See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233297059

A GIS-based Traffic Analysis Zone Design: Implementation and Evaluation

Article  in  Transportation Planning and Technology · August 1997

DOI: 10.1080/03081069708717602

CITATIONS READS
27 1,034

3 authors, including:

Zorica Nedovic-Budic Tschangho John Kim

University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
88 PUBLICATIONS   2,298 CITATIONS    129 PUBLICATIONS   1,649 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

7FP TURAS Transitioning to Urban Resilience and Sustainability (www.turas-cities.com) View project

Coding Space (geo and planning) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zorica Nedovic-Budic on 26 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jinsoo You, Zorica Nedovic-Budic, and Tschangho John Kim
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
111 Temple Buell Hall, 611 East Lorado Taft Drive, Champaign IL 61820

A GIS-BASED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE DESIGN:

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
(Part II)***

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and validate an efficient

method for GIS-based traffic analysis zone (TAZ) design. The method was
developed by You, Nedovic-Budic, and Kim (forthcoming). Moran’s I spatial
autocorrelation coefficient and sample variance are used for evaluating the
generated TAZs using the Champaign-Urbana, IL region as a case study.
Sensitivity analysis is also conducted to explore the fluctuations in TAZ
generation outcomes. The evaluation, the validation as well as the TAZ design
have been implemented with ARC/INFO GIS software on a UNIX workstation
platform.

Key Words: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), Transportation Demand Modeling,

Geographic Information Systems for Transportation (GIS-T), Spatial
Autocorrelation, Evaluation, Validation.

INTRODUCTION

You et al. (forthcoming) method for designing traffic analysis zones (TAZs) relies on
geographic information system (GIS) technology as one of the many emerging applications of
transportation related GIS (GIS-T). GIS is used to integrate statistical analysis and computer
algorithms to efficiently generate TAZs by assigning basic spatial units (BSUs) into clusters.
TAZs are defined at the outset of transportation demand modeling and used in all modeling
phases, from trip generation to trip assignment. It is very important that they are well-designed
because they will ultimately affect transportation modeling results and, consequently, the
transportation policy decisions.
Among several criteria applied toward TAZ design, the proposed method addresses the
homogeneity and the contiguity constraints for obtaining well-defined TAZs. Agglomerative
clustering and iterative partitioning statistical techniques have been explored in detail, and the
iterative clustering technique has been applied for ensuring the maximum homogeneity of
generated TAZs. A contiguity recognition algorithm has been developed for satisfying the
contiguity constraint by using computer programming routines integrated with topological
database software (GIS).
The GIS-based TAZ design technique is implemented and evaluated with a sample dataset
of 130 spatial units in Champaign-Urbana, IL region. Spatial autocorrelation measures are used
as a means for assessing the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of aggregated TAZs.
Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient1 and sample variance are used to identify the
relationship between values of variables at each TAZ, and thus imply the degree of concentration
or dispersion of clustered units in a statistical sense. The generated TAZs are tested for expected,
negative, or positive value of autocorrelation coefficient among the clustered units. Well-

***
This paper has been accepted for publication in the forthcoming issue of Transportation
Planning and Technology. The paper is abbreviated to meet the format of URISA Proceedings.
designed TAZs have even values of socioeconomic variables used for their generation, which in
terms of autocorrelation means randomly aggregated clusters with variables distributed in a
geographically unbiased manner (i.e., their values are independent). They represent the study
area better than the clustered units with positively or negatively autocorrelated variables.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted on the case study dataset to examine the effects of
change in several parameters on TAZ generation. A procedure involving one agglomerative
clustering and eight iterative partitioning cycles is observed with the following options:
• Variable number of desired TAZs: 10, 30, 50, and 70; and
• Three different sets of weights on the household, employment, municipal difference,
and area variables.

This paper provides an overview of spatial autocorrelation method, describes the

implementation of TAZ design, explains the evaluation procedure, and reports the results of the
sensitivity analysis on TAZ generation outcomes.

APPLYING THE SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION COEFFICIENT IN

TAZ EVALUATION

There are several examples of GIS applications using spatial autocorrelation coefficients.
The IDRISI software can perform an estimation of the autocorrelation coefficients. GLIM
calculates autocorrelation statistics by directly accessing ARC/INFO2 data structures
(Fotheringham and Rogerson, 1994). Ding and Fotheringham (1992) also developed an
ARC/INFO spatial analysis module (SAM) by incorporating the spatial autocorrelation
computation facility.
Shen (1994) presented a very detailed method for measuring spatial autocorrelation using
FORTRAN and Arc Macro Language (AML) in UNIX and ARC/INFO environments. Bao et al.
(1995) integrated a regional analysis system (RAS) with ARC/INFO. The capabilities of RAS
include database management functions, functional economic area analysis, and spatial data
analysis. RAS’s spatial data analysis module can facilitate measurement of various spatial
statistical indices such as G statistics, Moran’s I, and Geary’s c.
This paper demonstrates that by adopting the spatial autocorrelation method in assessing
TAZs the results of zonal aggregation can be improved and refined. Spatial autocorrelation
indices facilitate evaluation of the aggregated clusters (zones). Since individual trip makers are
forced to be grouped into the clustered zones, a certain number of trips that are intrazonal in
nature cannot be captured. Minimizing the loss of intrazonal trips and maximizing the number
of interzonal trips corresponds closer to the real world situation. Therefore, our goal is that the
intrazonal trips within the aggregated zones are minimized so that we can prevent the
underestimation of future traffic volumes on a road network. With respect to the variables used
for TAZ generation we know that the number of interzonal trips would increase with zones with
even size of socioeconomic characteristics (Garber and Hoel, 1988). Those zones would,
therefore, provide better foundation for trip generation modeling.
Following is an example how our transportation modeling goals relate to the values of
Moran’s I autocorrelation coefficient. A very small Moran’s I (i.e., around -1) of a population
variable indicates that the variable is negatively spatially autocorrelated. This means that the
study area is composed of TAZs with dissimilar size of socioeconomic characteristics. This
situation could result in less interzonal trips generated. On the other hand, if the population
variable’s Moran’s I is very large (i.e., around +1), there is an evidence of positive spatial
autocorrelation and clustering of zones with similar size of socioeconomic characteristics, but
still with an uneven overall pattern of values. The case with positive spatial autocorrelation
among the clustered zones could also generate less interzonal trips within the generated TAZs.
In summary, maximizing homogeneity within clustered zones is one goal to achieve for
generating maximum number of trips. However, in so doing, it necessarily generates maximum
heterogeneity among clustered zones, counteracting toward forming zones with even size of
socioeconomic characteristics. Obviously, neither of the extreme values of Moran’s I (i.e., +1 or
-1) would result in a desirable configuration of TAZs. We have, thus, chosen Moran’s I expected
value to be the stopping criterion for maximizing homogeneity within clustered zones, which at
the same time prevents reaching the maximally heterogeneous clusters.
Finally, the question of obtaining a desired spatial pattern and correlation between units in a
study area has to be considered. Iterative partitioning technique addresses this question. The
technique pursues a pattern ideal for TAZ design, i.e., maximum homogeneity within a cluster.
The sample variance (s2) of initial partition increases after conducting the iterative partitioning
technique; at the same time, the spatial autocorrelation coefficient, Moran’s I decreases. The
sample variance and spatial autocorrelation coefficient are inversely related, and it is expected
that each iteration will result in a higher value of sample variance (s2) and a lower value of
Moran’s I.3
Table 1 shows the sample variances and Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficients for
the initial zone aggregation and two iterations in the Urbana example presented in the part I of
this paper (You et al., forthcoming). According to the values in the table, the sample variance is
gradually increasing, while the spatial autocorrelation coefficient is gradually decreasing. This
result illustrates the nature of the optimization partitioning technique and the direction of change
in the two measurements implied by it.

Table 1 Sample Variance and Spatial Autocorrelation Coefficient for the Urbana Cluster
Analysis Example.

Clustering Count Sum Average Variance Moran's I

Initial Partition 4 -0.0575 -0.0144 0.1209 -0.1549
st
1 Iteration 4 1.1623 0.2906 0.6968 -0.4791
2nd Iteration 4 2.0306 0.5077 0.7576 -0.7405

As mentioned before, a “good” aggregation of units (i.e., with even values of socioeconomic
characteristics used for TAZ generation) is crucial for avoiding the underestimation problems in
trip generation modeling. A related question of determining when the clusters are “good” is
immediately raised. In other words, how do we know if the selected TAZs are acceptable? In the
Urbana example, the expected Moran’s I is -0.333. The optimization process could be stopped
after the first iteration which produces Moran’s I with a value lower than the expected I. The
maximum homogeneity is achieved after the second iteration; however, it could already result in
a higher than desirable heterogeneity among the generated TAZs. This issue is addressed by
performing sensitivity analysis on the improvement of results after each iteration. The sensitivity
analysis is explained in the case study section.

CASE STUDY

Twin cities of Urbana and Champaign, IL, are used in this case study. Both cities are mid-
size with joint population of about 115 thousand by 1990 census of population. The U.S. Census,
and the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) files were the
main sources of data for the case study. The U.S. Census Bureau’s data on the 1990 decennial
census was used to obtain the number of households in 130 block groups that encompass the
study area. Summary tape file 3A (STF3A) was used. According to the Champaign-Urbana
Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) (1993), the number of employees in each block
group is categorized into two groups: retail and non-retail employees. Block group identification
numbers are used to relate the block group map to the household and employment data in
ARC/INFO. The TIGER files provided block group boundaries.
Figure 1 shows the procedure of TAZ design applying agglomerative clustering and
iterative partitioning techniques. In the procedure sample variances and autocorrelation indices
are used to evaluate generated TAZs. If the initial partition produced by agglomerative
clustering method4 satisfies the evaluation criteria, the results are imported and visualized using
customized computer programs and ARC/INFO. On the contrary, if the initial partition does not
satisfy the evaluation criteria, iterative partitioning method is launched. At the end of each
iteration, the results are evaluated using the sample variance and spatial autocorrelation indices,
and the iterations continue until the evaluation criteria are satisfied. As discussed earlier in this
paper, approximating the expected value of Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient is the
main indicator of well-defined randomly-patterned TAZs.

Agglomerative Clustering GIS Database (BSUs)

(Generating Initial Partition)

Measuring Sample Variance

Iterative Partitioning
and Moran’s I

No Measuring Sample Variance

If satisfied
and Moran’s I

Yes

Visualization Evaluation

Figure 1 TAZ Generation Procedure

Yes
Customized for the Case Study. No
Transferring the results to Trip If satisfied
Generation Model
TAZ Generation

Figure 2 shows the main menu assisting the TAZ generation. TAZ design menu consists of
TAZ generation and evaluation functions. TAZ generation function can perform automatic or
manual TAZ generation. By selecting the automatic function, agglomerative clustering and
iterative partitioning methods can be used. The automatic function also offers a menu which
allows for an easy input of all parameters. For instance, weight factors for each variable and the
number of zones which are used in calculating the similarity indices can be interactively
determined at the outset of the TAZ design procedure. For the weight parameters, municipal
difference and area size are considered in addition to the number of households and employees.
Municipal difference weight serves as a mechanisms for encouraging or discouraging
composition of TAZs with spatial units from different municipalities. The weight affects the
value of similarity indices. Area size weight is included for the purpose of trip generation and
trip distribution modeling. If area size is excluded, the size of TAZs will be wholly decided by
the number of households and employees, and will result in a biased traffic volume on street
network.
 Figure 2 Graphic User Menu for TAZ Generation.

After executing the agglomerative clustering at least once and arriving at the initial
partition, the iterative partitioning technique can be applied using the results of the initial
partition. Figure 3(a), (b), (c), and (d) display twenty TAZs generated initially with the
agglomerative technique, and the TAZs resulting from the first, the second, and the third
iteration of the iterative partitioning technique.

Evaluation

Users can conduct an evaluation between any two consecutive iterations. The evaluation
relies on spatial data analyses described earlier in this paper. Sample variance and Moran’s I
spatial autocorrelation coefficient are used as indicators of the “optimality” of TAZ design.
Increase in value of the sample variance and the value of Moran’s I approaching the expected
value signal the improvement in TAZ pattern. The output is transferred to ArcView5 which
generates a bar chart for easy visualization and assessment of the results. Based on the
evaluation, the user decides to either let the system continue or stop the iteration process. Figure
4(a), (b), and (c) present sample bar charts comparing the change in sample variance and
Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient associated with initial partition and first iteration,
first and second iteration, and second and third iteration on the twenty TAZs shown in Figure 3.
The bar charts indicate that the homogeneity of aggregated clusters has been increased, given the
raise in sample variance and decrease in Moran’s I value. However, the iteration needs to
continue in order to meet the evaluation criterion of Moran’s I having a value close to the
expected I (-0.053 in this example). For more extensive analyses, the next section compares
various cases of iterative clustering results.
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

SQRT(VAR): Standard Deviation, AC_INDEX: Autocorrelation Index

HH: Household, RTL: Retail, NRTL: Non-Retail
ALL: Weighted & Integrated Variable, MI: Moran’s I, E(I): Expected Moran’s I

Figure 3 TAZ Generation results: (a) Initial Partition; (b) First Iteration;
(c) Second Iteration; (d) Third Iteration.

(a)
(b)

(c)

Figure 4 TAZ Evaluation Charts: (a) Initial Partition and First Iteration; (b) First and Second
Iteration; (c) Second and Third Iteration.

Sensitivity Analysis

The results of TAZ generation procedure are examined closer by looking at their rate of
change over a higher number of iterations. The analysis focused on the change in sample
variance and Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient, as these two indicators have been
previously used in evaluating the “goodness” of TAZ design.
One agglomerative clustering and eight iterative partitioning cycles were run on the
Urbana-Champaign sample dataset. In order to assess the effect of various parametric values on
the TAZ generation results, the following situations are introduced:
(1) The number of TAZs to be generated was examined for 10, 30, 50, and 70 clusters.
The significance of analysis with respect to the number of clusters is in finding a good balance
between the total number of basic spatial units (BSUs) and the number of TAZs. Intuitively, we
expect that too few clusters relative to the number of BSUs would be offering many possible
combinations of BSUs in the process of forming TAZ clusters. On the other hand, a large
number of desired clusters that is close to the number of initial BSUs would limit the clustering
options. Processing a large number of TAZs is also computationally more intensive due to the
size of weight and connectivity matrices generated during the statistical and contiguity
recognition procedures.
(2) The input weights on the household, employment, municipal difference, and area
variables were selected as three cases: A, B, and C. The weights given to those variables in their
respective order were:
• Case A: 0.4; 0.4; 0.1; and 0.1
• Case B: 0.4; 0.2; 0.2; and 0.2
• Case C: 0.2; 0.4; 0.2; and 0.2
The weight values were selected to put equal “loading” on household and employment variables
in case A; to emphasize the number of households in case B; and to increase the impact of
employment variable in case C. The number of TAZs generated in all three cases was twenty.
Figure 5 displays the results of sensitivity analyses with 10, 30, 50, and 70 TAZs requested.
The weight on the household, employment, municipal difference, and area parameters was kept
constant at 0.4, 0.4, 0.1, and 0.1, respectively. Sample variance exhibits a slight trend of
increasing value in all situations. The value of the variance in the situation of ten TAZs
generated is substantially higher than in the other situations. The examination of the values on
the graph leads us to believe that a relatively small number of TAZs requested will result in more
heterogeneous clusters then when a larger number of TAZs is generated on the same dataset.
The sample variance, however, does not tell us much about the level of homogeneity within
clusters. The iterative partitioning procedure assumes the maximum homogeneity is achieved
with respect to other constraints. It would be interesting to compare the homogeneity within
clusters for different numbers of TAZs. Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient in all four
situations decreases with the number of iterations and converges toward the expected value of
Moran’s I.
Figure 6 illustrates the change in the sample variance and Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation
coefficient over the initial partitioning and additional five iterative partitioning cycles for all
three cases of variable parameter weights.6 The overall trend in sample variance values is
increasing with iteration number in all cases. The higher values of weight on employment
variable seem to exert more impact on the values of sample variance. This is a result of already
higher variability among the basic spatial units in the value of employment variable then in the
value of household variable.

4000

3500

3000

2500
Sqrt(VAR)

10
2000
30
1500 50

1000 70

500

0
Initial 2 4 6 8
Partition

Iteration

(a)
 0.250

0.200

0.150
Moran's I
10
0.100 30
50
0.050
70

0.000

-0.050
Initial 2 4 6 8
Partition

Iteration
(b)

Figure 5 Effects of Variable Number of TAZs on TAZ Generation Results:

(a) sample variance; (b) Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient.

1600

1400

1200

1000
Sqrt(VAR)

A
800
B
600 C
400

200

0
Initial Partition 2 4

Iteration

(a)
 0.250

0.200

0.150

Moran's I 0.100
A
0.050 B

0.000 C
E(I)
-0.050

-0.100

-0.150
Initial Partition 2 4

Iteration

(b)
Househol Employme Municipal Are
d nt Difference a
Case 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1
A
Case 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
B
Case 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2
C

Figure 6 Effects of Variable Parameter Weight on TAZ Generation Results:

(a) sample variance; (b) Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient.

Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient exhibits a converging trend toward the

expected Moran’s I value (-0.053). The most apparent point is the high rate of decrease of
Moran’s I over the first couple of iterations. It confirms the efficiency of iterative partitioning
technique in achieving the optimal clustering solution. As in the case of sample variance, more
weight on the employment variable drives the values of Moran’s I, and slows down the
convergence toward the expected value. We believe that this too is caused by the uneven
distribution of number of employees in the generated TAZs. The empirical fact of the
concentrated nature of commercial and other employment activities supports our presumption.
The University of Illinois alone captures about one third of the employees in a single location.
The sensitivity analysis presented above proves a valuable tool for examining the
implications of varying interventions into the TAZ generation procedure. It can help better
understand both the nature of data used and their impact on the outcomes of statistical and
programming procedures. While in this paper we present only few examples of sensitivity
analyses, the potential use and value of this technique is much broader.

CONCLUSION
 In this paper, sample variance and Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation coefficient have been
applied to evaluate the progress in TAZ generation with agglomerative clustering and iterative
partitioning techniques. To implement the design procedure, ARC/INFO has been used as an
integration tool on a UNIX workstation platform. The procedure was tested using data from the
Champaign-Urbana, IL region.
Among several important lessons learned in the research process, the two major ones are
that: (1) GIS technology is an efficient topological analysis support and integration tool; and (2)
statistical and spatial analysis methods can substantially improve and help evaluate the results of
TAZ generation.
Introduction of statistical and spatial analysis into the TAZ design is an important
contribution toward generating well-defined TAZs. Iterative partitioning holds particular value
in the process of assigning basic spatial units to clusters. Its drive toward optimized, maximally
homogeneous zones promises better input into transportation demand models, particularly in the
trip generation estimation.
GIS can directly support the TAZ design in many ways. First, it can help with the labor-
intensive data preparation stage -- data acquisition and management. Maintaining topology is
another valuable functionality of GIS technology. Topological data structures facilitate the
contiguity aspects of the iterative partitioning technique. The generic capability of GIS in data
visualization and customized user interface are also very important. Finally, the ability to
incorporate and integrate a variety of computer programming languages and routines gives GIS
technology a central role in the TAZ generation process. The integration achieved in this
research is an extension to ongoing efforts in applying GIS technology for transportation
planning and modeling or otherwise known as GIS-T.

REFERENCES

Achjar, N., 1992. The Dimension of Spatial Autocorrelation in a Regional Development Model
of Indonesia. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bao, S., M.S. Henry, and D. Barkley, 1995. “RAS: A Regional Analysis System Integrated with
ARC/INFO.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19, pp. 37-56.

Choi, K. and T.J. Kim, 1995. “GIS-Based Traffic Analysis Zone Design.” paper presented at the
7th World Conference in Transportation Research, Sidney, Australia.

Cliff, A.D. 1973. Spatial Autocorrelation. Pion, London.

Ding, Y. and S. Fotheringham, 1992. “The Integration of Spatial Analysis and GIS.” Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 16, pp. 3-19.

Fotheringham, S. and P. Rogerson, 1994. Spatial Analysis and GIS, Taylor & Francis, Bristol.

Garber, N.J., and L.A. Hoel, 1988. Traffic and Highway Engineering, West Publishing Co., New York,
NY.

Griffith, D.A., 1987. Spatial Autocorrelation: A Primer. Resource Publications in Geography,

State University of New York at Buffalo.

Kim, T.J., P. Hanley, and C. Ding, 1994. “ARCTRAN: ARC/INFO - TRANPLAN Interface for
Transportation Planning.” Proceedings of the 1994 Korea - U.S.A Symposium on IVHS & GIS-T.

Shen, Q., 1994. “An Application of GIS to the Measurement of Spatial Autocorrelation.”
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 18, pp. 167-191.

The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS), 1993. Champaign

County Regional Planning Commission, Urbana, IL.

Thomas, R. and R. Huggett, 1980. Modelling in Geography: A Mathematical Approach. Barnes

& Noble Books, Totowa, New Jersey.

You, J., Z. Nedovic-Budic, and T.J. Kim, “A GIS-based Traffic Analysis Zone Design:
Technique.” forthcoming in Transportation Planning and Technology.

END NOTES

1
More extensive discussion of spatial autocorrelation is provided in the version of the
paper to be published in TP & T, in Griffith (1987), and in Cliff (1973). Griffith (1987)
defines autocorrelation “as the relationship among values of some variable that is
attributable to some underlying ordering of these values.”

 i =n j =n 
(
n∑ ∑ wij ( xi − x ) x j − x 
 i =1 j =1 
)
Moran' s I =
 = j =n =
2
∑ ∑ wij ∑ ( xi − x ) 
i n i n

i =1 j =1 i =1 
where ,
n: the number of spati al units, x: the arithmetic mean of variable x
xi : the value of variable x in spatial unit i , x j : the value of variable x in spatial unit j
wij : the value of connectivity matrix w
w ij = 1: the corresponding row and column observations are adjacent
w ij = 0: the corresponding row and column observations are not adjacent

Moran’s I has a value between -1 and 1. The expected value of Moran’s I is −1

( n − 1)
where n is the number of observations. The expected value is compared with the indices
obtained from a sample of data with the following rules (Achjar, 1992):
• if Moran’s I = − 1 , no spatial autocorrelation present;
( n − 1)
• if Moran’s I > −1 , positive spatial autocorrelation present; and
( n − 1)
• if Moran’s I < −1 , negative spatial autocorrelation present.
( n − 1)
2
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc.
3
The relationship between the sample variance and Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation
coefficient can be explained with the following mathematical notation (Thomas and
Huggett, 1980):
 S xx
Moran' s I =
Sx
1 n
( )
n
where, S xx = the spati al autocovariance of x = ∑
2A i
∑ (x i − x ) x j − x w ij
j

n 2

∑ (x i − x)
S x = the variance of x = i

n
n = the number of TAZs, A = the number of joins
4
The early version of agglomerative clustering method with GIS was developed by the
Expert Planning Information Systems Laboratory (EPIL), Department of Urban and
Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Kim et al., 1994; Choi
and Kim, 1995). The TAZ generation procedure proposed and tested in this paper is
different from the early version in the way it selects nuclei to start aggregating adjacent
spatial units. The original version used the size of areas or empirically derived number of
trips; the new method uses weighted z-scores to select the initial nuclei.
5
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc.
6
The results of the last three iterations (i.e., 6, 7, and 8) are excluded from Figure 6
because the change in sample variance and Moran’s I values over those iterations show no
significant changes, and no additional information would be provided.

View publication stats