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 |