{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02213666987487969, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008662175168431183, 'mean_word_length': 5.842105263157895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HOW FUNCTIONAL ARE ECONOMIC AREAS? TESTS FOR INTRA‐REGIONAL SPATIAL ASSOCIATION USING SPATIAL DATA ANALYSIS

Spatial associations within eight Southeastern Functional Economic Areas were investigated using three spatial data analysis techniques (Moran's L. G2(d) statistic and local Moran) and 1980 to 1990 population change at the country and census tract levels. Core hinterland relationships in EEAs were categorized as spread through growth, spread through decentralization, backwards or independent, based on intra regional patterns of spatial association. Findings indicate that all four of the spread backwash typologies were evident among the eight economic regions. Yet, spatial association with the core (spread or backwash) generally was limited to hinterland areas at the core's range. Spatial dependence between core and hinterland areas declined with distance from the economic region's core area. For many rural locations, changes in economic activity are independent of economic development experiences in nearby locations.