Ribution of the population across sampling stratum. The L.A.FANS over-represents high-poverty neighborhoods in both years. The chosen neighborhoods of respondents were 29 high-poverty in Year 1 and 30 high poverty in Year 2 (when the data were collected). In contrast, only 9 of Los Angeles County neighborhoods were high-poverty during this period. The sample distribution more accurately represents the population one year prior to the survey date because individuals could, in principle, live in any Los Angeles neighborhood during this period rather than only in one of the 65 sampled neighborhoods. The Manski-Lerman weights, which are the ratio of the population fractions to the sampled fractions in each stratum, are shown in column 3. The weights correct for over and underrepresentativeness of sampled neighborhoods. The weights enter our discrete choice models using the “importance weights” option in Stata. Large Number of Choices–Table 5 shows the distribution of mobility decisions over years and race-ethnicity of respondents. The 1627 CPI-455 solubility occupied Census tracts in Los Angeles (based on the 1990 Census) are potential destinations in each of 4,508 sample mobility decisions, resulting in an effective sample size of 1,627 ?4,508 = 7,324,754 person-yearoptions, far too many observations for a tractable analysis. Thus, we sample from the alternatives within each respondent’s choice set with probability 1.0 for chosen alternatives and 0.05 for unchosen alternatives. This produces the smaller number of person-year-options shown in the bottom panel of Table 5. The models include the correction factor, -ln(qij), for each alternative in each respondent’s choice set, where qij is the probability that the alternative is sampled, taking a value of -ln(1.0) = 0 if the alternative was chosen by the respondent and -ln(0.05) = 3 if the alternative was not chosen Definition of the Choice Set and Aggregation of Choices–When people choose where to live, they select a specific housing unit within a neighborhood. However, our observations consist of moves within and between Census tracts, rather than actual dwelling units. Thus, we add a term to our models, ln Mj, where Mj is the number of housing units in the jth Census tract, to take account of between-tract variation in the number of potential destinations. In measuring within-tract mobility opportunities this way, we assume that the fraction of dwelling units that are in fact available to the respondent is invariant across tracts. With more detailed data on housing vacancies, it may be possible to relax this assumption. We do not know the variation in housing desirability within each tract, and thus estimate a discrete choice model similar to Equation 4.2, but omitting the term Bj. Models of Residential Choice–We estimate conditional logit models that incorporate the effects of individuals’ personal characteristics and the characteristics of neighborhoods to which they might move, Alvocidib web assuming that the choice set of each individual is all census tracts in Los Angeles County. We allow for the possibility that respondents evaluate their current location differently from other potential destinations, by including a dummy variable Dij, that equals 1 when destination j is the neighborhood currently occupied by respondent i, and 0 otherwise. The model, which can be written asNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript(7.1)incorporates terms for sampling the choice set, -lnqij, for.Ribution of the population across sampling stratum. The L.A.FANS over-represents high-poverty neighborhoods in both years. The chosen neighborhoods of respondents were 29 high-poverty in Year 1 and 30 high poverty in Year 2 (when the data were collected). In contrast, only 9 of Los Angeles County neighborhoods were high-poverty during this period. The sample distribution more accurately represents the population one year prior to the survey date because individuals could, in principle, live in any Los Angeles neighborhood during this period rather than only in one of the 65 sampled neighborhoods. The Manski-Lerman weights, which are the ratio of the population fractions to the sampled fractions in each stratum, are shown in column 3. The weights correct for over and underrepresentativeness of sampled neighborhoods. The weights enter our discrete choice models using the “importance weights” option in Stata. Large Number of Choices–Table 5 shows the distribution of mobility decisions over years and race-ethnicity of respondents. The 1627 occupied Census tracts in Los Angeles (based on the 1990 Census) are potential destinations in each of 4,508 sample mobility decisions, resulting in an effective sample size of 1,627 ?4,508 = 7,324,754 person-yearoptions, far too many observations for a tractable analysis. Thus, we sample from the alternatives within each respondent’s choice set with probability 1.0 for chosen alternatives and 0.05 for unchosen alternatives. This produces the smaller number of person-year-options shown in the bottom panel of Table 5. The models include the correction factor, -ln(qij), for each alternative in each respondent’s choice set, where qij is the probability that the alternative is sampled, taking a value of -ln(1.0) = 0 if the alternative was chosen by the respondent and -ln(0.05) = 3 if the alternative was not chosen Definition of the Choice Set and Aggregation of Choices–When people choose where to live, they select a specific housing unit within a neighborhood. However, our observations consist of moves within and between Census tracts, rather than actual dwelling units. Thus, we add a term to our models, ln Mj, where Mj is the number of housing units in the jth Census tract, to take account of between-tract variation in the number of potential destinations. In measuring within-tract mobility opportunities this way, we assume that the fraction of dwelling units that are in fact available to the respondent is invariant across tracts. With more detailed data on housing vacancies, it may be possible to relax this assumption. We do not know the variation in housing desirability within each tract, and thus estimate a discrete choice model similar to Equation 4.2, but omitting the term Bj. Models of Residential Choice–We estimate conditional logit models that incorporate the effects of individuals’ personal characteristics and the characteristics of neighborhoods to which they might move, assuming that the choice set of each individual is all census tracts in Los Angeles County. We allow for the possibility that respondents evaluate their current location differently from other potential destinations, by including a dummy variable Dij, that equals 1 when destination j is the neighborhood currently occupied by respondent i, and 0 otherwise. The model, which can be written asNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript(7.1)incorporates terms for sampling the choice set, -lnqij, for.
Posted inUncategorized