Defining polycentric urban areas through commuting cohesion in France

Methods for Multilevel Analysis and Visualisation of Geographical Networks

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 189-206

  Tissandier, Patrice ^a   Quang, Trung Tien Phan ^b   Archambault, Daniel ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949865752     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6677-8_12     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Aguilera, A., & Mignot, D. (2004). Urban sprawl, polycentrism and commuting. A comparison of seven french urban areas. Urban Public Economic Review, 1, 93-113.
2. Auber, D. (2003). Tulip - a huge graph visualization framework. In P. Mutzel, & M. Jünger (Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 105-126). Berlin/New York: Springer.
3. Auber, D., Chiricota, Y., Jourdan, F., & Melançon, G. (2003). Multiscale navigation of small world networks. In Ieee symposium on information visualisation (pp. 75-81). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
4. Berroir, S., Mathian, H., & Saint-Julien, T. (2002). Déplacements domicile-travail: vers le polycentrisme. INSEE Ile-de-France Regards, 54, 5-8.
5. Berroir, S., Mathian, H., Saint-Julien, T., & Sanders, L. (2004). Mobilités et polarisations: vers des métropoles polycentriques. Le cas des métropoles francilienne et méditerranéenne (Etude dans le cadre du programme de recherche Mobilité et territoires urbains). UMR 8504 Géographiecités.
6. Binder, J., Haag, G., & Rabino, G. (2003). Analysis and modelling of commuters flows: Application to the regions of Stuttgart and Turin. Jahrbuch der Regionalwissenschaften, 23, 117-139.
7. Bonnefoy, J., Pumain, D., & Rozenblat, C. (1996). Théorie des graphes et interactions non gravitaires. In Bocquet-Appel, D. Courgeau, & D. Pumain (Eds.), Analyse spatiale des données biodémographiques (pp. 171-186). John Libbey/Ined Collection, 367p.
8. Bourne, L. (1989). Are new urban forms emerging? Empirical tests for Canadian urban areas. The Canadian Geographer, 33(4), 312-328.
9. Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163-177.
10. Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey. Transportation research A, 30(5), 361-377.
11. Cervero, R., & Wu, K. (1997). Polycentrism, commuting and residential location in the San Francisco Bay area. Environment and Planning A, 29, 865-886.
12. Giuliano, G., & Small, A. (1991). Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2(21), 163-182.
13. Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. (1996). Beyond policentricity. The dispersed metropolis, Los Angeles, 1970-1990. Journal of The American Planning Association, 62(3), 289-295.
14. Guimerà, R., Mossa, S., Turtschi, A., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). The worldwide air transportation network: Anomalous centrality, community structure, and cities’ global roles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(22), 7794-7799.
15. Melançon, G., Trung Tien, P. Q., Tissandier, P., & Chiricota, Y. (2008). Visual exploration of (French) commuter networks. Geovisualization of dynamics, movement, and change AGILE’08 satellile workshop, Spain.
16. Nijkamp, P. (1975). Reflections on gravity and entropy models. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 5, 203-225.
17. Patuelli, R., Reggiani, A., Gorman, S. P., Nijkamp, P., & Bade, F. J. (2007). Network analysis of commuting flows: A comparative static approach to German data. Network and Spatial Economics, 7(4), 315-331.
18. Pumain, D. (2001). Les interactions spatiales: flux et changements dans l’espace géographique. Paris: A. Colin.
19. Rozenblat, C., & Tissandier, P. (2007). Commuters graphs and cities’ polycentric cohesion. In European Colloquium of Geographical and Quantitative Geography, Montreux - Switzerland.
20. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F. M., & Dijst, M. (2001). Travel behavior in Dutch monocentric and polycentric urban systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 9, 173-186.
21. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F. M., & Dijst, M. (2002). The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands, a multilevel approach. In 42nd ERSA Congress, Dortmund, 27-31 August.
22. Sen, A., & Smith, T. (1995). Gravity models of spatial interaction behavior. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
23. Shen, G. (1999). Estimating nodal attractions with exogenous spatial interaction and impedance data using the gravity model. Papers in Regional Science, 78, 213-220.
24. Sultana, S. (2000). Some effects of employment centers on commuting times in the Atlanta metropolitan area, 1990. Southeastern Geographer, XXXXXI(2), 225-233.
25. Talbot, J. (2001). Les déplacements domicile travail. De plus en plus d’actifs travaillent loin de chez eux. Insee Première, 767, April 2001.