Transcript
Page 1: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe

Daniel G. Brown

Scott E. Page

Rick Riolo

William Rand

With funding from

BiocomplexityFirst Biennial Conference, IEMSS, Lugano, Switzerland, 26 June, 2002

Page 2: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

SLUCE Project Goals (Spatial Land Use Change and Ecological Effects)

• Develops agent-based models of land use that will be compared with recent (~50 yrs) changes and used for evaluating future scenarios.

• Explores and implements complementary methodologies (ABM, GIS, survey research, spatial analysis, remote sensing).

Agent-Based Models

Spatial Analysis/RemoteSensing

Social Surveys and

Scenarios

Land Use Change

• Focuses on land use dynamics at the urban-rural fringe (i.e., Metro Detroit) and their ecological effects.

Agent-Based Models

Page 3: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Goals of this Presentation

• Present an agent-based model of land use change at the urban-rural fringe that can be used to evaluate policy options.

• Compare ABM results with a simpler mathematical model for validation.

• Evaluate the interactions between greenbelt placement and width and the process of land development.

Page 4: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Goals of Mathematical Model

• see what can be proved with a simple math model, and what assumptions must be made to make it tractable

• serve as comparison for the ABM, which will be able to lift these assumptions

Page 5: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Mathematical Model

• Assumptions– M locations on a line– N people/agents– Greenbelt

• width w

• beginning at location g > m

Page 6: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Model Specifications

• Location j has natural beauty q(j)

• Agents care about– distance to services : s (closer is better)– aesthetic quality: q(j)

• value of location j = u(s) + q(j)

Page 7: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Math Model Results

• R1: If all sites have same q, then any greenbelt prevents sprawl

• R2:If q’s vary, then a greenbelt prevents sprawl if best location outside of the greenbelt is worse than the best location inside of the greenbelt– mathematics: tradeoff between w and g

Page 8: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Specific Cases

• Quality decreases from the left– all greenbelts prevent sprawl

• Quality increases from the left– sprawl difficult to prevent– linear preferences: only w matters if x > M

Page 9: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Agent-Based Model

• Implemented using objective-C and Swarm (www.swarm.org)

• Environment– 80 by 80 lattice, each cell has

• a value of natural beauty, assigned randomly or based on defined pattern

• score for distance to service centers, based on the sum of inverse distances to the nearest 8, updated at each step

sd = 0.5 * max[2, (1/sc1) + ... + (1/sc8)]

Random pattern of

Natural Beauty

Page 10: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

ABM: Agents• Each cell in lattice accommodates only 1

resident or service center • residents

– have attributes that describe• preference for beauty (nb)

• preference for nearness to SCs (sd)

• service centers (SC)– initial SC located in middle of left side– one new SC created near location of each

100th resident - SC follow residents

Red cells are service

centers

Page 11: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Location Decision

• 10 residents are created during each discrete time step.

• Residents locate by:– selecting 15 cells randomly– moving to the cell that provides the

highest utilityutilityxy = 0.5(nb*nbxy*sdxy + sd*sd2

xy) Black cells are

residents

Page 12: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Adding a Greenbelt• A greenbelt, an area that cannot be

developed, is defined by its starting position from the left side (g) and its width (w).

• We report the number of time steps before there are 300 developments beyond the greenbelt.

Green cells are

greenbelt

Page 13: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Experimental Results• Multiple runs for each experiment (n=30)

• Different parameter settings to compare with mathematical model results.1 Random Preferences and Environment2 Effects of Set Preferences

• nearness to services

• natural beauty

3 Effects of Specific Patterns in the Environment

• Each of the above run with two different values set for greenbelt start (g), 20 and 40, and width (w), 1 and 15.

Page 14: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

1: Random Preferences/Environment• Simple probability suggests that, using random

placement of developments, the number of time steps to achieve 300 developments beyond the greenbelt should be:

• 39 when g is 20

• 59 when g is 40# Time Steps [Average (std dev)] to reach

300 developments beyond greenbelt

Greenbelt start (g)20 40

Width (w) 1 39 (1) 61 (2)15 39 (1) 60 (2)

Page 15: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

1: Graphic Results• Results validate proper functioning of the model.• Graphics show results after 50 time steps.

Graphic illustrates one run with g=20 and w=15

Page 16: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

2: Modifying Preferences• A: Setting a uniform preference for nearness to services

(0.5) results in a long time to cross the greenbelt.

• B: Adding a uniform preference for natural beauty (0.5) decreases time to cross greenbelt.

# Time Steps [Average (std dev)] to reach 300 developments beyond greenbelt

A: Distance to Services B: Distance & Beauty

Greenbelt start (g) Greenbelt start (g)20 40 20 40

Width (w) 1 113 (23) 275 (47) 1 86 (19) 194 (52)15 151 (26) 337 (19) 15 103 (29) 278 (39)

Page 17: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

2: Graphic Results

• A: Development stays left of greenbelt to be near services, which causes services to locate there.

• B: Some sites to the right have higher utility because of their beauty.

Graphics illustrate one run with g=20 and w=1

Page 18: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

3: Patterns of Natural Beauty• A: Longest crossing times are achieved (1.5 times

the random beauty pattern) with Beauty decreasing to the right.

• B: Significantly shorter crossing times with Beauty increasing to the right.

# Time Steps [Average (std dev)] to reach 300 developments beyond greenbelt

A: Beauty High on Left B: Beauty High on Right

Greenbelt start (g) Greenbelt start (g)20 40 20 40

Width (w) 1 131 (7) 320 (25) 1 44 (7) 71 (30)15 167 (15) 344 (3) 15 47 (14) 99 (62)

Page 19: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

3: Graphic Results

• A: Comparable to math model, specific case 1, agents stay to the left.

• B: Comparable to math model, specific case 2, sites to the right are irresistible.

Graphics illustrate one run with g=40 and w=15

Page 20: Modeling the Effects of Greenbelts at the Urban-Rural Fringe Daniel G. Brown Scott E. Page Rick Riolo William Rand With funding from Biocomplexity First

Conclusions• Greenbelts affect patterns of development

– trade-off between location and width

– effectiveness dependent on preferences and environment

• Comparison of results validate the agent-based model using a simple math model

• ABM can accommodate– 2- or higher dimensional world

– population with heterogeneous preferences

– real or designed environmental characteristics


Recommended