Model Comparison and Model Validation Issues in Empirical Work on Urban Density Functions

Luc Anselin; Ayse Can

doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x

Model Comparison and Model Validation Issues in Empirical Work on Urban Density Functions

Luc Anselin, Ayse Can

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

34 Scopus citations

Abstract

Urban population density functions, as summary descriptions of urban structure, have been based on a variety of theoretical specifications and implemented empirically on a wide scale. In this paper, some issues related to the estimation of density functions and the validation of different specifications are considered me closely. Particular attention is given to the selection of spatial observational units, the use of net or gross density measures, testing for spatial autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity, and the use of different model validation criteria (tests on rum‐nested hypotheses versus. measures of fit). An empirical illustration is provided with data for 1980 on the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. 1986 The Ohio State University

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	179-197
Number of pages	19
Journal	Geographical Analysis
Volume	18
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x
State	Published - Jul 1986
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Geography, Planning and Development
Earth-Surface Processes

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x

Cite this

@article{1bd413ba8dee4228a19112ad6d8917ad,

title = "Model Comparison and Model Validation Issues in Empirical Work on Urban Density Functions",

abstract = "Urban population density functions, as summary descriptions of urban structure, have been based on a variety of theoretical specifications and implemented empirically on a wide scale. In this paper, some issues related to the estimation of density functions and the validation of different specifications are considered me closely. Particular attention is given to the selection of spatial observational units, the use of net or gross density measures, testing for spatial autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity, and the use of different model validation criteria (tests on rum‐nested hypotheses versus. measures of fit). An empirical illustration is provided with data for 1980 on the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. 1986 The Ohio State University",

author = "Luc Anselin and Ayse Can",

year = "1986",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "18",

pages = "179--197",

journal = "Geographical Analysis",

issn = "0016-7363",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Model Comparison and Model Validation Issues in Empirical Work on Urban Density Functions

AU - Anselin, Luc

AU - Can, Ayse

PY - 1986/7

Y1 - 1986/7

N2 - Urban population density functions, as summary descriptions of urban structure, have been based on a variety of theoretical specifications and implemented empirically on a wide scale. In this paper, some issues related to the estimation of density functions and the validation of different specifications are considered me closely. Particular attention is given to the selection of spatial observational units, the use of net or gross density measures, testing for spatial autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity, and the use of different model validation criteria (tests on rum‐nested hypotheses versus. measures of fit). An empirical illustration is provided with data for 1980 on the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. 1986 The Ohio State University

AB - Urban population density functions, as summary descriptions of urban structure, have been based on a variety of theoretical specifications and implemented empirically on a wide scale. In this paper, some issues related to the estimation of density functions and the validation of different specifications are considered me closely. Particular attention is given to the selection of spatial observational units, the use of net or gross density measures, testing for spatial autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity, and the use of different model validation criteria (tests on rum‐nested hypotheses versus. measures of fit). An empirical illustration is provided with data for 1980 on the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan area. 1986 The Ohio State University

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0022857986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0022857986&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1538-4632.1986.tb00092.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0022857986

SN - 0016-7363

VL - 18

SP - 179

EP - 197

JO - Geographical Analysis

JF - Geographical Analysis

IS - 3

ER -

Model Comparison and Model Validation Issues in Empirical Work on Urban Density Functions

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this