Computational Approaches for Urban Environments pp 123-147

Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 13) | Cite as

Simple Agents, Complex Emergent City: Agent-Based Modeling of Intraurban Migration

Chapter

Abstract

Intraurban migration—residential movement within a metropolitan area—defines the nature of urbanization. Housing location decision making is a complex process driven by the interactions between the housing market and home searchers. Researchers have paid much attention to the environmental, socioeconomic, cultural, and policy features of housing markets. In contrast, housing search has been relatively neglected due to challenges of theory, methodology, and data. This article addresses these challenges by presenting an agent-based model of intraurban migration featuring straightforward and empirically specified rules for housing search. This model is calibrated and validated against real-world housing vacancies and relocation origin–destination pairs extracted from parcel records for the Twin Cities of Minnesota, USA, for 2005–2007. Drawing on these unique data sidesteps a long-standing issue, the prohibitive costs of identifying, recording, and quantifying housing search activities for an entire metropolitan region. Conceptually, this model updates geographic theories of intraurban migration that focus on intervening opportunities and spatial bias. It also methodologically advances the agent-based modeling of urbanization with a high-resolution, empirically specified model that demonstrates how urban pattern emerges from simple rules and interactions. Overall, the model demonstrates that relatively straightforward housing search rules can simulate realistic patterns of intraurban migration.

Keywords

Intraurban migration Agent-based modeling Housing search Housing locational decisions 

References

  1. Adams JS (1969) Directional bias in intra-urban migration. Econ Geogr 45(4):302–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams JS (1984) The meaning of housing in America. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 74(4):515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An L (2012) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol Model 229:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science 319(5864):769–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty M (2012) Building a science of cities. Cities 29:S9–S16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benenson I, Torrens PM (2004) Geosimulation: automata-based modeling of urban phenomena. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger T, Schreinemachers P (2006) Creating agents and landscapes for multiagent systems from random samples. Ecol Soc 11(2):54–71Google Scholar
  8. Birkin M, Wu B (2012) A review of microsimulation and hybrid agent-based approaches. In: Crooks AT, See LM, Batty M, Heppenstall AJ (eds) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown LA, Chung S-Y (2008) Market-led pluralism: rethinking our understanding of racial/ethnic spatial patterning in U.S. cities. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 98(1):180–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown LA, Longbrake DB (1970) Migration flows in intraurban space: place utility considerations. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 60(2):368–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown LA, Moore EG (1970) The intra-urban migration process: a perspective. Geogr Ann B 51(1): 1–13Google Scholar
  12. Brown DG, Robinson DT, An L, Nassauer JI, Zellner M, Rand W, Riolo R, Page SE, Low B, Wang Z (2008) Exurbia from the bottom-up: confronting empirical challenges to characterizing a complex system. Geoforum 39(2):805–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choldin HM (1973) Kinship networks in the migration process. Int Migr Rev 10:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark WAV (1976) Migration in Milwaukee. Econ Geogr 52(1):48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark WAV (1982) Modeling housing market search. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark WAV (1986) Human migration. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark WAV (2008) Geography, space, and science: perspectives from studies of migration and geographical sorting. Geogr Anal 40(3):258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark WAV, Burt JE (1980) The impact of workplace on residential relocation. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 70(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark WAV, Flowerdew R (1982) A review of search models and their application to search in the housing market. In: Clark WAV (ed) Modeling housing market search. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 4–29Google Scholar
  20. Clark WAV, Withers SD (1999) Changing jobs and changing houses: mobility outcomes of employment transitions. J Reg Sci 39:653–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark WAV, Huang Y, Withers S (2003) Does commuting distance matter? Commuting tolerance and residential change. Reg Sci Urban Econ 33(2):199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clarke KC (2004) The limits of simplicity: toward geocomputational honesty in urban modeling. In: Atkinson P, Foody G, Darby S, Wu F (eds) GeoDynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 213–232Google Scholar
  23. Cochrane RA (1975) A possible economic basis for the gravity model. J Transp Econ Policy 9(1):34–49Google Scholar
  24. Cooke TJ (2008) Migration in a family way. Popul Space Place 14(4):255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Crooks A, Castle C, Batty M (2008) Key challenges in agent-based modelling for geo-spatial simulation. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32(6):417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Jong GF, Roempke Graefe D (2008) Family life course transitions and the economic consequences of internal migration. Popul Space Place 14(4):267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Diappi L, Bolchi P (2008) Smith’s rent gap theory and local real estate dynamics: a multi-agent model. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32(1):6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dorigo G, Tobler W (1983) Push-pull migration laws. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 73(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Erlander S (2010) Behavioral foundations of spatial interaction models. In: Erlander SB (ed) Cost-minimizing choice behavior in transportation planning, Advances in spatial science. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–30. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11911-8_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fernandez LE, Brown DG, Marans RW, Nassauer JI (2005) Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population: implications for agent-based modeling. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 32(6):799–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fossett M (2006) Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation: theoretical explorations using simulation analysis. J Math Soc 30(3):185–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fotheringham AS (1983) A new set of spatial-interaction models: the theory of competing destinations. Environ Plan A 15(1):15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gaile G, Burt J (1980) Directional statistics. Concepts and techniques in modern geography, vol 25. University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  34. Geist C, McManus PA (2008) Geographical mobility over the life course: motivations and implications. Popul Space Place 14(4):283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gimblett HR (2002) Integrating geographic information systems and agent-based modeling techniques for simulation of social and ecological processes. Santa Fe Institute Studies on the Sciences of Complexity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Guldmann JM (1999) Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction models of inter-city telecommunication flows. Pap Reg Sci 78(2):179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guo D (2008) Regionalization with dynamically constrained agglomerative clustering and partitioning (REDCAP). Int J Geogr Inf Sci 22(7):801–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haase D, Schwarz N (2009) Simulation models on human–nature interactions in urban landscapes: a review including spatial economics, system dynamics, cellular automata, and agent-based approaches. Living Rev Landsc Res 3(2)Google Scholar
  39. Irwin E, Jayaprakash C, Munroe D (2009) Towards a comprehensive framework for modeling urban spatial dynamics. Landsc Ecol 24(9):1223–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson J, Forest B, Sengupta R (2008) Agent-based simulation of urban residential dynamics and land rent change in a gentrifying area of Boston. Trans GIS 12(4):475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jayet H (1990) Spatial search processes and spatial interaction: 1. Sequential search, intervening opportunities, and spatial search equilibrium. Environ Plan A 22(5):583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jones C, Leishman C, Watkins C (2004) Intra-urban migration and housing submarkets: theory and evidence. Hous Stud 19(2):269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kennedy WG (2012) Modelling human behaviour in agent-based models. In: Crooks AT, See LM, Batty M, Heppenstall AJ (eds) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klosterman RE (1994) Large-scale urban models retrospect and prospect. J Am Plan Assoc 60(1):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krzanowski R, Raper J (2001) Spatial evolutionary modeling. Spatial information systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Kwasnicki W (1999) Evolutionary economics and simulation. In: Brenner T (ed) Computational techniques for modelling learning in economics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee DB Jr (1973) Requiem for large scale urban models. J Am Inst Plan 39(3):163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Loibl W, Toetzer T (2003) Modeling growth and densification processes in suburban regions – simulation of landscape transition with spatial agents. Environ Model Softw 18(6):553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Macy MW, Willer R (2002) From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annu Rev Sociol 28:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Manson SM (2007) Challenges in evaluating models of geographic complexity. Environ Plan B Plann Des 34(2):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Manson SM, Evans T (2007) Agent-based modeling of deforestation in southern Yucatán, Mexico, and reforestation in the Midwest United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(52):20678–20683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manson SM, Sander HA, Ghosh D, Oakes JM, Orfield MW Jr, Craig WJ, Luce TF Jr, Myott E, Sun S (2009) Parcel data for research and policy. Geogr Compass 3(2):698–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Matthews R, Gilbert N, Roach A, Polhill J, Gotts N (2007) Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landsc Ecol 22(10):1447–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller EJ, Douglas Hunt J, Abraham JE, Salvini PA (2004) Microsimulating urban systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28(1–2):9–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mulder CH (2007) The family context and residential choice: a challenge for new research. Popul Space Place 13(4):265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Sullivan D (2002) Toward micro-scale spatial modeling of gentrification. J Geogr Syst 4(3):251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Sullivan D (2008) Geographical information science: agent-based models. Prog Hum Geogr 32(4):541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Sullivan D, Millington J, Perry G, Wainwright J (2012) Agent-based models – because they’re worth It? In: Crooks AT, See LM, Batty M, Heppenstall AJ (eds) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environ Health Perspect 106(Suppl 6):1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen M, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman PJ (2003a) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land use and land cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):316–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003b) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pellegrini PA, Fotheringham AS (2002) Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthesis in a migration context. Prog Hum Geogr 26(4):487–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Quigley JM, Weinberg DH (1977) Intra-urban residential mobility: a review and synthesis. Int Reg Sci Rev 2(1):41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roseman CC (1971) Migration as a spatial and temporal process. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 61(3):589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rouwendal J, Rietveld P (1994) Changes in commuting distances of Dutch households. Urban Stud 31(9):1545–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ruiter ER (1967) Toward a better understanding of the intervening opportunities model. Transp Res 1(1):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Salvini P, Miller EJ (2005) ILUTE: an operational prototype of a comprehensive microsimulation model of urban systems. Netw Spat Econ 5(2):217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simmons JW (1968) Changing residence in the city: a review of intraurban mobility. Geogr Rev 58(4):622–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simpson L, Gavalas V, Finney N (2008) Population dynamics in ethnically diverse towns: the long-term implications of immigration. Urban Stud 45(1):163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith TR, Clark WAV, Huff JO, Shapiro P (1979) A decision-making and search model for intraurban migration. Geogr Anal 11(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stouffer SA (1940) Intervening opportunities: a theory relating mobility and distance. Am Sociol Rev 5(6):845–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Syrjala SE (1996) A statistical test for a difference between the spatial distributions of two populations. Ecology 77(1):75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Torrens PM (2006) Simulating sprawl. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(2):248–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Torrens P (2012) Urban geosimulation. In: Heppenstall EAJ, Crooks AT, See LM, Batty M (eds) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Torrens PM, Nara A (2007) Modeling gentrification dynamics: a hybrid approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst 31(3):337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Turner MG, Costanza R, Sklar FH (1989) Methods to evaluate the performance of spatial simulation models. Ecol Model 48(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van der Vlist A, Gorter C, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2002) Residential mobility and local housing-market differences. Environ Plan A 34(7):1147–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Ommeren J, Rietveld P, Nijkamp P (1997) Commuting: in search of jobs and residences. J Urban Econ 42(3402):421Google Scholar
  79. Waddell P (1993) Exogenous workplace choice in residential location models: is the assumption valid. Geogr Anal 25:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wallet F, Dussert C (1998) Comparison of spatial point patterns and processes characterization methods. Europhys Lett 42:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West DB (2001) Introduction to graph theory, vol 2, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  82. Windrum P, Fagiolo G, Moneta A (2007) Empirical validation of agent-based models: alternatives and prospects. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 10(2):8Google Scholar
  83. Wolpert J (1965) Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Pap Reg Sci 15(1):159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zahn CT (1971) Graph-theoretical methods for detecting and describing gestalt clusters. IEEE Trans Comput 100(20):68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zaidi A, Rake K (2001) Dynamic microsimulation models: a review and some lessons for SAGE. SAGE discussion paper no. 2. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Illinois SpringfieldSpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography, Environment and SocietyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations