Defining Polycentric Urban Areas Through Commuting Cohesion in France - Methods for Multilevel Analysis and Visualisation of Geographical Networks - page 199

additional connectivity at two scales both from inside the municipalities forming
the subcenter and from external municipalities. The coefficient of participation
identifies where a community is situated in the sending/receiving commuter patterns
of the network, characterizing areas as having either a residential or an employment
dominant orientation. We also show how to construct a graph that may lead to a way
to study network evolution over time. This work helps to demonstrate the impact of
urban planning on the residential strategies of the active population inside urban
areas.
Finally, based on the results of the second section, we describe a method to
decompose the commuter network into its primarily scale-free parts while also
highlighting some of its small world structure at a local scale. Our preliminary
results demonstrate that a scale-free/small world approach to commuter network
analysis is interesting but further investigation is needed.

References

Aguilera, A., & Mignot, D. (2004). Urban sprawl, polycentrism and commuting. A comparison of
seven french urban areas. Urban Public Economic Review , 1 , 93-113.
Auber, D. (2003). Tulip - a huge graph visualization framework. In P. Mutzel, & M. Jünger (Eds.),
Graph drawing software (pp. 105-126). Berlin/New York: Springer.
Auber, D., Chiricota, Y., Jourdan, F., & Melançon, G. (2003). Multiscale navigation of small world
networks. In Ieee symposium on information visualisation (pp. 75-81). Los Alamitos, CA:
IEEE Computer Society.
Berroir, S., Mathian, H., & Saint-Julien, T. (2002). Déplacements domicile-travail: vers le
polycentrisme. INSEE Ile-de-France Regards , 54 , 5-8.
Berroir, S., Mathian, H., Saint-Julien, T., & Sanders, L. (2004). Mobilités et polarisations: vers des
métropoles polycentriques. Le cas des métropoles francilienne et méditerranéenne (Etude dans
le cadre du programme de recherche Mobilité et territoires urbains). UMR 8504 Géographie-
cités.
Binder, J., Haag, G., & Rabino, G. (2003). Analysis and modelling of commuters flows:
Application to the regions of Stuttgart and Turin. Jahrbuch der Regionalwissenschaften , 23 ,
117-139.
Bonnefoy, J., Pumain, D., & Rozenblat, C. (1996). Théorie des graphes et interactions non
gravitaires. In Bocquet-Appel, D. Courgeau, & D. Pumain (Eds.), Analyse spatiale des données
biodémographiques (pp. 171-186). John Libbey/Ined Collection, 367p.
Bourne, L. (1989). Are new urban forms emerging? Empirical tests for Canadian urban areas. The
Canadian Geographer , 33 (4), 312-328.
Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical
Sociology , 25 (2), 163-177.
Cervero, R. (1996). Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey.
Transportation research A , 30 (5), 361-377.
Cervero, R., & Wu, K. (1997). Polycentrism, commuting and residential location in the

San Francisco Bay area. Environment and Planning A , 29 , 865-886.
Giuliano, G., & Small, A. (1991). Subcenters in the Los Angeles region. Regional Science and
Urban Economics , 2 (21), 163-182.
Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. (1996). Beyond policentricity. The dispersed metropolis,
Los Angeles, 1970-1990. Journal of The American Planning Association , 62 (3), 289-295.