Accessibility Models Based On the Gravity Analogy: In Theory and Practice

Tóth, Géza and Kincses, Áron (2015): Accessibility Models Based On the Gravity Analogy: In Theory and Practice. Published in: Regional Statistics , Vol. 5, No. 1 (July 2015): pp. 137-158.

Abstract

The most commonly applied types of accessibility models are based on the gravity analogy. In these models, researchers use different types of resistance factors, but they rarely give any elaborate explanation for their choice of a specific type of factor in their research. Another problem with this kind of analysis is that in many cases, the authors do not describe precisely how they determine the constants for a line of calculations in a given model. Thus, the results cannot be fully accepted since they cannot be reproduced by the reader. Finally, we consider it to be yet another huge problem that the results of the models are rarely compared to the real (for example traffic) parameters, therefore, it is also impossible to detect what would happen if the researcher used a different model. In this study, we tried to line up the most commonly used models, and by enlightening the resistance factors, examine their possible usage and their boundaries through exact Hungarian examples.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: accessibility models, gravity analogy, resistance factors
• Subjects: R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R0 - General > R00 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R40 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R41 - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion ; Travel Time ; Safety and Accidents ; Transportation Noise; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R49 - Other

References

Bewley, R.–Fiebig, D. G. (1988): A flexible logistic growth model with applications to telecommunications International Journal of Forecasting 4 (2): 177–192.

Box, G. E. P.–Cox, D. R. (1964): An analysis of transformations Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B 26 (2): 211–246.

Bruinsma, F.R.–Rietveld, P. (1998): The Accessibility of European Cities: Theoretical Framework and Comparison of Approaches Environment and Planning A 30 (3): 499–521.

Brunton, P.J.–Richardson, A.J. (1998): A Cautionary Note on Zonal Aggregation and Accessibility. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Calvo, P.–Pueyo Campos, A.–Jover Yuste, J. M. (1992): Potenciales demográficos de España Atlas Nacional de España. Tomo 14-b. Istituto Geográfico Nacional, Madrid.

Capineri, C. (1996): From Networks to Regional Development: Representations of Italian Regional Disparities. Paper Presented at the Nectar Euroconference, 24–28 September 1996., Mons, Belgium.

Dalvi, M. Q.–Martin, K. M. (1976): The measurement of accessibility: some preliminary result. Transportation 5 (1): 17–42.

Davidson, K. B. (1977): Accessibility in transport/land-use modelling and assessment. Environment and Planning A. 9 (12): 1401–1416.

De Montis, A.–Caschili, S.–Chessa, A. (2011): Spatial Complex Network Analysis and Accessibility Indicators: the Case of Municipal Commuting in Sardinia, Italy European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11 (4): 405–419.

El-Geneidy, A. M.–Levinson, D. M. (2006): Access to Destinations: Development of Accessibility Measures. Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

ESPON (2007): Update of Selected Potential Accessibility Indicators. Final Report. Luxembourg.

Fotheringham, A. S.–Brunsdon, C.–Charlton, M. (2000): Quantitative Geography: Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis. Sage, London.

Fotheringham, A. S. (1982): A new set of spatial-interaction models: the theory of competing destinations. Environment and Planning A. 15 (1): 15–36.

Frost, M.E.–Spence, N.A. (1995): The Rediscovery of Accessibility and Economic Potential: The Critical Issue of Self-potential. Environment and Planning A. 27 (11): 1833–1848.

Geertman, S.C.M.–van Eck, J.R.R. (1995): GIS and models of accessibility potential: an application in planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 9 (1): 67–80.

Geurs, KT.–van Wee, B. (2004): Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12 (2): 127–140.

Grasland, C.–Mathian, H.–Vincent, J. (2000): Multiscalar analysis and map generalisation of discrete social phenomena: Statistical problems and political consequences. Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 17 (2): 157–188.

Guy, C. M. (1983): The assessment of access to local shopping opportunities: a comparison of accessibility measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 10 (2): 219–238.

Hansen, W.G. (1959): How Accessibility Shapes Land-Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 25 (2): 73–76.

Harris, C. D. (1954): The market as a factor in the localisation of industry in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44 (4): 315–348.

Hilbers, H. D.–Veroen, E. J. (1993): Het beoordelen van de bereikbaarheid van lokaties. Definiëring, maatstaven, toepassingen beleidsimplicaties. INRO-VVG 1993–09, TNO Inro, Delft.

Ingram, D. R. (1971): The Concept of Accessibility: A Search for an Operational Form. Regional Studies 5 (2): 101–105.

Joseph, A.E.–Bantock, P.R. (1982): Measuring potential physical accessibility to general practitioners in rural areas: a method and case study. Social Science and Medicine 16 (1): 85–90.

Keeble, D.–Offord, J.–Walker, S. (1988): Peripheral Regions in a Community of Twelve Member States, Commission of the European Community, Luxembourg.

Knox, P.L. (1978): The intraurban ecology of primary medical care: patterns of accessibility and their policy implications. Environment and Planning A 10 (4): 415–435.

Kwan, M. P. (1998): Space–time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 30 (3): 191–216.

Levinson, D.M. (1998): Accessibility and the Journey to Work. Journal of Transport Geography 6 (1): 11–21.

Linneker, B.J.–Spence, N.A. (1991): An Accessibility Analysis of the Impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway on Britain. Regional Studies 26 (1): 31–47.

Martín, J.C.–Gutiérrez, J.–Román, C. (2004): Data Envelopment Análisis (DEA) Index to measure the accessibility impacts of new infrastructure investments: the case of the High-Speed Train Corridor Madrid–Barcelona–French border. Regional Studies 38 (6): 697–712.

Martin, K. M.–Dalvi, M. Q. (1976): The comparison of accessibility by public and private transport. Traffic Engineering and Control 17 (12): 509–513.

Nemes Nagy, J. (1998): A fekvés szerepe a regionális tagoltságban. In: Munkaerőpiac és regionalitás, pp. 147–165., MTA KK KI, Budapest.

Nemes Nagy, J. (ed) (2005): Regionális elemzési módszerek. Regionális Tudományi Tanulmányok 11. ELTE Regionális Földrajzi Tanszék–MTA–ELTE Regionális Tudományi Kutatócsoport, Budapest.

Papa, E.–Coppola, P. (2012): Gravity-Based Accessibility measures for Integrated Transport-land Use Planning (GraBAM) In: Hull,A.–Silva, C.–Bertolini, L. (Eds.) Accessibility Instruments for Planning Practice, pp. 117–124. COST Office.

Reggiani, A.–Bucci, P.–Russo, G. (2011): Accessibility and Impedance Forms: Empirical Applications to the German Commuting Network. International Regional Science Review 34 (2): 230–252.

Rich, D. (1980): Potential Models in Human Geography. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography. 26. Geo Abstracts, Norwich.

Scheurer, J.–Curtis, C. (2007): Accessibility Measures: Overview and Practical Applications. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University, Perth.

Schürmann, C.–Spiekermann, K.–Wegener, M. (1997): Accessibility Indicators. Berichte aus dem Institüt für Raumplanung 39, IRPUD, Dortmund.

Simma, A.–Axhausen, K.W. (2003): Interactions between travel behaviour, accessibility and personal characteristics: The case of the Upper Austria Region European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 3 (2): 179–197.

Simma, A.–Vrtic, M.–Axhausen, K. W. (2001): Interactions of travel behaviour, accessibility and personal characteristics: The Case of Upper Austria, presentation, European Transport Conference, Cambridge, September 2001.

Smith, D.M.–Gibb, R.A. (1993): The Regional Impact of the Channel Tunnel. A Return to Potential Analysis. Geoforum 24 (2): 183–192.

Song, S. (1996): Some Tests of Alternative Accessibility Measures: A Population Density Approach. Land Economics 72 (4): 474–482.

Spence, N.–Linneker, B. (1994): Evolution of the motorway network and changing levels of accessibility in Great Britain. Journal of Transport Geography 2 (4): 247–264.

Stewart, J.Q. (1947): Empirical mathematical rules concerning the distribution and equilibrium of population. Geography Review 37 (3): 461–485.

Tagai, G. (2007): A potenciálmodell erényei és korlátai a társadalomkutatásban Tér és Társadalom 21 (1): 145–158.

Tóth, G.–Kincses, Á. (2007): Elérhetőségi modellek. Tér és Társadalom 21 (3): 51–87.

van Wee, B.–Hagoort, M.–Annema, J.A. (2001): Accessibility measures with competition. Journal of Transport Geography 9 (3): 199–208.

Vickerman, R.W. (1974): Accessibility, attraction, and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environment and Planning A 6 (6): 675–691.

Weibull, J.W. (1976): An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility. Regional Science and Urban Economics 6 (4): 357–379.

Willigers, J.–Floor, H.–van Wee, B. (2007): Accessibility indicators for locational choice of offices: An application to the intraregional distributive effects of high-speed rail in the Netherlands. Environment Planning. A 39 (9): 2086–2098.

Wilson, A. G. (1971): A family of spatial interaction models, and associated developments. Environment and Planning A 3 (1): 1–32.