Destination Interdependence and the Competing-Destinations Model

Abstract

There are two types of destination interdependence; one arises because of people's preferences towards destination activities, and the other because of the locational arrangement of space. Destination interdependence affects spatial behaviour. In a previous paper it was shown that the conventional gravity model can handle neither aspect of destination interdependence. In this paper it is shown that the competing-destinations model, as a reformulated gravity prototype, is at best able to describe only locational structure effects.

Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Model Specifications to Predict Commuting Flows

“…For example, neither Lo (1992) nor Sen and Smith (1995) distinguish between the parameters β and σ in the specification of the competing-destinations model. In our study this question is left for an empirical evaluation based on a model specification that allows the parameters to be independently estimated.…”

“…Such locational interdependency effects consequently introduce a potential and serious bias when distance-deterrence parameters are estimated from a traditional gravity model (see, for example, Fotheringham, 1983aFotheringham, , 1983bFotheringham, , 1984. In addition, Lo (1991) introduces economic destination interdependence. This appears through economic substitution effects for multipurpose trips, and might result in dominating agglomeration forces that pull trips towards accessible destinations that provide complementary goods.…”

The development of an intervening opportunities model with spatial dominance effects

“…The probability that trips from a given origin zone i will stop at a given destination zone j, depends therefore on the number of destinations in zone j, and on the number of destinations closer to the origin than zone j is to the origin. In this way, Schneider demonstrated in more concrete terms what Stou¨er recognized, that is, the interdependence among destinations, an idea now acknowledged in current research work on destination competition (Fotheringham 1983;Lo 1992;Roy 1993;Fik et al 1992;Raphael 1998).…”

Retail structural dynamics and the forces behind big-box retailing

“…In this variant we are able to encapsulate complementary and substitutable relationships between retail outlets (Lo 1991(Lo , 1992. The model follows from the work of Fik (1988) and Fik and Mulligan (1990) who recognized the competing destinations model as a special case of a more generalized interaction framework.…”