In this paper we will consider gravity models for journeys to work. In applications of the theory it is sometimes assumed that the parameters in such models are fixed. We will provide examples to show that this is not always a reasonable assumption, for instance, when the model is applied to predict how changes in the road transportation network influence commuting flows. Models where the parameters are subject to change usually comply with C-efficiency and random utility theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaxterM, 1983, “Model misspecification and spatial structure in spatial-interaction models”Environment and Planning A15319–327
2.
DestaEPigozziB W M, 1991, “Further experiments with spatial structure measures in gravity models”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie82220–226
3.
ErlanderSSmithT, 1990, “General representation theorems for efficient population behavior”Applied Mathematics and Computation36173–217
4.
ErlanderSStewartN F, 1978, “Interactivity, accessibility and cost in trip distribution”Transportation Research12291–293
5.
ErlanderSStewartN F, 1990The Gravity Model in Transportation Analysis: Theory and Extensions (VSP, Utrecht)
6.
FikT JMulliganG F, 1990, “Spatial flows and competing central places: Towards a general theory of hierarchical interaction”Environment and Planning A22527–549
7.
FikT JAmeyR GMulliganG F, 1992, “Labor migration amongst hierarchically competing and intervening origins and destinations”Environment and Planning A241271–1290
8.
FotheringhamA S, 1981, “Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71425–436
9.
FotheringhamA S, 1983a, “Some theoretical aspects of destination choice and their relevance to production-constrained gravity models”Environment and Planning A151121–1132
10.
FotheringhamA S, 1983b, “A new set of spatial interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”Environment and Planning A1515–36
11.
FotheringhamA S, 1984, “Spatial flows and spatial patterns”Environment and Planning A16529–543
12.
FotheringhamA S, 1986, “Modelling hierarchical destination choice”Environment and Planning A18401–418
13.
FotheringhamA S, 1988, “Consumer store choice and choice-set definition”Marketing Science7299–310
14.
GitlesenJ PThorsenI, 2000, “A competing destinations approach to modeling commuting flows: A theoretical interpretation and an empirical application of the model”Environment and Planning A322057–2074
15.
GlennPThorsenIUbøeJ, 2001, “A microeconomic approach to distance deterrence functions in modeling journeys to work”, WP 12/2001, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen
16.
IshikawaY, 1987, “An empirical study of the competing destinations model using Japanese interaction data”Environment and Planning A191359–1373
17.
LoL, 1991, “Substitutability, spatial structure, and spatial interaction”Geographical Analysis23133–146
18.
ManskiC F, 1977, “The structure of random utility models”Theory and Decision8229–254
19.
PeggegriniP AFotheringhamA SLinG, 1997, “An empirical evaluation of parameter sensitivity to choice set definition in shopping destination choice models”Papers in Regional Science76257–284
20.
SenASmithT, 1995, “Gravity models of spatial interaction behavior” (Springer, Berlin)
21.
ShenQ, 1996, “Spatial impacts of locally enacted growth controls: The San Francisco Bay Region in the 1980s”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design2361–91
22.
SheppardE, 1978, “Theoretical underpinnings of the gravity hypothesis”Geographical Analysis10386–402
