Year Published
2005
Abstract
Increasingly, U.S. metropolitan areas are polycentric. While this is well recognized, there is lit-
tle consensus as to the appropriate method for identifying centers of employment and their extent.
Discussions of sprawl and decentralization, agglomeration and productivity, and the impacts of
transportation or land-use regulation on urban structure depend crucially on the spatial account-
ing of employment within a metropolitan area. Existing methods for subcenter identi¯cation su®er
from strong assumptions about parametric form, misspeci¯cation, or reliance on local knowledge to
calibrate model parameters. Using data from the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, this paper
introduces a nonparametric method for identifying subcenters { both their centroids and bound-
aries. This method is benchmarked against representative alternatives for subcenter identi¯cation.
The importance of the di®erence in approaches is made clear by comparing their measured con-
centration of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Results indicate that this, more °exible,
nonparametric approach yields both greater accuracy in de¯ning subcenter boundaries and better
resolution identifying a wide range of subcenters. These attributes should better inform research
that employs density as an independent or dependent variable.
tle consensus as to the appropriate method for identifying centers of employment and their extent.
Discussions of sprawl and decentralization, agglomeration and productivity, and the impacts of
transportation or land-use regulation on urban structure depend crucially on the spatial account-
ing of employment within a metropolitan area. Existing methods for subcenter identi¯cation su®er
from strong assumptions about parametric form, misspeci¯cation, or reliance on local knowledge to
calibrate model parameters. Using data from the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, this paper
introduces a nonparametric method for identifying subcenters { both their centroids and bound-
aries. This method is benchmarked against representative alternatives for subcenter identi¯cation.
The importance of the di®erence in approaches is made clear by comparing their measured con-
centration of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Results indicate that this, more °exible,
nonparametric approach yields both greater accuracy in de¯ning subcenter boundaries and better
resolution identifying a wide range of subcenters. These attributes should better inform research
that employs density as an independent or dependent variable.
Research Category