IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v47y2020i3p489-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distance metric choice can both reduce and induce collinearity in geographically weighted regression

Author

Listed:
  • Alexis Comber

    (University of Leeds, UK)

  • Khanh Chi

    (GeoViet Consulting Co. Ltd, Vietnam)

  • Man Q Huy

    (Vietnam National University, Vietnam)

  • Quan Nguyen

    (National University of Civil Engineering, Vietnam)

  • Binbin Lu

    (Wuhan University, China)

  • Hoang H Phe

    (Vinaconex R&D, Vietnam)

  • Paul Harris

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of different distance metrics on collinearity in local regression models such as geographically weighted regression. Using a case study of house price data collected in Hà Nội, Vietnam, and by fully varying both power and rotation parameters to create different Minkowski distances, the analysis shows that local collinearity can be both negatively and positively affected by distance metric choice. The Minkowski distance that maximised collinearity in a geographically weighted regression was approximate to a Manhattan distance with (power =  0.70 ) with a rotation of 30°, and that which minimised collinearity was parameterised with power  = 0.05 and a rotation of 70 °. The results indicate that distance metric choice can provide a useful extra tuning component to address local collinearity issues in spatially varying coefficient modelling and that understanding the interaction of distance metric and collinearity can provide insight into the nature and structure of the data relationships. The discussion considers first, the exploration and selection of different distance metrics to minimise collinearity as an alternative to localised ridge regression, lasso and elastic net approaches. Second, it discusses the how distance metric choice could extend the methods that additionally optimise local model fit (lasso and elastic net) by selecting a distance metric that further helped minimise local collinearity. Third, it identifies the need to investigate the relationship between kernel bandwidth, distance metrics and collinearity as an area of further work.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexis Comber & Khanh Chi & Man Q Huy & Quan Nguyen & Binbin Lu & Hoang H Phe & Paul Harris, 2020. "Distance metric choice can both reduce and induce collinearity in geographically weighted regression," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(3), pages 489-507, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:3:p:489-507
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808318784017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808318784017
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808318784017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Páez & Takashi Uchida & Kazuaki Miyamoto, 2002. "A General Framework for Estimation and Inference of Geographically Weighted Regression Models: 1. Location-Specific Kernel Bandwidths and a Test for Locational Heterogeneity," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(4), pages 733-754, April.
    2. M. Bárcena & P. Menéndez & M. Palacios & F. Tusell, 2014. "Alleviating the effect of collinearity in geographically weighted regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 441-466, October.
    3. Gollini, Isabella & Lu, Binbin & Charlton, Martin & Brunsdon, Christopher & Harris, Paul, 2015. "GWmodel: An R Package for Exploring Spatial Heterogeneity Using Geographically Weighted Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 63(i17).
    4. Gelfand A.E. & Kim H-J. & Sirmans C.F. & Banerjee S., 2003. "Spatial Modeling With Spatially Varying Coefficient Processes," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 387-396, January.
    5. Antonio Páez & Takashi Uchida & Kazuaki Miyamoto, 2002. "A General Framework for Estimation and Inference of Geographically Weighted Regression Models: 2. Spatial Association and Model Specification Tests," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(5), pages 883-904, May.
    6. Steven Farber & Antonio Páez, 2007. "A systematic investigation of cross-validation in GWR model estimation: empirical analysis and Monte Carlo simulations," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 371-396, December.
    7. David Wheeler & Michael Tiefelsdorf, 2005. "Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 161-187, June.
    8. A. Stewart Fotheringham & Wenbai Yang & Wei Kang, 2017. "Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR)," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(6), pages 1247-1265, November.
    9. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 768-768, November.
    10. Hui Zou & Trevor Hastie, 2005. "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(2), pages 301-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexis Comber & Paul Harris, 2018. "Geographically weighted elastic net logistic regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 317-341, October.
    2. Paul Harris & Bruno Lanfranco & Binbin Lu & Alexis Comber, 2020. "Influence of Geographical Effects in Hedonic Pricing Models for Grass-Fed Cattle in Uruguay," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Geniaux, Ghislain & Martinetti, Davide, 2018. "A new method for dealing simultaneously with spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity in regression models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-85.
    4. David C Wheeler, 2009. "Simultaneous Coefficient Penalization and Model Selection in Geographically Weighted Regression: The Geographically Weighted Lasso," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(3), pages 722-742, March.
    5. M. Bárcena & P. Menéndez & M. Palacios & F. Tusell, 2014. "Alleviating the effect of collinearity in geographically weighted regression," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 441-466, October.
    6. Dongwoo Kang & Sandy Dall’erba, 2016. "Exploring the spatially varying innovation capacity of the US counties in the framework of Griliches’ knowledge production function: a mixed GWR approach," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 125-157, April.
    7. repec:rre:publsh:v:51:y:2021:i:2 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Zhong, Yan & Sang, Huiyan & Cook, Scott J. & Kellstedt, Paul M., 2023. "Sparse spatially clustered coefficient model via adaptive regularization," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Antonio Páez & Steven Farber & David Wheeler, 2011. "A Simulation-Based Study of Geographically Weighted Regression as a Method for Investigating Spatially Varying Relationships," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(12), pages 2992-3010, December.
    10. Wenjie Wu & Guanpeng Dong & Wenzhong Zhang, 2017. "The puzzling heterogeneity of amenity capitalization effects on land markets," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96, pages 135-153, March.
    11. Wrenn, Douglas H. & Sam, Abdoul G., 2014. "Geographically and temporally weighted likelihood regression: Exploring the spatiotemporal determinants of land use change," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 60-74.
    12. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    13. Carstensen, Kai & Heinrich, Markus & Reif, Magnus & Wolters, Maik H., 2020. "Predicting ordinary and severe recessions with a three-state Markov-switching dynamic factor model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 829-850.
    14. Hou-Tai Chang & Ping-Huai Wang & Wei-Fang Chen & Chen-Ju Lin, 2022. "Risk Assessment of Early Lung Cancer with LDCT and Health Examinations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-12, April.
    15. Wang, Qiao & Zhou, Wei & Cheng, Yonggang & Ma, Gang & Chang, Xiaolin & Miao, Yu & Chen, E, 2018. "Regularized moving least-square method and regularized improved interpolating moving least-square method with nonsingular moment matrices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 325(C), pages 120-145.
    16. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    17. Lucian Belascu & Alexandra Horobet & Georgiana Vrinceanu & Consuela Popescu, 2021. "Performance Dissimilarities in European Union Manufacturing: The Effect of Ownership and Technological Intensity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Candelon, B. & Hurlin, C. & Tokpavi, S., 2012. "Sampling error and double shrinkage estimation of minimum variance portfolios," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 511-527.
    19. Andrea Carriero & Todd E. Clark & Massimiliano Marcellino, 2025. "Specification Choices in Quantile Regression for Empirical Macroeconomics," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 57-73, January.
    20. Kim, Hyun Hak & Swanson, Norman R., 2018. "Mining big data using parsimonious factor, machine learning, variable selection and shrinkage methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 339-354.
    21. Shuichi Kawano, 2014. "Selection of tuning parameters in bridge regression models via Bayesian information criterion," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1207-1223, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:3:p:489-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.