IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa04p420.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Misspecifications in modelling journeys to work

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Petter Gitlesen
  • Inge Thorsen
  • Jan Ubøe

Abstract

In this paper we perform a simulation procedure of testing models for journeys to work. The testing regime is carried out on a number of such models, mainly within the class of gravity models. We test the models on synthetic populations constructed from an aggregated set of a large number of worker subcategories, reflecting for instance different qualifications. Each subcategory is constructed from a gravity model where the population size and parameters are drawn from random distributions. The advantage of this approach is that a large number of tests can be carried out repeatedly to test the response of different kinds of models. We test how specific attributes of the spatial structure and worker heterogeneity are captured by different modelling alternatives. In addition we find that some model formulations falsely tend to report significant contributions to characteristics that were not taken into account in the data generating simulation process. This illustrates the imminent risk of drawing wrong conclusions in empirical work.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Petter Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen & Jan Ubøe, 2004. "Misspecifications in modelling journeys to work," ERSA conference papers ersa04p420, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa04p420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa04/PDF/420.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M Batty & P K Sikdar, 1982. "Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 4. Generalisations and Large-Scale Applications," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(6), pages 795-822, June.
    2. D G Steel & D Holt, 1996. "Rules for Random Aggregation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 28(6), pages 957-978, June.
    3. M Batty & P K Sikdar, 1984. "Proximate Aggregation-Estimation of Spatial Interaction Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(4), pages 467-486, April.
    4. Anas, Alex, 1983. "Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 13-23, February.
    5. T J Fik & G F Mulligan, 1990. "Spatial Flows and Competing Central Places: Towards a General Theory of Hierarchical Interaction," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 22(4), pages 527-549, April.
    6. T J Fik & R G Amey & G F Mulligan, 1992. "Labor Migration Amongst Hierarchically Competing and Intervening Origins and Destinations," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(9), pages 1271-1290, September.
    7. M Batty & P K Sikdar, 1982. "Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 3. Two-Dimensional Trip Distribution and Location Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(5), pages 629-658, May.
    8. A S Fotheringham, 1984. "Spatial Flows and Spatial Patterns," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(4), pages 529-543, April.
    9. M Batty & P K Sikdarfl, 1982. "Spatial Aggregation in Gravity Models: 2. One-Dimensional Population Density Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(4), pages 525-553, April.
    10. Jens P Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen, 2000. "A Competing Destinations Approach to Modeling Commuting Flows: A Theoretical Interpretation and An Empirical Application of the Model," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(11), pages 2057-2074, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gitlesen, Jens Petter & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2004. "Misspecifications due to aggregation of data in models for journeys-to-work," Discussion Papers 2004/13, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    2. Oshan, Taylor M., 2020. "The spatial structure debate in spatial interaction modeling: 50 years on," OSF Preprints 42vxn, Center for Open Science.
    3. Jan Ubøe & Jens Petter Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen, 2008. "Laboratory Testing of Spurious Spatial Structure in Trip Distribution Models," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 361-372.
    4. Cabrera Delgado, Jorge & Bonnel, Patrick, 2016. "Level of aggregation of zoning and temporal transferability of the gravity distribution model: The case of Lyon," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 17-26.
    5. Jan Ubøe, 2004. "Aggregation of Gravity Models for Journeys to Work," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(4), pages 715-729, April.
    6. McArthur, David Philip & Kleppe, Gisle & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2011. "The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 596-605.
    7. David Jung-Hwi Lee & Jean-Michel Guldmann, 2023. "Optimal Regional Allocation of Future Population and Employment under Urban Boundary and Density Constraints: A Spatial Interaction Modeling Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-33, February.
    8. Braathen, Christian & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2022. "Adjusting for Cell Suppression in Commuting Trip Data," Discussion Papers 2022/13, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    9. Gjestland, Arnstein & McArthur, David Philip & Osland, Liv & Thorsen, Inge, 2014. "The suitability of hedonic models for cost-benefit analysis: Evidence from commuting flows," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 136-151.
    10. Arnstein Gjestland & David McArthur & Liv Osland & Inge Thorsen, 2011. "Alternative methods for quantifying commuting-related benefits of new transport infrastructure," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1223, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Audrey Bossuyt & Laurence Broze & Victor Ginsburgh, 2001. "On invisible trade relations between Mesopotamian cities during the third millennium B.C," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/99274, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    12. Glenn, Paul & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2004. "Wage payoffs and distance deterrence in the journey to work," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 853-867, November.
    13. Thorsen, Helge Sandvig & Thorsen, Inge, 2017. "Effects of transportation barriers on geographic asymmetries in labour markets," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 27-37.
    14. Jens P Gitlesen & Inge Thorsen, 2000. "A Competing Destinations Approach to Modeling Commuting Flows: A Theoretical Interpretation and An Empirical Application of the Model," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(11), pages 2057-2074, November.
    15. Jean-Michel Guldmann, 1998. "Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction models of inter-city telecommunication flows," ERSA conference papers ersa98p120, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Kurt Jörnsten & Inge Thorsen & Jan Ubøe, 2004. "Replication/Prediction Problems in the Journey to Work," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(2), pages 347-364, February.
    17. T J Fik & G F Mulligan, 1998. "Functional Form and Spatial Interaction Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(8), pages 1497-1507, August.
    18. P A Pellegrini & A S Fotheringham, 1999. "Intermetropolitan Migration and Hierarchical Destination Choice: A Disaggregate Analysis from the US Public Use Microdata Samples," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(6), pages 1093-1118, June.
    19. D M Hanink & K White, 1999. "Distance Effects in the Demand for Wildland Recreational Services: The Case of National Parks in the United States," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(3), pages 477-492, March.
    20. Irene L. Hudson & Linda Moore & Eric J. Beh & David G. Steel, 2010. "Ecological inference techniques: an empirical evaluation using data describing gender and voter turnout at New Zealand elections, 1893–1919," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 185-213, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa04p420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.