LUISA: A Land-Use Interaction with Social Accounting Model;Presentation and Enhanced Calibration Method

Abstract

Random utility modelling has been established as one of the main paradigms for the implementation of land-use spatial interaction (LUSI) models. We present a detailed formal description of a LUSI model that adheres to the random utility paradigm through the explicit distinction between utility and cost across all processes that represent the behaviour of agents. The model is rooted in a social accounting matrix, with the workforce and households accounts being disaggregated by socioeconomic type. Similarly, the land account is broken down by domestic and nondomestic land-use types. The model is developed around two processes. Firstly, the generation of demand for inputs required by established production; when appropriate the implicit production functions are assumed to depend on costs of inputs, which give rise to price-elastic demands. And, secondly, the spatial assignment of demanded inputs to locations of their production; here sequences of decisions are used to distribute demand both spatially and aspatially, and to propagate costs and utilities of production and consumption that emerge from imbalances between supply and demand. The implementation of this generic model is discussed in relation to the case of the UK. The model has been developed for testing the sustainability of integrated economic, spatial development policies, and output information for estimating urban form and the potential for decentralised technologies. The inputs include area-wide socioeconomic forecasts and the allocation policy of urban land. The outputs include the spatial allocation of activities and prices of labour, goods and services, land, and floorspace. They are combined with the land inputs to estimate the changes in the density of urban form and activities. These outputs can then be used to estimate the demands for infrastructure services and the potential for decentralised infrastructure supply. We focus primarily on the calibration process and its methodological implications, including a method of refining the calibration and demonstrate how this improves the spatial representation of the utility of land.

Keywords

land use spatial interaction calibration random utility social accounting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anas

, 1983, “Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models” Transportation Research 17B 13–23

Berzins

Wilson

A G

, 2003, “Spatial interaction models and Fisher information: A new calibration algorithm” Environment and Planning A 35 2161–2176

de la Barra

, 1989 Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

de la Barra

Echenique

Quintana

Guendelman

, 1975, “An urban regional model for the central region of Chile”, in Urban Development Models Eds Baxter

R S

Echenique

M H

, (J. Owens Construction Press, Lancaster) pp 137–174

DETR, 1999, Review of Land-use/Transport Interactions Models: Reports to The Standing Advisory Committee in Trunk Road Assessment David Simmonds Consultancy in collaboration with Marcial Echenique and Partners Limited for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London)

Domencich

T A

McFadden

, 1975 Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis (North-Holland, Amsterdam)

Echenique

M H

, 1985, “The use of integrated land use transportation models: The cases of Sao Paolo, Brazil and Bilbao, Spain”, in The Practice of Transportation Planning Ed. Florian

, (Elsevier, The Hague) pp 263–286

Echenique

M H

, 1994, “Urban and regional studies at the Martin centre: Its origins, its present, its future” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 517–533

Echenique

M H

, 2004, “Econometric models of land use and transportation”, in Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems Eds Hensher

D A

Button

K J

Haynes

K E

Stopher

P R

, (Pergamon, Amsterdam) pp 185–202

10.

Echenique

M H

Flowerdew

A D J

Hunt

J D

Mayo

T R

Skidmore

I J

Simmonds

D C

, 1990, “The MEPLAN models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund” Transport Reviews 10 309–322

11.

Echenique

M H

Hargreaves

A J

Mitchell

Namdeo

, 2012, “Growing cities sustainably: Does urban form really matter?” in Journal of American Planning Association 78 121–137

12.

Echenique

M H

Moilanen

Lautso

Lahelma

, 1995, “Testing integrated transport and land-use models in the Helsinki Metropolitan areas” Traffic Engineering and Control 36 20–23

13.

Echenique

M H

Williams

I N

, 1980, “Developing theoretically based urban models for practical planning studies” Sistemi Urbani 1 13–23

14.

EFS, 2001 Expenditure and Food Survey 2001–2002: User Guide (Office for National Statistics, London)

15.

Flowerdew

A D J

, 1977, “An evaluation package for a strategic land use/transportation plan”, in Urban Transportation Planning Eds Bonsall

Dalvi

Halls

, (Abacus Press, Turnbridge Wells, Kent) pp 241–258

16.

Fratar

T S

, 1954, “Vehicular trip distribution by successive approximation” Traffic Quarterly 8 53–56

17.

Glaeser

E L

, 2008 Cities, Agglomeration, and Spatial Equilibrium (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

18.

Glaeser

E L

Gottlieb

J D

, 2008, “The economics of place-making policies”, DP 2166, Harvard Institute of Economic Research

19.

GLUD, 2001 Land Use Statistics—Generalised Land Use Database UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/

20.

Goldthorpe

J H

Llewellyn

Payne

, 1987 Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain (Clarendon, Oxford)

21.

Gordon

, 2010, “Entropy, variety, economics, and spatial interaction” Geographical Analysis 42 446–471

22.

Hargreaves

A J

Echenique

M H

, 2008, “Cambridge futures: Forecasting the effect of congestion charging on land use and transport”, in Road Congestion Pricing in Europe: Implications for the United States Eds Richardson

H W

Bae

C C

, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 98–117

23.

Harris

, 1964, “A note on the probability of interaction at a distance” Journal of Regional Science 5 31–35

24.

Hirton

J E

Echenique

M H

, 1979, “An operational land use and transport model for the Tehran region”, Iran Transport Research Circular number 199, 6–7

25.

Hunt

J D

, 1994, “Calibrating the Naples land use and transport model” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 569–590

26.

Hunt

J D

Simmonds

D C

, 1993, “Theory and application of an integrated land-use and transport modelling framework” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 20 221–244

27.

Jin

, 1994, “The YEZTS transport model: A discussion of the empirical findings on modal split” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 591–602

28.

Jin

Williams

I N

Shahkarami

, 2002, “A new land use and transport interaction model for London and its surrounding regions” paper presented at European Transport Conference 2002, Homerton College, Cambridge; copy held by the British Library

29.

Leontief

W W

, 1951 The Structure of the American Economy (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

30.

Lowry

I J

, 1964 A Model of a Metropolis RM 4035 RC, RAND Corporation

31.

McFadden

, 1974, “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior”, in Frontiers in Econometrics Ed. Zarembka

, (Academic Press, New York) pp 105–142

32.

McFadden

Reid

, 1975, “Aggregate travel demand forecasting from disaggregated behavioral models” Transportation Research Record: Travel Behavior and Values 34 24–37

33.

Oosterhaven

, 1999, “Review by Professor Jan Oosterhaven”, in Review of Land-use/Transport Interactions Models. Reports to The Standing Advisory Committee in Trunk Road Assessment David Simmonds Consultancy in collaboration with Marcial Echenique and Partners Limited for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (The Stationery Office, London) pp 153–157

34.

Takayama

Labys

W C

, 1986, “Spatial equilibrium analysis”, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics Ed. Nijkamp

, (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 171–199

35.

Train

, 2003 Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, New York)

36.

Varian

H R

, 1992 Microeconomic Analysis 3rd edition (Norton, New York)

37.

VOA, 2001 Commercial and Industrial Floorspace and Rateable Value Statistics The Valuation Office Agency, National Statistics, London

38.

VOA, 2007 Local Reference Rent Dataset March 2007 The Valuation Office Agency, London, http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/LocalRefRents/Irr130301.html

39.

Wegener

, 2004, “Overview of land-use transport models”, in Transport Geography and Spatial Systems. Handbooks of Transport 5 Eds Hensher

D A

Button

, (Pergamon Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxon) pp 127–146

40.

Williams

, 1977, “On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefits” Environment and Planning A 9 285–344

41.

Williams

I N

, 1994

“A model of London and the South East”

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21 535–553

42.

Williams

I N

, 1979, “An approach to solving spatial-allocation models with constraints” Environment and Planning A 11 3–22

43.

Williams

I N

Echenique

M H

, 1978, “A regional model for commodity and passenger flows”, in Proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC, London, pp 121–128

44.

Wilson

A G

, 1967, “A statistical theory of spatial distribution models” Transportation Research 1 253–269

45.

Wilson

A G

, 1970 Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling (Pion, London)

46.

Wilson

A G

, 2000 Complex Spatial Systems: The Modelling Foundations of Urban and Regional Analysis (Pearson Education, Harlow, Essex)

47.

Yamano

Ahmad

, 2006, “The OECD Input–Output Database: 2006 Edition”, STI WP 2006/8, Statistical Analysis of Science, Technology and Industry, Paris

48.

Zhao

Kockelman

K M

, 2004, “The random-utility-based multiregional input –output model: Solution existence and uniqueness” Transportation Research 38B 789–807