Abstract
In the previous articles in this series, the problem of calibrating residential location models has been extensively discussed. The discussion has been exclusively devoted to what may be termed trip-end calibration procedures. This was largely the result of the available data sets and the focus on multivariate multiparametric attractiveness functions. Most other authors dealt with what may be called trip-interchange calibration. This article presents a comparison of the two calibration approaches. With the use of artificial data sets to avoid obfuscation of the results, a series of calibrations were done by both techniques on thirty randomly perturbed versions of the same data set. The results show that both calibration approaches yield the same parameter values but the variances of the estimates are greater for trip-end calibration than for trip-interchange calibration. Some implications for practical application are discussed, with particular reference to the problem of consistency of trip-end and trip-interchange data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.