Advertisement

Land-Use Transport Interaction Models

  • Michael WegenerEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Urban land-use transport interaction Land use and transport policies Equilibrium vs Dynamic models Macro vs micro models 

References

  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, MACrossRefGoogle 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. Transp 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 Reg Sci 47(3):415–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapin FS, Weiss SF (1968) A probabilistic model for residential growth. Transp 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. Echenique MH, Grinevich V, Hargreaves AJ, Zachariadis V (2013) LUISA: a land-use interaction with social accounting model; presentation and enhanced calibration method. Environ Plann B 40:1003–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science? Pap Reg Sci Assoc 24(1):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Inst Plann 25(2):73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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 253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt JD, Kriger DS, Miller EJ (2005) Current operational urban land-use transport modeling frameworks: a review. Transp Rev 25(3):329–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jin Y, Echenique M, Hargreaves A (2013) A recursive spatial equilibrium model for planning large-scale urban change. Environ Plann B 40:1027–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lee DB (1973) Requiem for large-scale models. J Am Inst Plann 39(3):163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowry IS (1964) A model of metropolis. RM-4035-RC. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  21. Marshall S, Banister D (eds) (2007) Land use and transport. European research towards integrated policies. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinez FJ (1996) MUSSA: land use model for Santiago City. Transp Res Rec 1552/1996:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez FJ (2018) Microeconomic modeling in urban science. Academic Press, Elsevier, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  24. Miyamoto K, Kitazume K (1989) A land use model based on random utility/rent-bidding analysis (RURBAN). Selected proceedings of the fifth world conference on transport research (4), pp 107–121. WCTRS, University of Leeds, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Miyamoto K, Vichiesan V, Sugiki N, Kitazume K (2007) Application of RURBAN integrated with a travel model in detailed zone system. Selected proceedings of the 11th world conference on transport research. WCTRS, University of Leeds, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  27. Nguyen-Luong D (2008) An integrated land-use transport model for the Paris Region (SIMAURIF): ten lessons learned after four years of development. IAURIF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  28. Orcutt G, Greenberger M, Rivlin A, Korbel J (1961) Microanalysis of socioeconomic systems: a simulation study. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Ravenstein EG (1885) The laws of migration. J Stat Soc Lond 48(2):167–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Simmonds DC (1999) The design of the DELTA land-use modelling package. Environ Plann B Plann Des 26(5):665–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snickars F, Weibull JW (1977) A minimum information principle. Reg Sci Urban Econ 7(1–2):137–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. von Thünen JH (1826) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie. Perthes, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  34. Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68(3):297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner P, Wegener M (2007) Urban land use, transport and environment models: experiences with an integrated microscopic approach. disP 170(3):45–56Google Scholar
  36. Wegener M (1982) Modeling urban decline: a multilevel economic-demographic model of the Dortmund region. Int Reg Sci Rev 7(2):217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wegener M (2011) From macro to micro – how much micro is too much? Transp Rev 31(2):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wegener M (2018) The IRPUD model. Arbeitspapier 18/01. Spiekermann & Wegener Stadt- und Regionalforschung, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, DortmundGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Wilson AG (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transp Res 1(3):253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Zahavi Y (1974) Traveltime budgets and mobility in urban areas. Report FHW PL-8183. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Zipf GK (1949) Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Addison Wesley, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations