4.6 Article

Identifying regions based on flexible user-defined constraints

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2013.848986

关键词

regionalization; max-p; regions; functional regions; tabu search

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1132008, CNS-0821794]
  2. University of Colorado Boulder
  3. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1132008] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The identification of regions is both a computational and conceptual challenge. Even with growing computational power, regionalization algorithms must rely on heuristic approaches in order to find solutions. Therefore, the constraints and evaluation criteria that define a region must be translated into an algorithm that can efficiently and effectively navigate the solution space to find the best solution. One limitation of many existing regionalization algorithms is a requirement that the number of regions be selected a priori. The recently introduced max-p algorithm does not have this requirement, and thus the number of regions is an output of, not an input to, the algorithm. In this paper, we extend the max-p algorithm to allow for greater flexibility in the constraints available to define a feasible region, placing the focus squarely on the multidimensional characteristics of the region. We also modify technical aspects of the algorithm to provide greater flexibility in its ability to search the solution space. Using synthetic spatial and attribute data, we are able to show the algorithm's broad ability to identify regions in maps of varying complexity. We also conduct a large-scale computational experiment to identify parameter settings that result in the greatest solution accuracy under various scenarios. The rules of thumb identified from the experiment produce maps that correctly assign areas to their true' region with 94% average accuracy, with nearly 50% of the simulations reaching 100% accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据