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 Unit Roots and Spurious Regression

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

Spatial Regression Models: A Systematic Comparison of Different Model Specifications Using Monte Carlo Experiments

Spurious Factors In Data With Local-To-Unit Roots

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

On spurious regressions with partial unit root processes

Effects of Intrinsic Sources of Spatial Autocorrelation on Spatial Regression Modelling

A Command for Estimating Spatial-Autoregressive Models with Spatial-Autoregressive Disturbances and Additional Endogenous Variables

Cointegration without Unit Roots

Estimation for spatial dynamic panel data with fixed effects: The case of spatial cointegration

Spatial confounding under infill asymptotics

Spatial+: a novel approach to spatial confounding

Estimating spatial autoregressions under heteroskedasticity without searching for instruments

A Design-Based Approach to Spatial Correlation

Spatial Homogeneity Pursuit of Regression Coefficients for Large Datasets

Near Unit Root in the Spatial Autoregressive Model

Spatial Autocorrelation Approaches to Testing Residuals from Least Squares Regression.

Generalized Spatial and Spatiotemporal ARCH Models

Identifying spatial interdependence in panel data with large N and small T

Huber Loss Meets Spatial Autoregressive Model: A Robust Variable Selection Method with Prior Information

Spatially Clustered Regression