An overview is presented of a location choice model for logistic firms that takes into account spatial effects. A modeling framework is developed to analyze decisions about location choice for logistic firms by using mixed logit models. In this framework, spatial effects such as the correlation between firms in deterministic terms and the spatial correlation among zones in the error term are captured by mixed logit models. In addition, the dynamics of the consumption of commodities between consumers and suppliers is considered. In a case study, the developed framework is applied to the Tokyo metropolitan area. The model is tested for retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers. The results of the study indicate that for location choice, the number of employees is a more important determinant for manufacturers than it is for retailers and product wholesalers. Additionally, the results indicate that the spatial effects and the land prices in a given zone strongly affect the decision-making process of all the firms in the metropolitan area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ozmen-ErtekinD., OzbayK., and Holguín-VerasJ.Role of Transportation Accessibility in Attracting Businesses to New Jersey. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 133, No. 2, 2007, pp. 138–149.
2.
LeithamS., McQuaidR. W., and NelsonJ. D.The Influence of Transport on Industrial Location Choice: A Stated Preference Experiment. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 34, 2000, pp. 515–535.
3.
KawamuraK.Empirical Examination of the Relationship Between Firm Location and Transportation Facilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1747, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 97–103.
4.
SridharK. S.Firm Location Decisions and Impact on Local Economies, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 39, 2003, pp. 4121–4130.
5.
De BokM., and SandersF.Firm Relocation and Accessibility of Locations: Empirical Results from the Netherlands. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1902, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 35–43.
6.
ChinA., and HongJ.The Location Decisions of Foreign Logistics Firms in China: Does Transport Network Capacity Matter?Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, 2005.
7.
TargaF., CliftonK. J., and MahmassaniH. S.Influence of Transportation Access on Individual Firm Location Decisions. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 179–189.
8.
SridharK. S., and WanG.Firm Location Choice in Cities: Evidence from China, India and Brazil.World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland, 2007.
9.
BootsB. N., and KanaroglouP. S.Incorporating the Effect of Spatial Structure in Discrete Choices Models of Migration. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 28, 1988, pp. 495–507.
10.
DubinR. A.Estimating Logit Models with Spatial Dependence. In New Directions in Spatial Econometrics (AnselinL., and FloraxR., eds.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1995, pp. 229–242.
11.
PaezA., and SuzukiJ.Transportation Impacts on Land Use Changes: An Assessment Considering Neighborhood Effect. Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 47–59.
12.
MohammadianA., and KanaroglouP. S.Application of Spatial Multinomial Logit Model to Transportation Planning. Presented at 10th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2003.
13.
BhatC. R., and GuoJ.A Mixed Spatially Correlated Logit Model: Formulation and Application to Residential Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part B, No. 38, 2004, pp. 147–168.
14.
MiyamotoK., VichiensanV., ShimomuraN., and PaezA.Discrete Choice Model with Structuralized Spatial Effects for Location Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1898, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 183–190.
15.
MohammadianA., HaiderM., and KanaroglouP. S.Incorporating Spatial Dependencies in Random Parameter Discrete Choice Models. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
16.
McFaddenD., and TrainK.Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2000, pp. 447–470.
17.
Ben-AkivaM., BolducD., and WalkerJ.Specification, Identifications, and Estimation of the Logit Kernel (or Continuous Mixed Logit) Model.2001. p://elsa.berkeley.edu/reprints/misc/multinomial2.pdf.
18.
CliffA. D., and OrdJ. K.Spatial Autocorrelation.Pion Limited, London, 1973.
19.
McMillenD. P.Probit with Spatial Autocorrelation. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 32, No. 3, 1992, pp. 335–348.
20.
MiaouS., and SuiD.Implications of Changing Demographic and Socioeconomic Structures on Highway Safety: A Texas Initiative, 2004, pp. 19–21.
21.
WisetjindawatW., SanoK., and MatsumotoS.Commodity Distribution Model Incorporating Spatial Interactions for Urban Freight Movement. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1966, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 41–50.
22.
TrainK. E.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
23.
De BokM.Explaining the Location Decision of Moving Firms Using Their Mobility Profile and the Accessibility of Locations. Journal of the European Regional Science Association, No. 4, 2004.
24.
Holguín-VerasJ., XuN., LevinsonH., McKnightC. E., WeinerR. D., PaaswellR. E., OzbayK., and Ozmen-ErtekinD.An Investigation on the Aggregate Behavior of Firm Relocations to New Jersey (1990-1999) and the Underlying Market Elasticities. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 5, Sept. 2005, pp. 293–331.
