The objective of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of mathematical modelling in urban studies and to stimulate a deeper debate about the use of models in planning. This is done by means of an identification of key assumptions made in the process of the interpretation of reality as a set of algebraic relations; assumptions which, it is argued, underlie virtually the whole of mathematical modelling but which appear never to be openly discussed. An example of the use of these assumptions is then given in the theoretical development of the logit model of discrete choice, and the paper is concluded with preliminary recommendations about the future development and use of the mathematical model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenP MSanglierM, 1981, “Urban evolution, self-organization, and decisionmaking”Environment and Planning A13167–183
2.
AnasA, 1982Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation: Economic Theory, Econometrics and Policy Analysis with Discrete Choice Models (Academic Press, New York)
3.
BattyMLongleyP A, 1989, “Urban growth and form: Scaling, fractal geometry, and diffusion-limited aggregation”Environment and Planning A211447–1472
4.
Ben-AkivaMLermanS, 1985Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
5.
BirkinMClarkeMGeorgeF, 1995, “The use of parallel computers to solve nonlinear spatial optimization problems: An application to network planning”Environment and Planning A271049–1068
6.
CapraF, 1982The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture (Wildwood House, Aldershot, Hants)
7.
de la BarraTPerezBAñezJ, 1995, “Avances recientes en la modelación integrada de usos del suelo y transportes multimodales”, in Proceedings of the 7th Chilean Conference of Transport Engineering, Santiago Ed. MartinezF J (SOCHITRAN, Santiago de Chile) pp 248–262
8.
DomencichT AMcFaddenP, 1975Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
9.
KaldorN, 1939, “Welfare propositions of economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility”The Economics Journal46(195) 549–552
10.
KlostermannR, 1994, “Large-scale urban models: Retrospect and prospect”Journal of the American Planning Association60(1) 3–6
11.
LeeD B, 1973, “Requiem for large-scale models”Journal of the American Planning Association39163–178
12.
LermanS RKernC R, 1983, “Hedonic theory, bid rents, and willingness-to-pay: Some extensions of Ellikson's results”Journal of Urban Economics13358–363
13.
MackettR L, 1993, “Structure of linkages between transport and land use”Transportation Research B27B189–206
14.
ManskiC, 1977, “The structure of random utility models”Theory and Decision8229–254
15.
MillsE S, 1987Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume II (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
16.
MiyagiT, 1986, “On the formulation of a stochastic user equilibrium model consistent with the random utility theory—a conjugate dual approach”, in Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Transport Research (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver) pp 1619–1635
17.
OpenshawS, 1994, “Computational human geography: Towards a research agenda”Environment and Planning A26499–508
18.
OpenshawS, 1995, “Human systems modelling as a grand new challenge area in science”Environment and Planning A27159–164
19.
SheppardE, 1995, “Sleeping with the enemy, or keeping the conversation going?”Environment and Planning A271026–1028
20.
TribeL, 1972, “Policy science: Analysis or ideology?”Philosophy and Public Affairs2(1) 66–110
21.
WachsM, 1985, “Planning, organisations and decision-making: A research agenda”Transportation Research19A521
22.
WebsterF VBlyP HPaulleyN J (Eds), 1988Urban Land-Use and Transport Interaction (Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
23.
WegenerM, 1994, “Operational urban models: State of the art”Journal of the American Planning Association60(1) 17–29
24.
WilsonA G, 1970Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling (Pion, London)
