BTS | Table 2 - Input Parameters for 38 Trial Cluster Analyses on Land-Use Distress

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) - Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) - United States Department of Transportation (USDOT, US DOT or DOT)

ABOUT RITA | CONTACT US | PRESS ROOM | CAREERS | SITE MAP

Data and Statistics

Bookstore

Programs

About BTS

Upcoming Press Releases

External Links

BTS Home > Publications > Journal of Transportation and Statistics > Volume 4 Number 1 > Paper 3

Table 2 - Input Parameters for 38 Trial Cluster Analyses on Land-Use Distress

Excel | CSV

Case	Distance	Linage	Standardization	No. of clusters	Comments
1	Euclidean	Single	None	20	Produced single large clusters of over 300 districts with no cluster larger than 5 districts; chaining effect took place
2	Euclidean	Single	None	15	Produced single large clusters of over 300 districts with no cluster larger than 5 districts; chaining effect took place
3	Euclidean	Single	None	25	Produced single large clusters of over 300 districts with no cluster larger than 5 districts; chaining effect took place
4	Euclidean	Average	None	20	Smaller main clusters and larger minor clusters but not much diversity in residential scenarios
5	Euclidean	Average	None	30	Smaller main clusters and larger minor clusters but not much diversity in residential scenarios
6	Euclidean	Average	None	18	Smaller main clusters and larger minor clusters but not much diversity in residential scenarios
7	Euclidean	Centroid	None	20	Relatively poor distribution of cluster sizes and poor diversity in residential scenarios
8	Euclidean	Centroid	None	30	Relatively poor distribution of cluster sizes and poor diversity in residential scenarios
9	Euclidean	Complete	None	20	Somewhat more diversity in residential scenarios
10	Euclidean	Complete	None	17	Somewhat more diversity in residential scenarios
11	Euclidean	McQuitty	None	20	Little diversity in residential scenarios
12	Euclidean	Median	None	20	Large mega-cluster, like with single linkage
13	Euclidean	Ward	None	20	Relatively equal cluster sizes; good diversity
14	Pearson	Average	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created mega-clusters; Manhattan seemed almost as good as Euclidean; Squared Euclidean was nearly identical to Euclidean
15	Manhattan	Average	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created mega-clusters; Manhattan seemed almost as good as Euclidean; Squared Euclidean was nearly identical to Euclidean
16	Sq. Euclidean	Average	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created mega-clusters; Manhattan seemed almost as good as Euclidean; Squared Euclidean was nearly identical to Euclidean
17	Sq. Pearson	Average	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created mega-clusters; Manhattan seemed almost as good as Euclidean; Squared Euclidean was nearly identical to Euclidean
18	Pearson	Complete	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created identical mega-clusters; Manhattan created slightly more diversity than Euclidean; Squared Euclidean identical with Euclidean
19	Manhattan	Complete	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created identical mega-clusters; Manhattan created slightly more diversity than Euclidean; Squared Euclidean identical with Euclidean
20	Sq. Euclidean	Complete	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created identical mega-clusters; Manhattan created slightly more diversity than Euclidean; Squared Euclidean identical with Euclidean
21	Sq. Pearson	Complete	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson linkages created identical mega-clusters; Manhattan created slightly more diversity than Euclidean; Squared Euclidean identical with Euclidean
22	Pearson	McQuitty	None	20	Changing the distance measure has similar effects as with average and complete linkages
23	Manhattan	McQuitty	None	20	Changing the distance measure has similar effects as with average and complete linkages
24	Sq. Euclidean	McQuitty	None	20	Changing the distance measure has similar effects as with average and complete linkages
25	Sq. Pearson	McQuitty	None	20	Changing the distance measure has similar effects as with average and complete linkages
26	Pearson	Ward	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson produced slightly less diversity in residential and agricultural scenarios; Squared Euclidean lumped agricultural scenarios together; Manhattan similar to Euclidean
27	Manhattan	Ward	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson produced slightly less diversity in residential and agricultural scenarios; Squared Euclidean lumped agricultural scenarios together; Manhattan similar to Euclidean
28	Sq. Euclidean	Ward	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson produced slightly less diversity in residential and agricultural scenarios; Squared Euclidean lumped agricultural scenarios together; Manhattan similar to Euclidean
29	Sq. Pearson	Ward	None	20	Pearson and Squared Pearson produced slightly less diversity in residential and agricultural scenarios; Squared Euclidean lumped agricultural scenarios together; Manhattan similar to Euclidean
30	Sq. Euclidian	Ward	Z-scores	20	Similar diversity to case without standardization (case 28) but oddly distributed variables better represented
31	Euclidean	Complete	Z-scores	20	Much poorer diversity than in case 9
32	Euclidean	Average	Z-scores	20	Forms mega-cluster; worse than case 4
33	Euclidean	Ward	Z-scores	20	More diverse in some areas than with case 13
34	Sq. Euclidean	Ward	Z-scores	30	Improved diversity over case 30
35	Euclidean	Ward	Z-scores	30	More diverse than case 33
36	Euclidean	Ward	None	30	Similar diversity to case 35 but oddly distributed variables like R3, R4 not as well represented
37	Euclidean	Ward	Scaled percentages	30	Oddly distributed variables well-represented but not enough of an improvement in variable bounds
38	Sq. Euclidean	Ward	Z-scores	35	Number of clusters increase to 35 to separate a few odd groupings