Abstract
Random effects models are increasing in popularity (see, for example, Demidenko, 2004), partially because they have become estimable. One common specification is for the intercept term to be cast as a random effects, resulting in it representing variability about the conventional single-value, constant mean. The role of a random effects in this context may be twofold: (1) supporting inferences beyond the specific fixed values of covariates employed in an analysis; and, (2) accounting for correlation in a non-random sample of data being analyzed. Including a random effects term moves a frequentist analysis a bit closer to a Bayesian analysis, given that, for instance, the intercept term becomes a random variable rather than being a constant, and has a prior probability distribution (usually normal) attached to it. Nevertheless, a bone fide Bayesian analysis would have a random variable for each of the n intercept term components comprising such a random effects, maintaining some degree of differentiation here between the frequentist and Bayesian approaches.
Keywords
- Sugar Cane
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo
- Semivariogram Model
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo Chain
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo Iteration
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
ICAR denotes an intrinsic version—a generalization to support certain types of non-stationarity—of the conditional autoregressive (CAR) model in which the variance-covariance matrix is positive semi-definite rather than positive-definite, and has a single parameter to control both the strength of and total amount of spatial dependence.
- 2.
The municipalities with no sugar cane harvest comprise the San Juan metropolitan region and the interior highlands.
References
Besag, J.E. 1974. Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 36: 192–225.
Cliff, A., Ord, J. 1973. Spatial Autocorrelation. London: Pion.
Cowles, M. 2004. Review of WinBUGS 1.4, The American Statistician, 58: 330–336.
Cressie, N. 1991. Statistics for Spatial Data. New York, NY: Wiley.
Demidenko, E. 2004. Mixed Models: Theory and Applications. New York, NY: Wiley.
Griffith, D. 2000a. A linear regression solution to the spatial autocorrelation problem, Journal of Geographical Systems, 2: 141–156.
Griffith, D. 2003. Spatial Autocorrelation and Spatial Filtering: Gaining Understanding Through Theory and Scientific Visualization. Berlin: Springer.
Griffith, D. 2006a. Hidden negative spatial autocorrelation, Journal of Geographical Systems, 8: 335–355.
Griffith, D., Peres-Neto, P. 2006. Spatial modeling in ecology: the flexibility of eigenfunction spatial analyses, Ecology, 87: 2603–2613.
Kass, R., Wasserman, L. 1996. The selection of prior distributions by formal rules, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91: 1343–1370.
Lahiri, S. 1996. On inconsistency of estimators under infill asymptotics for spatial data, Sankhya, Series A, 58: 403–417.
Ord, J. 1975. Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70: 120–126.
Spiegelhalter, D., Best, N., Carlin, B., Van der Linde, A. 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion), Journal of Royal Statistic Society B, 64: 583–640.
Thomas, A., Best, N., Lunn, D., Arnold, R., Spiegelhalter, D. 2004. GeoBUGS User Manual, version 1.2. Accessed at http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/geobugs12manual.pdf on 3/4/2005.
Tiefelsdorf, M., Boots, B. 1995. The exact distribution of Moran's I, Environment and Planning A, 27: 985–999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Griffith, D.A., Paelinck, J.H. (2011). Spatially Structured Random Effects: A Comparison of Three Popular Specifications. In: Non-standard Spatial Statistics and Spatial Econometrics. Advances in Geographic Information Science, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16043-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16043-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-16042-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-16043-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)