Some simple criteria for comparing the spatial systems that are used in different applications of doubly constrained interaction models are described and their usefulness is demonstrated by a comparative analysis of four models drawn from British, Dutch, and German sources. The influence that spatial representation has on the performance of the models is also examined and considerable differences are found between the four case studies. These effect the separate interpretability of the endogenously predicted variables and the rate at which the convergence criteria are satisfied.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BattyM, 1972“Recent developments in land use modelling: A review of British research”Urban Studies9155–177
BaxterRWilliamsI, 1973“The third stage in disaggregating the residential submodel” WP-66, Land Use and Built Form Studies, Cambridge, England
4.
BeardwoodJ EKirbyH R, 1975“Zone definition and the gravity model—the separability, excludability and compressibility properties”Transport Research9363–369
5.
CliffA DMartinR LOrdJ K, 1974“Evaluating the friction of distance parameter in gravity models”Regional Studies8281–286
GoldnerW, 1971“The Lowry model heritage”Journal of the American Institute of Planners37100–110
8.
HymanG, 1969“The calibration of trip distribution models”Environment and Planning1105–112
9.
KirbyH R, 1970“Normalizing factors of the gravity model—an interpretation”Transport Research437–50
10.
MasserI, 1971“Possible applications of the Lowry model”Planning Outlook1146–59
11.
MasserI, 1972Analytical Models for Urban and Regional Planning (David and Charles, Newton Abbot, Devon)
12.
MasserI, 1973“Alternative approach to the specification of the single term gravity model”Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Liverpool (mimeo)
13.
MasserIBateyP W JBrownP J B, 1975“The design of zoning systems for interaction models” in London Papers in Regional Science 5. Regional Science: New Concepts and Old Problems (Pion, London)
14.
MasserIBrownP J B, 1977“Spatial representation and spatial interaction”Papers of the Regional Science Association38
15.
MasserIScheurwaterJ, 1976“Spatial interaction in the Amersfoort region: A systems analysis”Annals of Systems Research581–112
16.
PutmanS, 1976Laboratory Testing of Predictive Land Use Models: Some ComparisonsOffice of Systems Analysis and Information, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
17.
SwerdloffC NStowersJ R, 1966“A test of some first generation residential land use models”Highway Research Record12638–59
