Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Agent based simulation of GENTRIFICATION

892 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Agent based simulation of GENTRIFICATION

  1. 1. Gentrification● Production side ● Consumption side explanations explanations – Rent-gap theory (N.Smith, – Post-industrial shift 1979) G. depends on the ● Predominance of white collar movement of capital from one work area of the city to the other in pursuit of higher profit ● Creative classes Urban development, technological shift, ● Fashion effects (NY loft depreciation create localized mismatch living) between current and potential land use
  2. 2. This model● So far... – Implements the rent-gap theory● Wishes to – Couple economic and cultural/diversity dynamics. ● Gentrification affects the cultural other than economical identity of places. – Embed + compare production and consumption factors → “theoretical synthesis” – Predict the future! :-)
  3. 3. Agent model➔ Income level [0-1] (random)➔ Mobility propensity (Poisson distribution 0.06/year)➔ String culture (n=10) |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| 0100101011 1011011001 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0● Long-time neighbours interact → Cultures mix● Interaction more likely when common traits exist
  4. 4. City model ● Individual dwelling – Condition [0-1] random – Price [0-1] = cond + 0.15 ● Neighbourhood – Allure (sticky and approximate) |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| Price-gap: difference between a propertys price and mean price of surrounding properties
  5. 5. Parameters● Kapital level – Number of properties receiving investment each year● Decay factor – Constant monthly decay. Set at 0.0015● Immigration rate – Set at 3% per year
  6. 6. Economic processes● Decay – Constant decay (0.0015/step) – Empty properties decay 1.5x faster – Price is lowered as consequence of decay and if empty for 6 consecutive months● Investment – K properties with wider price-gap receive investment ● Price = mean neighbours price + 15% ● Condition = 0.95
  7. 7. Residential choice process
  8. 8. Decision to move● Dissonance ● Poor dwellings – “Spatial cognitive – Prolonged stay in dissonance” when “slum” increases neighbours too mobility propensity different ● Price increase – High dissonance increases mobility – Price increase puts propensity the agent in seek- new-place mode
  9. 9. Results
  10. 10. Spatial dynamicsK=10 (2.2%) K=15 (3.5%) K=20 (4.5%)K=25 (5.6%) K=30 (6.8%) K=35 (8%)
  11. 11. Population dynamicsK=15Gini = 47; Slum 62%
  12. 12. K=25 Population dynamics Neighbourhoods steadily increasing the mean income, while the population decreases and increases in waves, signal gentrification + displacement: the poor go, the richGini = 40; move in.Slum = 30%
  13. 13. K=25 Cultural dynamics➔ Cultural uniformity is maximized in areas where prices have been stable for a long time at a high level➔ Little clustering happens in poor areas: the "slum" is a transition zone for poor immigrants, who quickly enter and leave.
  14. 14. Population dynamicsK=35 ➔ Higher capital = higher prices = lower population ➔ Cycles of investment and disinvestment ➔ Rat race around the city ➔ Reminds of Smiths definition
  15. 15. Cultural dynamicsCulture uniforms whenprices are steady forsome time, allowing for➔ residents to stay put➔ cultures mix➔ self-selection of in- movers via “allure”
  16. 16. Future● More realistic residential mobility● More heterogeneous agents – Classes of agents: “gentrifiers” and “non- gentrifiers”● Population dynamics● Actual city land values

×