Density gradients have been a common approach when estimating decentralisation processes with monocentric models. In this study the gradient approach is applied to measure the traditional pattern of commuting to the centre from surrounding areas. Availability of empirical origin–destination data on commuting enables comparisons between increasing numbers of different urban areas. Empirical data on commuting patterns in nine cities from Finland and the United Kingdom are used. In the model the probability of commuting depends on the distance to the centre. The result is the parameterisation of the distance-decay curve of commuting. The estimated parameter values enable identification of different urban structures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguileraA, 2005, “Growth in commuting distances in French polycentric metropolitan areas: Paris, Lyon and Marseille”Urban Studies421537–1547
2.
AguileraAMignotD, 2004, “Urban sprawl, polycentrism and commuting. A comparison of seven French urban areas”Urban Public Economics Review193–114
3.
AlonsoW, 1964Location and Land Use (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
4.
AntikainenJ, 2005, “The concept of functional urban area, findings in ESPON project 1.1.1”Informationen zur Raumentwicklung7447–452
5.
BanisterD, 2008, “The sustainable mobility paradigm”Transport Policy1573–80
6.
ChampionA G, 2001, “A changing demographic regime and evolving polycentric urban regions: Consequences for the size, composition and distribution of city populations”Urban Studies38657–677
7.
CollettD, 1991Modelling Binary Data (Chapman and Hall, London)
8.
de VriesJ JNijkampPRietveldP, 2001, “Alonso's theory of movements: Developments in spatial interaction modeling”Journal of Geographical Systems3233–256
GreenN, 2007, “Functional polycentricity: A formal definition in terms of social network analysis”Urban Studies442077–2103
13.
GutiérrezJGarcía-PalomeresJ C, 2007, “New spatial patterns of mobility within the metropolitan area of Madrid: Towards more complex and dispersed flow networks”Journal of Transport Geography1518–30
14.
HandyS, 1996, “Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behaviour”Transportation Research D1151–165
15.
HeiszALaRochelle-CôtéS, 2005Work and Commuting in Census Metropolitan Areas 1996–2001Statistics Canada, Ottawa
16.
HelminenVRistimäkiM, 2007, “The relationships between commuting distance, frequency and telework in Finland”Journal of Transport Geography15331–342
17.
JansenG R M, 1993, “Commuting: Home sprawl, job sprawl, traffic jams”, in A Billion Trips a Day: Tradition and Transition in European Travel Patterns Eds SalomonIBovyPOrfeuilJ-P (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 101–127
18.
KenworthyJLaubeF, 2002, “Travel demand management: The potential for enhancing urban rail opportunities and reducing automobile dependence in cities”World Transport Policy and Practice820–36
19.
McMillenD P, 2001, “Polycentric urban structure: The case of Milwaukee”Economic Perspectives2515–27
20.
MarchettiC, 1994, “Anthropological invariants in travel behaviour”Technological Forecasting and Social Change4775–88
21.
MieszkowskiPMillsE S, 1993, “The causes of metropolitan suburbanization”The Journal of Economic Perspectives7(3) 135–147
22.
MillsE S, 1967, “An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area”American Economic Review57197–210
23.
MuňizIGarcia-LopezM AGalindoA, 2008, “The effect of employment sub-centres on population density in Barcelona”Urban Studies45627–649
24.
MuthR F, 1969Cities and Housing (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
25.
NæssP, 2007, “The impacts of job and household decentralization on commuting distances and travel modes”Informationen zur RaumentwicklungHeft 2/3, 149–168
26.
NewmanP W GKenworthyJ R, 1996, “The land use–transport connection: An overview”Land Use Policy131–22
27.
NielsenT A SHovgesenH H, 2005, “Urban fields in the making: New evidence from a Danish context”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie96515–528
28.
NielsenT A SHovgesenH H, 2008, “Exploratory mapping of commuter flows in England and Wales”Journal of Transport Geography1690–99
29.
Norwich City Council, 2007One City, One Council: A Unitary Council for Norwich Strategic Business Case, Executive SummaryNorwich City Council, Norwich
30.
ONS, 2001Origin – Destination Statistics (Final Specifications)Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Census 2001; http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/OriginDest4web.pdf
PooleyC GTurnbullJ, 2000, “Commuting, transport and urban form: Manchester and Glasgow in the mid-twentieth century”Urban History27360–383
33.
RodrigueJ-PComtoisCSlackB, 2006The Geography of Transport Systems (Routledge, New York)
34.
RouwendalJNijkampP, 2004, “Living in two worlds: A review of home-to-work decisions”Growth and Change35287–303
35.
SchwanenT, 2002, “Urban form and commuting behaviour: A cross-European perspective”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie93336–343
36.
SchwanenTDielemanF MDijstM, 2001, “Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems”Journal of Transport Geography9173–186
37.
SchwanenTDielemanF MDijstM, 2004, “The impact of metropolitan structure on commute behavior in the Netherlands—a multilevel approach”Growth and Change35304–333
38.
SohnJ, 2004, “Are commuting patterns a good indicator of urban spatial structure?”Journal of Transport Geography13306–317
39.
SpiveyC, 2008, “The Mills–Muth model of urban spatial structure: Surviving the test of time?”Urban Studies45295–312
40.
SteadD, 2001, “Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28499–528
41.
SteadDMarshallS, 2001, “The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation”European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research1113–141
42.
TitheridgeHHallP, 2006, “Changing travel to work patterns in South East England”Journal of Transport Geography1460–75
43.
ToblerW R, 1970, “A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region”Economic Geography46234–240
