Employment Location Modelling Within an Integrated Land Use and Transport Framework: Taking Cue from Policy Perspectives

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

For over four decades the integration of land use and transport models has contributed to systematic studies of economic change and employment location in cities and city regions around the world. This paper discusses one continuously running work stream that originated as a spatial model of urban stock and activity (Echenique et al. 1969) and later became encapsulated in the MEPLAN land use and transport modelling package (Echenique, 2004). One central feature of this approach is its emphasis upon simultaneously solving the employment location model with the production, trade, residential location and transport demand models for any specific year. Fast improving data availability and computer power have enabled an increasingly more complex series of models under this framework to find extensive use in supporting real policy decisions of major infrastructure investment, urban expansions and regeneration. In turn, practical policy needs have guided the priorities of model development.

The paper first reviews the key ideas leading up to the formulation of the MEPLAN package. It then outlines the main applications and the experience gained from them. Current developments of this approach, particularly to incorporate advanced social accounting matrices and recursive spatial equilibrium modelling are reported next. It concludes with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach and its future potential from a policy perspective.

Keywords

Total Factor Productivity Intermediate Input Output Table Employment Location Social Account Matrix 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

Both authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through the Energy Efficient Cities (EECi) Project (www.eeci.cam.ac.uk) and Marcial Echenique wishes also to acknowledge the support of the EPSRC ReVISIONS Project (www.regionalvisions.ac.uk). They would like to thank the reviewers for constructive comments on the paper. The usual disclaimers apply and the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed and any remaining errors.

References

  1. Abraham J, Hunt JD (2000) Policy analogies using the Sacramento MEPLAN land use transportation infrastructure model. In 80th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Anas A, Liu Y (2007) A regional economy, land use, and transportation model (RELU-TRAN©): Formulation, algorithm design, and testing. J Reg Sci 47:415–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty M (1976) Urban modelling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty M (2005) Cities and complexity: understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty M (2009) Urban modeling. In: Kitchin R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopaedia of human geography, vol 12. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Bröcker J (1998) Operational spatial computable general equilibrium modeling. The Annals Reg Sci 32:367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. LT Consult (1999) EUNET case study: a land-use and transport model for the Helsinki Region. LT Consult, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly A, Zachary S (1978) Improved multiple choice models. In: Hensher D, Dalvi M (eds) Determinants of travel choice. Saxon House, SussexGoogle Scholar
  10. de la Barra T (1989) Integrated land use and transport modelling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Barra T, Echenique MH, Quintana M, Guendelman J (1975) An urban regional model for the central region of Chile. In: Baxter RS, Echenique MH, Owers J (eds) Urban development models. Construction Press, Lancaster, pp 137–174Google Scholar
  12. Devereux LS, Echenique MH, Flowerdew ADJ (1982) Bilbao land-use and transport model. Presented at the meeting of the International Study Group of Land-Use/Transport Interaction, IIASA, Schloss Laxenburg, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  13. Domencich T, McFadden D (1975) Urban travel demand: a behavioural analysis. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Echenique MH (1983a) The Sao Paulo metropolitan study: a case study of the effectiveness of urban system analysis. In: Batty M, Hutchinson B (eds) System analysis in urban policy-making and planning. Plenum, New York, pp 243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Echenique MH (1983b) Urban and regional policy analysis in developing countries. In: Chatterjee L, Nijkamp P (eds) Gower, Aldershot, pp 115–158Google Scholar
  16. Echenique MH (1986) The practice of modelling in developing countries. In: Batty M, Hutchinson B (eds) Advances in urban system modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 275–297Google Scholar
  17. Echenique MH (2004) Econometric models of land use and transportation. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Transport geography and spatial systems, vol 5, Handbooks in Transport. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Kidlington, pp 185–202Google Scholar
  18. Echenique MH, Hargreaves AJ (2001) Cambridge futures 2: what transport for Cambridge. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, The Martin CentreGoogle Scholar
  19. Echenique MH, Crowther D, Lindsay W (1969) A spatial model for urban stock and activity. Reg Stud 3:281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Echenique MH, Crowther D, Lindsay W (1972) A structural comparison of three generations of new towns. In: March L, Martin L (eds) Urban space and structures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–259Google Scholar
  21. Echenique MH, Simmonds DC, Starr CM (1987) A MEPLAN model of Cambridgeshire. In: Proceedings of the PTRC Summer annual meeting, PTRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Echenique MH, Flowerdew ADJ, Hunt JD, Mayo TR, Skidmore IJ, Simmonds DC (1990) The MEPLAN model of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund. Transp Rev 10:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Echenique MH, Jin Y, Burgos J, Gil A (1994) An integrated land-use/transport strategy for the development of the central regional of Chile. Traffic Engineering and Control, September, pp 491–497Google Scholar
  24. Echenique MH et al (1999) Cambridge futures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Echenique MH, Hargreaves AJ, Jin Y, Mitchell G, Namdeo A (2009) Solutions project strategic London case study. University of Cambridge, Cambridge. See www.suburbansolutions.ac.uk. Accessed 1 September 2012
  26. Echenique MH, Barton H, Hargreaves AJ, Mitchell G (2010) SOLUTIONS final report: sustainability of land use and transport in outer neighbourhoods, See www.suburbansolutions.ac.uk. Accessed 1 September 2012
  27. Echenique MH et al (2011) A land use spatial interaction model based on random utility theory and social accounting matrices. Symposium for applied modelling 2011, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Feo A, Herrera R, Riquezes J, Echenique MH (1975) A disaggregated model for Caracas. In: Baxter RS, Echenique MH, Owers J (eds) Urban development models. Construction Press, Lancaster, pp 175–202Google Scholar
  29. Flowerdew ADJ (1977) An evaluation package for a strategic land-use transportation plan. In: Bonsall P, Dalvi Q, Hills P (eds) Urban transportation planning. Abacus, Tunbridge Wells, pp 241–258Google Scholar
  30. Geraldes P, Echenique MH, Williams IN (1978) A spatial economic model for Bilbao. In: Proceedings of the PTRC Summer annual meeting, London: PTRCGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham DJ, Kim (2008) An empirical analytical framework for agglomeration economies. Annal Reg Sci 42:267–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graham DJ, Gibbons S, Martin R (2009) Transport investment and the distance decay of agglomeration benefits. Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirten JE, Echenique MH (1979) An operational land-use transport model for the Tehran region, Iran. Transport Research Circular No. 199, pp 6–7Google Scholar
  34. Hunt JD (1994) Calibrating the Naples land use and transport model. Environ Plann B 21:569–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hunt JD, Abraham JE (2005) Design and implementation of PECAS: a generalised system for the allocation of economic production, exchange and consumption quantities. In: Lee-Gosselin MEH, Doherty ST (eds) Integrated land-use and transportation models: behavioural foundations. Elsevier, St. Louis, pp 253–274Google Scholar
  36. Hunt JD, Simmonds DC (1993) Theory and application of an integrated land-use and transport modelling framework. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 20:221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jin Y (1990) Locational propensities under state provision and market conditions: retailing in Beijing 1978–1988. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Jin Y, Williams IN, Shahkarami M (2002) A model for London and its surrounding regions, European transport forum, Cambridge. Available at http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/a-new-land-use-and-transport-interaction-model-for-london-and-its-surrounding. Accessed 1 September 2012
  39. Jin Y, Echenique MH, Hargreaves AJ (2011) A spatial recursive equilibrium model that incorporates the dynamics of large scale land use development and restructuring. Symposium for applied modelling 2011, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Leontief W (1951) The structure of the American economy 1919–1939, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Leontief W (1986) Input–output economics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Lowry I (1964) Model of metropolis, Memorandum RM-4035-RC. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  44. Marsden A (1984) A model solution to Bilbao’s traffic congestion. The Survey 163(4799):4–6Google Scholar
  45. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  46. ME&P (1989) A land-use/transport model for London. Report to the Department of Transport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. ME&P (1992a) Technical introduction to MEPLAN. Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. ME&P (1992b) MEPLAN for London and the South East. TRRL Project No. N04290. Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. ME&P (1993) A land use and transport model for Macro Zona Central of Chile (in Spanish). Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. ME&P (1995) A land use and transport model for Santiago Metropolitan Area (in Spanish). Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. ME&P (1997) A national model of land use and transport for Chile (in Spanish). Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. ME&P (2000) EUNET case study – the trans-pennine model: final report for HETA, DETR. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. ME&P (2002) LASER enhancement project: final report. Marcial Echenique and Partners (ME&P), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Melo P, Graham DJ, Noland RB (2009) A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies. Reg Sci Urban Econ 39:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. WSP Policy & Research (2005a) Wider South East Regional Research Study: compendium of model tests using the London and South East Land Use and transport model (LASER3.0). London: Department for Transport. (Lead author with ID Elston and others). See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070129210246/ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/laserenhancementproject. Accessed 1 September 2012
  56. WSP Policy & Research (2005b) The EUNET2.0 freight and logistics model - Final Report. Regional Pilot for Economic/Logistic Methods. DfT Contract PPAD 9/134/24. London: Department for Transport. See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070129210246/ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/theeunet20freightandlogistic3126. Accessed 1 September 2012
  57. Rohr C, Williams IN (1994) Modelling the regional economic impacts of the channel tunnel. Environ Plann B 21:555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenthal S, Strange WC (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration. Rev Econ Stat 85:377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodGoogle Scholar
  60. Simmonds DC (2004) Introduction to the DELTA Package. Cambridge: David Simmonds Consultancy. See http://www.cix.co.uk/~davidsimmonds/main/pdfs/DELTAintro.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2012
  61. Wegener M (2011) Transport in spatial models of economic development. In: de Palma A, Lindsey R, Quinet É, Vickerman R (eds) Handbook in transport economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams IN (1994) A model of London and the South East. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 21(5):535–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams IN, Echenique MH (1978) A regional model for commodity and passenger flows. In: Proceedings of the PTRC Summer annual meeting, PTRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban StudiesUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations