In this study we present a method for defining the intervening opportunities incorporated in certain spatial interaction models. The method introduces some behavioral aspects into the models by means of behavioral modeling, using a utility function estimated with stated preference techniques. A practical application of the models for estimating student flows is reported. This application confirmed the adequacy of the method and the results obtained showed that the intervening opportunities model performed better than a standard gravity model in reproducing the real situation being studied.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmeidaL M W, 1999Desenvolvimento de uma Metodologia para Análise Locacional de Sistemas Educacionais Usando Modelos de Interação Espacial e Indicadores de Acessibilidade [Development of a methodology for locational analysis of educational systems using spatial interaction models and accessibility indicators] doctoral thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
2.
AlmeidaL M WGonçalvesM B, 1999, “Uma avaliação do mérito de escolas de nível médio através da técnica de preferência declarada” [An evaluation of the merit of high schools through stated preference techniques] Ensaio: Avaliação e Politicas Públicas em Educação7(23) 201–218 (Rio de Janeiro).
3.
BastosL C, 1994Planejamento da Rede Escolar: Uma Abordagem Utilizando Preferência Declarada [Planning of a school net: an approach using stated preference techniques] doctoral thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
4.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS, 1985Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
5.
BruinsmaFRietveldP, 1998, “The accessibility of European cities: Theoretical framework and comparison of approaches” Environment and Planning A30499–521.
6.
CaldwellB J, 1996, “School reform for the knowledge society: An economic perspective” The Australian Economic Review 4th quarter, 417–422.
EvansA W, 1971, “The calibration of trip distribution models with exponential or similar cost functions” Transportation Research515–38.
9.
FinneyN D, 1972, “Trip distribution models”, in New Perspectives in Urban Transportation Research Ed. CataneseA J (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) pp 63–146.
10.
FotheringhamA S, 1983, “A new set of spatial-interaction models: The theory of competing destinations” Environment and Planning A1515–36.
11.
GalleO RTaeuberK E, 1966, “Metropolitan migration and intervening opportunities” American Sociological Review31(1) 6–13.
12.
GonçalvesM B, 1992Desenvolvimento e Teste de um Novo Modelo Gravitacional de Oportunidades [The development and test of a new gravity – opportunity model for trip distribution] doctoral thesis, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
13.
GonçalvesM B, 1998, “A aplicação de um modelo graviatacional de oportunidades para estimar fluxos intermunicipais de passageiros por transporte público” [The application of a gravity – opportunity model to estimate intercity flow of bus passengers], in Actas del X Congreso Panamericano de Ingeniería de Tránsito y Transporte 21–24 September, Santander, Spain, pp 35–44.
14.
GonçalvesM BUlysséa NetoI, 1993a, “The development of a new gravity – opportunity model for trip distribution” Environment and Planning A25817–826.
15.
GonçalvesM BUlysséa NetoI, 1993b, “Análise comparativa do desempenho de alguns modelos de distribuição de viagens usados para estimar fluxos de passageiros” [A comparative analysis of some trip distribution models used to estimate passenger flow] Anais do VII Congresso Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa em Transporte (ANPET, Rio de Janeiro) 1337–348.
16.
GonçalvesM BSouza de CursiJ E, 1997, “Métodos robustos para a calibração de modelos de interação espacial em transportes” [Robust methods for the calibration of spatial interaction models in transports] Anais do VII Congresso Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa em Transporte (ANPET, Rio de Janeiro) 1303–313.
17.
GonçalvesM BSouza de CursiJ E, 1998, “Parameters identification in a spacial model by random perturbation of a descent method”, paper presented at the 16th European Conference on Operational Research, Brussels, 12–15 July; copy available from the author.
18.
HeanueK EPyersC E, 1965, “A comparative evaluation of trip distribution procedures”, paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
19.
HymanG M, 1969, “The calibration of trip distribution models” Environment and Planning1105–112.
20.
LankfordR HLeeE SWyckoffJ H, 1995, “An analysis of elementary and secondary school choice” Journal of Urban Economics38236–251.
21.
LoweJ MSenA, 1996, “Gravity model application in health planning: Analysis of an urban hospital market” Journal of Regional Science36437–461.
22.
MorrisJ MDumbleP LWiganM R, 1979, “Accessibility indicators for transport planning” Transportation Research A1391–109.
23.
OpenshawSOpenshawW C, 1997Artificial Intelligence in Geography (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).
24.
OrtúzarJ DWillumsenL G, 1994Modelling Transport (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).
25.
RoyJ R, 1993, Comment on “The development of a new gravity– opportunity model for trip distribution” Environment and Planning A251689–1691.
26.
PyersC E, 1965, “Evaluation of the intervening opportunities trip distribution model”, paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, DC.
27.
SampaioM GParenteL IWohlandM, 1987, “Uma experiência de descentralização em administração pública” [A decentralization experience in public administration] Cadernos da Fundap7(13) 23–26.
28.
SchneiderM, 1960, “Panel discussion on inter-area travel formulas”, Bulletin 253, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20418.
29.
SmithD PHutchisonB G, 1981, “Goodness of fit statistics for trip distribution models” Transportation Research A15295–303.
30.
SootSSenA, 1991, “A spatial employment and economic development model” Papers in Regional Science70149–166.
31.
StoufferS A, 1940, “Intervening opportunities: A Theory relating mobility and distance” American Sociological Review5845–867.
32.
StoufferS A, 1960, “Intervening opportunities and competing migrants” Journal of Regional Science2(1).
33.
ThomasR W, 1977, “An interpretation of the journey-to-work on Merseyside using entropy-maximising methods” Environment and Planning A9817–834.
34.
WillsM J, 1986, “A flexible gravity – opportunities model for trip distribution” Transportation Research B20(2) 89–111.
35.
WilsonA G, 1967, “A statistical theory of spatial distribution models” Transportation Research1253–269.
36.
WilsonS R, 1976, “Statistical notes on the evaluation of calibrated gravity models” Transportation Research10343–345.
