Building a Static Spatial Microsimulation Model: Data Preparation
This chapter details issues and specific measures that need to be taken into account when preparing and harmonising sample survey and census data to build a spatial microsimulation model. Transforming and manipulating these data sources, so that they are as compatible as possible, will ensure that the spatial microsimulation technique being used is optimised and the output gained from the model will be as accurate as possible. Several processes and issues are discussed in this chapter, including data requirements and compatibility and data imputation.
KeywordsSample Survey Small Geographic Area Microsimulation Model National Sample Survey Australian Capital Territory
- Cassells, R., Harding, A., Miranti, R., Tanton, R., & McNamara, J. (2010). Spatial microsimulation: Preparation of sample survey and census data for SpatialMSM/08 and SpatialMSM/09 (NATSEM Technical Paper 36). https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/index.php?mode=download&file_id=1065
- Harding, A. (Ed.). (1996). Microsimulation and public policy (Contributions to economic analysis series). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, R. (2007). STINMOD: Use of a static microsimulation model in the policy process in Australia. In A. Harding & A. Gupta (Eds.), Modelling our future: Population ageing, social security and taxation (International symposia in economic theory and econometrics, Vol. 16). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Percival, R., Abello, A., & Vu, Q. (2007). STINMOD (Static income model). In A. Gupta & A. Harding (Eds.), Modelling our future: Population ageing, health and aged care (International symposia in economic theory and econometrics, Vol. 16, pp. 477–482). Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tanton, R., Vidyattama, Y., McNamara, J., Vu, Q. N., & Harding, A. (2009). Old, single and poor: Using microsimulation and microdata to analyse poverty and the impact of policy change among older Australians. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy, 28(2), 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar