Beijing temples and their social matrix – A GIS reconstruction of the 1912–1937 social scape

Figures & data

Figure 1. Boundaries of the 11 police districts of Republican Beijing (1935).

Table 1. Standard deviational ellipse measures for Chinese temples in the 1920s and 1930s.

Police district	Year	Centre X	Centre Y	X std.dis.	Y std.dis.	Rotation
Inside No.1	1928	39,449,736.00	4,420,353.17	684.57	804.89	6.45
	1936	39,449,738.10	4,420,285.58	708.46	874.10	3.11
Inside No.2	1928	39,446,177.3	4,419,247.02	1183.55	790.90	120.61
	1936	39,446,266.40	4,419,268.33	1196.53	718.57	117.46
Inside No.3	1928	39,449,592.20	4,422,739.92	696.96	1178.04	1.33
	1936	39,449,654.20	4,422,710.95	734.34	1143.61	4.95
Inside No.4	1928	39,445,830.70	4,422,420.89	606.86	1332.73	4.31
	1936	39,445,812.50	4,422,369.34	565.86	1371.00	3.53
Inside No.5	1928	39,447,618.50	4,423,495.53	1023.70	669.64	124.30
	1936	39,447,667.00	4,423,545.08	957.26	653.01	110.32
Inside No.6	1928	39,447,895.40	4,420,946.87	725.37	1390.34	13.37
	1936	39,447,951.50	4,421,403.42	859.78	1307.87	3.02
Outside No.1	1928	39,448,594.10	4,417,756.98	569.27	287.35	90.98
	1936	39,448,528.50	4,417,747.34	527.83	301.73	97.69
Outside No.2	1928	39,447,076.20	4,417,718.08	462.15	744.88	79.02
	1936	39,447,084.80	4,417,691.46	454.78	701.87	72.99
Outside No.3	1928	39,450,209.90	4,417,335.29	1132.36	627.67	177.25
	1936	39,450,143.30	4,417,425.44	1061.77	604.88	172.58
Outside No.4	1928	39,445,515.00	4,416,842.87	1147.41	850.54	168.27
	1936	39,445,550.60	4,416,918.91	1072.14	777.54	155.20
Outside No.5	1928	39,447,705.90	4,416,694.14	643.65	1418.84	61.82
	1936	39,447,779.60	4,416,787.31	635.10	1490.46	64.53

Figure 2. Spatial distributions of Chinese temples in 1928 and 1936.

Figure 3. Standard deviational ellipses for Chinese temples in 1928 and 1936.

Table 2. Results of global regression model.

Variable	Coefficient estimates	Std. Errors	T-value	Probability
Intercept	.048645	1.099508	.044243	.964825
Population	.000474	.000080	5.903058	.000000
Industry-commerce	.013537	.014339	.944047	.348171
Church	.265967	.562246	.944047	.348171
Guild	.013753	.042986	.319943	.749906

Table 3. Comparison of coefficient of determination (R²) between OLS and GWR models.

AICc		R^2		Adjusted R^2
AICO	460.13	RO	41.58%	Adjusted RO	38.46%
AICG	447.34	RG	75.45%	Adjusted RG	62.68%

AIC_O is the AICc for OLS model; AIC_G is the AICc for GWR model.

Table 4. Comparison of Moran’s I of the residuals from OLS and GWR models.

Moran’s I		Z-score		p-Value
IO	0.137452	ZO	3.940107	PO	0.000081
IG	−0.016046	ZG	−0.087544	PG	0.930239

I_O is the Moran’s I for OLS model; I_G is the Moran’s I for GWR model.

Figure 4. Cluster map of Chinese temples in 1936.

Figure 5. (a–e) Parameter estimates of population, industry-commerce, church, guild and R².