• Lidia Diappi


Here a preliminary presentation of the book is provided. Its aim and specific point of view on housing market dynamics are presented together with some fundamental concepts underpinning all the chapters in the book. An initial explanation of the concept of emergence and an overview of its application in urban studies is followed by a presentation of the Multi Agent Systems approach and its potentialities in modeling emerging phenomena. Then a survey of the state of the art in housing market modeling allows to introduce the subjects more developed in this book: housing search, price dynamics and relocation processes, gentrification, social polarization and segregation. A synthetic description of the content of the book concludes the chapter.


Multi Agent System Housing Market Residential Mobility Real Estate Market Urban Space 
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. Allen PM, Sanglier M (1981) Urban evolution, self organization, and decision making. Environ Plann A 13:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anas A (1997) Rent control with matching economics: a model of European housing market regulation. J R Estate Finance Econ 15:111–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnott R, Braid R, Davidson R, Pines D (1999) A general equilibrium spatial model of housing quality. Reg Sci Urban Econ 29:283–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson R (2000) Measuring gentrification and displacement in greater London. Urban Stud 37:149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Badcock B (1989) An Australian view of the rent gap hypothesis. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 79:125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batty M (2005) The new urban geography of the third dimension. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 24:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Akiva ME, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Benenson I (1998) Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. Comput Environ Urban Syst 22:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benenson I, Omer I, Hatna E (2002) Entity-based modeling of urban residential dynamics – the case of Yaffo, Tel-Aviv. Environ Plann B 29:491–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourassa SC (1993) The rent gap debunked. Urban Stud 30:1731–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruch EE, Mare RD (2006) Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change. Am J Sociol 112(3):667–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler T (2003) Living in the bubble: gentrification and its others in North London. Urban Stud 40(12):2469–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camagni R, Diappi L, Leonardi G (1986) Urban growth and decline in a hierarchical system: a supply oriented dynamic approach. Reg Sci Urban Econ 16(1):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark E (1987) The rent gap and urban change: case studies in Malmö 1860–1985. Lund University Press, LundGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark E (1995) The rent gap re-examined. Urban Stud 32:1489–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devish OT, Timmermans HJP, Arentze TA (2009) An agent-based model of residential choice dynamics in non stationary housing market. Environ Plann A 42:1997–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diappi L, Bolchi P (2008) Smith’s rent gap theory and local real estate dynamics: a multi-agent model. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32(1):6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein JM (1997) Non linear dynamics, mathematical biology, and social science. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  19. Ettema D (2011) A multi-agent model of urban processes: modelling relocation processes and price setting in housing markets. Comput Environ Urban Syst 35:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ettema D, De Jong K, Timmermans H, Bakema A (2006) PUMA: multi-agent modeling of urban systems. In: Koomen E, Bakema A, Stillwell J, Scholten H (eds) Land use modeling. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Flache A, Hegselmann R (2001) Do irregular grids make a difference? Relaxing the spatial regularity assumption in cellular models of social dynamics. J Artif Soc Simul 4(4):6, Google Scholar
  22. Fossett MA (2006a) Ethnic preferences, social distance dynamics, and residential segregation: theoretical explorations using simulation analysis. Math Sociol 30(3–4):185–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fossett MA (2006b) Including preference and social distance dynamics in multi-factor theories of segregation. Math Sociol 30(3–4):289–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glass R (1964) Introduction: aspects of change. In: Centre for Urban Studies (ed) London: aspects of change. MacGibbon and Kee, London, pp xiii–xliiGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamnett C (1991) The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification. Trans Inst Br Geogr 16:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamnett C (1995) Homeownership and the middle classes. In: Butler T, Savage M (eds) Social change and the middle classes. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamnett C (2003) Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban Stud 40:401–2426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamnett C, Cross D (1998) Social polarization and inequality in London. Environ Plann C: Gov Policy 16:659–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Igarashi M, Arnott R (2000) Rent control, mismatch costs and search efficiency. Reg Sci Urban Econ 30:249–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kary KJ (1988) Gentrification in Toronto and the rent gap theory. In: Bunting TE, Filion P (eds) The changing Canadian inner city, vol 31. Department of Geography Publication Series, University of Ontario, Waterloo, pp 53–72Google Scholar
  31. Latour B (1987) Science in action. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  32. Ley D (1987) Reply: the rent gap revisited. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:465–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ley D (1994) Gentrification and the politics of the new middle class. Environ Plann D 12:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ley D (1996) The new middle class and the remaking of central city: Oxford geographical and environmental studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Lipton SG (1977) Evidence of central city revival. J Am Inst Plann 43(April):136–147Google Scholar
  36. Lombardo ST, Rabino G (1984) Nonlinear dynamic models for spatial interaction: the results of some empirical experiments. Pap Reg Sci 55(1):83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lowry IS (1963) Location parameters in the Pittsburg model. Pap Proc Reg Sci Assoc 11:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martinez F, Roy J (2004) A model for residential supply. Ann Reg Sci 38:531–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller EJ, Hunt JD, Abraham JE, Salvini PA (2004) Microsimulating urban systems. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:9–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moeckel R, Wegener M, Schwarze B (2005) Simulating land use change by modeling persons, households and dwellings, Paper presented at CUPUM conference, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Sullivan D (2002) Toward micro-scale spatial modelling of gentrification. J Geogr Syst 4:251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ondrich J, Stricker A, Yinger J (1999) Do landlords discriminate? The incidence and causes of racial discrimination in rental housing markets. J Hous Econ 8(3):185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Portugali J, Benenson I, Omer I (1994) Socio-spatial residential dynamics: stability and instability within a self-organized city. Geogr Anal 26(4):321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosen R (1978) Fundamentals of measurement and representation of natural systems. North-Holland, New York, p 221Google Scholar
  45. Rosen R (1991) Life itself: a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin and fabrication of life. Columbia University Press, New York, p 284Google Scholar
  46. Rosen R (2000) Essays on life itself (complexity in ecological systems series). Columbia University Press, New York, p 374Google Scholar
  47. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (1986) Parallel distributed processing: exploration in the microstructure of cognition, Vol.1, Foundations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. Saint-Julien T, Sanders L, Pumain D, Prigogine I (1989) Villes et auto-organisation. Economica, Paris, 192pGoogle Scholar
  49. Sakoda JM (1971) The checkerboard model of social interaction. J Math Sociol 1:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schelling TC (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1:143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith N (1979) Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not people. J Am Plann Assoc 45(4):538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith N (1987) Gentrification and the rent gap. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:462–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith N (1996) The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Timmermans HJP (2003) The saga of integrated land use transport modeling: how many dreams before we wake up? Paper presented at the 10th international conference on travel behaviour research, Lucerne, 10–15 Aug 2003Google Scholar
  55. Torrens PM, Nara A (2007) Modeling gentrification dynamics: a hybrid approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst 31(3):337–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van der Vlist A, Rietveld P, Nijkamp P (2002) Residential search and mobility in a housing market equilibrium model. J R Estate Finance Econ 24:277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Waddel P, Borning A, Noth M, Freier N, Becke M, Ulfarsson G (2003) Microsimulation of urban development and location choices: design and implementation of UrbanSim. Netw Spat Econ 3:43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wegener M (1985) The Dortmund housing market model: a Monte Carlo simulation of a regional housing market. In: Stahl K (ed) Microeconomic models of housing markets, vol 239, Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 144–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson A (1981) Catastrophe theory and bifurcation: applications to urban and regional systems. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  60. Zukin S (1982) Loft living: culture and capital in urban change. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture and PlanningPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations