ENVSOCTY 1HA3 – Society, Culture & Environment (2021-22 – Fall)

Tutorial Activity #2 – Urban Issues: Residential Segregation

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Full Name: Fathima Niazi

Student Number: 400413023

Instructions:
For each of the sections below, you will be completing small tasks experimenting with the “Parable of the Polygon”
(ncase.me/polygons/), and discussing the overall patterns/trends you observe. There are six scenarios that you will work
through but they are not numbered, therefore you need to follow the short descriptions above each scenario listed below.

Make sure to save this document to your computer (insure it is saved as a .doc or .docx file or else it may not be properly
read in Avenue to Learn/Turn-it-In).

Due: 11:59 PM on the day of YOUR Tutorial #6 – Urban Issues: Residential Segregation to the appropriate Avenue to
Learn drop-box (Assignments > Tutorial Activity #2 – Urban Issues: Residential Segregation)

Scenario 1: “Drag & drop unhappy polygons until nobody is unhappy.”

Q1. What are some of the general patterns/trends that you observe after having made all shapes happy?

After moving all of the polygons, ensuring that none are unhappy I realized some trends within them. Both shapes
tended to huddle with their own kind making large groups of triangles and squares without any mixture. But the
triangles that had no contact with any squares and the squares that had no contact to any triangles were not unhappy but
were not happy either. The shapes that could interact with the opposite shape were happy.

Scenario 2: “Run this simulation a few times. What happens?”

Q2. Run the simulation 5 times and record the amount of segregation.
Percentage of segregation
1 54%
2 50%
3 44%
4 56%
5 59%

Scenario 3: “Use the slider to adjust the shapes’ individual bias.”

Q3. Before running the simulation, what do you predict the level of segregation will look like if the individual bias is 33%
(i.e. shape will move if less than 33% of their neighbours look like them)?
I predict that if the individual’s bias is 33% then the percentage of segregation will be around 40% because the individual
bias is on the lower spectrum, therefore resulting in a lower level of segregation.
Q4. How about if the individual bias is 25%?
I predict that the individual’s bias is 25% then the percentage of segregation will be around 25% because the individual
bias is low, meaning shapes will not be moving positions even if not with the same kind, resulting in a lowered
segregation.

Q5. Or what if the individual bias is 50%?

I predict that the individual’s bias is 50% then the percentage of segregation will be around 80% because the individual
bias is high, meaning the shapes will be moving positions a lot till at least 50% is the same kind of shape, resulting in a
high segregation.

Q6. Adjust the slider and run the simulation 3 times for each individual bias and record the amount of segregation.
Individual bias: 33%
Percentage of segregation
1 49%
2 54%
3 46%

Individual bias: 25%

Percentage of segregation
1 27%
2 30%
3 28%

Individual bias: 50%

Percentage of segregation
1 88%
2 90%
3 89%

Q7. How do the simulations compare to your predictions?

my predictions were not accurate when compared to the simulation but not far off number ranging till 10% off.

Scenario 4: “World starts segregated. What happens when you lower the bias?”

Q8. Adjust the slider so that there is less than a 33% bias and run the simulation a couple of times. Briefly explain what
happens and why you think that is.
All the square are close to each other and all the triangles are close to one another. Each square has another square beside
it and each triangle has another triangle beside it.

Scenario 5: “World starts segregated. What happens when shapes demand even the smallest bit of diversity?”

Q9. Adjust the slider and run the simulation 3 times for each individual bias and record the amount of segregation.
Individual bias: <10% or >80%
Percentage of segregation
1 0%
2 0%
3 0%

Individual bias: <10% or >90%

 Percentage of segregation
1 13%
2 8%
3 10%

Q10. What are some of the general patterns/trends that you observed?
Some of the general pattens and trends that I observed was that for the simulation where the individual bias was under 10
and over 80 there was no segregation between triangles and squares. The polygons were fully mixed with each other and
there were no big groups of huddles triangles or huddled triangles. Furthermore, when the individual bias was under 10
or over 90% the polygons were still somewhat huddled together with triangles with triangles and squares with squares,
but they were still dispersed so that they were neighbouring the opposite shape.

Scenario 6: “Finally, a big ol’ sandbox to play around in.”

Create your own experimental scenarios by adjusting the individual bias slider as well as the triangle: square ratio slider.

Simulation 1
I adjusted the individual bias slider to under 6% and over 83% and the triangle: square ratio to 35:65 with a 0%
segregation done in a short time. In the simulation I observed that every triangle was neighbouring to at least one other
triangle and the board was 20% empty.

Simulation 2
I adjusted the individual bias slider to under 8% and over 90% and the triangle: square ratio to 32:68 with a 10%
segregation done in a short time. In the simulation I observed that the triangles were scattered and there were no huddles
of them. The board was 27% empty.