A Population-Employment Interaction Model as Labour Module in TIGRIS XL

  • Thomas de GraaffEmail author
  • Barry Zondag
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


This chapter looks at the integration of a population-employment interaction model in the TIGRIS XL framework. TIGRIS XL model is an integrated land-use and transport model and is actually a system of sub-models (or modules) that allows for dynamic interaction between them. Currently, the population module responses to lagged changes in employment and the employment module responses to contemporaneous changes in population. Thus, the change in population mainly drives the change in employment—an assumption which, given the strict Dutch restrictions on population location, is not entirely unrealistic. We, however, argue that this assumption is too harsh, and that sectoral employment change might be more dependent upon employment change in other sectors than on population change. We, therefore, test and estimate such relations and conclude indeed that for some sectors the employment dynamics in other sectors are more important than population changes and propose an adapted version of the labour module in TIGRIS XL. The new methodology within TIGRIS XL is assessed by looking at a (stylized) case study. This study concerned the doubling of the size of the new town Almere located 20 km east of Amsterdam. About 60,000 dwellings are to be built and 100,000 jobs are to be added in the period up to 2030. The accessibility benefits of a particular land use planning variant, with a tailored public transport investment alternative, are examined for the new labour module in TIGRIS XL. Both models predict, in case of the construction of 60,000 dwellings, a number of additional jobs much lower than 100,000. The model results of the new module shows that the population-employment interaction model reacts slower and on shorter distances on population changes than the old model. Thus, employment does not seem to mold that easily to population changes as earlier Dutch employment models have predicted.


Labour Market Housing Market Economic Sector Scenario Analysis Employment Growth 
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 research was done at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. We would like thank Michiel de Bok, Raymond J.G.M. Florax and Frank van Oort for useful comments and remarks. Finally, the authors would like to particularly thank Significance for calculating some of the scenario analyses. The usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Amsterdambrief (2011) Economic development perspectives for the northwing of the Randstad. Ministry of Economic Affairs (in Dutch), The HagueGoogle Scholar
  2. Boarnet MC (1994a) An empirical model of intrametropolitan population and employment growth. Pap Reg Sci 73:135–152Google Scholar
  3. Boarnet MC (1994b) The monocentric model and employment location. J Urban Econ 36:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boarnet MC, Chalermpong S, Geho E (2005) Specification issues in models of population and employment growth. Pap Reg Sci 84:21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruinsma F, Florax RJGM, van Oort F, Sorber M (2002) Wonen en werken: wringen binnen rode contouren. Economische Statistische Berichten 87:384–387Google Scholar
  6. RAND Europe and Bureau Louter (2006) Systeem documentatie tigris xl 1.0. prepared for the Transport Research Centre, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlino GA, Mills ES (1987) The determinants of country growth. J Reg Sci 27:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers JI, Mulligan GF (2007) Land absorption in US metropolitan areas: estimates and projections from regional adjustment models. Geogr Anal 39:78–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carruthers JI, Mulligan GF (2008) A locational analysis of growth and change in American metropolitan areas. Pap Reg Sci 87:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers JI, Vias AC (2005) Urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl in the Rocky Mountain West: evidence from regional adjustment models. J Reg Sci 45:21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CPB (2009) Cost-benefit analysis of urbanisation and public transport alternatives for Almere, Netherlands bureau for economic policy analysis (CPB; in Dutch), The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. de Bok M (2007) Infrastructure and firm dynamics: a micro-simulation approach. T2007/5, trail thesis series, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Echenique MH, Hargreaves AJ (2004) Cambridge futures 2: what transport for Cambridge. The Martin Centre, University of Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoogstra GJ, Florax RJGM, van Dijk J (2003) Specification issues and sample selection in population-employment interaction models. working paper, Universiteit GroningenGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoogstra GJ, Florax RJGM, van Dijk J (2005) Do‘jobs follow people’ or‘people follow jobs’? a meta-analysis of carlino-mills studies. Working paper, Universiteit GroningenGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoogstra GJ, van Dijk J, Florax RJGM (2011) Determinants of variation in population-employment interaction findings: a quasi-experimental meta-analysis. Geogr Anal 43:14–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1998) A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. J Real Estate Financ Econ 17:99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2004) Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. J Econometrics 118:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mills ES (1967) An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area. Am Econ Rev 57:197–210Google Scholar
  20. Moeckel R (2005) Microsimulation of firm location decisions. Proceedings of the 9th CUPUM conference, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulligan GF, Vias AC, Glavac SM (1999) Initial diagnostics of a regional adjustment model. Environ Plann A 31:855–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muth RF (1969) Cities and housing. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. PBL (2007) Adolescent almere. how a city is made. NAi Uitgevers/Ruimtelijk Planbureau, Rotterdam/Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  24. PBL (2011) Nederland in 2040: een land van regio’s. Ruimtelijke Verkenning 2011. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  25. PBL (2008) Woon-werkdynamiek in Nederlandse gemeenten. NAi Uitgevers/Ruimtelijk Planbureau, Rotterdam/Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  26. Simmonds DC (1999) The design of the DELTA land-use modelling package. Environ Plann B 26:665–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steinnes DN (1977) ’Do people follow jobs’ or’do jobs follow people’? A causality issue in urban economics. J Urban Econ 4:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinnes DN, Fischer WD (1974) An econometric model of intraurban location. J Reg Sci 14:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson WR (1968) Internal and external factors in the development of urban economies. In: Perloff HS, Wingo L Jr (eds) Issues in urban economies. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 43–62, chapter 4Google Scholar
  30. Thurston L, Yezer AMJ (1994) Causality in the suburbanization of population and employment. J Urban Econ 35:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van den Burg A (2004) Ruimtelijk beleid in nederland op nationaal niveau, Geordend Landschap. 3000 jaar ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland, Verloren, chapter van Heeringen RM, Cordfunke EHP, Ilsink M, Sarfatij H, p 159–176Google Scholar
  32. Vermeulen W, Rouwendal J (2007) Housing supply and land use regulation in the Netherlands. tinbergen institute discussion paper, TI 2007-058/3, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Vermeulen W, van Ommeren J (2009) Does land use planning shape regional economies? A simultaneous analysis of housing supply, internal migration and local employment growth in the Netherlands. J Hous Econ 18:294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waddell P (2001) Between politics and planning:urbansim as a decision support system for metropolitan planning, in building urban planning support systems. Center for Urban Policy Research, The State University of New Jersey, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  35. Wegener M (1998a) The IRPUD model: labour market submodel. Website of the Institute of Spatial Planning, University of DortmundGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegener M (1998b) The IRPUD model: overview. Website of the Institute of Spatial Planning, University of DortmundGoogle Scholar
  37. Zondag B (2007) Joint modeling of land-use, transport and the economy. T2007/4, Trail Thesis series, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations