spatial discrete choice models professor william greene stern school of business, new york...

80
Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Upload: lionel-oneal

Post on 03-Jan-2016

225 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Discrete Choice Models

Professor William GreeneStern School of Business, New York University

Page 2: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Correlation

Page 3: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Per Capita Income in Monroe County, New York, USA

Spatially Autocorrelated Data

Page 4: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

The Hypothesis of Spatial Autocorrelation

Page 5: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Discrete Choice Modeling: Agenda

Linear Models with Spatial Correlation Discrete Choice Models Spatial Correlation in Nonlinear Models

· Basics of Discrete Choice Models· Maximum Likelihood Estimation

Spatial Correlation in Discrete Choice· Binary Choice· Ordered Choice· Unordered Multinomial Choice· Models for Counts

Page 6: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Linear Spatial Autocorrelation

ii

( ) ( ) , N observations on a spatially

arranged variable

'contiguity matrix;' 0

spatial a

x i W x i ε

W W

W must be specified in advance. It is not estimated.

2

1

2 -1

utocorrelation parameter, -1 < < 1.

E[ ]= Var[ ]=

( ) [ ]

E[ ]= Var[ ]= [( ) ( )]

ε 0, ε I

x i I W ε = Spatial "moving average" form

x i, x I W I W

Page 7: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Testing for Spatial Autocorrelation

Page 8: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 9: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Autocorrelation

2

2 2

.

E[ ]= Var[ ]=

E[ ]=

Var[ ]

y Xβ Wε

ε| X 0, ε| X I

y| X Xβ

y| X = WW

A Generalized Regression Model

Page 10: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Autoregression in a Linear Model

2

1

1 1

1

2 -1

+ .

E[ ]= Var[ ]=

[ ] ( )

[ ] [ ]

E[ ]=[ ]

Var[ ] [( ) ( )]

y Wy Xβ ε

ε| X 0, ε| X I

y I W Xβ ε

I W Xβ I W ε

y| X I W Xβ

y| X = I W I W

Page 11: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Complications of the Generalized Regression Model

Potentially very large N – GPS data on agriculture plots

Estimation of . There is no natural residual based estimator

Complicated covariance structure – no simple transformations

Page 12: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Panel Data Application

it i it

E.g., N countries, T periods (e.g., gasoline data)

y c

= N observations at time t.

Similar assumptions

Candidate for SUR or Spatial Autocorrelation model.

it

t t t

x β

ε Wε v

Page 13: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Autocorrelation in a Panel

Page 14: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Alternative Panel Formulations

i,t t 1 i it

i

Pure space-recursive - dependence pertains to neighbors in period t-1

y [ ] regression +

Time-space recursive - dependence is pure autoregressive and on neighbors

in period t-1

y

Wy

,t i,t-1 t 1 i it

i,t i,t-1 t i it

y + [ ] regression +

Time-space simultaneous - dependence is autoregressive and on neighbors

in the current period

y y + [ ] regression +

Time-space dynamic -

Wy

Wy

i,t i,t-1 t i t 1 i it

dependence is autoregressive and on neighbors

in both current and last period

y y + [ ] + [ ] regression + Wy Wy

Page 15: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Analytical Environment

Generalized linear regression Complicated disturbance covariance

matrix Estimation platform

· Generalized least squares· Maximum likelihood estimation when

normally distributed disturbances (still GLS)

Page 16: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Discrete Choices Land use intensity in Austin, Texas –

Intensity = 1,2,3,4 Land Usage Types in France, 1,2,3 Oak Tree Regeneration in

Pennsylvania Number = 0,1,2,… (Many zeros)

Teenagers physically active = 1 or physically inactive = 0, in Bay Area, CA.

Page 17: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Discrete Choice Modeling

Discrete outcome reveals a specific choice

Underlying preferences are modeled

Models for observed data are usually not conditional means· Generally, probabilities of outcomes· Nonlinear models – cannot be estimated by any

type of linear least squares

Page 18: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Discrete Outcomes

Discrete Revelation of Underlying Preferences· Binary choice between two alternatives· Unordered choice among multiple

alternatives· Ordered choice revealing underlying

strength of preferences

Counts of Events

Page 19: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Simple Binary Choice: Insurance

Page 20: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Redefined Multinomial Choice

Fly Ground

Page 21: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Multinomial Unordered Choice - Transport Mode

Page 22: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Health Satisfaction (HSAT)

Self administered survey: Health Care Satisfaction? (0 – 10)

Continuous Preference Scale

Page 23: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Ordered Preferences at IMDB.com

Page 24: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Counts of Events

Page 25: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Modeling Discrete Outcomes

“Dependent Variable” typically labels an outcome· No quantitative meaning· Conditional relationship to covariates

No “regression” relationship in most cases

The “model” is usually a probability

Page 26: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Simple Binary Choice: Insurance

Decision: Yes or No = 1 or 0Depends on Income, Health, Marital Status, Gender

Page 27: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Multinomial Unordered Choice - Transport Mode

Decision: Which Type, A, T, B, C. Depends on Income, Price, Travel Time

Page 28: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Health Satisfaction (HSAT)

Self administered survey: Health Care Satisfaction? (0 – 10)

Outcome: Preference = 0,1,2,…,10Depends on Income, Marital Status, Children, Age, Gender

Page 29: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Counts of Events

Outcome: How many events at each location = 0,1,…,10Depends on Season, Population, Economic Activity

Page 30: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Nonlinear Spatial Modeling

Discrete outcome yit = 0, 1, …, J for some finite or infinite (count case) J.· i = 1,…,n· t = 1,…,T

Covariates xit .

Conditional Probability (yit = j) = a function of xit.

Page 31: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Two Platforms

Random Utility for Preference Models Outcome reveals underlying utility· Binary: u* = ’x y = 1 if u* > 0· Ordered: u* = ’x y = j if j-1 < u* < j

· Unordered: u*(j) = ’xj , y = j if u*(j) > u*(k)

Nonlinear Regression for Count Models Outcome is governed by a nonlinear regression· E[y|x] = g(,x)

Page 32: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Probit and Logit Models

Prob(y 1 or 0| ) = F( ) or [1- F( )]x x xi i i iθ θ

Page 33: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Implied Regression Function

Page 34: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Estimated Binary Choice Models:The Results Depend on F(ε)

LOGIT PROBIT EXTREME VALUE

Variable Estimate t-ratio Estimate t-ratio Estimate t-ratio

Constant -0.42085 -2.662 -0.25179 -2.600 0.00960 0.078

X1 0.02365 7.205 0.01445 7.257 0.01878 7.129

X2 -0.44198 -2.610 -0.27128 -2.635 -0.32343 -2.536

X3 0.63825 8.453 0.38685 8.472 0.52280 8.407

Log-L -2097.48 -2097.35 -2098.17

Log-L(0) -2169.27 -2169.27 -2169.27

Page 35: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

+ 1 (X1+1) + 2 (X2) + 3 X3 (1 is positive)

Effect on Predicted Probability of an Increase in X1

Page 36: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Estimated Partial Effects vs. Coefficients

Page 37: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Applications: Health Care UsageGerman Health Care Usage Data, 7,293 Individuals, Varying Numbers of PeriodsVariables in the file areData downloaded from Journal of Applied Econometrics Archive. This is an unbalanced panel with 7,293 individuals. They can be used for regression, count models, binary choice, ordered choice, and bivariate binary choice. This is a large data set. There are altogether 27,326 observations. The number of observations ranges from 1 to 7. (Frequencies are: 1=1525, 2=2158, 3=825, 4=926, 5=1051, 6=1000, 7=987). (Downloaded from the JAE Archive)

DOCTOR = 1(Number of doctor visits > 0) HOSPITAL = 1(Number of hospital visits > 0) HSAT = health satisfaction, coded 0 (low) - 10 (high) DOCVIS = number of doctor visits in last three months HOSPVIS = number of hospital visits in last calendar year PUBLIC = insured in public health insurance = 1; otherwise = 0 ADDON = insured by add-on insurance = 1; otherswise = 0 HHNINC = household nominal monthly net income in German marks / 10000. (4 observations with income=0 were dropped) HHKIDS = children under age 16 in the household = 1; otherwise = 0 EDUC = years of schooling AGE = age in years FEMALE = 1 for female headed household, 0 for male EDUC = years of education

Page 38: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

An Estimated Binary Choice Model

Page 39: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

An Estimated Ordered Choice Model

Page 40: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

An Estimated Count Data Model

Page 41: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

210 Observations on Travel Mode Choice

CHOICE ATTRIBUTES CHARACTERISTICMODE TRAVEL INVC INVT TTME GC HINCAIR .00000 59.000 100.00 69.000 70.000 35.000TRAIN .00000 31.000 372.00 34.000 71.000 35.000BUS .00000 25.000 417.00 35.000 70.000 35.000CAR 1.0000 10.000 180.00 .00000 30.000 35.000AIR .00000 58.000 68.000 64.000 68.000 30.000TRAIN .00000 31.000 354.00 44.000 84.000 30.000BUS .00000 25.000 399.00 53.000 85.000 30.000CAR 1.0000 11.000 255.00 .00000 50.000 30.000AIR .00000 127.00 193.00 69.000 148.00 60.000TRAIN .00000 109.00 888.00 34.000 205.00 60.000BUS 1.0000 52.000 1025.0 60.000 163.00 60.000CAR .00000 50.000 892.00 .00000 147.00 60.000AIR .00000 44.000 100.00 64.000 59.000 70.000TRAIN .00000 25.000 351.00 44.000 78.000 70.000BUS .00000 20.000 361.00 53.000 75.000 70.000CAR 1.0000 5.0000 180.00 .00000 32.000 70.000

Page 42: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

An Estimated Unordered Choice Model

Page 43: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Maximum Likelihood EstimationCross Section Case

Binary Outcome

Random Utility: y* = +

Observed Outcome: y = 1 if y* > 0,

0 if y* 0.

Probabilities: P(y=1|x) = Prob(y* > 0| )

x

x

= Prob( > - )

P(y=0|x) = Prob(y* 0| )

= Prob( - )

Likelihood for the sample = joint probability

x

x

x

i i1

i i1

= Prob(y=y| )

Log Likelihood = logProb(y=y| )

x

x

n

i

n

i

Page 44: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Cross Section Case

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

1 1

2 2

| or >

| or > Prob Prob

... ...

| or >

Prob( or > )

Prob( or > ) =

...

Prob( or >

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

n n n n

n

y j

y j

y j

)

We operate on the marginal probabilities of n observations

n

Page 45: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Log Likelihoods for Binary Choice Models

1

2

Logl( | )= logF 2 1

Probit

1 F(t) = (t) exp( t / 2)dt

2

(t)dt

Logit

exp(t) F(t) = (t) =

1 exp(t)

X,y xn

i ii

t

t

y

Page 46: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatially Correlated ObservationsCorrelation Based on Unobservables

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

u u 0

u u 0 ~ f ,

... ... ... ...

u u 0

In the cross section case, = .

= the usual spatial weight matrix .

x

x

x

W WW

WW I

n n n n n

y

y

y

Now, it is a full

matrix. The joint probably is a single n fold integral.

Page 47: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatially Correlated ObservationsCorrelated Utilities

* *1 1 1 11 1

* *12 2 2 22 2

* *

... ...... ...

In the cross section case

= the usual spatial weight matrix .

x x

x x

x x

W I W

Wn n n nn n

y y

y y

y y

, = . Now, it is a full

matrix. The joint probably is a single n fold integral.

W I

Page 48: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Log Likelihood

In the unrestricted spatial case, the log likelihood is one term,

LogL = log Prob(y1|x1, y2|x2, … ,yn|xn)

In the discrete choice case, the probability will be an n fold integral, usually for a normal distribution.

Page 49: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

LogL for an Unrestricted BC Model

1

1 1 1 2 12 1 1 1

2 2 1 2 21 2 2 2

1 1 2 2

1 ...

1 ...LogL( | )=log ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... 1

1 if y = 0 and

x xX,y

n

n n

n nn

n n n n n n n

i i

q q q w q q w

q q q w q q wd

q q qw q q w

q

+1 if y = 1.

One huge observation - n dimensional normal integral.

Not feasible for any reasonable sample size.

Even if computable, provides no device for estimating sampling standard errors.

i

Page 50: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Solution Approaches for Binary Choice

Distinguish between private and social shocks and use pseudo-ML

Approximate the joint density and use GMM with the EM algorithm

Parameterize the spatial correlation and use copula methods

Define neighborhoods – make W a sparse matrix and use pseudo-ML

Others …

Page 51: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Pseudo Maximum LikelihoodSmirnov, A., “Modeling Spatial Discrete Choice,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40, 2010.

1 1

1

0

Spatial Autoregression in Utilities

* * , 1( * ) for all n individuals

* ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) assumed convergent

=

= + where

t

t

y Wy X y y 0

y I W X I W

I W W

A

D A-D

1

= diagonal elements

*

Private Social

Then

aProb[y 1 or 0| ] F (2 1) , p

nj ij j

i ii

yd

D

y AX D A-D

Suppose individuals ignore the social "shocks."

xX

robit or logit.

Page 52: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Pseudo Maximum Likelihood

Assumes away the correlation in the reduced form

Makes a behavioral assumption

Requires inversion of (I-W)

Computation of (I-W) is part of the optimization process - is estimated with .

Does not require multidimensional integration (for a logit model, requires no integration)

Page 53: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

GMMPinske, J. and Slade, M., (1998) “Contracting in Space: An Application of Spatial Statistics to Discrete Choice Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 85, 1, 125-154.Pinkse, J. , Slade, M. and Shen, L (2006) “Dynamic Spatial Discrete Choice Using One Step GMM: An Application to Mine Operating Decisions”, Spatial Economic Analysis, 1: 1, 53 — 99.

1

*= + , = +

= [ - ]

= u

Cross section case: =0

Probit Model: FOC for estimation of is based on the

ˆ generalized residuals ui

y W u

I W u

A

Xθ ε

1

= y [ | ]

( ( )) ( ) =

( )[1 ( )]

Spatially autocorrelated case: Moment equations are still

valid. Complication is computing the variance of the

i i

n i i iii

i i

E y

y

x xx 0

x x

moment

equations, which requires some approximations.

Page 54: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

GMM

1

*= + , = +

= [ - ]

= u

Autocorrelated Case: 0

Probit Model: FOC for estimation of is based on the

ˆ generalized residuals u

y W u

I W u

A

Xθ ε

1

= y [ | ]

( ) ( ) =

1( ) ( )

i i i

i ii

n ii iiii

i i

ii ii

E y

ya a

a a

x x

z 0x x

Requires at least K+1 instrumental variables.

Page 55: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

GMM Approach

Spatial autocorrelation induces heteroscedasticity that is a function of

Moment equations include the heteroscedasticity and an additional instrumental variable for identifying .

LM test of = 0 is carried out under the null hypothesis that = 0.

Application: Contract type in pricing for 118 Vancouver service stations.

Page 56: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Copula Method and ParameterizationBhat, C. and Sener, I., (2009) “A copula-based closed-form binary logit choice modelfor accommodating spatial correlation across observational units,” Journal of Geographical Systems, 11, 243–272

* *

1 2

Basic Logit Model

y , y 1[y 0] (as usual)

Rather than specify a spatial weight matrix, we assume

[ , ,..., ] have an n-variate distribution.

Sklar's Theorem represents the joint distribut

i i i i i

n

x

1 1 2 2

ion in terms

of the continuous marginal distributions, ( ) and a copula

function C[u = ( ) ,u ( ) ,...,u ( ) | ]i

n n

Page 57: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Copula Representation

Page 58: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Model

Page 59: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Likelihood

Page 60: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Parameterization

Page 61: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 62: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 63: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Other Approaches

Case (1992): Define “regions” or neighborhoods. No correlation across regions. Produces essentially a panel data probit model.

Beron and Vijverberg (2003): Brute force integration using GHK simulator in a probit model.

Others. See Bhat and Sener (2009).

Case A (1992) Neighborhood influence and technological change. Economics 22:491–508Beron KJ, Vijverberg WPM (2004) Probit in a spatial context: a monte carlo analysis. In: Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools and applications. Springer, Berlin

Page 64: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 65: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Ordered Probability Model

1

1 2

2 3

J-1 J

j-1

y* , we assume contains a constant term

y 0 if y* 0

y = 1 if 0 < y*

y = 2 if < y*

y = 3 if < y*

...

y = J if < y*

In general: y = j if < y*

βx x

j

-1 o J j-1 j,

, j = 0,1,...,J

, 0, , j = 1,...,J

Page 66: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Outcomes for Health Satisfaction

Page 67: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

A Spatial Ordered Choice ModelWang, C. and Kockelman, K., (2009) Bayesian Inference for Ordered Response Data with a Dynamic Spatial Ordered Probit Model, Working Paper, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Bucknell University.

* *1

* *1

Core Model: Cross Section

y , y = j if y , Var[ ] 1

Spatial Formulation: There are R regions. Within a region

y u , y = j if y

Spatial he

i i i i j i j i

ir ir i ir ir j ir j

βx

βx2

2

1 2 1

teroscedasticity: Var[ ]

Spatial Autocorrelation Across Regions

= + , ~ N[ , ]

= ( - ) ~ N[ , {( - ) ( - )} ]

The error distribution depends on 2 para

ir r

v

v

u Wu v v 0 I

u I W v 0 I W I W2meters, and

Estimation Approach: Gibbs Sampling; Markov Chain Monte Carlo

Dynamics in latent utilities added as a final step: y*(t)=f[y*(t-1)].

v

Page 68: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

OCM for Land Use Intensity

Page 69: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

OCM for Land Use Intensity

Page 70: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Estimated Dynamic OCM

Page 71: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 72: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Unordered Multinomial Choice

Underlying Random Utility for Each Alternative

U(i,j) = , i = individual, j = alternative

Preference Revelation

Y(i) = j if and only if U(i,j) > U(i,k

j ij ij

Core Random Utility Model

x

1

1

) for all k j

Model Frameworks

Multinomial Probit: [ ,..., ] ~N[0, ]

Multinomial Logit: [ ,..., ] ~ type I extreme valueJ

J iid

Page 73: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Multinomial Unordered Choice - Transport Mode

Decision: Which Type, A, T, B, C. Depends on Income, Price, Travel Time

Page 74: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Spatial Multinomial ProbitChakir, R. and Parent, O. (2009) “Determinants of land use changes: A spatial multinomial probit approach, Papers in Regional Science, 88, 2, 328-346.

1

Utility Functions, land parcel i, usage type j, date t

U(i,j,t)=

Spatial Correlation at Time t

Modeling Framework: Normal / Multinomial Probit

Estimation: MCMC

jt ijt ik ijt

n

ij il lkl

x

w

- Gibbs Sampling

Page 75: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 76: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 77: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University
Page 78: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Modeling Counts

Page 79: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University

Canonical Model

Poisson Regression

y = 0,1,...

exp( ) Prob[y = j|x] =

!

Conditional Mean = exp( x)

Signature Feature: Equidispersion

Usual Alternative: Various forms of Negative Binomial

Spatial E

j

j

1

ffect: Filtered through the mean

= exp( x + )

=

i i i

n

i im m imw

Rathbun, S and Fei, L (2006) “A Spatial Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model for Oak Regeneration,” Environmental Ecology Statistics, 13, 2006, 409-426

Page 80: Spatial Discrete Choice Models Professor William Greene Stern School of Business, New York University