Robust principal component analysis and geographically weighted regression: Urbanization in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area of Minnesota

URISA Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 15-25

  Ghosh, Debarchana ^a   Manson, Steven M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Geographically weighted regression; Land use; Robust principal component analysis; Urbanization

Indexed keywords

EID: 75349097998     PISSN: 10458077     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Alonso, W. 1964. Location and land use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Bayoh, I., E. G. Irwin, and T. Haab. 2006. Determinants of residential location choice: How important are local public goods in attracting homeowners to central city locations? Journal of Regional Science 46: 97-120.
3. Bockstael, N. E. 1996. Modeling economics and space: the importance of a spatial perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1168-80.
4. Burchell, R. W., N. A. Shad, D. Listokin, H. Phillips, A. Downs, S. Seskin, J. S. Davis, T. Moore, D. Helton, and M. Gall. 1998. Costs of sprawl: Revisited. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
5. CEE. 1999. Two roads diverge: Analyzing growth scenarios for the Twin Cities. Minneapolis: Center for Energy and Environment.
6. Croux, C., and A. Ruiz-Gazen. 1996. A fast algorithm for robust principal components based on projection pursuit. In Computational statistics. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag: 211-16.
7. Daniels, T. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
8. EPA. 2001. Our built and natural environments. Washington, D.C.
9. Fotheringham, A. S., C. Brundson, and M. Charlton. 2002. Geographically weighted regression-the analysis of spatially varying relationship. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
10. Galster, G., R. Hanson, M. R. Ratcliffe, H. Wolman, S. Coleman, and J. Freihage. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing policy debate 12: 681.
11. Hasse, J. E., and R. G. Lathrop. 2003. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography 23: 159-75.
12. IGBP-IHDP. 1995. Land-use and land-cover change: Science/research plan. Stockholm: International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and International Human Dimensions Programme.
13. Irwin, E. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 78: 465-81.
14. Kaimowitz, D., and A. Angelsen. 1998. Economic models of tropical deforestation: A review. Jakarta: Centre for International Forestry Research.
15. Lambin, E. F. 1994. Modelling deforestation processes: A review. Luxembourg: European Commission.
16. Li, G., and Z. Chen. 1985. Projection-pursuit approach to robust dispersion matrices and principal components: Primary theory and Monte Carlo. Journal of the American Statitstical Association 80: 759-66.
17. Nelson, A. C., R. J. Burby, E. Feser, C. J. Dawkins, E. E. Malizia, and R. Quercia. 2004. Urban containment and central city revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association 70: 411-25.
18. Parker, D. C., S. M. Manson, M. Janssen, M. J. Hoffmann, and P. J. Deadman. 2003. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land use and land cover change: a review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93: 316-40.
19. Pendall, R., J. Martin, and W. Fulton. 2002. Holding the line: Urban containment in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
20. Schrank, D., and T. Lomax. 2004. The 2004 urban mobility report. College Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute.
21. Soliani, L., and O. Rossi. 1992. Demographic factors and land-use planning in the small islands of southern Europe. Environmental Management 16: 603-11.
22. Vincent, J. M. 2006. Public schools as public infrastructure-roles for planning researchers. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25: 433-37.