i). Equation (5) measures how well the macro-level assessment performs for disaggregated level, for local effects (i.e. I(y; n)).
ii). The paper mentions some of the fastest growing cities in the US displaying the highest measures of I(y;n).
Question: Can the model be taken further to explore if there is a relationship between I(y;n) and the rate of change at macro- or local/neighborhood level? How so? (Faster change associated with higher I(y;n) (?)) Or are the cases of Detroit, etc. non-generalizable to the model, i.e. just anecdotal incidences in applying the model to US metro areas?
i). Equation (5) measures how well the macro-level assessment performs for disaggregated level, for local effects (i.e. I(y; n)). ii). The paper mentions some of the fastest growing cities in the US displaying the highest measures of I(y;n).
Question: Can the model be taken further to explore if there is a relationship between I(y;n) and the rate of change at macro- or local/neighborhood level? How so? (Faster change associated with higher I(y;n) (?)) Or are the cases of Detroit, etc. non-generalizable to the model, i.e. just anecdotal incidences in applying the model to US metro areas?