H a r v e y J .

Miller

Potential Contributions of Spatial Analysis to

Geographic Information Systems f o r Transportation
(GIS-T)

Geographic information systems (GIS) are having tremendous impacts on many

scientijic and application domains. The traditional subfield of spatial analysis is
witnessing a major resurgence and enhancement due to CIS and geographical
information science (GISci), an interdisciplinay field focusing on the the0y
and methodology underlying GIS software. The interdisciplina y field of geo-
graphic information systems for transportation (GIS-T) has emerged to focus
on the role of GIS in transportaton analysis and planning. This paper suggests
the benefits of closer linkages between spatial analysis, GISci, and transporta-
tion through a focused review of'spatial analytical issues and their potential
contributions to GIs-T. Specijkally, this paper reviews the following issues: (i)
modifiable areal units; (ii) boundary problems and spatial sampling; (iii) spatial
dependence and spatial heterogeneity; and (iv) alternative representations of
geographic environments. The discussion highlights the general issues as well
as identijies their specijc relevance to GIS-T. In addition, this paper identijies
some emerging tools from GISci that can address these spatial analytical issues
in GIs-T.

We are at critical junctures in several fields related to the broad scope of geo-
graphic analysis: (i) geographic information systems (GIS); (ii) transportation,
and; (iii) spatial analysis. By now, it is almost trite to point out the staggering
increase in digital information processing capabilities over the last three de-
cades and the resultant nse of GIS. As a suite of methods for capturing, storing,
analyzing, and communicating georeferenced information, GIS has spread to
many scientific fields concerned with understanding geographic phenomena. It
has also spread to application domains concerned with the efficient and equi-
table distribution of resources and the impact of resource use on the Earth's
environments.
The traditional geographic subfield of spatial analysis is witnessing a major
resurgence and enhancement due to GIS. For decades, spatial analysts tackled
fundamental problems associated with analyzing spatial data and modeling spatial
processes. As will be illustrated below, substantial progress has been achieved

The author thanks Tom Cova and three anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier
draft.

Harvey J. Miller is associate professor of geography at the University of Utah.

Geographical Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 1999) The Ohio State University
374 / Geographical Analysis
despite the limited spatial information processing capabilities of traditional
techniques. CIS and related technologies are shattering these limitations.
GIS also has tremendous potential for disseminating spatial analysis beyond
its traditional disciplinary home in geography. Several decades of spatial analysis
research have led to a clear and unshakable conclusion that traditional, “aspa-
tial” techniques cannot capture the subtle relationships inherent in geographic
phenomena. Ignoring these relations is not simply information loss: it can have
nontrivial impacts on research conclusions and policy decisions (Fotheringham
and Rogerson 1993). These arguments were largely moot to broader research
and practitioner communities since digital cartographic data structures and suf-
ficiently powerful spatial information processing capabilities were not readily
available. This is changing as these communities adopt GIs, ironically for rea-
sons other than spatial analysis.
Many researchers and practitioners are adopting GIS as a “front end’ and a
“back end” to georeferenced databases. GIS serves as a spatial database man-
agement system (SDBMS) for managing georeferenced data and a spatial deci-
sion support system (SDSS) for mapping and communicating geographic infor-
mation to colleagues, decision makers, and stakeholders. This is a perfectly
acceptable use of GIs, particularly in transportation analysis where the stake-
holders can be a large and diverse group (Miller and Storm 1996). When mod-
eling and analysis occur it often involves traditional, aspatial techniques: a GIS
serves as a SDBMS and a SDSS at the two ends of the modeling process but
is not exploited for its spatial analytical capabilities. This is unfortunate: the re-
search problems that lead people to adopt GIS often can also benefit from spa-
tial analysis techniques.
The multidisciplinary field of transportation analysis provides a case in point.
GIS has been so widely and strongly adopted within the transportation com-
munity that it has generated a new moniker, namely, GIs-T (Geographic Infor-
mation Systems for Transportation), with its own conference and community.
Quite correctly, the transportation community recognizes the tremendous bene-
fits to be gained by the SDBMS and SDSS capabilities of GIs. Less well recog-
nized are the spatial analytical issues at the heart of transportation analysis. Dis-
seminating spatial analytical tools (and knowledge) to this community through
the vehicle of GIS can have a substantial positive impact on the theory and
practice of transportation analysis and planning. This can also have a positive
feedback on spatial analysis: the research and application needs of the GIs-T
community can suggest new spatial analytic problems and applications of spatial
analysis techniques.
At the same time, spatial analysis is benefiting from the new geocomputa-
tional tools that are emerging from geographic information science (GISci), a
new interdisciplinary field that focuses on the theory and techniques behind
CIS and related technologies (see Goodchild 1992). Geocomputational tools
can handle more diverse data and can better exploit very large spatial data sets
than traditional spatial analytical techniques. The interests of GIScientists and
spatial analysts overlap and some very innovative breakthroughs are occurring
at the interface of these fields. Transportation analysis and planning can provide
another challenging arena for the continued development of geocomputational
tools and techniques. This is particularly true as transportation systems become
increasingly integrated, global-scale, and multimodal, and transportation policy
moves away from construction and toward improving the efficiency of existing
infrastructure.
This paper is a focused review of spatial analysis. Specifically, this paper
reviews the potential contributions of spatial analysis to GIs-T. The discussion
 Harvey]. Miller / 375

encompasses general spatial analytical issues and identifies their relevance to

problems in transportation modeling and analysis. This paper also identifies in-
teresting geocomputational tools and their potential use in spatial analysis for
GIs-T, illustrating how the tools of GISci can address traditional spatial analyti-
cal issues.
The next section of the paper reviews major spatial analytical issues and their
relevance to transportation analysis. This includes four subsections focusing on
the spatial analytical issues of modgable areal units, boundary problems and
spatial sampling, spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity, and alternative
representations of geographic environments. In each case, the discussion covers
the basic issues and their specific application in transportation analysis. The
transportation analysis discussion focuses mostly on travel demand modeling
since this is the author’s main area of expertise and also the majority of GIs-T
applications. The final section concludes with some brief comments on a GIs-T
research agenda.

1. SPATIAL ANALYTICAL ISSUES IN GIS-T

1 . 1 Modijable Areal Units

1.1.1 Basic Issues. The rrwdijiable areal unit problem (MAUP) occurs when
the spatial zoning system used to collect and/or report geographic data are
“modifiable” or arbitrary. Quite simply, if the zoning system is arbitrary, the
results from any analysis using that system can be arbitrary. That is, the rela-
tionships observed might be artifacts of the spatial reporting units.
Evidence for the MAUP dates back to Gehlke and Biehl (1934) and Robinson
(1950): both noted a relationship between estimated correlation coefficients and
the level of census reporting units used in the calculation. More definitive simu-
lation experiments by Openshaw and Taylor (1979) discovered a strong rela-
tionship between zoning systems and estimated correlations. Other researchers
have discovered MAUP effects in a variety of analytical contexts, including
spatial interpolation (Cressie 1995, 1996), regression analysis (Amrhein 1995;
Amrhein and Flowerdew 1992; Clark and Avery 1976; Fotheringham and
Wong 1991; Okabe and Tagashira 1996), estimates of spatial autocorrelation
(Chou 1991),factor analysis (Hunt and Boots 1996), image classijkation (Arbia,
Benedetti, and Espa 1996), ecological modeling (Malanson and Armstrong
1997), and regional economicforecasting (Miller 1998).
MAUP effects can be roughly divided into two major components (Openshaw
and Taylor 1979; Wong and Amrhein 1996), namely, scale effects and zoning
effects. Scale effects relate to spatial aggregation of the data. Zoning effects refer
to changes in spatial partitioning given a fixed level of aggregation. Although we
do not have a general, workable solution to the MAUP, it is clear that anteced-
ent factors can be controlled and its effects predicted, particularly within spe-
cific application contexts (Amrhein 1995; Holt, Steel, and Tranmer 1996; Holt
et al. 1996; Wong and Amrhein 1996).
The MAUP, while always a background concern, has recently roared back to
the forefront of spatial analysis. This is directly due to GIS and GISci. GIS pro-
vides the digital cartographic data structures and geographic data handling
capabilities that allow examination of MAUP effects in a broad range of applica-
tion contexts. GISci provides new geographic representational structures and
geocomputational techniques that allow efficient calculations and manipulations
of geographic units for problem sizes that were unimaginable even a short time
ago.
376 Geographical Analysis

1.1.2 Application: Trafic Analysis Zone Configuration. An area of transporta-

tion analysis where MAUP issues are critical is travel demand analysis. Travel
demand analysis attempts to explain and predict transportation demands within
a given study area. Travel demand models typically relate the interaction among
locations to the performance of the transportation system in accommodating
these interactions [albeit with varying degrees of success; see Miller (1997) for
a discussion]. For computational tractability as well as data availability, these
models often use aggregated geographic representations, including trafic anal-
ysis zones (TAZ) to represent locations that generate and attract trips and a
generalized network to represent the transportation system.
Spatial aggregation into zoning systems can substantially affect the results
from travel demand analysis. Intuitively, the size of TAZs affects the amount of
interzonal flow, that is, smaller zones result in higher levels of apparent inter-
zonal flow [see Ord and Cliff (1976) for a careful analysis of this effect]. Openshaw
(197713) and Batty and Sikdar (1982a, b, c, and d) demonstrate the effect of
zonal aggregation on parameter estimates and goodness-of-fit in spatial inter-
action models, an important trip distribution technique. Unfortunately, there
seems to be very little recognition of this problem in the transportation and
GIS-T communities, particularly among practitioners.
Three approaches are available for handling the MAUP in travel demand
analysis: (i) Assessing zoning system efects; (ii) designing optimal zoning sys-
tems; and (iii) deriving better zonal distance measures.
Assessing Zoning System Efects. Assessing the effects of zoning systems
requires access to disaggregate data so that the consequences of TAZ aggrega-
tion can be measured. Moellering and Tobler (1972) develop a scale-dependent
analysis of variance technique for assessing variability at different levels of a
spatial aggregation hierarchy. However, their technique assumes a census-like
enumeration rather than a sample. Batty (1976) develops decomposition statis-
tics based on an inverse spatial entropy function to assess scale effects for the
more general case. Batty and Sikdar (1982a) use this information theoretic frame-
work to derive statistics for measuring aggregation effects in a spatial interaction
system. Batty and Sikdar use these measures to reformulate one-dimensional
population density models (Batty and Sikdar 1982b) and two-dimensional trip-
distribution and location models (Batty and Sikdar 1982c) that account for spa-
tial aggregation. Application of the reformulated spatial interaction models in a
large-scale trip distribution analysis indicates that effectiveness is dependent on
model performance, that is, changes in model parameters after accounting for
aggregation depends on how much of the observed variance is explained (Batty
and Sikdar 1982d).
Designing Optimal Zoning Systems. Configuration of optimal zoning systems
attempts to reduce the “M” in the MAUP problem, that is, create a zoning
system that is less arbitrary. Openshaw (1978) formulates a general statement
as a combinatorial optimization problem that classifies N areas into M regions
(where N > M ) so as to maximize some function of the zoning system, subject
to constraints that ensure the M regions are internally connected (also see
Openshaw and Rao 1995). Cliff and Haggett (1970) and Keane (1975) examine
the combinatorial properties of the zone configuration problem, indicating the
difficulty of obtaining exact or optimal solutions.
Several heuristic methods are available for solving the zone configuration
problem. The appropriate method depends on the relevant function of the zon-
ing system. Possible functions of the zoning system include spatial interaction
models (Openshaw 1977b), linear regression (Openshaw 1977a, 1978), statistical
reporting units (Openshaw and Rao 1995), and political representation (Horn
 Harvey]. Miller 1 377
1995; Openshaw and Schmidt 1996). Solution techniques include Monte Carlo
simulation, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, and tabu search [see Open-
shaw and Openshaw (1997) for a general discussion]. Horn (1995) uses a hill-
climbing technique for a large-scale electoral district configuration problem. In
a different approach, Lolonis and Armstrong (1993) explore the use of location-
allocation models as decision sup ort tools for configuring administrative
B
regions. The location-allocation mo els provide decision guidance by allowing
decision makers to explore trade-offs among different zonal configurations.
The mainstream transportation modeling literature is largely silent on TAZ
design issues and, in particular, procedures. Transportation modeling textbooks
typically contain “rules of thumb” for TAZ system configuration (for example,
see O r t ~ z a and
r Willumsen 1994). These only loosely reflect fundamental spa-
tial analytic principles and do not suggest an objective, scientific procedure.
Some members of the GIS-T community have recognized the potential use of
GIS for configuring optimal TAZs. Unfortunately, there is only selective recog-
nition of the relevant spatial analytic literature. For example, a widely cited
paper by O’Neill (1991) discusses the use of GIS and cluster analysis to config-
ure optimal TAZs. Not mentioned is previous research on MAUP, spatial aggre-
gation effects, and optimal zone design. Consequently, the “optimal” TAZ
design problem discussed in the paper is not articulated well.
You, Nedovik-Budid, and Kim (1997a, 1997b) and Ding (1998) are more cog-
nizant of the spatial analytical literature. You, Nedovic-Budik, and Kim (1997a,
1997b) develop a CIS-based tool kit that uses agglomerative clustering (see
Plane and Rogerson 1994) and iterative partitioning to configure TAZs while
maintaining contiguity constraints. Their system uses spatial autocorrelation
measures to evaluate the performance of the TAZ system. In contrast, Ding
(1998) develops an interactive GIS-based system that allows the user to explore
different TAZ configurations while enforcing contiguity constraints. However,
the prototype system by Ding (1998) could benefit from a user-guided heuristic
optimization algorithm rather than a user-driven blind search.
Better Zonal Distance Measures. In travel demand models, the transportation
network connecting TAZs can be implicit or explicit. In the former case, we
measure interaction cost as a function of distance. Under these conditions, the
effect of zoning systems on model results is partly due to poor distance mea-
surement between aggregate spatial units (Beardwood and Kirby 1975; Webber
1980). The centroid-to-centroid distance or a function of that distance is typi-
cally used as a surrogate for interaction cost between zones. However, a distri-
bution of distances exists between zones (Kuiper 1986; Kuiper and Paelinck
1982; ten Raa 1983). Consequently, the centroid-to-centroid distance is often
a poor surrogate for the distribution of interaction costs between zones [see
Current and Schilling (1987, 1990); Goodchild (1979); Hillsman and Rhoda
(1978); Miller (1996); or Francis et al. (1999) for related discussions in facility
location literature]. More sophisticated distance measures for zoning systems
include the expected distance (see Larson and Odoni 1981) and the average dis-
tance (see Rodriguez-Bachiller 1983; Koshizuka and Kurita 1991; Vaughn 1984;
Wilson 1990). Okabe and Miller (1996) develop algorithms for calculating the
average, minimum and maximum distances between geographic objects stored
in the vector GIS format. Although the average distance a1 orithms are exact,
%
their time complexity limits application to modest spatial ata sets. A worth-
while research topic is developing and benchmarking heuristic algorithms for
average distance calculations between geographic objects.
In the case where interaction between TAZs occurs within an explicitly rep-
resented transportation network, decisions must be made with respect to the
378 1 Geographical Analysis
location of zonal representative points and their connectivity to the transporta-
tion network. A zone representation point determines the location where travel
demand from the TAZ loads onto the network; this is typically the zone centroid.
The MAUP effect in this case is similar to the implicit network case discussed
above. Forcing flow from a two-dimensional region to load at a zero-dimensional
location introduces travel cost measurement error since it arbitrarily affects the
flow levels and therefore travel costs in some network arcs. Note also that the
TAZ system aggregation also determines the meaningful level of resolution for
representing the network.
An extreme strategy for eliminating problems with zonal distance measures is
to eliminate the TAZ system entirely. This would involve continuous represen-
tation of origins, destinations and possibly the transportation network. Angel
and Hyman (1976) reformulate spatial interaction models to accommodate a
representation of an urban area as a travel velocity field. Analytical solutions to
these models require the assumption of a radially symmetric field where travel
velocity is a function of distance from a single point location (for example, an
urban center). This assumption is difficult to accept given contemporary multi-
centric urban form. However, geocomputational tools have emerged to solve
approximations of these models for discrete geographic structures such as raster
or Delaunay tessellations. For example, Goodchild (1977) and Van Bemmelen
et al. (1993) examine algorithms and solution properties for solving shortest
paths through lattice cost structures. Smith, Peng, and Gahient (1989) and
Mitchell and Papadimitriou (1991) develop procedures for finding shortest
paths through a cost-based triangulation of the two-dimensional plane. A worth-
while research topic is linking these computational advances in shortest-path
calculations through discrete geographic structures to the field-based spatial in-
teraction theory of Angel and Hyman (1976).
Despite the theoretical benefits of a field-based representation in transporta-
tion analysis, analysts and pracitioners often require an explicit representation of
the transportation network in a study region. Daganzo (1980a, 1980b) develops
a method for combining a continuous representation of origins and destinations
with a finite transportation network for network assignment models. Network
assignment models load “known” (fixed) origin-destination demands onto a net-
work to determine route choice in the presence of congestion-related travel
costs. LeBlanc, Morlok, and Pierskalla (1975) modify the Frank-Wolfe algorithm,
a common method for solving network assignment, to handle large numbers of
centroids. Daganzo (1980a) adopts the LeBlanc modification for the continuous
case (that is, an infinite number of origins and destinations); the resulting algo-
rithm is approximate rather than exact. Daganzo (1980b) shows how this proce-
dure can be used in conjunction with mean, variance, and covariance distance
measures and a finite network and to eliminate the need for spatial aggregation
in origin-destination representation. The resulting procedure requires polyno-
mial time and is therefore tractable for urban-scale problems. Since network
assignment is central to travel demand analysis (see Miller 1997; Sheffi 1985),
Daganzo’s procedure is an important contribution to the MAUP problem in
travel demand modeling. GIS technology can make this procedure accessible
to a wide range of analysts and practitioners.
1.2 Boundary Problems and Spatial Sampling
1.2.1 Basic Issues. Boundary problems refer to the fact that although spatial
processes are generally unbounded [or at least fuzzy-bounded (see Leung 1987)],
we often impose artificial and arbitrary boundaries for analysis purposes. Spatial
sampling refers to proper methods for collecting observations of phenomena
 Harvey]. Miller / 379
distributed in space. Both can drastically affect identification of the underlying
spatial distribution and estimation of the statistical parameters of the spatial
process (Cressie 1992; Griffth 1983; Fotheringham and Rogerson 1993; Martin
1987).
Boundary problems occur for two reasons (Fotheringham and Rogerson
1993). One reason is an “edge effect” from ignoring interdependencies and
interactions that occur among locations within and outside the bounded region.
Griffith (1983) demonstrates the severity of this problem and reviews traditional
techniques for mitigating its effects. These include mapping the bounded space
onto a torus and “overbounding” the study area [see Ripley (1979) and Wong
and Fotheringham (1990) for examples]. Simulation analysis of these techniques
demonstrates their inadequacy (Griffith and Amrhein 1983). Griffith (1983) also
proposes three statistical techniques including dummy variables and generalized
least squares; unfortunately, simulation analysis of these techniques is also dis-
appointing (Griffith 1985). Martin (1987) criticizes some of the underlying
assumptions of the statistical techniques and formulates a rigorous definition
of the boundary problem and its effects in spatial statistical estimation.
A second boundary effect relates to the arbitrary shape imposed on the study
region. Shape can have a nontrivial influence on estimated spatial statistical
properties. For example, point pattern statistics based on nearest neighbor dis-
tances imply greater clustering as the region becomes more elongated (Fother-
ingham and Rogerson 1993). Similarly, shape can influence interaction and flow
among spatial entities (Arlinghaus and Nystuen 1990; Ferguson and Kanaroglou
1998; Griffith 1982).
A possible solution for addressing both edge and shape effects is to reesti-
mate the spatial properties or process under repeated random realizations of
the boundary. This provides an experimental distribution that can be analyzed
and subjected to statistical tests (Fotheringham and Rogerson 1993). This strat-
egy is particularly amenable to GIS technologies; see Haslett, Wills, and Unwin
(1990) and Openshaw, Charlton, and Wymer (1987) for examples and Fother-
ingham and Rogerson (1993) for some additional comments on these strategies.
Ideally, a spatial sampling design should be based on clear criteria tailored for
the particular application. This involves three decisions (Cressie 1992):i) the pop-
ulation parameter to be estimated or predicted; ii) choice of estimator or pre-
dictor (e.g., best linear unbiased estimator, generalized least squares estimator);
and, iii) a measure of the difference between the estimator and the population
parameter. The sampling design attempts to minimize the latter measure. The
classic categorization of spatial sampling into systematic, clustered or random
only vaguely reflects these principles (see Berry and Baker (1968); Fothering-
ham and Rogerson (1993)). However, continuing advancements in spatial statis-
tical theory and spatial data handling are generating more sophisticated spatial
sampling procedures, including procedures based on regionalized variable theory
and procedures that exploit ancillary data (see Cressie (1992); Csillig, Kertksz,
and Kummert (1996)).
1.2.2 Application: Flow Sampling. Data collection for transportation analysis
involves both nonspatial and spatial sampling. Non-spatial sampling often occurs
in commodity flow surveys (for example, sampling carload waybills) and analysis of
air passenger flows (for example, sampling air passenger tickets). Spatial sampling
is more common in analyzing personal travel, particularly at the intraurban level.
Boundary problems and spatial sampling are closely related issues in trans-
portation analysis. Spatial sampling typically involves two types of data collec-
tion, namely, sampling spatially static and spatially dynamic entities in the real
world. The former includes origin-destination surveys and travel diary surveys.
380 J Geographical Analysis

These require spatial sampling of representative locations that anchor travel such
as homes or workplaces. The latter includes roadside interviews, traffic coun-
ters, screen-line surveys (that is, data collection at locations crossing “natural”
boundaries such as rivers) and cordon surveys (that is, data collection at loca-
tions along the “artificial” boundary that demarcates the study area, although
sampling at internal cordons located at TAZ boundaries is also possible). These
require sampling of locations that intercept representative travel flows. These
data collection techniques are often complementary; for example, flow-based
surveys are necessarily brief and used to complement home or workplace-based
surveys (Ort6zar and Willumsen 1994).
Screen-line and cordon-based sampling can introduce measurement effects
similar to the MAUP. Only recording flows when some boundary is crossed
can lead to biased estimates of flow population characteristics. As the size of
each zone increases, there is a greater likelihood that shorter trips will be
missed since they do not cross some boundary (Kirby 1997; Ord and Cliff
1976; Rogerson 1990).
Spatial analysts have contributed to the problem of inferring flow population
characteristics when flows are sampled at boundaries. Ord and Cliff (1976) de-
velop methods for estimating population mean trip distances from boundary
sampled flows in the case of circular zones, randomly distributed populations,
and uniform, exponential, “half-normal’’ and normal density functions describ-
ing the distribution of trip distances in the study region. Rogerson (1990) esti-
mates mean migration distances for circular and square regions, randomly dis-
tributed and centralized populations, and exponentially distributed migration
distances. Rogerson (1990) also examines the influence of zonal shape on popu-
lation estimates, albeit in a limited manner. Kirby (1997) examines the effect of
screen-line and cordon-based sampling more explicitly. Similar to Ord and Cliff
(1976) and Rogerson (1990), Kirby (1997) examines a geometrically simple case
corresponding to a grid of screen-lines. Kirby (1997) also obtains results for the
case when flows follow “indirect” (that is, non-Euclidean) routes.
The methodologies developed by Ord and Cliff (1976), Rogerson (1990), and
Kirby (1997) require simple geometric structures and random distributions of
trip origins and destinations. These conditions are not likely to be met in prac-
tice. However, if we relax the requirement of analytical solutions, GIS can play
a central role in deriving numerical approximations. For example, a raster data
model can approximate the infinite locations within a zone with a finite lattice.
This can be used as a basis for approximating the intercept probabilities, mean
trip lengths and other population flow characteristics. These techniques could
exist as a component in a GIS software suite that allows the transportation ana-
lyst to adjust screen-line and cordon-based survey data before further analysis
and modeling.
Traffic counters are an inexpensive and unobtrusive way to collect flow data
within networks. Therefore, considerable attention has been directed in the trans-
portation modeling literature toward estimating or updating origin-destination
(0-D) matrices using these data. The basic problem is to estimate a new or update
an existing 0 - D matrix using flow data sampled at a subset of arcs in the transpor-
tation network. If the stud area is divided into M TAZs, the 0 - D matrix will
2
consist of either M 2 or ( M - M ) cells (the latter if intrazonal trips are ignored).
Theoretically, M 2 or ( M 2 - M ) independent and consistent traffic count observa-
tions are required to uniquely determine the 0 - D matrix. In practice, the num-
ber of sited traffic counters is often much lower. The looseness of the resulting
constraints means that many 0 - D matrices can be consistent with the sampled
traffic flows. The problem is to determine which 0 - D matrix should be selected.
 Harvey]. Miller / 381
Often incorporated is a priori information such as a previous 0 - D matrix or a
postulated travel demand model (Ortlizar and Willumsen 1994).
Common estimation strategies for estimating 0 - D matrices from traffic
counts include generalized least squares (for example, Cascetta 1984), maxi-
mum likelihood (for example, Speiss 1987), Bayesian updating (for example,
Maher 1983) and entropy maximization (for example, Bell 1983; van Zuylen
and Willumsen 1980). Cascetta and Nguyen (1988) review estimation methods
within a unified formal framework while Ortlizar and Willumsen (1994) review
these methods from a pragmatic, problem-oriented perspective. Yang, Iida, and
Saski (1991) formulate an alternative error measure that provides improved
assessments of the reliability of the estimated 0 - D matrix.
Confounding factors when estimating 0 - D matrices from traffic counts are in-
consistent and interdependent count data (Ortlizar and Willumsen 1994). Mea-
surement errors from the counting devices and nonsimultaneous sampling can
lead to flow estimates that do not meet flow consistency requirements. These
consistency problems can be handled by treating the flow on.each network arc
as a random variable (Cascetta and Nguyen 1988).
Interdependent flow counts result from network flow structure being interde-
pendent, for example, the flow on a sampled link can result from flow on other
sampled links “upstream” on the shortest paths that use that link. This can re-
sult in redundant information in link counts. Bell (1983) discusses methods for
identifying linear dependencies in a link flow matrix; these include orthogonali-
zation and Gaussian elimination. However, these methods are computationally
intensive. Cascetta and Nguyen (1988) note that careful selection of sample
links can allow count data to be treated as independent. However, a link selec-
tion method is not evident in the transportation literature.
The problem of selecting locations for traffic counters to maximize indepen-
dence among flow counts can be viewed as a facility location problem where we
wish to minimize “cannibalizing” among sibling facilities (for example, stores
within the same retail chain). This is a well-studied principle in the location-
allocation literature (see Achabal, Gorr, and Mahajan 1982). It has also been
extended to situations involving demand related to traffic flows (for example,
Goodchild and Noronha 1987).
Hodgson (1990) and Hodgson, Rosing, and Zhang (1996) develop facility
location models that explicitly consider capturing or intercepting flows within a
transportation network. The $ow capturing location problem (Hodgson 1990) is
a “punitive” model oriented toward inspection programs that intercept vehicles
at any point in their journeys to deter violations such as driving under the influ-
ence of alcohol. In contrast, the preventive inspection model (Hodgson, Rosing,
and Zhang 1996) attempts to intercept vehicles as early as possible in their jour-
neys. This protects other network users from risks such as hazardous material
transport. Both models consider potential cannibalization of flows by facilities.
These models have obvious direct application in transportation management.
Their application or perhaps modification for traffic counter location and net-
work flow sampling is an open research question.
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) create the possibility of complete or
near-complete recording of real-time traffic flows across an entire transportation
network (at least in those cities that can afford these systems). In this case, the
question of locating counting devices becomes moot, although facility location
methods can be used to select certain links if only samples of flows are required
for analysis. Measures of flow dependence among arcs are required if these
complete or near-complete data are used in models that assume independent
samples.
382 / Geographical Analysis
Black (1992) provides a method for assessing autocorrelation in network
flows. Blacks (1992) measures are special cases of the Moran’s I statistic that
assesses spatial autocorrelation among observations distributed in space (to be
discussed below). Spatial autocorrelation statistics such as Moran’s I require a
weight matrix reflecting the intensity of the spatial relationship between two
entities. These can be binary or real-valued and are typically based on nearest
neighbor relationships, distance, shared boundaries, etc. Black (1992) shows
that the weight matrix can be modified to reflect network structure. For exam-
ple, a binary weight can indicate if two arcs are incident to the same node or
real-valued weights can reflect shortest path distances within the network. Black
and Thomas (1998) apply this method to analyze accidents on motonvays in
Belgium. They also illustrate a method for determining the autocorrelation
source by decomposing the network and reanalyzing the autocorrelation mea-
sure independently for each component.
1.3 Spatial Dependency and Spatial Heterogeneity
1.3.1 Basic Issues. The vast majority of statistical theory and methods assumes
that observations are independent. This condition is rarely met when analyzing
spatial data. As Tobler (1970) points out through the oft-quoted First Law of
Geography, all things in space are related but things closer in space are more
related. Indeed, it is unclear why geographers and spatial analysts would be inter-
ested in any data or phenomena that are independent across space (Gould 1970;
quoted in Goodchild 1986). These dependencies imply that the results from
spatial analysis depend critically on the locations of the objects being analyzed.
Locational effects manifest themselves in two ways, namely, through spatial
dependence and spatial heterogeneity. The former effect is often referred to as
the spatial autocorrelation problem since it is a direct violation of the indepen-
dence assumption in mainstream statistical and econometric techniques. Spatial
heterogeneity occurs since every location has an intrinsic degree of uniqueness
due to its situation with respect to the rest of the spatial system. This results
in the estimated parameters of a spatial model being inadequate descriptors of
the process at any given location due to parameter drift across space (Anselin,
Dodson, and Hudak 1993). Consequently, ignoring spatial dependency and spa-
tial heterogeneity can invalidate the results of spatial data analysis (Anselin and
Griffith 1988).
Similar to the MAUP problem, recent years have witnessed resurgence of
attention on spatial dependency and spatial heterogeneity effects in spatial
data analysis. This is due to the increasing availability of digital geographic
databases and capabilities for handling geographic information. With respect
to spatial dependency, more sensitive measures of spatial autocorrelation are
emerging. An important breakthrough is recognition that spatial autocorrelation
effects are subject to spatial heterogeneity. This has resulted in measures that
capture local spatial autocorrelation effects; Anselin (1995) refers to these as
local indicators of spatial association or LISA statistics. Getis and Ord develop
the G statistic as a distance-based spatial autocorrelation measure that captures
spatial heterogeneity by comparing “local” weighted averages with global aver-
ages to identify spatial autocorrelation “hot spots” (Getis 1989, 1991; Getis and
Ord 1992, 1996; Ord and Getis 1995). Anselin (1995) derives local versions of
global spatial autocorrelation measures such as Moran’s I , the Geary statistic,
and the gamma statistic (see Constanzo, Hubert, and Golledge 1983; Hubert,
Golledge, and Constanzo 1981; Hubert et al. 1985). Bao and Henry (1996) for-
mulate generalized versions of the Moran and Geary LISA statistics and the G
statistic to account for irregular spatial units. Boots (1994) develops a technique
 Harvey]. Miller f 383

for visualizing spatial autocorrelation in point data using weighted Voronoi

diagrams.
Although assessing spatial dependency is important, dealing with these effects
in statistical estimation and econometrics is another matter. The widely used tech-
nique of regression analysis suffers under spatial dependency effects: parameter
estimates are no longer efficient and significance tests are unreliable in the
presence of spatial autocorrelation (Anselin and Griffith 1988; Miron 1984).
Spatial dependency effects can enter into the regression model as a missing spa-
tial lag variable, in the error term or both. Anselin (1993) refers to these effects
as substantive spatial dependence and spatial error dependence respectively.
Cliff and Ord (1972) suggest applying Moran’s Z to the residuals from a regres-
sion analysis to test for spatial error dependence. Anselin and Rey (1991) sug-
gest caution when using this approach since it is sensitive to other specification
errors. Burridge (1980) suggests an alternative approach based on Lagrangian
multipliers. Anselin (1988b) develops a Lagrangian multiplier-based test for
substantive spatial dependency. The Burridge (1980) and Anselin (1988b) tests
can be used in conjunction for sensitive assessment of spatial dependency in
regression analysis (Anselin 1993).
Rather than just measuring the damage to a regression model, a more satisfy-
ing approach is to capture spatial dependency within the regression model.
Bivand (1984) argues that, in addition to resolving estimation and significance
testing problems, including spatial dependency allows for more parsimonious
model building. Similar to techniques used in time series analysis, spatial
autoregression is a special case of regression where the dependent variable is
regressed against a spatial lag function of itself. A mixed regression-spatial
autoregression model includes as explanatory variables both the spatially lagged
dependent variable and independent variables. We can formulate a regression
model with spatial error autocorrelation as a spatial Durbin or common factor
specification of the mixed regression-spatial autoregression model (Anselin
1988a, 1993; Bivand 1984).
As noted above, estimated model parameters can be poor descriptors of a
spatial process at any given location due to spatial heterogeneity. “Parameter
drift” is often noticed when a model is calibrated separately across locations in
space and time. This effect can result from an inherent change in behavior of the
process across locations or a statistical artifact such as a misspecification error
resulting from not capturing locational effects within the model (Fotheringham
and Rogerson 1993).
Two classes of models where parameter drift is particularly prevalent are re-
gression analysis and spatial interaction models. Fotheringham, Charlton, and
Brunsdon (1996, 1997) use visualization techniques to explore and assess the
degree of spatial heterogeneity in regression parameters. Their technique com-
pares global regression parameters estimated for the entire spatial data set with
local estimates based on a window moving across the study area. This provides
parameter estimates corresponding to subsets of the data based on arbitrary
regions defined by the window size. The exploratory analysis discovered strong
spatial patterns corresponding to locations where the estimated global trend
does not hold, that is, spatial heterogeneity.
Similar to spatial autocorrelation, assessing spatial heterogeneity is one mat-
ter, resolving this within the regression model is another. The well-known and
widely applied expansion method is an attempt to model parameter drift across
space by stating the regression parameters as functions of space (Casetti 1972;
Foster 1991; Jones and Casetti 1992). A recently developed alternative is geo-
graphically weighted regression (GWR) (Brunsdon, Fotheringham, and Charlton
384 1 Geographical Analysis

1996; Fotheringham, Charlton, and Brunsdon 1997). GWR estimates location-

specific parameters using weighted least squares in a manner similar to kernel
regression and kernel density estimation, except that weights are based on loca-
tions in geographic rather than attribute space. GWR requires the analyst to
postulate a geographic weighting function and calibrate its parameters using
cross-validation techniques. This technique supports comparisons of locally vary-
ing parameter estimates with global estimates to assess whether GWR explains
more of the data variance than the traditional, global approach. A statistical test
is also available for assessing whether the parameter drift is significant across
space.
Parameter drift in spatial interaction models has generated a considerable
amount of discussion in the spatial analysis literature. Spatial interaction model
parameters disaggregated by origin typically exhibit a strong “map pattern
effect” where the distance-decay effect is less negative for accessible origins
than for inaccessible origins. The map pattern effect could be interpreted as
spatial heterogeneity in travel choices and interaction behavior; that is, people
in accessible origins perceive distance as less onerous than those in less accessi-
ble origins. However, this can lead to illogical conclusions about varying pro-
pensities to travel by location (see Fotheringham 1981).
More plausible explanations for parameter drift in spatial interaction models
are technical. The search for technical explanations generated a lively debate in
the spatial analysis literature of the early seventies (see Sheppard 1984). The
prevailing explanation that emerged is model misspecification, in particular,
some spatial effect related to the attractions of destinations not being captured
(see Fotheringham and Webber 1980; Sheppard 1979). Fotheringham (1983,
1984) concludes that the missing effect is accessibility among destinations.
These are agglomerative or competitive effects (depending on the type of inter-
action) that are related to spatial clustering of destinations. These effects are
independent of the origin-destination interaction costs typically captured within
the spatial interaction model. These effects are also related to the independence
from irrelevant alternatives (IIA) axiom of the Luce choice framework that
creates similar misspecification errors in the multinomial logit model [see Ben-
Akiva and Lerman (1985) for a detailed explanation and Fotheringham (1986)
or Fotheringham and O’Kelly (1989) for discussion within the spatial interaction
context].
Fotheringham (1983, 1984) formulates competing destinations versions of
spatial interaction models to capture accessibility effects among destinations.
These spatial interaction models include a destination-specific variable measur-
ing its accessibility to all other destinations. These models can be derived within
Wilson’s (1967, 1970) entropy-maximizing framework as well as through choice
theoretical principles of hierarchical information processing and destination
choice (see Fotheringham 1983, 1986, respectively). The estimated parameter
of the competing destination variable indicates the degree of competitive or
agglomerative (or neither) effects among destinations. The competing destina-
tion models can be calibrated using the standard maximum likelihood estima-
tion (MLE) techniques for calibrating the traditional family of spatial inter-
action models (see Fotheringham and O’Kelly 1989).
A more radical solution to problems of spatial dependency and spatial heter-
ogeneity in spatial statistics and spatial analysis is to abandon methodologies
that require distributional assumptions such as independence and stationarity.
An alternative is computational intelligence (CI) methods that can exploit the
increasing power of computing platforms to explore data and mathematical
spaces with a minimum of a priori assumptions (Fischer 1997). CI methods
 Haroey J. Miller 1 385
include techniques such as neural networks, evolutionary algorithms, genetic
algorithms, artificial life, and fuzzy logic-soft computing (see Openshaw and
Openshaw 1997). These methods represent “intelligence” at its lowest level,
namely, adaptivity and tolerance for imprecision and uncertainty. This is accom-
plished without explicit representation of knowledge as in traditional artificial
intelligence (Fischer 1997).
CI methods have several valuable properties that make them relevant for GIS
technology. These include the ability to handle very large numbers of spatial
objects, sensitivity to the special nature of spatial data, resilience, freedom
from distributional assumptions, and ability to generate mappable results. CI
methods are data driven rather than theory driven, and exploratory rather than
confirmatory (Fischer 1997; Openshaw 1996). Because of this, CI methods are
sometimes viewed negatively by spatial analysts with strong allegiance to theory-
driven science. However, CI methods can serve as a complement to traditional
methodologies. CI methods can support theory development by identifying sur-
prising patterns in a data set or interesting and unexpected structures in a mathe-
matical space.
CI methods typically require greater computational expense than traditional
optimization and inferential statistical techniques that exploit problem structure
at the expense of heroic assumptions. However, the additional computational
expense is often more than compensated by the flexibility and robustness of
CI techniques. Fewer assumptions are required and the techniques can grace-
fully handle values for parameters and variables that create underflow, overflow,
and “Not a Number” (NaN) errors in traditional optimization and parameter
estimation techniques. Also, for many (although not all) problems the computa-
tional expense issue will melt like a sandcastle under the coming tsunami of
available computational power in the future (see Openshaw 1994; Openshaw
and Openshaw 1997).
1.3.2 Application: Transportation Model Estimtion and Transferability.
Transportation analysts use the two model classes discussed above (spatial inter-
action and regression) extensively in travel demand forecasting. Spatial inter-
action models are often used directly as trip distribution models within the
so-called four-step approach to travel demand analysis (see Boyce, Zhang, and
Lupa 1994; Miller 1997). More theoretically correct equilibrium approaches use
discrete choice and entropy-maximizing principles that are consistent with the
spatial interaction framework (for example, Evans 1976; Oppenheim 1995; Safivat
and Magnanti 1988; Sheffi 1985). It is quite possible (if not likely) that these mod-
els suffer from misspecification errors that generated the map pattern effects in
traditional spatial interaction models.
Model transferability refers to the usefulness of a model estimated in one
place and time for analysis in a new place and/or time (Ortlizar and Willumsen
1994). Transferability can provide considerable resource savings compared to
collecting new data and reestimating the parameters for each application.
Transportation analysts have noted empirical problems with travel demand
parameter instability and problems with model transferability across space and
time, mostly with respect to disaggregate destination choice models such as the
multinomial logit model (for example, Gunn, Ben-Akiva, and Bradley 1985;
Koppelman, Kuah, and Wilmot 1985; Koppelman and Wilmot 1982). The pre-
vailing approaches for dealing with these problems include transferability mea-
sures, tests for parameter equality, and methods for model updating (see Ortli-
zar and Willumsen (1994, ch. 9)). Alternative model formulations based on or
consistent with the competing destinations models have not been explored.
Regression analysis often serves as the basis for trip generation analysis and
386 1 Geographical Analysis

forecasting, that is, explaining and predicting trip rates from origins in a study
area. Trip generations by TAZ or by household are regressed against explana-
tory variables such as land use (in the case of TAZs) or demographic factors
(in the case of households). Since these are geographic data, spatial dependence
and spatial hetereogeneity effects are likely. As discussed above, this creates
problems with parameter estimation, significance tests, and transferability to
other geographic contexts. Despite these potential problems, these issues are
not well recognized in the transportation modeling literature. This is despite
extensive discussion of other statistical problems such as multicollinearity and
nonlinearities. Only a small number of studies have examined trip generation
model transferability, typically reporting negative results (see Ortlizar and
Willumsen 1994).
GIS software provides a vehicle for capturing spatial dependence and spatial
heterogeneity effects in transportation modeling. GIS resolves two major
obstacles to widespread use of spatial statistics, namely, handling digital carto-
graphic structures and accessibility of spatial statistical methods. The availability
and easy handling of digital cartographic structures support the derivation of
weight matrices for spatial autocorrelation measures and spatial regression
models. Since CIS is increasingly used as a transportation analysis tool, integrat-
ing spatial statistics into GIS can put these methods in the hands of the trans-
portation analyst. Strategies for integrating GIS and statistical software has
received attention and several packages are now available (see Anselin 1992;
Anselin and Getis 1992; Anselin, Dodson, and Hudak 1993; Fotheringham and
Rogerson 1993).
A potential obstacle to wider use of spatial statistics is the computational
effort required for calculating these measures. The increasingly detailed and
global-scale nature of digital geographic data can overwhelm the capabilities
of serial computers regardless of their processing speeds. Parallel computing
architectures offer great promise in resolving this bottleneck, allowing spatial
statistics to scale upward and handle the very large geographic databases avail-
able now and in the future (Densham and Armstrong 1998; Griffith 1990). This
observation holds for other types of spatial analysis tasks: many spatial analytic
techniques can be decomposed into parallel computations either due to inher-
ent parallelism in the calculations or in the spatial data analyzed (Armstrong and
Densham 1992; Ding and Densham 1996; Xiong and Marble 1996). Armstrong
and Marciano (1995) and Armstrong, Pavlik, and Marciano (1994) report prom-
ising results with parallel implementations of the Getis-Ord G statistic. Experi-
ments with these types of parallel implementations should be conducted with
other spatial statistical and spatial analysis techniques, including the spatial re-
gression models discussed previously.
CI methods have been applied to modeling transportation and telecommuni-
cation flows. For example, CI methods such as Monte Carlo simulation, genetic
algorithms, and genetic programming can be used to “breed” spatial interaction
models from basic mathematical components in order to maximize goodness of
fit to a data set. This can generate unusual and surprising functional forms that
provide new insights into spatial interaction theory (see Openshaw 1988; Open-
shaw and Openshaw 1997, ch. 7). Diplock and Openshaw (1996) use genetic
algorithms and evolutionary strategies (a related, more flexible but computa-
tional intensive technique) to calibrate spatial interaction models with func-
tional forms that create difficulties with traditional calibration methods. A major
advantage of these approaches is their resilience and robustness: they can handle
parameter and variable values that result in overflow, underflow, and NaN errors
in traditional SI calibration techniques such as ordinary least squares (OLS) and
 Harvey]. Miller / 387
MLE. CI-based calibration may require greater computational expense than
traditional methods, but as mentioned previously this is a concern of the past
rather than an issue of the future.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are alternatives to traditional travel demand
and spatial interaction models. ANNs are computational associative memory
structures inspired by the emergent properties that result from connectivity
among simple entities with binary states (that is, neurons) in biological neural
networks. Similar to other CI methods, ANNs are robust and fault tolerant, par-
ticularly with respect to noisy data. Like biological neural networks, ANNs are
especially adept at pattern recognition. ANNs learn from experience and “feel”
their way to a configuration of connectivity weights that associate inputs pat-
terns with output classifications to a high degree of accuracy (Openshaw and
Openshaw 1997; Peterson and Soderberg 1993). Because of their adeptness at
pattern recognition, ANNs are being used increasingly in classification and pre-
diction problems in geography (for example, Fischer et al. 1997; Foody 1995;
Gong, Pu, and Chen 1996; Gopal and Scuderi 1995; Lloyd 1994; Lloyd and
Carbone 1995). Other applications include multiattribute locational decision-
making (for example, Smith, Krishnamoorty, and Palaniswami 1996; Wang
1994; Zhou and Civco 1996) and theoretical explorations of the evolution of
urban structure (for example, White (1989)).
ANNs can be used for pattern recognition and related problems in transpor-
tation analysis (see Dougherty 1995). For example, ANNs have been used to
detect and predict vehicular accidents (Mussone, Rinelli, and Reitani 1996;
Ritchie and Cheu 1993), mode choice (Raju, Sikdar, and Dhingra 1996) and
transport and telecommunication flows (Black 1995; Fischer and Gopal 1994;
Fischer and Leung 1998; Gopal and Fischer 1996; Nijkamp, Reggiani, and
Tritapepe 1996). The advantages and disadvantages of ANNs in transportation
depend on the particular mode of analysis. ANNs are effective in exploratory
analysis when there is a large quantity of available data but no appropriate sta-
tistical theory to support analysis. ANNs are helpful when the data are incom-
plete, noisy, or fuzzy. ANNs are also effective in transportation forecasting, par-
ticularly for phenomena where behavioral theories at the individual level cannot
capture emergent macro properties (for example, dynamic propagation of con-
gested flows in transportation networks). However, a potential problem in this
case is ouerfitting, that is, training the A N N to reproduce a given dataset so well
that it cannot be transferred or generalized. Strategies for avoiding overfitting
include holding back part of the data set for validation in a manner similar to
good practice in traditional statistical estimation.
ANNs seem weakest in the explanato y mode of transportation analysis.
ANNs do not offer the theoretical insights available through models that are
well grounded in economic or behavioral theory. The connectivity weights in
a trained ANN do not have apparent economic or behavioral interpretations
that can aid in understanding the phenomenon under investigation (Nijkamp,
Reggiani, and Tritapepe 1996). However, under certain conditions a neural net-
work can be viewed as a weighted rule-based system whose outputs can be
interpreted as conditional probabilities. This can provide a theoretical frame-
work for interpreting the derived weights (see Buntine 1996).
Exploratory analysis and especially forecasting are increasingly important
issues in applied transportation analysis. In this respect, ANNs can be superior
to traditional modeling methods. Fischer and Gopal (1994) and Gopal and
Fischer (1996) report superior fit for ANNs under different learning regimes
relative to a spatial interaction model. However, the spatial interaction model
used as a benchmark is unconstrained: this typically produces inferior quality
388 / Geographical Analysis
results relative to singly or doubly constrained versions. Also, the spatial inter-
action calibration procedure used OLS rather than MLE: this typically leads
to underprediction of large flows and overprediction of small flows [see Fother-
ingham and O’Kelly (1989); Gopal and Fischer (1996) recognize this potential
problem]. Black (1995) reports better fit for an ANN applied to commodity flow
data relative to a doubly constrained spatial interaction model. Fischer and Leung
(1998) use genetic algorithms to search for the optimal weighted connectivity
pattern in a telecommunication-flow-predicting ANN. Results indicate that the
hybrid approach can automatically generate an optimal ANN topology, although
computational costs are higher than a pure ANN strategy. Nijkamp, Reggiani,
and Tritapepe (1996) are optimistic but cautious, noting that of the three
A N N architectures examined in their analysis, only one slightly outperformed
a logit model. Clearly required is more comparative research, particularly with
respect to different database sizes and data quality levels.
1.4 Alternative Representations of Geographic Environments
1.4.1 Basic Issues. Interaction and location are two sides of the same coin (Isard
1960). When analyzing spatial interaction, we often emphasize the influence of
location on interaction, for example, the relative propensity or attractiveness of
locations for generating or capturing flows. Frequently neglected are influences
in the other direction, that is, the influence of interaction on location, particu-
larly relative location as experienced or perceived by individuals. Understanding
experienced or perceived relative spaces can provide powerful insights into the
varying impact of transportation systems as well as the task environment facing
individuals when making travel and location decisions.
In addition to indirect impacts on land use, transportation and telecommu-
nication facilities can “warp” geographic space by changing the relationship
between time and space. Improvements in transportation technologies allow
individuals to trade less time for more space. This can result in a collapse of
geography or time-space convergence among certain locations (Janelle 1968,
1969). The close relationship between space-time accessibility and travel
implies that these locations are likely to experience increased interaction
(Kwan 1998; Thill and Horowitz 1997a, 1997b).
Levels of knowledge about the urban environment are also closely related to
interaction. An individual’s regular travel activity patterns provide the basis for
information gathering about the urban environment. Consequently, an individ-
ual’s spatial knowledge vanes widely across locations (Golledge 1978; Golledge
and Spector 1978; Stern and Leiser 1988). Knowledge of available opportunities
translates closely into destination and route choices, creating another positive
feedback loop similar to time-space convergence effects.
The interplay between travel behavior and urban space creates a dynamic
ecological structure to the city. Locations within an urban area have varying
mixes of employment, residential, retail, social, and recreational opportunities.
Individuals participate in different activities at different times depending on
diurnal, weekly, and longer activity cycles. This creates a complex but surpris-
ingly regular dynamic structure that cannot be adequately captured by a static,
two-dimensional representation of urban space (Goodchild, Klinkenberg, and
Janelle 1993; Janelle, Klinkenberg and Goodchild 1998).
These brief comments indicate the complex and dynamic interrelation-
ships between interaction and location. Different views of a travel environment
can be more relevant to individuals’ spatial behavior than the objective and
static view often used in transportation analysis. Understanding these alterna-
tive experience-based and cognitive-based views of an environment can provide
 Harvey]. Miller / 389
insights into the spatial behavior of individuals as well as the location of eco-
nomic and social activities that respond to these behaviors.
1.4.2 Application: Visualizing the Efects of Transportation Systems. An
emerging research frontier in GISci is geographic visualization (GVIS). GVIS
can stimulate discovery of interesting and surprising relationships that escape
more rigid forms of analysis. GVIS is a superset of traditional cartographic
design. GVIS integrates principles of scientific visualization and cartographic
design within an interactive environment to reveal previously unknown relation-
ships and communicate these relationships to wider audiences (MacEachren
1995; MacEachren and Kraak 1997). The computational tools and design prin-
ciples of GVIS can be combined with models of relative space in spatial analysis
to develop powerful visualization techniques for transportation analysis.
Visualization techniques have been applied to transportation analysis, mostly
for analyzing flow matrices and flows within networks. For example, Liu (1995)
extends the “geographic brushing” technique for exploring multivariate geo-
graphic data (see Monmonier 1989) to develop a visualization system for explor-
ing migration flows. Dynamic flow visualization is becoming important as real-
time flow data gathered through ITS and dynamic transportation modeling
becomes increasingly prevalent. Ganter and Cashwell (1994) discuss some
design principles and a prototype system to support dynamic flow visualization.
Kwan and Hong (1998) and Miller (1991, 1999) use CIS to compute space-time
accessibility measures that capture the effect of the transportation networks on
accessibility. The resulting graphical depictions of spatial accessibility illustrate
the relationship between activity schedules, urban form, and accessibility and
provide striking depictions of varying accessibility in a study area. A worthwhile
topic for further investigation is visualization methods for exploring the poten-
tially enormous volume of data generated by real-time flow monitoring and in-
dividual accessibility measures applied at the urban scale.
The methods mentioned above attempt to visualize directly the performance
of transportation systems. Visualizing the impact of transportation on space is
indirect: this requires inferring the relative space implied by interactions or “dis-
tances” created by the transportation system. Several techniques exist for gen-
erating spaces given a (finite or infinite) set of objects and a relation describing
the similarity or dissimilarity among these objects. The resulting locational con-
figurations can be treated and analyzed as two-dimensional continuums similar
to the conventional map (Gatrell 1983; Tobler 1976a). These visualization tech-
niques have not diffused widely into spatial analysis or transportation analysis.
However, continuing development of GVIS principles and software can allow for
widespread use of these techniques, particularly for very large, high-resolution
geographic datasets.
In transportation analysis, the relations between locations can be travel cost,
travel time, interaction levels, or cognitive distances reported by individuals. If
the resulting matrix is symmetric we can use the techniques of multidimen-
sional scaling (MDS) and bidimensional regression to generate relative spaces
for visualization within GIs. MDS attempts to construct a space such that rela-
tive locations reflect as closely as possible the similarity/dissimilarity measures.
Although often used as a strategy for reducing multidimensional similarity/
dissimilarity relations, MDS is also effective at mapping the implicit functional
spaces resulting from travel times, cognitive distances, or spatial preferences.
Metric MDS uses real-valued dissimilarity measures while nonmetric MDS
uses ordinal information only (Gatrell 1983). Golledge and Spector (1978) and
Golledge, Rayner, and Rivizzigno (1982) use scaling techniques to generate rel-
ative spaces from distance estimates reported by individuals.
390 1 Geographical Analysis

Tobler and Wineburg (1971) develop an innovative scaling technique based

on spatial interaction theory. They note that given a set of observed inter-
actions, origin propulsiveness, and destination attractiveness factors, a hypothe-
sized or calibrated spatial interaction model can be inverted to generate a set of
implied distances between locations. The set of locations and implied distances
can be used to generate a relative space consistent with this interaction system.
Clark (1977) uses these ideas (somewhat loosely) to develop a procedure for
travel-time-based transformations of transportation networks. Clark’s (1977)
method generates a visual depiction of the implied “warped” transportation
network based on travel from a given root node.
Bidimensional regression is an extension of the W + W mapping in standard
regression to a W 2+ W 2 mapping. Both linear and curvilinear relationships
among the spaces can be accommodated (Tobler 1994). Statistical inference tests
allow discrimination among hypothesized bidimensional regression formats (Nakaya
1997). Bidimensional regression can relate the relative space generated from func-
tional or cognitive distances to Euclidean space. An especially valuable feature of
bidimensional regression is output measures such as displacement vectors, strain
tensors, areal distortion, and angular distortion (see Tobler 1994). These can be
mapped using geographic information technologies to provide powerful visual
inferences to the structure of functional and cognitive space. Tobler (1997) illus-
trates this for the case of transportation facility impacts in western Colorado.
Bidimensional regression and MDS can both be used in a dynamic mode to
illustrate changes in relative space over time as a result of interaction or travel
costs. For example, a bidimensional regression of travel time matrices for
discrete time slices spanning a day could be used to generate an animation
that shows the selective contraction and expansion of urban relative space over
time as a result of traffic congestion (Tobler 1997).
When the relationships among objects is asymmetric, the appropriate repre-
sentation is to model the resulting space as a vector field. Tobler (1976b, 1978)
develops techniques for generating vector fields from observed cost structures
and interactions. Generating and mapping these vectors for all locations creates
a visual pattern akin to “winds” reflecting the anisotropic and asymmetric inter-
action patterns [also see Tobler (1987) for a more general discussion]. Dorigo
and Tobler (1983) illustrate this approach for analyzing migration patterns.
This visualization technique could be applied at the urban level to explore and
illustrate the impacts of transportation facilities or congestion. It could also be
used in a dynamic mode to show the changing winds of (say) traffic congestion
over the day (somewhat akin to and as visually powerful as the evening weather
report on the local television news!).

2. CONCLUSION: A GIs-T AND SPATIAL ANALYSIS RESEARCH AGENDA

As this paper illustrates, there are several fundamental spatial analytical

issues at the heart of transportation analysis. GIS provides a vehicle for dissem-
inating spatial analysis tools to transportation researchers and practitioners. This
can greatly enhance the use of GIS beyond its role as a SDBMS and a SDSS for
transportation analysis.
The changing nature of transportation problems also offers new and unique
challenges to the spatial analysis and transportation communities. The transpor-
tation problems of the next millenium will be radically different than those of
the past century. Transportation system congestion will continue to increase
into the foreseeable future (see Cervero 1986; Downs 1992; Hanson 1995).
Continuing the past attempts to build our way out of this congestion will not
 Harvey J . Miller / 391

work (Giuliano 1995). Instead, the transportation paradigm of the future will be
maximizing the efficiency of globally integrated multimodal transport systems.
Changing perspectives with respect to transportation solutions are occurring
at the same time that the tools available to researchers and practitioners are
changing radically. The explosion of available data and computational power

r
can not on1 provide new ways of analyzing transportation systems but even
new ways o thinking about these problems. The GISci community is providing
new methods for capturing, storing, rocessing, and communicating georefer-
K
enced information. In addition to hig lighting the relevance of spatial analysis
to CIS-T, this paper also suggests that a continuum exists between traditional
spatial analysis and the geocomputational tools emerging from GISci. A remark-
able synergy can only be achieved if the artificial boundaries among the trans-
portation, spatial analysis, and GISci communities continue to collapse.

LITERATURE CITED
Achabal, D. D., W. L. Gorr, and V. Mahajan (1982).“MULTILOC: A Multiple Store Location Decision
Model.”]mmal of Retailing 58(2), 5-25.
Amrhein, C. G. (1995). “Searching for the Elusive Aggregation Effect: Evidence from Statistical Simu-
lations.” Enoironment and Planning A 27, 105-19.
Amrhein, C. G., and R. Flowerdew (1992). “The Effect of Data Aggregation on a Poisson Regression
Model of Canadian Migration.” Enoironment and Planning A 24, 1381-91.
Angel, S., and G. M. Hyman (1976). Urban Fields: A Geometry of Mouemat for Regional Science.
London: Pion.
Anselin, L. (1988a).Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
(1988b).“Lagrangian Multiplier Test Diagnostics for Spatial Dependency and Spatial Heteroge-
neity.” Geographicol Analysis 20, 1-17.
(1992).Spacestat: A Program for the Analysis of Spatial Data. National Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara.
(1993). “Discrete Space Autoregressive Models.” In Environmental Modeling with CIS, edited
by M. F. Goodchild, B. 0. Parks, and L. T. Steyaert, pp. 454-69. New York: Oxford university Press.
(1995).“Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA.” Geogmphicol Analysis 27,93-115.
Anselin, L., R. F. Dodson, and S . Hudak (1993). “Linking GIS and Spatial Data Analysis in Practice.”
Geographical Systems 1,3-23.
Anselin, L., and A. Getis (1992). “Spatial Statistical Analysis and Geographic Information Systems.”
A n d of Regional Science 26,19-33.
Anselin, L., and D. A. Griffith (1988).“Do Spatial Effects Really Matter in Regression Analysis? Papers
of the Regional science Association 65.11-34.
Anselin, L., and S. Rey (1991). “Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression
Models.” Ceographicol Analysis 23, 112-31.
Arbia, G., R. Benedetti, and G. Espa (1996).“Effects of MAUP on Image Classification.” Ceographicol
Systems 3, 123-41.
Arlinghaus, S . L., an&J. D. Nystuen (1990).“Geometry of Boundary Exchanges.” Geographicol Review
80.21-31.
Armstrong, M. P., and P. J. Densham (1992).“Domain Decomposition for Parallel Processing of Spatial
Problems.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 16,497-513.
Armstrong, M. P., and R. Marciano (1995).“Massively Parallel Processing of Spatial Statistics.” Znterna-
tional Jmmal of Geographical Systems 9, 169-89.
Armstrong, M. P., C. E. Pavlik, and R. Marciano (1994).“Experiments in the Measurement of Spatial
Association Using a Pardel Supercomputer.” Geographicol Systems 1,267-88.
Bao, S., and M. Henry (1996). “Heterogeneity Issues in Local Measurements of Spatd Association.”
Geographicol Systems 3, 1-13.
Batty, M. (1976).“Entropy in Spatial Aggregation.” Geographical Analysis 8, 1-31.
Batty, M. and P. K. Sikdar (1982a).“Spatial Aggregation in Spatial Interaction Models. 1. An Informa-
tion Theoretic Framework.” Enoironment and Planning A 14, 377-405.
(1982b). “Spatial Aggregation in Spatial Interaction Models. 2. One-Dimensional Population
Density Models,” Enuironment and Planning A 14, 525-53.
392 / Geographical Analysis
-(1982~).“Spatial Aggregation in Spatial Interaction Models. 3. Two-Dimensional Trip Distribu-
tion and Location Models.” Environment and Planning A 14, 629-58.
(1982d). “Spatial Aggregation in Spatial Interaction Models. 4. Generalisations and Large-Scale
Applications.” Environment and Planning A 14, 795-822.
Bearwood, J. E., and H. R. Kirby (1975). “Zone Definition and the Gravity Model: The Separability,
Excludability, and Compressibility Properties.” Transportation Research 9, 363-69.
Bell, M.G.H. (1983). “The Estimation of an Origin-Destination Matrix from Traffic Counts.” Transpor-
tation Science 17, 198-217.
Ben-Akiva, M., and S. R. Lerman (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel
Demand. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Berry, B.J.L., and A. M. Baker (1968). “Geographic Sampling.” In Spatial Analysis: A Reader in Statis-
tical Geography, edited by B. J. L. Berry and D. F. Marble, pp. 91. Englewmd Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall. 91-100.
Bivand, R. S. (1984). “Regression Modeling with Spatial Dependence: An Application of Some Class
Selection and Estimation Techniques.” Geographical Analysis 16, 25-37.
Black, W. R. (1992). “Network Autocorrelation in Transportation Network and Flow Systems.” Geo-
graphical Analysis 24, 207-22.
-(1995) “Spatial Interaction Modeling Using Artificial Neural Networks.” Journul of Transport
Geography 3, 159-66.
Black, W. R., and I. Thomas (1998). “Accidents on Belgium’s Motonvays: A Network Autocorrelation
Analysis.” ]ournu1 of Transport Geography 6, 23-31.
Boots, B. (1994). “Visualizing Spatial Autocorrelation in Point Data.” Geographical Systems 1, 255-66.
Boyce, D. E., Y.-F. Zhang, and M. R. Lupa (1994). “Introducing ‘Feedback into Four-Step Travel Fore-
casting Procedure Versus Equilibrium Solution of Combined Model.” Transportation Research Record
1443, 65-74.
Brunsdon, C., A. S. Fotheringham, and M. E. Charlton (1996). “Geographical Weighted Regression: A
Method for Exploring Spatial Nonstationarity.” Geographicd Analysis 28, 281-98.
Buntine, W. (1996). “Graphical Models for Discovering Knowledge.” In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-
Shapiro, P. Smyth and R. Uthurusamy (1996) Adoances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 59-82.
Bunidge, P. (1980). “On the Cliff-Ord Test for Spatial Correlation.”]ournal of the Royal Statistical
Society B 42, 107-108.
Cascetta, E. (1984). “Estimation of Trip Matrices from Traffic Counts and Survey Data: A Generalized
Least Squares Estimator.” Transportation Research B 18B, 289-99.
Cascetta, E., and S. Nguyen (1988). “A Unified Framework for Estimating or Updating Origin/
Destination Matrices from Traffic Counts.” Transportation Research B 22B, 437-55.
Casetti, E. (1972). “Generating Models by the Expansion Method: Applications to Geographical Re-
search.” Geographical Analysis 4, 81-91.
Cervero, R. (1986). Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Chou, Y-H. (1991). “Map Resolution and Spatial Autocorrelation.” Geographical
_ . Analysis 23, 228-46.
Clark, J. W. (1977).“Time-distance Transformationsof Transportation Networks.” Geographical Analysis
9, 195-205.
Clark, W. A. V., and K. L. Avery (1976). “The Effects of Data Aggregation in Statistical Analysis.” Geo-
graphical Analysis 8, 428-38.
Cliff, A. D. and P. Haggett (1970). “On the Efficiency of Alternative Aggregations in Region-Building
Problems.” Environment and Planning A 2, 285-94.
Cliff, A. D., and J. K. Ord (1972). “Testing for Spatial Autocorrelation among Regression Residuals.”
Geographical Analysis 4, 267-84.
Constanzo, C. M., L. J. Hubert, and R. G. Golledge (1983). “A Higher Moment for Spatial Statistics.”
Geographical Analysis 15, 347-51.
Cressie, N. (1992). Statistics for Spatid Data. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
-(1995). “Bayesian Smoothing of Rates in Small Geographic Areas.” ]ournu1 of Regional Science
35,659-73.
-(1996). “Change of Support and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem.” Geographical Systems 3,
159-80.
Csillag, F., M. Kehesz, and A. Kummert (1996). “Sampling and Mapping of Heterogeneous Surfaces:
Multi-Resolution Tiling Adjusted to Spatial Variability.” Znternutiond ]ournu1 of Geographical Znfor-
mution Systems 10, 851-75.
 H a r v e y ] . Miller / 393
Current, J. R. and D. A. Schilling (1987). “Elimination of Source a and b Errors in p-median Location
Problems.” Geographical Analysis 19, 95-110.
(1990). “Analysis of Errors Due to Demand Data Aggregation in the Set Covering and Maximal
Covering Location Problem.” Geographical Analysis 22, 116-26.
Daganzo, C. F. (1980a). “An Equilibrium Algorithm for the Spatial Aggregation Problem of Tr&c
Assignment.” Transportation Research B 14B, 221-28.
(1980b). “Network Representation, Continuum Approximations, and a Solution to the Spatial
Aggregation Problem of T&c Assignment.” Transportation Research B 14B, 229-39.
Densham, P. J., and M. P. Armstrong (1998). “Spatial Analysis.” In Parallel Processing Algorithm for
GIs, edited by R. Healy, S. Dowers, B. Gittings and M. Mineter pp. 387-413. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Ding, C. (1998). “The GIs-based Human-Interactive TAZ Design Algorithm: Examining the Impacts of
Data Aggregation on Transportation-Planning Analysis.” Enoironment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 25, 601-16.
Ding, Y., and P. J. Densham (1996). “Spatial Strategies for Parallel Spatial Modeling.” International
]ournu1 of Geographical Information Systems 10, 669-98
Diplock, G., and S. Openshaw (1996). “Using Simple Genetic Algorithms to Calibrate Spatial Interaction
Models.” Geographical Analysis 38, 262-79.
Dorigo, G., and W. R. Tobler (1983). “Push-Pull Migration Laws.’’ Annals of the Association of American
- .
Geocraphers 73, 1-17.
Dougherty, M. (1995). “A Review of Neural Networks Applied to Transport.” Transportation Research
C 3,247-60.
Downs, A. (1992). Stuck in Trafic: Coping with Peak-Hour Tra@ Congestion. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institute.
Evans, S. P. (1976). “Derivation and Analysis of Some Models for Combining Trip Distribution and
Assignment.” Transportation Research 10, 37-57.
Ferguson, M. R., and P. S. Kanaroglou (1998). “Representing the Shape and Orientation of Destinations
in Spatial Choice Models.” Geographical Analysis 30, 119-37.
Fischer, M. M. (1997). “From Conventional to CI-based Spatial Analysis.” Paper presented at the 36th
annual meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Hawai’i, F e b r u q 23-27.
Fischer, M. M., and S. Gopal (1994). “Artificial Neural Networks: A New Approach to Modeling Inter-
regional Telecommunication Flows.”]oumal of Regional Science 34, 503-27.
Fischer, M. M., S. Gopal, P. Staufer, and K. Steinocher (1997). “Evaluation of Neural Network Pattern
Classifiers for a Remote Sensing Application.” Geographical Systems 4, 195-223.
Fischer, M. M., and Y. Leung (1998). “A Genetic Algorithms Based Evolutionary Computational Neural
Network for Modeling Spatial Interaction Data.” A n d of Regional Science 32,437-458.
Foody, G. M. (1995). “Land Cover Classificationby an Artificial Neural Network with Ancillq Informa-
tion.” lntemutional]ournal of Geographical Information Systems 9, 527-42.
Foster, S. A. (1991). “The Expansion Method: Implications for Geographic Research.” Professional
Geographer 131-42.
Fotheringham, A. S. (1981). “Spatial Structure and Distance-Decay Parameters.” Annals of the Associa-
tion of American Geographers 71, 425-36
-(1983). “A New Set of Spatial Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations.”
Enoironment and Planning A 15, 15-36.
(1984). “Spatial Flows and Spatial Patterns.” Enoironment and Planning A 16, 529-43.
(1986). “Modeling Hierarchical Destination Choice.” Enoironment and Planning A 18, 401-
18.
Fotheringham, A. S., M. Charlton, and C. Brunsdon (1996). “The Geography of Parameter Space: An
Investigation of Spatial Non-stationarity.” International ]mrnal of Geographical Information Systems
10,605-27.
-(1997). “Two Techniques for Exploring Non-stationarity in Geographical Data.” Geographical
System 4,59-82.
Fotheringham, A. S., and M. O’Kelly (1989). Spatial Interaction Models: Fonnuhtions and Applications.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Fotheringham, A. S., and P. A. Rogerson (1993). “GIS and Spatial Analytical Problems.” International
Joumul of Geographical Information Systems 7, 3-19.
Fotheringham, A. S., and M. J. Webber (1980). “Spatial Structure and the Parameters of Spatid Inter-
action Models.” Geographical Analysis 12, 33-46.
394 Geographical Analysis

Fotheringham, A. S., and D.W.S. Wong (1991). “The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate
Statistical Analysis.” Enoironment and Planning A 23, 1025-44.
Francis, R. L., T. J., Lowe, G. Rushton, and M. B. Rayco (1999). “A Synthesis of Aggregation Methods
for Mulifacility Location Problems: Strategies for Containing Error.” Geographical A d y k 31, 67-
87.
Ganter, J. H., and J. W. Cashwell (1994). “Display Techniques for Dynamic Network Data in Transpor-
tation GIS.” CIS-T ’94 Proceedings, 42-53.
Gatrell, A. C. (1983). Distance and Space: A Geographical Perspectiwe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gehlke, C. E., and K. Biehl (1934). “Certain Effects of Grouping upon the Size of the Correlation Co-
efficient in Census Tract Material.” Journal of the American Statistid hsociatwn S u p p h t 29,
169-70.
Getis, A. (1989). “A Spatial Association Model Approach to the Identification of Spatial Dependence.”
Geographical Analysis 21, 251-59.
-(1991). “Spatial Interaction and Spatical Autocorrelation: A Cross-product Approach.” Enoiron-
rnent and Planning A 23, 1269-77.
Getis, A,, and J. K. Ord (1992). “The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics.” Geo-
graphical Analysis 24, 189-206.
-(1996). “Local Spatial Statistics: An Overview.” In Spatial A d y s i s : Modelling in a GZS enoiron-
ment. Edited by P. Longley and M. Batty, pp. 261-77. Cambridge, UK: GeoInformation Inter-
national.
Giuliano, G. (1995). “Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and Transit.” In The
Geography of Urban Transportation, 2d ed., edited by S. Hanson, pp. 305-41. New York: Guilford.
Golledge, R. G. (1978). “Learning about Urban Environments,” In Timing Space and Spacing Time I :
Making Sense of Time, edited by T. Carlstein, D. N. Parkes, and N. J. Thrift, pp. 76-98. London:
Edward Arnold.
Golledge, R. G . , J. N. Rayner, and V. L. Rivizzigno (1982). “Comparing Objective and Cognitive Repre-
sentations of Environmental Cues.” In Proximity and Preference: Problems in the Multidimensional
Analysis of Large Data Sets, edited by R. G. Golledge and J. N. Rayner, pp. 233-66. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.
Golledge, R. G., and A. N. Spector (1978). “Comprehending the Urban Environment: Theory and Prac-
tice.” Geographical Analysis 10, 403-26.
Golledge, R. G., and R. J. Stimson (1997). Spatial Behaoior: A Geographic Perspectiwe. New York:
Guilford.
Gong, P., R. Pu, and J. Chen (1996) “Mapping Ecological Land Systems and ClassificationUncertainties
from Digital Elevation and Forest-Cover Data Using Neural Networks.” Photogrammetric Engineer-
ing and Remote Sensing 62, 1249-60.
Goodchild, M. F. (1977). “An Evaluation of Lattice Solutions to the Problem of Corridor Location.” En-
oironment and Planning A 9, 727-738.
-(1979). “The Aggregation Problem in Location-Allocation.”Geographical Analysis 11, 240-255.
-(1986). Spatial Autocorrelation. Concepts and Techniques in Modem Geography Number 47.
Nonvich, U.K.: GeoBooks.
-(1992). “Geographical Information Science.” International Journal of Geographic$ Znformation
Systenls 6, 31-45.
Goodchild, M. F., B. Klinkenberg, and D. G. Janelle (1993). “A Factorial Models of Aggregate Spatio-
Temporal Behavior: Application to the Diurnal Cycle.” Geographical Analysis 25, 277-94.
Goodchild, M. F., and V. T. Noronha (1987). “Location-Allocationand Impulsive Shopping: The Case of
Gasoline Retailing.” In Spatial Analysis and Location-AUocation Models, edited by A. Ghosh and G.
Rushton, pp. 121-36. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Gopal, S., and M. M. Fischer (1996). “Learning in Single Hidden-Layer Feedforward Network Models:
Backpropagation in a Spatial Interaction Modeling Context.” Geographical Analysis 28, 38-55.
Gopal, S., and L. Scuderi (1995). “Application of Artificial Neural Networks in Climatology: A Case
Study of Sunspot Prediction and Solar Climate Trends.” Geographical Analysis 27, 42-59.
Gould, P. R. (1970). “Is statistix inferens the Geographical Name for a Wild Goose?” Economic Geogra-
phy 46, 439-48.
Griffith, D. A. (1982). “Geometry and Spatial Interaction.” Annals of the Association of American Geog-
raphers 72, 332-46.
-(1983). “The Boundary Value Problem in Spatial Statistical Analysis.”Journal of Region$ Science
23, 377-87.
 H a r v e y ] . Miller / 395
(1985). “An Evaluation of Correction Techniques for Boundary Effects in Spatial Statistical Anal-
ysis: Contemporary Methods.” Geographical Analysis 17, 81-88.
(1990). “Supercomputing and Spatial Statistics: A Reconnaissance.” Professional Geographer 42,
481-92.
Griffith, D. A., and C. G. Amrhein (1983). “An Evaluation of Correction Techniques for Boundary
Effects in Spatial Statistical Analysis: Traditional Methods.” Geographical Anulysis 15,352-60.
Gunn, H. F., M. E. Ben-Akiva, and M. A. Bradley (1985). “Tests of the Scaling Approach to Transfer-
ring Disaggregate Travel Demand Models.” Transportation Research Rewrd 1037, 21-30.
Hanson, S. (1995). “Getting There: Urban Transportation in Context,” in The Geography Of Urban
Transportation, 2nd ed., edited by S. Hanson, pp. 3-25. New York: Guilford Press.
Haslett, J., G. Wills, and A. Unwin (1990). “SPIDER-An Interactive Statistical Tool for the Analysis of
Spatially Distributed Data.” Znternutionul ]ournul of Geographical Znformution Systems 3, 285-96.
Hillsman, E. L., and R. Rhoda (1978). “Errors in Measuring Distances from Populations to Service Cen-
ters.” Annuls of Regional Science 12(3) 74-88.
Hodgson, M. J. (1990). “A Flow-Capturing hation-Allocation Model.” Geographical A d y s i s 22,270-
79.
Hodgson, M. J., K. E. Rosing, and J. Zhang (1996). “Locating Vehicle Inspection Stations to Protect a
Transportation Network.” Geographicd Analysis 28,299-314.
Holt, D., D. G. Steel, M. Tranmer (1996). “Area Homogeneity and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem.”
Geographical Systems 3, 181-200.
Holt, D., D. G. Steel, M. Tranmer, and N. Wrigley (1996). “Aggregation and Ecological Effects in
Geographically Based Data.” Geogmphicol A d y s i s 28, 244-61.
Horn, M.E.T. (1995). “Solution Techniques for Large Regional Partitioning Problems.” Geographical
Analysis 27,230-48
Hubert, L. J., R. G. Golledge, and C. H. Constanm (1981). “Generalized Procedures for Evaluating Spa-
tial Autocorrelation.” Geographical Analysis 13, 224-33.
Hubert, L. J., R. G. Golledge, C. H. Constanm, and N. Gale (1985). “Measuring Association between
Spatially Defined Variables: An Alternative Approach.” Geographicd Anulysis 17, 36-46.
Hunt, L. and B. Boots (1996). “MAUP Effects in the Principal Axis Factoring Techniques.” Geographi-
cal systems 3, 101-21.
Isard, W. (1960). Methods of Regional Anulysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Janelle, D. G. (1968). “Central Place Development in a Time-Space Framework.” Profeessid Geogra-
pher 20,5-10.
(1969). “Spatial Organization: A Model and Concept.” Annuls of the Association of American
Geographers 59,348-64.
Janelle, D. G., B. Klinkenberg, and M. F. Goodchild (1998). ‘The Temporal Ordering of Urban Space
and Daily Activity Patterns for Population Role Groups.” Geographic$ Systems 5, 117-37.
Jones, J. P. 111 and E Casetti (1992). Applications ofthe Expansion Method. London: Routledge.
Keane, M. (1975). “The Size of the Region-Building Problem.’’ Environment and Planning A 7,575-77.
Kirby, H. R. (1997). “Buffon’s Needle and the Probability of Intercepting Short-Distance Trips by Md-
tiple Screen-Line Surveys.” Geographical Analysis 29, 64-71.
Koppelman, F. S., G.-K. Kuah, and C. G. Wdmot (1985). “Transfer Model Updating with Disaggregate
Data.” Transportation Research Rewrd 1037, 102-107.
Koppelman, F. S., and C. G. Wilmot (1982). “Transferability of Disaggregate Choice Models.” Trans-
portation Research Rewrd 895, 18-24.
Koshizuka, T. and 0. Kurita (1991). “Approximate Formulas of Average Distances hociated with
Regions and Their Applications to Location Problems.” Mathemutical Programming 52,99-123.
Kuiper, H. (1986). Distribution of Distances in Ptzgeographicul S p m . Aldershot, U.K.: Gower.
Kuiper, J. H. and J.H.P. Paelinck (1982). “Frequency Distribution of Distances and Related Concepts.”
Geographical Analysis 14,253-59.
Kwan, M.-P. (1998). “Space-Time and Integral Measures of Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using
a Point-based Framework.” Geographical Analysis 30, 191-216.
Kwan, M.-P. and X.-D. Hong (1998). “Network-based Constraints-oriented Choice Set Formation Using
GIS.” Geographical Systems 5, 139-62.
Larson, R. C., and A. R. Odoni (1981). Urban Operations Research. Englewood Chffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
396 J Geographical Analysis

LeBlanc, L. J., E. K. Morlok, and W. P. Pierskalla (1975). “An Efficient Approach to Solving the Road
Network Equilibrium Tr&c Assignment Problem.” Transportation Research 9, 309-18.
Leung, Y. (1978). “On the Imprecision of Boundaries.” Geographical Analysis 19, 125-51.
Liu, L. (1995). “PPFLOW: An Interactive Visualization System for the Exploratory Analysis of Migration
Flows.” Geographic lnfonnation Sciences 1, 118-23.
Lloyd, R. (1994). “Learning Spatial Protowes.” Annals of the Association of Ainerican Geographers 84,
4 18-40.
Lloyd, R., and G. Carbone (1995). “Comparing Human and Neural Network Learning of Climate Cate-
gories.” Professional Geographer 47, 237-50.
Lolonis, P., and M. P. Armstrong (1993). “Location-Allocationas Decision Aids in Delineating Adminis-
trative Regions.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 17, 153-74.
MacEachren, A. M. (1995). How Maps Work: Representation, Visualimtion and Design. New York:
Guilford.
MacEachren, A. M., and M.-J. Kraak (1997). “Exploratory Cartographic Visualization: Advancing the
Agenda.” Computers and Geosciences 23, 335-43.
Maher, M. (1983). “Inferences on Trip Matrices from Observations on Link Volumes: A Bayesian Statis-
tical Approach.” Transportation Research B 17B, 435-47.
Malanson, G., and M. P. Armstrong (1997). ‘‘Issues in Spatial Representation: Effects of Number of
Cells and Between-Cell Step Size on Models of Environmental Processes.” Geographic and Enoiron-
mental Modelling 1, 47-64.
Martin, R. J. (1987). “Some Comments on Correction Techniques for Boundary Effects and Missing
Value Techniques.” Geographical Analysis 19, 273-82.
Miller, H. J. (1991). “Modeling Accessibility Using Space-Time Prism Concepts within Geographical
Information Systems.” International ]ourno1 of Geographical Information System 5, 287-301.
(1996). “GIS and Geometric Representation in Facility Location Problems.” International lour-
nal of Geographical Information Systems 10, 791-816
-(1997). Towards Consistent Traoel Demand Estitnation in Transportation Planning: A Guide to
the Theonj and Practice of Equilibrium Traoel Demand Modeling. Research Report, Bureau of Trans-
portation Statistics, US. Department of Transportation. Available at http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/
feedbacWmiller/toc.htm.
-(1999). “Measuring Space-Time Accessibility Benefits within Transportation Networks: Basic
Theory and Computational Procedures.” Geographical Analysis 31(April 1999), 187-212.
Miller, H. J., and J. D. Storm (1996).“Geographic Information System Design for Network Equilibrium-
based Travel Demand Models.” Transportation Research C 4C, 373-89.
Miller, J. R. (1998). “Spatial Aggregation and Regional Economic Forecasting.” Annals of Regional Sci-
ence 32, 253-66.
Miron, J. (1984). “Spatial Autocorrelation in Regression Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide.” In Spatial Statis-
tics and Models, edited by G. L. Gaile and C. J. Willmott, pp. 201-22. D. Reidel.
Mitchell, J.S.B., and C. H. Papadimitriou (1991). “The Weighted Region Problem: Finding Shortest
Paths through a Weighted Planar Subdivision.”J o u m l of the Association for Computing Machinerrj
38, 18-73.
Moellering, H., and W. Tobler (1972). “GeographicalVariances.” Geographical Analysis 4, 34-50.
Monmonier, M. (1989). “Geographic Brushing: Enhancing Exploratory Analysis of the Scatterplot
Matrix.” Geographical Analysis 21, 81-84.
Mussone, L., S. Rinelli, and G. Reitani (1996). “Estimating the Accident Probability of a Vehicular Flow
by Means of an Artificial Neural Network.” Enoirontnent and Planning B: Planning and Design 23,
667-75.
Nakaya, T. (1997). “Statistical Inferences in Bidimensional Regression Models.” Geographical Analysis
29, 169-86.
Nijkamp, P., A. Reggiani, and T. Tritapepe (1996). “Modelling Interurban Transport Flows in Italy: A
Comparison between Neural Network Analysis and Logit Analysis.” Transportation Research C 4C,
323-38.
Okabe, A,, and H. J. Miller (1996). “Exact Computational Methods for Calculating Distances between
Objects in a Cartographic Database.” Cartography and Geographic Information Systetns 23, 180-
95.
Okabe, A,, and N. Tagashira (1996). “Spatial Aggregation Bias in a Regression Model Containing a Dis-
tance Variable.” Geographical Systems 3, 77-99.
 HarveyJ. Miller 397

ONeill, W. A. (1991). “Developing Optimal Transportation Analysis Zones Using GIS.” ITE]ouml 61
(December), 33-36.
Openshaw, S. (1977a).“A Geographical Solution to Scale and Aggregation Problems in Region Building,
Partitioning, and Spatial Modeling.” Transactions of the Znstitute of British Geographers 2 (new
series), 459-72.
- (1977b).“Optimal Zoning Systems for Spatial Interaction Models.’’ Enoironment and Planning A
9, 169-84.
(1978). “An Optimal Zoning Approach to the Study of Spatially Aggregated Data.” In Spatial
Representation and Spatial Interaction, edited by I. Masser and P. J. B. Bown, pp. 93-113. Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff.
(1988). “Building an Automated Modeling System to Explore a Universe of Spatial Interaction
Models.” Geographical Analysis 20, 31-46.
(1994). “Computational Human Geography: Towards a Research Agenda.” Enoironment and
Planning A 26,499-508.
(1996). “Developing GIS-relevant Zone-based Spatial Analysis Methods.” In Spatial Analysis:
Modelling in a GIS Enoironment, edited by P. Longley and M. Batty, pp. 55-73. Cambridge, U.K.:
GeoInformation International.
Openshaw, S., M. Charlton, and C. Wymer (1987). “A Mark I Geographical Analysis Machine for the
Automated Analysis of Point Pattern Data.” Zntmtional J o u m l of Geographical Information Sys-
tems 1,335-50.
Openshaw, S., and C. Openshaw (1997). ArtijiFcial Zntelligence in Geography. New York: John Wiley.
Openshaw, S., and L. Rao (1995). “Algorithms for Reengineering the 1991 Census Geography.” Enoi-
ronment and Planning A 27, 425-46.
Openshaw, S., and J. Schmidt (1996). “Parallel Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithms for Re-
engineering Zoning Systems.” Geographical Systems 3,201-20.
Openshaw, S., and P. J. Taylor (1979). “A Million or So Correlation Coefficients: Three Experiments on
the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem.” In Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences, edited hy N.
Wrigley, pp. 127-144. London: Pion.
Oppenheim, N. (1995). Urban Travel Demand Modeling: From lndioidual Choices to General Equilib-
rium. New York: John Wiley.
Ord, J. K., and A. D. Cliff (1976). “The Analysis of Commuting Patterns.” Enoironment and Planning A
8, 941-46.
Ord, J. K., and A. G e t i s (1995). “Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an
Application.” Geographical Afullysis 27, 286-306
Orhizar, J. de D., and L. G. Willumsen (1994). Modelling Transport, 2d ed. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Peterson, C., and B. Soderberg (1993). “Artificial Neural Networks.” In Modern Heuristic Techniques
for Combinatorial Problems, edited by C. R. Reeves, pp. 197-242. New York: John Wiley.
Plane, D. A,, and P. A. Rogerson (1994). The Geographical Analysis of Population with Applications to
Planning and Business. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Raju, K. A., P. K. Sikdar, and S. L. Dhingra (1996). “Modelling Mode Choice by Means of an Artificial
Neural Network.” Enoironment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23, 677-83.
Ripley, B. D. (1979). “Tests of ‘Randomness’ for Spatial Point Patterns.”]ouml of the Royal Statistid
Society, Series B 41,368-74.
Ritchie, S . G., and R. L. Cheu (1993). “Simulation of Freeway Incident Detection Using Artificial Neu-
ral Networks.” Transportation Research C : 1, 203-17.
Robinson, W. S. (1950). “Ecological Correlation and the Behavior of Individuals.” American SoCMbgical
Reoiew 15,351-57.
Rodriguez-Bachiller, A. (1983). “Errors in the Measurement of Spatial Distances between Discrete
Regions.” Enuironment and Planning A 15, 781-99.
Rogerson, P. A. (1990). “Buffon’s Needle and the Estimation of Migration Distances.” Mathematical
Population Studies 2, 229-38.
Safwat, K.N.A., and T. L. Magnanti (1988). “A Combined Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Modal
Split, and Trip Assignment Model.” Transportation Science 18, 14-30.
Sheffi, Y. (1985). Urban Transportation Networks: Equilibrium Analysis with Mathematical Program-
ming Methods. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Sheppard, E. S . (1979). “Gravity Parameter Estimation.” Geographical Analysis 11, 120-32.
398 1 Geographical Analysis
-(1984). “The Distance-Decay Gravity Model Debate.” In Spa& Statistics and Models, edited
by G. L. Gaile and C. J. Wilmott, pp. 366-88. D. Reidel.
Smith, K., M. Krishnamoorthy, and M. Palaniswami (1996). “Neural versus Traditional Approaches to
the Location of Interacting Hub Facilities.” Location Science 4, 155-71.
Smith, T. R., G. Peng, and P. Gahinet (1989). “Asynchronous, Iterative, and Parallel Procedures for
Solving the Weighted-Region Least Cost Path Problem.” Geographicnl Analysis 21, 147-66.
Speiss, H. (1987). “A Maximum Likelihood Model for Estimating Origin-Destination Matrices.” Trans-
portatiun Research B 21B, 395-412.
Stern, E. and D. Leiser (1988). Levels Of Spatial Knowledge and Urban Travel Modeling.” Geographi-
cal Analysis 20, 140-55.
ten Raa, T. (1983). “Distance Distributions.” Geographical Analysis 15, 164-69.
Thill, J.-C. and J. L. Horowih (1977a). “Modelling Nonwork Destination Choices with Choice Sets
Defined by Travel-Time Constraints.” In Recent Deuelopments in Spatial Analysis: Spatial Statistics,
Behaoioual Modelling and Computational Intelligence, edited by M. M. Fischer and A. Getis, pp.
186-208. Springer-Verlag.
-(1997b). “Travel Time Constraints on Destination-Choice Sets.” Geographicnl Analysis 108-
23.
Tobler, W. R. (1970). “A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region.” Economic
Geography 46,234-40.
(1976a). “The Geometry of Mental Maps.” In Spatial Choice and Spatial Behaoior: Geographic
Essays on the Analysis of Prefeences and Perceptions, edited by R. G. Golledge and G. Rushton,
pp. 69-81. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
-(1976b).“Spatial Interaction Patterns.” J o u m l of Enoimnmental Systems 6, 271-301.
-(1978). “Migration Fields.” In Pupilation Mobility and Residential Change, edited by W. A. V.
Clark and E. G. Moore, pp. 215-32. Northwestern University Studies in Geography Number 25.
-(1987). “Experiments in Migration Mapping by Computer.’ American Cartographer 14, 155-63.
-(1994). “Bidimensional Regression.” Geographical Analysis 26, 187-212.
(1977). “Visualizing the Impact of Transportation on Spatial Relations.” Paper presented at the
36th Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Big Island of Hawai’i, February
23-27.
Tobler, W. R., and S. Wmeburg (1971). “A Cappadocian Speculation.” Nature 231, 39-41.
van Bemmelen, J., W. Quak, M. van Hekken, and P. van Oosderom, (1993). “Vector vs. Raster-based
Algorithms for Cross-country Movement Planning.” Proceedings, Auto-Carto 11, 304-17.
van Zuylen, H. J., and L. G. Willumsen (1980). “The Most Likely Trip Matrix Estimated from Tr&c
Counts.” Transportation Research B 14B, 281-93.
Vaughn, R. (1984). “Approximate Formulas for Average Distances Associated with Zones.” Transports-
twn Science 18,231-44.
Wang, F. (1994). “The Use of Artificial Neural Networks in a Geographical Information System for
Agricultural Land-Suitability Assessment.” Enoironment and Planning A 26, 265-84.
Webber, M. J. (1980). “A Theoretical Analysis of Aggregation in Spatial Interaction Models.” Geograph-
ical Analysis 12, 129-41.
White, R. W. (1989). “The Artificial Intelligence of Urban Dynamics: Neural Network Modeling of
Urban Structure.’’ Papers of the Regional Science Association 67,43-53.
Wilkinson, G . G., F. Fierens, and I. Kanellopoulos (1995). “Integration of Neural and Statistical
Approaches in Spatial Data Classification.” Geographical Systems 2, 1-20.
Williams, P. A., and A. S. Fotheringham (1984). The Calibration of Spatial lntemction Models by Maxi-
mum Likelihood Estimation with Program SIMODEL. Geographic Monograph Series number 7,
Department of Geography, Indiana University.
Wilson, A. G. (1967). “A Statistical Theory of Spatial Distribution Models.” Transportation Research 1,
253-69.
-(1970). Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling. London: Pion.
Wilson, R. M. (1990). “The Average Distance between Two Zones.” Geographical Analysis 22, 348-
51.
Wong, D., and C. Amrhein (1996). “Research on the MAUP: Old Wine in a New Bottle or Real Break-
through?” Geographical Systems 3, 73-76.
Wong, D.W.S., and A. S. Fotheringham (1990). “Urban Systems as Examples of Bounded Chaos:
Exploring the Relationship between Fractal Dimension, Rank-Size, and Rural-to-Urban Migration.”
Geografiska Annaler 72B, 89-99.
 Harvey J. Miller f 399

Xiong, D., and D. F. Marble (1996). “Strategies for Real-Time Spatial Analysis Using Massively Parallel
SIMD Computers: An Application to Urban Traffic Flow Analysis.” l n t e m t i o d ] o u m l of Geo-
g r a p h i d Z n f m c i o n S y s t e m 10, 769-89.
Yang, H., Y. Iida, and T. Sasaki (1991). “An Analysis of the Reliability of an Origin-Destination Trip
Matrix Estimated from Traffic Counts.” Transportation Research B 25B, 351-63.
You, J., 2. NedovibBudic5, and T. J. Kim (1997a). “A GIS-based Tr&c Analysis Zone Design: Imple-
mentation and Evaluation.” Transportation Planning and Technology 21,69-91.
(199%). “A GIS-based Traffic Analysis Zone Design: Technique.” Transportation Planning and
Technology 21.45-68.
Zhou,J., and D. L. Civco (1996). “Using Genetic Learning Neural Networks for Spatial Decision Making
in GIS.” Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 62, 1287-95.