Do Land Markets Matter? A Modeling Ontology and Experimental Design to Test the Effects of Land Markets for an Agent-Based Model of Ex-Urban Residential Land-Use Change

  • Dawn C. Parker
  • Daniel G. Brown
  • Tatiana Filatova
  • Rick Riolo
  • Derek T. Robinson
  • Shipeng Sun
Chapter

Abstract

Urban sprawl is shaped by various geographical, ecological and social factors under the influence of land market forces. When modeling this process, geographers and economists tend to prioritize factors most relevant to their own domain. Still, there are very few structured systematic comparisons exploring how the extent of process representation affects the models’ ability to generate extent and pattern of change. This chapter aims to explore the question of how the degree of representation of land market processes affects simulated spatial outcomes. We identify four distinct elements of land markets: resource constraints, competitive bidding, strategic behavior, and endogenous supply decisions. Many land-use-change models include one or more of these elements; thus, the progression that we designed should facilitate analysis of our results in relation to a broad range of existing land-use-change models, from purely geographic to purely economic and from reduced form to highly structural models. The description of the new agent-based model, in which each of the four levels of market representation can be gradually activated, is presented. The behavior of suppliers and acquirers of land, and the agents’ interactions at land exchange are discussed in the presence of each of the four land-market mechanisms.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1984). The meaning of housing in America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(4), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177(4047), 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asami, Y., & Teraki, T. (1991). On sequential negotiation procedures: Optimal negotiation orders and land prices. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 20(4), 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, D. G., & Robinson, D. T. (2006). Effects of heterogeneity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban sprawl. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 46.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, D. G., Robinson, D. T., An, L., Nassauer, J. I., Zellner, M., Rand, W., Riolo, R., Page, S. E., Low, B., & Wang, Z. (2008). Exurbia from the bottom-up: Confronting empirical challenges to characterizing a complex system. Geoforum, 39(2), 805–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, W. A. V., & van Lierop, W. F. J. (1986). Residential mobility and household location modelling. In P. Nijkamp (Ed.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (pp. 97–132). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, W. A. V., Huang, Y., & Withers, S. (2003). Does commuting distance matter? Commuting tolerance and residential change. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33(2), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Filatova, T., Parker, D., & van der Veen, A. (2009a). Agent-based urban land markets: Agent’s pricing behavior, land prices and urban land use change. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(1), 3, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/3.html
  10. Filatova, T., van der Veen, A., & Parker, D. C. (2009b). Land market interactions between heterogeneous agents in a heterogeneous landscape: Tracing the macro-scale effects of individual trade-offs between environmental amenities and disamenities. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(4), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson, J. V., & Thisse, J. F. (1999). On the pricing strategy of a land developer. Journal of Urban Economics, 45(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kraus, M. (2006). Monocentric cities. In R. Arnott & D. McMillen (Eds.), A companion to urban economics (pp. 96–109). Malden, USA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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(6), 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parker, D. C., Brown, D. G., Polhill, J. G., Deadman, P. J., & Manson, S. M. (2008). Illustrating a new “conceptual design pattern” for agent-based models of land use via five case studies – the MR POTATOHEAD framework. In A. L. Paredes & C. H. Iglesias (Eds.), Agent-based modeling in natural resource management (pp. 22–53). Valladolid: INSISOC.Google Scholar
  15. Polhill, J. G., Parker, D. C., & Gotts, N. M. (2005). Introducing land markets to an agent based model of land use change: A design. Paper read at representing social reality: Pre-proceedings of the third conference of the European Social Simulation Association, Koblenz, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Robinson, D. T., & Brown, D. G. (2009). Evaluating the effects of land-use development policies on ex-urban forest cover: An integrated agent-based GIS approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(9), 1211–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Theobald, D. M. (2005). Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  18. van der Vlist, A., Gorter, C., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2002). Residential mobility and local housing-market differences. Environment and Planning A, 34(7), 1147–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Verburg, P. H., Kok, K., Pontius, G. R., & Veldkamp, A. (2006). Modeling land-use and land-cover change. In E. F. Lambin & H. J. Geist (Eds.), Land-use and land-cover change: Local processes and global impacts (pp. 117–135). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn C. Parker
    • 1
  • Daniel G. Brown
    • 2
  • Tatiana Filatova
    • 3
  • Rick Riolo
    • 4
  • Derek T. Robinson
    • 5
  • Shipeng Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Planning, Faculty of EnvironmentUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Complex Systems, School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Center for the Study of Complex SystemsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.School of GeosciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations