Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Application of geographically weighted regression to the direct forecasting of

transit ridership at station-level
Osvaldo Daniel Cardozo a, *, Juan Carlos García-Palomares b, Javier Gutiérrez b
a
Departamento de Geografía, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Av. Las Heras 727, H3500COI Resistencia, Argentina
b
Departamento de Geografía Humana, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C/Profesor Aranguren, s/n. 28040 Madrid, Spain

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: In recent years, station-level ridership forecasting models have been developed based on Geographic
Transit ridership Information Systems (GIS) and multiple regression analysis. These models estimate the number of
Direct forecasting models
passengers boarding at each station as a function of the station characteristics and the areas that they
Geographically weighted regression (GWR)
Geographic information systems (GIS)
serve. These models have considerable advantages over the traditional four-step model, including
Metro simplicity of use, easy interpretation of results, immediate response and low cost. Nevertheless, the
Madrid models usually use traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression, which assume para-
metric stability. This study proposes a direct model that uses geographically weighted regression (GWR)
to forecast boarding at the Madrid Metro stations. Here, the results obtained using the OLS and GWR
models are compared. The GWR model results in a better fit than the traditional one. In addition, the
information supplied by the GWR model regarding the spatial variation of elasticities and their statistical
significance provides more realistic and useful results.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction adequately consider the characteristics of the station environment

In transport planning, ridership modeling and forecasting is
crucial for the analysis of project viability and sustainability over
time. These factors are of great importance where public invest-
ment is involved. Within the general framework of austerity
affecting public administrations, ridership studies take on even
greater significance (Blainey, 2010). The demand for public trans-
port stations is a geographical issue. Station ridership can be
considerably increased by promoting population density, job
concentration and land use mix near public transport facilities
(stops or stations). In this regard, Kobayashi and Lane (2007) point
out the need for more detailed spatial analysis of station environ-
ment characteristics to better understand the connection between
investment and station use.
Transport planning experts have dedicated a great deal of time
and effort to ridership studies. Generally, these studies have been
undertaken using the so-called four-step model (McNally, 2007;
Ortúzar & Willumsen, 2008). Despite its proven effectiveness, the
four-step model is highly complex and expensive, and it does not
because it is applied over relatively large transport zones (Cervero,
2006; Marshall & Grady, 2006). Recently, direct station-level fore-
casting models have appeared. These models try to overcome this
deficiency by formulating ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple
regression models, which are fed with variables on the character-
istics of stations and their catchment areas calculated using GIS
(Cervero, 2006; Kuby, Barranda, & Upchurch, 2004; Walters &
Cervero, 2003). Direct station-level forecasting models could
increase their explanatory power by using geographically weighted
regression (GWR). One of the primary advantages of spatial
modeling is its capacity to measure spatial instability (and, conse-
quently, spatial heterogeneity) from the magnitude of the coeffi-
cients across the area (Clark, 2007).1 This is not possible with
traditional regression (OLS) because the parametric stability
hypothesis is assumed, which is equivalent to considering that
calculated coefficients do not have significant differences in space.
According to Páez (2006), the better improved fit of this new
approach, compared to the traditional approach used for examining

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ54 0362 4446958.
E-mail addresses: odcardozo@hum.unne.edu.ar, osvaldodcardozo@yahoo.com.ar
(O.D. Cardozo), jcgarcia@ghis.ucm.es (J.C. García-Palomares), javiergutierrez@
ghis.ucm.es (J. Gutiérrez).
1
Spatial heterogeneity can be defined as structural instability in the form of
systematically varying model parameters or different response functions. Another
aspect of spatial heterogeneity is heteroskedasticity, which follows from missing
variables or other forms of misspecification that lead to error terms with non-
constant variance (Anselin, 1988).

0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.01.005
 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558
the spatial aspects of public transport opens up new perspectives
that fully justify the pursuit of this research.
The goal of this article is to show the advantages of GWR for
estimating station-level transit ridership using the Madrid Metro
network as a case study. This article has five sections: Section 1 is
the introduction; Section 2 is a review of the direct forecasting
models based on traditional regression analysis (OLS) and on local
spatial methods (GWR); Section 3 outlines the characteristics of the
study area and the data with a brief description of the methodology
used; Section 4 compares the results obtained using the OLS and
GWR models; and Section 5 contains concluding remarks.
Background: direct station-level ridership forecasting models
and geographically weighted regression
The history of transport modeling has been dominated by the
four-step model (McNally, 2007). The four-step model is a family of
interrelated models (generation, distribution, assignment and
mode choice) that are costly to implement and maintain (Marshall
& Grady, 2006). The initial purpose of the four-step model in the
1950s was traffic forecasting, mainly on a regional scale. Thus, it is
not surprising that the four-step model is less effective for fore-
casting the journeys using public transport on more detailed scales
(station-level). Direct models based on multiple regression analysis
are a complementary approach to estimating ridership as a func-
tion of station environment and transit service features (Cervero,
2006). Such models are a relatively rapid and less expensive
alternative to the four-step model. In addition, they better capture
the influences of the station environment on travel demand. The
elasticities reveal the repercussions of urban planning on ridership,
such as new urban development and densification, which are
particularly relevant in Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD)
(Cervero, 2006). The combination of low cost and simplicity also
makes them an appropriate tool for small towns, or those with
limited financial resources, which require a quick and accurate
assessment of the ridership forecast to plan investments in trans-
port infrastructure. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the
four-step model is fed by costly mobility surveys, whereas the
direct forecasting model is fed by simple station ridership data.
Direct station-level ridership forecasting models are normally
based on GIS and multiple regression analysis (Chu, 2004;
Gutiérrez, Cardozo, & García-Palomares, 2011; Kuby et al., 2004;
Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1996; Walters & Cervero, 2003). One draw-
back of this approach is that any geographical variation in the
relations between variables is masked (Lloyd & Shuttleworth, 2005)
by assuming that the relations between variables are stationary and
ignoring the existence of local variations due to the heterogeneity
of the space (Páez, 2006). Moreover, it is well known that
geographical data are not static (Haining, 2010). When it is assumed
that the explanatory power in regression models (measured by the
coefficient of determination) is the same for the whole set of
observations, the problem of parametric instability is ignored
(Arbia & Baltagi, 2009; Haining, 2010; Páez, Le Gallo, Buliung, &
Dall’erba, 2010). Accepting this assumption implies discounting
any possible knowledge of local interactions taking place within the
study area.
In the OLS model, each observation is considered independently.
However, the spatial data do not comply with the independence
hypothesis because they are normally autocorrelated. Thus, the
strength of the relationship between the model variables will not
be the same throughout the study area (Clark, 2007). In this respect,
Lloyd and Shuttleworth (2005) stress the need to include appro-
priate specifications in models that take into consideration the
nature of spatial data, which are normally autocorrelated. Spatial
autocorrelation, also referred to as spatial dependence, is produced
549
when the observed value of a variable at a particular place depends
on the observed values of the same variable at adjacent places.
Spatial data frequently exhibit complex patterns that are diffi-
cult to capture, represent and explain using global statistics and
models (Páez et al., 2010). Traditional statistical models may show
specification problems when the presence of spatial autocorrela-
tion in the data is not considered. A major consequence of this is the
risk of inefficient coefficients estimates to represent the magnitude
of the relation between the variables, making statistical significance
tests on them questionable. Thus, specific tests on the residuals are
required (for example, Moran’s I and Geary’s C) before any regres-
sion analysis results are interpreted to statistically demonstrate
their spatial randomness. When spatial autocorrelation is present,
the use of a technique specifically designed for dealing with this
type of problem (such as GWR) is recommended.
Brunsdon, Fotheringham, and Charlton (1996) and
Fotheringham, Charlton, and Brunsdon (1997, 1998) introduced the
term GWR to refer to a family of “spatially adjusted” regressions
that operate by assigning a weight to each observation (i), which
depends on its distance from a specific geographical location or
focal point (o). This analysis involves fitting as many regressions
as there are observations, and it is based on the concept of
distance decay (where more weight is given to the closer obser-
vations than the farther ones). These weights are generated from
a kernel function, which uses a bandwidth found by optimizing
a goodness-of-fit criterion. As a result, estimations can be fit to
each observation or location by applying the appropriate
equation.
The GWR model considers the spatial component of the data
explicitly and incorporates the value of the geographical coordi-
nates of observations in its equation. Unlike the OLS model, in the
GWR model, the bj coefficients (j ¼ 0, 1, ., p) of the j predictors xj
(j ¼ 1, ., p) vary for each location. In other words, for each location
defined by its coordinates (ui, vi), the value of the dependent vari-
able yi is estimated according to Equation (1).
yi ¼ b0 ðui ; vi Þ þ b1 ðui ; vi Þ x1 þ b2 ðui ; vi Þ x2 þ .
þ bp ðui ; vi Þ xp þ 3 i ð1Þ
The GWR model provides all elements and diagnostics of
a regression model on a local basis, such as parameter estimates,
goodness-of-fit measures (R2) and t-values. Local statistics can be
considered spatial disaggregates of global statistics. A model cali-
brated with equally weighted data from across a study region (OLS)
is a global model that yields global parameter estimates. In
contrast, a model calibrated with spatially limited sets of data
(GWR) is a local model that yields local parameter estimates. By
their nature, local statistics emphasize differences across space,
whereas global statistics emphasize similarities across space.
Global statistics lead one to think that all parts of a study region can
be accurately represented by a single value, whereas local statistics
can show the falsity of this assumption by depicting what is actu-
ally happening in different parts of the region (Fotheringham,
Brunsdon, & Charlton, 2002).
In summary, some of the most important advantages justifying
the use of GWR are listed below.
- Greater detail and accuracy are obtained because GWR allows
researchers to move from a global perspective to a local anal-
ysis of the problem (Lloyd, 2010).
- The coefficients of each of the predictors (elasticities) vary
across space (spatial instability). It is possible to analyze how
relationships vary over space and to investigate the spatial
pattern of the local estimates to establish an understanding of
possible causes (Fotheringham et al., 2002).
550 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558
Fig. 1. The Madrid Metro network.
- Disaggregation of the global coefficient of determination (R2)
into local coefficients and analysis of their geographical
distribution make it possible to recognize where the inde-
pendent variables have greater or lesser explanatory power
(Fotheringham et al., 2002; Lloyd, 2010).
- In the majority of cases, estimation errors generated by GWR
are smaller than those generated by OLS, and the problem of
spatial autocorrelation is eliminated or reduced (Hadayeghi,
Shalaby, & Persaud, 2010).
- The implementation of this technique in Geographic Informa-
tion Systems (GIS) facilitates the production of a wide variety of
maps using the generated results: dependent and independent
variables, local R2, local coefficients (elasticities), t-values and
standard residuals (Mennis, 2006).
- It is possible to generate interpolated surfaces to identify the
continuous spatial distribution of the parameters and apply
“spatial forecasting” principles to find the values of missing
observations (Anselin, 1988; Páez, 2006).
- GWR facilitates exploration of the spatial structure of the
model; that is, it measures the degree of spatial dependence
present in the model and detects data clusters.
- Specific results provided for each location can be used as
evidence to support local policies and decision-making; which
is why these techniques are frequently referred to as “place-
based” (de Smith, Goodchild, & Longley, 2009).
Although the GWR model is a relatively new technique for
spatial data analysis, it has been applied to many diverse topics, for
example, forestry (Clement, Orange, Williams, Mulley, & Epprecht,
2009; Pineda, Bosque-Sendra, Gómez-Delgado, & Franco, 2010;
Zhang & Shi, 2004), land use/land cover (Ogneva-Himmelberger,
Pearsall, & Rakshit, 2009; Tu & Guo, 2008; Tu, 2011), health
(Bagheri, Holt, & Benwell, 2009; Chen & Truong, 2012; Zhang,
Wong, So, & Lin, 2012), crime (Cahill & Gordon, 2007; Malczewski
& Poetz, 2005) and urban space (Gao & Li, 2011; Hanham &
Spiker, 2005; Luo & Wei, 2009). In the field of transport, the GWR
model has been used to explore the spatial variation of variables,
such as traffic accidents (Hadayeghi et al., 2010), accessibility
(Mountain, Tsui, & Raper, 2007), car ownership (Clark, 2007),
average annual road traffic (Zhao & Park, 2004), average distances
traveled by commuters (Lloyd & Shuttleworth, 2005), public
transport use (Blainey & Preston, 2010; Chow, Chi, & Zhao, 2010;
Chow, Zhao, Min-Tang, Liu, & Ubaka, 2006; Kobayashi & Lane,
2007) and the influence of transport infrastructure on land use
(Páez, 2006). Nevertheless, GWR has rarely been incorporated into
direct station-level ridership forecasting models. In a notable
exception, Blainey (2010) examined the relationship between
passenger numbers and the characteristics of local railway stations
environment, using multiple regressions adjusted by OLS and GWR.
However, the increase in adjusted R2 between the global model and
the local model hardly constituted a significant improvement
 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558 551

Table 1 Table 2
Candidate predictors for the OLS and GWR models.a Moran’s I tests for spatial autocorrelation on the dependent variable and the
candidate predictors.a
Variable Description
Population Total population within the 800 m Variable Moran’s I Expected I Pattern z-score p-value
catchment area Boardings 0.094408 0.005291 Clustered 8.004469 0.000000
Employment Total number of jobs within the 800 m Population 0.090704 0.005291 Clustered 7.579427 0.000000
catchment area Employment 0.338827 0.005291 Clustered 27.302607 0.000000
Workers Total number of workers living within the Workers 0.113952 0.005291 Clustered 9.407289 0.000000
800 m catchment area Non-car households 0.033996 0.005291 Clustered 3.156661 0.001596
Non-car households Non-car owning households within the 800 m Land use mix 0.001870 0.005291 Random 0.270394 0.786857
catchment area Street density 0.394580 0.005291 Clustered 31.632347 0.000000
Landeuse mix Reciprocal of the variation coefficient of the Number of lines 0.111750 0.005291 Clustered 9.311180 0.000000
area covered by different land uses within the Urban bus lines 0.111769 0.005291 Clustered 9.255422 0.000000
800 m catchment area (higher values indicate Suburban bus lines 0.192756 0.005291 Clustered 15.742222 0.000000
higher diversity of use) a
Those finally included in the model are shown in bold print.
Street density Street density within the 800 m catchment area
(ratio between street length and catchment area)
Number of lines Number of Metro lines passing through each station
Urban bus lines Number of urban bus lines with stops within 2011). A distance threshold of 800 m (0.5 mi) was considered,
the 200 m station catchment area which is the standard walking distance used to delimit rail station
Suburban bus lines Number of suburban bus lines with stops within service areas in most transit research (for example: Kuby et al.,
the 200 m station catchment area
2004; Murray, 2001; O’Neill, Ramsey, & Chou, 1992). Moreover,
Source: Transport Authority of Madrid. the best direct ridership forecasting model for the Madrid Metro
a
Those finally included in the model are shown in bold print.
(Gutiérrez et al., 2011) was for an 800 m distance threshold. The
population and employment covered by the service areas were
(0.750 and 0.780, respectively). Moreover, his work focused on local
calculated using the areal interpolation method (Chakraborty &
railway stations in England and Wales (national scale), in contrast
Armstrong, 1997; O’Neill et al., 1992).
to our study of Metro stations (urban scale).
Nine variables were initially considered as possible predictors of
monthly boarding numbers (Table 1).2 These variables were iden-
Materials and methods
tified from previous papers that discussed the factors affecting
ridership.3 All nine variables were hypothesized to correlate posi-
Area of study and data
tively with ridership (Blainey & Preston, 2010; Chu, 2004; Chow
et al., 2010; Gutiérrez et al., 2011; Kuby et al., 2004; Parsons
Our study focuses on the Madrid Metro network, which consists
Brinckerhoff, 1996; Walters & Cervero, 2003). Initially, their
of 12 lines and 190 stations (Fig. 1). This Metro network mainly
spatial distribution patterns were analyzed using the global Mor-
serves the municipal area of Madrid, but in recent years, it has been
an’s I index (in the OpenGeoDa software) to determine whether any
extended to several other municipalities in the region, including
autocorrelation occurred. In addition, a bivariate correlation matrix
Alcorcón, Móstoles, Leganés, Fuenlabrada, Getafe, Rivas-
was produced among the candidate predictors to prevent multi-
Vaciamadrid and Arganda.
collinearity in the models (highly correlated independent variables
The layers used to feed the regression models in shape format
may cause multicollinearity problems in multiple regression
(ArcGIS) are listed below (all data refer to November 2004).
models). Ridership modeling was carried out using OLS and GWR
models. Both were obtained using the ArcGIS Modeling Spatial
- Stations in the Madrid Metro network: This layer contains
Relationships toolset.
information on station characteristics (for example, the
Multiple modeling attempts using the nine candidate predictors
number of lines that pass through the station) and on the
were made. Eventually, an OLS model with a high explanatory
number of passengers boarding at each station for November
power was selected that incorporated four policy-relevant inde-
2004 (dependent variable in the regression models).
pendent variables for forecasting ridership. The number of obser-
- Street network: This layer was used to delineate the catchment
vations and variables were held constant, and ArcGIS (version 9.3)
areas of the stations using network distances (instead of
was used to estimate a GWR. This technique gives more weight to
straight line ones).
the nearest observations when fitting the equation. Assigning
- Transport zones: These layers contain data on population, jobs,
weight to observations according to distance varies depending on
workers, etc., from a mobility survey conducted by the Trans-
different types of functions. We used an adaptive kernel function,
port Authority of Madrid in November 2004. They were used to
which is the most frequently used function because it best fit an
characterize the catchment area of the stations.
irregular distribution of observations as in the case of Metro stations.
- Urban and regional bus stops networks: These layers, provided
To establish the considered threshold of observations, the Akaike
by the Transport Authority of Madrid, were used to calculate
Information Criterion (AIC) was used (Fotheringham et al., 2002).
the number of feeder routes near the Metro stations.
Once the two models (OLS and GWR) were obtained, they were
compared for their global fit and for the distributions of their

Methodology
Previously, many studies have delineated catchment areas using
Euclidian distances to calculate the catchment area variables, such
as population, employment and land use mix (for example, Chu,
2004; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1996; Walters & Cervero, 2003). In
the present study, network distances calculated using the ArcGIS
Network Analysis module were used in direct forecasting models
because they provide systematically better results (Gutiérrez et al.,
2
Unlike Walters and Cervero (2003) and Blainey (2010), frequencies were not
considered as independent variables because they may produce endogeneity
problems in our models. Frequencies influence station ridership, but the dominant
causality is that lines crossing central and highly populated areas are provided with
better frequencies. We avoid this variable (frequencies) and replace it with a proxy
that does not have endogeneity problems: the number of rail lines crossing the
station.
3
A review and discussion about these variables and their relationship with
transit ridership can be found in Gutiérrez et al. (2011).
552 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of the variables of the final model.

residuals. The decision to resort to spatial regression is warranted
when it produces an improvement in the global fit and when it
allows the presence of spatial aggregations (clusters) in the distri-
bution of residuals to be corrected. A residual map for both models
was drawn up for this purpose, and spatial autocorrelation tests
were applied using the global Moran’s I index.
Finally, the distributions of the model’s spatial fits (local R2
values) and the local b coefficients (and their significances) were
mapped. These values were interpolated using the Inverse Distance
Weighted (IDW) method to obtain continuous surfaces. This made
it possible to analyze the local goodness-of-fit measure (R2) and
perform a spatial analysis of the elasticity and significance of the
explanatory variables.
Results
Before the models were built, analysis was performed to
determine if the candidate variables were spatially autocorrelated.
 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558 553

Table 3
Bivariate correlations (r of Pearson) between independent variables.

Number Population Employment Workers Suburban Urban Street Land Non-car

of lines bus lines bus lines density use mix households
Number of lines Coef. Correlat. 1
Significance
Population Coef. Correlat. .034 1
Significance .639
Employment Coef. Correlat. .455b .018 1
Significance .000 .806
Workers Coef. Correlat. .228b .379b .547b 1
Significance .002 .000 .000
Suburban bus lines Coef. Correlat. .082 .171a .133 .028 1
Significance .260 .019 .067 .703
Urban bus lines Coef. Correlat. .268b .066 .481b .455b .071 1
Significance .000 .368 .000 .000 .333
Street density Coef. Correlat. .199b .326b .328b .365b .231b .345b 1
Significance .006 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
Land use mix Coef. Correlat. .049 .583b .079 .392b .000 .239b .340b 1
Significance .505 .000 .276 .000 .995 .001 .000
Non-car households Coef. Correlat. .073 .448b .034 .173a .051 .110 .268b .312b 1
Significance .319 .000 .642 .017 .481 .132 .000 .000
a
The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
b
The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 4
Summary and diagnosis of OLS model coefficients.

Summary OLS

Variable Coefficient Std-error t-statistic Probability VIF

Intercept 233283.245 38117.3564 6.120132 0.000000a e
Number of lines 306115.745 26118.7554 11.720151 0.000000a 1.172695
Workers 14.65796 5.288407 2.771715 0.006145a 1.598478
Suburban bus lines 1295.41846 497.645297 2.603096 0.009982a 1.036861
Employment 7.073422 3.109245 2.274964 0.024044a 1.83634
Number of observations 190
Number of variables 5
Adjusted R2 0.557
R2 0.567
AIC 5157,6892
Degrees of freedom: 185
F-statistic 60.637 Prob(>F), (4.185) degrees of freedom: 0.000000a
Wald statistic 132.434 Prob(>chi-squared), (4) degrees of freedom: 0.000000a
Koenker (BP) statistic 16.534 Prob(>chi-squared), (4) degrees of freedom: 0.002380a
JarqueeBera statistic 1403.820 Prob(>chi-squared), (2) degrees of freedom: 0.000000a
a
Statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

All of the variables gave estimated Moran’s I values higher
than the expected E(I); thus, a positive spatial autocorrelation
existed (Table 2). The greatest spatial dependency was found for
the following variables: boardings, number of lines passing
through the station, network density and number of suburban bus
lines. The only exception was the coefficient of variation for land
use, which likely has a random spatial pattern. Fig. 2 shows the
spatial patterns of the predictors included in the final model.
To test for multicollinearity between independent variables,
bivariate correlations among the candidate predictors were calcu-
lated (Table 3).4 The highest correlation coefficients were observed
between the variables number of workers and jobs (0.547) and
population and land use mix (0.583). Thus, all correlations between
independent variables were below the danger level of 0.7 (Clark &
Hosking, 1986).
4
Some of the candidate predictors were logarithmically transformed (by their
natural logarithm). However, we used the original variables because we obtained
better coefficients of determination in the multiple regression models with the
original variables.
Model selection was based on the conventional statistical
package methods and on the concept of direct forecasting models.
The aim was to conciliate a high explanatory power with a low
number of easily obtained policy-relevant variables to forecast
ridership. The final model incorporated four independent variables,
of which three were related to the station’s catchment area
(number of workers, number of jobs, number of suburban bus
services) and one was related to the station characteristics (number
of lines passing through it).
The global model fit (OLS) gave R2 and adjusted R2 values of 0.57
and 0.56, respectively. Thus, over half the variability in the number
of passengers entering Metro network stations could be explained
using only four variables (Table 4). All of the independent variables
were significant at the 0.05 level, and their coefficients had the
expected signs. The variance inflation factor (VIF) e a measure of
redundancy among explanatory variables e of all predictors were
less than 2, suggesting that there were no multicollinearity prob-
lems among the explanatory variables (VIFs of 10 or higher may be
reason for concern [Mason, Gunst, & Hess, 1989; Neter, Wasserman,
& Kutner, 1989]). The F-statistic values and its associated p-value
showed the high statistical significance of the model.
554 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558
Nevertheless, the significance of the Koenker statistic (p-
value ¼ 0.0023) indicated biased standard errors due to hetero-
scedasticity. The significant p-value (0.000000) in the JarqueeBera
statistic showed that the residuals deviated from a normal
theoretical distribution. Likewise, the test results (global Moran’s
I and cluster analysis) indicated the presence of spatial
autocorrelation in the residuals (Figs. 3 and 4). Sufficient evidence
therefore existed for resorting to GWR.
The R2 and adjusted R2 obtained using GWR (0.73 and 0.70,
respectively) implied a considerable improvement with respect to
the OLS model (0.57 and 0.56, respectively). The AICc and param-
eter values (Sigma) related to model error were also lower (Table 5).
The residuals from both models were mapped in Fig. 3. The resid-
uals from the GWR model were smaller than those from the OLS
model, particularly in the peripheral lines.
Likewise, analysis of the residuals showed better results in the
GWR model than in the OLS model. This improvement could be
evaluated statistically from the data in Table 6, in which the
Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of residuals.
calculated value of the Moran’s I was closer to the expected value in
the GWR model. The GWR model also showed less variance and had
a greater likelihood of random distribution (p-value and Z-score).
The residuals of the OLS model in the cluster and significance maps
(Fig. 4) gave significantly high value clusters (both positive and
negative), whereas in the spatial model grouping was ruled out.
In addition, it was possible to determine the spatial variation of
the model’s explanatory power from the spatial distribution of local
fits produced with GWR. Fig. 5a shows that the model had a higher
predictive capacity in the center and the north than in the south.
This trend was particularly apparent in areas of low station density,
where the fittings for each station were heavily influenced by
a small number of neighboring stations. A high number of stations
had a local R2 higher than 0.71. On the other hand, condition
numbers that evaluated local collinearity were lower than 15.3 for
all stations (Fig. 5b). Multicollinearity is of great concern when
condition numbers are greater than 30, and results become
unstable in the presence of strong local collinearity.
 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558 555

Fig. 4. Spatial clusters of residuals in the OLS and GWR models.

With the GWR method, it was possible to analyze the spatial
variability of the local coefficients of independent variables (elas-
ticities) (Fig. 6a). For example, the mean of the elasticities from the
workers variable was 12.2. Thus, for each new worker within the
station catchment area, the number of trips increases by 12.2 each
month. However, these elasticities were higher (more trips per
worker) in the south than in the north. The southern region is of
low and medium-low social strata and depends heavily on public
transport, whereas the northern region is of high and medium-high
social strata and depends more on private transportation. On the
other side, the mean of the coefficients from the employment
variable was 7.49. However, more trips per job were expected in the
center and center-west, where jobs in commerce, administration
and education are concentrated. Elasticity values were higher in
areas where these types of jobs are concentrated, because they
attract a higher ratio of trips than other job-types, such as those in
industry. Thus, the spatial instability observed in relationships
could be explained by the fact that some relationships were
intrinsically different across space. However, the spatial variation of
the coefficients should be interpreted carefully. Some of the t-value
maps showed that the coefficients were not significant in some
areas at a 0.05 level (t-values lower than 1.96) (Fig. 6b).

Table 5
Estimated parameters and diagnostic statistics in both models.

OLS model GWR model

Variables Min. Max. Mean Std Desv.

Intercept 233283.245 252229.59 81629.73 181531.73 49688.93
Number of lines 306115.745 188054.54 317444.42 268099.52 30369.49
Workers 14.657960 3.60 30.02 12.20 6.77
Employment 7.073422 2.74 13.33 7.49 2.08
Suburban bus lines 1295.418463 833.07 11598.57 6097.50 3959.04

Diagnostic
R2 0.57 0.73
Adjusted R2 0.56 0.70
AIC/AICc 5157.68 5095.90
Number of parameters 5 24.49
Sigma (s) 180566.96 152398.96
Residual sum of squares 6031819380281.16 3925583198502.75
556 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558

Table 6 perspective of the four-step model, they allow for in-depth analysis
Global Moran’s I residuals test. of station environment. In addition, they evaluate the influence that
OLS GWR any changes in station environment (such as new residential or
Moran’s index 0.022755 0.020655 commercial development) will have on future transit ridership.
Expected index 0.005291 0.005291 This is due to the use of GIS as a tool for calculating these variables
Variance 0.000153 0.000149 and using spatial disaggregation methods that allow the station
z-score 2.264975 1.257582
environment to be studied in detail (what Cervero (2006) calls “a
p-value 0.023514 0.208543
fine grained approach”).
The incorporation of spatial statistical techniques (spatial
autocorrelation measures and GWR) into direct forecasting models
Final remarks is advantageous over the use of traditional statistical methods
(OLS). In the presence of spatial autocorrelation (which is usual in
Direct station-level transit ridership forecasting models have geographical data), the GWR model behaves more efficiently
advantages over the traditional four-step model, including because it considers spatial variations in the relationships between
rapid response, simplicity of use, ease of results interpretation, variables and obtains local parameters that more accurately reflect
low information requirements and low cost. Although it is true their influence on public transport use. Not only does the GWR
that direct station-level forecasting models lack the regional model usually have greater explanatory power than OLS, but it also

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of local R2 and condition numbers.

 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558 557

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of local coefficients (elasticities) and t-values (significance).

enables in-depth local analysis to be conducted because it uses
a locally adjusted regression equation for each observation.
Therefore, it is possible to know where the model has a better fit
(R2), how relations between the variables vary across space (esti-
mated coefficients) and with what statistical significance. Using the
variation of each coefficient across space (elasticities) provides
more realistic conclusions based on local analysis. New urban
development in the station environment may increase or decrease
the number of trips depending on where it is located. This knowl-
edge is of great assistance to political decision-makers because it
puts more realistic forecasts at their disposal. These models are
useful not only for determining the effects of land use policies on
station ridership, but also for providing an acceptable alternative to
the four-step model for forecasting ridership in new stations.
However, GWR is considered an exploratory method; therefore, all
of the inferences and statements derived from analysis should be
interpreted carefully.
Nevertheless, there are very few direct station-level ridership
forecasting models that incorporate the GWR method rather than
the OLS method. This study provides advantageous evidence for
considering local analysis in this type of model. The resulting model
is simple to use, has a rapid response and gives significant results.
558 O.D. Cardozo et al. / Applied Geography 34 (2012) 548e558
The coefficient of determination was dramatically higher for the
GWR model than for the OLS model. In addition, analysis of the
GWR model’s spatial distribution and elasticities provided
complementary and highly relevant information. These results
demonstrate some of the advantages of the proposed model and
argue in favor of its use in transport planning.
Acknowledgments
Funding from Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid,
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (project TRA2008-06682) and
Fundación Carolina is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Arbia, G., & Baltagi, B. H. (2009). Spatial econometrics. Methods and applications.
Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Bagheri, N., Holt, A., & Benwell, G. L. (2009). Using geographically weighted
regression to validate approaches for modelling accessibility to primary health
care. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 2, 177e194.
Blainey, S. P. (2010). Trip end models of local rail demand in England and Wales.
Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 153e165.
Blainey, S. P., & Preston, J. M. (2010). A geographically weighted regression based
analysis of rail commuting around Cardiff, South Wales. In Paper presented at
the 12th world conference on transportation research, Lisbon, Portugal.
Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A. S., & Charlton, M. E. (1996). Geographically weighted
regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Anal-
ysis, 28(4), 281e298.
Cahill, M., & Gordon, M. (2007). Using geographically weighted regression to
explore local crime patterns. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 174e193.
Cervero, R. (2006). Alternative approaches to modeling the travel-demand impacts
of smart growth. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 285e295.
Chakraborty, J., & Armstrong, M. (1997). Exploring the use of buffer analysis for the
identification of impacted areas in environmental equity assessment. Cartog-
raphy and Geographic Information Systems, 24(3), 145e157.
Chen, D.-R., & Truong, K. (2012). Using multilevel modeling and geographically
weighted regression to identify spatial variations in the relationship between
place-level disadvantages and obesity in Taiwan. Applied Geography, 32(2),
737e745.
Chow, L. F., Chi, H., & Zhao, F. (2010). Subregional transit ridership models based on
geographically weighted regression. In Paper presented at 89th annual meeting
of transportation research board, Paper #10e3810.
Chow, L. F., Zhao, F., Min-Tang, L., Liu, X., & Ubaka, I. (2006). Transit ridership model
based on geographically weighted regression. Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 1972, 105e114.
Chu, X. (2004). Ridership models at the stop level. National Center for Transit
Research, Florida Department of Transportation. Report N BC137e31.
Clark, S. D. (2007). Estimating local car ownership models. Journal of Transport
Geography, 15, 184e197.
Clark, W. A. V., & Hosking, P. L. (1986). Statistical methods for geographers. New York:
Wiley.
Clement, F., Orange, D., Williams, M., Mulley, C., & Epprecht, M. (2009). Drivers of
afforestation in Northern Vietnam: assessing local variations using geographi-
cally weighted regression. Applied Geography, 29(4), 561e576.
Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., & Charlton, M. E. (2002). Geographically weighted
regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Chichester: Wiley.
Fotheringham, A. S., Charlton, M., & Brunsdon, C. (1997). Measuring spatial varia-
tions in relationships with geographically weighted regression. In M. M. Fischer,
& A. Getis (Eds.), Recent developments in spatial analysis (pp. 60e82). Berlin:
Springer.
Fotheringham, A. S., Charlton, M., & Brunsdon, C. (1998). Geographically weighted
regression: a natural evolution of the expansion method for spatial data anal-
ysis. Environment and Planning A, 30, 1905e1927.
Gao, J., & Li, S. (2011). Detecting spatially non-stationary and scale-dependent
relationships between urban landscape fragmentation and related factors
using geographically weighted regression. Applied Geography, 31(1), 292e302.
Gutiérrez, J., Cardozo, O. D., & García-Palomares, J. C. (2011). Transit ridership
forecasting at station level: an approach based on distance-decay weighted
regression. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 1081e1092.
Hadayeghi, A., Shalaby, A. S., & Persaud, B. N. (2010). Development of planning level
transportation safety tools using geographically weighted poisson regression.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 676e688.
Haining, R. P. (2010). The nature of georeferenced data. In M. M. Fischer, & A. Getis
(Eds.), Handbook of applied spatial analysis. software tools, methods and appli-
cations (pp. 197e218). Berlin: Springer.
Hanham, R., & Spiker, J. S. (2005). Urban sprawl detection using satellite imagery
and geographically weighted regression. In R. R. Jensen, J. D. Gatrell, &
D. D. McLean (Eds.), Geo-spatial technologies in urban environments (pp.
137e151). Berlin: Springer.
Kobayashi, T., & Lane, B. (2007). Spatial heterogeneity and transit use. In Paper
presented at the 11th world conference on transportation research. USA: Berkeley.
Kuby, M., Barranda, A., & Upchurch, C. (2004). Factors influencing light-rail station
boardings in the United States. Transportation Research A, 38(3), 223e247.
Lloyd, C. D. (2010). Local models for spatial analysis. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Lloyd, C. D., & Shuttleworth, I. (2005). Analysing commuting using local regression
techniques: scale, sensitivity, and geographical patterning. Environment and
Planning A, 37(1), 81e103.
Luo, J., & Wei, Y. H. D. (2009). Modeling spatial variations of urban growth patterns
in Chinese cities: the case of Nanjing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(2),
51e64.
Malczewski, J., & Poetz, A. (2005). Residential burglaries and neighborhood socio-
economic context in London, Ontario: global and local regression analysis.
Professional Geographer, 57(4), 516e529.
Marshall, N., & Grady, B. (2006). Sketch transit modeling based on 2000 census
data. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1986, 182e189.
Mason, R. L., Gunst, R. F., & Hess, J. L. (1989). Statistical design and analysis of
experiments: Applications to engineering and science. New York: Wiley.
McNally, M. G. (2007). The four step model. In D. A. Hensher, & J. K. Button (Eds.),
Handbook of transport modeling (pp. 35e52). Oxford: Pergamon.
Mennis, J. (2006). Mapping the results of geographically weighted regression.
Cartographic Journal, 43(2), 171e179.
Mountain, D. M., Tsui, J. L. Y., & Raper, J. F. (2007). Modelling accessibility via
transportation networks based upon previous experience: a geographically
weighted regression approach. In Paper presented at the geocomputation 2007.
Ireland: Maynooth.
Murray, A. T. (2001). Strategic analysis of public transport coverage. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, 35, 175e188.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models.
Homewood: Irwin.
O’Neill, W. A., Ramsey, R. D., & Chou, J. (1992). Analysis of transit service areas using
geographic information systems. Transportation Research Record, 1364, 131e138.
Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y., Pearsall, H., & Rakshit, R. (2009). Concrete evidence &
geographically weighted regression: a regional analysis of wealth and the land
cover in Massachusetts. Applied Geography, 29(4), 478e487.
Ortúzar, J. D., & Willumsen, L. G. (2008). Modelos de transporte. Santander: PubliCan
Ediciones.
Páez, A. (2006). Exploring contextual variations in land use and transport analysis
using a probit model with geographical weights. Journal of Transport Geography,
14(3), 167e176.
Páez, A., Le Gallo, J., Buliung, R. N., & Dall’erba, S. (2010). Progress in spatial analysis.
Methods and applications. Heidelberg: Springer.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. (1996). Transit and urban form, Vol. 1. Washington DC, USA:
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, TCRP Report 16.
Pineda, N. B., Bosque-Sendra, J., Gómez-Delgado, M., & Franco, R. (2010). Exploring
the driving forces behind deforestation in the state of Mexico (Mexico) using
geographically weighted regression. Applied Geography, 30(4), 576e591.
de Smith, M. J., Goodchild, M. F., & Longley, P. A. (2009). Geospatial analysis. A
comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. Leicester:
Matador.
Tu, J. (2011). Spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality
across an urbanization gradient explored by geographically weighted regres-
sion. Applied Geography, 31(1), 376e392.
Tu, J., & Guo, X. (2008). Examining spatially varying relationships between land use
and water quality using geographically weighted regression I: model design
and evaluation. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 358e378.
Walters, G., & Cervero, R. (2003). Forecasting transit demand in a fast growing
corridor: The direct-ridership model approach. Fehrs and Peers Associates.
Zhang, L., & Shi, H. (2004). Local modeling of tree growth by geographically
weighted regression. Forest Science, 50(2), 225.
Zhang, P., Wong, D. W., So, K. L., & Lin, H. (2012). An exploratory spatial analysis of
western medical services in Republican Beijing. Applied Geography, 32(2),
556e565.
Zhao, F., & Park, N. (2004). Using geographically weighted regression models to
estimate annual average daily traffic. Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1879, 99e107.