Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 253–271 | Cite as

Conceptual Design for an Integrated Geosimulation and Analytic Network Process (ANP) in Gentrification Appraisal

  • Soheil Sabri
  • Ahmad Nazri Muhammad M. Ludin
  • Chin Siong Ho


This paper presents a conceptual framework for geosimulation of the New-build gentrification process in an integrated approach. The combination of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and Geographic Automata Systems (GAS) facilitates to translate the expert Knowledge into model rules. Analytic Network Process (ANP) is considered as MCE that addresses the relative importance of criteria for New-build gentrification as a complex urban phenomenon. It will be used to determine the different weights of each parameter in every time elapse. GAS which unites Cellular Automata (CA) and Multi-agent Systems (MAS) provides an excellent tool for modeling New-build gentrification. The transition rules are proposed as a combination of land use transformation and residential decision for housing area. The land use change is based on human-agent effects (local authority, neighborhood’s property value and developer) and residential decision is the adaptation of a stress-resistance hypothesis defined by Benenson (2004). The integrated approach is believed to provide a more accurate real-world urban modeling and simulation that can highlight the systematic inequalities of urban context based on the theory of New-build gentrification.


Analytic network process Geosimulation New-build gentrification Urban inequalities 


  1. Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Massachusetts: The MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, M., & Longely, P. (1994). Fractal cities: A geometry of form and function. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Benenson, I. (1998). Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(1), 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benenson, I. (2004). Agent-based modeling: From individual residential choice to urban residential dynamics. In M. F. Goodchild, & D. G. Janelle. Spatially integrated social science: Examples in best practice (pp. 67–95). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Benenson, I., & Torrens, P. M. (2004). Geosimulation automata-based modeling of urban phenomena. WileyGoogle Scholar
  7. Benenson, I., Martens, K., & Birfir, S. (2008). PARKAGENT: An agent-based model of parking in the city. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1972). General system theory. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bounds, M., & Morris, A. (2006). Second wave gentrification in inner-city Sydney. Cities, 23, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Briassoulis, H. (2008). Land-use policy and planning, theorizing, and modeling: Lost in translation, found in complexity. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carsjens, G. J., & Ligtenberg, A. (2007). A GIS-based support tool for sustainable spatial planning in metropolitan areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chakhar, S., & Lamsade, V. M. (2008). Multicriteria decision making, spatial. In S. Shekhar & H. Xiong (Eds.), Encyclopedia of GIS (pp. 776–782). New York: SpringerScience + Business Media, LLC.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, Y., Wong, S., Su, H. (2007). Revisit the threshold effect of neighborhood change using multi-agent simulation: A case of Philadelphia. Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management. Iguassu Falls, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  14. Crooks, A. T. (2008). Constructing and implementing an agent-based model of residential segregation through vector GIS. London: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London.Google Scholar
  15. Crooks, A., Castle, C., & Batty, M. (2008). Key challenges in agent-based modelling for geo-spatial simulation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daffertshoffer, A., Haken, H., & Portugali, J. (2001). Self-organized settlements. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson, M. (2006). New build gentrification: London’s riverside renaissance. London: London, King’s College.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, M., & Lees, L. (2005). New-build “gentrification” and London’s riverside renaissance. Environment and Planning A, 37(7), 1165–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diappi, L., & Bolchi, P. (2007). Smith’s rent gap theory and real estate dynamics: A multi-agent model. Computers, Environmnet and Urban Systems Google Scholar
  20. Dietzel, C., & Clarke, K. (2006). The effect of disaggregating land use categories in cellular automata during model calibration and forecasting. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30, 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Durrett, R., & Levin, S. A. (1994). Stochastic spatial models: A user’s guide to ecological applications. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Science, 343, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guzey, O. (2006). Understanding the logic of gentrification in different geographies: A comparison of five regeneration projects in Ankara Turkey. 42nd ISoCarp (pp. 1–13). Ankara: TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzey, O. (2009). Urban regeneration and increased competitive power: Ankara in an era of globalization. Cities, 26, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ha, S.-K. (2004). Housing renewal and neighborhood changes as a gentrification process in Seoul. Cities, 21(5), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hammam, Y. (2008). Geographical vector agents. Department of informatic science. Dunedin: The University of Otago.Google Scholar
  26. Hamnett, C. (1991). The blind men and the elephant: The explanation of gentrification. Transactions of the Institutes of British Geographers, 16, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamnett, C., & Whitelegg, D. (2007). Loft conversion and gentrification in London: From industrial to postindustrial land use. Environment and Planning A, 39, 106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hatami Nejad, H., Sabri, S., & Sabri, S. (2008). The essence of a public-private partnership in Redevelopment of Abkooh neighborhood of Mashhad–Iran through a sustainable development. International conference on Social Science and Humanities. Penang: University Sains Malaysia.Google Scholar
  29. Howley, P., Scott, M., & Redmond, D. (2009). An examination of residential preferences for less sustainable housing: Exploring future mobility among Dublin central city residents. Cities, 26, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson, J., Forest, B., & Sengupta, R. (2008). Agent-based simulation of urban residential dynamics and land rent changing in a gentrifying area of Boston. Transactions in GIS, 12(4), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keskin, B. (2008). Hedonic analysis of price in the Istanbul housing market. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 12, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khalesian, M., Pahlavani, P., Delavar, M. R. (2008). GIS-based multi-agent traffic micro simulation for modelling the local air pollution. The International archives of the Photogrametry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences Google Scholar
  33. Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Levy, J. K. (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 19, 438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, X., & Yeh, A. G.-O. (2001). Calibration of cellular automata by using neural networks for the simulation of complex urban systems. Environment and Planning A, 33, 1445–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ligtenberg, A., Bregt, A. K., & Van Lammeren, R. (2001). Multi-actor-based land use modeling: Spatial planning using agent. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ligtenberg, A., Wachowicz, M., Bregt, A. K., Beulens, A., & Ketten, D. L. (2004). A design and application of a multi-agent system for simulation of multi-actor spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 72, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, Y. (2009). Modelling urban development with geographical information systems and cellular automata. Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar
  39. Macal, C. M., & North, M. J. (2005). Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. Proceedings of 2005 Winter Simulation Conference Google Scholar
  40. Makse, H. A., Halvin, S., & Stanley, H. E. (1995). Modelling urban growth patterns. Nature, 377, 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Makse, H. A., Andrade, J. S., Batty, M., & Halvin, S. (1998). Modeling urban growth patterns with correlated percolation. Physical Review E, 58, 7054–7062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: John Wily & Sons.Google Scholar
  43. Nyerges, T. L., & Jankowski, P. (2010). Regional and urban GIS a decision support approach. New York: The Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. O’Sullivan, D. (2001). Graph cellular automat: A generalised discrete urban and regional model. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 28, 667–684.Google Scholar
  45. O’Sullivan, D. (2002). Toward micro-scale spatial modeling of gentrification. Geographical Systems, 4, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Sullivan, D. (2009). Changing neighborhoods-neighborhoods changing, a framework for spatially explicit agent-based models of social systems. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(4), 498–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Parker, D. C., & Filatova, T. (2008). A conceptual design for a bilateral agent-based land market with heterogeneous economic agents. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Portugali, J., Benenson, I., & Omer, I. (1997). Spatial cognitive dissonance and sociospatial emergence in a self-organizing city. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pourebrahim Abadi, S. (2008, December). Integrated coastal land use development; using Analytic Network Process and GIS: Case of Kuala Langat District, Malaysia. PhD Thesis. University Putra Malaysia, Selangore, Malaysia: UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
  50. Saaty, T. L. (2007). Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 860–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saaty, T. L., & Kearns, K. P. (1985). Analytical planning, the organization of systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Saaty, T. L., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2006). Decision making with the analytic network process, economic, political, social and technological applications with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Pittsburgh: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Sabri, S., & Yakuup, A. (2008a). Multi-criteria decision making for urban sprawl, using Analytic Network Process and GIS, Case of Iskandar Malaysia Region. Map Asia 2008. Kuala Lumpur: GIS Development.Google Scholar
  55. Sabri, S., & Yakuup, A. (2008b). Integrating dynamic network process (DNP) analysis and geographical information system (GIS) to introduce the components of urban gentrification in developing countries. Asia GIS 2008. Busan, Korea: Asia GIS 2008Google Scholar
  56. Sabri, S., & Yakuup, A. (2008c). Multi-criteria expert based analysis for ranking the urban gentrification drivers in developing countries. Built Environment in developing countries. Penang: USMGoogle Scholar
  57. Sabri, S., Mosharzadeh, Z., & Hataminejad, H. (2006). The essence of generation a public-private partnership in empowerment of ABKOOH quarter of Mashad city—a sustainable development approach. In A. Atkinson & M. Graetz (Eds.), Proceedings: International conference and summer school 2006, Berlin University (pp. 224–233). Berlin: ISR Sonderpublikation.Google Scholar
  58. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.Google Scholar
  59. Sengupta, R. R., & Bennett, D. A. (2003). Agent-based modelling environment for spatial decision support. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sengupta, R., Lant, C., Kraft, S., Beaulieu, J., Peterson, W., & Loftus, T. (2005). Modeling enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program by using agents within spatial decision support systems: An example from southern Illinois. Environment and Planning: Planning and Design, 32, 821–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist city. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Speare, A. J., Goldstein, S., & Frey, W. H. (1974). Residential mobility, migration, and metropolitan change. Ballinger: Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  63. Timmermans, H., & Noortwijk, L. V. (1995). Context dependencies in housing choice behavior. Environment and Planning A, 27(2), 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Torrens, P. M. (2007). A geographical automata model of residential mobility. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 200–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Torrens, P., & Nara, A. (2007). Modeling gentrification dynamics: A hybrid approach. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 337–361Google Scholar
  66. Trajkovski, G. (2007). An imitation-based approach to modeling homogenous agents societies. Hershey & London: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  67. Van de Vyvere, Y. (1994). Stated preference decompositional modelling and residential choice. Geoforum, 25(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wachowicz, M., Ying, X., Ligtenberg, A. (2001). Land use change explorer: A tool for geographic knowledge discovery. Wageningen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  69. Ward, D. P., Murray, A., & Phinn, S. (2000). A stocastically constrained cellular model of urban growth. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24, 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. White, R., & Engelen, G. (1997). Cellular automata as the basis of integrated dynamic regional modelling. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(2), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White, R., Engelen, G., & Uljee, I. (1997). The use of constrained cellular automata for high-resolution modelling of urban land-use dynamics. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(3), 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wu, F. (1996). A linguistic cellular automata simulation approach for sustainable land development in a fast growing region. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 20(6), 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wu, F. (1998). SimLand: A prototype to simulate land conversion through the integrated GIS and CA with AHP-derived transition rules. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wu, F. (2002). Calibration of stochastic cellular automata: The application to rural-urban land conversions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(8), 795–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu, B., Birkin, M., & Rees, P. (2008). A spatial microsimulation model with student agents. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32, 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yeh, A. G.-O., & Li, X. (2006). Errors and uncertainties in urban cellular automata. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30, 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soheil Sabri
    • 1
  • Ahmad Nazri Muhammad M. Ludin
    • 1
  • Chin Siong Ho
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urban & Regional Planning, Faculty of Built EnvironmentUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaSkudaiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations