Spatial Autocorrelation
Dacey M 1965 A review of measures of contiguity for two and k-
color maps. In: Berry B, Marble D (eds.) Spatial Analysis:
A Reader in Statistical Geography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 479–95
Dunn R, Harrison A 1993 Two dimensional systematic sampling
of land use. Applied Statistics 42: 585–601
Foster B 1980 Urban residential ground cover using Landsat
digital data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
46: 547–58
Geary R 1954 The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. The
Incorporated Statistician 5: 115–45
Green P 1996 MCMC in image analysis. In: Gilks G, Richardson
S, Spiegelhalter D (eds.) Marko
Chain Monte Carlo in
Practice. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 381–99
Haining R 1983 Anatomy of a price war. Nature 304: 679–80
Haining R 1984 Testing a spatial interacting-markets hypothesis.
Re
iew of Economics and Statistics 66: 576–83
Haining R 1987 Small area aggregate income models: theory and
methods with an application to urban and rural income data
for Pennsylvania. Regional Studies 21: 519–30
Haining R 1990 Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and
En
ironmental Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, UK
Haining R, Wise S, Ma J 1998 Exploratory spatial data analysis
in a GIS environment. The Statistician 47: 457–69
Isaaks E, Srivastava R 1989 An Introduction to Applied Geostatis-
tics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Krishna Iyer P 1949 The first and second moments of some
probability distributions arising from points on a lattice, and
their application. Biometrika 36: 135–41
Marshall R 1991 A review of methods for the statistical analysis
of spatial patterns of disease. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series A 154: 421–41
Milne A 1959 The centric systematic area sample treated as a
random sample. Biometrics 15: 270–97
Mollie A 1996 Bayesian mapping of disease. In: Gilks G,
Richardson S, Spiegelhalter D (eds.) Marko
Chain Monte
Carlo in Practice. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 359–79
Moran P 1948 The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 10: 243–51
Ord J 1975 Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 120–6
Richardson, S 1992 Statistical methods for geographical cor-
relation studies. In: Elliott P, Cuzick J, English D, Stern R
(eds.) Geographical and En
ironmental Epidemiology: Methods
for Small Area Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
pp. 181–204
Ripley B 1981 Spatial Statistics. Wiley, New York
Whittle P 1954 On stationary processes in the plane. Biometrika
41: 434–49
Waldhor T 1996 The spatial autocorrelation coefficient Moran’s
I under heteroscedasticity. Statistics in Medicine 15: 887–92
R. P. Haining
Spatial Choice Models
The interrelationship between spatial structure and
individual choice behavior has traditionally been at
the forefront of geographic research. Geographers
have realized that spatially varying consumer demand
14768
constitutes the basis for the evolution of spatial
structures. In turn, the supply of facilities across space
provides opportunities for individuals and households
to conduct their activities, but at the same time also
sets the space-time constraints that restrict behavior.
Over the years, many different attempts at modeling
spatial choice behavior have been reported in the
literature. These models predict the probability that an
individual will choose a choice alternative as a function
of its locational and non-locational attributes. In this
article, the background, theoretical underpinnings,
and basic methodology of these modeling approaches
are examined. From the outset, it should be clear that
limited available space prevents us from discussing
modeling approaches in considerable detail.
1. Gra
ity Models
The modeling of spatial choice behavior gained con-
siderable momentum when Wilson (1971) introduced
a family of spatial interaction models, based on the
principle of gravity, to describe and predict social
phenomena. This principle states that the interaction
between two bodies is proportional to their masses,
and inversely proportional to the square of distance.
Wilson elaborated this principle in a number of ways.
First, he suggested that any distance decay function
that reflects the notion that, ceteris paribus, the
intensity of interaction decreases with increasing
distance may be used to replace straight distance.
Secondly, he argued that in spatial problems often the
number of departures from particular origins and\or
the number of arrivals at particular destinations is
known, implying that so-called balancing factors have
to be introduced in the model to satisfy these con-
straints.
Wilson distinguished an unconstrained spatial in-
teraction model (departures and arrivals are not
known), a production-constrained spatial interaction
model (number of departures per zone is known), an
attractions-constrained spatial interaction model
(number of arrivals per zone is known), and the doubly
constrained spatial interaction model (both number of
departures and number of arrivals per zone are
known). In the context of spatial choice behavior, the
production constrained spatial interaction model is
most interesting as it predicts which destination will be
chosen. It can be expressed as:
pij l AiOiWj f (dij) (1)
where, pij is the probability that an individual in zone i
will choose destination j; Ai is a balancing factor,
guaranteeing that the number of predicted interactions
from zone i is equal to its number of observed
interactions; Oi is the number of observed interactions
from zone i; Wj is a vector of variables, representing

the attractiveness of destination j; f (dij) is some
function of the distance between origin i and dest-
ination j.
Although much empirical work has been conducted
on spatial interaction models since this seminal work,
most of the relevant literature has been concerned with
operational problems. Theoretical progress has been
limited. For example, different measures of dist-
ance (straight-line distance, Euclidean distance, city-
block metric, and travel time) and attractiveness have
been suggested. Likewise, different functions for rep-
resenting the distance decay effect have been proposed
(power, exponential, and more complex functions).
Finally, an exponent has been added to the spec-
ification of attractiveness term to allow for the fact
that the larger destinations tend to have extra attrac-
tion beyond their size because of the benefits of
economies of scale.
The estimation of spatial interaction models is
typically based upon aggregate, zonal data of in-
teraction flows (shopping, recreation, migration, traf-
fic, etc). To that effect, the study area is delineated
carefully to avoid large external flows, and divided
into a number of smaller homogeneous zones. The
spatial interaction model is calibrated using observa-
tions about interactions between these zones as input.
As a result, the parameters of the spatial interaction
model are highly influenced by the geometry of the
study area. This caused a search for improvements of
the model, and for alternative modeling approaches.
In this context, some authors suggested the devel-
opment of models that estimate the effects of attraction
variables endogenously. Another way of dealing with
this problem was to incorporate some measure of
spatial structure into a spatial interaction model
(Fotheringham 1983). The simplest approach to the
specification of this additional term is the use of a
Hansen-type accessibility measure. This so-called
competing destinations model may be expressed as:
pij l AiOiWjC δj d −ijβ (2)
where
Ai l
A
 WjC δj d −ijβ
C
−" (3)
B j D assumed that the probability of choosing a choice
and
Cj l  Wjd −jkγ (4)
kj
2. The Re
ealed Preference Model
The fact that the spatial interaction model is heavily
influenced by the geometry of the study led Rushton
(1969) to develop a preference-scaling model. The
Spatial Choice Models
purpose of the model was to derive rules of spatial
choice behavior.
To that effect, choice alternatives were classified
into so-called locational types, which are a com-
bination of an attractiveness category and a distance
category. Spatial choice behavior is assumed to reflect
a trade-off between attractiveness and distance sep-
aration. Pairwise choice data are then used to calculate
the proportion of times a particular locational type is
chosen, given that both are present. Based on this
data, the locational types are positioned on a uni-
dimensional preference scale using a nonmetric multi-
dimensional scaling algorithm.
Over the years, this basic model has been elaborated
in a number of important ways. First, Rushton (1974)
showed how graphical methods, trend surface analysis,
or conjoint analysis might be used to decompose the
preference scale into the contributions of the two basic
variables. Second, Girt (1976) suggested linking the
preference function to overt behavior by relating
distances on the preference scale to choice probabili-
ties. Third, Timmermans (1979) suggested deriving
the choice sets of individuals from data on information
fields and consumer attitudes, and using these to scale
the alternatives. Although Rushton’s preference sca-
ling model does have considerable appeal, it never
received any major following. One of the reasons
might be that the model is based on two explanatory
variables only, while heterogeneity in preferences is
not accounted for. The model has also been criticized
because of its conceptual basis. It has been suggested
that the model may not represent preferences at
all, but rather inconsistencies in individual choice
behavior.
3. Discrete Choice Models
The spatial interaction model has been criticized for its
reliance on aggregate, zonal interaction flows. This
criticism has led to the development of disaggregate
discrete choice models that are based on individual
choice behavior.
Discrete choice models may be derived from at least
two formal theories: Luce’s strict utility theory and
Thurstone’s random utility theory. In particular, Luce
alternative is equal to the ratio of the utility associated
with that alternative to the sum of the utilities for all
the alternatives in the choice set. Luce thus assumed
deterministic preference structures and postulated a
constant-ratio decision rule.
In contrast, random utility theory is based on
stochastic preferences in that an individual is assumed
to draw a utility function at random on each choice
occasion. An individual’s utility for a choice alterna-
tive is assumed to consist of a deterministic component
and a random utility component. Given the principle
of utility maximizing behavior, the probability of
choosing a choice alternative is then equal to the
14769
Spatial Choice Models
probability that its utility exceeds that of all other
choice alternatives in the choice set.
The specification of the model depends on the
assumptions regarding the distributions of the random
utility components. The best-known model is the
multinomial logit (MNL) model. It can be derived by
assuming that the random utility components are
independently, identically Type I extreme value distri-
buted. It can be expressed as:
exp [U(Xk, Si)]
pik l (5)
 exp [U(Xj, Si)]
j To avoid such ad hoc rules, Louviere and Wood-
where U(Xk, Si) is the deterministic part of the utility of
choice alternative k of individual i with socioeconomic
characteristics Si.
One of the most important criticisms that have been
expressed against the multinomial logit model con-
cerned the fact that the utility of a choice alternative is
independent of the existence and the attributes of
other alternatives in the choice set (the Independence
from Irrelevant Alternatives or IIA property). It
predicts that the introduction of a new, similar choice
alternative will reduce market shares in direct pro-
portion to the utility of the existing alternatives, which
is counterintuitive in the case of a high degree of
similarity between particular alternatives.
Therefore, various alternative models have been
developed to relax the IIA assumption (Timmermans
and Golledge 1990). Similar work in this regard has
been conducted by Williams (1977). The best-known
model that circumvents the IIA-property is the nested
logit model. Choice alternatives that are assumed to be
correlated are grouped into the same nest. Each nest is
represented by an aggregate alternative with a com-
posite utility, consisting of the so-called inclusive
value, and a parameter to be estimated. To be
consistent with utility-maximizing behavior, the in-
clusive values should lie in the range between 0 and 1,
and the values of the parameters should change
consistently from lower levels to higher levels of the
hierarchy.
4. Conjoint Preference and Choice Models
Unlike discrete choice models, the parameters of the
conjoint preference and choice models are not derived
from real-world data, but from experimental design
data. Conjoint models involve the following steps
when applied to spatial choice problems (e.g., Tim-
mermans 1984).
First, each choice alternative is described by its
position in a set of attributes, considered relevant for
the problem at hand. Next, a series of levels for each
attribute is chosen. Having defined the attributes and
14770
their levels, the next step involves creating an ex-
perimental design to generate a set of hypothetical
choice alternatives. This design should be created such
that the necessary and sufficient conditions to estimate
the model of interest are satisfied. Respondents are
then required to evaluate the resulting attribute
profiles. Their responses are decomposed into the
utility contribution of the attribute levels. Once part-
worth utilities have been estimated, choice behavior
can be predicted by assuming that an individual will
choose the alternative with the highest overall evalu-
ation. Alternatively, different probabilistic rules can
be postulated.
worth (1983) suggested estimating the preference
function and choice model simultaneously. To that
end, the attribute profiles should be placed into choice
sets. Again, the composition of the choice sets depends
on the properties of the choice model.
Over the years, the basic conjoint preference and
choice models have been elaborated in many different
ways. To avoid the problem of information overload
and reduce respondent demand, Louviere (1984)
suggested the Hierarchical Information Integration
method. It assumed that individuals first group the
attributes into higher-order decision constructs. Sep-
arate designs are constructed for each decision con-
struct, and a bridging experiment is designed for
measuring the tradeoff between the evaluations of the
decision constructs. Oppewal et al. (1994) suggested
an improved methodology by using multiple-choice
experiments to test the implied hierarchical decision
structure.
Other recent advances include the development of
group preference models, the development of models
of portfolio choice, the inclusion of contextual effects
and constraints, and the combined use of experimental
design and revealed preference data, to name a few.
5. Complex Spatial Choice Beha
ior
The previous models are all typically based on single-
purpose, single-stop behavior. Over the years, how-
ever, it became clear that an increasing proportion of
trips involved multistop behavior. Moreover, Ha$ ger-
strand’s time geography had convincingly argued that
behavior does not reflect preferences only, but also
constraints. Thus, various attempts have been made to
develop models of trip chaining and activity-travel
patterns.
Originally, most models relied on semi-Markov
process models or Monte Carlo simulations. More
recently, utility-maximizing models have dominated
the field. An important contribution in this regard was
made by Kitamura (1984), who introduced the concept
of prospective utility. It states that the utility of a
destination is not only a function of its inherent
attributes and the distance to that destination, but also

of the utility of continuing the trip from that des-
tination. Dellaert et al. (1998) generalized Kitamura’s
approach to account for multipurpose aspects of the
trip chain.
Trip chaining is only one aspect of multiday
activity\travel patterns. Several models have recently
been suggested to predict more comprehensive activity
patterns. These models can be differentiated into the
older constraints-based models (e.g., Lenntorp 1976),
utility-maximizing models (e.g., Recker et al. 1986),
rule-based or computational process models (e.g.,
Golledge et al. 1994, ALBATROSS – Arentze and
Timmermans 2000).
6. Conclusions
This article has given a very brief overview of spatial
choice modeling. Due to the limited available space,
we have focused on some of the key modeling
approaches, disregarding alternatives (e.g., dynamic
models) altogether.
If we examine the accomplishments, one cannot
escape the conclusion that the models developed over
the years have been increasing in complexity. The
theoretical underpinnings of the recent activity-based
models are much richer than the Markov or gravity
models of the 1960s. Moreover, the brief overview
indicates that geographers have been using alternative
data, such as experimental design data and activity
diaries, in addition to the more conventional survey
data.
See also: Spatial Analysis in Geography; Spatial
Decision Support Systems; Spatial Interaction; Spatial
Interaction Models; Spatial Optimization Models;
Spatial Pattern, Analysis of; Spatial Statistical
Methods; Spatial Thinking in the Social Sciences,
History of
Bibliography
Arentze T A, Timmermans H J P 2000 ALBATROSS: a
Learning-based Transportation-oriented Simulation System.
EIRASS, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Nether-
lands
Dellaert B, Arentze T A, Borgers A W J, Timmermans H J P,
Bierlaire M 1998 A conjoint based multi-purpose multi-stop
model of consumer shopping centre choice. Journal of
Marketing Research 35: 177–88
Ettema D F, Timmermans H J P 1997 Acti
ity-based Approaches
to Tra
el Analysis. Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK
Fotheringham A S 1983 A new set of spatial interaction models:
The theory of competing destinations. En
ironment and
Planning, A 15: 1121–32
Girt J L 1976 Some extensions to Rushton’s spatial preference
scaling model. Geographical Analysis 8: 137–56
Golledge R G, Kwan M P, Ga$ rling T 1994 Computational
process modeling of travel decisions using a geographical
information system. Papers in Regional Science 73: 99–117
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
Spatial Cognition
Kitamura R 1984 Incorporating trip chaining into analysis of
destination choice. Transportation Research 18B: 67–81
Lenntorp B 1976 Paths in space-time environments. Lund
Studies in Geography, Series B, no. 44
Louviere J J 1984 Hierarchical information integration: a new
method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute
judgment problems. In: Kinnear T C (ed.) Ad
ances in
Consumer Research 11, ACRA, Provo, UT, pp. 148–55
Louviere J J, Woodworth G 1983 Design and analysis of
simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An
approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing
Research 20: 350–67
Oppewal H, Louviere J J, Timmermans H J P 1994 Modeling
hierarchical information integration processes with integrated
conjoint choice experiments. Journal of Marketing Research
31: 92–105
Recker W W, McNally M G, Root G S 1986 A model of
complex travel behavior: part I – theoretical development.
Transportation Research, A 20A: 307–318
Rushton G 1969 Analysis of spatial behavior by revealed space
preference. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
59: 391–400
Rushton G 1974 Decomposition of space preference structures.
In: Golledge R G, Rushton G (eds.) Spatial Choice and Spatial
Beha
ior. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH, pp.
119–33
Timmermans H J P 1979 A spatial preference model of regional
shopping behaviour. Tijdschrift
oor Economische en Sociale
Geografie 70: 45–8
Timmermans H J P 1984 Decompositional multiattribute pre-
ference models in spatial choice analysis: a review of some
recent developments. Progress in Human Geography 8: 189–
221
Timmermans H J P, Golledge R G 1990 Applications of behav-
ioural research on spatial choice problems II: preference and
choice. Progress in Human Geography 14: 311–54
Williams H C W L 1977 On the formation of travel demand
models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit.
En
ironment and Planning, A 9: 285–34
Wilson A G 1971 A family of spatial interaction models and
associated developments. En
ironment and Planning, A 3: 1–32
H. Timmermans
Copyright # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Spatial Cognition
Spatial cognition concerns the study of knowledge and
beliefs about spatial properties of objects and events in
the world. Cognition is about knowledge: its ac-
quisition, storage and retrieval, manipulation, and use
by humans, nonhuman animals, and intelligent
machines. Broadly construed, cognitive systems in-
clude sensation and perception, thinking, imagery,
memory, learning, language, reasoning, and problem-
solving. In humans, cognitive structures and processes
are part of the mind, which emerges from a brain and
nervous system inside of a body that exists in a social
and physical world. Spatial properties include lo-
cation, size, distance, direction, separation and con-
nection, shape, pattern, and movement.
14771
ISBN: 0-08-043076-7