How Are Physical and Social Spaces Related? — Cognitive Agents as the Necessary “Glue”
The paper argues that in many (if not most) cases, explicitly representing aspects of both physical and social space will be necessary in order to capture the outcomes of observed social processes (including those of spatial distribution). The connection between social and physical spaces for an actor will, almost inevitably involve some aspect of cognition. Thus, unless there is evidence to the contrary it is unsafe to try and represent such social distribution without representing key aspects of cognition linking social and spatial topologies. This argument is demonstrated by two counter-examples: an abstract simulation extending Schelling’s cellular automata model of racial segregation to include the social communication of fear; and a more descriptive simulation of social influence and domestic water consumption. Both models are sufficiently credible that one could not rule similar processes as occurring in reality, but in both the social and physical spaces that the agents are embedded in is critical to the global outcomes.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Axtel, R. and Epstein, J. M. (1996) Artificial Societies-social science from the bottom up. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Barthélémy, O. (2003) The impact of the model structure in social simulations. 1st International Conference of the European Social Simulation Association (ESSA 2003), Gronigen, the Netherlands, September 2003. (http://cfpm.org/cpmrep121.html).Google Scholar
- 3.Carley, K. (2003) Dynamic Network Theory. In: Breiger, R., Carley, K. and Pattison, P. (eds.) Dynamic Social Network Modelling and Analysis: Workshop Summary and Papers. Washington: The National Academies Press, 133–145.Google Scholar
- 4.Downing, T.E, Butterfield, R.E., Edmonds, B., Knox, J.W., Moss, S., Piper, B.S. and Weatherhead, E.K. (and the CCDeW project team) (2003) Climate Change and the Demand for Water, Research Report, Stockholm Environment Institute Oxford Office, Oxford. (http://www.sei.se/oxford/ccdew/).Google Scholar
- 5.Edmonds, B. (1999) Capturing Social Embeddedness: a Constructivist Approach. Adaptive Behaviour 7:323–348.Google Scholar
- 6.Edmonds, B. and Moss, S. (2005) From KISS to KIDS an “anti-simplistic” modelling approach. In: P. Davidsson et al. (Eds.): Multi Agent Based Simulation 2004. Springer, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 3415:130–144.Google Scholar
- 8.Edmonds, B. Barthelemy, O. and Moss, S. (2002) Domestic Water Demand and Social Influence-an agent-based modelling approach, CPM Report 02-103, MMU, 2002 (http://cfpm.org/cpmrep103.html).Google Scholar
- 12.Schelling, T. (1969) Models of Segregation. American Economic Review 59:488–493.Google Scholar
- 14.Watts, D. J. (1999) Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks between Order and Randomness. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar