Usefulness of the Information Contained in the Prediction Sample for the Spatial Error Model
Tóm tắt
A recent study proposed an estimation approach that uses data on the independent variables and location for the prediction sample, and suggested that it may improve estimation and prediction. This is an incomplete data approach following an iterative process along the lines of the EM algorithm. The present study compares this approach with a partial data approach that uses only data on the dependent and independent variables and location for the estimation sample. Our Monte Carlo experiments show that unless the estimation and prediction samples constitute the whole population and the data generating model is used as the data fitting model, the incomplete data approach is not guaranteed to be superior to the partial data approach.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.
Brasington, D. M., & Hite, D. (2005). Demand for environmental quality: A spatial hedonic analysis. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 57–82.
Case, B., Clapp, J., Dubin, R., & Rodriguez, M. (2004). Modeling spatial and temporal house price patterns: A comparison of four models. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 167–191.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M. , & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 39, 1–22.
Dubin, R. (2003). Robustness of spatial autocorrelation specifications: Some Monte Carlo evidence. Journal of Regional Science, 43, 221–248.
Dubin, R. (2004). Spatial lags and spatial errors revisited: Some Monte Carlo evidence. In J. P. LeSage & R. K. Pace (Eds.), Spatial and spatiotemporal econometrics (pp. 75–98). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dubin, R. (2008). Comment on a further exploration into the robustness of spatial autocorrelation specifications. Journal of Regional Science, 48, 641–649.
Gawande, K., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2001). Nuclear waste transport and residential property values: Estimating the effects of perceived risks. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42, 207–233.
Gilley, O. W., & Pace, R. K. (1996). On the Harrison and Rubinfeld data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 403–405.
Harrison, D. Jr., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1978). Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 5, 81–102.
Haurin, D. R., & Hendershott, P. H. (1991). House price indexes: Issues and results. AREUEA Journal, 19, 259–269.
Jud, G. D., & Seaks, T. G. (1994). Sample selection bias in estimating housing sales prices. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9, 289–298.
Kato, T. (2008a). A further exploration into the robustness of spatial autocorrelation specifications. Journal of Regional Science, 48, 615–639.
Kato, T. (2008b). Response to comment on a further exploration into the robustness of spatial autocorrelation specifications. Journal of Regional Science, 48, 651–653.
LeSage, J. P., & Pace, R. K. (2004). Models for spatially dependent missing data. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 233–254.
Pace, R. K., & Gilley, O. W. (1997). Using the spatial configuration of the data to improve estimation. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 14, 333–340.
Paterson, R. W., & Boyle, K. J. (2002). Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Economics, 78, 417–425.