Advertisement

Applied Models of Urban Land Use, Transport and Environment: State of the Art and Future Developments

  • Michael Wegener
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

The idea that computer models of urban land use and transport might contribute to more rational urban planning was bom in the 1950s and culminated in the 1960s. The ‘new tools for planning’ (Harris, 1965) were thought to be a major technological breakthrough that would revolutionise the practice of urban policy making. However, the diffusion of urban models faltered soon after the pioneering phase, for a variety of reasons (see Batty, 1994; Harris, 1994). The most fundamental reason was probably that these models were linked to the rational planning paradigm dominant in most Western countries at that time. They were perhaps the most ambitious expression of the desire to ‘understand’ as thoroughly as possible the intricate mechanisms of urban development, and by virtue of this understanding to forecast and control the future of cities (Lee, 1973). Since then the attitude towards planning has departed from the ideal of synoptic rationalism and turned to a more modest, incrementalist interpretation of planning that has at least partly determined the failure of many ambitious large-scale modelling projects.

Keywords

Environmental Indicator Noise Propagation Traffic Noise Transport Policy Urban Transport 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso, W. (1964), Location and Land Use, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Anas, A. (1983), ‘Discrete choice theory, information theory and the multinomial logit and gravity models’, Transportation Research, vol. 17B, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
  3. Anas, A. (1992), ‘NYSIM (The New York Area Simulation Model): A model for cost-benefit analysis of transportation projects’, Research Report, Regional Plan Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. Anderstig, C. and Mattsson, L.-G., (1991), ‘An integrated model of residential and employment location in a metropolitan region’, Papers in Regional Science, vol. 70, pp. 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderstig, C. and Mattsson, L.-G. (1998), ‘Modelling land-use and transport interaction: Policy analyses using the IMREL model’, Chapter 17, this volume.Google Scholar
  6. Aoyama, Y. (1989), ‘A historical review of transport and land-use models in Japan’, Transportation Research, vol. 23A, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
  7. Batty, M. (1992), ‘Urban modelling in computer-graphic and geographic information system environments’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 19, pp. 663–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batty, M. (1994), ‘A chronicle of scientific planning: The Anglo-American modeling experience’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berechman, J. and Small, K.A. (1988), ‘Research policy and review 25: Modeling land use and transportation: An interpretive review for growth areas’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 20, pp. 1285–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyce, D.E. (1986), ‘Integration of supply and demand models in transportation and location: Problem formulation and research questions’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 18, pp. 485–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyce, D.E. (1988), ‘Renaissance of large-scale models’, Papers of the Regional Science Association, vol. 65, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Boyce, D.E., Chon, K.S., Ferris, M.E., Lee, Y.J., Lin, K.T. and Eash, R.W. (1985), ‘Implementation and evaluation of combined models of urban travel and location on a sketch planning network’, Working Paper, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois and Chicago Area Transportation Study, Urbana-Champaign/Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Boyce, D.E., Chon, K.S., Lee, Y.J., Lin, K.T. and LeBlanc, L. (1983), ‘Implementation and computational issues for combined models of location, destination, mode, and route choice’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 15, pp. 1219–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyce, D.E., Tatineni, M. and Zhang, Y. (1992), ‘Scenario analyses of the Chicago Region with a sketch planning model of origin-destination mode and route choice’, Final Report to Illinois Department of Transportation, Urban Transportation Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  15. de la Barra, T. (1989), Integrated Land Use and Transport Modelling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de la Barra, T. (1998), ‘Improved logit formulations for integrated land use, transport and environmental models’, Chapter 16, this volume.Google Scholar
  17. de la Barra, T., Pérez, B. and Vera, N. (1984), ‘TRANUS-J: Putting large models into small computers’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 11, pp. 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Domencich, T.A. and McFadden, D. (1975), Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. 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, vol. 21, pp. 517–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Echenique, M.H., Flowerdew, A.D.J., Hunt, J.D., Mayo, T.R., Skidmore, I.J. and Simmonds, D.C. (1990), ‘The MEPLAN models of Bilbao, Leeds and Dortmund’, Transport Reviews, vol. 10, pp. 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gu, Q., Haines, A. and Young, W. (1992), ‘The development of a land-use/transport interaction model’, Report 2, Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  22. Harris, B. (1965), ‘New tools for planning’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 31, pp. 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, B. (1985), ‘Urban simulation models in regional science’, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 25, pp. 545–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris, B. (1994), ‘Science in planning: Past, present, future’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayashi, Y. and Tomita, Y. (1989), ‘A micro-analytic residential mobility model for assessing the effects of transport improvement’, in Transport Policy, Management and Technology — Towards 2001, Selected Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Transport Research, Yokohama, Western Periodicals, Ventura, pp. 91–105.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt, J.D. (1994), ‘Calibrating the Naples land-use and transport model’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 21, pp. 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, J.D. and Simmonds, D.C. (1993), ‘Theory and application of an integrated land-use and transport modelling framework’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 20, pp. 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hutchinson, B. and Batty, M. (eds) (1986), Advances in Urban Systems Modelling, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchinson, B., Nijkamp, P. and Batty, M. (eds) (1985), Optimization and Discrete Choice in Urban Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  30. Kain, J.F. (1987), ‘Computer simulation models of urban location’, in Mills, E.S. (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, vol. II, Elsevier Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 847–875.Google Scholar
  31. Kain, J.F. and Apgar, W.C. Jr. (1985), Housing and Neighborhood Dynamics: A Simulation Study, Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, T.J. (1989), Integrated Urban Systems Modeling: Theory and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lotka, A. (1920), ‘Analytical notes on certain rhythmic relations in organic systems’, Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, vol. 6, pp. 410–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landis, J.D. (1992), ‘BASS II: A new generation of metropolitan simulation models’, Working Paper 573, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Landis, J.D. (1993), ‘CUF model simulation results: Alternative futures for the Greater Bay Area Region’, Working Paper 592, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California at Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  36. Landis, J.D. (1994), ‘The California Urban Futures Model: A new generation of metropolitan simulation models’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 21, pp. 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, D.B. Jr. (1973), ‘Requiem for large-scale models’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 39, pp. 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lundqvist, L. (1989), ‘A model system for metropolitan energy studies’, in Lundqvist, L., Mattsson, L.-G. and Eriksson, A. (eds), Spatial Energy Analysis, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 245–269.Google Scholar
  39. Lundqvist, L. (1996), ‘Using combined network equilibrium models for environmental assessments of land-use transportation scenarios’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 359–381.Google Scholar
  40. Lundqvist, L. (1998), ‘A combined model for analysing network infrastructure, land-use/transportation interactions’, Chapter 18, this volume.Google Scholar
  41. Mackett, R.L. (1983), ‘The Leeds Integrated Land-Use Transport Model (LILT)’, Supplementary Report SR 805, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.Google Scholar
  42. Mackett, R.L. (1990a), ‘MASTER Model (Micro-Analytical Simulation of Transport, Employment and Residence)’, Report SR 237, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.Google Scholar
  43. Mackett, R.L. (1990b), ‘Comparative analysis of modelling land-use transport interaction at the micro and macro levels’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 22, pp. 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mackett, R.L. (1990c), ‘The systematic application of the LILT model to Dortmund, Leeds and Tokyo’, Transport Reviews, vol. 10, pp. 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mackett, R.L. (1991a), ‘A model-based analysis of transport and land-use policies for Tokyo’, Transport Reviews, vol. 11, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mackett, R.L. (1991b), ‘LILT and MEPLAN: A comparative analysis of land-use and transport policies for Leeds’, Transport Reviews, vol. 11, pp. 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martinez, F.J. (1991), ‘Transport investments and land values interaction: The case of Santiago City’, Proceedings of the PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, PTRC, London, pp. 45–58.Google Scholar
  48. Martinez, F.J. (1992a), ‘Towards the 5-stage land-use transport model’, in Land Use, Development and Globalisation, Selected Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, Presse de l’imprimerie Chirat, St.-Just-la-Pendue, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
  49. Martinez, F.J. (1992b), ‘The bid-choice land-use model: An integrated economic framework’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 24, pp. 871–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinez, F.J. (1996), ‘Analysis of urban environmental policies assisted by behavioural modelling’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 233–257.Google Scholar
  51. Miyamoto, K. and Kitazume, K. (1989), ‘A land-use model based on random utility/rent-bidding analysis (RURBAN)’, in Transport Policy, Management and Technology — Towards 2001, Selected Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Transport Research, Yokohama, Western Periodicals, Ventura, vol. IV, pp. 107–121.Google Scholar
  52. Miyamoto, K., Nakamura, H. and Shimizu, E. (1986), ‘A land use model based on disaggregate behavioral analyses’, in Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference on Transport Research, pp. 1535–1550.Google Scholar
  53. Miyamoto, K. and Udomsri, R. (1996), ‘An analysis system for integrated policy measures regarding land use, transport and the environment in a metropolis’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 259–280.Google Scholar
  54. Nijkamp, P. and Reggiani, A. (1992), ‘Spatial competition and ecologically based socio-economic models’, Socio-Spatial Dynamics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 89–109.Google Scholar
  55. Prastacos, P. (1986), ‘An integrated land-use-transportation model for the San Francisco region’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 18, pp. 307–322 and 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Putman, S.H. (1983), Integrated Urban Models: Policy Analysis of Transportation and Land Use, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  57. Putman, S.H. (1991), Integrated Urban Models 2. New Research and Applications of Optimization and Dynamics, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  58. Putman, S.H. (1998), ‘Results from implementation of integrated transportation and land use models in metropolitan regions’, Chapter 15, this volume.Google Scholar
  59. Rho, J.H. and Kim, T.J. (1989), ‘Solving a three-dimensional urban activity model of land use intensity and transport congestion’, Journal of Regional Science, vol. 29, pp. 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roy, J.R., Marquez, L.O., Taylor, M.A.P. and Ueda, T. (1996), ‘SUSTAIN — a model investigating Sustainable Urban STructure And Interaction Networks’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 125–145.Google Scholar
  61. Roy, J.R., Marquez, L.O., Taylor, M.A.P. and Ueda, T. (1998), ‘Development of a compact urban simulation model’, Chapter 19, this volume.Google Scholar
  62. Simmonds, D.C. (1995), ‘DSCMOD and DSCMOD+’, Unpublished Report, David Simmonds Consultancy, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  63. Volterra, V. (1931), Leçons sur la théorie mathématique de la lutte pour la vie, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.Google Scholar
  64. Webster, F.V., Bly, P.H. and Paulley, N.J. (eds) (1988), Urban Land-Use and Transport Interaction: Policies and Models, Report of the International Study Group on Land-Use/Transport Interaction (ISGLUTI), Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  65. Wegener, M. (1985), ‘The Dortmund housing market model: A Monte Carlo simulation of a regional housing market’, in Stahl, K. (ed.), Microeconomic Models of Housing Markets, Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems 239, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 144–191.Google Scholar
  66. Wegener, M. (1986a), ‘Transport network equilibrium and regional deconcentration’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 18, pp. 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wegener, M. (1986b), ‘Integrated forecasting models of urban and regional systems’, in Integrated Analysis of Regional Systems, London Papers in Regional Science 15, pp. 9–24.Google Scholar
  68. Wegener, M. (1987), ‘Transport and location in integrated spatial models’, in Nijkamp, P. and Reichman, S. (eds), Transportation Planning in a Changing World, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 208–225.Google Scholar
  69. Wegener, M. (1994), ‘Operational urban models: State of the art’, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wegener, M. (1996), ‘Reduction of CO2 emissions of transport by reorganisation of urban activities’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
  71. Wegener, M., Gnad, F. and Vannahme, M. (1986), ‘The time scale of urban change’, in Hutchinson, B. and Batty, M. (eds), Advances in Urban Systems Modelling, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 145–197.Google Scholar
  72. Wegener, M., Mackett, R.L. and Simmonds, D.C. (1991), ‘One city, three models: Comparison of land-use/transport policy simulation models for Dortmund’, Transport Reviews, vol. 11, pp. 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wegener, M. and Spiekermann, K. (1996), ‘The potential of microsimulation for urban models’, in Clarke, G. (ed.), Microsimulation for Urban and Regional Policy Analysis, European Research in Regional Science 6, Pion, London, pp. 146–163.Google Scholar
  74. Williams, I.W. (1994), ‘A model of London and the South East’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 21, pp. 535–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wilson, A.G. (1967), ‘A statistical theory of spatial distribution models’, Transportation Research, vol. 1, pp. 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson, A.G. (1970), Entropy in Urban and Regional Modelling, Pion, London.Google Scholar
  77. Young, W. and Gu, K. (1993), ‘Modelling the land use-transport-environment interaction’, Occasional Paper 107, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.Google Scholar
  78. Young, W. and Gu, K. (1996), ‘Educating planners in testing of alternative strategies for cities of different sizes’, in Hayashi, Y. and Roy, J. (eds), Transport, Land Use and the Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 147–169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wegener
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Spatial PlanningUniversity of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations