Book review: A Framework for Geodesign:

Recently I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing the book entitled “A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design” by Carl Steinitz. The full review can be found in Environment and Planning B. However, I thought I would share the review to readers of the blog (with some added images).

“People have designed and changed the geography of their landscapes for thousands of years, for the better or for the worse. But with more pressure being placed on the world’s resources, with increasing numbers of people, the question that we are now faced with is, what are the best sustainable design solutions to mitigate these challenges? For example, urban growth is inevitable given the increasing concentration of people living within in cities, and as a trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The question that designers and planners are therefore faced with is what scenarios would lead to say the least amount of loss in biodiversity. But this is a multi-faceted problem ranging in scale from how do people build there homes, to where should new industry be located, or how should land be conserved etc? These are all questions involving spatial decision-making, and where geographic information systems can play an important role. Over the last forty years, geographic information systems (GIS) have increasingly been used to assist in such complex decisions, from modelling urban growth projections through to assessing the spread of pollution (see Longley et al., 2010 for a extensive list of applications). However, one of the original visions for GIS, which is often overlooked, is that of a tool for design (Goodchild, 2010).

In his book “A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design” Karl Steinitz brings his vast experience as a landscape architect and planner to such an issue. For those not familiar to the term geodesign, Steinitz (2012) writes in his preference to the book that it “is an invented word, and a very useful term to describe an activity that is not the territory of any single design profession, geographic science or information technology” (p ix). More generally Steinitz (2012) frames geodesign as “the development and application of design-related processes intended to change the geographical study areas in which they are applied and realised” (p1). Or another way of putting it, the merging of geography and design through computers. This is reiterated later on by a quote from Michael Flaxman were he states “Geodesign is a design and planning method which tightly couples the creation of design proposals with impact simulations informed by geographic contexts, systems thinking, and digital technology” (Flaxman quoted in Steinitz, 2012 p 12).

Moreover, geodesign can be considered both as a verb and as a noun which Steinitz relates to design more generally (see Steinitz, 1995). In the sense as a verb, geodesign is about asking questions and as a noun, geodesign is the content of the answers. In this book Steinitz not only clears up the meaning of geodesign but more importantly provides a comprehensive framework (based on his past work) for thinking about strategies of geodesign, and for organising and operationalizing these meanings.

The book is made up of twelve chapters and split into four parts. The first part is spent on framing geodesign and to set the scene for the remainder of book. For example, chapter 1 notes that for geodesign to be successful, one requires collaboration between the design professions (e.g. architects, planners, urban designers, etc.), geographical sciences (e.g. geographers, ecologists, etc), information technologies and those people living within the communities where geodesign is being applied. This is reiterated throughout the book. Chapter 1 also traces the history of geodesign, and how the advent of computer methods for the acquisition, management and display of digital data can be used to link many participants, thus making design not a solitary activity. Chapter 2 introduces the reader to the context for geodesign in the sense that 1) geography matters and that different societies think differently about their geography, 2) scale maters in the sense of what scale should a geodesign project be applied at (e.g., local, regional or global), and what are the appropriate considerations that need to incorporated at each scale, and finally 3) size matters, if the size of the geographic study area increases, there is a high risk of a harmful impact if one makes a mistake.

Part 2 of the book lays out a framework for geodesign. It is important to note that Steinitz does not call this a methodology for geodesign, as he argues one cannot have a singular methodology as the approaches, principles and methods are applied to projects across a range of geographies, scales and sizes. He therefore introduces a framework as a verb, specifically for asking questions, choosing among many methods and seeking possible answers. In order to develop this framework Steinitz walks the reader through six different questions and types of models common in geodesign projects.

Chapter 3 focuses on components of the framework and the questions one needs to address for a successful geodesign project. These questions broadly range from: 1) How should the study area be described? 2) How does the study area operate? 3) Is the current study area working well? 4) How might the study area be altered? 5) What differences might the changes cause?, and finally, 6) How should the study area be changed? As posed by Steinitz, these questions are not a linear progression, but have several iterative loops and feedbacks both with the geodesign team and the application stakeholders. Moreover, Steinitz argues that such questions should be asked three times during the geodesign study, the first to treat them as why questions (e.g. to understand the geographic study area and the scope of the study). Secondly, the questions are asked in reverse order to identify the how questions (e.g. to define the methods of the study, therefore geodesign becomes a decision rather than data driven process) and finally, the questions are asked in sequential order to address the what, where and when questions as the geodesign study is being implemented. Once these three iterations are complete, there can be three possible decisions, yes, no and maybe. If maybe or no, more feedback is needed between the geodesign team and the stakeholders. These iterations highlight how geodesign is an on-going process of changing geography by design.

Using this framework, Chapter 4 discusses the first iteration of questions, that of scoping the geodesign study. The emphasis of this iteration is ensuring that it is being decision-driven as opposed to data-driven. Moreover, it goes over the six questions in an attempt to identity the intended scope for the study before looking at a feasible methodological plan. Chapter 5, moves onto the second iteration, that of designing the study methodology. Having identified the scope of the study (the why) from the first iteration, the geodesign team must then explore how it will be carried out and what are the evaluation criteria. Chapter 6 discusses the third iteration, that of carrying out the geodesign study. That of the what, where and when questions. Throughout these chapters, Steinitz reiterates the need for stakeholder input and feedback from the geodesign team. Moreover, at the end of chapter 6, Steinitz reiterates that the choices mater. The why questions provide a sense of the scope and objectives of the design application: the problem, the study area and those scales required for operationalizing a successful project.
Part 3 of the book looks at nine case studies in geodesign from around the world. Ranging in temporal scale from days to years, from no financial budget to a large budget, and from a small to large numbers of participants. These case studies helped solidify many of the concepts identified in the preceding chapters. They range from urban growth, to urban change to that of fire management. The case studies focus on specific places and utilize GIS with a variety of different techniques, from anticipatory modelling to that of participatory modelling and rule based models (e.g. cellular automata). They also show the importance of visualisation, as Steinitz (2012) notes “spatial visualisation can significantly influence decision making” (p 168). These examples have details but not depth (however, references are given to the full case study report), but this reiterates the purpose of the book, in the sense it is not a “how to” textbook or listing technologies that enable geodesign. It is a discussion with examples of geodesign. Or to quote from the last page of the book “you cannot copy an example but you can gain experience by joining the collaborative activities of geodesign and changing geography by design” (Steinitz, 2012, p 201). The same goes for the applications, they give a valuable insight into what is possible with geodesign. The book concludes by discussing the future applications for geodesign which range from looking at the implications for research in geodesign, and sketching out a geodesign support system (see Ervin, 2011); and in a sense, one could relate this to other planning support systems (see Brail, 2008), but with a greater emphasis on design.

Overall the book is extremely well written and Steinitz provides a critical and personal account of geodesign, which shows his expertise in the area from his years of teaching and carrying out geodesign work. The use of figures and real world examples really helps support the discussion. But if you are looking for a textbook for “how to” do geodesign, or a list of technologies that enable geodesign, you need to look elsewhere. This is a book the principles and practice of geodesign in a general sense, and which provides a valuable resource for those interested in this topic.”

References:

Brail, R.K. (ed.) (2008), Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Ervin, S. (2011), ‘A System for GeoDesign’, Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, Anhalt University of Applied Science, Dessau, Germany, pp. 145-154.
Goodchild, M.F. (2010), ‘Towards Geodesign: Repurposing Cartography and GIS?.’ Cartographic Perspectives, 66(7-22).
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J. and Rhind, D.W. (2010), Geographical Information Systems and Science (3rd Edition), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Steinitz, C. (1995), ‘Design is a Verb; Design is a Noun’, Landscape Journal, 14(2): 188-200.
Steinitz, C. (2012), A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, ESRI Press, Redlands. CA.

Full reference to the book:

Review of Steinitz, C. (2012), A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, ESRI Press, Redlands. CA.

Full reference to the review:

Crooks, A.T. (2013), Crooks on Steinitz: A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, Environment and Planning B, 40 (6): 1122-1124.

Continue reading »

Book review: A Framework for Geodesign:

Recently I had the pleasure of reading and reviewing the book entitled “A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design” by Carl Steinitz. The full review can be found in Environment and Planning B. However, I thought I would share the review to readers of the blog (with some added images).

“People have designed and changed the geography of their landscapes for thousands of years, for the better or for the worse. But with more pressure being placed on the world’s resources, with increasing numbers of people, the question that we are now faced with is, what are the best sustainable design solutions to mitigate these challenges? For example, urban growth is inevitable given the increasing concentration of people living within in cities, and as a trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The question that designers and planners are therefore faced with is what scenarios would lead to say the least amount of loss in biodiversity. But this is a multi-faceted problem ranging in scale from how do people build there homes, to where should new industry be located, or how should land be conserved etc? These are all questions involving spatial decision-making, and where geographic information systems can play an important role. Over the last forty years, geographic information systems (GIS) have increasingly been used to assist in such complex decisions, from modelling urban growth projections through to assessing the spread of pollution (see Longley et al., 2010 for a extensive list of applications). However, one of the original visions for GIS, which is often overlooked, is that of a tool for design (Goodchild, 2010).

In his book “A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design” Karl Steinitz brings his vast experience as a landscape architect and planner to such an issue. For those not familiar to the term geodesign, Steinitz (2012) writes in his preference to the book that it “is an invented word, and a very useful term to describe an activity that is not the territory of any single design profession, geographic science or information technology” (p ix). More generally Steinitz (2012) frames geodesign as “the development and application of design-related processes intended to change the geographical study areas in which they are applied and realised” (p1). Or another way of putting it, the merging of geography and design through computers. This is reiterated later on by a quote from Michael Flaxman were he states “Geodesign is a design and planning method which tightly couples the creation of design proposals with impact simulations informed by geographic contexts, systems thinking, and digital technology” (Flaxman quoted in Steinitz, 2012 p 12).

Moreover, geodesign can be considered both as a verb and as a noun which Steinitz relates to design more generally (see Steinitz, 1995). In the sense as a verb, geodesign is about asking questions and as a noun, geodesign is the content of the answers. In this book Steinitz not only clears up the meaning of geodesign but more importantly provides a comprehensive framework (based on his past work) for thinking about strategies of geodesign, and for organising and operationalizing these meanings.

The book is made up of twelve chapters and split into four parts. The first part is spent on framing geodesign and to set the scene for the remainder of book. For example, chapter 1 notes that for geodesign to be successful, one requires collaboration between the design professions (e.g. architects, planners, urban designers, etc.), geographical sciences (e.g. geographers, ecologists, etc), information technologies and those people living within the communities where geodesign is being applied. This is reiterated throughout the book. Chapter 1 also traces the history of geodesign, and how the advent of computer methods for the acquisition, management and display of digital data can be used to link many participants, thus making design not a solitary activity. Chapter 2 introduces the reader to the context for geodesign in the sense that 1) geography matters and that different societies think differently about their geography, 2) scale maters in the sense of what scale should a geodesign project be applied at (e.g., local, regional or global), and what are the appropriate considerations that need to incorporated at each scale, and finally 3) size matters, if the size of the geographic study area increases, there is a high risk of a harmful impact if one makes a mistake.

Part 2 of the book lays out a framework for geodesign. It is important to note that Steinitz does not call this a methodology for geodesign, as he argues one cannot have a singular methodology as the approaches, principles and methods are applied to projects across a range of geographies, scales and sizes. He therefore introduces a framework as a verb, specifically for asking questions, choosing among many methods and seeking possible answers. In order to develop this framework Steinitz walks the reader through six different questions and types of models common in geodesign projects.

Chapter 3 focuses on components of the framework and the questions one needs to address for a successful geodesign project. These questions broadly range from: 1) How should the study area be described? 2) How does the study area operate? 3) Is the current study area working well? 4) How might the study area be altered? 5) What differences might the changes cause?, and finally, 6) How should the study area be changed? As posed by Steinitz, these questions are not a linear progression, but have several iterative loops and feedbacks both with the geodesign team and the application stakeholders. Moreover, Steinitz argues that such questions should be asked three times during the geodesign study, the first to treat them as why questions (e.g. to understand the geographic study area and the scope of the study). Secondly, the questions are asked in reverse order to identify the how questions (e.g. to define the methods of the study, therefore geodesign becomes a decision rather than data driven process) and finally, the questions are asked in sequential order to address the what, where and when questions as the geodesign study is being implemented. Once these three iterations are complete, there can be three possible decisions, yes, no and maybe. If maybe or no, more feedback is needed between the geodesign team and the stakeholders. These iterations highlight how geodesign is an on-going process of changing geography by design.

Using this framework, Chapter 4 discusses the first iteration of questions, that of scoping the geodesign study. The emphasis of this iteration is ensuring that it is being decision-driven as opposed to data-driven. Moreover, it goes over the six questions in an attempt to identity the intended scope for the study before looking at a feasible methodological plan. Chapter 5, moves onto the second iteration, that of designing the study methodology. Having identified the scope of the study (the why) from the first iteration, the geodesign team must then explore how it will be carried out and what are the evaluation criteria. Chapter 6 discusses the third iteration, that of carrying out the geodesign study. That of the what, where and when questions. Throughout these chapters, Steinitz reiterates the need for stakeholder input and feedback from the geodesign team. Moreover, at the end of chapter 6, Steinitz reiterates that the choices mater. The why questions provide a sense of the scope and objectives of the design application: the problem, the study area and those scales required for operationalizing a successful project.
Part 3 of the book looks at nine case studies in geodesign from around the world. Ranging in temporal scale from days to years, from no financial budget to a large budget, and from a small to large numbers of participants. These case studies helped solidify many of the concepts identified in the preceding chapters. They range from urban growth, to urban change to that of fire management. The case studies focus on specific places and utilize GIS with a variety of different techniques, from anticipatory modelling to that of participatory modelling and rule based models (e.g. cellular automata). They also show the importance of visualisation, as Steinitz (2012) notes “spatial visualisation can significantly influence decision making” (p 168). These examples have details but not depth (however, references are given to the full case study report), but this reiterates the purpose of the book, in the sense it is not a “how to” textbook or listing technologies that enable geodesign. It is a discussion with examples of geodesign. Or to quote from the last page of the book “you cannot copy an example but you can gain experience by joining the collaborative activities of geodesign and changing geography by design” (Steinitz, 2012, p 201). The same goes for the applications, they give a valuable insight into what is possible with geodesign. The book concludes by discussing the future applications for geodesign which range from looking at the implications for research in geodesign, and sketching out a geodesign support system (see Ervin, 2011); and in a sense, one could relate this to other planning support systems (see Brail, 2008), but with a greater emphasis on design.

Overall the book is extremely well written and Steinitz provides a critical and personal account of geodesign, which shows his expertise in the area from his years of teaching and carrying out geodesign work. The use of figures and real world examples really helps support the discussion. But if you are looking for a textbook for “how to” do geodesign, or a list of technologies that enable geodesign, you need to look elsewhere. This is a book the principles and practice of geodesign in a general sense, and which provides a valuable resource for those interested in this topic.”

References:

Brail, R.K. (ed.) (2008), Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Ervin, S. (2011), ‘A System for GeoDesign’, Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture, Anhalt University of Applied Science, Dessau, Germany, pp. 145-154.
Goodchild, M.F. (2010), ‘Towards Geodesign: Repurposing Cartography and GIS?.’ Cartographic Perspectives, 66(7-22).
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J. and Rhind, D.W. (2010), Geographical Information Systems and Science (3rd Edition), John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Steinitz, C. (1995), ‘Design is a Verb; Design is a Noun’, Landscape Journal, 14(2): 188-200.
Steinitz, C. (2012), A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, ESRI Press, Redlands. CA.

Full reference to the book:

Review of Steinitz, C. (2012), A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, ESRI Press, Redlands. CA.

Full reference to the review:

Crooks, A.T. (2013), Crooks on Steinitz: A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, Environment and Planning B, 40 (6): 1122-1124.

Continue reading »

The New Science of Cities

Readers of this blog may be interested in Michael Batty’s new book “The New Science of Cities” which has just been published  by MIT Press. To quote from the publisher:

“Michael Batty suggests that to understand cities we must view them not simply as places in space but as systems of networks and flows. To understand space, he argues, we must understand flows, and to understand flows, we must understand networks—the relations between objects that comprise the system of the city. Drawing on the complexity sciences, social physics, urban economics, transportation theory, regional science, and urban geography, and building on his own previous work, Batty introduces theories and methods that reveal the deep structure of how cities function.”

There is a detailed description of the books content on  Mike’s web site www.complexcity.info. The website also hosts numerous papers and books that Mike has written over his many years as a leading urban modeler in all its shapes and forms.
Continue reading »

The New Science of Cities

Readers of this blog may be interested in Michael Batty’s new book “The New Science of Cities” which has just been published  by MIT Press. To quote from the publisher:

“Michael Batty suggests that to understand cities we must view them not simply as places in space but as systems of networks and flows. To understand space, he argues, we must understand flows, and to understand flows, we must understand networks—the relations between objects that comprise the system of the city. Drawing on the complexity sciences, social physics, urban economics, transportation theory, regional science, and urban geography, and building on his own previous work, Batty introduces theories and methods that reveal the deep structure of how cities function.”

There is a detailed description of the books content on  Mike’s web site www.complexcity.info. The website also hosts numerous papers and books that Mike has written over his many years as a leading urban modeler in all its shapes and forms.
Continue reading »

IR: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks

Our work exploring how social media can be used to study events around the world has resulted in a new publication in the  Social Science Computer Review entitled “International Relations: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks.” In essence what we are attempting to do is compare traditional international relations (e.g. from the United Nations General Assembly voting patterns) to those arising from the bottom up interactions (i.e from people on the ground). The abstract of the paper is below along with some of the images that accompany the paper.

The international community can be viewed as a set of networks, manifested through various transnational activities. The availability of longitudinal datasets such as international arms trades and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) allows for the study of state-driven interactions over time. In parallel to this top-down approach, the recent emergence of social media is fostering a bottom-up and citizen driven avenue for international relations (IR). The comparison of these two network types offers a new lens to study the alignment between states and their people. This paper presents a network-driven approach to analyze communities as they are established through different forms of bottom-up (e.g. Twitter) and top-down (e.g. UNGA voting records and international arms trade records) IR. By constructing and comparing different network communities we were able to evaluate the similarities between state-driven and citizen-driven networks. In order to validate our approach we identified communities in UNGA voting records during and after the Cold War. Our approach showed that the similarity between UNGA communities during and after the Cold War was 0.55 and 0.81 respectively (in a 0-1 scale). To explore the state- versus citizen-driven interactions we focused on the recent events within Syria within Twitter over a sample period of one month. The analysis of these data show a clear misalignment (0.25) between citizen-formed international networks and the ones established by the Syrian government (e.g. through its UNGA voting patterns).

Full reference:

Crooks, A.T., Masad, D., Croitoru, A., Cotnoir, A., Stefanidis, A. and Radzikowski, J. (2013), International Relations: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks, Social Science Computer Review. DOI:10.1177/0894439313506851

If you don’t have access to Social Science Computer Review, send us an email and we can send you an early version of the paper. This is also only part of our work on using multiple networks to explore international relations. One can of course also explore the networks in more detail. For example in the figure below we plot the actual transfer of arms between states during the 2001 and 2011 period. One can clearly see how different states are connected with Syria however, Russia has connections to many states.

Arms transfers
Or if we explore Twitter hastags and add an edge between any pair of hashtags when they are used in the same tweet we can explore an emergent ontology of topic labels users associate with each other. For example, the #Allepo hashtag is associated with other hashtags which appear to local events, including “#civilian”, “#airstrike”, “#hunger”, “#pictures”, many of which are only connected to the #Aleppo hashtag as shown below.

Continue reading »

IR: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks

Our work exploring how social media can be used to study events around the world has resulted in a new publication in the  Social Science Computer Review entitled “International Relations: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks.” In essence what we are attempting to do is compare traditional international relations (e.g. from the United Nations General Assembly voting patterns) to those arising from the bottom up interactions (i.e from people on the ground). The abstract of the paper is below along with some of the images that accompany the paper.

The international community can be viewed as a set of networks, manifested through various transnational activities. The availability of longitudinal datasets such as international arms trades and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) allows for the study of state-driven interactions over time. In parallel to this top-down approach, the recent emergence of social media is fostering a bottom-up and citizen driven avenue for international relations (IR). The comparison of these two network types offers a new lens to study the alignment between states and their people. This paper presents a network-driven approach to analyze communities as they are established through different forms of bottom-up (e.g. Twitter) and top-down (e.g. UNGA voting records and international arms trade records) IR. By constructing and comparing different network communities we were able to evaluate the similarities between state-driven and citizen-driven networks. In order to validate our approach we identified communities in UNGA voting records during and after the Cold War. Our approach showed that the similarity between UNGA communities during and after the Cold War was 0.55 and 0.81 respectively (in a 0-1 scale). To explore the state- versus citizen-driven interactions we focused on the recent events within Syria within Twitter over a sample period of one month. The analysis of these data show a clear misalignment (0.25) between citizen-formed international networks and the ones established by the Syrian government (e.g. through its UNGA voting patterns).

Full reference:

Crooks, A.T., Masad, D., Croitoru, A., Cotnoir, A., Stefanidis, A. and Radzikowski, J. (2013), International Relations: State-Driven and Citizen-Driven Networks, Social Science Computer Review. DOI:10.1177/0894439313506851

If you don’t have access to Social Science Computer Review, send us an email and we can send you an early version of the paper. This is also only part of our work on using multiple networks to explore international relations. One can of course also explore the networks in more detail. For example in the figure below we plot the actual transfer of arms between states during the 2001 and 2011 period. One can clearly see how different states are connected with Syria however, Russia has connections to many states.

Arms transfers
Or if we explore Twitter hastags and add an edge between any pair of hashtags when they are used in the same tweet we can explore an emergent ontology of topic labels users associate with each other. For example, the #Allepo hashtag is associated with other hashtags which appear to local events, including “#civilian”, “#airstrike”, “#hunger”, “#pictures”, many of which are only connected to the #Aleppo hashtag as shown below.

Continue reading »

Interurban Simulation Models

Following on from a previous post about the rise of civilizations. I thought it was worth blogging of another publication which I just came across in Environment and Planning A which demonstrates the utility of agent-based modeling for looking at urban systems by Denise Pumain and Lena Sanders. While I have blogged about the SimPop models before (here), which explore a systems of cities and how they evolve in space and time. In this recent paper the authors compare and contrast ABM with other styles of modeling. To quote from the paper:

“Agent-based models are increasingly used by urban specialists, supplanting the simulation models using differential equations which were more popular earlier. These models already made reference to the theories of self-organisation and to mechanisms of evolution not so far from those used today to describe the emergence of macroscopic properties or structures in a bottom-up process from interactions operating at the microlevel. Moreover there is less difference than often suggested in the literature between the two forms of modelling – differential equations and multi-agent models—in the way they integrate principles of urban theory. To test this assumption, we compare models made of systems of differential equations (Allen’s model firmly rooted in self-organisation theory and the model developed by Weidlich and Haag, affiliated to synergetic theory) with multi-agent models (SIMPOP family) designed to meet the same task: simulating the differentiated dynamics of urban entities over the medium to long term from their functional economic specialisation. We show that multi-agent systems are providing interesting solutions for the modelling method, because of their greater ability to simulate the emergence of geographical macro structures from different levels of interaction.” 

Full Reference:

Pumain, D. and  Sanders, L. (2013). Theoretical principles in interurban simulation models: a comparison. Environment and Planning A, 45(9), 2243-2260.

 

Continue reading »

Interurban Simulation Models

Following on from a previous post about the rise of civilizations. I thought it was worth blogging of another publication which I just came across in Environment and Planning A which demonstrates the utility of agent-based modeling for looking at urban systems by Denise Pumain and Lena Sanders. While I have blogged about the SimPop models before (here), which explore a systems of cities and how they evolve in space and time. In this recent paper the authors compare and contrast ABM with other styles of modeling. To quote from the paper:

“Agent-based models are increasingly used by urban specialists, supplanting the simulation models using differential equations which were more popular earlier. These models already made reference to the theories of self-organisation and to mechanisms of evolution not so far from those used today to describe the emergence of macroscopic properties or structures in a bottom-up process from interactions operating at the microlevel. Moreover there is less difference than often suggested in the literature between the two forms of modelling – differential equations and multi-agent models—in the way they integrate principles of urban theory. To test this assumption, we compare models made of systems of differential equations (Allen’s model firmly rooted in self-organisation theory and the model developed by Weidlich and Haag, affiliated to synergetic theory) with multi-agent models (SIMPOP family) designed to meet the same task: simulating the differentiated dynamics of urban entities over the medium to long term from their functional economic specialisation. We show that multi-agent systems are providing interesting solutions for the modelling method, because of their greater ability to simulate the emergence of geographical macro structures from different levels of interaction.” 

Full Reference:

Pumain, D. and  Sanders, L. (2013). Theoretical principles in interurban simulation models: a comparison. Environment and Planning A, 45(9), 2243-2260.

 

Continue reading »

Geosocial Gauge Paper

As regular readers of the blog know, we have been spending a lot of time recently looking at social media and the growth in locational information within such media. To this end we are very happy to see one of our papers appear in the International Journal of Geographical Information Science. The paper is entitled “GeoSocial Gauge: A System Prototype for Knowledge Discovery from Social Media” which in essence discusses the challenge of merging diverse social media datasets into a single database which can then be used to generate geosocial knowledge. Below is the abstract:

“The remarkable success of online social media sites marks a shift in the way people connect and share information. Much of this information now contains some form of geographical content because of the proliferation of location-aware devices, thus fostering the emergence of geosocial media – a new type of user-generated geospatial information. Through geosocial media we are able, for the first time, to observe human activities in scales and resolutions that were so far unavailable. Furthermore, the wide spectrum of social media data and service types provides a multitude of perspectives on real-world activities and happenings, thus opening new frontiers in geosocial knowledge discovery. However, gleaning knowledge from geosocial media is a challenging task, as they tend to be unstructured and thematically diverse. To address these challenges, this article presents a system prototype for harvesting, processing, modeling, and integrating heterogeneous social media feeds towards the generation of geosocial knowledge. Our article addresses primarily two key components of this system prototype: a novel data model for heterogeneous social media feeds and a corresponding general system architecture. We present these key components and demonstrate their implementation in our system prototype, GeoSocial Gauge.”

Full reference:

Croitoru, A., Crooks, A.T., Radzikowski, J. and Stefanidis, A. (in press), GeoSocial Gauge: A System Prototype for Knowledge Discovery from Social Media, International Journal of Geographical Information Science. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2013.825724

If you don’t have access to IGIS, send us an email and we can send you an early version of the paper.

Continue reading »

Geosocial Gauge Paper

As regular readers of the blog know, we have been spending a lot of time recently looking at social media and the growth in locational information within such media. To this end we are very happy to see one of our papers appear in the International Journal of Geographical Information Science. The paper is entitled “GeoSocial Gauge: A System Prototype for Knowledge Discovery from Social Media” which in essence discusses the challenge of merging diverse social media datasets into a single database which can then be used to generate geosocial knowledge. Below is the abstract:

“The remarkable success of online social media sites marks a shift in the way people connect and share information. Much of this information now contains some form of geographical content because of the proliferation of location-aware devices, thus fostering the emergence of geosocial media – a new type of user-generated geospatial information. Through geosocial media we are able, for the first time, to observe human activities in scales and resolutions that were so far unavailable. Furthermore, the wide spectrum of social media data and service types provides a multitude of perspectives on real-world activities and happenings, thus opening new frontiers in geosocial knowledge discovery. However, gleaning knowledge from geosocial media is a challenging task, as they tend to be unstructured and thematically diverse. To address these challenges, this article presents a system prototype for harvesting, processing, modeling, and integrating heterogeneous social media feeds towards the generation of geosocial knowledge. Our article addresses primarily two key components of this system prototype: a novel data model for heterogeneous social media feeds and a corresponding general system architecture. We present these key components and demonstrate their implementation in our system prototype, GeoSocial Gauge.”

Full reference:

Croitoru, A., Crooks, A.T., Radzikowski, J. and Stefanidis, A. (in press), GeoSocial Gauge: A System Prototype for Knowledge Discovery from Social Media, International Journal of Geographical Information Science. DOI: 10.1080/13658816.2013.825724

If you don’t have access to IGIS, send us an email and we can send you an early version of the paper.

Continue reading »

Modeling the outbreak, spread, and containment of tuberculosis

It seems my interest into disease models is growing. While the development of the cholera model is still underway, over the summer I have had been working with a very talented high school student looking at the outbreak, spread and containment of tuberculosis (TB). Why might you ask? TB is a global problem with 1.8 billion people having a TB Infection, 8.8 million people infected with the TB disease, and around 1.5 million annual deaths. It is the second most common form of death from an infectious disease with the majority of cases in developing countries.

So we have been developing a model that explores how TB might manifest itself, spread within an urban setting and the potential to contain the disease. We have chosen as our test case the Kibera slum within Nairobi, Kenya. Agents in this model represent the residents of the Kibera slum. They are mobile and goal-orientated, seeking to fulfill one goal before moving on to the next. Goals are determined based on the agent’s characteristics (age, sex, etc.) as well as their needs (water, food, health etc.). The exact location they choose to go to is also affected by the distance. When agents interact with one another, they can be infected with TB. Infection is determined upon the amount of bacilli absorbed by agents and their immune response. The transition from infection to disease for HIV positive patients is also dependent on the patient’s CD4 cell count.  What you see below is a poster we presented at Krasnow Institute Retreat.

To give a sense of the dynamics of the model, the movie below shows agents moving around the slum and how their health status changes as time progresses.

Continue reading »

Modeling the outbreak, spread, and containment of tuberculosis

It seems my interest into disease models is growing. While the development of the cholera model is still underway, over the summer I have had been working with a very talented high school student looking at the outbreak, spread and containment of tuberculosis (TB). Why might you ask? TB is a global problem with 1.8 billion people having a TB Infection, 8.8 million people infected with the TB disease, and around 1.5 million annual deaths. It is the second most common form of death from an infectious disease with the majority of cases in developing countries.

So we have been developing a model that explores how TB might manifest itself, spread within an urban setting and the potential to contain the disease. We have chosen as our test case the Kibera slum within Nairobi, Kenya. Agents in this model represent the residents of the Kibera slum. They are mobile and goal-orientated, seeking to fulfill one goal before moving on to the next. Goals are determined based on the agent’s characteristics (age, sex, etc.) as well as their needs (water, food, health etc.). The exact location they choose to go to is also affected by the distance. When agents interact with one another, they can be infected with TB. Infection is determined upon the amount of bacilli absorbed by agents and their immune response. The transition from infection to disease for HIV positive patients is also dependent on the patient’s CD4 cell count.  What you see below is a poster we presented at Krasnow Institute Retreat.

To give a sense of the dynamics of the model, the movie below shows agents moving around the slum and how their health status changes as time progresses.

Continue reading »

ODD with human decision-making

In the Department of CSS, we often encourage our students when writing term papers (or any paper) with respect to agent-based models to use the Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) Protocol (Grimm et al., 2006). This relates to the fact that is not only challenging building an agent-based model but also describing the model in enough detail to all for replication or comparison. Müller et al., (2013) have recently extended to ODD so that it is easier to have a standard way of describing decsion making within agent-based models.The paper is well worth a read.

Original Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) protocol (Source: Grimm et al., 2006).

Extended ODD for describing human decisions in agent-based models – ODD + D (Source: Müller et al., 2013)

Full references to the papers:

Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S., Huse, G., Huth, A., Jepsen, J., Jorgensen, C., Mooij, W., Muller, B., Pe’er, G., Piou, C., Railsback, S., Robbins, A., Robbins, M., Rossmanith, E., Ruger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R., Vabo, R., Visser, U. and Deangelis, D. (2006),A Standard Protocol for Describing Individual-Based and Agent-Based Models‘, Ecological Modelling, 198(1-2): 115–126.

Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R., Schlüter, M., Schulze, J., Weise, H. and Schwarz, N. (2013),Describing Human Decisions in Agent-based Models – ODD + D, An Extension of the ODD Protocol‘, Environmental Modelling and Software, 48: 37-48.

Continue reading »

ODD with human decision-making

In the Department of CSS, we often encourage our students when writing term papers (or any paper) with respect to agent-based models to use the Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) Protocol (Grimm et al., 2006). This relates to the fact that is not only challenging building an agent-based model but also describing the model in enough detail to all for replication or comparison. Müller et al., (2013) have recently extended to ODD so that it is easier to have a standard way of describing decsion making within agent-based models.The paper is well worth a read.

Original Overview, Design concepts, and Details (ODD) protocol (Source: Grimm et al., 2006).

Extended ODD for describing human decisions in agent-based models – ODD + D (Source: Müller et al., 2013)

Full references to the papers:

Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Goss-Custard, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S., Huse, G., Huth, A., Jepsen, J., Jorgensen, C., Mooij, W., Muller, B., Pe’er, G., Piou, C., Railsback, S., Robbins, A., Robbins, M., Rossmanith, E., Ruger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R., Vabo, R., Visser, U. and Deangelis, D. (2006),A Standard Protocol for Describing Individual-Based and Agent-Based Models‘, Ecological Modelling, 198(1-2): 115–126.

Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R., Schlüter, M., Schulze, J., Weise, H. and Schwarz, N. (2013),Describing Human Decisions in Agent-based Models – ODD + D, An Extension of the ODD Protocol‘, Environmental Modelling and Software, 48: 37-48.

Continue reading »

New Publication: GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance

Inputs to the model
 
As the readers of the blog know, we have an interest in GIS, agent-based modeling and crowdsourcing. Now we have a paper that combines all these three elements. Its entitled “GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance” and is published in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 
 
The model itself was written in MASON and uses extensively GeoMASON. Data comes from several different sources (both raster and vector) including OpenStreetMap and LandScan. Below you can read an abstract of the paper and see a movie of one of the scenarios.

“Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis occur all over the world, altering the physical landscape and often severely disrupting people’s daily lives. Recently researchers’ attention has focused on using crowds of volunteers to help map the damaged infrastructure and devastation caused by natural disasters, such as those in Haiti and Pakistan. This data is extremely useful, as it is allows us to assess damage and thus aid the distribution of relief, but it tells us little about how the people in such areas will react to the devastation. This paper demonstrates a prototype spatially explicit agent-based model, created using crowdsourced geographic information and other sources of publicly available data, which can be used to study the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The specific case modelled here is the Haiti earthquake of January 2010. Crowdsourced data is used to build the initial populations of people affected by the event, to construct their environment, and to set their needs based on the damage to buildings. We explore how people react to the distribution of aid, as well as how rumours relating to aid availability propagate through the population. Such a model could potentially provide a link between socio-cultural information about the people affected and the relevant humanitarian relief organizations.”

Full Reference: 

Crooks, A.T. and Wise, S. (2013), GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41: 100-111.

Continue reading »

New Publication: GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance

Inputs to the model
 
As the readers of the blog know, we have an interest in GIS, agent-based modeling and crowdsourcing. Now we have a paper that combines all these three elements. Its entitled “GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance” and is published in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 
 
The model itself was written in MASON and uses extensively GeoMASON. Data comes from several different sources (both raster and vector) including OpenStreetMap and LandScan. Below you can read an abstract of the paper and see a movie of one of the scenarios.

“Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis occur all over the world, altering the physical landscape and often severely disrupting people’s daily lives. Recently researchers’ attention has focused on using crowds of volunteers to help map the damaged infrastructure and devastation caused by natural disasters, such as those in Haiti and Pakistan. This data is extremely useful, as it is allows us to assess damage and thus aid the distribution of relief, but it tells us little about how the people in such areas will react to the devastation. This paper demonstrates a prototype spatially explicit agent-based model, created using crowdsourced geographic information and other sources of publicly available data, which can be used to study the aftermath of a catastrophic event. The specific case modelled here is the Haiti earthquake of January 2010. Crowdsourced data is used to build the initial populations of people affected by the event, to construct their environment, and to set their needs based on the damage to buildings. We explore how people react to the distribution of aid, as well as how rumours relating to aid availability propagate through the population. Such a model could potentially provide a link between socio-cultural information about the people affected and the relevant humanitarian relief organizations.”

Full Reference: 

Crooks, A.T. and Wise, S. (2013), GIS and Agent-Based models for Humanitarian Assistance, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41: 100-111.

Continue reading »
1 6 7 8 9 10 13