This paper presents the spatial transferability analysis of a micro-behavioral model from the residential mobility component of the integrated land use, transportation, and environment (ILUTE) modeling system developed and implemented in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Ontario, Canada. The study examined whether ILUTE could be spatially transferred with the current model components to a different geographic area: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The residential mobility component within ILUTE is a continuous-time, hazard-based duration model, developed with retrospective survey data from the Residential Mobility Survey 2 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. This study developed a similar continuous-time, hazard-based duration model for the residential mobility decisions of households in Halifax on the basis of retrospective survey data from a household mobility and travel survey. The model results suggested that households in Halifax and the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area exhibited profound differences in residential mobility decisions. Sociodemographic, dwelling, and neighborhood characteristics significantly affected residential mobility decisions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. The effects of land use and accessibility measures were noteworthy for Halifax. For instance, home-to-work distances in Halifax affected the decision to move; however, such an effect could not be confirmed in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Households' first periods of residence after household formation in a residential location were shorter in Halifax than in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. It was concluded that the direct transfer of micromodels from one spatial context to another could be difficult.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GunnH. F., Ben-AkivaM. E., and BradleyM. A.. Tests of the Scaling Approach to Transferring Disaggregate Travel Demand Models. In Transportation Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 21–30.
2.
KoppelmanF. S., KuahG.-K., and WilmotC. G.. Transfer Model Updating with Disaggregate Data. In Transportation Research Record 1037, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. pp. 102–107.
3.
BadoeD. A., and MillerE. J.. Analysis of Temporal Transferability of Disaggregate Work Trip Mode Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 1–11.
4.
BadoeD. A., and MillerE. J.. Comparison of Alternative Methods for Updating Disaggregate Logit Mode Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record 1493, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 90–100.
5.
KarasmaaN., and PursulaM.. Empirical Studies of Transferability of Helsinki Metropolitan Area Travel Forecasting Models. In Transportation Research Record 1607, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 38–44.
6.
YunkerK. R.Tests of the Temporal Stability of Travel Simulation Models in Southeastern Wisconsin. In Transportation Research Record 610, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 1–5.
7.
CopleyG., and LoweS. R.. The Temporal Stability of Trip Rates: Some Findings and Implications. Proc., Seminar N, PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, Warwick, United Kingdom, 1981, pp. 217–233.
8.
AthertonT. J., and Ben-AkivaM. E.. Transferability and Updating of Disaggregate Travel Demand Models. In Transportation Research Record 610, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 12–18.
9.
RoseG., and KoppelmanF. S.. Transferability of Disaggregate Trip Generation Models. Proc., 9th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1984.
10.
WilmotC. G.Evidence on Transferability of Trip-Generation Models. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 5, 1995, pp. 405–410.
11.
Agyemang-DuahK., and HallF. L.. Spatial Transferability of an Ordered Response Model of Trip Generation. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1997, pp. 389–402.
12.
YasminF., MorencyC., and RoordaM. J.. Macro-, Meso-, and Micro-level Validation of an Activity-Based Travel Demand Model. Presented at 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2014.
13.
CotrusA. V., PrashkerJ. N., and ShiftanY.. Spatial and Temporal Transferability of Trip Generation Demand Models in Israel. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, pp. 37–56.
14.
DownesJ. D., and GyenesL.. Temporal Stability and Forecasting Ability of Trip Generation Models in Reading. Report 726. Department of the Environment; Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1976.
15.
DaorE.The Transferability of Independent Variables in Trip Generation Models. Proc., Seminar N, PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, Warwick, United Kingdom, 1981.
16.
SupernakJ., TalvitieA., and DeJohnA.. Person-Category Trip-Generation Model. In Transportation Research Record 944, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983, pp. 74–83.
17.
SupernakJ. C.A Method for Estimating Long-Term Changes in Time-of-Day Travel Demand. In Transportation Research Record 1138, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987, pp. 18–26.
18.
OrtuzarJ., and WillumsenL. G.. Trip Generation Modeling. Modeling Transportation, 2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.
19.
SmithR. L.Jr., and ClevelandD. E.. Time-Stability Analysis of Trip Generation and Predistribution Modal-Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record 569, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 76–86.
20.
DoubledayC.Some Studies of the Temporal Stability of Person Trip Generation Models. Transportation Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1977, pp. 255–263.
21.
ArentzeT., HofmanF., van MourikH., and TimmermansH.. Spatial Transferability of the Albatross Model System: Empirical Evidence from Two Case Studies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1805, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 1–7.
22.
EcheniqueM. H., CrowtherD., and LindsayW.. A Spatial Model of Urban Stock and Activity. Regional Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1969, pp. 281–312.
23.
de la BerraT., PerezB., and VeraN.. TRANUS-J: Putting Large Scale Models into Small Computers. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1984, pp. 87–101.
24.
HuntJ. D., and AbrahamJ. E.. Design and Application of the PECAS Land Use Modelling System. Proc., 8th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Sendai, Japan, 2003.
25.
MackettR. L.The Systematic Application of LILT Model to Dortmund, Leeds, and Tokyo. Transportation Reviews, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1990, pp. 323–338.
26.
MackettR. L.Comparative Analysis of Modeling Land-Use Transport Interactions at the Micro and Macro Levels. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1990, pp. 459–475.
27.
MartínezF.MUSSA: A Land Use Model for Santiago City. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 126–134.
28.
LandisJ., and ZhangM.. The Second Generation of the California Urban Futures Model: Part 1: Model Logic and Theory. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 25, 1998, pp. 657–666.
29.
LandisJ., and ZhangM.. The Second Generation of the California Urban Futures Model: Part 2: Specification and Calibration Results of the Land Use Change Module. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 25, 1998, pp. 795–824.
30.
SalviniP. A., and MillerE. J.. ILUTE: An Operational Prototype of a Comprehensive Microsimulation Model of Urban Systems. Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pp. 217–234.
31.
WaddellP. A.Behavioral Simulation Model for Metropolitan Policy Analysis and Planning: Residential Location and Housing Market Components of UrbanSim. Environment and Planning B, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2000, pp. 247–263.
32.
WaddellP.UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 3, 2002, pp. 297–314.
33.
ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.. ALBATROSS: Overview of the Model, Application, and Experiences. Presented at Innovations in Travel Modeling Conference, Portland, Ore., 2008.
34.
StrauchD., MoeckelR., WegenerM., GrafeJ., MuhlhansH., RindsfuserG., and BeckmannK. J.. Linking Transport and Land Use Planning: The Microscopic Dynamic Simulation Model ILUMASS. Geodynamics, 2003, pp. 295–311.
35.
MillerE. J.Development of an Operational Integrated Urban Model System.Urban Transportation Research and Advancement Centre, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
36.
HabibM. A., and MillerE. J.. Microsimulating Residential Mobility and Spatial Search Behavior: Estimation of Continuous-Time Hazard and Discrete-Time Panel Logit Models for Residential Mobility. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
37.
GuevaraC. A., and Ben-AkivaM. E.. Endogeneity in Residential Location Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 60–66.
38.
GuoJ. Y., and BhatC. R.. Operationalizing the Concept of Neighborhood: Application to Residential Location Choice Analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2007, pp. 31–45.
39.
LeeB. H. Y., WaddellP., WangL., and PendyalaR. M.. Operationalizing Time–Space Prism Accessibility in a Building-Level Residential Choice Model: Empirical Results from the Puget Sound Region. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
40.
EluruN., SenerI. N., BhatC. R., PendyalaR. M., and AxhausenK. W.. Understanding Residential Mobility: Joint Model of the Reason for Residential Relocation and Stay Duration. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2133, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 64–74.
41.
BeigeS., and AxhausenK. W.. Long-Term Mobility Decisions During the Life Course: Experiences with a Retrospective Survey. Presented at 11th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Kyoto, Japan, 2006.
42.
LeeB. H. Y., and WaddellP.. Residential Mobility and Location Choice: A Nested Logit Model with Sampling of Alternatives. Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2010, pp. 587–601.
43.
KnappT. A., WhiteN. E., and ClarkD. E.. A Nested Logit Approach to Household Mobility. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1–22.
44.
Ben-AkivaM., and de PalmaA.. Analysis of a Dynamic Location Choice Model with Transaction Costs. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1986, pp. 321–341.
45.
DecosterA., CapéauB., and SwerdtK. D.. Residential Mobility in Belgium: A Duration Analysis. Working paper. Center for Economic Studies, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, 2005.
46.
HaurinD. R., and GillL. H.. The Impact of Transaction Costs and the Expected Length of Stay on Home Ownership. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2002, pp. 563–584.
47.
JenkinsS. P., and García-SerranoC.. The Relationship Between Unemployment Benefits And Re-Employment Probabilities: Evidence from Spain. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2004. pp. 239–260.
48.
HabibM. A.Microsimulating Residential Mobility and Location Choice Processes Within an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Modelling System. PhD dissertation. University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2009.
49.
KalbfleischJ. D., and PrenticeR. L.. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, 2nd ed.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002.
50.
LawlessJ. F.Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982.
51.
ClarkW. A. V., and HuangY.. The Life Course and Residential Mobility in British Housing Markets. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2003, pp. 323–339.
52.
HendersonJ. V., and IoannidesY. M.. Dynamic Aspects of Consumer Decisions in Housing Markets. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1989, pp. 212–230.
