IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v36y2009i1p149-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of City Size, Shape, and Form, and Neighborhood Size and Shape in Agent-Based Models of Residential Segregation: Are Schelling-Style Preference Effects Robust?

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Fossett

    (Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, 311 Academic Building, College Station, TX 77843-4351, USA)

  • David R Dietrich

    (Department of Sociology, Duke University, Box 90088, Building 9, Durham, NC 27708, USA)

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of city size, shape, and form, and neighborhood size and shape in agent-based models of residential segregation. We find that, in many key respects, model-generated segregation outcomes are not influenced in important ways by variation in these factors. For example, the expression of segregation based on agent preferences for coethnic contact in agent-based models does not vary with city size, city shape, city form, or the shape of neighborhoods involved in agent vision, or the use of distance-decay functions for evaluating neighbors. These findings indicate that results obtained from model-based segregation studies are likely to be robust relative to choices regarding these aspects of model specification. We do find important effects of the size or scale of neighborhoods involved in agent vision: model-generated segregation outcomes vary in complex ways with agent vision. Significantly, however, the effect of neighborhood size or scale does not appear to vary in important ways with neighborhood shape. Thus, what is important is the scale of agent vision—that is, the number of neighbors they ‘see’—not the particular spatial arrangement of those neighbors. With the exception of the effect of the spatial scale of agent vision, our results suggest that researchers can generally presume that their findings regarding how model-generated segregation outcomes vary with substantive factors, such as agent preferences for coethnic contact or the ethnic demography of the city, are not contingent on choices regarding model implementation of city size, city shape, city form, and neighborhood shape. These findings are welcome because they suggest that simulation studies can devote less attention to technical specification choices and more attention to assessing substantive questions regarding the effects of social dynamics and sociodemographic distributions in the context of model systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Fossett & David R Dietrich, 2009. "Effects of City Size, Shape, and Form, and Neighborhood Size and Shape in Agent-Based Models of Residential Segregation: Are Schelling-Style Preference Effects Robust?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(1), pages 149-169, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:36:y:2009:i:1:p:149-169
    DOI: 10.1068/b33042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b33042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b33042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Clark, 1991. "Residential preferences and neighborhood racial segregation: A test of the schelling segregation model," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 28(1), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Henry Wasserman & Gary Yohe, 2001. "Segregation and the Provision of Spatially Defined Local Public Goods," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 45(2), pages 13-24, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexander J. Laurie & Narendra K. Jaggi, 2003. "Role of 'Vision' in Neighbourhood Racial Segregation: A Variant of the Schelling Segregation Model," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(13), pages 2687-2704, December.
    2. David O'Sullivan, 2009. "Changing Neighborhoods—Neighborhoods Changing," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 498-530, May.
    3. Mark Fossett & Warren Waren, 2005. "Overlooked Implications of Ethnic Preferences for Residential Segregation in Agent-based Models," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(11), pages 1893-1917, October.
    4. Gandica, Yerali & Gargiulo, Floriana & Carletti, Timoteo, 2016. "Can topology reshape segregation patterns?," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 46-54.
    5. Qingxu Huang & Dawn C Parker & Tatiana Filatova & Shipeng Sun, 2014. "A Review of Urban Residential Choice Models Using Agent-Based Modeling," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 41(4), pages 661-689, August.
    6. Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2009. "Racial Inequality and Segregation Measures: Some Evidence from the 2000 Census," The Review of Black Political Economy, Springer;National Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 79-91, June.
    7. David M. Brasington & Diane Hite & Andres Jauregui, 2015. "House Price Impacts Of Racial, Income, Education, And Age Neighborhood Segregation," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(3), pages 442-467, June.
    8. John Lynham & Philip R. Neary, 2021. "Tiebout sorting in online communities," Papers 2110.05608, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    9. Abhinav Singh & Dmitri Vainchtein & Howard Weiss, 2009. "Schelling's Segregation Model: Parameters, scaling, and aggregation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 21(12), pages 341-366.
    10. Paul M. Torrens, 2016. "Exploring behavioral regions in agents’ mental maps," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 309-334, November.
    11. Nema Dean & Gwilym Pryce, 2017. "Is the housing market blind to religion? A perceived substitutability approach to homophily and social integration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(13), pages 3058-3070, October.
    12. Roy Cerqueti & Luca De Benedictis & Valerio Leone Sciabolazza, 2022. "Segregation with social linkages: Evaluating Schelling’s model with networked individuals," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 384-440, May.
    13. repec:max:cprpbr:003 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Dan Olner & Gwilym Pryce & Maarten van Ham & Heleen Janssen, 2024. "The conflicting geographies of social frontiers: Exploring the asymmetric impacts of social frontiers on household mobility in Rotterdam," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(3), pages 625-640, March.
    15. Auspurg, Katrin & Hinz, Thomas & Schmid, Laura, 2017. "Contexts and conditions of ethnic discrimination: Evidence from a field experiment in a German housing market," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 26-36.
    16. Itzhak Omer, 2005. "How Ethnicity Influences Residential Distributions: An Agent-Based Simulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(5), pages 657-672, October.
    17. Frankel, David M. & Pauzner, Ady, 2002. "Expectations and the Timing of Neighborhood Change," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 295-314, March.
    18. Samantha Friedman, 2011. "Bringing Proximate Neighbours into the Study of US Residential Segregation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(4), pages 611-639, March.
    19. Ingrid Gould Ellen, 2000. "Race-based Neighbourhood Projection: A Proposed Framework for Understanding New Data on Racial Integration," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(9), pages 1513-1533, August.
    20. Logan, Trevon D. & Parman, John M., 2017. "The National Rise in Residential Segregation," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 127-170, March.
    21. Pancs, Romans & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2007. "Schelling's spatial proximity model of segregation revisited," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 1-24, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:36:y:2009:i:1:p:149-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.