Abstract

This paper extends a spatial microsimulation model to test how the model behaves after adding different constraints, and how results using univariate constraint tables rather than multivariate constraint tables compare. This paper also tests how well non-Capital city households from a survey can estimate areas within capital cities. Using all households available in Australian survey means that the spatial microsimulation method has more households to choose from to represent the constraints in the area being estimated. In theory, this should improve the fit of the model. However, a household from another area may not be representative of households in the area being estimated. We found that, in the case that the estimated statistics is already closely related to the benchmarks used, adding a number of benchmarks had little effect on the number of areas where estimates couldnt be made, and had little effect on the accuracy of our estimates in areas where estimates could be made. However, the advantage of using more benchmarks was that the weights can be used to estimate a wider variety of outcome variables. We also found that more complex bi-variate benchmarks gave better results compared to simpler univariate benchmarks; and that using a specific sub-sample of observations from a survey gave better results in smaller capital cities in Australia (Adelaide and Perth).

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.