IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v31y2011i1p2-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative approaches to spatial modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Simmonds, David
  • Feldman, Olga

Abstract

In discussion of the modelling methods that can be used to assess the impacts of transport change on regional and local economies, "land-use/transport interaction (LUTI) models" are often referred to as if all such models were examples of a single, homogeneous commodity. The first and major purpose of this paper is to correct this impression by comparing and contrasting some key features of the main models or modelling packages in the LUTI tradition, particularly those which are generally recognized as constituting the current "state-of-the-art", or at least the "state of practice". One particular point within the comparison will be the differing use which is made (or not made) of spatial input-output models in the different approaches. The second purpose of the paper is (more briefly) to compare LUTI modelling with alternative approaches and in particular with spatial computable general equilibrium (SGCE) modelling. One of the common features to emerge from the preceding comparison is that LUTI modelling has been mainly concerned with predicting the location of fixed totals of jobs and of households under different transport scenarios. This is a general feature, even though in some cases these totals are directly fixed by the user whilst in other cases they are the results of long chains of calculations that are insensitive to transport scenarios; in a few cases, the total levels of economic activity are variable according to accessibility-related variables. In contrast, the use of SCGE modelling in testing the impact of transport proposals is very much concerned with the consequences for the total size of the economy in question, usually with a less detailed concern for the spatial distribution of impacts. This comparison leads to a discussion of whether LUTI modelling and SCGE modelling are mutually exclusive or whether some form of synthesis or integration between the two may be theoretically appropriate and/or practically desirable. The requirements of project appraisal - i.e., the assessment of benefits - are also considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Simmonds, David & Feldman, Olga, 2011. "Alternative approaches to spatial modelling," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 2-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:2-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739-8859(10)00124-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francisco Martínez & Pedro Donoso, 2010. "The MUSSA II Land Use Auction Equilibrium Model," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Francesca Pagliara & John Preston & David Simmonds (ed.), Residential Location Choice, pages 99-113, Springer.
    2. Thijs Knaap & Jan Oosterhaven & Lóri Tavasszy, 2001. "On the development of raem: The dutch spatial general equilibrium model and it's first application to a new railway link," ERSA conference papers ersa01p171, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Koopmans, Carl & Oosterhaven, Jan, 2011. "SCGE modelling in cost-benefit analysis: The Dutch experience," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 29-36.
    4. Elhorst, J. Paul & Oosterhaven, Jan, 2008. "Integral Cost-Benefit Analysis of Maglev Rail Projects Under Market Imperfections," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 1(1), pages 65-87.
    5. Olga Feldman & Roger Mackett & Emma Richmond & David Simmonds & Vassilis Zachariadis, 2010. "A Microsimulation Model of Household Location," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Francesca Pagliara & John Preston & David Simmonds (ed.), Residential Location Choice, pages 223-241, Springer.
    6. Knaap, Thijs & Oosterhaven, Jan, 2011. "Measuring the welfare effects of infrastructure: A simple spatial equilibrium evaluation of Dutch railway proposals," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 19-28.
    7. Stephen H. Putman, 2010. "DRAM Residential Location and Land Use Model: 40 Years of Development and Application," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Francesca Pagliara & John Preston & David Simmonds (ed.), Residential Location Choice, pages 61-76, Springer.
    8. J D Hunt & D C Simmonds, 1993. "Theory and Application of an Integrated Land-Use and Transport Modelling Framework," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 20(2), pages 221-244, April.
    9. Zondag, Barry & de Jong, Gerard, 2011. "The development of the TIGRIS XL model: A bottom-up approach to transport, land-use and the economy," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 55-62.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niu, Fangqu & Li, Jun, 2018. "Modeling the population and industry distribution impacts of urban land use policies in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 347-359.
    2. Kristoffersson, Ida & Daly, Andrew & Algers, Staffan, 2018. "Modelling the attraction of travel to shopping destinations in large-scale modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 52-62.
    3. Parker, Chris, 2013. "Appraising transport strategies that induce land use changes," NZIER Working Paper 2013/4, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.
    4. Kristoffersson, Ida & Daly, Andrew & Algers, Staffan, 2017. "Modelling the attraction of shopping centres," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:1, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    5. Rasouli, Soora & Timmermans, Harry, 2013. "Assessment of model uncertainty in destinations and travel forecasts of models of complex spatial shopping behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 139-146.
    6. Fangqu Niu & Jun Li, 2019. "An activity-based integrated land-use transport model for urban spatial distribution simulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(1), pages 165-178, January.
    7. Piotr Rosik & Julia Wójcik, 2022. "Transport Infrastructure and Regional Development: A Survey of Literature on Wider Economic and Spatial Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Andersson, Matts & Dehlin, Fredrik & Jörgensen, Peter & Pädam, Sirje, 2015. "Wider economic impacts of accessibility: a literature survey," Working papers in Transport Economics 2015:14, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    9. Farid El Wahidi & Julien Radoux & Quentin Ponette & Pierre Defourny, 2015. "Entity-Based Landscape Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Different Incentives Mechanisms on Argan Forest Dynamics," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-27, November.

    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. Mark Thissen & Narisra Limtanakool & Hans Hilbers, 2011. "Road pricing and agglomeration economies: a new methodology to estimate indirect effects applied to the Netherlands," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(3), pages 543-567, December.
    2. Andersson, Matts & Dehlin, Fredrik & Jörgensen, Peter & Pädam, Sirje, 2015. "Wider economic impacts of accessibility: a literature survey," Working papers in Transport Economics 2015:14, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    3. Robson, Edward N. & Wijayaratna, Kasun P. & Dixit, Vinayak V., 2018. "A review of computable general equilibrium models for transport and their applications in appraisal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 31-53.
    4. Wanle Wang & Ming Zhong & John Douglas Hunt, 2019. "Analysis of the Wider Economic Impact of a Transport Infrastructure Project Using an Integrated Land Use Transport Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Mark Thissen & Hans Hilbers & Paul Van De Coevering, 2009. "The Difference Between Bi‐Regional And Full Networks When Analysing Agglomeration Effects," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 100(2), pages 171-182, April.
    6. repec:mul:je8794:doi:10.1429/34355:y:2011:i:1:p:125 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ying Jin & Marcial Echenique & Anthony Hargreaves, 2013. "A Recursive Spatial Equilibrium Model for Planning Large-Scale Urban Change," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(6), pages 1027-1050, December.
    8. Siroos Shahriari & Edward N. Robson & Jason Wang & Vinayak V. Dixit & S. Travis Waller & Taha H. Rashidi, 2023. "Integrating a computable general equilibrium model with the four-step framework," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1213-1260, August.
    9. Lan, Xiujuan & Hu, Zheneng & Wen, Chuanhao, 2023. "Does the opening of high-speed rail enhance urban entrepreneurial activity? Evidence from China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2000. "A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 375-394, June.
    11. Rich, Jeppe & Vandet, Christian Anker, 2019. "Is the value of travel time savings increasing? Analysis throughout a financial crisis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 145-168.
    12. Tomoki Ishikura & Fuga Yokoyama, 2022. "Regional economic effects of the Ring Road project in the Greater Tokyo Area: A spatial CGE approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(4), pages 811-837, August.
    13. Hensher, David A. & Teye, Collins, 2019. "Commodity interaction in freight movement models for New South Wales," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. Koopmans, Carl & Oosterhaven, Jan, 2011. "SCGE modelling in cost-benefit analysis: The Dutch experience," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 29-36.
    15. Tomoki Ishikura & Atsushi Koike & Keisuke Sato, 2012. "An Analysis on Differences in Spatial Computable General Equilibrium Models by Market Structure Assumption -A Comparison of Perfect Competition Modeling and Monopolistic Competition Modeling-," ERSA conference papers ersa12p333, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Shao, Shuai & Tian, Zhihua & Yang, Lili, 2017. "High speed rail and urban service industry agglomeration: Evidence from China's Yangtze River Delta region," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 174-183.
    17. Levinson, David M., 2012. "Accessibility impacts of high-speed rail," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 288-291.
    18. Dorsa Alipour & Hussein Dia, 2023. "A Systematic Review of the Role of Land Use, Transport, and Energy-Environment Integration in Shaping Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    19. Shuhong Ma & Yan Zhang & Chaoxu Sun, 2019. "Optimization and Application of Integrated Land Use and Transportation Model in Small- and Medium-Sized Cities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, May.
    20. Ishikura, Tomoki & Yoshikawa, Hiroshi & Yokoyama, Fuga, 2019. "Spatial economic impacts of ring road highway development in the Greater Tokyo Area," Conference papers 333027, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    21. Nannan Yu & Tianhang Cui & Si Lv, 2023. "Does the High-Speed Rail Improve Employment in Peripheral Cities? Evidence From China’s Beijing–Shanghai HSR Line," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    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:eee:retrec:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:2-11. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620614/description#description .

    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.