This paper describes the empirical results of the estimation of discrete choice models for the location decision of moving firms in a spatial disaggregated environment. Systematic choice sets are applied to account for the choice context of each relocated firm. Each location alternative is described by a set of spatial attributes, including accessibility variables and the migration distance between the origin of the moving firm and the alternative. The firms analyzed are categorized by their mobility profile. These mobility profiles are homogeneous groups of firms with similar mobility characteristics. The models are estimated on an extensive revealed-preference data set with firm migration observations between 1988 and 1997 in the province of South Holland in the Netherlands. The results indicate that it is essential for modeling the spatial behavior of relocating firms to account for the original location. The accessibility of locations appears to be of modest importance in the location preference of firms; measures describing the distance to transport infrastructure appear to have the most significant influence. Finally, distinctive taste preferences are observed in firms with different mobility profiles and of different sizes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MillerE. J., KrigerD. S., and HuntJ. D.. Research and Development Program for Integrated Urban Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1685, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 161–170.
2.
WegenerM., and FürstF.Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art.Deliverable D2a TRANSLAND. University of Dortmund, Germany,1999.
3.
TimmermansH.The Saga of Integrated Land Use-Transport Modeling: How Many More Dreams Before We Wake Up? Keynote paper at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
4.
AnderstigC., and MattsonL. G.. An Integrated Model of Residential and Employment Location in a Metropolitan Region.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 70, 1991, pp. 167–184.
5.
AbrahamJ. E., and HuntJ. D.. Firm Location in the MEPLAN Model of Sacramento. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1685, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 187–198.
6.
WaddellP., and UlfarssonG. F.. Accessibility and Agglomeration: Discrete-Choice Models of Employment Location by Industry Sector. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
7.
ShuklaV., and WaddellP.. Firm Location and Land Use in Discrete Urban Space: A Study of the Spatial Structure of Dallas–Fort Worth.Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 21, 1991, pp. 225–253.
8.
HollA.Manufacturing Location and Impacts of Road Transport Infrastructure: Empirical Evidence from Spain.Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 34, 2003, pp. 341–363.
9.
LeithamS., McQuaidR. W., and NelsonJ. D.. The Influence of Transport on Industrial Location Choice: A Stated Preference Experiment.Transportation Research A, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 515–535.
10.
LouwE.Kantoorgebouw en vestigingsplaats.OTB Research Institute, Delft, Netherlands, 1996.
11.
KawamuraK.Empirical Examination of Relationship Between Firm Location and Transportation Facilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1747, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 97–103.
12.
De BokM., BlijieB., and SandersF.. The Influence of the Transportation System on Land Use: A Disaggregated Analysis of the Migration Patterns of Firms on the Office Market and the Accessibility of Locations. Presented at 30th Colloquium Vervoerplanologisch Speurwerk, Antwerp, Belgium, 2003.
13.
Van OortF., van der KnaapB., and SleegersW.. New Firm Formation, Employment Growth and the Local Environment: Empirical Observations in South-Holland. In Demography of Firms; Spatial Dynamics of Firm Behavior (Van DijkJ. P. and PellenbargP. H., ed.), Netherlands Geographical Studies 262, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1999, pp. 173–204.
14.
BadeF.-J., and NerlingerE. A.. The Spatial Distribution of New Technology-Based Firms: Empirical Results for West-Germany.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 79, 2000, pp. 155–176.
15.
KawamuraK.Transportation Needs, Location Choice, and Perceived Accessibility for Businesses. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1898, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 202–210.
16.
PellenbargP. H., van WissenL. J. G., and van DijkJ.. Firm Migration. In Industrial Location Economics (McCannP., ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, Mass., 2000, pp. 110–147.
17.
Von ThünenJ. H.Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie.Hamburg, Germany, 1826.
18.
SimonH. A.Models of Man: Social and Rational.Wiley, New York, 1957.
19.
PredA. R.Behavior and Location: Foundations for a Geographic and Dynamic Location Theory: Part 2.University of Lund, Lund Studies in Geography B, Lund, Sweden, No. 28, 1969.
20.
VerroenE. J., de JongM. A., KorverW., and JansenB.. Mobilitietsprofielen van Bedrijven en Instelingen: Een Onderzoek naar de Mogelijkheden tot Afstemming van Mobiliteitskenmerken van Bedrijven en Bereikbaarheidskenmerken van Bedrijfslocaties.INRO-TNO, Delft, Netherlands, 1990.
21.
Fourth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning—Extra.Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment, The Hague, Netherlands, 1990.
22.
Van WeeB.Kantoor naar het Spoor. De Invloed van Bedrijfsver-plaatsingen naar Openbaar-Vervoerknooppunten op de Personen-mobiliteits.National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 1997.
23.
MartensM. J., and van GriethuysenS.. The ABC Location Policy in the Netherlands. The Right Business at the Right Place.INRO-TNO, Delft, Netherlands, 1999.
24.
PellenbargP. H.Structuur en Ontwikkeling van Bedrijfsmigratie in Nederland.Planning, Vol. 48, 1996, pp. 22–32.
25.
Van DijkJ., and PellenbargP.. Firm Relocation Decisions in the Netherlands: An Ordered Logit Approach.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 79, 2000, pp. 191–219.
26.
BrouwerA. E., MariottiI., and Van OmmerenJ. N.. The Firm Relocation Decision: A Logit Model. Presented at 42nd ERSA Conference, Dortmund, Germany, 2002.
27.
BrownL. A., and MooreE. G.. The Intra-Urban Migration Process: A Perspective.Geografiska Annaler Series B, Vol. 52, 1970, pp. 1–13.
28.
Van WissenL.A Micro-Simulation Model of Firms: Applications of Concepts of the Demography of the Firm.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 79, 2000, pp. 111–134.
29.
McFaddenD.Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics (ZarembkaP. C., ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105–142.
30.
McFaddenD.Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (KarlqvistA., LundqvistL., SnickarsF., and WeibullJ. W., ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1978.
31.
Fiorenzo-CatalanoS., Hoogendoorn-LanserS., and van NesR.. Choice Set Composition Modeling in Multi-Modal Traveling. Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
32.
BovyP. H. L., and SternE.. Route Choice: Wayfinding in Transport Networks.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990.
33.
BierlaireM.BIOGEME: A Free Package for the Estimation of Discrete Choice Models. 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verita, Switzerland, 2003.
