Influence of distance decay on the measurement of spillover effects of transport infrastructurea sensitivity analysis

  1. Condeço-Melhorado, A.
  2. Gutiérrez Puebla, J.
  3. García Palomares, J. C.
Revista:
Geofocus: Revista Internacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Información Geográfica

ISSN: 1578-5157

Año de publicación: 2013

Título del ejemplar: GeoFocus

Número: 13

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Geofocus: Revista Internacional de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Información Geográfica

Resumen

The market potential model is frequently used to analyse conditions relating to the accessibility of an area. In recent times, it has also been applied for evaluating spatial spillovers produced by infrastructures. However, the results of this indicator are influenced by the distance exponent value, representing the effect of distance decay on economic flows. In order to justify the choice of distance exponent value, the model is calibrated using data on interregional trade, both in tonnage and in Euros. This study also analyses how variation in the distance exponent affects the results obtained, with respect to spatial spillovers. As a previous step we also look to the influence of this exponent on the market potential results. The sensitivity analysis indicates that an increase in the distance exponent leads to a dramatic fall in the market potential of different areas (at the same time as the self-potential value increases in relative terms). This drop in market potential is particularly marked in regions with smaller internal markets and this translates into greater differences between regions. Moreover, the spatial range of exported spillovers is reduced with an increase in the distance exponent, although the general tendency of the geographical distribution of spillovers remains relatively stable. Generally speaking, the analysis of monetised spillovers gives much more stable results than the analysis of market potential.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aschauer, D.A. (1989a): “Is public expenditure productive?”. Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, pp. 177-200.
  • Aschauer, D.A. (1989b): “Does public capital crowd out private capital?”. Journal of Monetary Economics, 24, pp. 171-188.
  • Avilés, A.; Gómez, R. y Sánchez, J. (2003): “Capital público, actividad económica privada y efectos desbordamiento: Un análisis por Comunidades Autónomas de los sectores Industria y Construcción en España”. Hacienda Pública Española, 165, pp. 25-51.
  • Black, W.R. (1972): “Interregional commodity flows: some experiments with the gravity mode”. Journal of Regional Science, 12, pp. 107-118.
  • Boarnet, M.G. (1998): “Spillovers and the locational effects of public infrastructure”. Journal of Regional Science, 38, pp. 381-400.
  • Bruinsma, F.R. and Rietveld, P. (1998): “The accessibility of European cities: theoretical framework and comparison approaches”. Environment and Planning A, 30, pp. 449-521.
  • Cantos, P.; Gumbau-Albert, M. and Maudos, J. (2005): “Transport Infrastructures, Spillover Effects and Regional Growth: Evidence of the Spanish Case”. Transport Reviews, 25, pp. 25-50.
  • Crescenzi, R. and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2008): “Infrastructure endowment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union”. EIB Papers, 13, pp. 62-1001.
  • Dietzenbacher, E.; van der Linden, J.A. ande Steenge, A.E. (1993): “The Regional Extraction Method: EC Input-Output Comparisons”. Economic Systems Research, 5, pp. 185-206.
  • Dundon-Smith, D.M. and Gibb, R.A. (1993): “The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel. A return to potential analysis”. Geoforum, 24, pp. 183-192.
  • Eldridge, J.D. and Jones, J.P. (1991): “Warped space: a geography of distance decay”. Professional Geographer, 43, pp. 500-511.
  • Fotheringham, A.S. (1983). “A new set of spatial interaction models: The theory of competing destinations”. Environment and Planning A, 15, pp. 15-36.
  • Frost, M.E. and Spence, N.A. (1995). “The rediscovery of accessibility and economic potential: the critical issue of self-potential”. Environment and Planning A, 27, pp. 1833-1848.
  • Geertman, S.C.M. and Ritsema Van Eck, J.R. (1995): “GIS and models of accessibility potential: an application in planning”. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9, pp. 67–80.
  • Gutiérrez, J. and Urbano, P. (1996): “Accessibility in the European Union: the impact of the trans-European road network”. Journal of Transport Geography, 4, pp. 15-26.
  • Gutiérrez, J. and Gómez, G. (1999): “The impact of orbital motorways on intra-metropolitan accessibility: the case of the Madrid’s M40”. Journal of Transport Geography, 7, pp. 1-16.
  • Gutiérrez, J. (2001). “Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: an analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid–Barcelona–French border”. Journal of Transport Geography, 9, pp. 229–242.
  • Gutiérrez, J.; Condeço-Melhorado, A. and Martín, J.C. (2010): “Using accessibility indicators and GIS to assess spatial spillovers of transport infrastructure investment”. Journal of Transport Geography, 18, pp. 141-152.
  • Gutiérrez J.; Condeço-Melhorado, A.; López, E. and Monzón, A. (2011): “Evaluating the European Added Value of TEN-T Projects: a methodological approach based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS”. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, pp. 840–850.
  • Halden, D. (2003): “Accessibility analysis: Concepts and their application to transport policy, program and project evaluation”, in: A. Pearman, P. Mackie & J. Nellthorp (Eds): Transport Projects, Programs and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities (Aldershot: Ashgate).
  • Hansen, W. G. (1959): “How accessibility shapes land-use”. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 25, pp. 73-76.
  • Harris, C.D. (1954): “The market as a factor in the localization of industry in the United States”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 44, pp. 315-348.
  • Haynes, K.E., Fotheringham, A.S. (1984): “Gravity and spatial interaction models”. Beverly Hills, SAGE.
  • Holtz-Eakin, D. and Schwartz, A.E. (1995): “Spatial productivity spillovers from public infrastructures: evidence from state highways”. International Tax and Public Finance, 2, pp. 459-468.
  • Keeble, D.; Offord, J. and Walker, S. (1988): “Peripheral Regions in a Community of Twelve”. Brussels/Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  • Laird, J.; Nellthorp, J. and Mackie, P. (2005): “Network effects and total economic impact in transport appraisal”. Transport Policy, 12, pp. 537-544.
  • Linneker, B.J. and Spence, N.A. (1992a): “An accessibility analysis of the impact of the M25 London orbital motorway in Britain”. Regional Studies, 26, pp. 31-47.
  • Linneker, B.J. and Spence, N.A. (1992b): “Accessibility measures compared in an analysis of the impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway on Britain”. Environment and Planning A, 2, pp. 1137-1154.
  • Llano, C.; Esteban, A.; Pérez, J. and Pulido, A. (2010). “Opening the Interregional Trade "Black Box": The C-Intereg Database for the Spanish economy (1995-2005)”. International Regional Science Review, 33, pp. 302-337.
  • López, E.; Gutiérrez, J. and Gómez, G. (2008): “Measuring regional cohesion effects of large-scale transport infrastructure investments: an accessibility approach”. European Planning Studies, 16, pp. 277-301.
  • Malczewski, J. (1999): “GIS and multicriteria decision analysis”. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Monzón, A.; López, E.; Ortega, E. and Mancebo, S. (2008): “Assessment of Cross-Border Spillover Effects of National Transport Infrastructure Plans: An Accessibility Approach”. Transport Reviews, 29, pp. 515-536.
  • Muhammad, S.; Jong, T. de and Ottens, H.F.L. (2008): “Job accessibility under the influence of information and communication technologies, in the Netherlands”. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, pp. 203-216.
  • Munell, A.H. (1990): “Why has productivity growth declined? Productivity and public investment”. New England Review, pp. 3-22.
  • Munell, A.H. (1992): “Infrastructure investment and productivity growth”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6, pp. 189-198.
  • Owen, D.W. and Coombes, M.G. (1983): “An Index of Peripherality for Local Areas in the United Kingdom”. Newcastle: CURDS, University of Newcastle.
  • Pereira, M.A. and Roca-Sagalés, O. (2003): “Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions”. Journal of Urban Economics, 53, pp. 238-256.
  • Reggiani, A. (1998): “Accessibility, trade and locational behaviour”. Ashgate.
  • Reggiani, A. and Bucci (2008). “Accessibility and network structures: the case of commuting in Germany”. Paper presented at the NECTAR Workshop, Las Palmas.
  • Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.; Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M. and Tarantola, S. (2008): “Global Sensitivity Analysis”. The Primer. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Spence, N. and Linneker, B. (1994): “Evolution of the motorway network and changing levels of accessibility in Great Britain”. Journal of Transport Geography, 2, pp. 247–264.
  • TRANSyT (2007): “Observatorio de la Movilidad Metropolitana. Informe 2005”. Madrid. Disponible en: http://www.observatoriomovilidad.es/images/stories/05_informes/Informe_OMM2005.pdf.
  • Vickerman, R.W. (1995): “The regional impacts of Trans-European networks”. Annals of regional science, 29, pp. 237-254.
  • Yoshida, N. and Deichmann, U. (2009): “Measurement of Accessibility and Its Applications”. Journal of Infrastructure Development, 1, pp. 1–16.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet