IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nhhfms/2004_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gitlesen, Jens Petter & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2004. "Misspecifications due to aggregation of data in models for journeys-to-work," Discussion Papers 2004/13, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:nhhfms:2004_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/163688
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D G Steel & D Holt, 1996. "Rules for Random Aggregation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(6), pages 957-978, June.
    2. P A Pellegrini & A S Fotheringham, 1999. "Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(6), pages 1093-1118, June.
    3. A S Fotheringham, 1983. "Some Theoretical Aspects of Destination Choice and Their Relevance to Production-Constrained Gravity Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 15(8), pages 1121-1132, August.
    4. M Batty & P K Sikdar, 1984. "Proximate Aggregation-Estimation of Spatial Interaction Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(4), pages 467-486, April.
    5. Anas, Alex, 1983. "Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 13-23, February.
    6. T J Fik & G F Mulligan, 1990. "Spatial Flows and Competing Central Places: Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Interaction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 22(4), pages 527-549, April.
    7. T J Fik & R G Amey & G F Mulligan, 1992. "Labor Migration Amongst Hierarchically Competing and Intervening Origins and Destinations," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(9), pages 1271-1290, September.
    8. M Batty & P K Sikdar, 1982. "Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 3. Two-Dimensional Trip Distribution and Location Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(5), pages 629-658, May.
    9. A S Fotheringham, 1984. "Spatial Flows and Spatial Patterns," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(4), pages 529-543, April.
    10. M Batty & P K Sikdarfl, 1982. "Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 2. One-Dimensional Population Density Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(4), pages 525-553, 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. Jens Petter Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen & Jan Ubøe, 2004. "Misspecifications in modelling journeys to work," ERSA conference papers ersa04p420, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Jan Ubøe & Jens Petter Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen, 2008. "Laboratory Testing of Spurious Spatial Structure in Trip Distribution Models," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 361-372.
    3. Jan Ubøe, 2004. "Aggregation of Gravity Models for Journeys to Work," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(4), pages 715-729, April.
    4. Oshan, Taylor M., 2020. "The spatial structure debate in spatial interaction modeling: 50 years on," OSF Preprints 42vxn, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jean-Michel Guldmann, 1998. "Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction models of inter-city telecommunication flows," ERSA conference papers ersa98p120, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Cabrera Delgado, Jorge & Bonnel, Patrick, 2016. "Level of aggregation of zoning and temporal transferability of the gravity distribution model: The case of Lyon," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 17-26.
    7. McArthur, David Philip & Kleppe, Gisle & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2011. "The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 596-605.
    8. Audrey Bossuyt & Laurence Broze & Victor Ginsburgh, 2001. "On invisible trade relations between Mesopotamian cities during the third millennium B.C," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/99274, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Gitlesen, Jens Petter & Thorsen, Inge, 1999. "An Empirical Evaluation of how commuting flows respond to new road connections and Toll Charges," ERSA conference papers ersa99pa107, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Jens P Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen, 2000. "A Competing Destinations Approach to Modeling Commuting Flows: A Theoretical Interpretation and An Empirical Application of the Model," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(11), pages 2057-2074, November.
    11. T J Fik & G F Mulligan, 1998. "Functional Form and Spatial Interaction Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(8), pages 1497-1507, August.
    12. Peter Congdon, 2010. "Random‐effects models for migration attractivity and retentivity: a Bayesian methodology," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(4), pages 755-774, October.
    13. P A Pellegrini & A S Fotheringham, 1999. "Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(6), pages 1093-1118, June.
    14. D M Hanink & K White, 1999. "Distance Effects in the Demand for Wildland Recreational Services: The Case of National Parks in the United States," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(3), pages 477-492, March.
    15. Irene L. Hudson & Linda Moore & Eric J. Beh & David G. Steel, 2010. "Ecological inference techniques: an empirical evaluation using data describing gender and voter turnout at New Zealand elections, 1893–1919," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 185-213, January.
    16. Juan Martín & Gustavo Nombela, 2007. "Microeconomic impacts of investments in high speed trains in Spain," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 41(3), pages 715-733, September.
    17. Miren Lafourcade & Jacques-François Thisse, 2011. "New Economic Geography: The Role of Transport Costs," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2000. "A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 375-394, June.
    19. McArthur, David Philip & Kleppe, Gisle & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2010. "The impact of pecuniary costs on commuting flows," Discussion Papers 2010/4, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    20. Mercure, Jean-François, 2018. "Fashion, fads and the popularity of choices: Micro-foundations for diffusion consumer theory," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 194-207.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Simulation procedure; Model extensions; Trip distribution models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:nhhfms:2004_013. 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: Stein Fossen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dfnhhno.html .

    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.