Skip to main content

Spatial Autocorrelation in Spatial Interaction

Complexity-to-Simplicity in Journey-to-Work Flows

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complexity and Spatial Networks

Part of the book series: Advances in Spatial Science ((ADVSPATIAL))

Abstract

Carey (1858) and Ravenstein (1885) first proposed, through analogy, the gravity model of Newtonian physics as a description for economic and social spatial interaction, with Sen and Smith (1995) furnishing a comprehensive treatment of this model more than a century later. In the late 1960s, Wilson spelled out an entropy maximizing derivation of the gravity model, including the use of row and column totals as additional information for modeling purposes (that is, the doubly-constrained version), followed by a utility maximization derivation of it by Niedercorn and Bechdolt (1969). Flowerdew and Atkin (1982) and Flowerdew and Lovett (1988) articulated linkages between the Poisson probability model and spatial interaction. Within this same time interval, Anas (1983) established a linkage between the doubly-constrained gravity model and a logit model of joint origin-destination choice, which indirectly relates to a Poisson specification that includes a separate indicator variable for each origin and each destination (that is, 2n 0–1 binary variables, each having a single 1 and n-1 0s). Curry (1972; also see Curry et al. 1975, 1976) followed by Griffith and Jones (1980), first raised the issue of spatial autocorrelation effects embedded in spatial interaction. These investigations were followed by a formulation of the network autocorrelation concept (see Black 1992; Black and Thomas 1998; Tiefelsdorf and Braun 1999). More recently, LeSage and Pace (2008), Griffith (2008), and Fischer and Griffith (2008) have returned to the issue of spatial autocorrelation effects embedded in spatial interaction, specifying spatial autoregressive and spatial filter versions of the unconstrained gravity model, but in terms of attribute geographic distributions. Chun (2007) moves beyond this conceptualization to that of more explicitly spatially autocorrelated flows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    None of the 88 candidate eigenvectors portraying negative spatial autocorrelation were selected.

References

  • Black W (1992) Network autocorrelation in transportation network and flow systems, Geogr Anal 24:207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black W, Thomas I (1998) Accidents on Belgium's motorways: a network autocorrelation analysis, J Transp Geogr 6:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolduc D, Laferriere R, Santarossa G (1992) Spatial autoregressive error components in travel flow models, Reg Sci Urban Econ 22(3):371–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolduc D, Laferriere R, Santarossa G (1995) Spatial autoregressive error components in travel flow models: an application to aggregate mode choice, In: Anselin L, Florax RJ (eds) New Directions in Spatial Econometrics, Springer, Berlin, pp 96–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolduc D, Fortin B Gordon S (1997) Multinomial probit estimation of spatially interdependent choices: an empirical comparison of two techniques, Int Reg Sci Rev 20(1):77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey H (1858) Principles of social science. Lippincott, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun Y (2007) Behavioral specifications of network autocorrelation in migration modeling: an analysis of migration flows by spatial filtering, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Geography, The Ohio State University

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry L (1972) Spatial analysis of gravity flows, Reg Stud 6:131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry L, Griffith D, Sheppard E (1975) Those gravity parameters again. Reg Stud 9:289–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer M, Griffith D (2008) Modelling spatial autocorrelation in spatial interaction data: an application to patent data in the European Union, J Reg Sci 48:969–989

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew R, Aitkin M (1982) A method of fitting the gravity model based on the Poisson distribution, J Reg Sci 22:191–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew R, Lovett A (1988) Fitting constrained Poisson regression models to interurban migration flows, Geogr Anal 20:297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot D (1981) Operational urban models: an introduction. Methuen, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D (2000) A linear regression solution to the spatial autocorrelation problem. J Geogr Syst 2:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D (2002) A spatial filtering specification for the auto-Poisson model. Stat Probab Lett 58:245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D (2007) Spatial structure and spatial interaction: 25 years later, Rev Reg Stud 37(1):28–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D (2009) Modeling spatial autocorrelation in spatial interaction data. J Geogr Syst

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith D, Jones K (1980) Explorations into the relationship between spatial structure and spatial interaction, Environ Plan A 12:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeSage J, Pace R (2008) Spatial econometric modelling of origin-destination flows, J Reg Sci 48:941–967

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedercorn J, Bechdolt B (1969) An economic derivation of the ‘gravity law’ of spatial interaction. J Reg Sci 9:273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenstein E (1885) The laws of migration. J R Stat Soc 48:241–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A, Smith T (1995) Gravity models of spatial interaction behavior. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard E, Griffith D, Curry L (1976) A final comment on mis-specification and autocorrelation in those gravity parameters. Reg Stud 10:337–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiefelsdorf M, Braun G (1999) Network Autocorrelation in Poisson Regression Residuals: Inter-district Migration Patterns and Trends within Berlin. Paper presented at the 11th European Colloquium on Quantitative and Theoretical Geography, Durham City, England, September 3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transp Res 1:253–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Griffith, D.A. (2009). Spatial Autocorrelation in Spatial Interaction. In: Reggiani, A., Nijkamp, P. (eds) Complexity and Spatial Networks. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01554-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01554-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01553-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01554-0

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics