Skip to content

The CASA Blog Network

The latest outputs from researchers, alumni and friends at the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA).

    The CASA Blog Network

    Category: Discrete Event Simulation

    Simulation & Optimization Techniques for the Mitigation of Disruptions to Supply Chains

    Posted on Saturday 20 May 2023 by Unknown

    Our last paper at the Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM) is entitled “Simulation and Optimization Techniques for the Mitigation of Disruptions to Supply Chains” where we (Raj Patel, Abhisekh Rana, Sean Luke, Carlotta Domeniconi, Hamdi K…

    Continue reading »
    COVID, Discrete Event Simulation, Supply Chains

    Simulation & Optimization Techniques for the Mitigation of Disruptions to Supply Chains

    Posted on Saturday 20 May 2023 by Unknown

    Our last paper at the Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM) is entitled “Simulation and Optimization Techniques for the Mitigation of Disruptions to Supply Chains” where we (Raj Patel, Abhisekh Rana, Sean Luke, Carlotta Domeniconi, Hamdi K…

    Continue reading »
    COVID, Discrete Event Simulation, Supply Chains

    Comparing four modeling approaches using a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) epidemic model

    Posted on Monday 5 June 2017 by Andrew Crooks
    Over the years several modeling styles have been developed but often it is unclear what are the differences between them. In this joint post, we, (Yang Zhou and myself) would like to compare and contrast four modeling approaches widely used in Computational Social Science, namely: System Dynamics (SD) models, Agent-based Models (ABM), Cellular Automata (CA) models, and Discrete Event Simulation (DES). For a review of their undying mechanisms and core components of each readers are referred to Gilbert and Troitzsch’s (2005) “Simulation for the Social Scientist“
    To compare and contrast the differences in how these models work and how their underlying mechanisms generate outputs, we needed a common problem to test them against with the same set of model parameters. While one could choose a more complex example, here we decided to chose one of the simplest models we know. Specifically, we chose to model the spread of a disease specifically using a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) epidemic model. Our inspiration for this came from the SD model outlined in the great book “Introduction to Computational Science: Modeling and Simulation for the Sciences” by Shiflet and Shiflet (2014) which was implemented in NetLogo from the accompanying website. For the remaining models (i.e. the ABM, CA, and DES) we created models from scratch in NetLogo. Below we will introduce how we built each model, before showing the results from the four models with the same set of parameters, which allows us to compare the results of the models. The source code, further documentation for the four models can be found over at Yang Zhou’s website and GitHub page.
    The System Dynamics Model

    In the system dynamics model from Shiflet and Shiflet (2014), one person is infected at start. Infected people can infect susceptible people. The population of infected will always increase by (number of infected * number of susceptible * InfectionRate * change in time dt). The infected people may recover. The amount of people that will recover in an iteration is always equal to (number of infected * RecoveryRate * change in time dt). Figure 1 illustrates the system dynamics process while Figure 2 shows the SIR process as a flowchart.

    Figure 1. System Dynamics process (source: Shiflet and Shiflet, 2014)

    Figure 2. System Dynamics flowchart

    The Agent-based Model

    As in the case for the SD model, at the beginning of the simulation, one agent is infected. Agents are randomly distributed on the landscape, and in the beginning of each iteration, they turn to a random direction and move forward by one cell. During each iteration, an infected agent may infect other agents on the same cell. This is different from how the SD model works, specifically the probability of getting infected. In the SD model, the infection rate is the infection rate on the entire population. In the ABM, the probability of becoming infected is equal to the infection rate divided by the probability of an agent to be in the same cell, multiplied by the change in time. Each infected agent has a probability to recover in each time period, which equals to the recovery rate times the change in time. The equations in the ABM are the following:
    Where P(same cell) = probability to be on the same cell, equals 1 divided by total number of cells; dt = change in time. Figure 3 illustrates the agent decision process while Figure 4 shows the display of the ABM

    Figure 3. Agent-based Modeling: agent decision process

    Figure 4. Display of the ABM. Green = susceptible. Red = infected. Blue = recovered.

    The Cellular Automata Model
    At the beginning of the simulation, one cell is infected. During each iteration (dt), the infected cell can infect other cells in its Moore neighborhood (i.e. 8 surrounding cells). The landscape will be a n by n square, and n is equal to the square root of the number of people to be created at the beginning of the simulation. Wrapping is enabled both horizontally and vertically. Similar to the ABM, we would like to map the probability of becoming infected to the one in the SD model. In the CA model, the probability of becoming infected is equal to the infection rate divided by the probability to be in the Moore neighborhood, multiplied by the change in time. Each infected cell has a probability to recover in each time period, which is based on the recovery rate multiplied by the change in time. The equations here are:

    Figure 5 shows the changing process of the cells while Figure 6 shows the display of the CA model.

    Figure 5. Cellular Automata cell changing process

    Figure 6. Display of the CA model. Green = susceptible. Red = infected. Blue = recovered.

    The Discrete Event Simulation Model

    In a Discrete Event Simulation model (aka. queuing model), there are three abstract types of objects: 1) servers, 2) customers, 3) queues, which is quite different from the CA and ABMs.

    So to implement a SIR model as a DES Servers are the processes of becoming infected and recovering. The durations people stay with the servers represent the process of becoming infected and becoming recovered. Customers are susceptible people to be infected, and infected people are waiting to recover. We assume there are two queues in this model. As susceptible objects (i.e. individuals) are created, queues for infection are formed while people are waiting to be infected. On the other hand, as people get infected, they form a second queue waiting to recover. During each iteration (dt), each object in queue has a probability to get become infected. Each infected agent object has a probability to recover which is equal to RecoveryRate. After agents recover, they enter the sink of recovered people. The equations can be written as follow:

    While the whole process is illustrated in Figure 7.
    Figure 7. Discrete Event Simulation process.

    Results from the Implementations

    Now that the models have been briefly described. We turn to how using the same set of parameters lead to different results. The default parameters being used in each model are: number of susceptible people at setup = 2500, Infection Rate = 0.002, Recovery Rate = 0.5, change of time (dt) = 0.001, and the numbers of people in each status are recorded. Since the SD model has no randomness and will always give the same result, it is run only once. Each of the other three models were run for 10 times (feel free to run them more if you wish), and then we took the average of the ten results and show them in Figure 8. The stop condition is that no individual left to be infected.

    Figure 8. Results for the different models. Clockwise from top left: SD model, ABM, DES and CA
    In the four models, we observe the same pattern: the number of susceptible people decreases, the number of infected people increases first and then decrease again, and the number of recovered people increase over time. However, each model realization also shows a lot of differences in how such patterns play out.

    First of all, the SD model has the smallest number of iterations before no one is infected. The number of iterations shown on the graph are the average of the ten runs, since the runs range from smaller to larger numbers (except for the SD model, which only has one run). The SD model only took 17451 iterations to stop, while the ABM took 19145 iterations (on average), the DES model took 18645 iterations (on average). The CA model took the longest time on average for no more individuals to be infected, it took 25680 iterations (on average).

    The results of the SD, ABM and DES models while appearing to be very similar to each other. In the sense, that the number of infected people increase fast at first and reaches a peak number of over 1500 at more than 2000 iterations (2272 for SD, 2403 for ABM, 2538 for DES). On the other hand, in the CA model, the number of infected people increases much slower due to the diffusion mechanism of the CA model and never reaches an amount as high as in the former models.

    An important characteristic of the SD model is that there is no randomness in the model, so no matter how many times you run this model, you will get the same result. In the other three models, getting infected or recover always depend on a probability function, so there is difference in every run.

    Furthermore, people in the SD model and the DES model are homogeneous, and everyone has the same probability to becoming infected or recovering from an infection, although these rates change over time, they do not vary among the different people in the population. On the other hand, in the ABM and the CA model, people (represented by moving agents or static cells) are heterogenous in the sense that they have different locations. Only susceptible people around an infected individual can be infected. It is interesting that when people can move around, like in the ABM, the result is similar to the SD model, though the ABM takes a little more time to recover (19145 iterations in ABM vs. 17451 iterations in SD). When people are static and the number of people on the same space is limited (one cell in one space in this case), like in the CA model, the infection process becomes slower and it takes longer for everyone to recover.

    To test how the models are sensitive to a specific parameter we now present what happens if we increase the infection rate in each model from 0.002 to 0.02 and show the results shown in Figure 9. As to be expected as the infection rate increased, the number of susceptible people decrease at a much faster rate. However, the SD, the ABM, and the DES models are still similar to each other, while the infection in the CA model is slower. The average number of iterations for these models are: 15807 (SD), 15252 (ABM), 16937 (CA), 16677 (DES). By increasing the infection rate the total number of iterations of each model has decreased, with the CA model still taking the longest time to converge. The peak of infected people in each model are on average: 2363 people at 255 iterations (SD), 2310 people at 363 iterations (ABM), 2035 people at 1019 iterations (CA), 2340 people at 286 iterations (DES). The CA model takes a longer time and reaches a lower peak.

    Figure 9. Results for the different models with infection rate = 0.02. Clockwise from top left: SD model, ABM, DES and CA.

    These models are only simple examples of how a SIR model can be implemented in different modeling techniques, but in reality, if we were to model disease propagation in more detail we would need to consider many other things such as people could be both moving through space (i.e. traveling to work) and static (i.e. staying at home), and the capacity of each cell is always limited to some amount.

    References: 

    Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K.G. (2005), Simulation for the Social Scientist (2nd Edition), Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.

    Shiflet, A.B. and Shiflet, G.W. (2014), Introduction to Computational Science: Modeling and Simulation for the Sciences (2nd Edition), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    More information about the models and to download them please visit Yang Zhou’s website.

    Continue reading »
    ABM, CA, Discrete Event Simulation, Disease, Netlogo, system dynamics

    Comparing four modeling approaches using a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) epidemic model

    Posted on Monday 5 June 2017 by Andrew Crooks
    Over the years several modeling styles have been developed but often it is unclear what are the differences between them. In this joint post, we, (Yang Zhou and myself) would like to compare and contrast four modeling approaches widely used in Computational Social Science, namely: System Dynamics (SD) models, Agent-based Models (ABM), Cellular Automata (CA) models, and Discrete Event Simulation (DES). For a review of their undying mechanisms and core components of each readers are referred to Gilbert and Troitzsch’s (2005) “Simulation for the Social Scientist“
    To compare and contrast the differences in how these models work and how their underlying mechanisms generate outputs, we needed a common problem to test them against with the same set of model parameters. While one could choose a more complex example, here we decided to chose one of the simplest models we know. Specifically, we chose to model the spread of a disease specifically using a Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) epidemic model. Our inspiration for this came from the SD model outlined in the great book “Introduction to Computational Science: Modeling and Simulation for the Sciences” by Shiflet and Shiflet (2014) which was implemented in NetLogo from the accompanying website. For the remaining models (i.e. the ABM, CA, and DES) we created models from scratch in NetLogo. Below we will introduce how we built each model, before showing the results from the four models with the same set of parameters, which allows us to compare the results of the models. The source code, further documentation for the four models can be found over at Yang Zhou’s website and GitHub page.
    The System Dynamics Model

    In the system dynamics model from Shiflet and Shiflet (2014), one person is infected at start. Infected people can infect susceptible people. The population of infected will always increase by (number of infected * number of susceptible * InfectionRate * change in time dt). The infected people may recover. The amount of people that will recover in an iteration is always equal to (number of infected * RecoveryRate * change in time dt). Figure 1 illustrates the system dynamics process while Figure 2 shows the SIR process as a flowchart.

    Figure 1. System Dynamics process (source: Shiflet and Shiflet, 2014)

    Figure 2. System Dynamics flowchart

    The Agent-based Model

    As in the case for the SD model, at the beginning of the simulation, one agent is infected. Agents are randomly distributed on the landscape, and in the beginning of each iteration, they turn to a random direction and move forward by one cell. During each iteration, an infected agent may infect other agents on the same cell. This is different from how the SD model works, specifically the probability of getting infected. In the SD model, the infection rate is the infection rate on the entire population. In the ABM, the probability of becoming infected is equal to the infection rate divided by the probability of an agent to be in the same cell, multiplied by the change in time. Each infected agent has a probability to recover in each time period, which equals to the recovery rate times the change in time. The equations in the ABM are the following:
    Where P(same cell) = probability to be on the same cell, equals 1 divided by total number of cells; dt = change in time. Figure 3 illustrates the agent decision process while Figure 4 shows the display of the ABM

    Figure 3. Agent-based Modeling: agent decision process

    Figure 4. Display of the ABM. Green = susceptible. Red = infected. Blue = recovered.

    The Cellular Automata Model
    At the beginning of the simulation, one cell is infected. During each iteration (dt), the infected cell can infect other cells in its Moore neighborhood (i.e. 8 surrounding cells). The landscape will be a n by n square, and n is equal to the square root of the number of people to be created at the beginning of the simulation. Wrapping is enabled both horizontally and vertically. Similar to the ABM, we would like to map the probability of becoming infected to the one in the SD model. In the CA model, the probability of becoming infected is equal to the infection rate divided by the probability to be in the Moore neighborhood, multiplied by the change in time. Each infected cell has a probability to recover in each time period, which is based on the recovery rate multiplied by the change in time. The equations here are:

    Figure 5 shows the changing process of the cells while Figure 6 shows the display of the CA model.

    Figure 5. Cellular Automata cell changing process

    Figure 6. Display of the CA model. Green = susceptible. Red = infected. Blue = recovered.

    The Discrete Event Simulation Model

    In a Discrete Event Simulation model (aka. queuing model), there are three abstract types of objects: 1) servers, 2) customers, 3) queues, which is quite different from the CA and ABMs.

    So to implement a SIR model as a DES Servers are the processes of becoming infected and recovering. The durations people stay with the servers represent the process of becoming infected and becoming recovered. Customers are susceptible people to be infected, and infected people are waiting to recover. We assume there are two queues in this model. As susceptible objects (i.e. individuals) are created, queues for infection are formed while people are waiting to be infected. On the other hand, as people get infected, they form a second queue waiting to recover. During each iteration (dt), each object in queue has a probability to get become infected. Each infected agent object has a probability to recover which is equal to RecoveryRate. After agents recover, they enter the sink of recovered people. The equations can be written as follow:

    While the whole process is illustrated in Figure 7.
    Figure 7. Discrete Event Simulation process.

    Results from the Implementations

    Now that the models have been briefly described. We turn to how using the same set of parameters lead to different results. The default parameters being used in each model are: number of susceptible people at setup = 2500, Infection Rate = 0.002, Recovery Rate = 0.5, change of time (dt) = 0.001, and the numbers of people in each status are recorded. Since the SD model has no randomness and will always give the same result, it is run only once. Each of the other three models were run for 10 times (feel free to run them more if you wish), and then we took the average of the ten results and show them in Figure 8. The stop condition is that no individual left to be infected.

    Figure 8. Results for the different models. Clockwise from top left: SD model, ABM, DES and CA
    In the four models, we observe the same pattern: the number of susceptible people decreases, the number of infected people increases first and then decrease again, and the number of recovered people increase over time. However, each model realization also shows a lot of differences in how such patterns play out.

    First of all, the SD model has the smallest number of iterations before no one is infected. The number of iterations shown on the graph are the average of the ten runs, since the runs range from smaller to larger numbers (except for the SD model, which only has one run). The SD model only took 17451 iterations to stop, while the ABM took 19145 iterations (on average), the DES model took 18645 iterations (on average). The CA model took the longest time on average for no more individuals to be infected, it took 25680 iterations (on average).

    The results of the SD, ABM and DES models while appearing to be very similar to each other. In the sense, that the number of infected people increase fast at first and reaches a peak number of over 1500 at more than 2000 iterations (2272 for SD, 2403 for ABM, 2538 for DES). On the other hand, in the CA model, the number of infected people increases much slower due to the diffusion mechanism of the CA model and never reaches an amount as high as in the former models.

    An important characteristic of the SD model is that there is no randomness in the model, so no matter how many times you run this model, you will get the same result. In the other three models, getting infected or recover always depend on a probability function, so there is difference in every run.

    Furthermore, people in the SD model and the DES model are homogeneous, and everyone has the same probability to becoming infected or recovering from an infection, although these rates change over time, they do not vary among the different people in the population. On the other hand, in the ABM and the CA model, people (represented by moving agents or static cells) are heterogenous in the sense that they have different locations. Only susceptible people around an infected individual can be infected. It is interesting that when people can move around, like in the ABM, the result is similar to the SD model, though the ABM takes a little more time to recover (19145 iterations in ABM vs. 17451 iterations in SD). When people are static and the number of people on the same space is limited (one cell in one space in this case), like in the CA model, the infection process becomes slower and it takes longer for everyone to recover.

    To test how the models are sensitive to a specific parameter we now present what happens if we increase the infection rate in each model from 0.002 to 0.02 and show the results shown in Figure 9. As to be expected as the infection rate increased, the number of susceptible people decrease at a much faster rate. However, the SD, the ABM, and the DES models are still similar to each other, while the infection in the CA model is slower. The average number of iterations for these models are: 15807 (SD), 15252 (ABM), 16937 (CA), 16677 (DES). By increasing the infection rate the total number of iterations of each model has decreased, with the CA model still taking the longest time to converge. The peak of infected people in each model are on average: 2363 people at 255 iterations (SD), 2310 people at 363 iterations (ABM), 2035 people at 1019 iterations (CA), 2340 people at 286 iterations (DES). The CA model takes a longer time and reaches a lower peak.

    Figure 9. Results for the different models with infection rate = 0.02. Clockwise from top left: SD model, ABM, DES and CA.

    These models are only simple examples of how a SIR model can be implemented in different modeling techniques, but in reality, if we were to model disease propagation in more detail we would need to consider many other things such as people could be both moving through space (i.e. traveling to work) and static (i.e. staying at home), and the capacity of each cell is always limited to some amount.

    References: 

    Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K.G. (2005), Simulation for the Social Scientist (2nd Edition), Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.

    Shiflet, A.B. and Shiflet, G.W. (2014), Introduction to Computational Science: Modeling and Simulation for the Sciences (2nd Edition), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    More information about the models and to download them please visit Yang Zhou’s website.

    Continue reading »
    ABM, CA, Discrete Event Simulation, Disease, Netlogo, system dynamics

    CASA Website

    Our main website

    Contributors

    • Networking City Research blog on urban environment and citizen movements in complex networks
    • @emergentcity The personal blog-space of Gareth Simons -> architect | urbanist interested in performative simulation at the urban scale; space and flows as computational processes; information entropy & irreversibility; and the ‘edge of chaos’. Views are my own.
    • A Science of Cities complexcity
    • Adam Dennett
    • Alex Singleton
    • areaclassification.org.uk Open and Free Geodemographics
    • Auto vip 99 Sports Betting And Online Casino
    • BDTK Blog Just another WordPress site
    • blog – ENFOLDing Global Dynamics and Complex Systems
    • CEDE Creating and Exploring Digital Empathy
    • CityGeographics Urban visualisation and spatial analysis research blog by Duncan A Smith
    • Crowd Simulation
    • Data-driven economics Why economics should be about observing and understanding the economy, duh.
    • DataShine Blog DataShine is an output of the ESRC BODMAS project which ran from 2013-2015 at UCL. To cite the project or websites, please use: Oliver O’Brien & James Cheshire (2016) Interactive mapping for large, open demographic data sets using familiar geographical fe
    • Digital Urban Data, Cities, IoT and Making Things
    • en-topia Urban Planning and the future of the city
    • GENeSIS Digital Social Research
    • George MacKerron: code blog GIS, software development, and other snippets
    • GIS + AR (Augmented Reality)
    • GIS and Agent-Based Modeling This is a research site focused around my interests in Geographical Information Science (GIS) and Agent-Based Modeling (ABM).
    • heartcode Coding “hard”, with the heart… :-)
    • James Cheshire Geography & Cartography
    • jpg4.us – little caprice dp' Search ,Fujian Shipbuilding Trading Co. Ltd. Shipbuilding in China
    • Mapping London Highlighting the best London maps
    • O.O'Brien Thoughts on urban mobility services, digital cartography and data visualisation.
    • Pablo Mateos Associate Professor
    • Paul Longley Professor of Geographic Information Science, University College London
    • Placetique People, Data, Place
    • Po Ve Sham – Muki Haklay's personal blog GIScience, Citizen Science & Environmental Information
    • Population Geography promoting population geography, supporting population geographers
    • Python – Hannah Fry Dr. of fluid dynamics, researcher of complexity theory and all round bad-ass.
    • Quaestio research: questioning, inquiring, seeking, searching and scrutinising
    • QuanTile Quantitative Teaching, Research and Outreach in Geography
    • Quantitative Methods Research Group (QMRG) – Royal Geographical Society with IBG
    • Simone Caschili UCL QASER Lab & CASA Research Associate, University College London
    • Simulacra Showcasing land use transport modelling, urban complexity and sustainability research from the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London
    • Smart Cities Mainly Based on my Lectures on Models, Complexity, and Smart Cities at ASU, CUHK, CUSP at NYU, Ritsumeikan, SUFE-Shanghai, Tel Aviv, and UCL, with blogging odds and ends thrown in for good measure
    • Snakes on a brain Attempting scientific and mathematical programming in Python.
    • Sociable Physics Because “social physicist” is not an oxymoron.
    • Spatial Analysis | Scoop.it All the new curated posts for the topic: Spatial Analysis
    • Steven Gray
    • Stories by Max Nathan on Medium Stories by Max Nathan on Medium
    • Talisman Geospatial Data Analysis and Simulation
    • topometries Land-use dynamics, pedestrian behaviour and transport simulation, multi-agent systems and spatial morphology
    • Urbagram An Instiki wiki
    • UrbanMovements Flows, Behaviour and Networks in the City
    • UrbanTick
    • Volunteered Geographic Information A Geography/GIS blog by Daniel J Lewis

    Contributors

    • Networking City
    • @emergentcity
    • A Science of Cities
    • Adam Dennett
    • Alex Singleton
    • areaclassification.org.uk
    • Auto vip 99
    • BDTK Blog
    • blog – ENFOLDing
    • CEDE
    • CityGeographics
    • Crowd Simulation
    • Data-driven economics
    • DataShine Blog
    • Digital Urban
    • en-topia
    • GENeSIS
    • George MacKerron: code blog
    • GIS + AR (Augmented Reality)
    • GIS and Agent-Based Modeling
    • heartcode
    • James Cheshire
    • jpg4.us – little caprice dp' Search ,Fujian Shipbuilding Trading Co. Ltd.
    • Mapping London
    • O.O'Brien
    • Pablo Mateos
    • Paul Longley
    • Placetique
    • Po Ve Sham – Muki Haklay's personal blog
    • Population Geography
    • Python – Hannah Fry
    • Quaestio
    • QuanTile
    • Quantitative Methods Research Group (QMRG) – Royal Geographical Society with IBG
    • Simone Caschili
    • Simulacra
    • Smart Cities
    • Snakes on a brain
    • Sociable Physics
    • Spatial Analysis | Scoop.it
    • Steven Gray
    • Stories by Max Nathan on Medium
    • Talisman
    • topometries
    • Urbagram
    • UrbanMovements
    • UrbanTick
    • Volunteered Geographic Information

    Archives

    • May 2025 (2)
    • April 2025 (2)
    • March 2025 (6)
    • February 2025 (2)
    • January 2025 (1)
    • December 2024 (1)
    • November 2024 (2)
    • October 2024 (10)
    • September 2024 (4)
    • August 2024 (3)
    • July 2024 (6)
    • June 2024 (3)
    • May 2024 (3)
    • April 2024 (9)
    • March 2024 (2)
    • February 2024 (2)
    • January 2024 (4)
    • December 2023 (2)
    • November 2023 (5)
    • October 2023 (5)
    • September 2023 (3)
    • August 2023 (7)
    • July 2023 (7)
    • June 2023 (11)
    • May 2023 (13)
    • April 2023 (9)
    • March 2023 (6)
    • February 2023 (5)
    • January 2023 (4)
    • December 2022 (8)
    • November 2022 (9)
    • October 2022 (14)
    • September 2022 (22)
    • August 2022 (7)
    • July 2022 (8)
    • June 2022 (236)
    • May 2022 (248)
    • April 2022 (342)
    • March 2022 (99)
    • February 2022 (11)
    • January 2022 (6)
    • December 2021 (85)
    • November 2021 (28)
    • October 2021 (10)
    • September 2021 (7)
    • August 2021 (21)
    • July 2021 (11)
    • June 2021 (13)
    • May 2021 (10)
    • April 2021 (23)
    • March 2021 (10)
    • February 2021 (8)
    • January 2021 (13)
    • December 2020 (3)
    • November 2020 (8)
    • October 2020 (18)
    • September 2020 (17)
    • August 2020 (4)
    • July 2020 (5)
    • June 2020 (13)
    • May 2020 (33)
    • April 2020 (11)
    • March 2020 (14)
    • February 2020 (6)
    • January 2020 (16)
    • December 2019 (20)
    • November 2019 (14)
    • October 2019 (16)
    • September 2019 (15)
    • August 2019 (23)
    • July 2019 (18)
    • June 2019 (6)
    • May 2019 (15)
    • April 2019 (20)
    • March 2019 (21)
    • February 2019 (11)
    • January 2019 (13)
    • December 2018 (12)
    • November 2018 (29)
    • October 2018 (22)
    • September 2018 (13)
    • August 2018 (17)
    • July 2018 (22)
    • June 2018 (24)
    • May 2018 (18)
    • April 2018 (32)
    • March 2018 (23)
    • February 2018 (21)
    • January 2018 (26)
    • December 2017 (28)
    • November 2017 (22)
    • October 2017 (27)
    • September 2017 (33)
    • August 2017 (19)
    • July 2017 (27)
    • June 2017 (24)
    • May 2017 (22)
    • April 2017 (23)
    • March 2017 (18)
    • February 2017 (31)
    • January 2017 (38)
    • December 2016 (18)
    • November 2016 (20)
    • October 2016 (50)
    • September 2016 (59)
    • August 2016 (29)
    • July 2016 (22)
    • June 2016 (46)
    • May 2016 (47)
    • April 2016 (40)
    • March 2016 (69)
    • February 2016 (29)
    • January 2016 (27)
    • December 2015 (46)
    • November 2015 (44)
    • October 2015 (63)
    • September 2015 (60)
    • August 2015 (46)
    • July 2015 (70)
    • June 2015 (51)
    • May 2015 (45)
    • April 2015 (71)
    • March 2015 (65)
    • February 2015 (45)
    • January 2015 (31)
    • December 2014 (51)
    • November 2014 (35)
    • October 2014 (70)
    • September 2014 (120)
    • August 2014 (23)
    • July 2014 (47)
    • June 2014 (48)
    • May 2014 (58)
    • April 2014 (47)
    • March 2014 (69)
    • February 2014 (68)
    • January 2014 (68)
    • December 2013 (57)
    • November 2013 (66)
    • October 2013 (88)
    • September 2013 (95)
    • August 2013 (89)
    • July 2013 (80)
    • June 2013 (92)
    • May 2013 (75)
    • April 2013 (66)
    • March 2013 (49)
    • February 2013 (51)
    • January 2013 (44)
    • December 2012 (35)
    • November 2012 (44)
    • October 2012 (114)
    • September 2012 (30)
    • August 2012 (60)
    • July 2012 (94)
    • June 2012 (70)
    • May 2012 (66)
    • April 2012 (58)
    • March 2012 (67)
    • February 2012 (77)
    • January 2012 (70)
    • December 2011 (85)
    • November 2011 (91)
    • October 2011 (82)
    • September 2011 (44)
    • August 2011 (60)
    • July 2011 (97)
    • June 2011 (88)
    • May 2011 (65)
    • April 2011 (58)
    • March 2011 (123)
    • February 2011 (68)
    • January 2011 (30)
    • December 2010 (17)
    • November 2010 (31)
    • October 2010 (18)
    • September 2010 (22)
    • August 2010 (20)
    • July 2010 (5)
    • June 2010 (36)
    • May 2010 (23)
    • April 2010 (12)
    • March 2010 (4)
    • February 2010 (8)
    • January 2010 (3)
    • December 2009 (4)
    • November 2009 (2)
    • October 2009 (1)
    • September 2009 (5)
    • August 2009 (7)
    • July 2009 (1)
    • June 2009 (2)
    • May 2009 (4)
    • April 2009 (15)
    • March 2009 (9)
    • February 2009 (4)
    • January 2009 (2)
    • December 2008 (3)
    • November 2008 (11)
    • August 2008 (4)
    • July 2008 (4)
    • June 2008 (5)
    • May 2008 (4)
    • March 2008 (3)
    • January 2008 (2)
    • December 2007 (1)
    • October 2007 (3)
    • September 2007 (1)
    • August 2007 (1)
    • June 2007 (1)
    • March 2007 (1)
    • February 2007 (1)
    • August 2006 (1)
    • July 2006 (1)
    • February 2006 (1)
    • August 2004 (1)
    • March 2001 (1)
    • March 1991 (1)

    Categories

    ABM ABM Examples Agent Based Models Announcements/ News architecture Art augmented reality Big Data Bike Share Book CASA Cities citizen science complexity Conference Conferences data Data Graphics Environmental information Events Extreme Citizen Science flows GeoSocial GIS Historic Info Information Interactions london mapping MASON Netlogo networks OpenStreetMap Papers PPGIS review Smart Cities social media Tourist tube twitter VGI visualisation Volunteered Geographic Information

    Recent Posts

    • Hello world! Thursday 15 May 2025
    • Crowdsourcing dust storms utilizing social media data Tuesday 13 May 2025
    • Mapping the Invisible Tuesday 22 April 2025
    • The Big Egg Hunt Tuesday 8 April 2025
    • AAG 2025 Talks Monday 31 March 2025
    Powered by WordPress and Momentous.