Future Developments in Rural Areas: Combining Micro and Macro

  • Eveline S. van Leeuwen
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


A great advantage of social accounting matrices (SAM) is their ability to capture a wide variety of processes in a (macro) economy as it links production, factor and income accounts. However, it lacks a certain distributional detail. A major advantage of (spatial) microsimulation (MSM) is the way in which individual behaviour can be simulated, which can be aggregated to show local or regional changes in, for example, household demand. A relatively new approach is to link micro models with macro-economic applications to capture indirect effects of individual behaviour. Our aim is to evaluate future population and future retail developments and the effect on the local economy. Therefore we combine SIMtown with the behavioural MNL model from Chap. 3 to simulate the effect of developments, such as the opening of a new shop or retail centre in town and hinterland. Then, we will estimate the macro effects of these developments, mainly the effects on the retail sector with help of an aggregated retail multiplier. This analysis will show how different locations for retail developments will have different impacts on the local economy.


Micro Model Retail Sector Grocery Shopping Floor Space Shopping Behaviour 
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.


  1. Clarke, M. & Holm, E. (1987). Microsimulation methods in spatial analysis and planning. Geografiska Annaler, 69B(2), 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collis, C., Berkeley, N., & Fletcher, D. R. (2000). Retail decline and policy responses in district shopping centres. Town Planning Review, 71, 149–168.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, J. B. (2004). Microsimulation, CGE and macro modelling for transition and developing economies (WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2004/08)Google Scholar
  4. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. (1998). The impact of large foodstores on market towns and district centres. London: CB Hillier Parker.Google Scholar
  5. Evers, D., van Hoorn, A., & van Oort, F. (2005). Winkelen in Megaland. Den Haag: Ruimtelijke Planbureau.Google Scholar
  6. Harding, A. (2007). Challenges and opportunities of dynamic microsimulation modelling. Plenary paper presented to the 1st General Conference of the International Microsimulation Association. Vienna, 21 August, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Hérault, N. (2005). A micro-macro model for South Africa: building and linking a microsimulation Model to a CGE Model. Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series, wp2005n16.Google Scholar
  8. I&O Research. (2004). Markt in zicht! Landelijk marktonderzoek 2004. Enschede: I & O Research.Google Scholar
  9. Lattarulo, P., Paniccià, R., & Sciclone, N. (2002). The household. Income distribution in Tuscany, a combined micro and macro approach (mimeo). Florence: IRPET.Google Scholar
  10. Mayfield, L., Courtney, P., Tranter, R., & Jones, P. (2005). The role of small and medium-sized towns in rural development – Final Report. Reading, MA: Centre for Agricultural Strategy.Google Scholar
  11. Redmond, G., Sutherland, H., & Wilson, M. (1998). The arithmetic of tax and social security reform: a user’s guide to microsimulation methods and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Robilliard, A. S. & Robinson, S. (2005). The social impact of a WTO agreement in Indonesia. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3747. Washington: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Statistics Netherlands. (2003). De Nederlandse Economie 2002. Den Haag: CBS.Google Scholar
  14. Thomas, C. J. & Bromley, R. D. F. (2003). Retail revitalization and small town centres: the contribution of shopping linkages. Applied Geography, 23, 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Leeuwen, E. S., Hagens, J. E., & Nijkamp, P. (2007). Multi-agent systems: a tool in spatial planning. The example of a microsimulation of retail developments. DISP, 170(3), 19–32.Google Scholar
  16. Voas, D. & Williamson, P. (2001). Evaluating goodness-of-fit measures for synthetic microdata. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 5(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spatial EconomicsVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations