Spatial Interaction Models and the Location‐allocation Problem*

Beaumont, John R.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.1980.tb00625.x

Cited by 48 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Beaumont (1980Beaumont ( , 1987, Hodgson (1978Hodgson ( , 1981Hodgson ( , 1984Hodgson ( , 1986Hodgson ( , 1988, O' Kelly and Storbeck (1984), O'Kelly (1987), Oppong (1992), and Hodgson (1994, 1998) presented location-allocation models in which the laxer rationality of spatial interaction models is used to account for non-minimizing travel behavior and to assess the benefits of location schemes. Yasenovskiy and Hodgson (2007) recently applied a spatial choice interaction model within an LA context.…”

Section: Spatial Interaction In La Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Many facility systems are hierarchically structured, and the organizational principle of many such systems is successive inclusiveness (Beaumont 1980(Beaumont , 1987. This principle lies at the heart of Christaller's (1933) Central Place Theory and is easily understood if the distinction between the level of a service and the level of a facility is clearly drawn.…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A hierarchical location-allocation model with travel based on expected referral distances

Hodgson

Jacobsen²

2008

Ann Oper Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hierarchical p-median location-allocation model assumes that patrons always travel to the closest facility of appropriate level and that their interests are best served when the distances they must travel to do this are minimized. This assumption about travel behavior is unrealistic, patrons in the real world are known, for instance, to bypass lower level facilities that can serve their needs to attend higher level facilities. We introduce the concept of "expected distance under referral" to deal with such irrationality and incorporate it into a location-allocation model that minimizes the negative effects of such irrational behavior. We demonstrate the model with several types of non-optimal travel behavior.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Interaction In La Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hierarchical location-allocation model with travel based on expected referral distances

Hodgson

Jacobsen²

2008

Ann Oper Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second assumption is that total demand at any level will be served by the nearest facility offering that level of service. A number of recent papers (Beaumont 1980;Erlenkotter and Leonardi 1981;Hodgson 1978 and have suggested that by building upon spatial interaction models it is possible to deal more realistically with differential facility attractiveness.…”

Section: Systems By M John Hodgsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative Approaches to Hierarchical Location‐Allocation Systems

Hodgson¹

1984

Geographical Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Location-allocation models have long been used to solve various location problems including retail-based problems (Hodgson 1978;Beaumont 1980). For instance, the p-median model has been especially useful for finding new locations in competitive environments , though most location-allocation models, including the p-median model, assign customers to the closest facility (Beaumont 1981).…”

Section: New Approaches and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hub Location Problems: The Location of Interacting Facilities

Kara

Taner

2011

International Series in Operations Research &Amp; Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. PrefaceThis book is the final result of a number of incidents that occurred to us while discussing location issues with colleagues at conferences. Frequently we attended presentations, in which the authors quoted the well-known references that helped to make the discipline what it is today. Upon further inquiry, though, it turned out that some of these colleagues had never actually read the original papers. We then discussed among ourselves which contributions could be credited with shaping the field. And, lo and behold, we found that we, too, had neglected to read some of the papers that form the foundation of our science. Whether it was laziness or other things that got in the way, it had become clear that something had to be done. Our first thought was to collect the original contributions (once we could agree on what they were) and reprint them. When discussing this possibility with a publisher, we immediately ran into a roadblock in the form of copyright. While this appeared to have stopped our enthusiastic effort dead in its tracks, we kept on collecting and reading what we considered original contributions.This went on until we met Camille Price, who suggested that, rather than reprinting the original contributions, we should invite some of the leaders in our field and ask them to describe the original contribution, explain and interpret it, and comment on the impact that it had to the field. This was, of course, an excellent idea, and the response by our colleagues to our pertinent requests was equally enthusiastic. What you hold in your hands is the result of this effort.In other words, the purpose of this book is to provide easy access to the main contributions to location theory. The book is organized as follows. The introductory chapter provides an overview of some of the many facets of location analysis. This is followed by contributions in the main three fields of inquiry: minisum, minimax, and covering problems. The next chapters are part of an ever-growing list of nonstandard location models: models including competitive components, those that locate undesirable facilities, those with probabilistic features, and those that allow interactions between facilities. The following chapters discuss solution techniques: after a discussion of exact and heuristic techniques, we devote an entire chapter to Weiszfeld's method, and another to Lagrangean techniques. The last chapters of this book deal with the spheres of influence that the facilities generate and that attract viii customers to them, an...

show abstract

Spatial Interaction Models and the Location‐allocation Problem*

Cited by 48 publications

References 22 publications

A hierarchical location-allocation model with travel based on expected referral distances

A hierarchical location-allocation model with travel based on expected referral distances

Alternative Approaches to Hierarchical Location‐Allocation Systems

Hub Location Problems: The Location of Interacting Facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About