A spatial autoregressive multinomial probit model for anticipating land-use change in Austin, Texas

Abstract

This paper develops an estimation strategy for and then applies a spatial autoregressive multinomial probit (SAR MNP) model to account for both spatial clustering and cross-alternative correlation. Estimation is achieved using Bayesian techniques with Gibbs and the generalized direct sampling (GDS).The model is applied to analyze land development decisions for undeveloped parcels over a 6-year period in Austin, Texas. Results suggest that GDS is a useful method for uncovering parameters whose draws may otherwise fail to converge using standard Metropolis-Hastings algorithms.Estimation results suggest that residential and commercial/civic development tends to favor more regularly shaped and smaller parcels, which may be related to parcel conversion costs and aesthetics. Longer distances to Austin's central business district increase the likelihood of residential development, while reducing that of commercial/civic and office/industrial uses. Everything else constant, distances to a parcel's nearest minor and major arterial roads are estimated to increase development likelihood of commercial/civic and office/industry uses, perhaps because such development is more common in less densely developed locations (as proxied by fewer arterials). As expected, added soil slope is estimated to be negatively associated with residential development, but positively associated with commercial/civic and office/industry uses, though its effect on commercial/civic uses is not significant (perhaps due to some steeper terrains offering view benefits). Estimates of the cross-alternative correlations suggest that a parcel's residential use "utility" or attractiveness tends to be negatively correlated with that of commercial/civic but positively associated with that of office/industrial uses, while the latter two land uses exhibit some negative correlation. Using an inverse-distance weight matrix for eachThe following is a preprint, the final version can be found in the Annals of Regional Science, Volume 52:251-278, 2014. 2 parcel's closest 50 neighbors, the spatial autocorrelation coefficient is estimated to be 0.706, indicating a marked spatial clustering pattern for land development in the selected region.

Do traditional economic theories of free riding behavior explain spatial clustering of HPV vaccine uptake?

“…Interestingly, while the total effect was also positive and highly significant, the indirect or spatial spillover effect was close to zero and insignificant. This indirect spillover effect may be interpreted as in Wang, Kockelman, and Damien (2014). If some type of social mechanism (e.g., conformity) is driving the direct effect, the insignificant indirect effect suggests that there is a limit to the degree of influence conformism has on individual decisions.…”

Spatial analysis of the effect of microfinance on poverty and inequality in Ghana

“…To execute this, we initially grouped the districts into clusters based on the local Moran’s I results. We then adopted Wang, Kockelman and Damien’s ( 2014 ) spatial autoregressive multinomial probit model (SAR MNL) to examine the extent to which microfinance determines the probability that a district falls within a particular spatial cluster with its neighbours [GLSS 6 (2012/2013) and GLSS 7 (2016/2017)]. According to Wang et al ( 2014 ), the SAR MNL model accounts for both spatial clustering and cross-sectional dependence.…”

“…( 9 ) gives the spatial autocorrelation. is the spatial weight matrix, which is a row-normalized weight by construction with representing vector of explanatory variables, while gives the number of covariates and denotes the number of observations (Wang et al 2014 ). is the independent and identical error terms over space, (Wang et al 2014 ).…”

A Synthesis of Spatial Models for Multivariate Count Responses

“…These models assume that the error terms are distributed normally (Gaussian), retain the same variance (which violates spatial heterogeneity), and are independent across observations (which conflicts with spatial dependence). To address spatial dependence, models that recognize correlations (such as spatial autoregressive models) have been rather effective in various contexts, like crash and crime prediction (Levine et al 1995a, b;Miaou et al 2003;Wang and Kockelman 2013), home prices (Case et al 2003), land use dynamics (Chakir and Parent 2009;Wang and Kockelman 2009;Wang et al 2014), and technology innovations (LeSage and Pace 2009). To tackle spatial heterogeneity, geographically weighted regression (GWR) is regularly used through locally estimating coefficients, rendering a contextual layer of coefficient estimates that vary over space.…”