Commodity Distribution Model Incorporating Spatial Interactions for Urban Freight Movement

Abstract

The commodity distribution model proposed in this paper is developed in such a way that the movement of commodities is explained as an outcome of its flow through several freight agents in a supply chain. As commodity flow is fundamentally determined by the demand, the proposed model is developed using a discrete choice model considering the individual behavior of a customer to decide the suppliers from which to purchase and the amount of commodity acquired from each of the suppliers. The model not only takes into account the interplay between shipper and customer in a supply chain but also captures the spatial interactions among alternatives and among customers since spatial effects generally impact customer preference. In this study, we developed and compared several model specifications, that is, with and without incorporating spatial interactions. The empirical results of the model applied to analyze the urban commodity distribution in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area indicate that integrating both spatial interactions among alternatives and among customers statistically improves the model performance.

Nationwide Freight Generation Models: A Spatial Regression Approach

“…Recognizing that spatial considerations and network topology play an important role in transportation planning, freight logistics/supply chain management, and in trip generation modeling is not new (Wisetjindawat et al 2006;Scott et al 2006;Zhang et al 2005;Morlok and Chang 2004;Chen et al 2002;Bell 2000;Feitelson and Salomon 2000;Bell and Iida 1997). While these studies consider spatial dimensions of network topology, many do not explicitly consider the impact of spatial variables in modeling.…”

Modelling change in supply-chain-structures and its effect on freight transport demand

“…The according model calibration requires large amounts of data. For example, for the study of Wisetjindawat et al (2006), a survey containing data on 46,000 firms from the Tokyo area (corresponding to 3% of all firms in this area) is used.…”

“…McKinnon and Woodburn 1996;Jäcker 1997;Drewes Nielsen et al 2003;Kohn 2005;BMVI 2010) In summary, the review shows that none of the existing freight transport models can be directly applied for analysing the interrelation of supply chains structures and freight transport demand. Especially the approaches of Liedtke (2006), Wisetjindawat et al (2006), de Jong and Ben-Akiva (2007), Friedrich (2010), and Samimi (2010) emphasise the importance of integrating elements from the level of supply chain structures, i.e. business establishments and commodity flows, into freight transport modelling.…”

The Determinants of Regional Freight Transport: A Spatial, Semiparametric Approach

“…Second, there is no clear consensus as to the choice of explanatory variables in the models (Chow, Yang, and Regan ). The classical model emphasizes gross regional product, population density, and indicators of sectoral performance, several authors argue for land‐use indicators (Boerkamps, Binsbergen, and Bovy ; Wisetjindawat, Sano, and Matsumoto ; Chow, Yang, and Regan ; Wagner ) or indicators of regional logistic and warehousing activities (Hesse and Rodrigue ; Tavasszy, Ruijgrok, and Davydenko ). Third, there is considerable evidence for nonlinearity in the models, however, there is no clear consensus on the functional form of this nonlinearity (Hesse and Rodrigue ; Rodrigue ; Ranaiefar et al ).…”