This paper examines the distinctions between empirical and simulation models using the metaphors of argument and narrative. It argues that all argumentation is contextualized within a narrative that is either inferred or communicated. It provides another semantic structure for urban models that applies elements of systems-dynamic method to construct ‘stories' of the past and possible futures of communities in a watershed in southern Arizona. By constructing such narratives this paper demonstrates how computer-based urban models can ‘tell a story’.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aristotle, 1961Poetics (Hill and Wang, New York)
2.
BarthesR, 1977Image, Music, Text translated by HeathS (Noonday Press, New York)
BertalanffyL, 1968General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (G Braziller, New York)
5.
BouldingK E, 1985The World as a Total System (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA)
6.
BrunerJ, 1986Actual Minds, Possible Worlds (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
7.
ChurchmanC W, 1968The Systems Approach (Dell, New York)
8.
ChurchmanC W, 1979The Systems Approach and Its Enemies (Basic Books, New York)
9.
City of Sierra Vista, 1997A Walk Along the RiverCity of Sierra Vista, Arizona
10.
CooperD E, 1996, “Modern European philosophy”, in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy Eds BunninNTsui-JamesE P (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA) pp 702–721
11.
CorellS W, 1996, “Groundwater flow model scenarios of future groundwater and surface water conditions: Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin—Southeastern Arizona”, supplement to Modeling Report 10, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division, Phoenix, AZ
12.
CorellS WCorkhillFLovvikDPutnamF, 1996, “A groundwater flow model of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin—Southeastern Arizona”, Modeling Report 10, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division, Phoenix, AZ
13.
ForesterJ, 1993aCritical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY)
14.
ForesterJ, 1993b, “Learning from practice stories: the priority of practical judgment”, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FischerFForesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 186–209
LeeD B, 1973, “Requiem for large-scale models”Journal of the American Institute of Planners39163–178
23.
MajoneG, 1989Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
24.
MurrayJ H, 1993Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace (Free Press, New York)
25.
NagelKRasmussenSBarrettC L, 1996, “Network traffic as self-organized critical phenomena”, TSA-DO/SA MS-M997 and CNLS MS-B258, Los Alamos National Laboratory, http://transims.tsasa.lanl.gov/
26.
NeustadtRMayE, 1986Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers (Free Press, New York)
27.
ParryADoanR E, 1994Story Re-visions (Guilford, New York)
28.
ReinM, 1976Social Science and Public Policy (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
29.
RittelH W JWebberM M, 1973, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”Policy Sciences4155–169
30.
RoeE, 1994Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
31.
RupkalvisD, 2001, “Management area debate continues: state officials answer questions; sides voice opinions”Sierra Vista Herald 20 June
32.
SchellingT C, 1978Micromotives and Microbehavior (W W Norton, New York)
33.
ShifferM J, 1995, “Interactive multimedia planning support: moving from stand-alone systems to the World Wide Web”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22649–664
34.
SimonH, 1976Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organization (Free Press, New York)
35.
SuiD Z, 1996, “Urban forms, urban processes, and urban policies: a research agenda for the metropolis in the 21st century”, in Spatial Technologies, Geographic Information and the City compiled by H Couclelis, TR 96-10, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 210–213
36.
SuiD Z, 1997, “Reconstructing urban reality: from GIS to electropolis”Urban Geography1874–89
37.
ThrogmortonJ A, 1991, “The rhetorics of policy analysis”Policy Sciences24153–179
38.
ThrogmortonJ A, 1993, “Survey research as rhetorical trope: electric power planning arguments in Chicago”, in The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning Eds FischerFForesterJ (Duke University Press, Durham, NC) pp 117–144