Abstract:1. Detecting and dealing with spatial autocorrelation (SA) are indispensable steps in analyses of geospatial data. Despite consensus that SA originates from both extrinsic factors and intrinsic interactions, previous studies on regression analysis of spatially autocorrelated data have rarely controlled for intrinsic sources in addition to extrinsic ones to assess ceteris paribus (i.e. causal) effects of interest, with the strict exogeneity assumption that errors containing unexplained variance are uncorrelated with explanatory variables for all observations. This assumption becomes invalid when intrinsic SA is not an external process modelled as errors and needs to be controlled for. 2. Here, we aimed to assess the extent to which not controlling for intrinsic SA negatively affects model performance, specifically in terms of type I error rate and unbiasedness of coefficient estimates, and to identify models that are able to handle these problems. To this end, we applied two categories of regression models that do (intrinsic category) or do not (extrinsic category) explicitly control for intrinsic SA to artificial data generated with both SA sources. These models included the extended spatial Durbin model (ESDM) and its nested models. Four analytic scenarios simulated modelling conditions with increasing complexity of variables omitted during modelling. The two more complex scenarios involved additional violations of strict exogeneity. 3. We found that intrinsic-just as extrinsic-SA can produce incorrect type I error rates, if not explicitly controlled for. Failing to control for intrinsic SA also generated bias in estimates of ceteris paribus effects. However, ESDM from the intrinsic category exhibited consistently good performance in dealing with intrinsic SA across all the scenarios, but suffered other violations of strict exogeneity. 4. Overall, model specification should control for both extrinsic and intrinsic processes generating SA in spatial data to provide reliable type I error rates and unbiased estimates of ceteris paribus effects. Given the likely widespread occurrence in observational spatial data of unknown or unmeasurable processes, ESDM should be a generally preferred starting point to explore the optimal model specification for estimating ceteris paribus effects, with due caution to other violations of strict exogeneity.

Spatial Nonstationarity and Spurious Regression: the Case with a Row-normalized Spatial Weights Matrix

Local Linear M‐estimation in Non‐parametric Spatial Regression

Spatial Unit Roots and Spurious Regression

Specification Test for Spatial Autoregressive Models

Spatial local M-estimation under association

A NAIVE LEAST SQUARES METHOD FOR SPATIAL AUTOREGRESSION WITH COVARIATES

Spatial confounding under infill asymptotics

Testing spatial heteroscedasticity in mixed geographically weighted regression models

A goodness-of-fit test for regression models with spatially correlated errors

Spatial Autocorrelation Approaches to Testing Residuals from Least Squares Regression.

Statistica Sinica Preprint No : SS-2017-0135 Title A Naive Least Squares Method for Spatial Autoregression with Covariates

On spurious regressions with partial unit root processes

Near Unit Root in the Spatial Autoregressive Model

Autoregressive Model with Spatial Dependence and Missing Data

With random regressors, least squares inference is robust to correlated errors with unknown correlation structure

Sparse Generalized Yule-Walker Estimation for Large Spatio-temporal Autoregressions with an Application to NO2 Satellite Data

Estimating spatial autoregressions under heteroskedasticity without searching for instruments

Effects of Intrinsic Sources of Spatial Autocorrelation on Spatial Regression Modelling

A parametric specification test for linear spatial autoregressive models

When Space Matters: Spatial Dependence, Diagnostics, and Regression Models