Home | | Book | | Research | | Publications | | Bio | | Press | Geosimulation Labs | |
Dr. Paul M. Torrens, Center for Urban Science + Progress, New York University |
Background material on the following topics is available on this site: |
An introduction to geosimulation
The first aspect regards the depiction of spatial units. While traditional urban models have focused on aggregate partitions of urban space, essentially modifiable spatial units, geosimulation-style models are often run with discrete and spatially non-modifiable objects at a "microscopic" scale, e.g., houses, lots, householders, and landowners. The second feature relates to the portrayal of spatial relationships. Traditionally, geographic simulations are constrained by limiting assumptions in the methodologies used to build them. Spatial interaction modeling, for example, describes one form--and one form only--of spatial interaction: flows of matter and information between aggregate spatial units. Microsimulation often deals with individual units, but they are modeled in isolation; the interactions between units are not generally considered. The individual-oriented models characterized by the geosimulation approach contrast by concentrating on the interactive behavior of elementary geographic objects in a limitless variety of ways, whether this interaction takes the form of flows, or other spatial relationships such as action-at-a-distance, diffusion, aggregation, etc. In addition, relationships that might be observed at higher scales (such as at intra-urban levels) can be modeled as collections of these elementary units, assembled from the bottom-up. The third characteristic is concerned with the treatment of time. Traditionally, urban models have included simple proxies for time: cross-sectional data for one snapshot in time, or longitudinal data that offers several snapshots, but with little information about the intervening periods. In contrast, geosimulation-style models offer the opportunity for the construction of dynamic simulations, often at time-scales approaching "real time". This has important implications for the range of hypothese that can be explored in simulation. The fourth characteristic has to do with the goals of simulation. Geosimulation-style modeling marks a departure from the traditional goals of simulation as a predictive exercise. Newer approaches, at least those developed thus far, tend to be designed as scenario-exploring simulations:"tools to think with". Research work in geosimulation mostly focuses on techniques to improve spatial simulation technology: the derivation of new algorithms for spatial processes, new methodologies for conceptualizing spatial entities and the relationships between them, the application of simulation models to real-world problems, and new software for experimenting with geographical systems. A lot of the ideas in geosimulation are not unique to the discipline. Many ideas are abstracted (read: "poached") from other fields, largely computer science, physics, chemistry, mathematics, economics, ecology, and biology. Of these disciplines, computer science is particularly relevant, especially artificial intelligence, artificial life, and object-oriented programming. Complexity studies and associated notions of emergence, self-organization, and adaptive systems have also been very influential. In addition, studies in individual-oriented modeling commonly make use of developments within the geographical sciences, including geocomputation, geographic information science, and spatial analysis. In many cases, however, much of the methodologies borrowed from outside of geography have been developed in non-spatial contexts and much of the innovation in geosimulation stems from adapting these technologies for explictly geographical applications. |
Geosimulation and urban geography
In short, there is much room for improvement. Geosimulation focuses its attention on a "new wave" of simulations for urban systems, mostly designed as cellular automata (CA) or multi-agent systems (MAS). These models offer a number of important innovations over their ancestors:
They are also a lot more fun to work with! As super-cool as these new models are, however, there are some things that they don't do well. CA and MAS are, for the most part, bottom-up models: lots of activity goes on between small-scale entities at a very micro-scale and this "emerges" up, often in quite ordered patterns, at the macro-level. A lot of things work like this in the city, but some things don't. Importantly, CA and MAS are not all that good at handling the properties of urban systems that operate from the top-down, such as the designation of land-uses, planning controls, or the introduction of new public infrastructure (like highways). The "old-style" models that I just attempted to discredit actually do an adequate job of handling top-down systems. Geosimulation looks to improve the old by sprucing it up with the new. I take the old-style models and, essentially, "fill-in" where they finish off, taking them down to the level of the individual and the building (well, really, taking individuals and buildings up to the level of the zone). It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's it in a nutshell. |
Projects >> |