Search

Echenique M., Crowther D. and Lindsay W. A spatial model of urban stock and activity, Reg. Studies 3, 281–312. This paper presents the results of the trial runs of the simple static model, one of the stages in the development of a more comprehensive model of the urban spatial structure. This has been calibrated and tested using data of the town of Reading. The basic feature of this model is the distinction between two interdependent processes. The first allocates floor space (buildings) to sites in answer to the aggregate demands for space of all activities (basic employment, residential and service activities), and is constrained by the transportation network, and the geographical and planning constraints. The second process allocates a particular activity group within the town, according to its functional relationships with other activities, and is constrained by the location of the buildings and the transportation network. These two aspects are represented in the simple static model by two submodels: the stock model and the activity model. The stock model distributes the quantities of floor space throughout the town, given the transportation network, land available for development and the location of basic industries. The activity model allocates residential population according to a “terminal-opportunity” model, and the service activities according to a market-potential model, these activities are constrained by the transportation system and the floor space available. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Hart R. A. (1973) Economic expectations and the decision to migrate: An analysis by socio-economic group, Reg. Studies 7, 271–285. This paper contains two main findings. Firstly, there is both theoretical and empirical justification for the view that inter-regional migration in Great Britain is a function of the income and the employment expectations of potential migrants rather than their observation of spatial economic differentials at a point in time. Secondly, if one disaggregates migrants by socio-economic groups there is evidence that the various groups respond somewhat differently to the economic stimuli. The conclusion is that by introducing the dynamics behind the migration decision as well as observing migrants in economically cohesive groups we are able to gain a greater insight into the mechanism behind the economic migration process. However, the explanatory power of the dynamic model still leaves much to be desired. It would appear that an ideal solution awaits the construction of sound time-series migration data at the macro level. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]