Conception and use of an individual-based model of residential choice in a planning decision process. Feedback from an experimental trial in the city of Besançon, France

Progress in Planning

Volumn 108, Issue , 2016, Pages 1-38

  Tannier, Cécile ^a   Hirtzel, Joanne ^a   Stephenson, Richard ^a   Couillet, Armelle ^a   Vuidel, Gilles ^a   Youssoufi, Samy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Computer simulation; Housing policy; Planning scenarios; Residential mobility

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HOUSING POLICY; INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL; MIGRATION; PLANNING PROCESS; RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY;

BESANCON; DOUBS; FRANCE; FRANCHE COMTE;

EID: 84931082235     PISSN: 03059006     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2015.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Andersson, C., Lindgren, K., Rasmussen, S., White, R., Urban growth simulation from “first principles”. Physical review E, 66, 2002 026204, 1–9.
2. Antoni, J.-P., Calibrer un modèle d’évolution de l'occupation du sol urbain. L'exemple de Belfort. Cybergéo: revue européenne de géographie, 347, 2006 http://cybergeo.revues.org/index.html.
3. Antoni, J.-P., Tannier C., Vuidel G., & Hirtzel, J. (2011). MobiSim. Rapport final PREDIT, Groupe Opérationnel n°6, Recherche 09MTCV34.
4. Apparicio, P., Seguin, A., Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for residents of public housing in Montréal. Urban Studies 43:1 (2006), 187–211.
5. Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., A heuristic method for land-use plan generation in planning support systems. van Leeuwen, J., Timmermans, H., (eds.) Progress in Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, 2006, Eindhoven University of Technology, NL, 135–151.
6. Batty, M., Vargas, C., Smith, D., Serras, J., Reades, J., Johansson, A., SIMULACRA: Fast land-use–transportation models for the rapid assessment of urban futures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40 (2013), 987–1002.
7. Baumont, C., Spatial effects of urban public policies on housing values. Papers in Regional Science 88 (2009), 301–326.
8. Becu, N., Neef, A., Schreinemachers, P., Sangkapitux, C., Participatory computer simulation to support collective decision-making: Potential and limits of stakeholder involvement. Land Use Policy 25:4 (2008), 498–509.
9. Bénabou, R., Workings of a city: Location, education and production. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (1993), 619–652.
10. Ben-Akiva, M., de Palma, A., Analysis of a dynamic residential location choice model with transaction costs. Journal of Regional Science 26:2 (1986), 321–341.
11. Benenson, I., Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 22:1 (1998), 25–42.
12. Benenson, I., Omer, I., Hatna, E., Entity-based modeling of urban residential dynamics: The case of Yaffo, Tel Aviv. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29 (2002), 491–512.
13. Benenson, I., Agent-based modeling: From individual residential choice to urban residential dynamics. Spatially Integrated Social Science: Examples in Best Practice 42:6–7 (2004), 67–95.
14. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M., Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003), 41–52.
15. Bonnet, C., Burricand, C., Colin, C., Flipo, A., Mahieu, R., Ralle, P., et al. Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique DESTINIE. Série des documents de travail de la Direction des Etudes et Synthèses Economiques - G9913“, INSEE, 1999 http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=G9913.
16. Booth, H., Demographic forecasting: 1980 to 2005 in review. International Journal of Forecasting 22:3 (2006), 547–581.
17. Bousquet, F., Barreteau, O., D'Aquino, P., Etienne, M., Boissau, S., Aubert, S., et al. Multi-agent systems and role games: Collective learning processes for ecosystem management. Janssen, M., (eds.) Complexity and ecosystem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent approaches., 2002, Edward Elgar Publishers, 248–285.
18. Brail, R.K., Planning support systems evolving: When the rubber hits the road. Portugali, J., (eds.) Complex artificial environments, 2006, Springer, New York, 307–317.
19. Bramley, G., Power, S., Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36 (2009), 30–48.
20. Brown, D.G., Robinson, D.T., Effects of heterogeneity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban sprawl. Ecology and society, 11(1), 2006, 46 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art46/.
21. Brueckner, J., Thisse, J., Zenou, Y., Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory. European Economic Review 43 (1999), 91–107.
22. Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., Handy, S., The relationship between the built environment and nonwork travel: A case study of northern California. Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009), 548–559.
23. Carpentier, S., Gerber, P., De la mobilité quotidienne à la recomposition des espaces de vie quotidienne. Recherche, Transports, Sécurité 102 (2009), 61–72.
24. Castella, J.C., Tran Ngoc Trung, Boissau, S., Participatory simulation of land-use changes in the northern mountains of Vietnam: The combined use of an agent-based model, a role-playing game, and a geographic information system. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 2005, 27 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art27/.
25. Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F., et al. GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environmental and Resource Economics 44:4 (2009), 571–590.
26. Charlot, S., Hilal, M., Schmitt, B., La périurbanisation renforce-t-elle la ségrégation résidentielle urbaine en France?. Espace Populations Sociétés, 2009 http://eps.revues.org/index3556.html.
27. Chingcuanco, F., Miller, E.J., A Demographic microsimulation model for the integrated land use, transportation, 2 environment (ILUTE) model system. TRB 2013 Annual Meeting, 2013 16p.
28. Cho, S., Poudyal, N.C., Roberts, R.K., Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecological Economics 66 (2008), 403–416.
29. Cornelis, E., Barthelemy, J., Pauly, X., Walle, F., Modélisation de la mobilité résidentielle en vue d'une micro-simulation des évolutions de population. Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport 62 (2012), 65–84.
30. Couch, C., Sykes, O., Börstinghaus, W., Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France: The importance of context and path dependency. Progress in Planning 75 (2011), 1–52.
31. Décamps, A., Gaschet, F., La contribution des effets de voisinage à la formation des prix du logement: une évaluation sur l'agglomération bordelaise. Revue Économique 64:5 (2013), 883–910.
32. Devisch, O., Timmermans, H., Arentze, T., Borgers, A., An agent-based model of residential choice dynamics in nonstationary housing markets. Environment and Planning A 41 (2009), 1997–2013.
33. Dieleman, F.M., Mulder, C.H., The geography of residential choice. Aragonés, J., Franscecato, G., Gärling, T., (eds.) Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behaviour, 2002, Bergin & Garvey, Westport (Conn.), 35–54.
34. Ellis, C.D., Lee, S.-W., Kweon, B.-S., Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: An investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs. Landscape and Urban Planning 74 (2006), 70–78.
35. Epstein, J.M., Why model?. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), 2008, 12 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/4/12.html.
36. Ettema, D., Jong, K., Timmermans, H.J.P., Bakema, A., PUMA: Multi-agent modelling of urban systems. Koomen, E., Stillwell, J., Aldrik Bakema, H.J., Scholten, (eds.) Modelling Land-Use Change, 90, 2007, Springer, Dordrecht, 237–258.
37. Ettema, D., Arentze, T., Timmermans, H.J.P., Social influences on household location, mobility and activity choice in integrated micro-simulated models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45 (2011), 283–295.
38. Failing, L., Gregory, R., Harstone, M., Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics 64 (2007), 47–60.
39. Fernandez, L.E., Brown, D.G., Marans, R.W., Nassauer, J.I., Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population: Implications for agent-based modeling. Environment and Planning B 32:6 (2005), 799–820.
40. Filatova, T., Parker, D., van der Veen, A., Agent-based urban land markets: Agent's pricing behavior, land prices and urban land use change. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(13), 2009 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/1/3.html.
41. Föbker, S., Grotz, R., Everyday mobility of elderly people in different urban settings: The example of the city of Bonn, Germany. Urban Studies 43:1 (2006), 98–118.
42. Forsyth, A., Hearts, M., Oakes, J., Schmitz, K., Design and destinations: Factors influencing walking and total physical activity. Urban Studies 45:9 (2008), 1973–1996.
43. Francescato, G., Residential satisfaction research: The case for and against. Aragonés, J., Francescato, G., Gärling, T., (eds.) Residential environments. Choice, satisfaction, and behavior, 2002, Bergin & Garvey, 15–34.
44. Gärling, T., Friman, M., A psychological conceptualization of residential choice and satisfaction. Aragonés, J., Francescato, G., Gärling, T., (eds.) Residential environments. Choice, satisfaction, and behavior, 2002, Bergin & Garvey, 55–80.
45. Ge, J., Hokao, K., Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006), 165–178.
46. Handy, S., Cao, X., Mokhtarian, P., Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from northern California. Transportation Research Part D 10 (2005), 427–444.
47. Hirtzel, J., Exploration of future changes of residential locations in an urban agglomeration using an individual-based simulation model (MobiSim). PhD thesis, 2015, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France (In French).
48. Holm, E., Holme, K., Mäkilä, K., Mattsson-Kauppi, M., Mörtvik, G., The SVERIGE spatial microsimulation model. 8th Nordic Seminar on Microsimulation Models, Oslo, 2006, 8–9.
49. Hoshino, T., Estimation and analysis of preference heterogeneity in residential choice behaviour. Urban Studies 48:2 (2010), 363–382.
50. Hur, M., Nasar, J.L., Chun, B., Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010), 52–59.
51. Ioannides, Y.M., Residential mobility and housing tenure choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics 17 (1987), 265–287.
52. Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Zakeri, I., Harris, M., Observed environmental features and the physical activity of adolescent males: Gis coding differences. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29:2 (2005), 98–104.
53. Janssen, R., van Herwijnen, M., Stewart, T., Aerts, J., Multiobjective decision support for land-use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 35 (2008), 740–756.
54. Jordan, R., Birkin, M., Evans, A., Agent-based simulation modelling of housing choice and urban regeneration policy. Multi-Agent-Based Simulation XI, 2011, 152–166.
55. Kamps, S., Dual-agent simulation model of the residential development process: An institutional approach to explaining the spatial patterns of residential developments in France, England and the Netherlands. PhD thesis, 2013, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France.
56. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York, 341.
57. Kestens, Y., Thériault, M., Des Rosiers, F., The impact of surrounding land use and vegetation on single-family house prices. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31:4 (2004), 539–567.
58. Kim, J.H., Pagliara, F., Preston, J., The intention to move and residential location choice behaviour. Urban Studies 42:9 (2005), 1621–1636.
59. Klosterman, R.E., Pettit, C.J., Guest editorial. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (2005), 477–484.
60. Kweon, B., Ellis, C., Leiva, P., Rogers, G., Landscape components, land use, and neighborhood satisfaction. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37 (2010), 500–517.
61. Lallement, A., Moyne, P., Analyse entre coûts de transport et de logement pour le choix d'un lieu de résidence. Comparaison de scénarios pour un ménage solvable avec enfants travaillant à Besançon. Mémoire de master, sous la direction de C. Tannier et O. Govignaux, 2013, Université de Franche-Comté.
62. Lévy, J.-P., Mobilités urbaines: des pratiques sociales aux évolutions territoriales. Dureau, F., Hily, M., (eds.) Les mondes de la mobilité, 2009, Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, France, 107–136.
63. Li, X., Liu, X., Embedding sustainable development strategies in agent-based models for use as a planning tool. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 22:1 (2008), 21–45.
64. Ligmann-Zielinska, A., Church, R.L., Jankowski, P., Spatial optimization as a generative technique for sustainable multiobjective land-use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 22:6 (2008), 601–622.
65. Ma, L., Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., A multi-agent model for generating local land-use plans in the context of an urban planning support system. van Leeuwen, J.P., Timmermans, H., (eds.) Progress in design & decision support systems in architecture and urban planning, 2006, Eindhoven University of Technology, 153–168.
66. Malczewski, J., GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview. Progress in Planning 62 (2004), 3–65.
67. Moles, A., Rohmer, E., Théorie des actes. Vers une écologie des actions. 1977, Casterman, Paris.
68. Morand, E., Toulemon, L., Pennec, S., Baggio, R., Billari, F., Demographic modelling: The state of the art. 2010, Working Paper 2.1a. FP7-24455, Project SustainCity, INED, Paris http://www.sustaincity.org/publications/WP_2.1a_Demographic_Models.pdf.
69. Murphy, M., Bringing behavior back into micro-simulation: Feedback mechanisms in demographic models. Billari, F.C., Prskawetz, A., (eds.) Agent-based computational demography, 2003, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 159–174.
70. Nguyen-Luong, D., Boucq, E., Evaluation de l'impact du t3 sur les prix de l'immobilier résidentiel. 2011, Etude de l'IAU Ile-de-France pour le PREDIT (Groupe opérationnel n°6). http://www.iau-idf.fr/detail/etude/evaluation-de-limpact-du-t3-sur-les-prix-de-limmobilier-residentiel.html.
71. Nicolas, J.-P., Bonnel, P., Cabrera, J., Godinot, C., Homocianu, M., Routhier, J.-L., et al. SImuler les MoBilités pour une Agglomération Durable – Rapport final du projet Simbad. 2009, Laboratoire d’Économie des Transports, Lyon http://simbad.let.fr/documents/Rapports/Simbad_R9_Final.pdf.
72. Pellegrini, P., Fotheringham, A., Modelling spatial choice: A review and synthesis in a migration context. Progress in Human Geography 26:4 (2002), 487–510.
73. Onaka, J., Clark, W., A disaggregate model of residential mobility and housing choice. Geographical Analysis 15:4 (1983), 287–304.
74. Orcutt, G., Caldwell, S., Wertheimer, R. II, Policy Exploration through Microanalytic Simulation. 1976, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
75. Peltzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S., Lenferink, S., Planning support systems and task-technology fit: A comparative case study. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 2015, 10.1007/s12061-015-9135-5.
76. Prashker, J., Shiftan, Y., Hershkovitch-Sarusi, P., Residential choice location, gender and the commute trip to work in Tel Aviv. Journal of Transport Geography 16:5 (2008), 332–341.
77. Quigley, J.M., Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services. Regional Science and Urban Economics 15:1 (1985), 41–63.
78. Raju, K., Sikdar, P.K., Dhingra, S.L., Micro-simulation of residential location choice and its variation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 22:3 (1998), 203–218.
79. Ratiu, E., L’évaluation de l'environnement. Moser, G., Weiss, K., (eds.) Espaces de vie. Aspects de la relation homme-environnement, 2003, Armand Colin, Paris, 85–112.
80. Ravulaparthy, S., Goulias, K., Forecasting with dynamic microsimulation: Design, implementation, and demonstration. Final report “Earlier Faculty Research”, 2011, University of California Transportation Center, Santa Barbara.
81. Roberts, S.A., Hall, G.B., Calamai, P.H., Evolutionary multi-objective optimization for landscape system design. Journal of Geographical Systems 13:3 (2011), 299–326.
82. Saarloos, D., Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, T., A multiagent model for alternative plan generation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (2005), 505–522.
83. Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (1977), 234–281.
84. Saaty, T.L., The analytic hierarchy process in conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management 1:1 (1990), 47–68.
85. Silva, C., Te Brömmelstroet, M., Preface. Te Brömmelstroet, M., Silva, C., Bertolini, L., (eds.) Assessing usability of accessibility instruments, COST report II, COST Action TU1002: Collecting accessibility instruments and improving their usability for planning practices, 2014, vii–xi.
86. Tannier, C., Frankhauser, P., From the observations to the construction of an urban dynamics simulation model: An inductive approach. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 191, 2001 http://cybergeo.revues.org/index.html.
87. Tannier, C., Frankhauser, P., Houot, H., Vuidel, G., Probabilistic modelling for simulating intra-urban residential migration. Application to the question of traffic noise annoyance. Alexandre, V., (eds.) Penser et agir. Contextes philosophique, praxéologique et langagier – Tome 2, 2011, Le Manuscript, Paris, 131–175.
88. Tannier, C., Thomas, I., Vuidel, G., Frankhauser, P., A fractal approach to identifying urban boundaries. Geographical Analysis 43:2 (2011), 211–227.
89. Te Brömmelstroet, M., Commentary. The relevance of research in planning support systems: A response to Janssen et al. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36 (2009), 4–7.
90. Te Brömmelstroet, M., Pelzer, P., Geertman, S., Commentaries: Forty years after Lee's Requiem: Are we beyond the seven sins?. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 41 (2014), 381–386.
91. Te Brömmelstroet, M., Schrijnen, P.M., From planning support systems to mediated planning support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37:1 (2010), 3–20.
92. Timmermans, H., Borgers, A., Van Dijk, J., Oppewal, H., Residential choice behaviour of dual earner households: A decompositional joint choice model. Environment and Planning A 24 (1992), 517–533.
93. Thomas, I., Transportation networks and the optimal location of human activities: A numerical geography approach. 2002, Edward Elgar Publishers.
94. Tufte, E.R., The visual display of quantitative information. Second Ed., 2001 [1983], Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 125.
95. Tyrväinen, L., Miettinen, A., Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39 (2000), 205–223.
96. Van Delden, H., Lessons learnt in the development, implementation and use of integrated spatial decision support systems. Proceedings of the 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia 13–17 July 2009, 2009.
97. Van Imhoff, E., Post, W., Méthodes de micro-simulation pour des projections de population. Population (French Edition), 52(4), 1997, 889.
98. van Ommeren, J.N., Rietveld, P., Nijkamp, P., Job moving, residential moving, and commuting: A search perspective. Journal of Urban Economics 46:2 (1999), 230–253.
99. Vega, A., Reynolds-Feighan, A., A methodological framework for the study of residential location and travel-to-work mode choice under central and suburban employment destination patterns. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43:4 (2009), 401–419.
100. Vonk, G., Geertman, S., Schot, P., A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A 39:7 (2007), 1699–1714.
101. Watson, V., ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away’: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation. Progress in Planning 72 (2009), 151–193.
102. Wegener, M., The Dortmund housing market model A Monte Carlo simulation of a regional housing market. Microeconomic Models of Housing Markets 239 (1985), 144–191.
103. Wegener, M., Overview of land-use transport models. Hensher, D.A., Button, K., (eds.) Handbook in transport, 9, Transport geography and spatial systems, 2004, Pergamon–Elsevier, 127–146.
104. Weidlich, W., Haag, G., A dynamic phase transition model for spatial agglomeration processes. Journal of Regional Science 27:4 (1987), 529–569.
105. Weidlich, W., Sociodynamics: A systematic approach to mathematical modelling in the social sciences. 2000–2006, Reprinted by Dover Publications, Series: Dover Books on Mathematics.
106. Weisbrod, G.E., Lerman, S.R., Ben-Akiva, M., Tradeoffs in residential location decisions: Transportation versus other factors. Transport Policy and Decision Making 1:1 (1980), 13–26.
107. White, R., Engelen, G., Uljee, I., The use of constrained cellular automata for high-resolution modelling of urban land use dynamics. Environment and Planning B 24 (1997), 235–246.
108. Wilson, A., The general urban model: Retrospect and prospect. Papers in Regional Science 89:1 (2010), 27–42.
109. Yager, R., Multiple objective decision-making using fuzzy sets. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9 (1977), 375–382.
110. Youssoufi, S., Foltête, J.-C., Determining appropriate neighborhood shapes and sizes for modeling landscape satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning 110 (2013), 12–24.
111. Zaidi, A., & Rake, K. (2001). Dynamic microsimulation models: A review and some lessons for SAGE. Simulating Social Policy in an Ageing Society (SAGE), Discussion paper (2), ESRC Grant number M565-28-1001, London.