Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of successively complex rules for locational decision-making

  • Section V Planning Models And Applications
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relative performance of five simple rules for selecting facility locations are compared with two heuristic location-allocation algorithms in the context of a real region. It is hypothesized that the performance of a rule is likely to be systematically related to the spatial structure of the region in which it is used. In the Iowa settlement system, known to have predictable structural regularity, some rules performed over 95 percent of the level achieved by the algorithms (the greedy add and the modified vertex exchange algorithms) on a range of commonly used criteria for evaluating locational efficiency. Under certain circumstances, these rules may be recommended as alternatives to more formal algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J.R. Beaumont, Location-allocation models and central place theory, in:Spatial Analysis and Location-Allocation Models, eds. A. Ghosh and G. Rushton (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1986) pp. 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B.J. Berry and H.G. Barnum, Aggregate relations and elemental components of central place systems, Journal of Regional Science 4 (1962) 35–68.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.R. Borchert, American metropolitan evolution, Geographical Review 57 (1967) 301–32.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Brush, The hierarchy of central places in southwestern Wisconsin, Geographical Review 43 (1953) 380–402.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Brush and H.E. Bracey, Rural service centers in southwestern Wisconsin and southern England, Geographical Review 45 (1955) 559–69.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. Christaller,Central Places in Southern Germany (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. Cooper, Location-allocation problems, Oper. Res. 11 (1963) 331–43.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Cornuejols, M.L. Fisher and G.L. Nemhauser, Location of banks accounts to optimize float: an analytic study of exact and approximate algorithms, Man. Sci. 23 (1977) 789–810.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Dacey, A probability model for central place locations, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 56 (1966) 550–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. C. Daganzo,Multinomial Probit: The Theory and Its Applications to Demand Forecasting (Academic Press, New York, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  11. B.C. Eaton and R.G. Lipsey, The theory of market preemption: the persistence of excess capacity and monopoly in growing spatial markets, Economica 46 (1979) 149–58.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Hansen and J.F. Thisse, Outcomes of voting and planning: Condorcet, Weber, and Rawls locations, Journal of Public Economics 16 (1981) 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Horowitz, Random utility models of urban nonwork travel demand: a review, Paper of the Regional Science Association 45 (1980) 125–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Hotelling, Stability in competition, Economic Journal 39 (1929) 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.C. Hudson, A location theory for rural settlement, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59 (1969) 365–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. L. King, A multivariate analysis of the spacing of urban settlements in the United States, Annals of the Ass. of Am. Geographers 51 (1961) 222–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. L. King, A quantitative expression of the pattern of urban settlements in selected areas of the United States, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 53 (1962) 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A.A. Kuehn and M.J. Hamburger, A heuristic program for locating warehouses, Management Science 9 (1963) 643–66.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Larson and K. Stevenson, On insensitivities in urban redistricting and facility location, Operations Research 20 (1972) 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E.E. Leamer, Locational equilibria, Jn. of Reg. Sci. 8 (1968) 229–42.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Losch,The Economics of Locations (Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  22. T.R. Mahoney, Urban history in a regional context: River towns on the upper Mississippi, 1840–1860, The Jn. of American History 72 (1985) 318–39.

    Google Scholar 

  23. F.E. Maranzana, On the location of supply points to minimize transport cost, Operations Research Quarterly 15 (1964) 261–70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, in:Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka (Academic Press, New York, 1974) pp. 105–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. S.B. Park, Performance of principles for locational decision-making: Effects of the spatial structure of environments, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Geog., The Uni. of Iowa, Iowa City, Ia (1988) 303pp.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J.B. Parr, Frequency distributions of central places in Southern Germany: a further analysis, Economic Geography 56 (1980) 141–54.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J.B. Parr and K.G. Denike, Theoretical problems in central place analysis, Economic Geography 46 (1970) 568–86.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C. ReVelle, R. Church and D. Schilling, A note on the location model of Holmes, Williams, and Brown, Geographical Analysis 7 (1975) 457–59.

    Google Scholar 

  29. K.E. Rosing, E.L. Hillsman and H.R. Vogelaar, The robustness of two common heuristics for thep-median problem, Env. and Plng A 11 (1979) 373–80.

    Google Scholar 

  30. G. Rushton, Analysis of spatial behavior by revealed spatial preference, Annals of the Ass. Am. Geog. 59 (1969) 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. G. Rushton and J.A. Kohler, Alloc: Heuristic solution to multifacility location problems on a graph, in:Computer Programs for Location-Allocation Problems, eds. G. Rushton, M.F. Goodchild and L.M. Ostresh, Jr., Dept. of Geog., Monog. 6 (Uni. of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa (1973) pp. 163–87.

    Google Scholar 

  32. G. Rushton, S.L. McLafferty and A. Ghosh, Equilibrium locations for public services: individual preferences and social choice, Geog. Analysis 13 (1981) 196–202.

    Google Scholar 

  33. SAS/GRAPH, Statistical analysis for social sciences: Graph, Version 5 (1985).

  34. A.J. Scott, Dynamic location-allocation systems: some basic strategies, Env. and Plng A 3 (1971) 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  35. R. Stock, Distance and the utilization of health facilities in rural Nigeria, Social Science and Medicine 17 (1983) 563–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. M.B. Teitz, Toward a theory of urban public facility location,Papers of the Regional Science Association 21 (1968) 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. M.B. Teitz and P. Bart, Heuristic methods for estimating the generalized vertex median of a weighted graph, Operations Research 16 (1968) 955–61.

    Google Scholar 

  38. E.N. Thomas, Toward an expanded central place model, Geographical Review 51 (1961) 400–11.

    Google Scholar 

  39. E. Thomas, The stability of distance-population size relationship for Iowa towns from 1900 to 1950, Lund Studies in Geography (Series B. Human Geography) 24 (1962) 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  40. W. Thorngate, Efficient decision heuristics, Behavioral Science 25 (1980) 219–25.

    Google Scholar 

  41. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980: Master Area Reference File (MARF) 2, [Machine-readable data file] and [Technical documentation], Washington, D.C. (1983).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, The University of Iowa, 52242, Iowa City, Iowa, U.S.A.

    Soo Byong PARK

Authors
  1. Soo Byong PARK
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

PARK, S.B. Performance of successively complex rules for locational decision-making. Ann Oper Res 18, 323–343 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02097811

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02097811

Keywords

Search

Navigation