Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

The role of spatial scales in assessing urban mobility models

Rakhi Manohar Mepparambath, Hoai Nguyen Huynh

Abstract

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.

The role of spatial scales in assessing urban mobility models

Abstract

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.
Paper Structure (15 sections, 6 equations, 3 figures)

This paper contains 15 sections, 6 equations, 3 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Data and method
  3. Data
  4. Spatial scales
  5. Urban mobility models
  6. Gravity model
  7. Radiation model
  8. Visitation model
  9. Evaluation of models' performance
  10. Results and discussion
  11. Performance of the models across spatial scales
  12. Comparison of administrative boundary and distance-based clustering
  13. Implications for urban planning
  14. Strengths and limitations
  15. Conclusion

Figures (3)

  • Figure 1: Construction of the spatial units at different spatial scales. Left: Voronoi tessellation of individual transport nodes (bus stops and train stations). Right: clusters of nodes (colour coded, following the procedure in Huynh@2025) at 3000 m together with the merging of corresponding Voronoi cells.
  • Figure 2: Performance of the urban mobility models across different spatial scales.
  • Figure 3: Performance of the urban mobility models at different levels of administrative boundary.