This essay is an attempt to describe from three related perspectives the successes and failures characterising the short but turbulent history of urban modelling: from the broader perspectives of knowledge or scientific theory, and of action or design; and from the narrower perspective of the modelling activity itself. It is argued that modelling is concerned solely neither with science nor with design but with both; that is, it is concerned with the relationship between science and design and must be examined accordingly. Various arguments pertaining to these themes are elaborated in terms of the inadequacy of its theory and the dictates imposed by policy. Viewed from the individual perspectives of science or design, modelling is often judged a dismal failure but in this essay it is argued that as such views are necessarily incomplete, some compromise must be sought. In these terms, the field manifests a limited success. Much has been learned about the activity itself but, as in all situations involving immature science, the real value of these experiences may be in raising awareness of the conflicts and dilemmas which occur when uncertain knowledge is applied to problems whose perception is continually changing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BattyM, 1978“Paradoxes of science in public policy: The baffling case of land use models” Reading Geographical Papers number 69, University of Reading, Reading, England
2.
BattyM, 1979“On planning processes” in Resources and Planning Eds GoodallBKirbyA (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 17–45
3.
BrewerG D, 1973Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Consultant: A Critique of Urban Problem-Solving (Basic Books, New York)
4.
BrotchieJ F, 1978“A new approach to urban modelling”Division of Building Research, CSIRO, Highett, Victoria, Australia
5.
ChurchmanC W, 1967“Wicked problems”Management Science, Series B14141–142
6.
CoelhoJ J S D, 1977The Use of Mathematical Optimisation Methods in Model Based Land Use Planning: An Application to the New Town of Santo Andre unpublished Ph D thesis, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, England
7.
DaceyM F, 1975“Comments on papers by Isard and Smith”Papers of the Regional Science Association3551–56
8.
DrakeJ W, 1973The Administration of Transportation Modeling Projects (Lexington Books, D C Heath, Lexington, Mass)
9.
DyckmanJ W, 1963“The scientific world of the city planners”American Behavioral Scientist646–50
10.
ForresterJ W, 1975“Counterintuitive behaviour of social systems” in Collected Papers of Jay W Forrester (Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Mass) pp 211–244
11.
FriedmannJ, 1973Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning (Anchor Books, Doubleday, New York)
12.
FreidmannJ, 1976“Innovation, flexible response and social learning: A problem in the theory of meta-planning” Reading Geographical Papers number 49, University of Reading, Reading, England
13.
GouldP R, 1978“A perspective on mathematics for geographers” paper presented to the IBG Annual Conference of the Study Group in Quantitative Methods, University of Leicester, Leicester, England
14.
GreenbergD S, 1969The Politics of American Science (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
15.
HarrisB, 1968“Quantitative models of urban development: Their role in metropolitan policymaking” in Issues in Urban Economics Eds PerloffH SWingoL (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md) pp 363–410
16.
HarrisB, 1975“Bridging the gap between theory and practice in urban planning” in Proceedings of the Conference on the Use of Models by Planning Agencies Ed. PackJ R, Fels Center of Government, School of Public and Urban Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, pp 223–239
17.
HarrisBWilsonA G, 1978“Equilibrium values and dynamics of attractiveness terms in production-constrained spatial-interaction models”Environment and Planning A10371–388
18.
HoosI R, 1972Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique (University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.)
19.
HutchisonT W, 1977Knowledge and Ignorance in Economics (Blackwell, Oxford)
20.
JanikAToulminS, 1973Wittgenstein's Vienna (Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, New York)
21.
KainJ F, 1978“The use of computer simulation models for policy analysis”Urban Analysis5175–189
22.
KuhnT S, 1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.)
23.
LakatosI, 1971“History of science and its rational reconstructions” in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8 Eds BuckR CCohenR S (Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) pp 92–136
24.
LazarsfeldP F, 1961“Notes on the history of quantification in sociology—trends, sources and problems” in Quantification: A History of the Meaning of Measurement in the Natural and Social Sciences Ed. WoolfH (Bobbs—Merrill, New York) pp 147–203
25.
LeeD B, 1973“Requiem for large-scale models”Journal of the American Institute of Planners39163–178
26.
LeonardiG, 1978“Optimum facility location by accessibility maximizing” WP-2, Instituto di Scienza dei Sistemi Architettonici e Territoriali, Facolta di Architettura, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
27.
MillerJ E, 1973“How Newton discovered the Law of Gravitation” in A Random Walk in Science Eds WeberR LMendozaE (The Institute of Physics, London) pp 53–58
28.
MuthR F, 1972“Discussion”American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 6298–99
29.
OlssonG, 1975Birds in Egg Michigan Geographical Publication number 15, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
30.
PackH RPackJ R, 1977“The resurrection of the urban development model”Policy Analysis3407–427
31.
PackJ R (Ed.), 1975Proceedings of the Conference on the Use of Models by Planning AgenciesFels Center of Government, School of Public and Urban Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
32.
PackJ R, 1978Urban Models: Diffusion and Policy Application Monograph Series number 7, Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pa
33.
RavetzJ R, 1971Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
34.
SayerA R, 1976“A critique of urban modelling: From regional science to urban and regional political economy”Progress in Planning6187–254
35.
SeidmanD R, 1975“Constructing the DVRPC activities allocation model: One view of the way it was” in Proceedings of the Conference on the Use of Models by Planning Agencies Ed. PackJ R, Fels Center of Government, School of Public and Urban Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, pp 188–203
36.
ShubikM, 1969“Processing the future”Science1661257–1258
37.
WegenerM, 1979“The use of computers for urban and regional planning in West Germany: A review”Proceedings of the International Conference on the Application of Computers in Architecture, Building Design and Urban PlanningWestBerlin (to be published)
WilliamsH C W LSeniorM L, 1977“Model based transport policy assessment II: Removing fundamental inconsistencies from the model” WP-196, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, England
40.
WilsonA G, 1967“A statistical theory of spatial distribution models”Transportation Research1253–269
41.
WilsonA G, 1978Review of A Critique of Urban Modelling by SayerR A (Pergamon Press, Oxford) Environment and Planning A101085–1086
42.
WorswickG D N, 1972“Is progress in economic science possible?”Economic Journal8273–86
