Firm location is an important component in integrated land use and transport models. However, representation of firm behavior and firm locations is often too aggregated to model firm behavior adequately. A calibrated simulation approach that models dynamics in the firm population at the level of individual firms is presented. A number of firm demographic events and transitions in the state of individual firms are simulated: firm migration, growth, formation, and dissolution. This provides the opportunity to account for firm-specific behavior and allows a large variety in responses to changes in urban environment. The model quantifies the effects of different spatial and transport planning scenarios on firm population and mobility. Moreover, the firm-level simulation output provides improved possibilities to evaluate the impact of spatial scenarios. It can be linked to an urban transport model to obtain a dynamic simulation of urban development and mobility. The model specification is presented, as well as the calibration of the individual firm demographic processes. The behavior of the calibrated model is verified with multiple test runs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TimmermansH.The Saga of Integrated Land Use-Transport Modeling: How Many More Dreams Before We Wake Up? Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
2.
MillerE. J., KrigerD. S., and HuntJ. D.. A 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.
3.
WegenerM., and FürstF.. Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art.University of DortmundGermany,1999.
4.
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.
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.
HuntJ. D.Stated-Preference Examination of Location Choice Behavior of Small Retail Firms. In Transportation Research Record 1606, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 25–32.
7.
De BokM., and SandersF.. Firm Relocation and the Accessibility of Locations: Empirical Results from the Netherlands. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1902, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 35–43.
8.
HollA.Manufacturing Location and Impacts of Road Transport Infrastructure: Empirical Evidence from Spain.Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 34, 2004, pp. 341–363.
9.
HollA.Start Ups and Relocations: Manufacturing Plant Location in Portugal.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 83, 2004, pp. 649–668.
10.
LeithamS., McQuaidR. W., and NelsonJ. D.. The Influence of Transport on Industrial Location Choice: A Stated Preference Experiment.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 515–535.
11.
MaohH., KanaroglouP., and BuliungR.. Modeling the Location of Firms Within an Integrated Transport and Land-Use Model for Hamilton, Ontario.Centre for Spatial Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,2005.
12.
MoeckelR.Microsimulation of Firm Location Decisions. Presented at 9th Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management (CUPUM) Conference, London, 2005.
13.
BirchD.The Job Generating Process.Cambridge University PressCambridge, Mass.,1979.
14.
EkamperP., and Van WissenL.. SIMFIRMS: Firmografische micro-simulatie van bedrijfsvestigingen in Nederland.NIDI, The Hague, Netherlands,1996.
15.
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.
16.
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., and PellenbargP., eds.), Netherlands Geographical Studies 262, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1999, pp. 173–204.
17.
BrouwerA. E., MariottiI., and Van OmmerenJ. N.. The Firm Relocation Decision: A Logit Model. Presented at 42nd ERSA Conference, Dortmund, Germany, 2002.
18.
LouwE.Kantoorgebouw en vestigingsplaats.OTB Research InstituteDelft, Netherlands,1996.
19.
HilbersH., JorritsmaP., and LouterP.. The Relationship Between Accessibility and Regional Development Explored for the Region of Amersfoort. Presented at 21st Colloquium Vervoerplanologisch Speurwerk, Delft, Netherlands, 1994.
20.
PellenbargP. H.Structuur en ontwikkeling van bedrijfsmigratie in Nederland.Planning, Vol. 48, 1996, pp. 22–32.
21.
Van DijkJ., and PellenbargP.. Firm Relocation Decisions in the Netherlands: An Ordered Logit Approach.Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 79, 2000, pp. 191–219.
22.
KawamuraK.Empirical Examination of Relationship Between Firm Location and Transportation Facilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1747, 2001, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 97–103.
23.
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.
24.
KrugmanP.Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, pp. 483–499.
25.
McFaddenD.Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics (ZarembkaP. C., ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105–142.
26.
RietveldP.Spatial Economic Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Supply.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 28, 1994, pp. 329–341.
27.
AudretschD. B., KlompL., and ThurikA. R.. Gibrat's Law: Are the Services Different?Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands,2002.
28.
Van WissenL., and HuismanC.. Firm Growth Across Regions: A Regional Test of Gibrat's Law. Presented at 43rd ERSA Conference, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 2005.
29.
EkamperP.Opheffing van bedrijfsvestigingen: een sterftetafelbenadering.Planning, Vol. 48, 1996, pp. 12–21.
30.
AbrahamJ. E., and HuntJ. D.. Parameter Estimation Strategies for Large-Scale Urban Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1722, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 9–16.
31.
AbrahamJ. E., WeidnerT., GliebeJ., WillisonC., and HuntJ. D.. Three Methods for Synthesizing Base-Year Built Form for Integrated Land Use–Transport Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1902, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 114–123.
32.
De JongG., DalyA., PietersM., and Van Der HoornT.. The Logsum as an Evaluation Measure: Review of the Literature and New Results. Presented at 45th ERSA Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2005.
