51. Transport networks and metropolitan developments: new analytical departures
- Author
-
Peter Nijkamp, Aura Reggiani, and Spatial Economics
- Subjects
General equilibrium theory ,Computer Networks and Communications ,Computer science ,Interoperability ,Context (language use) ,Complex network ,Interconnectivity ,Network topology ,Location theory ,Transport engineering ,Artificial Intelligence ,Mathematical economics ,Software ,Topology (chemistry) - Abstract
A key feature of the modern space-economy is the transition to a networked society, where interconnectivity and interoperability between the different economic systems play a significant role (Reggiani and Schintler 2005). Consequently, there is a consensus among scientists on the idea that many spatial economic phenomena can be described by a network of interactions among agents (Friesz 2007; Reggiani and Nijkamp 2006). Surprisingly, even though the application fields are quite different and the networks are space–time complex, these networks often show common behaviour, based on their topological characteristics. In other words, the topological properties of a network can give useful insights on how the network is structured, which are the most “important” nodes/agents, and how network topology can influence the conventional spatial economic laws (such as, equilibrium theory, spatial interaction theory, etc.). In sum: “the topology (or architecture) of the interaction is an essential part of many processes and it cannot be ignored without missing a crucial ingredient of the phenomena at hand” (Vega Redondo 2006). Such network embedding is important, for example, to understand how transportation networks are resilient, or how commuting flows and employment are related in modern labour markets, or how hierarchical land use patterns develop over time. Interestingly, the analytical tools developed in this context seem to be quite ‘simple’, mostly devoted to searching for and extrapolating some ‘order’ principles in the complex networks under analysis. In addition, they seem to revisit—in a network framework—the main laws of spatial economics developed in the 1960s– 1970s (e.g. the spatial interaction-entropy models conceived of by Wilson 1967). For example, if we find—in certain complex network typologies—the well-known Netw Spat Econ (2007) 7:297–300 DOI 10.1007/s11067-007-9033-8
- Published
- 2007
- Full Text
- View/download PDF