空间相互作用模型中的目的地竞争效应 ——基于中国城市间铁路客流数据的实证研究

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.02.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的地竞争模型是空间相互作用领域的重要进展之一,但其有效性尚未得到一致认可,且缺乏基于中国的实证依据。基于中国2010年城市间铁路客流数据,采用目的地竞争模型进行实证分析,并与传统空间相互作用模型相比较,以检验目的地竞争模型在实际应用中的有效性。结果表明：① 空间结构对中国城市间铁路客流存在显著影响,目的地之间存在较强的竞争效应;② 目的地竞争模型的引入显著地减弱了距离衰减参数的空间自相关程度,较大程度上改善了传统空间相互作用模型的距离衰减参数标定偏误问题;③ 既有研究中在区域尺度下对传统空间相互作用模型（即重力模型）参数的标定及实证分析可能会存在偏误,目的地竞争模型这一改进模型具备应用价值。

关键词: 空间相互作用模型, 重力模型, 目的地竞争模型, 空间结构, 距离衰减参数

Abstract:

Spatial interaction model is an important research field. Existing studies indicate spatial structure of destinations has a significant impact on spatial flow. Thus, traditional spatial interaction models suffer model misspecification problem because the absence of spatial structure variable. Among the modified models introduced to solve the misspecification problem, the competing destinations model is the most widely-used one.The competing destinations modelassumes that the travelers’ destinations selecting process adopts a hierarchical information processing strategy.Based on this strategy, the spatial decision process is divided into two stages. In the first stage, travelers select a destinations cluster containing a set of destinations; in the second stage, travelers select an individual destination from the cluster selected in the first stage. The competing destinations model has been empirically applied in numerous studies in foreign countries.However, the empirical conclusions with respect to the validity of the competing destinations model are still far from agreement. Moreover, none empirical study of this model has been conductedin China. This study applies the competing destinations model based on intercity railway passenger data in 2010 in China, and test its validity by comparing it with traditional spatial interaction models. The estimations of the competing destinations model as well as the traditional spatial interaction model are conducted by the maximum likelihood method, which is calculated by a new method distinguishing from existing studies, i.e. the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm. The conclusions can be drawn as follows. 1) Spatial structure has a significant impact on intercity railway passenger flow of China, and there exists a significant competing effect among destinations both in the system-wide estimation results and in the origin-specific estimation results. The system-wide distance-decay parameter estimated in the competing destinations model (-1.165) is more negative than in the traditional spatial interaction model (-1.108). In the other hand, 124out of a total number of 177 (the ratio is 70% ) origin-specific distance-decay parameter estimationsare more negative in the competing destinations model than in the traditional spatial interaction model, while 140 out of 177 (79%) origin-specific destinations accessibility indicator estimations are negative in the competing destinations model. These characteristics have not ever been reported in Chinese context in existing studies. 2) The competing destinations model reduces the spatial autocorrelation among distance-decay parameters, thus significantly corrects the misspecification problem of traditional spatial interaction models. These results illustrate that the competing destinations model performs significantly better than the traditional spatial interaction model, and thus the improvements by the competing destinations model are empirically valid in Chinese context. 3) The parameters estimation and empirical analysis of traditional spatial interaction models (i.e. gravity model) in existing literature may be biased, while the competing destinations model is an efficient improvement and can play an important part in empirical analysis.

Key words: spatial interaction models, gravity model, competing destinations model, spatial structure, distance-decay parameter

中图分类号:

K902

陶卓霖, 戴特奇, 郑清菁, 梁进社. 空间相互作用模型中的目的地竞争效应 ——基于中国城市间铁路客流数据的实证研究[J]. 地理科学, 2017, 37(2): 181-189.

Zhuolin Tao, Teqi Dai, Qingjing Zheng, Jinshe Liang. Competing Effects Among Destinations in Spatial Interaction Models:An Empirical Study Based on Intercity Railway Passenger Data of China[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2017, 37(2): 181-189.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

图2

图3

表3

表4

参考文献 34

[1]	David K, Victor I O, Bobby D.A gravity model analysis of international migration to North America[J]. Applied Economics, 2000, 32(13): 1745-1755. doi: 10.1080/000368400421093
[2]	蒲英霞, 韩洪凌, 葛莹, 等. 中国省际人口迁移的多边效应机制分析[J]. 地理学报, 2016, 71(2): 205-216. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201602003
	[Pu Yingxia, Han Hongling, Ge Ying et al. Multilateral mechanism analysis of interprovincial migration flows in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2016, 71(2): 205-216.] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201602003
[3]	Grosche T, Rothlauf F, Heinzl A.Gravity models for airline passenger volume estimation[J]. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2007, 13(4): 175-183. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.02.001
[4]	李斌, 许立民, 秦奋, 等. 基于重力模型的河南省公路客流空间运输联系[J]. 经济地理, 2010, 30(6): 955-959.
	[Li Bin, Xu Limin, Qin Fen, et al.Gravity modelling of the spatial transport linkages in Henan province using highway passenger flows. Economic Geography, 2010, 30(6): 955-959.]
[5]	王海江, 苗长虹. 中国航空联系的网络结构与区域差异[J]. 地理科学, 2015, 35(10): 1220-1229.
	[Wang Haijiang, Miao Changhong.Network structure and regional difference of Aaviationlinks in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2015, 35(10): 1220-1229.]
[6]	冯然. 服务贸易出口的ICT影响研究——基于修正的重力模型实证分析[J]. 经济经纬, 2010, 27(5): 37-41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1096.2010.05.008
	[Feng Ran.A study of the influence of ICT on the export of service trade——an empirical analysis based on the modified gravity model. Economic Survey, 2010, 27(5): 37-41.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-1096.2010.05.008
[7]	Carrere C.Revisiting the effects of regional trade agreements on trade flows with proper specification of the gravity model[J]. European Economic Review, 2006, 50(2): 223-247. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.06.001
[8]	元媛, 刘浩杰, 路紫. 旅游网站信息流距离衰减及其空间形态研究[J]. 沈阳师范大学学报:自然科学版, 2012, 30(2): 241-244. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5862.2012.02.026
	[Yuan Yuan, Liu Haojie, Lu Zi.Spatial distribution and fuzzy distance attenuation of tourism websites information flows. Journal of Shenyang Normal University(Natural Science Edition), 2012, 30(2): 241-244.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5862.2012.02.026
[9]	程婧瑶, 樊杰, 陈东. 基于重力模型的中国金融中心体系识别[J]. 经济地理, 2013, 33(3): 8-14.
	[Cheng Jingyao, Fan Jie, Chen Dong.Discernment of Chinese financial center system: gravity model approach. Economic Geography, 2013, 33(3): 8-14.]
[10]	顾朝林, 庞海峰. 基于重力模型的中国城市体系空间联系与层域划分[J]. 地理研究, 2008, 27(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0585.2008.01.001
	[Gu Chaolin, Pang Haifeng.Study on spatial relations of Chinese urban system: Gravity Model Approach. Geographical Research, 2008, 27(1): 1-12.] doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-0585.2008.01.001
[11]	戴特奇, 金凤君, 王姣娥. 空间相互作用与城市关联网络演进——以我国20世纪90年代城际铁路客流为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2005, 24(2): 80-89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6301.2005.02.009
	[Dai Teji, Jin Fengjun, Wang Jiaoe.Spatial interaction and network structure evolvement of cities in term of China's railway passenger flow in 1990s. Progress in Geography, 2005, 24(2): 80-89.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-6301.2005.02.009
[12]	赵东霞, 韩增林, 赵彪. 东北地区城市经济联系的空间格局及其演化[J]. 地理科学, 2016, 36(6): 846-854.
	[Zhao Dongxia, Han Zenglin, Zhao Biao.Spatial framework and change of the Northeast China's economic links. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2016, 36(6): 846-854.]
[13]	王成金. 中国交通流的衰减函数模拟及特征[J]. 地理科学进展, 2009, 28(5): 690-696. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2009.05.006
	[Wang Chengjin.Function simulation and regularity of distance decay of inter-urban traffic flow in China. Progress in Geography, 2009, 28(5): 690-696.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2009.05.006
[14]	戴特奇, 刘毅. 重力模型系数时间变化路径分析——以中国城际铁路旅客交流为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2008, 27(4): 110-116. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2008.04.016
	[Dai Teji, Liu Yi.Temporal variations in parameters of gravity model: an analysis on China's inter-city railway passenger flows. Progress in Geography, 2008, 27(4): 110-116.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2008.04.016
[15]	郑清菁, 戴特奇, 陶卓霖, 等. 重力模型参数空间差异研究——以中国城市间铁路客流为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(12): 1659-1665. doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.12.009
	[Zheng Qingjing, Dai Teji, Tao Zhuolin et al. Spatial heterogeneity of gravity model parameters:a case study of inter-city railway passenger flow in China. Progress in Geography, 2014, 33(12): 1659-1665.] doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.12.009
[16]	Fotheringham A S, Nakaya T, Yano K, et al.Hierarchical destination choice and spatial interaction modelling:a simulation experiment[J]. Environment and Planning A, 2001, 33(5): 901-920. doi: 10.1068/a33136
[17]	Cliff A D, Martin R L, Ord J K.Evaluating the friction of distance paremeter in gravity models[J]. Regional Studies, 1974, 8(3): 281-286.
[18]	Curry L.A spatial analysis of gravity flows[J]. Regional Studies, 1972, 6(2): 131-147.
[19]	Sheppard E S, Griffith D A, Curry L.A final comment on mis-specification and autocorrelation in those gravity parameters[J]. Regional Studies, 1976, 10(3): 337-339.
[20]	Baxter M.Model misspecification and spatial structure in spatial-interaction models[J]. Environment and Planning A, 1983, 15(3): 319-327. doi: 10.1068/a150319
[21]	Pooler J.Competition among destinations in spatial interaction models:a new point of view[J]. Chinese Geographical Science, 1998, 8(3): 212-224. doi: 10.1007/s11769-997-0014-0
[22]	Fotheringham A S.A new set of spatial-interaction models:the theory of competing destinations[J]. Environment and Planning a, 1983, 15(1): 15-36.
[23]	Ishikawa Y.An empirical study of the competing destinations model using Japanese interaction data[J]. Environment and Planning A, 1987, 19(10): 1359-1373. doi: 10.1068/a191359
[24]	Lo L.Destination interdependence and the competing destinations model[J]. Environment and Planning a, 1992, 24(8): 1191-1204. doi: 10.1068/a241191
[25]	Hu P, Pooler J.An empirical test of the competing destinations model[J]. Journal of Geographical Systems, 2002, 4(3): 301-323. doi: 10.1007/s101090200088
[26]	Guldmann J M.Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction models of inter-city telecommunication flows[J]. Papers in Regional Science, 1999, 78(2): 179-194. doi: 10.1007/s101100050020
[27]	Fotheringham A S.Modelling hierarchical destination choice[J]. Environment and Planning a, 1986, 18(3): 401-418.
[28]	国家统计局城市社会经济调查司. 中国城市统计年鉴2011[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 2011.
	[Urban social and Economic Investigation Department of National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. China city statistical yearbook 2011. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2011.]
[29]	Batty M, Mackie S.The calibration of gravity,entropy,and related models of spatial interaction[J]. Environment and Planning a, 1972, 4(2): 205-233. doi: 10.1068/a040205
[30]	Wilson A G.A statistical theory of spatial distribution models[J]. Transportation Research, 1967, 1(3): 253-269. doi: 10.1016/0041-1647(67)90035-4
[31]	Thorsen I.Empirical evaluation of alternative model specifications to predict commuting flows[J]. Journal of Regional Science, 1998, 38(2): 273-292. doi: 10.1111/1467-9787.00092
[32]	Kennedy J, Eberhart R C.Particle swarm optimization[C]. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, Western Australia, 1996.
[33]	Xiao Y, Wang F, Liu Y, et al. Reconstructing gravitational attractions of major cities in China from air passenger flow data,2001-2008:A particle swarm optimization approach[J]. Professional Geographer, 2013, 65(2): 265-282. doi: 10.1080/00330124.2012.679445
[34]	Tao Z, Cheng Y, Dai T et al. Spatial optimization of residential care facility locations in Beijing,China:maximum Equity in accessibility[J]. International Journal of Health Geographics, 2014, 13(1): 33. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-13-33 pmid: 25178475

估计值	单约束空间相互作用模型	目的地竞争模型
β	-1.108	-1.165
γ	—	-1.475
α	0.338	0.670
G	0.731	0.777
PM	47.55	49.71

平均估计值	单约束空间相互作用模型	目的地竞争模型
β	-1.415	-1.758
γ	—	-1.389
α	1.073	2.364
G	0.531	0.884
PM	38.25	43.42

研究案例	估计值	单约束空间相互作用模型	目的地竞争模型
Ishikawa^[23] 数据集一	β	-1.06	-1.08
	γ	—	0.28
	G	0.157	0.160
Ishikawa^[23] 数据集二	β	-0.97	-0.87
	γ	—	-0.44
	G	0.148	0.138
Ishikawa^[23] 数据集三	β	-1.31	-1.35
	γ	—	0.19
	G	0.230	0.228
Hu和Pooler^[25]	β	-0.49	-0.76
	Z-Score	5.5^*	3.2^*
	PM	30.4	25.4
本研究	β	-1.108	-1.165
	γ	—	-1.475
	Z-Score	9.04^***	2.73^***
	G	0.731	0.777
	PM	47.55	49.71