Many forms of urban models are retail oriented, that is, they depend to some degree on the allocation of shopping expenditures to particular destinations. Such an allocation is usually undertaken with the aid of a production-constrained gravity model, although this type of model ignores the relationship between retail expenditure patterns and spatial competition and agglomeration forces. The effect of such a relationship on urban structure is examined with the aid of a production-constrained competing destinations model in three situations: (1) in a simple facility-location problem, (2) in a Garin–Lowry model, and (3) in the use of catastrophe theory and bifurcation theory to examine urban dynamics. The replacement of the gravity model by the competing destinations model is shown to produce more realistic urban models and leads to new insights into structural dynamics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BattyM, 1976Urban Modelling: Algorithms, Calibrations, Predictions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
2.
BeaumontJ RClarkeMWilsonA G, 1981, “Changing energy parameters and the evolution of urban spatial structure”Regional Science and Urban Economics11287–315
3.
BlackW, 1983, “A generalization of destination effects in spatial interaction modelling”Economic Geography5916–34
4.
ClarkeMWilsonA G, 1983, “The dynamics of urban spatial structure: Progress and problems”Journal of Regional Science231–18
5.
FootD, 1978, “Urban models I: A computer program for the Garin–Lowry model” Geographical Paper 65, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
6.
FootDPiasentinUCostaP, 1978, “Urban models II: A model of Venice” Geographical Paper 66, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
7.
FotheringhamA S, 1981, “Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71425–436
8.
FotheringhamA S, 1983a, “A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”Environment and Planning A1515–36
9.
FotheringhamA S, 1983b, “Some theoretical aspects of destination choice and their relevance to production-constrained gravity models”Environment and Planning A151121–1132
10.
FotheringhamA S, 1984, “Spatial flows and spatial patterns”Environment and Planning A16529–543
11.
FotheringhamA SWilliamsP A, 1984, “Destination choice and spatial competition in an urban hierarchy” unpublished manuscript; copy available from the author
12.
GarinR A, 1966, “A matrix formulation of the Lowry model for intra-metropolitan activity location”Journal of the American Institute of Planners32361–364
13.
GökanK, 1981, “An application of Garin model—Istanbul model” in Urban Problems and Economic Development Eds ChatterieeLNijkampP, (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn) pp 263–279
14.
HainesG HSimonL SAlexisM, 1972, “Maximum likelihood estimation of central city food trading areas”Journal of Marketing Research9154–159
15.
HansenW G, 1959, “How accessibility shapes land use”Journal of the American Institute of Planners2573–76
16.
HansenPThisseJ-F, 1983, “Recent advances in continuous location theory”Sistemi Urbani133–54
17.
HarrisBChoukrounJ-MWilsonA G, 1982, “Economics of scale and the existence of supply-side equilibria in a production-constrained spatial-interaction model”Environment and Planning A823–837
18.
HarrisBWilsonA G, 1978, “Equilibrium values and dynamics of attractiveness terms in production-constrained spatial-interaction models”Environment and Planning A10371–388
19.
HotellingH, 1929, “Stability in competition”Economic Journal3941–57
20.
HuffD L, 1963, “A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas”Land Economics3981–90
21.
HuffD L, 1964, “Defining and estimating a trading area”Journal of Marketing2834–38
22.
KitabatakeYMiyazakiT, 1983, “The location of sewage treatment plants on a continuous space: Theoretical and empirical analyses”Environment and Planning A151205–1217
23.
LakshmananT RHansenW G, 1965, “A retail market potential model”Journal of the American Institute of Planners13134–143
24.
LowryI S, 1964, “A model of metropolis” RM-4035-RC, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
25.
O'KellyM E, 1983, “Multipurpose shopping trips and the size of retail facilities”Annals of the Association of American Geographers73231–239
26.
OpenshawS, 1979, “A methodology for using models for planning purposes”Environment and Planning A11879–896
27.
PostonTWilsonA G, 1977, “Facility size versus distance travelled: Urban services and the fold catastrophe”Environment and Planning A9681–686
28.
SouthworthF, 1979, “Spatial structure and parameter disaggregation in trip distribution models”Regional Studies13381–394
29.
Van EstJVan SettenJ, 1979, “Two estimation methods for singly constrained spatial distribution models” in Exploratory and Explanatory Statistical Analysis of Spatial Data Eds BartelsC P AKetellapperR H, (Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, MA) pp 227–241
30.
WilsonA G, 1971, “A family of spatial interaction models and associated developments”Environment and Planning31–32
31.
WilsonA G, 1981aCatastrophe Theory and Bifurcation (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent)
32.
WilsonA G, 1981b, “Some new sources of instability and oscillation in dynamic models of shopping centers and other urban structures”Sistemi Urbani3391–401
33.
WilsonA G, 1981c, “The evolution of urban spatial structure: The evolution of theory” in European Progress in Spatial Analysis Ed. BennettR J, (Pion, London) pp 201–225
34.
WilsonA G, 1983, “Making urban models more realistic: Some strategies for future research” WP-358, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds; also presented at the North American Regional Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1983
35.
WilsonA GOultonM J, 1983, “The corner-shop to supermarket transition in retailing: The beginning of empirical evidence”Environment and Planning A15265–274
