In this paper, variations in the impedance parameter of the conventional spatial interaction models are examined in a quasi-empirical manner. In a previous paper, a spatial demand model based on the translog indirect utility function was simulated to provide interaction data. If the inputs to the translog demand model are varied systematically, the impedance parameter estimates for both models also vary systematically. In general, the impedance parameter becomes less negative as the set of destinations becomes more dispersed, as relative size among the origins and the destinations becomes more varied, and, in particular, as fewer destinations become substitutable or the degree of substitutability decreases. Meanwhile, model performance also deteriorates. The need for skepticism regarding model transferability and parameter interpretation is confirmed, and the possibility of ever correctly specifying the models is questioned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AyeniB, 1982, “The testing of hypothesis on interaction data matrices”Geographical Analysis1479–84.
2.
BattyM, 1976Urban Modelling: Algorithm, Calibrations and Predictions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
3.
Ben-AkivaM ELermanS R, 1979, “Disaggregate travel and mobility choice models and measures of accessibility”, in Behavioural Travel Modelling Eds HensherD AStopherP R (Croom Helm, Andover, Hants) pp 654–679.
4.
BorgersATimmermansH, 1987, “Choice model specification, substitution and spatial structure effects: A simulation experiment”Regional Science and Urban Economics1729–47.
5.
BourneL S, 1982, “Urban spatial structure: An introductory essay on concepts and criteria”, in Internal Structure of The City (Oxford University Press, New York) pp 28–45.
6.
ChoukrounJ M, 1975, “A general framework for the development of gravity-type trip distribution models”Regional Science and Urban Economics5177–202.
CliffA DMartinROrdJ K, 1974, “Evaluating the friction of distance parameter in gravity models”Regional Studies8281–286.
9.
CliffA DMartinROrdJ K, 1975, “Map pattern and friction of distance parameters: Reply to comments by R. J. Johnston, and by L. Curry, D. A. Griffith and E. S. Sheppard”Regional Studies9285–288.
10.
CliffA DMartinROrdJ K, 1976, “A reply to the final comment”Regional Studies10341–342.
11.
CurryL, 1972, “Spatial analysis of gravity flows”Regional Studies6131–147.
DeatonAMuellbauerJ, 1980aEconomics and Consumer Behaviour (Cambridge University Press, New York).
14.
DeatonAMuellbauerJ, 1980b, “An almost ideal demand system”American Economic Review70312–326.
15.
DendrinosD S, 1988, “Volterra — Lotka ecological dynamics, gravitational interaction and turbulent transportation: An integration”, Paper presented at the North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association in Toronto, Canada, November 11–13 1988; copy available from D S Dendrinos, Department of Urban Planning, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045.
16.
DomencichT AMcFaddenD, 1975Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis (North-Holland, Amsterdam).
17.
EldridgeJ DJonesJ PIII, 1988, “Warped space: A geography of distance-decay”, Paper presented at the North American Meetings of the Regional Science Association in Toronto, Canada, November 11–13 1988; copy available from J P Jones III, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506.
18.
FotheringhamA S, 1981, “Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71425–436.
19.
FotheringhamA S, 1983, “A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”Environment and Planning A1515–36.
20.
FotheringhamA S, 1985, “Spatial competition and agglomeration in urban modelling”Environment and Planning A17213–230.
21.
FotheringhamA SWebberM J, 1980, “Spatial structure and the parameters of spatial interaction models”Geographical Analysis1233–46.
22.
GolobT EBeckmannM J, 1971, “A utility model of travel forecasting”Transportation Science579–90.
23.
GolobT EGustafsonR LBeckmannM J, 1973, “An economic utility approach to spatial interaction”Papers of the Regional Science Association30158–182.
24.
GriffithD AJonesK G, 1980, “Explorations into the relationship between spatial structure and spatial interaction”Environment and Planning A12187–201.
25.
HaggettP ACliffAFreyF, 1977Locational Analysis in Human Geography (Edward Arnold, Sevenoaks, Kent).
26.
HansonS, 1980, “Spatial diversification and multipurpose travel: Implications for choice theory”Geographical Analysis12245–257.
27.
JohnstonR J, 1973, “On friction of distance and regression coefficients”Area5187–191.
28.
JohnstonR J, 1975, “Map pattern and friction of distance parameters: A comment”Regional Studies9281–283.
29.
LayardP R GWaltersA A, 1978Microeconomic Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).
30.
LiawK LBartelsC P A, 1982, “Estimation and interpretation of non-linear migration model”Geographical Analysis14229–245.
31.
LoL, 1988Spatial Structure and Consumer Preferences: A Translog Model of Shopping DemandPhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto.
32.
LoL, 1990, “A translog approach to consumer spatial behaviour”Journal of Regional Science30393–413.
33.
LoL, 1991, “Substitutability, spaial structure and spatial interaction”Geographical Analysis23132–146.
34.
McCoombL A, 1982Simplified Urban Transportation Planning Procedures Using Census DataPhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto.
35.
McFaddenD, 1979, “Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments”, in Behavioural Travel Modelling Eds HensherD AStopherP R (Croom Helm, Andover, Hants) pp 279–318.
36.
MoodA MGraybillF A, 1963Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (McGraw Hill, New York).
37.
NiedercornJ HBechdoltB VJr, 1969, “An economic derivation of the ‘gravity law’ of spatial interaction”Journal of Regional Science9273–282.
38.
NijkampP, 1975, “Reflections on gravity and entropy models”Regional Science and Urban Economics5203–226.
39.
OpenshawSConnollyC J, 1977, “Empirically derived deterrence functions for maximum performance spatial interaction models”Environment and Planning A91067–1079.
PitfieldD E, 1978, “Freight distribution model predictions compared: A test of hypotheses”Environment and Planning A10813–836.
42.
SenA, 1986, “Maximum likelihood estimation of gravity model parameters”Journal of Regional Science26461–474.
43.
SenAPruthiR K, 1983, “Least squares calibration of the gravity model when intrazonal flows are unknown”Environment and Planning A151545–1550.
44.
SheppardE S, 1978, “Theoretical underpinnings of the gravity hypothesis”Geographical Analysis10386–402.
45.
SheppardE S, 1984, “The distance decay gravity model debate”, in Spatial Statistics and Models Eds GaileG LWillmottC J (D Reidel, Dordrecht) pp 367–388.
46.
SheppardE SGriffithD ACurryL, 1976, “A final comment on misspecification and autocorrelation in those gravity parameters”Regional Studies10337–339.
47.
StephanedesY JKumarV, 1984, “Comparative evaluation of intercity demand models”, in London Papers in Regional Science 14. Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science Ed. PitfieldD E (Pion, London) pp 114–121.
48.
SmithT E, 1975, “A choice theory of spatial interaction”Regional Science and Urban Economics5137–176.
49.
SmithT E, 1976, “Spatial discounting and the gravity hypothesis”Regional Science and Urban Economics6331–356.
50.
TaylorP J, 1977Quantitative Methods in Geography: An Introduction to Spatial Analysis (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL).
51.
VarianH R, 1978Microeconomic Analysis (W W Norton, Boston, MA).
52.
WeberJ WSenA, 1985, “On the sensitivity of gravity model forecasts”Journal of Regional Science25317–336.
53.
WilliamsP AFotheringhamA S, 1984The Calibration of Spatial Interaction Models by Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Program SIMODEL. Geographic Monograph Series 7Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
