Misspecifications due to aggregation of data in models for journeys-to-work

In this paper we develop a new simulation procedure that can be used to examine validity of model extensions. Our testing regime is carried out on a number of different trip distribution models. We test the models on synthetic populations contructed from an aggregated set of worker categories, reflecting for instance different qualifications. The advantage of this approach is that a large number of tests can be carried out repeatedly. We then examine how specific attributes of spatial structure and worker heterogeneity are captured by different modeling alternatives. It is quite surpricing to see how some model formulations systematically report significant contributions in cases where (by construction of the data) no such effects are present. This illustrates the imminent risk of drawing wrong conclusions in empirical work, i.e., that model extensions based on behavioral principles can sometimes report significant contributions that are in fact spurious.

[1]  G. Mulligan,et al.  Labor Migration Amongst Hierarchically Competing and Intervening Origins and Destinations , 1992, Environment & planning A.

[2]  M Batty,et al.  Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models. 1. An Information-Theoretic Framework , 1982, Environment & planning A.

[3]  Kurt Jörnsten,et al.  Replication/Prediction Problems in the Journey to Work , 2004 .

[4]  Jan UbÖe,et al.  Aggregation of gravity models for journeys to work , 2003 .

[5]  A. Anas.  Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models , 1983 .

[6]  David G Steel,et al.  Analysing and Adjusting Aggregation Effects: The Ecological Fallacy Revisited , 1996 .

[7]  Gordon F. Mulligan,et al.  Spatial Flows and Competing Central Places: Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Interaction , 1990 .

[8]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  Some Theoretical Aspects of Destination Choice and Their Relevance to Production-Constrained Gravity Models , 1983 .

[9]  M. Horner.  Extensions to the Concept of Excess Commuting , 2002 .

[10]  Alan Wilson,et al.  A statistical theory of spatial distribution models , 1967 .

[11]  A. Fotheringham.  Note---Consumer Store Choice and Choice Set Definition , 1988 .

[12]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Excess Commuting and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem , 2002 .

[13]  Inge Thorsen,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Model Specifications to Predict Commuting Flows , 1998 .

[14]  W. G. Hansen.  How Accessibility Shapes Land Use , 1959 .

[15]  David G Steel,et al.  Rules for Random Aggregation , 1996 .

[16]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations † , 1983 .

[17]  Michael Batty,et al.  Proximate Aggregation-Estimation of Spatial Interaction Models , 1984 .

[18]  A. Fotheringham.  Spatial Flows and Spatial Patterns , 1984 .

[19]  Tony E. Smith,et al.  Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction Behavior , 1995 .

[20]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples , 1999 .

[21]  M Batty,et al.  Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 2. One-Dimensional Population Density Models , 1982, Environment & planning A.

[22]  M Batty,et al.  Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 4. Generalisations and Large-Scale Applications , 1982, Environment & planning A.

[23]  M Batty,et al.  Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 3. Two-Dimensional Trip Distribution and Location Models , 1982, Environment & planning A.

[24]  Inge Thorsen,et al.  A Competing Destinations Approach to Modeling Commuting Flows: A Theoretical Interpretation and An Empirical Application of the Model , 2000 .