Much current interest in spatial interaction modeling centres around solving the Harris–Wilson equilibrium model. In this paper the role of different attractiveness functions is explored and some counterintuitive results presented and explained.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkeGClarkeMWilsonA G, 1984, “A superimposed ‘pattern’ jump in the supply side of a service system” WP-397, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds
2.
ClarkeM, 1981, “A note on the stability of equilibrium solutions of production-constrained spatial-interaction models”Environment and Planning A13601–604
3.
ClarkeM, 1984Integrating Dynamic Models of Urban Structure and Activities: An Application to Urban Retail Systems PhD thesis, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds (forthcoming)
4.
ClarkeMWilsonA G, 1983, “The dynamics of urban spatial structure: Progress and problems”Journal of Regional Science231–18
5.
ClarkeMWilsonA G, 1984, “The important relationship between theoretical development and numerical experiments: The fascinating case of the retail model” working paper, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds (forthcoming)
6.
GouldP, 1981, “Letting the data speak for themselves”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71166–176
7.
HarrisB, 1983, “Stability and uniqueness in retail trade patterns” paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the British Section of the Regional Science Association, Leeds, September 1983; copy available from the author at Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
8.
HarrisBChoukrounJ MWilsonA G, 1982, “Economies of scale and the existence of supply-side equilibria in a production-constrained spatial interaction model”Environment and Planning A14823–837
9.
HarrisBWilsonA G, 1978, “Equilibrium values and dynamics of attractiveness terms in production-constrained spatial-interaction models”Environment and Planning A10371–388
10.
LakshmananT RHansenW G, 1965, “A retail market potential model”Journal of the American Institute of Planners31134–143
11.
PostonTWilsonA G, 1977, “Facility size versus distance travelled: Urban services and the fold catastrophe”Environment and Planning A9681–686
12.
RijkF J AVorstA C F, 1982, “Equilibrium points in an urban retail model and their connection with dynamical systems” report 8214/M, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University, Rotterdam
13.
WilsonA GClarkeM, 1979, “Some illustrations of catastrophe theory applied to urban retailing structures” in London Papers in Regional Science 10. Developments in Urban and Regional Analysis Ed. BrehenyM J, (Pion, London) pp 5–27
