This paper presents a variation of Fotheringham's competing destinations model using categorized information on spatial flows in a central place system. A competing central place model is developed using spatially defined choice sets for origin — destination pairs by threshold distance and central place order. The competing central place generalization is empirically tested by undertaking a comparative analysis of 1980 domestic airline passenger traffic amongst selected cities in the continental United States. A host of modeling strategies are contrasted and the effects of mass, separation, and competitive forces noted in the presence or absence of hierarchical data. The production-constrained competing central place specification is shown to exhibit not only greater explanatory power than Fotheringham's competing destinations model, but also significant reductions in potential multicollinear relations between regressors. The model is later extended to incorporate an intervening opportunities filter. Competitive flow patterns between paired origins and destinations are then delimited by geographic range, compatibility, and the impeding effects of substitute and/or intervening flows within a hierarchical network.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnsahJ A, 1977, “Destination choice set definition in travel behavior modeling”Transportation Research11127–140
2.
BerryB J LMarbleD F, 1968Spatial Analysis, A Reader in Statistical GeographyPrentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
3.
BlackW C, 1984, “Choice-set definition in patronage modeling”Journal of Retailing6063–85
4.
CarrothersG A P, 1956, “An historical review of the gravity and potential concepts of human interaction”Journal of the American Institute of Planners2294–102
5.
ChristallerW, 1966Central Places in Southern GermanyPrentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ); translated by BaskinC W from Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland1933 (G Fischer, Jena)
6.
Civil Aeronautics Board, 1980, “Origin — destination survey of airline passenger traffic” (Air Transportation Association of America, New York)
7.
ClarkW A V, 1968, “Consumer travel patterns and the concept of range”Annals of the Association of American Geographers58386–396
8.
CliffA DMartinR LOrdJ K, 1974, “Evaluating the friction of distance parameter in gravity models”Regional Studies8281–286
9.
CurryL, 1972, “A spatial analysis of gravity flows”Regional Studies6131–147
EwingG O, 1974, “Gravity and linear regression models of spatial interaction: A cautionary note”Economic Geography5083–88
12.
FikT J, 1988, “Hierarchical interaction: The modeling of a competing central place system”The Annals of Regional Science2248–69
13.
FotheringhamA S, 1981, “Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71425–436
14.
FotheringhamA S, 1982, “Distance-decay parameters: A reply”Annals of the Association of American Geographers72551–553
15.
FotheringhamA S, 1983, “A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”Environment and Planning A1515–36
16.
FotheringhamA S, 1984, “Spatial flows and spatial patterns”Environment and Planning A16529–543
17.
FotheringhamA SWebberM J, 1980, “Spatial structure and the parameters of spatial interaction models”Geographical Analysis1233–46
18.
GenschD HSvestkaJ A, 1984, “A maximum likelihood hierarchical disaggregate model for predicting choice in individuals”Journal of Mathematical Psychology28160–178
19.
GriffithD AJonesK G, 1980, “Explorations into the relationship between spatial structure and spatial interaction”Environment and Planning A12187–201
20.
GroveP GO'KellyM E, 1986, “Hub networks and simulated schedule delay”Papers of the Regional Science Association59103–119
21.
GujaratiD, 1978Basic EconometricsMcGraw-Hill, New York)
22.
HansonS, 1972, “Measuring the cognitive levels of urban residents”Geografiska Annaler59B67–81
23.
HaworthJ MVincentP J, 1979, “The stochastic disturbance specification and its implications for log-linear regression”Environment and Planning A11781–790
24.
HaynesK EFotheringhamA S, 1984Scientific Geography Series 2. Gravity and Spatial Interaction ModelsSage, Beverly Hills, CA)
25.
HuffD LJenksG F, 1968, “A graphic interpretation of the friction of distance in gravity models”Annals of the Association of American Geographers58814–824
26.
HuffJ O, 1976, “A hierarchical migration model of population redistribution within a central place hierarchy”Geographical Analysis8231–254
27.
IngramD R, 1970, “The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form”Regional Studies5101–107
28.
JohnstonR J, 1976, “On regression coefficients in comparative studies of the friction of distance”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie6715–28
29.
MulliganG F, 1983, “Consumer demand and multipurpose shopping behavior”Geographic Analysis1576–81
30.
MulliganG F, 1984a, “Agglomeration and central place theory: A review of the literature”International Regional Science Review91–42
31.
MulliganG F, 1984b, “Central place populations: Some implications of consumer shopping behavior”Annals of the Association of American Geographers7444–56
32.
NiedercornJ HBechdoldtB VJr, 1969, “An economic derivation of the gravity law of spatial interaction”Journal of Regional Science9273–283
33.
NoyelleT JStanbackT MJr, 1983The Economic Transformation of CitiesRowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ)
34.
O'KellyM E, 1986a, “The location of interacting hub facilities”Transportation Science2092–106
35.
O'KellyM E, 1986b, “Activity levels at hub facilties in interacting networks”Geographical Analysis18343–356
36.
OlssonG, 1970, “Explanation, prediction, and meaning variance: An assessment of distance interaction models”Economic Geography46223–233
37.
ParrJ B, 1978, “Models of the central place system: A more general approach”Urban Studies1535–49
38.
PindyckRRubinfeldD, 1981Econometric Models and Economic ForecastsMcGraw-Hill, New York)
39.
RavensteinE G, 1885, “The laws of migration”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society48167–235
40.
ReckerW WStevensR F, 1977, “An attitudinal travel demand for non-work trips of homogeneously constrained segments of a population”Transportation Research11167–176
SheppardE S, 1982, “Distance-decay parameters: A comment”Annals of the Association of American Geographers72549–550
43.
SheppardE SGriffithD ACurryL, 1976, “A final comment on misspecification and autocorrelation in those gravity parameters”Regional Studies10337–339
44.
ShimbelA, 1953, “Structural parameters of communication networks”Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics15501–507
45.
SmithT RSlaterP B, 1981, “A family of spatial interaction models incorporating information flows and choice set constraints applied to US interstate labor flows”International Regional Science Review615–32
46.
StoufferS A, 1940, “Intervening opportunities: A theory relating mobility and distance”American Sociological Review5845–867
47.
TaaffeE JGauthierH LJr, 1973Geography of TransportationPrentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
48.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980, “1980 Census of Population”, volume 1 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
49.
WeibullJ W, 1980, “On the numerical measurement of accessibility”Environment and Planning A1253–67
50.
WilsonA G, 1971, “A family of spatial interaction models and associated developments”Environment and Planning3255–282
51.
ZipfG K, 1946, “The P1P2/D hypothesis: On the intercity movement of persons”American Sociological Review11677–686
