 12.69 68.8
San Diego, California 57 58 59 61 63 66 70 72 71 68 62 57 5.57 63.7
San Francisco, California 49 52 53 55 58 61 62 63 64 61 55 49 5.39 56.8
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 13 14 24 38 50 58 64 63 55 45 33 20 18.81 39.8
Savannah, Georgia 49 52 58 66 73 79 81 81 77 67 58 51 12.17 66.0
Seattle, Washington 39 43 44 49 55 60 65 64 60 52 45 41 9.24 51.4
Spokane, Washington 26 32 38 46 54 62 70 68 60 48 35 29 15.46 47.3
Springfield, Missouri 32 36 45 56 65 73 78 77 70 58 45 36 16.82 55.9
St. Louis, Missouri 29 34 43 56 66 75 79 77 70 58 45 34 18.13 55.5
Tampa, Florida 60 61 66 72 77 81 82 82 81 74 67 61 8.73 72.0
 76 Lindquist and Hammel

Table 2. Mean Monthly Precipitation 65 Weather Station Set (1989 World Almanac)

Mean Monthly Precipitation (inches) Standard

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Deviation Mean

Albany, New York 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.0 0.326 3.00
Albuquerque, New Mexico 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.381 0.70
Asheville, North Carolina 3.5 3.6 5.1 3.8 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.5 0.585 4.00
Atlanta, Georgia 4.9 4.4 5.9 4.4 4.0 3.4 4.7 3.4 3.2 2.5 3.4 4.2 0.916 4.00
Baltimore, Maryland 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.6 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.4 0.462 3.50
Birmingham, Alabama 5.2 4.7 6.6 5.0 4.5 3.7 5.4 3.9 4.3 2.7 3.6 5.0 1.014 4.60
Bismarck, North Dakota 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.5 2.2 3.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.829 1.30
Boise, Idaho 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.390 1.00
Boston, Massachusetts 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.7 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.9 0.587 3.70
Buffalo, New York 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.0 4.2 3.4 2.9 3.6 3.4 0.467 3.10
Burlington, Vermont 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.4 0.671 2.80
Charleston, South Carolina 3.3 3.4 4.4 2.6 4.4 6.5 7.3 6.5 4.9 2.9 2.2 3.1 1.694 4.30
Chicago, Illinois 1.6 1.3 2.6 3.7 3.2 4.1 3.6 3.5 3.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 0.910 2.80
Cleveland, Ohio 2.5 2.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.8 2.8 0.423 3.00
Columbus, Ohio 2.8 2.2 3.2 3.4 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.7 2.8 1.9 2.6 2.6 0.707 3.10
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas 1.7 1.9 2.4 3.6 4.3 2.6 2.0 1.8 3.3 2.5 1.8 1.7 0.851 2.50
Denver, Colorado 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.605 1.30
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014

Des Moines, Iowa 1.0 1.1 2.2 3.2 4.0 4.2 3.2 4.1 3.1 2.2 1.5 1.5 1.179 2.60
Detroit, Michigan 1.9 1.7 2.5 3.2 2.8 3.4 3.1 3.2 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.5 0.556 2.60
Dodge City, Kansas 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.8 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.054 1.70
Duluth, Minnesota 1.2 0.9 1.8 2.2 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.3 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.175 2.50
Eureka, California 7.0 5.2 5.1 2.9 1.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 2.7 5.9 6.2 2.536 3.20
Fresno, California 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.782 0.90
Grand Junction, Colorado 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.161 0.70
Grand Rapids, Michigan 1.9 1.5 2.5 3.6 3.0 3.9 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.6 0.681 2.90
Helena, Montana 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.483 0.90
Houston, Texas 3.2 3.3 2.7 4.2 4.7 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 3.7 3.4 3.7 0.634 3.70
Huron, South Dakota 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.7 3.3 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.916 1.60
Indianapolis, Indiana 2.7 2.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.3 3.5 2.7 2.5 3.0 3.0 0.611 3.30
Jackson, Mississippi 5.0 4.9 5.9 5.9 4.8 2.9 4.4 3.7 3.6 2.6 4.2 5.4 1.083 4.40
Kansas City, Missouri 1.0 1.0 2.1 2.7 3.4 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.3 2.5 1.2 1.1 1.119 2.40
Knoxville, Tennessee 4.7 4.2 5.5 3.9 3.7 4.0 4.3 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.8 4.6 0.799 4.00
Lander, Wyoming 0.5 0.6 1.1 2.2 2.7 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.711 1.10
Little Rock, Arkansas 3.9 3.8 4.7 5.4 5.3 3.7 3.6 3.1 4.3 2.8 4.4 4.2 0.790 4.10
Los Angeles, California 3.7 3.0 2.4 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 1.9 2.0 1.312 1.30
Louisville, Kentucky 3.4 3.2 4.7 4.1 4.2 3.6 4.1 3.3 3.6 2.6 3.5 3.5 0.552 3.70
Memphis, Tennessee 4.6 4.3 5.4 5.8 5.1 3.6 4.0 3.7 3.6 2.4 4.2 4.9 0.934 4.30
Miami, Florida 2.1 2.1 1.9 3.1 6.5 9.2 6.0 7.0 8.1 7.1 2.7 1.9 2.754 4.80
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1.6 1.3 2.6 3.4 2.6 3.6 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 0.756 2.60
Minneapolis, Minnesota 0.8 0.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 4.1 3.5 3.6 2.5 1.9 1.3 0.9 1.162 2.20
Moline, Illinois 1.6 1.3 2.8 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.9 3.8 3.7 2.7 2.0 1.9 1.204 3.10
Nashville, Tennessee 4.5 4.0 5.6 4.8 4.6 3.7 3.8 3.4 3.7 2.6 3.5 4.6 0.792 4.10
New Orleans, Louisiana 5.0 5.2 4.7 4.5 5.1 4.6 6.7 6.0 5.9 2.7 4.1 5.3 1.020 5.00
New York, New York 3.2 3.1 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.4 4.1 3.8 0.367 3.70
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 1.0 1.3 2.1 2.9 5.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 3.4 2.7 1.5 1.2 1.304 2.60
Omaha, Nebraska 0.8 0.9 1.9 2.9 4.3 4.1 3.6 4.1 2.5 2.1 1.3 0.8 1.348 2.40
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 3.2 2.8 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.4 2.8 3.3 3.5 0.429 3.50
Phoenix, Arizona 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.263 0.60
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2.9 2.4 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.6 0.507 3.00
Portland, Oregon 6.2 3.9 3.6 2.3 2.1 1.5 0.5 1.1 1.6 3.1 5.2 6.4 1.977 3.10
Raleigh, North Carolina 3.6 3.4 3.7 2.9 3.7 3.7 4.4 4.4 3.3 2.7 2.9 3.1 0.549 3.50
Rapid City, South Dakota 0.4 0.6 1.0 2.0 2.6 3.3 2.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.944 1.40
Reno, Nevada 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 0.351 0.60
Richmond, Virginia 3.2 3.1 3.6 2.9 3.6 3.6 5.1 5.0 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.4 0.688 3.70
Salt Lake City, Utah 1.4 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 0.409 1.30
San Antonio, Texas 1.6 1.9 1.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.9 2.7 3.8 2.9 2.3 1.4 0.841 2.40
San Diego, California 2.1 1.4 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.4 0.721 0.80
San Francisco, California 4.7 3.2 2.6 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 2.4 3.6 1.617 1.70
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.9 2.9 3.2 2.6 0.645 2.80
Savannah, Georgia 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.2 4.6 5.7 7.4 6.7 5.2 2.3 1.9 2.8 1.761 4.20
Seattle, Washington 6.0 4.2 3.6 2.4 1.6 1.4 0.7 1.3 2.0 3.4 5.6 6.3 1.957 3.20
Spokane, Washington 2.5 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.5 0.671 1.40
Springfield, Missouri 1.6 2.1 3.4 4.0 4.3 4.7 3.6 2.8 4.2 3.2 2.9 2.6 0.934 3.30
St. Louis, Missouri 1.7 2.1 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.6 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 0.693 2.80
Tampa, Florida 2.2 3.0 3.5 1.8 3.4 5.3 7.4 7.6 6.2 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.164 3.90
 Applying Basic Descriptive Statistics
Computed mean annual temperatures and mean
monthly precipitation for the 65-station data set are
provided in Tables 1 and 2. At this stage, students
should critically evaluate the limitations of this
computation, especially in those cities with wide
annual temperature ranges. For example, how
meaningful a measure is annual mean temperature
in places with extreme temperature ranges, such as
Bismarck? Students who are dissatisfied with the
use of the mean as a measure may suggest and even
test alternative ways to measure central tendency
(e.g., using the median, or subdividing the compu-
tations into seasons, etc.).
The next phase of the exercise involves compu-
tation of the dispersion of temperature and precipi-
tation about the means calculated in the previous
step. Again, using a spreadsheet, students compute
the sample standard deviation defined in the fol-
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
lowing formula:
For each city:
i=l
n-1
where s is an annual variation (standard deviation)
in temperature or precipitation for each individual
weather station. Instructors requiring manual calcu-
lations of standard deviations should use the work-
ing formula listed by Earicksen and Harlin (1994)
(consult this source for additional details regarding
these computations). In the Geographic Techniques
course, students use the special spreadsheet func-
tions available in most spreadsheet packages.
Computed sample standard deviations for tempera-
tures and monthly precipitation for the 65-station
data set are listed in Tables 1 and 2 next to their cor-
responding means.
The sample standard deviation and not the
population standard deviation should be computed
in this exercise. The data that students are working
with are already computed as monthly means and
thus represent a sample of the total precipitation
and temperature figures obtained at these weather
stations. Furthermore, the weather stations them-
selves represent a spatial sample of the contermi-
nous United States.
77
Classification of Climate on the Basis of
Computed Statistics
Once the students have computed their statis-
tics and have located each of the 65 weather stations
on their map, they are ready to begin their classifi-
cation. We present a suggested classification proce-
dure here using the 65-station data set as an exam-
ple.
This procedure begins with the construction of
two scatter plots using a spreadsheet: one for tem-
perature and one for precipitation. The scatter plot
for temperature (Figure 2) is set up with the range
of mean annual temperatures scaled along the Y
axis and the standard deviations for annual temper-
ature scaled along the X-axis. The precipitation scat-
ter plot (Figure 3) is constructed in the same man-
ner, with mean annual precipitation scaled along
the Y-axis and standard deviation for monthly pre-
cipitation scaled along the X-axis.
The next step in the procedure requires the stu-
dents to inspect their newly generated scatter plots
and to identify specific clusters of points with simi-
lar temperature and precipitation characteristics. In
order for the exercise to make its fullest impact and
to assure that the classification of climate is due to
temperature and precipitation characteristicsonly,
students are instructed not to identify weather sta-
tion locations for the points on the graph. Instead,
they should identify closely related groups of points
I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25
Standard Deviation (Degrees F)
Figure 2. Temperature scatter plot.
 Lindquist and Hammel

ner, Group 7 in Figure 5 could be characterized as a

set of stations in regions that are consistently dry
with minimal variation in precipitation throughout
the year (Table 2 shows that these weather stations
.. . are found in the western United States from Texas

. .. . . through the Great Plains and extending west to

.*.
0
western California, Oregon, and Washington).
00..
At this stage, students should identify specific

.... .. .
. . . *

. .. .. .
- 0

*.
. ,,‘
,---
.
. *-,’ -\

.. .. .. .
- I \

.-.. I..
c \
. * ,‘ ,!
\
)
*
*
1.
\

..... ..
/‘ I

/ : B :I
I . I
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014

I
I

1 2 3 : ‘> -’
,’
I

Standard Deviation (Inches)

I-\

‘I
Figure 3. Precipitation scatter plot. I
0 1
J

and circle them (Figures 4 and 5). We illustrate a

sample classification scheme for temperature in
Figure 4, where six groups labeled A through F 0 5 10 15 20 25
have been identified and recorded. We set up a sim- Standard Deviation (Degrees F)
ilar classification scheme for precipitation (Figure
5), identifying seven precipitation categories labeled Figure 4. Temperature scatter plot groupings.
1 through 7. Scatter plots prepared by students in
the exercise may have more or fewer groupings of
points than those displayed in this example. This 6:

stage is where the open-endedness of the exercise

becomes apparent; students’ critical thinking skills,
experience, and insight are needed to identify .‘
.
\

groupings of points on the graph and to justify ,/’ 1

0 8‘
-2_
. ..
’ I .
. I 1 0 ‘

their choices effectively. * ,’‘ ._; ’ 3 ,‘

.*.-/---
*..
\\ I’
,’
After students isolate the temperature and pre-
----,-.
... . .
’ ,‘
cipitation groups, they must briefly summarize the ,
-,
temperature and precipitation characteristics of ,.
I ’ * \
.-
‘-0

each group. For example, Group A in Figure 4 rep-

resents weather stations associated with hot regions
’. . . ~
3
*
. 4
*
0 .
.,I
’\
\

whose annual temperatures do not vary significant- - - _- - *.’

ly, such as those found in tropical or subtropical
regions (a quick check of Table 1 shows that the two
stations in Group A are Tampa and Miami). On the
other hand, Group F represents stations in colder
regions with significant yearly temperature varia- __--
tions, such as those found at higher latitudes and in 01
I I

3
the interior of the continent (Table 1 shows that 0 1 2
Standard Deviation (Inches)
these stations are in Bismarck, Huron, Minneapolis,
Marquette, and Sault Ste. Marie). In the same man- Figure 5. Precipitation scatter plot groupings.
 Applying Basic Descriptive Statistics
weather station locations for each of the points in
both of the scatter plots. This labor-intensive
process can be made easier either by using an auto-
mated labeling option in the spreadsheet charting
menu to label each of the points or by performing a
nested sort of standard deviations within means in
the spreadsheet. This latter option avoids the prob-
lem of having overlapping labels running together
in the limited space of the scatter plot and it will
produce a stratified listing of weather stations in
the spreadsheet that is consistent with the order of
points arranged on the scatter plots.
Students can now map weather stations accord-
ing to their temperature and precipitation cate-
gories and draw regional boundaries around
groups of stations sharing the same climatic catego-
ry. We prepared two separate maps showing tem-
perature and precipitation regions corresponding to
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
the climatic groups identified in the scatter plots
(Figures 6 and 7). At this stage, students should see
a dramatic unveiling of regions on the map that
correspond to the groupings identified in the scatter
plots; nearby points on the scatter plots are also
nearby points on the map. The temperature regions
shown in Figure 6 follow a logical gradient based
on latitude; warm regions with minimal tempera-
ture variations are found at the lower latitudes and
along the west coast, while colder regions with
wide temperature variations are found at northern
latitudes in the interior. Precipitation regions shown
in Figure 7 also follow the moisture gradient
extending from the more humid eastern states to
the arid west.
As climatic categories are mapped into regions,
students may refine their temperature and precipi-
Figure 6. Temperature regionsfor US.study areas.
79
tation category descriptions by incorporating addi-
tional factors such as latitude, coastal orientation,
elevation, and other factors that influence climate.
In addition, they can examine their
monthly temperature and precipitation data (Tables
1 and 2) more closely for seasonal patterns such as
extended dry seasons or long winters. Generalized
regional descriptors used in this example are listed
with the maps in Figures 6 and 7.
The final stage of the exercise requires students
to combine the temperature and precipitation
regions from their maps into a final composite set of
climatic regions. The method we suggest here is to
combine the temperature and precipitation regions
using a logical union ("or") overlay operation.
Students may perform this operation on a light
table by overlaying their temperature-region map
on top of their precipitation-region map (assuming
that their maps are the same scale and projection)
and finding all unique combinations of their origi-
nal temperature and precipitation regions. A new
set of climatic composite regions are then formed,
as illustrated in Figure 8. This manual overlay tech-
nique can be performed easily if students are pro-
vided with three identical base maps at the begin-
ning of the exercise. More ambitious students with
the requisite GIS skills may wish to digitize their
temperature and precipitation maps into separate
map layers and perform a boolean overlay.
As the climatic composite map is "cleaned up"
and climatic regions are formally identified and
named, students are required to prepare a climate
classification table similar to that shown in Table 3.
The table presented here shows temperature cate-
gories displayed along the rows and precipitation
Figure 7.Precipitation regions for US.study area.
 80 Lindquist and Hammel

categories along the columns, with a brief descrip- RESULTS

tion of each category. The cells within the table con-
tain formal descriptors for specific climate types Generally, the exercise has been received with
identified in the map where temperature and pre- enthusiasm among the students, and they respond-
cipitation categories coincide to form unique climat- ed favorably to working in groups to complete the
ic regions. In this case, we identified 15 specific cli- assignment. However, one significant problem has
matic regions on the map with their corresponding been resistance to the open endedness of the exer-
descriptors presented in the table. The remaining cise. Many students felt uncomfortable with the
cells in the table that do not correspond to any absence of clear-cut classification rules, and in some
region on the map are left blank. cases some students headed immediately for their
The completed set of climatic regions presented physical geography or regional geography texts to
in Figure 8 and Table 3 represent only one way in
which the exercise can be completed. Students are
encouraged to develop their own rules for assign-
ing weather stations to specific temperature and
precipitation categories and in delineating regional
boundaries around groups of weather stations
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014

within the same categories. Some students will

choose many more categories and some will choose
fewer. Some students may wish to acquire addition-
al weather stations for the data set, particularly in
western states where the distribution of weather
stations is relatively sparse and climatic variation is
significant due to the effect of topography.

Figure 8. Final composite map of climatic regions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
High High High Intermediate Intermediate Low Low
Precipitation; Precipitation;
Precipitation; Precipitation; Precipitation; Precipitation; Precipitation;
Minimal Moderate
High Minimal High Moderate Minimal
Variation Variation
Variation Variation Variation Variation Variation
A: Hot with minimal Coastal
__-____-___-___
____---____--_-
Subtropical ____----___-_-_
_____-_--__-___ __-_-______----
------_-__--_-_
seasonal temperature
variation Hot
Humid
B: Warm with minimal Coastal Coastal Coastal
seasonal temperature
__-__-__-----_- -_-__-_-_-__-------_----_---_- Warm Warm Wami
variation
Humid Dry Season Dry
c:Warm with moderate Latitude Low Latitude Low Latitude
Sea sonaII y
seasonal temperature Warm Warm
variation Humid Subhumid Warm
Dry
D: C O O ~with moderate Coastal
-------____--- __----__-___---Cool Cool
seasonal temperature
Subhumid Dry
variation
E: cool with significant Mid Latitude Mid Latitude Mid Latitude
Cool Cool Cool
seasonal temperature
variation Humid Subhumid Dry
F: Cold with significant ___-_--_-__--_- High Latitude High Latitude
Cold Cold
seasonal temperature
variation Subhumid Dry

Table 3. Final climate classifcation table.

 A p p l y i n g Basic Descriptive Statistics
review Koeppen’s climatic classification before tack-
ling the assignment. After being reassured that their
evaluation is based mainly on their ability to apply
the statistics to the problem and on their interpreta-
tion of the results, students gained more confidence
in completing the exercise. Students are not dis-
couraged from studying the Koeppen Climate
regions for North America after they complete their
own classification; it provides a meaningful com-
parison to critically evaluate their own classification
efforts. Students can consult either a regional geog-
raphy text for North America or a basic text in
physical geography.
Many students struggled to master the spread-
sheet software, but the frustration was short lived.
Working in groups appeared to make mastering the
software an easier process. Almost all students
noted that their confidence in using spreadsheets
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
increased dramatically.
Another important lesson that many students
gained from the exercise is that the process of
regionalization is not as simple as the exercise
would suggest; the classification of a complex sys-
tem such as climate using two variables and two
basic criteria is not sufficient to partition the land-
scape into distinct, mutually exclusive regions with
any significant degree of confidence. In addition,
many students in their project reports were critical
of the choice of cities in the data set. They argued,
justifiably, that too few cities were included from
the Great Plains and Intermontaine West and too
many were included from the more populated
regions of the country. In future assignments, this
problem can be addressed by permitting students
to include additional cities within underrepresented
regions using the data supplied in the World
Almanac, by the National Climatic Data Center, or
other acceptable sources.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the exercise described here is a means
to provide undergraduate geography students with
a practical example of how basic descriptive statis-
tics can be applied to a geographic problem, it also
brings together additional elements of geographic
inquiry. The most important of these additional ele-
ments is the unique geographic problem of regional
classification. Students are able to combine these
simple statistical computations of central tendency
and dispersion with the construction and interpre-
tation of scatter plots, which ultimately enables
them to derive a set of regions displayed on a fin-
81
ished map. Along the way, the exercise incorporates
other indispensable techniques for geographical
analysis which include spatial overlay, spreadsheet
operations, and thematic cartography.
From a practical standpoint, the application of
means, standard deviations, scatter plots, and geo-
graphic overlays in the exercise serves to introduce
students to a set of useful analytical techniques that
will form a foundation for later acquisition of more
sophisticated analytic techniques that geographers
perform. This exercise can serve as a starting point
from which students can move on to more
advanced topics such as sampling, probability, and
inferential statistics. It also introduces one of the
fundamental analytical techniques in geographic
information systems.
Of equal importance to the mastery of the tech-
niques learned in the exercise is an important les-
son: partitioning the landscape into mutually exclu-
sive regions is not a simple, clear-cut process. There
are many ways to ”correctly” isolate the scatters of
points in Figures 2 and 3 into different clusters to
form climatic regions. Furthermore, it can be argued
that temperature and precipitation alone may not
be a sufficient set of variables to classify a complex
system such as climate. However, the ambiguities
involved in isolating clusters of nearby points into
distinct categories and in recognizing the limita-
tions of the data are what help to develop students’
critical thinking skills. Therefore, this exercise helps
to instill in students the notion that there is more to
the application of geographic techniques than a
simple mastery of basic skills within the geograph-
er’s toolbox.
Authors‘ Note: This exercise was developedfor Geography 204:
Geographic Techniques, in the Department of Geography-Geology at
lllinois State University. This exercise and other components of the
course were developed usingfundsfrom the National Science
FoundationS lnstrumentation and Laboratory Improvement Grant
Program (Award #DUE-9552050) and matchingfunds from the
College of Arts and Sciences, Illinois State University. The authors also
wish to thank the students enrolled in the Fall and Spring Sections of
Geography 204 during the 1995-1996 academic year who were thefirst
to complete this exercise and to provide valuable commentary andfeed-
back.
REFERENCES
Burn, C. R., and M. F. Fox. 1986. Introducing statistics to geogra-
phy students:The case for exploratory data analysis. Journal
of Geography 85:28-31.
Earickson, R. J., and J. M. Harlin. 1994. Geographic Measurement
and Quantitative Analysis. Riverside, New Jersey:Macmillan.
Fitzpatrick, C. 1990. Computers in geography instruction.Journal
of Geography 89:148-149.
Fitzpatrick, C. 1993. Teaching geography with computers.Journal
of Geography 92:4.
 82
Fleming, D. K. 1973. The regionalizing ritual. Scottish Geographic
Magazine 89:196-207.
Gober, P., A. K Glasmeier, J. M. Goodman, D. A. Plane, H. A.
Stafford, and J. S. Wood. 1995. Employment trends in geog-
raphy, part 3: Future demand conditions. Professional
Geographer 47336-346.
Gold, J. R., A. Jenkins, R. Lee, J. Monk, J. Riley, I. Shepherd, and
D. Unwin. 1991. Teaching Geography in Higher Education.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hoffman, M. S., ed.1988. The World Almanac and Book of Facts,
1989. New York: Pharos Books.
Johnson, D. W., and R. Johnson. 1991. Learning Together and Alone:
Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 19:23 06 November 2014
Lindquist and Hammel
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Macdonald, G. M., and D. Lemaire. 1995. American viticultural
areas: A problem in regional geography. Journal of Geography
94:376-383.
Nellis, M. D. 1994. Technology in geographic education:
Reflections and future directions. Journal of Geography
93:3639.
Robinson, A. H., R. D. Sale, J. L. Morrison, and P. C. Muehrcke.
1995. Elements of Cartography. Sixth Edition. New York: Wiley.
Rudnicki, R. 1990. Using spreadsheets in population geography
classes. Journal of Geography 89:118-122.
Wiegand, P. 1987. Teaching geography with spreadsheets.
Teaching Geography 12:195197.