Spatial Interaction and Discrete Choice: Statics and Dynamics

  • Peter Nijkamp
  • Aura Reggiani
Part of the Theory and Decision Library book series (TDLU, volume 49)


Interaction analysis has become an important topic in social science research. Especially in spatial interaction analysis - dealing with flows of commodities, persons, information etc. between regions in a spatial system - much attention has been devoted to models incorporating the push and pull effects as well as the distance friction effects between regions. In this context, the traditional gravity model has become a very popular analytical tool. From the seventies onwards it has increasingly been realized that entropy theory - originating from statistical mechanics or from information theory - might provide a new foundation for the use of the gravity model (see, for instance, Wilson, 1970; Batten, 1983; Haynes and Fotheringham, 1984).


Discrete Choice Spatial Interaction Discrete Choice Model Entropy Model Entropy Theory 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, P.M., J.L. Deneubourg, M. Sanglier, F. Boon, and A. de Palma: 1978, ‘The dynamics of urban evolution’, Final Report of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C..Google Scholar
  2. Alonso, W.: 1978, ‘A theory of movements’, in N.M. Hansen (ed.), Human Settlement Systems, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass..Google Scholar
  3. Anas, A.: 1983 ‘Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models’, Transportation Research B 17, 13–23.Google Scholar
  4. Anselin, L.: 1982, ‘Implicit functional relationships between systemic effects in a general model of movement’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 12, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin, L. and W. Isard: 1979 ‘On Alonso’s general theory of movement’, Man, Environment, Space and Time 1, 52–63.Google Scholar
  6. Batten, D.F.: 1983, Spatial Analysis of Interacting Economies, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Batten, D.F. and D.E. Boyce: 1986, ‘Spatial interaction, transportation and interregional commodity flow models’, in P. Nijkamp (ed.), Handbook in Regional Economics, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  8. Batty, M. and L. March: 1976, ‘The method of residues in urban modelling’, Environment and Planning A 8, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Akiva, M. and S.R. Lerman: 1979, ‘Disaggregate travel and mobility choice models and measures of accessibility’, in D.A. Hensher and D.R. Stopher (eds.), Behavioral Theory Modelling, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  10. Berechman, J.: 1981, ‘Analytical problems in linking an activity model with a transportation network model’, Environment and Planning A 13, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birkin, M. and A.G. Wilson: 1985, ‘Some properties of spatial-structural-economic-dynamic models’, Paper presented at the 4th European Colloquium on Quantitative and Theoretical Geography, Veldhoven.Google Scholar
  12. Boyce, D.E.: 1984, ‘Urban transportation network-equilibrium and design models: recent achievements and future projects’, Environment and Planning A 16, 1445–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyce, D.E., K.S. Chon, Y.J. Lee, K.T. Lin, and L.J. Le Blanc: 1983, ‘Implementation and computational issues for combined models of location, destination, mode and route choice’, Environment and Planning A 15, 1214–1230.Google Scholar
  14. Boyce, D.E. and F. Southworth: 1979, ‘Quasi-dynamic urban location models with endogenously determined travel costs’, Environment and Planning A 11, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bröcker, J.: 1980, ‘An application of economic interaction models to the analysis of spatial effects of economic integration’, Environment and Planning A 12, 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Byler, J.W. and S. Gale: 1978, ‘Social account and planning for changes in urban housing markets’, Environment and Planning A 10, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charnes, A., K.E. Haynes, F.Y. Phillips, and G. White: 1977, ‘New equivalencies and qualities from the extremal solution of the gravity model of spatial interaction’, Journal of Regional Science 17, 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke, M. and A.G. Wilson: 1983, ‘The dynamics of urban spatial structure: progress and problems’, Journal of Regional Science 23, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coelho, J.D.: 1977, ‘The use of mathematical methods in model based land use planning’, Ph.D. Diss., Dept. of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds.Google Scholar
  20. Coelho, J.D. and H.C.W.L. Williams: 1978, ‘On the design of land use plans through locational surplus maximization’, Papers of the Regional Science Association 40, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coelho, J.D. and A.G. Wilson: 1977, ‘Some equivalence theorems to integrate entropy maximizing sub-models within overall mathematical programming frameworks’, Geographical Analysis 9, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daganzo, C: 1979, Multinomial Probit, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Dejon, B.: 1983, ‘Attractivity-regulated dynamic equilibrium models of migration of the multiplicative type’, in D. Griffith and A.C. Lea (eds.), Evolving Geographical Structures, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  24. Dendrinos, S. and M. Sonis: 1986, ‘Variational principles and conservation conditions in Volterra’s ecology and in urban relative dynamics’, Journal of Regional Science 26, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Diappi, L. and A. Reggiani: 1985, ‘Modelli di trasporto e geografia del territorio’, in A. Reggiani (ed.), Territorio e Trasporti, Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  26. Domencich, T.A. and D. McFadden: 1975, Urban Travel Demand. A Behavioural Analysis, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Erlander, S.: 1977, ‘Entropy in linear programming - an approach to planning’, Linköping Institute of Technology, Report LITH-Mat-R-77–3, Linköping.Google Scholar
  28. Erlander, S.: 1980, Optimal Spatial Interaction and the Gravity Model, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, S.P.: 1973, ‘A relationship between the gravity model for trip distribution and the transportation problem in linear programming’, Transportation Research 7, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans, S.P.: 1976, ‘Derivation and analysis of some models for combining trip distribution and assignment’, Transportation Research 10, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisch, O.: 1981, ‘Contributions to the general theory of movement’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 11, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fisk, C.S. and D.E. Boyce: 1984, ‘A modified composite cost measure for probabilistic choice modelling’, Environment and Planning A 16, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Florian, M.: 1983, ‘Nonlinear cost network models in transportation analysis’, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports, publication 287 - Département d’Informatique et de la Recherche Operationelle, publication 469 - Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
  34. Florian, M. and S. Nguyen: 1978, ‘A combined trip distribution, modal split and trip assignment model’, Transportation Research 12, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Griffith, D. and A.C. Lea (eds.): 1983, Evolving Geographical Structures, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  36. Haynes, K.E. and A.S. Fotheringham: 1984, Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, Sage Publ., Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  37. Haynes, K.E. and F.Y. Phillips: 1982, ‘Constrained minimum discrimination information: a unifying tool for modelling spatial and individual choice behaviour’, Environment and Planning A 14, 1341–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hua, C: 1980, ‘An exploration of the nature and rationale of a systemic model’, Environment and Planning A 12, 713–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jefferson, T.R. and C.H. Scott: 1977, ‘Entropy maximizing models or residential location via geometric programming’, Geographical Analysis 9, 181–187.Google Scholar
  40. Kahn, D. (ed.): 1981, Essays in Societal System Dynamics and Transportation: Report of the Third Annual Workshop in Urban and Regional Systems Analysis, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C..Google Scholar
  41. Kamien, M.I. and N.L. Schwartz: 1981, Dynamic Optimization: The Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control in Economics and Management, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Ledent, J.: 1980, ‘Calibrating Alonso’s general theory of movement: the case of interprovincial migration flows in Canada’, Sistemi Urbani 2, 327–358.Google Scholar
  43. Ledent, J.: 1981, ‘On the relationship between Alonso’s theory of movement and Wilson’s family of spatial interaction models’, Environment and Planning A 13, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leonardi, G.: 1983, ‘An optimal control representation of stochastic multistage multiactor choice process’, in D.A. Griffith and A.C. Lea (eds.), Evolving Geographical Structures, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  45. Leonardi, G.: 1985, ‘Equivalenza asintotica tra la teoria delle utilità casuali e la massimizzazione dell’entropia, in A. Reggiani (ed.), Territorio e Trasporti, Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  46. Lierop, W.F.J. van: 1985, ‘Spatial interaction modelling and residential choice analysis’, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Economics, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  47. Lierop, W. van and P. Nijkamp: 1979, ‘A utility framework for interaction models’, Sistemi Urbani 1, 41–64.Google Scholar
  48. Lierop, W. van and P. Nijkamp: 1982, ‘Disaggregate models of choice in a spatial context’, Sistemi Urbani 4, 331–369.Google Scholar
  49. Lombardo, S.T. and G.A. Rabino: 1983, ‘Some simulations of a central place theory model’, Sistemi Urbani 5, 315- 332.Google Scholar
  50. Los, H. and S. Nguyen: 1983, ‘Solution algorithms for a combined residential location and transportation model’, Environment and Planning A 15, 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mattson, L.G.: 1983, ‘Equivalence between welfare and entropy approaches to residential location’, Research Paper TRITA-MAT-1983–18, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  52. McFadden, D.: 1974, ‘Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’, in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Miller, R.E.: 1979, Dynamic Optimization and Economic Applications, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Nijkamp, P.: 1975, ‘Reflections on gravity and entropy models’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 5, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nijkamp, P.: 1979, ‘Gravity and entropy models: the state of the art’, in G.R.M. Jansen, P.H.L. Bovy, J.P.J.M. van Est, and F. le Clerq (eds.), New Developments in Modeling Travel Demand and Urban Systems, Gower, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
  56. Nijkamp, P. and H.J. Poot: 1987, ‘Dynamics of generalized spatial interaction models’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 17, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nijkamp, P. and A. Reggiani: 1986, ‘A synthesis between macro and micro models in spatial interaction analysis with special reference to dynamics’, Research Memorandum, Dept. of Economics, Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  58. Pindyck, R.S. and D.L. Rubinfeld: 1981, Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
  59. Poot, H.J.: 1984, ‘Models of New Zealand internal migration and residential mobility’. Ph.D. Diss., Victoria University, Wellington.Google Scholar
  60. Porell, F.W.: 1982, ‘Intermetropolitan migration and quality of life’, Journal of Regional Science 22, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Porell, F.W. and C.M. Hua: 1981, ‘An econometric procedure for estimation of a generalized system gravity model under incomplete information about the system’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 11, 585–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rabino, G.: 1985, ‘Modelli dinamici del sistema integrato territorio e trasporti’, in A. Reggiani (ed.), Territorio e Trasporti, Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  63. Reggiani, A. (ed.): 1985, Territorio e Trasporti; Modelli Matematici per l’Analisi e la Planificazione, Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
  64. Roy, J.R. and P.L. Lesse: 1985, ‘Entropy models with entropy constraints on aggregated events’, Environment and Planning A 17, 1669–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sonis, M.: 1984, ‘Dynamic choice of alternatives, innovation diffusion, and ecological dynamics of the Volterra-Lotka model’, in D.E. Pitfield (ed.), Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  66. Sonis, M.: 1986, ‘A unified theory of innovation diffusion, dynamic choice of alternatives, ecological dynamics and urban/regional growth and decline’, Paper presented at the Conference on Innovation Diffusion, Venice.Google Scholar
  67. Tabuchi, T.: 1984, ‘The systemic variables and elasticities in Alonso’s general theory of movement’, Regional Science and Urban Economics 14, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tan, K.C. and R.J. Bennett: 1984, Optimal Control of Spatial Systems, George Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  69. Theil, H.: 1972, Statistical Decomposition Analysis, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  70. Wegener, M., F. Gnad, and M. Vannahme: 1985, ‘The time scale of urban change’, in B. Hutchinson and M. Batty (eds.), Advances in Urban Systems Modeling, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, H.C.W.L. and A.G. Wilson: 1980, ‘Some comments on the theoretical and analytic structure of urban and regional models’, Sistemi Urbani 2, 203–242.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, A.G.: 1970, Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  73. Wilson, A.G.: 1980, ‘Comments on Alonso’s ‘theory of movement’, Environment and Planning A 12, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, A.G.: 1981, Catastrophe Theory and Bifurcation, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, A.G.: 1982, ‘Transport, location and spatial systems: planning with spatial interaction models and related approaches’, School of Geography, University of Leeds, mimeographed.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Nijkamp
    • 1
  • Aura Reggiani
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of EconomicsFree UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Social and Economic AnalysisUniversity of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations