Abstract
In this first chapter in Part I, I outline the scope of the book in more detail, and describe the meaning of some important terms in an informal manner.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes on Chapter 2
See, Hordijk and Paelinck 1978 175–9 Paelinck and Klaassen (1979 vii, pp. 5–11), Paelinck ( 1982, pp. 2–3 ).
For example, a recent book on Urban Econometrics,by Kau, Lee and Sirmans (1986) deals with the econometric analysis of urban economic models, but largely ignores spatial effects which may affect this analysis.
It is also very relevant in the physical sciences, such as plant ecology, geology, epidemiology, etc. However, since these fields are not central to applied regional science, they will not be further considered. Interested readers are referred to Cliff and Ord (1981), Ripley (1981), Gaile and Wilmott (1984), and Upton and Fingleton (1985) for extensive references.
In the literature the terms spatial structure, spatial pattern and spatial process are often ill—defined and used interchangeably. Here, I follow the distinction made by Haining (1986a, p. 59–60) between spatial flow, spatial pattern and spatial structure. Spatial flow is taken to be the “physical transfer of commodities, people, information,” etc. Spatial structure refers to the “background geography” and is rather fixed. Spatial pattern “relates to more volatile or changeable levels of spatial regularity that may be imposed on the more permanent structure.” Spatial processes are phenomena which relate the three elements. See also Bennett, Haining and Wilson (1985), for an overview.
For a recent overview, see Hsiao (1986). An exception here is the work by Scott and Holt (1982), and King and Evans (1985, 1986) on cross—sectional dependencies resulting from block structures in survey data. However, a spatial interpretation of these dependencies is not given.
A similar notion is spatial contextual variation, as proposed by Casetti (1972, 1986 ) as the motivation for a spatial expansion method. However, this method is primarily concerned with a particular form of parameter variation over space. The notion of spatial heterogeneity used here is more encompassing, and includes other forms of variability, such as heteroskedasticity and functional change.
In spatial point pattern analysis, this issue is known as the problem of real contagion versus apparent contagion, and has been studied extensively. See, e.g., Getis and Boots (1978), Diggle (1983), Upton and Fingleton (1985).
See the more detailed comments in Haining (1986b) and Anselin (1986b).
The organisation of observational units in time is not specific to spatial econometrics and will not be further considered here. This issue can be fuitfully dealt with using standard econometric techniques, whereas the spatial organisation has many complicating features that require special methodological tools.
An extensive treatment is given in Bennett (1979), to which the interested reader is referred.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anselin, L. (1988). The Scope of Spatial Econometrics. In: Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Studies in Operational Regional Science, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7799-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8311-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7799-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive