Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper evaluates the performance of gravity, radiation, and visitation models for urban mobility across different spatial scales. It finds that the visitation model generally outperforms the others, but their performance converges at specific spatial scales. The study also demonstrates that conventional administrative boundaries may not be optimal for assessing urban mobility models compared to distance-based clustering.
The best urban mobility model depends on the spatial scale of analysis, with model performance converging at specific scales and conventional administrative boundaries potentially skewing results.
Urban mobility models are essential tools for understanding and forecasting how people and goods move within cities, which is vital for transportation planning. The spatial scale at which urban mobility is analysed is a crucial determinant of the insights gained from any model as it can affect models'performance. It is, therefore, important that urban mobility models should be assessed at appropriate spatial scales to reflect the underlying dynamics. In this study, we systematically evaluate the performance of three popular urban mobility models, namely gravity, radiation, and visitation models across spatial scales. The results show that while the visitation model consistently performs better than its gravity and radiation counterparts, their performance does not differ much when being assessed at some appropriate spatial scale common to all of them. Interestingly, at scales where all models perform badly, the visitation model suffers the most. Furthermore, results based on the conventional admin boundary may not perform so well as compared to distance-based clustering. The cross examination of urban mobility models across spatial scales also reveals the spatial organisation of the urban structure.
