A spatial model of urban stock and activity

Echeñique, Marcial; Crowther, David; Lindsay, W. Keith

doi:10.1080/09595236900185291

Cited by 75 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…BOYCE the combined models of location and travel choice developed by Boyce (Boyce et al 1983(Boyce et al , 1985Boyce and Mattsson, 1991;Boyce et al 1992); CUFM the California Urban Futures Model developed at the University of California at Berkeley (Landis 1992(Landis , 1993(Landis , 1994Zhang, 1998a, 1998b); DELTA the land-use/economic modelling package by Davids Simmonds Consultancy, Cambridge, UK (Simmonds and Still, 1998;Simmonds, 2001); ILUTE the Integrated Land Use, Transportation, Environment modelling system under development at several Canadian universities (Miller and Salvini, 2001); IMREL the Integrated Model of Residential and Employment Location developed at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm by Mattsson (1991, 1998); IRPUD the model of the Dortmund region developed at the University of Dortmund (Wegener, 1982a(Wegener, , 1982b(Wegener, , 1985(Wegener, , 1986aWegener et al 1991;Wegener, 1996Wegener, , 1998b; ITLUP the Integrated Transportation and Land Use Package by Putman (1983Putman ( , 1991Putman ( , 1998 consisting of the residential location model DRAM and the employment model EMPAL; KIM the non-linear urban equilibrium model developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana by Kim (1989) and Rho and Kim (1989); LILT the Leeds Integrated Land-Use/Transport model developed at the University of Leeds by Mackett (1983Mackett ( , 1990cMackett ( , 1991aMackett ( , 1991b; MEPLAN the integrated modelling package developed by Marcial Echenique & Partners (Echenique et al, 1969;Echenique and Williams, 1980;Echenique, 1985;Echenique et al, 1990;Hunt and Echenique, 1993;…”

Section: Twenty Urban Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Land Use Transport Models

Wegener¹

2004

Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems

332

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The previous chapters in this Handbook have shown that spatial development, or land use, determines the need for spatial interaction, or transport, but that transport, by the accessibility it provides, also determines spatial development. However, it is difficult to empirically isolate impacts of land use on transport and vice versa because of the multitude of concurrent changes of other factors. This poses a problem if the likely impacts of integrated land-use and transport policies to reduce the demand for travel are to be predicted.There are principally three methods to predict those impacts. The first is to ask people how they would change their location and mobility behaviour if certain factors, such as land use regulations or transport costs, would change ('stated preference'). The second consists of drawing conclusions from observed decision behaviour of people under different conditions on how they would be likely to behave if these factors would change ('revealed preference'). The third method is to simulate human decision behaviour in mathematical models.All three methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Surveys can reveal also subjective factors of location and mobility decisions, however, their respondents can only make conjectures about how they would behave in still unknown situations, and the validity of such conjectures is uncertain. Empirical studies based on observation of behaviour produce detailed and reliable results; these, however, are valid only for existing situations and are therefore not suited for the assessment of novel yet untested policies. In addition it is usually not possible to associate the observed changes of behaviour unequivocally with specific causes, because in reality several determining factors change at the same time.Mathematical models of human behaviour are also based on empirical surveys or observations. The difference is that the conclusions to be drawn from the survey and observation data are quantified. Strictly speaking, the results of mathematical models are no more universally valid than those of empirical studies but are only valid for situations which are similar to those for which their parameters were estimated. Nevertheless it is possible to transfer human behaviour represented in mathematical models within certain limits to still unknown situations. In addition, mathematical models are the only method by which the effects of individual determining factors can be analysed by keeping all other factors fixed.In this chapter recent developments in the field of operational integrated land-use transport models will be reviewed with special emphasis on their ability to test both land use and transport policies and to assess their impacts.

show abstract

Section: Twenty Urban Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Land Use Transport Models

Wegener¹

2004

Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems

332

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the most classic definition of this term was proposed by Hansen in his article "How Accessibility Shapes Land Uses" published in 1959 where accessibility is defined as "The potential of opportunities for interaction", also laying the first mathematical bases of the model. On the other hand, in 1976, Weibull developed an axiomatic approach for territorial accessibility models, making a meticulous mathematical analysis of the previously proposed models [7,16,18,26].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

New transportation infrastructure impact in terms of global average access - intersection "La Carola" Manizales (Colombia) case study

Ramirez¹,

García²,

Cardona³

2018

ces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simulation modelling, on the other hand, recognises the inability of analysts to know and specify all the relationships and hence develop a series of approximating techniques towards finding solutions (Ayeni 1979). Consequently, simulation modelling has been used extensively in urban modelling particularly in relation to the land use-transportation interaction [Stylianides & Gunning 1990;Chapin 1965;Reif 1973;Harvey 1967;Morrill 1965;Echenique et al 1969;Ingram, Cain & Ginn 1972;Senior 1973;Senior 1974).…”

Section: Differences In Modelling Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Infrastructure Potential Cost Model for Integrated Land Use and Infrastructure Planning

Biermann¹

2003

Planning Support Systems in Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IX GIS buffering analysis GPMC open space network Agricultural Research Institute Council for GeoScience CSIR Valuation roles from metropolitan sub-structures Extrapolation using GIS Water Systems Master Plan-GPMC Strategic Metropolitan Development Framework (1996)-GPMC Metropolitan substructures Strategic Metropolitan Development Framework (1996)-GPMC Pretoria City Council Electricity Department 7.3 Criteria measurement 7 .3.1 Access to employment opportunities An accessibility index was derived for each traffic zone in the study area, based on the transportation cost of accessing all major formal employment areas, weighted by the Water Research Commision 1994a. Wafer and sanitation in urban areas: financial and institutional review. WRC Report no. 571/6/94. Water Research Commission 1994b. An investment-tariff model for urban water supply. Working Paper 15.

show abstract

A spatial model of urban stock and activity

Cited by 75 publications

References 4 publications

Overview of Land Use Transport Models

Overview of Land Use Transport Models

New transportation infrastructure impact in terms of global average access - intersection "La Carola" Manizales (Colombia) case study

An Infrastructure Potential Cost Model for Integrated Land Use and Infrastructure Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About