A new approach to modelling distance-decay functions for accessibility assessment in transport studies

This paper tries to break new ground in how distance-decay relationships are modelled in accessibility and transport demand studies and does it based on an innovative approach to empirical data collection on psychological perceptions of distance in relation with activities located in space and a new aggregate distance-decay function. This new approach improves on the quality of the representation of spatial interaction effects on transport demand modelling studies that commonly rely on generic curves barely confronted with empirical data. We compare the level of fit of the proposed curve with other distance-decay functions mentioned in the literature and used in practice and draw relevant conclusions on the proper model specification.

[1]  A. Stewart Fotheringham,et al.  Spatial Structure and the Parameters of Spatial Interaction Models , 2010 .

[2]  L. Curry.  A Spatial Analysis of Gravity Flows , 1972, The Random Spatial Economy and Its Evolution.

[3]  S. Bem.  The measurement of psychological androgyny. , 1974, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[4]  W. G. Hansen.  How Accessibility Shapes Land Use , 1959 .

[5]  A. Fotheringham,et al.  Chain Image and Store-Choice Modeling: The Effects of Income and Race , 1993 .

[6]  R. Johnston.  Map pattern and friction of distance parameters: a comment , 1975 .

[7]  P. Gottschalk,et al.  The five-parameter logistic: a characterization and comparison with the four-parameter logistic. , 2005, Analytical biochemistry.

[8]  W. Tobler.  A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region , 1970 .

[9]  Werner Rothengatter,et al.  A disaggregate Box-Cox Logit mode choice model of intercity passenger travel in Germany and its implications for high-speed rail demand forecasts , 1997 .

[10]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Measuring Space‐Time Accessibility Benefits within Transportation Networks: Basic Theory and Computational Procedures , 1999 .

[11]  E. Sheppard,et al.  Those gravity parameters again , 1975 .

[12]  Joel L. Horowitz,et al.  A UTILITY MAXIMIZING MODEL OF THE DEMAND FOR MULTI-DESTINATION NON-WORK TRAVEL , 1980 .

[13]  A. Stewart Fotheringham.  Distance-Decay Parameters: A Reply , 1982 .

[14]  A. El-geneidy,et al.  Access to Destinations: How Close Is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions for Multiple Modes and Different Purposes , 2008 .

[15]  W. Clark,et al.  A Disaggregate Model of Residential Mobility and Housing Choice , 2010 .

[16]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[17]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[18]  F. J. Richards.  A Flexible Growth Function for Empirical Use , 1959 .

[19]  Bert van Wee,et al.  Accessibility Indicators for Location Choices of Offices: An Application to the Intraregional Distributive Effects of High-Speed Rail in the Netherlands , 2007 .

[20]  Thomas Adler,et al.  Web-Based Survey Techniques , 2006 .

[21]  Hongbo Yu,et al.  A GIS-based time-geographic approach of studying individual activities and interactions in a hybrid physical–virtual space , 2009 .

[22]  José Manuel Viegas,et al.  A traffic analysis zone definition: a new methodology and algorithm , 2009 .

[23]  L. Lo,et al.  Spatial Structure and Spatial Interaction: A Simulation Approach , 1991 .

[24]  Torsten Hägerstrand.  REFLECTIONS ON “WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE IN REGIONAL SCIENCE?” , 1989 .

[25]  A. Fotheringham,et al.  Modelling Hierarchical Destination Choice , 1986 .

[26]  L. Martínez,et al.  An integrated application of zoning for mobility analysis and planning: the case of Paris Region , 2010 .

[27]  S. Fotheringham,et al.  Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthesis in a migration context , 2002 .

[28]  J. Ord,et al.  Map pattern and friction of distance parameters: reply to comments by R. J. Johnston, and by L. Curry, D. A. Griffith and E. S. Sheppard , 1975 .

[29]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  Time-space transformations of geographic space for exploring, analyzing and visualizing transportation systems , 2007 .

[30]  Marc Gaudry.  The inverse power transformation logit and dogit mode choice models , 1981 .

[31]  William A. V. Clark,et al.  An Empirical Test of a Joint Model of Residential Mobility and Housing Choice , 1985 .

[32]  Tijs Neutens,et al.  An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space-time accessibility , 2012 .

[33]  A. Fotheringham.  SPATIAL STRUCTURE AND DISTANCE‐DECAY PARAMETERS , 1981, Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

[34]  Kajsa Ellegård,et al.  Torsten Hägerstrand’s time-geography as the cradle of the activity approach in transport geography , 2012 .

[35]  Michael Tiefelsdorf,et al.  Misspecifications in interaction model distance decay relations: A spatial structure effect , 2003, J. Geogr. Syst..

[36]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations † , 1983 .

[37]  S. Reader,et al.  Unobserved Heterogeneity in Dynamic Discrete Choice Models , 1993 .