Sparse spatially clustered coefficient model via adaptive regularization.

Large spatial datasets with many spatial covariates have become ubiquitous in many fields in recent years. A question of interest is to identify which covariates are likely to influence a spatial response, and whether and how the effects of these covariates vary across space, including potential abrupt changes from region to region. To solve this question, a new efficient regularized spatially clustered coefficient (RSCC) regression approach is proposed, which could achieve variable selection and identify latent spatially heterogeneous covariate effects with clustered patterns simultaneously. By carefully designing the regularization term of RSCC as a chain graph guided fusion penalty plus a group lasso penalty, the RSCC model is computationally efficient for large spatial datasets while still achieving the theoretical guarantees for estimation. RSCC also adopts the idea of adaptive learning to allow for adaptive weights and adaptive graphs in its regularization terms and further improves the estimation performance. RSCC is applied to study the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines using county-level data in the United States and discover the determinants of vaccination acceptance with varying effects across counties, revealing important within-state and across-state spatially clustered patterns of covariates effects.

Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States.

Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change, the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate. And yet previous studies of the mass public's subjective assessments of the risks of global warming and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces-informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy-are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate change in particular.