An empirically based implementation and evaluation of a hierarchical model for commuting flows

Geographical Analysis

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 267-287

  Gitlesen, Jens Petter ^a   Kleppe, Gisle ^b   Thorsen, Inge ^b   Ubøe, Jan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER   (Norway)

^b WESTERN NORWAY UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Norway)

^c NORWEGIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS; BENCHMARKING; CALIBRATION; COMMUTING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION METHOD; JOURNEY TO WORK; LOCATION DECISION; MODEL VALIDATION; NETWORK ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;

NORWAY;

EID: 77955143670     PISSN: 00167363     EISSN: 15384632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.2010.00793.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anselin L, Smirnov O. Efficient Algorithms for Constructing Proper Higher Order Spatial Lag Operators. Journal of Regional Science 1996, 36:67-89.
2. Barkley D L, Henry M S, Bao S, Brooks K R. How Functional Are Economic Areas? Tests for Intra-regional Spatial Association Using Spatial Data Analysis. Papers in Regional Science 1995, 74:297-316.
3. Bregman L M. The Relaxation Method of Finding the Common Point of Convex Sets and its Application to the Solution of Problems in Convex Programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1967, 7:200-17.
4. Curry L. A Spatial Analysis of Gravity Flows. Regional Studies 1972, 6:131-47.
5. Daly A, Bierlaire M. A General and Operational Representation of Generalised Extreme Value models. Transportation Research Part B 2006, 40:285-305.
6. Elhorst J P, Oosterhaven J. Forecasting the Impact of Transport Improvements on Commuting and Residential Choice. Journal of Geographical Systems 2006, 8:39-59.
7. Erlander S, Stewart N F. The Gravity Model in Transportation Analysis-Theory and Extensions 1990, Utrecht, The Netherlands, VSP
8. Fotheringham A S. Spatial Structure and Distance-Decay Parameters. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1981, 71:425-36.
9. Fotheringham A S. A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations. Environment and Planning A 1983, 15:15-36.
10. Fotheringham A S. Modelling Hierarchical Destination Choice. Environment and Planning A 1986, 18:401-18.
11. Fotheringham A S. Consumer Store Choice and Choice-Set Definition. Marketing Science 1988, 7:299-310.
12. Gitlesen JP, Thorsen I. A Competing Destinations Approach to Modeling Commuting Flows: A Theoretical Interpretation and an Empirical Application of the Model. Environment and Planning A 2000, 32:2057-74.
13. Hansen W G. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 1959, 25:73-76.
14. Holt D, Steel D G, Tranmer M, Wrigley N. Aggregation and Ecological Effects in Geographically Based Data. Geographical Analysis 1996, 28:244-61.
15. Jörnsten K, Thorsen I, Ubøe J. Replication/Prediction Problems in the Journey-to-Work. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:347-64.
16. Knudsen C D, Fotheringham A S. Matrix Comparison, Goodness-of-Fit and Spatial Interaction Modeling. International Regional Science Review 1986, 10:127-47.
17. Liaw K-L. Joint Effects of Personal Factors and Ecological Variables on the Interprovincial Migration Pattern of Young-Adults in Canada: A Nested Logit Analysis. Geographical Analysis 1990, 22:189-208.
18. Liaw K-L, Kanaroglou P, Moffett P. Metropolitan Outmigration Pattern of Canadian Labour Force Entrants, 1971-1976. The Canadian Geographer 1986, 30:229-42.
19. Liaw K-L, Ledent J. Nested Logit Model and Maximum Quasi-Likelihood Method. Regional Science and Urban Economics 1987, 17:67-88.
20. Lo L. Substitutability, Spatial Structure, and Spatial Interaction. Geographical Analysis 1991, 23:133-46.
21. Manski C F. The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision 1977, 8:229-54.
22. Nelder J A, Mead R. A Simplex Method for Function Minimization. Computer Journal 1965, 7:308-13.
23. Paelinck J H, Nijkamp P. Operational Theory and Method in Regional Economics 1975, London, Saxon House, D.C. Heath Limited
24. Pellegrini P A, Fotheringham A S. Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples. Environment and Planning A 1999, 31:1093-118.
25. Pellegrini P A, Fotheringham A S, Lin G. An Empirical Evaluation of Parameter Sensitivity to Choice Set Definition in Shopping Destination Choice Models. Papers in Regional Science 1997, 76:257-84.
26. Sen A, Smith T. Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction Behavior 1995, Berlin, Springer-Verlag
27. Sheppard E. Theoretical Underpinnings of the Gravity Hypothesis. Geographical Analysis 1978, 10:386-402.
28. Sheppard E. Gravity Parameter Estimation. Geographical Analysis 1979, 11:120-32.
29. Thill J-C. Choice Set Formation for Destination Choice Modelling. Progress in Human Geography 1992, 16:361-82.
30. Thill J-C, Horowitz J L. Travel-Time Constraints on Destination-Choice Sets. Geographical Analysis 1997, 29:108-23.
31. Thorsen I, Gitlesen J P. Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Model Specifications to Predict Commuting Flows. Journal of Regional Science 1998, 38:273-92.
32. Thorsen I, Ubøe J, Nævdal G. A Network Approach to Commuting. Journal of Regional Science 1999, 39:73-101.
33. Ubøe J. Aggregation of Gravity Models for Journeys-to-Work. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:715-29.
34. Wen C H, Koppelman F S. The Generalized Nested Logit Model. Transportation Research Part B 2001, 35:627-41.
35. Wilson A G. Land-Use/Transport Interaction Models. Past and Future. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1998, 32:3-26.