Object Orientation, Open Regional Science, and Cumulative Knowledge Building

  • Randall JacksonEmail author
  • Sergio Rey
  • Péter Járosi
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


Because so many present and future challenges are regional in scope, regional solutions will be needed, and the next 50 years of research at the regional level will only grow in importance. In the future, appropriate regional scales will be supranational, national, and subnational, many global problems will require localized solutions, and there will be an increasing recognition of the importance of integrating multi-scale human and physical systems models, recognizing that economic and environmental sustainability are inseparable. Models of systems of integrated systems will play an increasingly prominent role. Future modeling research will move away from individual efforts and toward projects that leverage new technologies that support group development and intelligence. The cumulative knowledge-building promise of open source and open science dwarfs that of the individual and small team research silos of the past. The collective development of software tools like Linux, Python and R libraries, and PySAL, to name just a few, is well underway, and fledgling models integrating human and environmental systems are clearly on the horizon. This chapter presents our vision of the path forward in integrated systems modeling, founded on the open source, open science, object oriented modeling triumvirate, using a dynamic interindustry space time economic model to focus the discussion.


Problem Domain Knowledge Building Computable General Equilibrium Open Science Object Orientation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amrhein CG, MacKinnon RD (1988) A micro-simulation model of a spatial labor market. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 78(1):112–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1988.tb00194.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker T (2004) The transition to sustainability: a comparison of general–equilibrium and space–time–economics approaches. Working paper 62, Tyndall CentreGoogle Scholar
  3. Birkin M, Clarke M (2011) Spatial microsimulation models: a review and a glimpse into the future. In: Stillwell J, Clarke M (eds) Population dynamics and projection methods. Understanding population trends and processes, chap 9. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–208. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8930-4_9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booch G (1994) Object-oriented analysis and design with applications, 2nd edn. Benjamin-Cummings, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell SB (1983) Modeling demographic-economic interactions: micro, macro and linked micro/macro strategies. Socio Econ Plan Sci 17(5–6):365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter N (2013) Energy-water nexus: the energy sector’s water use. Technical report, Congressional Research Service. Google Scholar
  7. Clarke M, Holm E (1987) Microsimulation methods in spatial analysis and planning. Geogr Ann Ser B 69(2):145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke M, Wilson AG (1986) A framework for dynamic comprehensive urban models: the integration of accounting and micro-simulation approaches. Sistemi Urbani 2(3):145–177Google Scholar
  9. Coad P, Yourdon E (1991a) Object-oriented analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. Coad P, Yourdon E (1991b) Object-oriented design, vol 92. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway RS (1990) The Washington projection and simulation model: a regional interindustry econometric model. Int Reg Sci Rev 13(1–2):141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donaghy KP, Balta-Ozkan N, Hewings GJ (2007) Modeling unexpected events in temporally disaggregated econometric input–output models of regional economies. Econ Syst Res 19(2):125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gloor P (2002) Collaborative knowledge networks. eJETA Electron J E-Bus Technol Appl 1(3):1–11Google Scholar
  14. Gloor PA (2006) Swarm creativity: competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gloor PA, Heckmann C, Makedon F (2004) Ethical issues in collaborative innovation networks. Retrieved from http://wwwicknorg/documents/COIN4Ethicomppdf (date of download: 0512 2011)Google Scholar
  16. Israilevich PR, Hewings GJ, Schindler GR, Mahidhara R (1996) The choice of an input-output table embedded in regional econometric input-output models. Pap Reg Sci 75(2):103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Israilevich PR, Hewings GJ, Sonis M, Schindler GR (1997) Forecasting structural change with a regional econometric input-output model. J Reg Sci 37(4):565–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson R (1994) Object-oriented modeling in regional science: an advocacy view. J Reg Sci 73(4):347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson RW (1995) Directions in regional science. Int Reg Sci Rev 18(2):159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Járosi P, Jackson RW (2015) Object-oriented interindustry systems: proof of concept. Working papers technical document 2015-0. Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
  21. Kim K, Hewings GJD, Kratena K (2016) Household disaggregation and forecasting in a regional econometric input–output model. Lett Spat Resour Sci 9(1):73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kratena K, Streicher G, Temurshoev U, Amores AF, Arto I, Mongelli I, Neuwahl F, Rueda-Cantuche JM, Andreoni V (2013) FIDELIO 1: fully interregional dynamic econometric long-term input-output model for the EU27. Publications Office, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  23. Odell J (2002) Objects and agents compared. J Object Technol 1(1):41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rey SJ (1997) Integrating regional econometric and input-output models: an evaluation of embedding strategies. Environ Plann A 29(6):1057–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rey SJ (1998) The performance of alternative integration strategies for combining regional econometric and input-output models. Int Reg Sci Rev 21(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rey SJ (2000) Integrated regional econometric+ input-output modeling: issues and opportunities. Pap Reg Sci 79(3):271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rey SJ (2014) Open regional science. Ann Reg Sci 52(3):825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rey SJ, Jackson RW (1999) Labor-productivity changes in regional econometric + input-output models. Environ Plann A 31(9):1583–1599. doi:10.1068/a311583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlani W, Eddy F, Lorensen WE et al (1991) Object-oriented modeling and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Scrieciu SS (2007) The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Böhringer and Löschel (2006). Ecol Econ 60(4):678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallach H (2016) Computational social sciences: towards a collaborative future. In: Alvarez R (ed) Computational social science: discovery and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. West GR (1991) A Queensland input-output econometric model: an overview. Aust Econ Pap 30(57):221–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. West GR, Jackson RW (1998) Input-Output+ econometric and econometric+ input-output: model differences or different models? J Reg Anal Policy 28(1):33–48Google Scholar
  34. West GR, Jackson RW (2014) Simulating impacts on regional economies: a modeling alternative. In: Schaeffer P, Kouassi E (eds) Econometric methods for analyzing economic development, chap 9. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 132–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Research InstituteWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  3. 3.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations