Land-Use Transport Interaction Models

  • Michael WegenerEmail author
Reference work entry


The relationship between urban development and transport is not simple and one way but complex and two way and is closely linked to other urban processes, such as macroeconomic development, interregional migration, demography, household formation, and technological innovation. In this chapter, one segment of this complex relationship is discussed: the two-way interaction between urban land use and transport within urban regions. The chapter looks at integrated models of urban land use and transport, i.e., models that explicitly model the two-way interaction between land use and transport to forecast the likely impacts of land use and transport policies for decision support in urban planning. The discussion starts with a review of the main theories of land-use transport interaction from transport planning, urban economics, and social geography. It then gives a brief overview of selected current operational urban models, thereby distinguishing between spatial-interaction location models and accessibility-based location models, and discusses their advantages and problems. Next, it reports on two important current debates about model design: are equilibrium models or dynamic models preferable, and what is the most appropriate level of spatial resolution and substantive disaggregation? This chapter closes with a reflection of new challenges for integrated urban models likely to come up in the future.


Urban Land Spatial Interaction Traffic Noise Transport Policy Microsimulation Model 
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.


  1. Allen PM, Sanglier M, Boon F (1981) Models of urban settlement and structure as self-organizing systems. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Anas A (1982) Residential location models and urban transportation: economic theory, econometrics, and policy analysis with discrete choice models. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Anas A (1983) Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models. Transportation Res B 17(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anas A, Liu Y (2007) A regional economy, land use and transportation model (RELU-TRAN): formulation, algorithm design and testing. J Regional Sci 47(3):415–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS, Weiss SF (1968) A probabilistic model for residential growth. Transportation Res 2(4):375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de la Barra T (1989) Integrated land use and transport modelling. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Domencich TA, McFadden D (1975) Urban travel demand: a behavioral analysis. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Echenique MH (1985) The use of integrated land use transportation planning models: the cases of Sao Paulo, Brazil and Bilbao, Spain. In: Florian M (ed) The practice of transportation planning. Elsevier, The Hague, pp 263–286Google Scholar
  10. Fiorello D, Huismans G, López E, Marques C, Monzon A, Nuijten A, Steenberghen T, Wegener M, Zografos G (2006) Transport strategies under the scarcity of energy supply. STEPs Final report. Buck Consultants International, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  11. Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science? Pap Reg Sci Assoc 24(1):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25(2):73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris B, Wilson AG (1978) Equilibrium values and dynamics of attractiveness terms in production-constrained spatial-interaction models. Environ Plann A 10(4):371–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Hunt JD, Kriger DS, Miller EJ (2005) Current operational urban land-use transport modeling frameworks: a review. Transport Rev 25(3):329–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lautso K, Spiekermann K, Wegener M, Sheppard I, Steadman P, Martino A, Domingo R, Gayda S (2004) PROPOLIS: planning and research of policies for land use and transport for increasing urban sustainability. PROPOLIS final report. LT Consultants, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee DB (1973) Requiem for large-scale models. J Am Inst Plann 39(3):163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowry IS (1964) A model of metropolis. RM-4035-RC. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  19. Marshall S, Banister D (eds) (2007) Land use and transport. European research towards integrated policies. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez FJ (1996) MUSSA: land use model for Santiago City. Transportation Res Rec 1552/1996:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyamoto K, Udomsri R (1996) An analysis system for integrated policy measures regarding land use, transport and the environment in a metropolis. In: Hayashi Y, Roy J (eds) Transport, land use and the environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nguyen-Luong D (2008) An integrated land-use transport model for the Paris Region (SIMAURIF): ten lessons learned after four years of development. IAURIF, Paris. Accessed 24 Mar 2012
  23. Orcutt G, Greenberger M, Rivlin A, Korbel J (1961) Microanalysis of socioeconomic systems: a simulation study. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Ravenstein EG (1885) The laws of migration. J Stat Soc Lond 48(2):167–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salvini PA, Miller EJ (2005) ILUTE: an operational prototype of a comprehensive microsimulation model of urban systems. Network Spatial Econ 5(2):217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simmonds DC (1999) The design of the DELTA land-use modelling package. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 26(5):665–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Snickars F, Weibull JW (1977) A minimum information principle. Reg Sci Urban Econ 7(1–2):137–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. von Thünen JH (1826) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie. Perthes, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  29. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plann Assoc 68(3):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wagner P, Wegener M (2007) Urban land use, transport and environment models: experiences with an integrated microscopic approach. disP 170:3/2007 45–56Google Scholar
  31. Wegener M (1982) Modeling urban decline: a multilevel economic-demographic model of the Dortmund region. Int Reg Sci Rev 7(2):217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wegener M (2004) Overview of land-use transport models. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Transport geography and spatial systems. Handbook 5 of handbook in transport. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Kidlington, pp 127–146Google Scholar
  33. Wegener M (2011a) The IRPUD model. Arbeitspapier 11/01. Spiekermann & Wegener Stadt- und Regionalforschung, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  34. Wegener M (2011b) From macro to micro – how much micro is too much? Transport Rev 31(2):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wegener M, Fürst F (1999) Land-use transport interaction: state of the art. Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 46. Institute of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Dortmund. Accessed 24 Mar 2012
  36. Wegener M, Gnad F, Vannahme M (1986) The time scale of urban change. In: Hutchinson B, Batty M (eds) Advances in urban systems modelling. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 145–197Google Scholar
  37. Wilson AG (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transportation Res 1(3):253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Zahavi Y (1974) Traveltime budgets and mobility in urban areas. Report FHW PL-8183. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Zipf GK (1949) Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison Wesley, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spiekermann & Wegener, Urban and Regional ResearchDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations