Search

Residual spatial autocorrelation is a situation frequently encountered in regression analysis of spatial data. The statistical problems arising due to this phenomenon are well‐understood. Original developments in the field of statistical analysis of spatial data were meant to detect spatial pattern, in order to assess whether corrective measures were required. An early development was the use of residual autocorrelation as an exploratory tool to improve regression analysis of spatial data. In this note, we propose the use of spatial filtering and exploratory data analysis as a way to identify omitted but potentially relevant independent variables. We use an example of blood donation patterns in Toronto, Canada, to demonstrate the proposed approach. In particular, we show how an initial filter used to rectify autocorrelation problems can be progressively replaced by substantive variables. In the present case, the variables so retrieved reveal the impact of urban form, travel habits, and demographic and socio‐economic attributes on donation rates. The approach is particularly appealing for model formulations that do not easily accommodate positive spatial autocorrelation, but should be of interest as well for the case of continuous variables in linear regression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographically weighted regression (GWR) is a technique that explores spatial nonstationarity in data‐generating processes by allowing regression coefficients to vary spatially. It is a widely applied technique across domains because it is intuitive and conforms to the well‐understood framework of regression. An alternative method to GWR that has been suggested is spatial filtering, which it has been argued provides a superior alternative to GWR by producing spatially varying regression coefficients that are not correlated with each other and which display less spatial autocorrelation. It is, therefore, worthwhile to examine these claims by comparing the output from both methods. We do this by using simulated data that represent two sets of spatially varying processes and examining how well both techniques replicate the known local parameter values. The article finds no support that spatial filtering produces local parameter estimates with superior properties. The results indicate that the original spatial filtering specification is prone to overfitting and is generally inferior to GWR, while an alternative specification that minimizes the mean square error (MSE) of coefficient estimates produces results that are similar to GWR. However, since we generally do not know the true coefficients, the MSE minimizing specification is impractical for applied research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]