Advertisement

The Spatial Connectivity Matrix

  • Michael Beenstock
  • Daniel Felsenstein
Chapter
  • 557 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Alternative specifications of the spatial connectivity matrix (W) are typically non-nested. A non-nested test procedure based on the encompassing principle is suggested to test rival hypotheses about W. An empirical illustration is presented using spatial cross-section data for house prices in Greater Tel Aviv in which W is based on contiguity and inverse distance.

The spatial ARCH model is introduced (SpARCH) in which the variances of residual disturbances are spatially autocorrelated. Whereas ARCH models explain how volatility is transmitted over time, SpARCH models explain how volatility is transmitted across space. An empirical illustration of SpARCH is provided for house price in Greater Tel Aviv.

In cross-section data, W has to be specified exogenously. In long spatial panel data where T is greater than N, W may be estimated. We discuss the identification problem in estimating the elements of W. Since in general they are under-identified, a restriction is proposed under which the identification problem is solved, and estimates of W are consistent. This solution is compared to recent proposals to estimate W. An empirical illustration is presented using spatial panel data for house prices in Israel.

References

  1. Andrews DWK, Buchinsky M (2000) A three-step method for choosing the number of bootstrap replications. Econometrica 68:23–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aquaro M, Bailey N, Pesaran MH (2015) Quasi maximum likelihood estimation of spatial models with heterogeneous coefficients. Mimeo, University of WarwickGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey N, Holly S, Pesaran MH (2016) A two stage approach to spatiotemporal analysis with strong and weak cross-section dependence. J Appl Economet 31(1):249–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beenstock M, Felsenstein D (2012) Nonparametric estimation of the spatial connectivity matrix using spatial panel data. Geogr Anal 44(4):386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beenstock M, Felsenstein D (2016) Chapter 11: Double spatial dependence in gravity models: migration from the European Neighborhood to the European Union. In: Patuelli R, Arbia G (eds) Spatial econometric interaction modelling. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharjee A, Jensen-Butler C (2013) Estimation of the spatial weights matrix under constraints. Reg Sci Urban Econ 43:617–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuaresma JC, Feldkircher M (2013) Spatial filtering, model uncertainty and the speed of income convergence in Europe. J Appl Economet 28(4):720–741Google Scholar
  9. Davidson R, MacKinnon JG (2009) Econometric theory and methods. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dray S, Legendre P, Peres-Neto PR (2006) Spatial modeling: a comprehensive framework for principal coordinate analysis of neighbour matrices. Ecol Model 196:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez-Vazquez E, Mayor-Fernandez M, Rodriguez Valez J (2009) Estimating spatial autoregressive models by GME-GCE techniques. Int Reg Sci Rev 32(2):148–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folmer H, Oud J (2008) How to get rid of W: a latent variables approach to modelling spatially lagged variables. Environ Plan A: Econ Space 40(10):2526–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Getis A, Aldstadt J (2004) Constructing the spatial weights matrix using a local statistic. Geogr Anal 36:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Getis A, Aldstadt J (2006) Using AMOEBA to create a spatial weights matrix and identify spatial cluster. Geogr Anal 38(4):327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Getis A, Griffith DA (2002) Comparative spatial filtering in regression analysis. Geogr Anal 32:131–140Google Scholar
  17. Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith DA (1996) Some guidelines for specifying the geographic weights matrix contained in spatial statistical models. In: Arlinghaus SL (ed) Practical handbook of spatial statistics. CRC, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  19. Im K, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 115:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelejian H (2008) A spatial J-test for model specification against a single or a set of non-nested alternatives. Lett Spat Resour Sci 1:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2014) The biggest myth in spatial econometrics. Econometrics 2(4):217–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meen G (1996) Spatial aggregation, spatial dependence and predictability in the UK housing market. Hous Stud 11:345–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mur J, Herrera M, Ruiz M (2015) Selecting the W matrix: parametric v nonparametric approaches. Working Paper, University of ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
  25. Paelinck THP (2007) Deriving the W-matrix via p-median correlation analysis. George Mason University School of Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  26. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Economet 22(2):265–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rey S, Montouri B (1999) US regional income convergence: a spatial econometric perspective. Reg Stud 33:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schott JR (1991) A test for a specific principal component of a correlation matrix. J Am Stat Assoc 86:741–751Google Scholar
  29. Spanos A (1986) Statistical foundations of econometric modelling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stakhovych S, Bijmolt THA (2008) Specification of spatial models: a simulation study on weights matrices. Pap Reg Sci 88:389–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tiefelsdorf M, Griffith DA (2007) Semiparametric filtering of spatial autocorrelation: the eigenvector approach. Environ Plan A 39:1193–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tobler W (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yitzhaki S, Shechtman E (2013) The Gini methodology: a primer on statistical methodology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Beenstock
    • 1
  • Daniel Felsenstein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of GeographyHebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations