Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hierarchical interaction: The modeling of a competing central place system

  • Published:
The Annals of Regional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of alternative specifications of the competing destinations model. The competing central place extension is shown to be a model that is sensitive to the spatial and structural intricacies of hierarchical interaction. It is stressed that choice of estimation procedure is as important as model specification, where significance of extracted parameter estimates are subject to spatial autocorrelative transformations. An interactional simulation exercise is performed to expose conceptual and methodological differences in parameter estimates using ordinary least squares (OLS), estimated generalized least squares (EGLS), seemingly unrelated group regression (SUR), and a spatially adjusted version of the seemingly unrelated regression system (SASUR). The combination of a competing central place or weighted destinations model and SASUR is shown to exhibit some interesting results in the estimation of a simulated flow pattern. The competing central place variation of the competing destinations model is proposed as a generalization which recognizes the hierarchical components of flow patterns.

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. Anselin, L., “Specification Tests and Model Selection for Aggregate Spatial Interaction, An Empirical Comparison,”Journal of Regional Science, 24 (1984), pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anselin, L., “Specification Tests on the Structure of Interaction in Spatial Econometric Models,”Papers, Regional Science Association, 54 (1984), pp. 165–82.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anselin, L., “Non-Nested Tests on the Weight Structure in Spatial Autoregressive Models, Some Monte Carlo Results,”Journal of Regional Science, 26 (1986), pp. 267–84.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anselin, L., “Model Validation in Spatial Econometrics: A Review and Evaluation of Alternative Approaches,”International Regional Science Review, 11 (1987).

  5. Arora, S. and M. Brown, “Alternative Approaches to Spatial Autocorrelation: An improvement Over Current Practice,”International Regional Science Review, 2 (1977), pp. 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blommestein, H., “Specification and Estimation of Spatial Econometric Models, A Discussion of Alternative Strategies for Spatial Econometric Modeling,”Regional Science and Urban Economics, 13 (1983), pp. 251–70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blommestein, H. and P. Nijkamp, “Testing the Spatial Scale and the Dynamic Structure in Regional Models. A Contribution to Spatial Econometric Specification Analysis,”Journal of Regional Science, 62 (1986), pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carrothers, G. A. P., “An Historical Review of the Gravity and Potential Concepts of Human Interaction,”Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 22 (1956), pp. 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Christaller, W.,Central Places in Southern Germany, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, translated by C. W. Baskin from Die Zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland, 1933, Jena: Gustav Fischer (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cliff, A. D., P. Haggett, J. K. Ord, K. A. Bassett, and R. B. Davies,Elements of Spatial Structure: A Quantitative Approach, London: Cambridge (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cliff, A. D., R. L. Martin, and J. K. Ord, “Evaluating the Friction of Distance Parameter in Gravity Models,”Regional Studies, 8 (1974), pp. 281–86.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cliff, A. D., and J. K. Ord,Spatial Autocorrelation, London: Pion (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cliff, A. D., and J. K. Ord,Spatial Processes, Models, and Applications, London: Pion (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Curry, L., D. A. Griffith, and E. S. Sheppard, “Those Gravity Parameters Again,”Regional Studies, 9 (1975), pp. 289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ewing, G. O., “Gravity and Linear Regression Models of Spatial Interaction: A Cautionary Note,”Economic Geography, Vol. 50, 1 (1974), pp. 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fotheringham, A. S., “Spatial Structure and Distance-Decay Parameters,”Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71 (1981), pp. 425–36.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fotheringham, A. S., “Distance-Decay Parameters: A Reply,”Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72 (1982), pp. 551–53.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fotheringham, A. S., “A New Set of Spatial Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations,”Environment and Planning A, 15 (1983), pp. 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fotheringham, A. S., “Spatial Flows and Spatial Patterns,”Environment and Planning A, 16 (1984), pp. 529–43.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fotheringham, A. S. and M. J. Webber, “Spatial Structure and the Parameters of Spatial Interaction Models,”Geographical Analysis, 12 (1980), pp. 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Geary, R., “The Contiguity Ratio and Statistical Mapping,”The Incorporated Statistician, 5 (1954), pp. 115–45.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Griffith, D. A., “Spatial Autocorrelation Problems: Some Preliminary Sketches of a Structural Taxonomy,”The East Lakes Geographer, 11 (1976), pp. 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Griffith, D. A., “Towards a Theory of Spatial Statistics,”Geographical Analysis, 12 (1980), pp. 325–39.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Griffith, D. A. and T. J. Fik, “Reflections on the Multivariate Analysis of Geographic Data,”Paper presented at IGU meeting, Madrid, August (1986).

  25. Griffith, D. A. and K. G. Jones, “The Relationship Between Spatial Structure and Spatial Interaction,”Environment and Planning A, 12 (1980), pp. 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haining, R. P., “Specification and Estimation Problems in Models of Spatial Dependence,”Studies in Geography #24, Northwestern University (1978).

  27. Haworth, J. M. and P. J. Vincent, “The Stochastic Disturbance Specification and Its Implications for Log-Linear Regression,”Environment and Planning A, 11 (1979), pp. 781–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haynes, K. E., D. L. Poston, Jr., and P. Schnirring, “Intermetropolitan Migration in High and Low Opportunity Areas: Indirect Tests of the Distance and Intervening Opportunities Hypotheses,”Economic Geography, 49 (1973), pp. 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Haynes, K. E. and S. A. Fotheringham,Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, Scientific Geography Series, 2; Editor: Thrall, G. I., Beverly Hills: Sage (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hubert, L., R. Golledge, and C. Costanzo, “Generalized Procedures for Evaluating Spatial Autocorrelation,”Geographical Analysis 13 (1981), pp. 224–33.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Huff, J. O., “A Hierarchical Migration Model of Population Redistribution Within a Central Place Hierarchy,”Geographical Analysis, 8 (1976), pp. 231–54.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Johnston, R. J., “On Regression Coefficients in Comparative Studies of the Friction of Distance,”Tijdschrifte voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 67 (1976), pp. 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Judge, G., W. Griffiths, R. Hill, and T. Lee,The Theory and Practice of Econometrics, New York: Wiley (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moran, P., “The Interpretation of Statistical Maps,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 10b (1948), pp. 243–51.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mulligan, G. F., “Properties of a General Hierarchical City-Size Model,”Geographical Analysis, 8 (1976), pp. 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mulligan, G. F., “Central Place Populations: A Microeconomic Consideration,”Journal of Regional Science, 23 (1983), pp. 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mulligan, G. F., “Agglomeration and Central Place Theory: A Review of the Literature,”International Regional Science Review, 9 (1984), pp. 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mulligan, G. F., “Central Place Populations: Some Implications of Consumer Shopping Behavior,”Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74 (1984), pp. 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Olsson, G., “Explanation, Prediction, and Meaning Variance: An Assessment of Distance Interaction Models,”Economic Geography, 46 (1970), pp. 223–33.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ord, J. K., “Estimation Methods for Models of Spatial Interaction,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70 (1975), pp. 120–26.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Parr, J. B., “Models of the Central Place System: A More General Approach,”Urban Studies, 15 (1978), pp. 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Parr, J. B. “Economic Flows in Losch's Modified Urban System,” inSpace-Structure-Economy, A Tribute to August Losch, R. H. Funck and A. Kuklinski (eds.), Karlsruhe: von Loeper Verlag (1986), pp. 103–22.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pindyck, R. and D. Rubinfeld,Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts, New York: McGraw-Hill (1981), 2nd Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ravenstein, E. G., “The Laws of Migration,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 48 (1885), pp. 167–235.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Revankar, N. S., “Some Finite Sample Results in the Context of Two Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69 (1974), pp. 187–90.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Revankar, N. S., “Use of Restricted Residuals in SUR Systems: Some Finite Sample Results,”Journal of the American Statistical Association 71 (1976), pp. 183–88.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schmidt, P., “Estimation of Seemingly Unrelated Regressions with Unequal Number of Observations,”Journal of Econometrics, 5 (1977), pp. 365–77.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schmidt, P., “A Note on the Estimation of Seemingly Unrelated Regression Systems,”Journal of Econometrics, 7 (1978), pp. 259–61.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Shapiro, S. S. and M. B. Wilk, “An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality,”Biometrika (1965), pp. 591–611.

  50. Shapiro, S. S., M. B. Wilk, and H. J. Chen, “A Comparative Study of Various Tests for Normality,”Journal of the American Statistical Association (1968), pp. 1343–72.

  51. Sheppard, E. S., “Gravity Parameter Estimation,”Geographical Analysis, 11 (1979), pp. 120–32.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sheppard, E. S., D. A. Griffith, and L. Curry, “A Final Comment on Misspecification and Autocorrelation in Those Gravity Parameters,”Regional Studies, 10 (1976), pp. 337–39.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sonis, M., “A Contribution to the Central Place Theory: Super-Imposed Hierarchies, Structural Stability, Structural Changes and Catastrophes in Central Place Hierarchical Dynamics,” inSpace-Structure-Economy, A Tribute to August Losch, R. H. Funck and A. Kuklinsk (eds.), Karlsruhe: von Loeper Verlag (1986), pp. 159–76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Stouffer, S. A., “Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance,”American Sociological Review, 5 (1940), pp. 845–67.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zellner, A., “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests of Aggregation Bias,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57 (1962), 348–68.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Zellner, A., “Estimators for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations: Some Exact Finite Sample Results,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58 (1963), pp. 977–92.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zellner, A.,An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Econometrics, New York: Wiley (1971), pp. 240–46.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zellner, A., and D. S. Huang, “Further Properties of Efficient Estimators for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations,”International Economic Review, 3 (1962), pp. 300–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of Arizona, 85721, Tucson, AR

    Timothy J. Fik

Authors
  1. Timothy J. Fik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank Dr. Geoffrey J. D. Hewings, Dr. Luc Anselin, and Dr. Gordon F. Mulligan for their many useful comments and suggestions. Any remaining errors and/or omissions are mine alone. As recipient of the first annual Charles M. Tiebout prize, I extend my most sincere gratitude to the Western Regional Science Association. It is an honor and a privilege to be associated with an award that has been given in his memory.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Kingsley Haynes for commentary and support of an earlier version of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fik, T.J. Hierarchical interaction: The modeling of a competing central place system. Ann Reg Sci 22, 48–69 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01287323

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01287323

Keywords

Search

Navigation