See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245381853

Artificial Intelligence Solutions for Urban Land Dynamics: A Review

Article  in  Journal of Planning Literature · May 2010

DOI: 10.1177/0885412210361571

CITATIONS READS
95 8,059

2 authors, including:

Elisabete Silva
University of Cambridge
110 PUBLICATIONS   2,890 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rede de Corredores Verdes na Área Metropolitana de Lisboa View project

2017/18 CDBB Mini-Project:Crowdsourcing Data in Mining Spatial Urban Activities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elisabete Silva on 06 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal ofhttp://jpl.sagepub.com/
Planning Literature

Artificial Intelligence Solutions for Urban Land Dynamics: A Review

Ning Wu and Elisabete A. Silva
Journal of Planning Literature 2010 24: 246
DOI: 10.1177/0885412210361571

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/24/3/246

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Literature can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpl.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/24/3/246.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 20, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

 Journal of Planning Literature
24(3) 246-265
Artificial Intelligence Solutions for ª The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Urban Land Dynamics: A Review DOI: 10.1177/0885412210361571
http://jpl.sagepub.com

Ning Wu,1 and Elisabete A. Silva1

Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely accepted as a technology offering an alternative way to tackle complex and dynamic
problems in urban studies. The goal of this article is a review of current literature in the field of planning and AI. The aim of this
review is to increase the understanding of how AI approaches urban and land dynamics modeling processes and how, as a result,
researchers can structure that knowledge and choose the correct approaches to embed in their models. For this purpose,
the authors review the applications of AI techniques in urban land dynamics domain as well as the emerging challenges they
face. The authors discuss hybrid AI systems as a need resulting from the trend in planning policy to develop more holistic
approaches. The authors conclude that, although challenges exist, AI-based approaches offer promising solutions for urban and
land dynamics.

Keywords
AI, urban and land dynamics, cellular automata, genetic algorithm, agent-based system

1. Introduction: Urban Land Dynamics and
Artificial Intelligence
Land change is driven by the combination of synergetic spatial
and aspatial factors that trigger the dynamic process of land
change with their interactions. At the same time, urbanization
of cities and the changes in physical, social, and ecosystem
aspects that result from urban growth affect the drivers of land
change. Urban land use dynamics are the direct consequence of
the actions of individuals and public and private corporations
acting simultaneously in time over the urban space (Barredo
et al. 2003). The speed and intensity of urbanization created
pressure for change in the land use pattern. Therefore, it is of
the utmost importance to study the driving forces of land use
change in order to understand what the change process is and
also to predict substantial changes in the speed, intensity, or tra-
jectory (the process known as bifurcations or phase transitions)
of land change in urban regions.
Over the past decades, efforts have been made by
researchers to capture the dynamics of land change. However,
the pitfalls of traditional analytical methodologies, particularly
the static and top-down approaches of traditional modeling
such as linear and mathematics modeling, limited insight into
the dynamic complexity and nonlinear properties of land
change. Although this choke point has been improved by the
application of computer models since the mid-1950s (Voorhees
1959; Batty 2004), it is still hard to understand the delicate
problems in land dynamic modeling. More recently, the great
strides in computer techniques—particularly the use of com-
plex analysis and artificial intelligence (AI) in spatial analysis
beginning in the 1970s (Los 1973; Tobler 1979; Batty
and Longley 1994; Silva and Clarke 2005; Silva 2008b)—
fundamentally changed the traditional methodologies and
provided deeper theoretical insight into the dynamics of land
use change. AI is now explored in many scientific fields as
allowing the inclusion of high levels of complexity in the mod-
eling process that previous models could not represent.
AI covers a broad spectrum, which has successfully been
used in a wide range of fields. Our research in this article
focuses primarily on the AI technologies that have been
directly imported to urban studies or developed as new ele-
ments of AI-based techniques of many urban analysis systems
or models. Considering this, the term artificial intelligence in
our article refers to what is commonly known as the ‘‘weak
AI’’ camp: technology that is able to manipulate predetermined
rules and apply the rules to reach a well-defined goal (Bethell
2006). In this article, we only selected the approaches that are
most commonly termed AI for urban planning in the literature.
This idea of ‘‘weak’’ or ‘‘soft AI’’ is shared when considering
the application of AI in business Goodwins (2001),
1
University of Cambridge, UK
Corresponding Author:
Elisabete A. Silva, Department of Land Economy, Department of Land
Economy and Fellow of Robinson College, University of Cambridge, 19
Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EP, UK; phone: þ44(0)1223337141; fax:
þ44(0)1223337130; Web site: www.landecon.cam.ac.uk.
Email: es424@cam.ac.uk

246

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

Wu and Silva
Figure 1. Overview of the subjects approached in this review
environment (S. H. Chen, Jakeman, and Norton 2008), and
water quality modeling (Chau 2006b).
This article is organized as follows: part 2 reviews a wide
spectrum of literature on artificial intelligence and its imple-
mentation in urban land dynamics. In some cases, we also
included less representative applications, which are certainly
still worth mentioning as they expose new ways of exploring
AI in urban planning. Part 3 discusses the need for hybrid sys-
tems able to incorporate more holistic approaches and further
modeling developments, and part 4 gives concluding remarks
(see Figure 1).
2. Artificial Intelligence Solutions for Urban
Land Dynamics
The term AI has been applied to computer systems and pro-
grams capable of performing tasks more complex than straight-
forward programming, though they are still far from the realm
of actual thought (Kalogirou 2003). The review of this litera-
ture unveils a multitude of AI approaches that have been used
in urban studies. We classified them into four groups according
to their application and properties: (1) artificial life, (2)
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
247
intelligent stochastic simulation models, (3) evolutionary com-
puting and spatial DNA, and (4) knowledge-based intelligent
systems.
There is a clear distinction in these four approaches, which
has to do with scale. The first case (artificial life) tended to be
particularly focused in the micro-simulation environment,
while the remaining cases tended to be focused on global oper-
ationalization issues. And while stochastic optimization (group
2) still relies on mathematical algorithms and data-mining pro-
cesses, group 4 (knowledge-based systems) departs in many
cases from the sole reliance on mathematical and advanced sta-
tistical formulations to model in language-alike environments.
Finally, group 3 (evolutionary computation) appears as a result
of the introduction of AI approaches to urban planning but is
itself important for explaining algorithms and models that are
sensitive to local conditions and allow the exploration of
behavior.
Following is a description of the main AI approaches that
can be found in each group. It is important to mention that at
the most basic representation of an AI approach, we can find
an algorithm as a basic model that represents one particular
issue, but advancements in AI allow for the exploration of
247
248
complex models that include multiple algorithms and (as we
will explore in the third part of the article) interact with differ-
ent AI approaches.
For the purpose of this article, it is important to explore the
most fundamental approaches in AI that make it useful for (or
that are being predominantly used in) urban planning. Once this
goal is accomplished, it is possible to explore in further detail
sophisticated dynamic urban models (N. Wu and Silva n.d.-b)
and different methodologies to selected the most appropriate
models (N. Wu and Silva 2009, n.d.-a).
2.1. Artificial Life
Artificial life is the study of manmade systems that exhibit
behavior characteristics of natural living systems. Cellular
automata (CA) and intelligent agents are typical artificial life
techniques, and in the past decades they have been increasingly
implemented in urban studies.
2.1.1. Cellular Automata. CA, due to its ability to fit such com-
plex spatial nature using simple and effective rules, is being
widely implemented to model the urban growth process.
Briefly, this article outlines CA’s outstanding characters in the
following five points: (1) Complexity and dynamics represen-
tation: CA is a discrete dynamical system, and its structure sup-
plies a capacity of performing dynamic and complex spatial
modeling (Sietchiping 2004). (2) Spatial integration: The spa-
tial structure of CA enables it to easily incorporate with geo-
graphic and remote sensing data such as GIS (Batty, Xie, and
Sun 1999; Stevens, Dragicevic, and Rothley 2007; Piyatham-
rongchai 2007; Silva and Clarke 2002, 2005) and self-
organizing mapping (Álvaro and Blas 2008) for producing
highly visual outputs. (3) Extensibility and adaptability: Adap-
tations to the original CA architecture involve the flexibility of
neighborhoods and dimensions and shapes of cells (Yasser,
Moorea, and Whighama 2007; Dragicevic 2007; Kocabas and
Dragicevic 2007; Jenerette and Wu 2001) as well as the exten-
sibility of CA to incorporate with diversity of models, espe-
cially associated with agent-based models (ABM) (Sudhira
2004; Batty 2007). (4) Simplicity and complexity: The simpli-
city of CA enables it to present spatial complexity in an intui-
tive but effective way. It reduces the formidable complexity of
urban systems to a manageable level (Torrens and O’Sullivan
2000; Silva 2008a, 2008b). (5) Visibility: The lattice structure
(cells in a CA model, usually represented by the grids in a raster
image) and the link to geographic data make CA models highly
visual. CA allows modelers to view urban systems growing
over time in increments (Dietzel and Clarke 2004). And this
characteristic is enhanced by integration with some virtual
techniques such as 3D (Qin, Wang, and Wang 2007; Semboloni
2000).
Many applications reflect the relative ease and flexibility of
CA, with which they can be modified to describe processes of
change (Iacono, Levinson, and El-Geneidy 2008). To perform
growing complexity in different urban dynamics, CA models
are extended mainly in the following ways: (1) Generating
248
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
much richer forms of degenerations in the level of individuals:
Insight into land dynamics in various scales increasingly
requires analyses on the individual level. Batty (2005) intro-
duced new forms of representation at a fine spatial scale, where
units of space are conceived as cells and populations as individ-
ual agents. (2) Adaptations of the CA formalism: The modifica-
tions and adaptations to CA models mainly include changes to
the structure and dimension of the lattice of cells (Stevens,
Dragicevic, and Rothley 2007), expansion of allowable cell
states (Mathey et al. 2008), and expanded neighborhood
definitions (H. Michel, Geertman, and Ottens 2007; Geertman,
Hagoort, and Ottens 2007; Jiao and Boerboom 2006). (3) Effi-
ciency improving of CA models, especially in optimization and
calibration processes: Many approaches have been used to
improve parameters/global optimization and calibration
(Rocha et al. 2007; Al-Kheder, Jun, and Jie 2007; Frans
2003; Goldstein 2005; Silva and Clarke 2002). (4) Linking
CA models to traditional cross-sectional approaches such as
transportation models (F. Wu and Martin 2002; Iacono,
Levinson, and El-Geneidy 2008): Although CA models appear
to be growing more mature with all the achievements in CA
urban growth modeling over the past twenty years, the limita-
tions of CA such as simplicity (which is also considered to be
an advantage) (Iacono, Levinson, and El-Geneidy 2008;
Torrens and O’Sullivan 2001; Norte Pinto and Pais Antunes
2007), the quantification of the neighborhood functions (still
rudimentarily defined among immediate neighborhood
effects) (Verburg, Dijst, and Veldkamp 2004), and immobility
(Benenson and Torrens 2003) cannot be ignored.
2.1.2. Agent-Based Model. In contrast with CA’s abilities on spa-
tial dynamics of land change, ABM has presented its strongest
representation on aspatial dynamics. Advantages of ABMs
include their ability to model individual decision-making enti-
ties and their interactions, to incorporate social processes on
decision making, and their dynamic socioeconomic environ-
mental linkages (B. Matthews et al. 2007).
An increasing number of researchers are exploring the
potential of ABMs for urban land change. Since the first appli-
cation of ABM on agriculture system by Lansing and Kremer
(1993), a number of agent-based land-use models have been
developed for different application areas. For example, ABMs
were used by some researchers (Berger 2001; Balmann et al.
2002; Happe 2004) to illustrate the impact of agriculture poli-
cies on regional farmland. Ligtenberg et al. (2004) described an
ABM to explore different ways in which decisions regarding
land use could be made. Ligmann and Jankowski (2007)
focused on using ABM for spatially explicit modeling of
real-world policy scenarios. Itzhak, Martens, and Birfir
(2007) simulated urban parking policy scenarios and analyzed
their impacts from the user and public policy perspective.
Simulation of the social-economic interactions in urban sys-
tems is another important application of ABM. D. G. Brown
and Robinson (2006) presented an ABM that represents the
process of residential development within an urban system.
Milner-Gulland et al. (2006) described the use of an ABM to
Wu and Silva
investigate the trade-offs in allocation of wealth by households.
Ettema et al. (2007) presented a multi-agent-based urban model
(PUMA) concerning land conversion problems.
The integration of ABMs with other spatial models was usu-
ally used to explain spatial patterns of land use or urban
dynamics. Batty (2005) gave a good presentation of how agents
and cells represent cities and the interactions between them. X.
Li and Liu (2007) proposed a multiagent system integrated
with CA and GIS to simulate residential development in urban
systems. Wagner and Wegener (2007) described an agent-
based travel submodel in the ILUMASS model, which takes the
needs and wishes of people to conduct activities and the result-
ing need for travel into account.
Land change phenomena include spatial and aspatial
dynamics. The stationary transition probabilities and less aspa-
tial representation of CA have limited its ability as individual
levels to reflect feedbacks to global changes in land change sys-
tem. Few models allow global changes in the system (e.g., as
action at a distance) to influence transitions at the cellular level
(Parker et al. 2003). Both SLEUTH (by enabling and disabling
boom and boost; Silva and Clarke 2002) and CVCA (by allow-
ing localized changes accordingly to proximity and area issues
and globally by allowing changes to landscape shape index;
Silva et al. 2008b; Silva, Wileden, and Ahern 2008) allow this
to a certain extent. Nevertheless, when incorporated with
ABM, the integration model includes two important compo-
nents: cellular models that are used to describe spatial
dynamics and ABMs that represent social interactions. ABM,
as a complement/enhancer of spatial models, makes modeling
of urban and other land systems more comprehensive in a non-
linear fashion.
2.1.3. Swarm Intelligence. Swarm intelligence (SI) is a kind of
AI introduced by Beni and Wang (1989) that is based on the
study of the collective behavior of decentralized, self-
organized systems. Ant colony optimization (ACO), particle
swarm optimization (PSO), bee colony optimization (BCO),
and stochastic diffusion search (SDS) are the four main SI algo-
rithms that have been applied to urban planning studies.
Although there are limited applications of SI on urban land
research, they supply us with good mechanisms that can be bor-
rowed to urban research disciplines.
ACO is a population-based meta-heuristic algorithm based
on ant behaviors (Dorigo and Blum 2005; Marco and Stützle
2004). Recently, ACO has been applied in environment prob-
lems, such as optimizing sampling locations for long-term
groundwater monitoring (Y. Li and Hilton 2007), estimating
unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters (Abbaspour, Schulin,
and van Genuchten 2001), and water distribution systems
(Maier et al. 2006; Zecchin et al. 2006). Urban application of
ACO has so far been limited, but the previous examples
demonstrate their potentials. Matteo and Mussone (2006) used
ACO to the assignment in congested transportation networks.
X. Liu et al. (2007) used ACO to extract transition rules as logi-
cal expressions for geographical CA, which was applied to
simulate rural-urban land conversions.
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
249
Similarly, the potential of PSO on urban studies has been
noticed with its application on environmental studies (Gill
et al. 2006; Matott, Rabideau, and Craig 2006; Chau 2006a)
and urban traffic control (Hu et al. 2008). Recently, Pinto
(2006) used PSO to calibrate a CA-based urban growth model
to simulate urban growth in small-size areas.
BCO is a self-organization algorithm based on the behaviors
of honey bees on searching for flower patches. It is a new direc-
tion of SI, and the majority applications of BCO are on trans-
portation and urban traffic problems. For example, Lucic and
Teodorovic (2001) first used BCO as combinatorial optimiza-
tion approach for the traveling salesman problems. Later, Teo-
dorovic and Lucic (2005) proposed a fuzzy bee system to solve
combinatorial problems characterized by uncertainty for public
transit; the artificial bees used approximate reasoning and rules
of fuzzy logic in their communication and acting. Teodorovic
and Dell’Orco (2005, 2008) explored the possible applications
of collective bee intelligence in solving ride-matching
problems.
SDS is a population-based search and optimization algo-
rithm introduced by Bishop (1989). The agents in SDS that
search for the optimal solution communicate in a way similar
to communication between species of ants. SDS was used by
Hurley and Whitaker (2002) in site selection for wireless
networks.
2.2. Intelligent Stochastic Optimization Processes
Stochastic optimization (SO) methods are optimization algo-
rithms that incorporate probabilistic (random) elements, either
in the problem data (the objective function, the constraints,
etc.), or in the algorithm itself (through random parameter val-
ues, random choices, etc.), or in both (Spall 2003).
2.2.1. Genetic Algorithm. Genetic algorithm (GA) is an efficient
optimal-solution-searching algorithm based on the evolution-
ary mechanisms of natural selection and natural genetics (Hol-
land 1975). Due to its ability of dealing with nonlinear
optimization problems, many applications have been used in
urban/land change studies.
(a) GA in land use change. Optimization of land allocation is
one of GA’s significant applications. Papini et al. (1998) used a
GA as a method of generating new rules for a CA in a land use
modeling exercise. K. Matthews (2001) incorporated GAs into
the land allocation decision support system (LADSS) for land
use optimization. Theodor, Janssen, and van Herwijnen
(2004) described a GA that was used as nonlinear combinator-
ial optimization to solve constraints of different land use allo-
cation and the conflict management objectives. Annelie and
Seppelt (2007) presented a GA to optimize the spatial config-
urations of land use. Fang-Chih et al. (2007) presented a hybrid
GA to solve the discrete urban location allocation problem.
Land pattern change and land cover classification are the other
applications of GA (Jenerette and Wu 2001; Manson 2005;
Tseng et al. 2007).
249
250
(b) GA in urban planning. Strictly speaking, the application of
GA to urban planning just started in the past decade. Balling
et al. (1999) first described an example urban planning problem
that used GA to search for optimal future land use and transpor-
tation. The application of GA in urban system mainly concen-
trates on three aspects: (1) urban growth and sprawl, as
exhibited in Wong, Wong, and Tong (2001); Al-Kheder, Jun,
and Jie (2007); and Balling, Powell, and Saito (2004); (2) urban
planning and decision making (Michael 2004; Ferdinando
2006); and (3) urban transportation infrastructure planning and
urban spatial optimization (Xu, Zhang, and Zhou 2006; He, Li,
and Feng 2007; X. Zhang and Armstrong 2008).
GA was generally implemented as an optimization approach
in three areas for urban and land dynamic models: (1) global
optimization: finding the maximal/minimal value of any func-
tion (Balling, Powell, and Saito 2004; Theodor, Janssen, and
van Herwijnen 2004; Ferdinando 2006); (2) auto-calibration:
parameter estimation of complicated urban dynamic models
(Wong, Wong, and Tong 2001; Goldstein 2005; Al-Kheder,
Jun, and Jie 2007); and (3) combinatorial optimization: inte-
grating with other AI approaches as hybrid combinatorial opti-
mization. Usually, GA was embedded into other AI models to
solve initialization and parameter estimation problems, such as
initiating and estimation of fuzzy logic parameters (Mota, et al.
2007; Dimitriou et al. 2008), the transition rules optimization
of CA (Hua and Yohei 2001; Li et al. 2007; Jenerette and
Wu 2001; Xu, Zhang, and Zhou 2006), agent-based modeling
(Manson 2005), and selection of input variables in Artificial
Neural Networks (ANN) (Zhou and Civco 1996; C. Wang,
Luo, and Liu 2005).
Recently, a promising solution of GA on explaining
decision-making processes and behavior of agents has been
noticed. Silva (2008a) presented that GA is important for its
behavioral roles that are very apt to model individual
agents and their behavior. In this way, GA works as a high-
level pattern of ‘‘human behavior,’’ which produces solutions
for the behavior choices of ‘‘humans’’ (agents) under a
social-economic environment. This could be introduced into
the original concept of the GA model to make it a more
inclusive structure, including agents that represent entities
(households, vehicles, and pedestrians) in land system and the
behavior regulations (e.g., optimization on transport cost func-
tion of agents) that GA exerts over them. The integration of this
kind of GA model with a CA model could be potential solution
for the problem of the lack of aspatial dynamics in today’s land
change modeling.
2.2.2. Simulated Annealing. Simulated Annealing (SA) was first
introduced by Metropolis et al. (1953). It is an algorithm devel-
oped analogously with the physical process of controlled
annealing of solid material to arrive at an arrangement of atoms
with low energy (Venkataraman 2001; Ilsoo 2006).
The performances of SA, GA, and the Hill Climbing Algo-
rithm in finding a set of households that matches certain con-
straints were compared by Williamson, Birkin, and Rees
(1998), the result of which shows that SA performed best
250
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
among them. A similar application of SA was made by
Michaela et al. (2005), where household data has been synthe-
sized by SA, proving that it is a reasonable approach for accom-
plishing the household generation problem. However, some
researchers asserted that SA’s performances are not as good
as GA in solving some urban research problems, for example,
the urban road network design (Cantarella, Pavone, and Vitetta
2006) and optimizing traffic signals (Al-Hassan, Fayek, and
Shaheen 2006). Recently, SA has been implemented in location
and allocation problems of land use. Steven et al. (2002) pro-
posed an SA algorithm to search for a ‘‘good’’ partitioning of
police jurisdiction. Aerts and Heuvelink (2002) used an SA-
based optimization procedure for equivalence between the
energy function and the development costs of a land use plan.
Inés et al. (2008) described the use of SA for allocation of land
units. Duh and Brown (2007) developed a knowledge-informed
SA to tackle specifically multiobjective allocation problems
that consider spatial patterns as objectives.
2.2.3. Others. There are other techniques that can be categor-
ized in the family of intelligent stochastic optimization process
but have less application in urban/land dynamics. They tend to
be used predominantly in transportation studies, so the authors
list them separately in this part. They are still an important part
of urban studies and therefore should be included in this
review, even if the approach is focusing on a specific sector/
application and tends to be used less broadly in other fields.
The Hill Climbing Algorithm (Millan, Clark, and Dawson
1997), for example, can be used to solve problems that have many
solutions. It starts with a random (potentially poor) solution and
iteratively makes small changes to the solution, each time improv-
ing it a little more. When the algorithm cannot see any improve-
ment anymore, it terminates. Ducca and Wilson (1976) used it as
one of the calibration procedures for a model to solve shopping
center locations problems. Marc and Sang (1981) presented a Hill
Climbing Algorithm to solve the resulting optimization problem
in land use design. Williamson, Birkin, and Rees (1998) used a
Hill Climbing Algorithm to find a set of households that matches
constraints with URBANSIM model.
In an attempt to integrate Tabu search, scatter search, inte-
ger programming, and neural networks into a single search
algorithm for deterministic or stochastic optimization prob-
lems, OptQuest Engine was developed (OptTek Systems, Inc.
2004). Ilsoo (2006) applied the OptQuest Engine as an optimi-
zation method for an urban corridor and traffic signal optimiza-
tion, and the results indicated that the GA-based optimization
method outperforms SA and OptQuest. A similar comparison
was made by Cantarella, Pavone, and Vitetta (2006), which
showed that Tabu Search and GA have higher speed of conver-
gence than SA and Hill Climbing in their modeling of a lane
layout.
2.3. Evolution Computing and Spatial DNA
Evolution computing processes are often inspired by biological
mechanisms of evolution. Candidate solutions are the best
Wu and Silva
choices in the evolutionary process because they are similar to
the processes of biological mechanism such as the neural
network and the immune system.
2.3.1. Artificial Neural Network. Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN) is a computational mechanism that is able to acquire,
represent, and compute a mapping from one multivariate space
of information to another, given a set of data representing that
mapping (Garret 1994). The capability of an ANN to cope with
uncertainty in complex situations makes it successfully
employed to the analysis and modeling of problems in land-
related disciplines. The major drawbacks of ANN include its
black-box and static nature (Cheng 2003).
Generally, the application of ANN to urban land dynamics
mainly includes two approaches. First, the capability of ANN
as a classifier makes it good for land cover classification/clus-
ter and land pattern learning. Pijanowski et al. (2002), for
example, used ANN to learn the patterns of development in a
region and test the predictive capacity of land transform
model. X. H. Liu, Skidmore, and Oosten (2002) presented an
integrated approach for land-cover classification using a
rule-based expert system classifier and an ANN classifier.
Pijanowski et al. (2005) parameterized an ANN model for two
cities in the United States and attempted to test whether they
were transferable across both metropolitan areas. L. Zhang and
Yu (2006) integrated a GIS-based analysis on landscape pat-
terns with an ANN to quantitatively characterize the urbaniza-
tion patterns. Second, ANN was used to seek suitable
parameters for models. X. Li and Yeh (2001, 2002), for exam-
ple, conducted a model of land use change for a cluster of cities
in southern China; the parameter values from the training of
ANN were then imported into the CA model. Later, they fur-
ther refined this model dealing with multiple regional land uses
and simulations for alternative development scenarios (Yeh
and Li 2003), but their investigations did not ever scale down
at the intraurban level.
2.3.2. Spatial DNA. Strictly speaking, spatial DNA is not the
same kind of AI technique as the others in this article. How-
ever, it is a new view and methodology to use to analyze the
process of urban dynamics.
Technically, it supplies a special approach to urban studies
from the view of evolutionary life. That is why this article cate-
gorizes it in this section. It marks the change from pure deter-
ministic models to new, ‘‘adaptive’’ models that adjust
themselves to reality, making them unique in their representa-
tions, but universally comparable by the universal rules they
include. While few authors explored this research strand or
other fields of data-led theory, the fact is that the majority of
today’s AI models, by their calibration specifications, tend to
contain variables and overall indicators that can be reported
as unique DNAs.
Linking CA and DNA can be tracked to decades ago.
Langton (1986) pointed out that CA provides us with the logi-
cal universes within which we can embed artificial molecules
in the form of propagating, virtual automata. The linking of
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
251
CA and DNA (Openshaw and Openshaw 1997) offers research-
ers the opportunity to explore urban process in a different view.
Following research in fractal city (Batty and Longley 1994;
Batty and Xie 1996) and urban morphological fingerprints
(Webster 1996), all hold a promising prospect for the further
emergence of the spatial DNA concept.
Recently, Silva (2001) gave a more systematic view of spa-
tial DNA in urban science, which gave birth to a new offshoot
of AI’s application in regional planning. It allows for the under-
standing of how the different elements progress and constrain
different regions and what role they should have in shaping
future scenarios (Silva and Clarke 2002; Silva 2004). In Silva’s
research, ‘‘DNA’’ was described as the character of a place,
which reflects the natural and human constraints and identifies
the uniqueness of a region without compromising its universal-
ity. The possibility of a DNA for a region was proved with CA
models (SLEUTH and CVCA), and several variables/metrics/
indicators were seen as the DNA of regions (in Sleuth: diffu-
sion, breed, spread, slope, and road gravity; in CVCA: Edges,
Area, Num Clusters, MCS—Mean Cluster Size, MPS—Mean
Patch Size, LSI—Landscape Shape Index, MNND—Mean
Near Neighbor Distance). We can use SLEUTH or CVCA
models to learn the DNA of regions; it mirrors the region’s own
individuality and reveals new emergent characteristic (Silva
and Clarke 2005). A spatial DNA supplies us with a good
insight into how different elements progress and constrain dif-
ferent regions and what function they should have in shaping
future scenarios. It helps us to understand the implications of
transposing certain policies and actions from one region to
another as ‘‘cloning a DNA to another region.’’ Furthermore,
it helps to understand the complexity of urban dynamics from
a different view. A good example is the explanation of bifurca-
tion and phase transition in the trajectory of urban systems
given by Silva (2006) using a region’s DNA.
Nicholas and Clarke (2006) further detailed the DNA of our
region with comparison of output data in twenty SLEUTH
applications. Their work created a digital ‘‘petri dish’’ for the
further spatial DNA analysis. Another similar analysis under
the concept of ‘‘DNA of world and cities’’ was conducted by
Caglioni, Pelizzoni, and Rabino (2006) with the SLEUTH
model. Wilson (2008) focused on the structural variables that
determine future dynamics and seek to identify the ‘‘DNA’’ and
the ‘‘genes’’ of the urban system.
2.3.3. Others. As reported previously, other approaches to evo-
lutionary computing tend to be less represented in the literature
but are still worth mentioning. The Shuffled Complex Evolu-
tion (SCE) algorithm is a general-purpose global optimization
algorithm that provides an efficient estimate of the most likely
parameter set (mode) and its underlying posterior probability
distribution within a single optimization run. Madsen (2000)
applied SCE for solving the multiobjective calibration problem
in rainfall-runoff model. Shie-Yui and Atiquzzaman (2004)
applied SCE for the design of a cost-effective water distribu-
tion network, and their findings showed that SCE is
251
252
computationally much faster compared to other widely used
algorithms such as GA or SA.
Artificial immune system (AIS) is based on the guided
stochastic search inspired by biological immune systems
(DeCastro and Timmis 2002). Mahesh (2008) explored the
potential of an artificial immune-based supervised classifica-
tion algorithm for land-cover classification. The applications
of AIS in urban traffic control can be found in Pallav (2006)
and L. Jia et al. (2006), which proved the usefulness of AIS for
urban traffic control.
2.4. Knowledge-Based Intelligent Systems
Knowledge-based intelligent systems (KBIS) are interactive
computer programs that mimic and automate the decision-
making and reasoning processes of human experts. Generally,
fuzzy logic, and expert system, and heuristics are the three most
important KBIS.
2.4.1. Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy logic theory was first introduced by
Zadeh (1965); it provides a way to express the degree of mem-
bership to a particular class or set (Dragicevic 2004). The
excellent performance of fuzzy logic has been tested by many
researchers in their models. Oh and Jeong (2002), for example,
showed that the fuzzy set approach performed better than a
Boolean approach in evaluating the urban residential environ-
ment. Fuzzy logic supplies us with a suitable tool to analyze
some problems related to land classification. Arijit, Pal, and
Das (2006), for example, proposed a multistage classifier for
land cover classification that involves fuzzy rule extraction
from the training data. Similar application of ANN can be
found in Aiazzi, Alparone, and Baronti (2003); Owen et al.
(2006); and Tang, Wang, and Myint (2007). Fuzzy logic has
also been applied in urban studies, such as traffic flow
(Dimitriou et al. 2008) and urban growth model (Eleftherios,
Hatzichristos, and Prastacos 2007).
Fuzzy logic is an extension of conventional logic. It over-
comes the limitation of information loss in the land classifica-
tion process by providing results in a continuous scale. Also,
fuzzy logic is more readily customizable in natural language
terms (Abdullah and Al-Lawama 2008). Nevertheless, this
approach has some limitations. The main difficulties associated
with applying the fuzzy logic approach to land use suitability
modeling is the lack of a definite method for determining the
membership function (Malczewski 2004). This is in line with
the problems of defining land use classes that need to vary
accordingly to scale variations, geographical location, and
goals of the classification. The applications of fuzzy logic
incorporating other AI approaches have been used in many
areas, for example, the hybrid of fuzzy logic–GA for traffic
incidents detection (Srinivasan, Cheu, and Poh et al. 2001) and
site selection (Ebadi et al. 2004). These kinds of integration
provide indeterminate and stochastic components for determi-
nistic modeling as complements.
252
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
2.4.2. Expert Systems. Expert system (ES) was defined as
knowledge-based system that emulates expert decision
thought to solve significant problems in a particular domain
of expertise (Sell 1985). One of the key features of ES is
they address problems normally through the requirement
of decision mechanisms alike human specialist decision
making strategies for their solution. Growing application
of ES in urban land dynamics can be briefly classified into
four areas.
(a) Urban planning in general and site selection. Liang and Gao
(1999) proposed a managerial expert system that helps develop
optimal managerial strategies for land use and plant selection.
Witlox (2003, 2005) detailed ES in land use subjects, particu-
larly in site selection problems. Tzai-Zang, Wu, and Wei
(2008) presented a knowledge-based system (KBSLUA) that
is used to help the assessment of development plans for
watershed land use. B. Matthews et al. (2007) compared the
land use plans proposed by planners with those derived from
DSS and ES.
(b) Land evaluation. Rossiter (1990) and Yizengaw and Ver-
heye (1995) have proved the potential of ES on land evaluation
by combining knowledge-based systems, decision support sys-
tem, and neural network. Feng and Xu (1999) introduced an
integrated system to help the evaluation of urban development.
Kalogirou (2002) presented a tool (LEIGIS) that combined
expert systems and GIS technologies to help with an implemen-
tation of a land suitability evaluation model.
(c) Land use allocation and classification. The classifications of
urban land cover based on ES are discussed by Luckman,
Jessen, and Gibb (1990) and Moller-Jensen (1997). Expert sys-
tems allow for the integration of remotely sensed data with
other sources such as land use data and spatial texture and digi-
tal elevation models to obtain greater classification accuracy
(Stefanov, Ramsey, and Christensen 2001; Stuckens, Coppin,
and Bauer 2000).
(d) Integration with GIS technologies for general application.
Expert systems have been integrated with intelligent tech-
niques such as GIS in urban and land use studies. Zhu,
Aspinall, and Healey (1996), for example, presented a strategic
land use decision support planning system (ILUDSS) that
adopts knowledge-based techniques and a GIS to strengthen
analysis capabilities. Similar examples can be found in Jun
(2000), Plant and Vayssieres (2000), and Filis et al. (2003).
Malczewski (2004) presented an overview of GIS-based ES
and DSS for land use suitability analysis.
Expert systems incorporated with other relevant technolo-
gies (e.g., GA in Rogers et al. [1996] and Anna [2007]; ANN
in Mohamad et al. [1996]) allows for handling both quantitative
and qualitative data and facilitating the process of decision
making (Kalogirou 2002; Moller-Junsen 1990). Another major
strength of the ESs is their flexibility with regard to data
sources and potential for application to diverse research
Wu and Silva 253

questions (Stefanov, Ramsey, and Christensen 2001). 2.5. Underdeveloped AI Approaches

However, knowledge-base development is a difficult and
In this article we consider the term of AI as a broader definition
time-consuming task (Tzai-Zang, Wu, and Wei 2008), and
from the ‘‘weak AI’’ camp, and from the perspective of appli-
knowledge domain in spatial planning is not well defined yet
cation of AI to urban systems, we only discussed the AI
(Witlox 2005).
approaches that appear often in literature and are now becom-
ing commonly used in urban studies. Because of the broad sub-
2.4.3. Heuristics. Heuristic search is usually used in knowledge-
fields of AI, there are some techniques that are beyond our four
based systems. It includes some specific algorithms such as
main categories, and in the domain of AI applications, only a
Simulated Algorithm (SA), Hill Climbing Algorithm (HCA),
few that are used on urban studies can be traced in publications.
Best First Search (BFS), Tabu search, and the A* Algorithm.
Considering this, we give a brief explanation of these other
Because SA, HCA, and Tabu search are generally used as opti-
applications, which tend to be less representative or very spe-
mization approaches, this article addresses them in section 3.
cific to certain areas of urban planning.
Apart from these specific algorithms, a few general concepts
Reinforced learning (RL) and analytical learning (AL) are
of heuristics knowledge have also been used in urban
subareas of machine learning. As RL models are agent-based,
researches. For example, Gustav (1991) used choice heuristics
some researchers used RL to simulate behaviors of humans; for
to explore knowledge-based models for spatial behavior. M.
example, RL was used to model the behavior of fishermen
Chen and Alfa (1991) used a heuristic Branch & Bound for
together with ANN (J. Michel 1999). The most comprehensive
congested networks of urban systems. Ahmad and Simonovic
application of RL in urban land dynamics is traffic control.
(2001) integrated heuristic knowledge analytical tools to sup-
Miyagi (2004) developed an RL model for simulating route
port decision making for flood management. Arentze, Borgers,
choice behaviors in a transport network. Z.-Y. Liu and Ma
and Timmermans (2006) presented a new method that inte-
(2007) proposed an online control algorithm based on RL to
grates the interchange and swapping heuristic for the genera-
control and optimize traffic signals. T. Jia et al. (2007) pre-
tion of land use plans. In this way, macrostrategy and
sented a model to simulate the dynamic change of multiple land
suitability of land uses are evaluated.
uses based on the integration of AL approach, cellular auto-
mata, and GIS.
2.4.4. Reasoning Systems. Rule-based system (RBS) and
One point we should emphasize is that we demonstrated the
case-based reasoning (CBR) are knowledge-based systems.
AI approaches that could be embedded into systems or models
Generally, they are used separately or partly (only a part of
for urban studies instead of specifically discussing AI models.
their mechanism was integrated into other systems), so we
The goal of this article is to explore the different AI approaches
describe them as a separate part in KBIS.
and their use in urban studies without discriminating, as we
RBSs are well suited to problems where experts can articu-
would if we were exploring a single algorithm or multiple algo-
late decisions confidently and where variables interact rarely
rithms and computer applications. As mentioned, the idea was
with each other. However, the solutions are generated from
to classify these applications according to the scale of the
established rules, and RBSs involve no learning. They cannot
dynamics (micro- or macro-simulation; spatial and/or aspatial)
automatically add or modify rules.
and the solutions used in the interplay of AI approaches and
So an RBS can only be implemented if comprehensive
urban planning.
knowledge is available (Dhar and Stein 1997), and its applica-
AI approaches construct the main framework of integrated
tion is quite limited. MEXSES (Fedra, Winkelbauer, and Pan-
solutions for urban land dynamics simulation, comprising com-
tulu 1991) is a rule-based expert system for environmental
ponents (spatial and aspatial dynamics entities), architecture
impact assessment at a screening level. Rajkishore and Sinha
(high level of integration), performance improvement (optimiza-
(2002) described an RBS for land use mapping. Other applica-
tion solutions, interoperability, and spatial-temporal synchroni-
tions of RBS in urban land planning include the landscape-
zation), and evolutionary view (spatial DNA). Integrated AI
change modeling-based scenarios (I. Brown 2006), integration
models have now taken a big step toward yielding sophisticated
of RBS and GIS for spatial data mapping (Choi and Usery
solutions to meet the multidisciplinary nature of urban land
2004), and regional environment evaluation (Kawano et al.
dynamics simulations.
2005).
CBR has been utilized in some environmental problems:
managing wastewater treatment plants (Roda et al. 2001), 3. The Main Ideas Resulting from the Review:
monitoring air quality (Kalapanidas and Avouris 2001; Lekkas,
The Need for Hybrid Systems That
Avouris, and Viras 1994), modeling estuarine behavior
(Passone, Chung, and Nassehi 2002), land use classification Incorporate Holistic Approaches
(X. Li, Ye, and Liao 2004), and soil mapping (Shi et al. From the previous exploration of the literature, it is possible to
2004). Although the application of CBR in urban land conclude that many AI approaches have been used in urban
dynamics is reduced, CBR and its associated case-based system studies. Table 1 presents some of the authors and modeling
have the potential to be an important component of urban in the previous subject areas. With the table we can see clearly
planning. that these AI techniques supply different solutions for urban

253

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

254 Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)

Table 1. AI Approaches and the References of Their Application on Urban Studies

AI approaches Solutions References

Artificial life
Cellular automata
Agent-based modeling
Ant colony optimization
Particle swarm optimization
Bee colony optimization
Intelligent stochastic optimization
processes
Genetic algorithm
Simulated annealing
Hill Climbing Algorithm
Tabu search and path reliking
OptQuest engine
Stochastic diffusion Search
Evolution computing and spatial DNA
Artificial Neural Network
Spatial DNA
Shuffled complex evolution
Artificial immune system
Knowledge-based intelligent systems
Fuzzy logic
Expert systems
Heuristics
Rule-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning
Others
Reinforcement learning
Analytical learning
Spatial dynamics Batty (2005); Silva and Clarke (2005); Yasser, Moorea, and Whighama
representation (2007); Dragicevic (2007)
Aspatial dynamics Brown and Robinson (2006); Berger (2001); Ettema et al. (2007)
representation
Optimization Matteo and Mussone (2006); X. Liu et al. (2007)
Optimization Hu et al. (2008); Pinto (2006); Chau (2006a)
Optimization Lucic and Teodorovic (2001); Teodorovic and Lucic (2005);
Optimization, cost of Candau et al. (2000); Al-Kheder, Jun, and Jie (2007), Michael (2004);
function control, behavior Balling, Powell, and Saito (2004)
control
Optimization Michaela et al. (2005); Cantarella, Pavone, and Vitetta (2006);
Al-Hassan, Fayek, and Shaheen (2006); Duh and Brown (2007);
Optimization Marc and Sang (1981); Williamson, Birkin, and Rees (1998)
Optimization Cantarella, Pavone, and Vitetta (2006)
Optimization Ilsoo (2006)
Optimization Hurley and Whitaker (2002)
Optimization Pijanowski et al. (2002, 2005); Zhang and Yu (2006); Yeh and Li (2003)
Evolutionary view to urban Silva (2001, 2004); Silva and Clarke (2002, (2005); Nicholas and Clarke
systems (2006); Caglioni, Pelizzoni, and Rabino (2006); Wilson (2008)
Optimization Madsen (2000); Shie-Yui and Atiquzzaman (2004)
Optimization Mahesh (2008); Pallav (2006); Jia et al. (2006)
Knowledge engine Aiazzi, Alparone, and Baronti (2003); Owen et al. (2006); Tang, Wang,
and Myint (2007); Dimitriou et al. (2008)
Knowledge engine Stefanov, Ramsey, and Christensen (2001); Witlox (2003); Tzai-Zang,
Wu, and Wei (2008)
Knowledge engine Chen and Alfa (1991); Ahmad and Simonovic (2001); Arentze,
Borgers, and Timmermans (2006)
Knowledge engine Rajkishore and Sinha (2002); Kawano et al. (2005); Brown (2006)
Knowledge engine X. Li, Ye, and Liao (2004); Roda et al.(2001)
Knowledge engine Miyagi (2004); Z.-Y. Liu and Ma (2007)
Knowledge engine Jia et al. (2007)

studies (some are more concerned with spatial/aspatial
solutions, while other applications are more concerned with
optimization or knowledge engine solutions).
Most AI approaches supply optimization for modeling pro-
cesses such as GA, SA, SDS, ANN, and so on. Spatial DNA
provides us with a new insight and view into the dynamics of
urban land change. Knowledge-based intelligent systems work
as a knowledge engine for the data analysis in urban studies.
CA and ABS are often used separately in models of urban sys-
tems. CA can represent the spatial dynamics as opposed to the
aspatial dynamics representation of agent-based modeling,
which is demonstrated in Table 2. From it, we can see that
CA and agent-based methodologies each has its strong points.
However, nowadays separation of applications of CA and
multiagents (MAS) make it insufficient to depict real urban
systems since real cities consist of both immobile entities such
as urban infrastructures and mobile entities such as human
beings. Therefore, the hybrid model, which is composed of
CA and MAS, is a more appropriate method for urban
modeling since it possesses the advantages of both CA and
MAS (Nara and Torrens 2005). Also, by accepting the need
of hybrid models, the AI approaches cannot rely solely on a sin-
gle algorithm to simulate reality and tend to include sets of
algorithms and other formulations in more advanced models
and modeling approaches.
3.1. Hybrid AI Systems
Recently, integrated AI approaches as hybrid system are pro-
viding promising solutions for urban land studies.
Agent-based cellular automata (AB-CA) is a kind of hybrid
system that integrates agent-based modeling and cellular auto-
mata. As mentioned, this is particularly important when one
needs to include spatial and aspatial approaches in the same
model, but they can be used as helpful tools to calibrate models.
For example, Sudhira (2005) proposed an AB-CA framework

254

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

Wu and Silva 255

Table 2. Comparison of CA and Multi-Agents

CA Agent

Focus City level and regional level Household and family; vehicles
Landscape and transition Human actions
Urban simulations Population dynamics
Status change Exchange data with neighborhoods navigation Alter attributes and behaviors by themselves
Mobility Immobile entities Mobile entities
Representing Spatial dynamics Aspatial dynamics
Geographic factors Social-economic factors
Character Affinity with raster data and GIS Freedom for true spatial mobility
Evolution Systems Complex Systems

Table 3. Characteristics of Recent Urban/Land Studies with AB-CA

Tight/
Geographic loose
Publication Application Issues Type of agent Tool/project location coupling

Dijkstra, Jessurun, and Traffic and Pedestrian dynamics in Pedestrians N/A No specific Yes
Timmermans (2002) pedestrian shopping mall location
dynamics
Sudhira et al. (2005) Urban systems Urban sprawl Population NETLOGO / Mangalore, Yes
simulation MapObjects2 / India
IDRISI 32
Benenson and Torrens Urban systems Geographic Automata Householders OBEUS No specific Yes
(2005) Systems location
X. Li and Liu (2008) Sustainable Residential Householders N/A Pearl River Yes
development development Delta, China
Wahle and Urban traffic Traffic flow simulation Tasks of drivers SURVIVE Duisburg, Yes
Schreckenberg (2001) systems Germany
Chaker, Moulin, and Transport Multiscale modeling of Vehicles TransCad / Vissim Quebec, Yes
Thriault (2007) networks transport networks traffic simulator Canada
Ligtenberg et al. (2001) Urban dynamics Modeling spatial Stakeholders SWARM Nijmegen, the No
planning Netherlands
Niandry et al. (2007) Forest Caparo tropical forest Settler Galatea / SpaSim / Caparo, Yes
reserve Actilog Venezuela
W. Wang, Feng, and Urban traffic Passengers organiza- Passengers N/A Guangzhou, No
Wang (2007) tion optimization China
Loibl and Toetzer Suburban Landscape transition Households and STAU-Wien Vienna, No
(2003) regions simulation commercial Austria
enterprises
Nara and Torrens Urban systems Inner-City Gentrifica- Residents Netlogo Salt Lake City, Yes
(2005) tion Simulation America

for urban sprawl simulation, where the agent-based model is
used to define the transitional rules of CA. In Table 3, we com-
pare eleven recent AB-CA hybrid systems in urban studies.
From this table, it is possible to infer that agents usually repre-
sent the behaviors of pedestrians, vehicles, drivers, and passen-
gers in urban traffic systems or householders, stakeholders, and
residents in urban systems. And geographical changes are rep-
resented by CA. Take the model in Nara and Torrens (2005),
for example: it includes fixed agents who act as CA represent-
ing individual properties as well as mobile agents that act as
MAS representing residents in the space.
Besides, most AB-CA models are tight-coupling, which
means agents and CA in these models interact with each other
tightly. Interoperability of the processes is a big challenge for
this kind of model. Although most models are only verified
on a theoretical level, they can be a springboard to explore
more sophisticated hybrid models.
GA as a calibration or an optimization approach for CA
models (CA-GA) can be tracked from publications, as shown
in Table 4. Atkinson et al. (2005) and Goldstein (2005) demon-
strated GA as calibration for CA model (SLEUTH). Lu and Liu
(2007) used hybrid GA to optimize signal setting of CA mod-
els. GA mainly concerns the optimization or calibration of tran-
sition rules or parameter sets of CA models. The potential of
GA to explain behavior regulations is not presented, and this
is a research topic for further studies.
Traditionally, the transition rules are deterministic. The
combination of fuzzy logic and CA systems can incorporate

255

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

256
Table 4. Characteristics of Recent Urban/Land Studies with CA-GA
Publication Application Objectives of GA
Al-Kheder, Jun, and Urban growth Identify transition rule values Calibration
Jie (2007)
Goldstein, (2005) Urban growth Coefficients optimization
Xu, Zhang, and Urban spatial Optimize urban spatial
Zhou (2006) optimization structure
Jenerette and Land use change Optimize the parameter set
Wu (2001)
Hua and Yohei Land transformation Cell’s conversion control
(2001)
X. Li, Yang, et al. Urban evolution Optimize the model
(2007) parameters
nondeterministic or fuzzy factors to make the simulation more
appropriate. Y. Liu and Stuart (2003) concluded that with the
application of fuzzy-set theory, the state of a cell is associated
with continuous processes in space and over time, rather than as
a binary nonurban to urban conversion process.
The ANN-based CA models (ANN-CA) recently were used
in urban land research areas. X. Li and Yeh (2001, 2002) demon-
strated a framework of ANN-CA, using ANN to obtain the para-
meter values automatically based on training data and to carry
out CA simulation based on these parameter values. Claudia and
Gleriani (2005) used ANN to train transition probabilities maps
that used input of CA models for land use change. Guan, Wang,
and Clarke (2005) described a framework of ANN-Urban-CA.
More recently, Rocha et al. (2007) introduced a hybrid system
of fuzzy logic, ANN, and CA for land use evolution. As pre-
sented in Table 5, ANN-CA mainly concerns transition probabil-
ities and parameter seeking. Fuzzy logic–cellular automata
(Fuzzy-CA) mainly focuses on controlling transition rules with
indeterminate scale and initials of CA model.
There are some other kinds of hybrid models, such as the sys-
tem proposed by Matsuba and Namatame (2003) using CA and
SA, which succeeded in reproducing the qualitative similar
structural complexity of an actual city by taking into account the
transportation system, especially the railroad network. C. Wang,
Luo, and Liu (2005) developed a loose-coupling GA and ANN
for land use classification. X. Liu et al. (2007) applied an
ACO-based CA model (ACO-CA) to simulate rural-urban land
conversions. Manson (2005) illustrated how genetic program-
ming can be used to model decision making in the context of
human–environment relationships. Table 5 shows several appli-
cations of these hybrid models.
3.2. Future Modeling Developments
AI models obviously have the limitations inherited from AI
techniques, and these are still an obstacle to the full develop-
ment of integrated AI approaches that could optimize urban
planning models to its full potentialities. Taking CA-based
models, for example, the transition rule of CA is difficult to
256
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
Tool/ Time
Type of GA project period Geographic location
N/A 1982-2003 Indianapolis, USA
Calibration SLEUTH 1992-2015 Sioux Falls, USA
Optimization NSFC 1949-2005 Lanzhou, China
Optimization CAP– 1912–2038 Phoenix, USA
LTER
Optimization N/A 1990-2095 Jiangsu Province,
China
Optimization N/A 1988-2004 Pearl River Delta,
China
control, so researchers have to use other AI approaches such
as GA and ANN to determine the transition rule’s change prob-
ability. But the black-box construction of ANN makes it impos-
sible for users to investigate the physical meanings of spatial
factors. The design of adaptive function of GA and the exces-
sive computation time in the encoding and decoding processes
make the efficiency of GA-based models a real challenge.
Other technical challenges in urban planning, such as how to
find efficient and effective methods to incorporate AI
approaches into urban models to synchronize the spatial and
temporal dynamics in urban systems, all leave researchers vast
space to develop a new generation of models.
From the literature above, it is not difficult to detect that an
increasing number of integrated AI approaches have been used
in urban and land dynamics. From a system-level perspective,
this acknowledges the trend of using integrated AI techniques
for modeling, which has been proposed in the notion of a fifth
generation of modeling systems (Chau 2006b, Chau and Chen
2001, Abbott 1989). The demands of more sophisticated mod-
els, coupled with the increasing need to incorporate urban
dynamics, is triggering the improvement of modeling. And at
the same time, the limitations of different AI techniques and
their complementarities make integration among different AI
approaches a natural step forward. The increasing computa-
tional ability of computer technique further supports the inte-
gration progress. AI approaches could be loosely coupled
with fine flexibility and low inner-operation cost or, alterna-
tively, be tightly coupled with good integrity and coherence.
Balancing the different level of coupling is also one of the key
concerns of further modeling developments.
The increasing development of AI approaches has led to a
new generation of urban growth models, in which the dynamic
models based on fine-scale cells and individual behaviors
involving agents (Batty 2005) have begun to favor enhancing
the existing interaction and synchronization between different
levels over the model and capturing the emergent phenomena
resulting from the interactions of individual entities.
The objective of integrating AI approaches is to achieve the
most combination forces of AI techniques, in this way, to build
 Table 5. Characteristics of Recent Urban/Land Studies with Some Integrated AI Approaches

Time Geographic
Publication Application Implementations of AI Hybrid AI Tools/projects period location

Eleftherios, Hatzichristos, Urban growth Cells’ states and transition rules controlled by fuzzy systems Fuzzy-CA ArcToolbox 1994-2004 Mesogia Area,
and Prastacos (2007) Greece
Liu and Stuart (2003) Urban Fuzzy-logic-controlled transition rules of CA Fuzzy-CA AML, ARC/ 1971-1996 Sydney,
development INFO Australia
Bolliger (2005) Simulating com- Fuzzy was used for landscape classification; CA was used for spatial simulation Fuzzy logic, CA FuzMe, 1832-1866 Southern
plex landscapes MWINDOWS Wisconsin,
USA
Al-Kheder et al. (2008) Urban growth The use of fuzzy logic provides good initials for the cellular automata model and Fuzzy-CA, GA N/A 1982-2003 Indianapolis,
allows for including semantic knowledge into urban growth modeling USA
F. Wu (1998) Urban Fuzzy-logic-controlled transition rules of CA Fuzzy-CA ARC/INFO N/A Guangzhou,
encroachment China
Claudia and Gleriani Urban land use ANN trained transition probabilities maps served as inputs to the CA CA-ANN DINAMICA, 1985-1999 Piracicaba,
(2005) change SNNS Brazil
Yeh and Li (2003) Land use planning Transition rules of CA are represented by the ANN calibrated by empirical data CA-ANN ARC/INFO, 1988-1993 Dongguan,
AML China
X. Li and Yeh (2001) Complex urban Calculate conversion probabilities for competing multiple CA-ANN ARC/INFO, 1988-1993 Dongguan,
system AML China
Guan, Wang, and Clarke Urban growth ANN was used to seek suitable parameters for CA model CA-ANN ArcGIS, AML 1980-2015 Beijing, China
(2005)
Rocha et al. (2007) Land use ANN was used to calibrate the degree of importance that each prediction variable CA-ANN, fuzzy N/A 1940-2013 Almada,
evolution has on the geographic Constraints; Euclidean distance to road network (left) and logic Portugal
distance normalized by fuzzy logic

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

C. Wang, Luo, and Liu Land use GA for feature extraction, ANN for land use classification GA, ANN CMODIS N/A Beijing-Tianjin,
(2005) classification China
Manson (2005) Land use change Agents represents actors in the actor–institution–environment; GA represented ABS and genetic SYPRIA 1987-1995 Yucatán
actor strategies optimization programming Peninsula,
Mexico
Matsuba and Namatame Urban SA was used to reproduce the qualitative similar structural complexity of the CA, SA N/A 1960-1995 Tokyo, Japan
(2003) development actual city with CA modeling
X. Liu et al. (2007) Rural-urban land ACO was applied to CA to automatically and intelligently obtain transition rules ACO-CA N/A N/A Guangzhou,
conversions China

257
258 Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)

sophisticated models with robust and coherent system behavior References

supplying effective solutions for urban and land dynamics. Abbaspour, K. C., R. Schulin, and M. T. van Genuchten. 2001. Esti-
Admittedly, for further modeling developments, an effective mating unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters using ant colony
and robust framework is needed to integrate AI approaches and optimization. Advance in Water Resources 24:827-41.
synchronize all components embedded in it. Abbott, M.B. 1989. M.B. Abbott, Review of recent developments in
coastal modelling. In: R.A. Falconer.
Abdullah, I. Al-Odienat, and Ayman A. Al-Lawama. 2008. The
4. Conclusions advantages of PID fuzzy controllers over the conventional types.
American Journal of Applied Sciences 5 (6): 653-58.
This article synthesizes AI solutions to urban land dynamics by
Aerts, J. C. J. H, and G. B. M. Heuvelink. 2002. Using simulated
reviewing the applications of various AI approaches in urban
annealing for resource allocation. International Journal of Geogra-
studies from the literature. The advantages and limitations of
phical information Science 16:571-87.
different intelligent techniques are discussed in detail. Further-
Ahmad, S., and S. P. Simonovic. 2001. Integration of heuristic knowl-
more, the hybrid AI systems that comprise two or more AI
edge with analytical tools for the selection of flood damage reduction
approaches in modeling and the applications of them in
measures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 28 (2): 208-21.
urban/land dynamics are also analyzed.
Aiazzi, B., L. Alparone, and S. Baronti. 2003. Land cover classifica-
Despite the large number of AI applications in urban plan-
tion of urban and sub-urban areas via fuzzy nearest-mean recluster-
ning, approaches for integrating AI techniques into a frame-
ing of SAR features. 2nd GRSS/ISPRS Joint Workshop on Remote
work that includes spatial and aspatial dynamics are scarce in
Sensing and Data Fusion over Urban Areas, 62-66.
the literature. One reason is the lack of an integrated framework
Al-Hassan, W., M. B. Fayek, and S. I. Shaheen. 2006. PSOSA: An
for researchers to embed AI approaches (i.e., the lack of a high-
optimized particle swarm technique for solving the urban planning
level architecture that integrates all/some AI approaches).
problem. 2006 International Conference on Computer Engineeing
Furthermore, AI-based urban modeling is interdisciplinary,
& Systems, 401-5.
relating to many subjects such as computer science, urban stud-
Al-Kheder, S., Jun Wang, and Jie Shan. 2007. Cellular automata urban
ies, system theory, architecture, engineering, geography, and
growth model calibration with genetic algorithms. Urban Remote
economics; any limitations imposed by the subjects will restrict
Sensing Joint Event 11-13:1-5.
the development of modeling. However, the trend of integrated
Al-kheder, S., Wang, J. and Shan, J. 2008. Fuzzy inference guided cel-
AI approaches as a solution for urban and land dynamics is
lular automata urban-growth modelling using multi-temporal satel-
obvious in the reviewed publications.
lite images. International Journal of Geographical Information
Admittedly, the number of applications presented in this
Science, 22, 1271-1293.
review is certainly not complete, but we have tried to be as
Álvaro, Castro Castilla, and Nuria Gómez Blas. 2008. Self-organizing
comprehensive as possible and to give a good sample of appli-
map and cellular automata combined technique for advanced mesh
cations that demonstrate the usefulness and possible applica-
generation in urban and architectural design. International Journal
tions of AI techniques as solutions to urban land dynamics.
of Information Technologies and Knowledge 2:354-60.
The models reviewed all have their individual strengths, but
Anna, Awrynowicz. 2007. Hybrid approach with an expert system and
they are still limited in their ability to simulate all the complex-
a genetic algorithm to production management in the supply net.
ities involved in the functioning of urban systems. A new gen-
Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management 14
eration of urban dynamic models that better address the
(1-2): 59-76.
temporal and spatial dynamics and the different requirements
Annelie, Holzkämper, and Ralf Seppelt. 2007. A generic tool for opti-
of spatial and aspatial variables is multiplying as a result of the
mising land-use patterns and landscape structures. Environmental
dynamic characteristic of urban land systems (N. Wu and Silva
Modelling & Software 22 (12): 1801-4.
n.d.-b). We believe that, based on this review and analysis, the
Arentze, T. A., A. W. J. Borgers, and H. J. P. Timmermans. 2006.
AI techniques offer promising alternative methods to urban
‘‘A heuristic method for land-use plan generation in planning sup-
planning problems, and as AI technologies grow in capability
port systems’’, in: J. P. van Leeuwen and H. J. P. Timmermans
and start to integrate multiple AI approaches, the resulting tools
(eds.) Progress in Design & Decision Support Systems in Architec-
might be more powerful in future applications.
ture and Urban Planning, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, Springer,
Dordrecht, p. 135-152.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest Arijit, Laha, Nikhil R. Pal, and Jyotirmoy Das. 2006. Land cover clas-
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the author- sification using fuzzy rules and aggregation of contextual informa-
ship and/or publication of this article. tion through evidence theory. IEEE Transactions of Geoscience
and Remote Sensing 44 (6):1633-1642.
Atkinson, Peter, Giles Foody, Steve Darby, and Fulong Wu. 2005.
Funding GeoDynamics. London: CRC Press.
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or Balling Richard, Brent Powell, and Mitsuro Saito. 2004. Generating
authorship of this article. future land-use and transportation plans for high-growth cities

258

Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012

Wu and Silva
using a genetic algorithm. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering 19 (3): 213-22.
Balling, R. J., J. T. Taber, M. R. Brown, et al. 1999. Multiobjective
urban planning using genetic algorithm. Journal of Urban Plan-
ning and Development-ASCE 125 (2): 86-99.
Balmann, A., K. Happe, K. Kellermann, and A. Kleingarn. 2002. Adjust-
ment costs of agri-environment policy switchings: An agent-based
analysis of the German region Hohenlohe. In Complexity and ecosys-
tem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent systems, ed.
M. Janssen, 127-57. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Barredo, Jose I., K. Marjo, et al. 2003. Modelling dynamic spatial pro-
cesses: Simulation of urban future scenarios through cellular auto-
mata. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:45-160.
Batty, M. 2004. Editorial. Environment and Urban Planning B
31:326-30.
Batty, M. 2005. Agents, cells, and cities: New representational models
for simulating multiscale urban dynamics. Environment and Plan-
ning A 37 (8): 1373-94.
Batty, M. 2007. Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cel-
lular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. Journal of
Regional Science 47 (3): 624-27.
Batty, M., and P. Longley. 1994. Fractal cities. A geometry of form
and function. London: Academic Press.
Batty, M., and Y. Xie. 1996. Preliminary evidence for a theory of the
fractal city. Environment and Planning A 28:1745-62.
Batty, M., Y. Xie, and Z. Sun. 1999. Modelling urban dynamics
through GIS-based CA. In Computers, environment and urban sys-
tems. New York: Elsevier.
Benenson, I., and P. M. Torrens. 2003. Geographic automata systems:
A new paradigm for integrating GIS and geographic simulations.
Presented at Geocomputation Conference, Southampton, UK.
Beni, G., and J. Wang. 1989. Swarm intelligence in cellular robotic
systems. Presented at NATO Advanced Workshop on Robots and
Biological Systems, Tuscany, Italy, June 26-30.
Berger, T. 2001. Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture:
A simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes
and policy analysis. Agriculture Economics 25:245-60.
Bethell, T. 2006. The search for artificial intelligence. American Spec-
tator 39 (6): 26-35.
Bishop, J. M. 1989. Stochastic searching networks. In Proceeding of
the 1st IEE Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, 329-31.
London.
Bolliger, Janine. 2005. Simulating complex landscapes with a generic
model: Sensitivity to qualitative and quantitative classifications.
Ecological Complexity 2 (2): 131-49.
Brown, Daniel G., and Derek T. Robinson. 2006. Effects of heteroge-
neity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban
sprawl. Ecology and Society 11.
Brown, I. 2006. Modelling future landscape change on coastal
floodplains using a rule-based GIS. Environmental Modelling &
Software 21:1479-90.
Caglioni, M., M. Pelizzoni, and G. A. Rabino. 2006. Urban sprawl:
A case study for project gigalopolis using SLEUTH model. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, 4173: 436-45.
Candau, J. Steen, Rasmussen, Keith C. Clarke. 2000. Coupled cellu-
lar automaton model for land use/land cover dynamics, 4th
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
259
International Conference on Integrating GIS and Environmental
Modeling(GIS/EM4):Problems, Prospects and Research Needs.
Banff, Alberta, Canada, September 2-8, 2000.
Cantarella, G. E., G. Pavone, and A. Vitetta. 2006. Heuristics
for urban road network design: Lane layout and signal set-
tings. European Journal of Operational Research 175 (3):
1682-95.
Chaker W., B. Moulin, and M. Thriault. 2007. Modelling transport
networks with design pattern: Application to hybrid traffic
simulations. Presented at 18th IASTED International Conference
Modelling and Simulation, Quebec, Canada.
Chau, K. W. 2006a. Particle swarm optimization training algorithm
for ANNs in stage prediction of Shing Mun River. J. Hydrol
329:363-67.
Chau, K. W. 2006b. A review on integration of artificial intelligence
into water quality modelling. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (7):
726-33.
Chau, K.W. and Chen, W. 2001. A fifth generation numerical model-
ling system in coastal zone, Applied Mathematical Modelling 25
(10): 887-900.
Chen, M., and A. S. Alfa. 1991. A network design algorithm using a
stochastic incremental traffic assignment approach. Transportation
Science 25 (3): 215-24.
Chen, Serena H., Anthony J. Jakeman, and John P. Norton. 2008. Arti-
ficial intelligence techniques: An introduction to their use for mod-
elling environmental systems. Mathematics and Computers in
Simulation 78 (2-3): 379-400.
Cheng, J. 2003. Modelling spatial & temporal urban growth. Doctoral
diss., Department of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University,
the Netherlands.
Choi, J. M., and E. L. Usery. 2004. System integration of GIS and a
rule-based expert system for urban mapping. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 70 (2): 217-24.
Claudia, Maria de Almeida, and Jose Marinaldo Gleriani. 2005. Cel-
lular automata and neural network as a modelling framework for
the simulation of urban land use change. Presented at Anais XII
Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Goiânia, Brasil,
April 16-21.
DeCastro, L. N., and J. Timmis. 2002. Artificial immune systems:
A new computational intelligence approach. London: Springer.
Dhar, V., and R. Stein. 1997. Intelligent decision support methods.
The science of knowledge work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Dietzel, C., and K. C. Clarke. 2004. Replication of spatio-temporal
land use patterns at three levels of aggregation by an urban cellular
automata. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3305:523-32.
Dijkstra, J., J. Jessurun, and H. J. P. Timmermans. 2002. A multi-agent
cellular automata model of pedestrian movement. In Pedestrian
and evacuation dynamics, ed. M. Schreckenberg and S. D. Sharma,
173-80. Berlin: Springer.
Dimitriou, Loukas, Tsekeris, Theodore, Stathopoulos, Antony. 2008.
Adaptive hybrid fuzzy rule-based system approach for modeling
and predicting urban traffic flow, Transportation Research Part
C: Emerging Technologies, 16(5): pp. 554-573.
Dorigo, M., and C. Blum. 2005. Ant colony optimization theory:
A survey. Theoretical Computer Science 344:243-78.
259
260
Dragicevic, S. 2004. Coupling fuzzy sets theory and GIS-based cellu-
lar automata for land-use change modelling. In Fuzzy Information,
IEEE Annual Meeting of the Processing NAFIPS’04, Banff,
Canada, 27-30 June 1:203-7.
Dragicevic, S. 2007. Embedding spatial agents into irregular cellular
automata models of urban land use change to improve scenario
exploration and decision making. Presented at GeoComputa-
tion’07 Conference, Maynooth, Ireland, September 3-5.
Ducca, F. W., and R. H. Wilson. 1976. A model of shopping center
location. Environment and Planning A 8 (6): 613-23.
Duh, Jiunn-Der, and Daniel G. Brown. 2007. Knowledge-informed
Pareto simulated annealing for multi-objective spatial allocation.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 31 (3): 253-81.
Ebadi, Hamid, S. Roozbeh, M. Javad Valadanzoej, and V. Alireza. 2004.
Evaluation of indexing overlay, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm
methods for industrial estates site selection In GIS environment.
International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,
Instanbul, Turkey.
Eleftherios, A. Mandelas, Thomas Hatzichristos, and Poulicos
Prastacos. 2007. Fuzzy cellular automata based shell for modelling
rrban growth—A pilot application in Mesogia area. Presented at
10th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information
Science, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Ettema, D. F., K. De Jong, H. J. P. Timmermans, and A. Bakema.
2007. PUMA: Multi-agent moddeling of urban systems. In
Moddeling land-use change, ed. H. J. Scholten, E. Kommen, and
J. Stilwell. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Fang-Chih Tien, Kuang-Han Hsieh, Chun-Yuan Cheng, and Chi-
Shuan Liu. 2007. Using hybrid genetic algorithm to solve discrete
location allocation problems with rectilinear distance. Journal of
the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 24 (1): 1-19.
Fedra, K., L. Winkelbauer, and V. R. Pantulu. 1991. Expert systems
for environmental screening: An application in the lower mekong
basin. International Institute for Applied System Analysis,
Laxenburg.
Feng, S., and L. Xu. 1999. An intelligent decision support system for
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban development. Expert
Systems with Applications 16 (1): 21-32.
Ferdinando, Semboloni. 2006. Optimization and control of the urban
spatial dynamics. Complexus 2004/2005 2:204-16.
Filis, V., M. Sabrakos, C. P. Yialouris, A. B. Sideridis, and B.
Mahaman. 2003. GEDAS: An integrated geographical expert data-
base system. Expert Systems with Applications 24 (1): 25-34.
Frans, Tillema. 2003. Calibration of a conceptual LUTI model based
on neural networks. Presented at 16th Mini-EURO Conference and
10th Meeting of EWGT.
Garret, J. H. 1994. Where and why artificial neural networks are appli-
cable in civil engineering. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineer-
ing 8 (2): 129-30.
Geertman, S., M. Hagoort, and H. Ottens. 2007. Spatial-temporal spe-
cific neighbourhood rules for cellular automata land-use model-
ling. International Journal of Geographical Information Science
21 (5): 547-68.
Gill, M. K., Y. H. Kaheil, A. Khalil, M. McKee, and L. Bastidas. 2006.
Multiobjective particle swarm optimization for parameter estima-
tion in hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 42 (2006): W07417.
260
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
Goldstein, N. C. 2005. Brains versus brawn—Comparative strategies
for the calibration of a cellular automata-based urban growth
model. In GeoDynamics, ed. P. M. Atkinson, 249-72. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Goodwins, R. 2001. The machine that wanted to be a mind. ZDNet
News Portal. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2083911,00.html
Guan, Qingfeng, Liming Wang, and Keith C. Clarke. 2005. An artifi-
cial-neural-network-based, constrained CA model for simulating
urban growth. Cartography and Geographic Information Science
32:369-80.
Gustav Lundberg, C. 1991. Knowledge-dependent models of spatial
behavior. Gepgrafiska Annaler, Series B, huaman geography
73:157-73.
Happe, K. 2004. Agricultural policies and farm structures:
Agent-based modelling and application to EU policy reform.
IAMO Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and
Eastern Europe, vol. 30. Halle, Germany: IAMO.
He, Ruichun, Li Yinzhen, and Feng Xuesong. 2007. Models and
genetic algorithms for the optimal stochastic riding routes in urban
public transportation and its applications. ICNC 2007: Third Inter-
national Conference on Natural Computation 5:431-35.
Holland, John H. 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hu, Jianming, Jingyan Song, Mingchen Zhang, and Xiaojing Kang.
2008. Topology optimization for urban traffic sensor network.
Tsinghua Science & Technology 13 (2): 229-36.
Hua, Jia, and Yohei Sato. 2001. Land transformation research through
the integrated CA GIS and RS with AHP-derived transition rules.
http://www-cger.nies.go.jp/lugec/lu-gec%20vi/23-ver5.pdf
Hurley, S., and R. M. Whitaker. 2002. An agent based approach to site
selection for wireless networks. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM
Symposium on Applied Computing, Madrid, Spain, ACM, 574-77.
Iacono, M., D. Levinson, and A. El-Geneidy. 2008. Models of trans-
portation and land use change: A guide to the territory. Journal
of Planning Literature 22 (4): 323-40.
Ilsoo, Yun Byungkyu. 2006. Application of stochastic optimization
method for an urban corridor. Proceedings of the 2006 Winter
Simulation Conference 1-5:1493-99.
Inés, Santé-Riveira, Marcos Boullón-Magán, Rafael Crecente-
Maseda, and David Miranda-Barrós. 2008. Algorithm based on
simulated annealing for land use allocation. Computers & Geos-
ciences 34 (3): 259-68.
Itzhak, Benenson, Karel Martens, and Slava Birfir. 2007. Agent-based
model of driver parking behaviour as a tool for urban parking pol-
icy evaluation. Presented at 10th AGILE Conference on GIS Sci-
ence, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jenerette, G. D., and J. G. Wu. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-
use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Land-
scape Ecology 16 (7): 611-26.
Jia, Lei, Licai Yang, Qingjie Kong, and Shu Lin. 2006. Study of arti-
ficial immune clustering algorithm and its applications to urban
traffic control. International Journal of Information Technology
12 (3). Retrieved from http://www.icis.ntu.edu.sg/scs-ijit/1203/
1203_1.pdf
Jia, Tao, Li Xia, Xiaoping Liu, and Jinqiang He. 2007. Analytical
learning-based intelligent cellular automata for realistic and
Wu and Silva
idealized urban simulation. Geography and Geo-Information Sci-
ence 23 (5): 43-47 (in Chinese).
Jiao, J. F., and L. Boerboom. 2006. Transition rule elicitation methods for
urban cellular automata models. In Innovations in Design & Decision
Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, Springer,
Dordrecht, 53-68.
Jun, C. 2000. Design of an intelligent geographic information system
for multi-criteria site analysis. URISA Journal 12 (3): 5-17.
Kalapanidas, E., and N. Avouris. 2001. Short-term air quality
prediction using a case-based classifier. Environment Modelling
and Software 16:263-72.
Kalogirou, S. 2002. Expert systems and GIS: An application of land
suitability evaluation. Computers, Environment and Urban Sys-
tems 26 (2-3): 89-112.
Kalogirou, S. A. 2003. Artificial intelligence for the modeling and
control of combustion processes: A review. Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science 29:515-66.
Kawano, S., V. N. Huynh, M. Ryoke, and Y. Nakamori. 2005.
A context-dependent knowledge model for evaluation of regional
environment. Environment Modelling and Software 20:343-52.
Kocabas, Verda, and Suzana Dragicevic. 2007. Enhancing a GIS cellu-
lar automata model of land use change: Bayesian networks, influ-
ence diagrams and causality. Transactions in GIS 11 (22): 681-702.
Langton, C. 1986. Studying artificial life with cellular automata.
Physica D 22:120-49.
Lansing, J. S., and J. N. Kremer. 1993. Emergent properties of
Balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged fitness
landscape. Am Anthropol 95:97-114.
Lekkas, G. P., N. M. Avouris, and L. G. Viras. 1994. Case-based rea-
soning in environmental monitoring applications. Applied Artifi-
cial Intelligence 8:359-76.
Li, X., and Xiaoping Liu. 2007. Defining agents’ behaviours to simu-
late complex residential development using multicriteria evalua-
tion. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4):1063-75.
Li, X., Q. S. Yang, et al. 2007. Genetic algorithms for determining the
parameters of cellular automata in urban simulation. Science in
China Series D-Earth Sciences 50 (12): 1857-66.
Li, X., Ye Jia’an, and Liao Qifang. 2004. Case-based reasoning (CBR)
for land use classification using radar images. Journal of Remote
Sensing, 85(4):1063-1075.
Li, X., and A. G.-O. Yeh. 2001. Calibration of cellular automata by
using neural networks for the simulation of complex urban sys-
tems. Environment and Planning A 33 (8): 1445-62.
Li, X., and A. G. Yeh. 2002. Neural-network-based cellular
automata for simulating multiple land use changes using GIS.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
16:323-43.
Li, Yuanhai, and Amy B. Chan Hilton. 2007. Optimal groundwater
monitoring design using an ant colony optimization paradigm.
Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (1): 110-16.
Liang, N., and Q. Gao. 1999. ASSG—An expert system for sandy
grasslands in North China. Expert Systems with Applications
16:3-11.
Ligmann, Zielinska A., and P. Jankowski. 2007. Agent-based models
as laboratories for spatially explicit planning policies. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 34 (2): 316-35.
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
261
Ligtenberg, A., et al. 2001. Multi-actor-based land use modelling:
Spatial planning using agents. Land Use and Urban Planning
56:21-33.
Ligtenberg, A., M. Wachowicz, A. K. Bregt, A. Beulens, D. L.
Kettenis. 2004. A design and application of a multi-agent system
for simulation of multi-actor spatial planning. Environmental
Management 72:43-55.
Liu, X. H., A. K. Skidmore, and H. V. Oosten. 2002. Integration of
classification methods for improvement of land-cover map accu-
racy. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 56
(4): 257-68.
Liu, XiaoPing, Li Xia, Anthony Gar-On Yeh, He JinQiang, and Tao
Jia. 2007. Discovery of transition rules for geographical cellular
automata by using ant colony optimization. Science in China
Series D: Earth Sciences 50:1578-88.
Liu Yan, and R. Stuart. 2003. Phinn modelling urban development
with cellular automata incorporating fuzzy-set approaches. Com-
puters, Environment and Urban Systems 27 (6): 637-58.
Liu, Zhi-Yong, and Ma Feng-We. 2007. On-line reinforcement learn-
ing control for urban traffic signals. Proceedings of the 26th Chi-
nese Control Conference 6:34-37.
Loibl, W., and T. Toetzer. 2003. Modelling growth and densification
processes in suburban regions—Simulation of landscape transition
with spatial agents. Environmental Modelling & Software 18 (6):
553-63.
Los, M. 1973. Spatial design and artificial intelligence. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lu, S. F., and X. M. Liu. 2007. Based on hybrid genetic algorithm and
cellular automata combined traffic signal control and route guidance.
Proceedings of the 26th Chinese Control Conference 6:53-57.
Luckman, P. G., M. R. Jessen, and R. G. Gibb. 1990. Use of expert
systems and GIS in land evaluation. New Zealand Geographer
46:15-20.
Lucic, P., and D. Teodorovic. 2001. Bee system: Modeling combina-
torial optimization transportation engineering problems by swarm
intelligence. In Preprints of the TRISTAN IV Triennial Symposium
on Transportation Analysis, Sao Miguel, Azores Islands, Portugal,
June, 441-45.
Madsen, H. 2000. Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall–runoff
model using multiple objectives. Journal of Hydrology 235 (3-4):
276-88.
Mahesh, Pal. 2008. Artificial immune-based supervised classifier for
land-cover classification. International Journal of Remote Sensing
29 (8): 2273-2291.
Maier, H. R., A. C. Zecchin, L. Radbone, and P. Goonan. 2006. Opti-
mising the mutual information of ecological data clusters using
evolutionary algorithms. Math. Comput. Model 44:439-50.
Malczewski, J. 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A criti-
cal overview. Progress in Planning 62:3-65.
Manson, S. M. 2005. Agent-based modelling and genetic program-
ming for modelling land change in the Southern Yucatan Peninsu-
lar Region of Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
111:47-62.
Marc, Los, and Sang Nguyen. 1981. Spatial allocation on a network
with congestion. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological
15 (2): 113-26.
261
262
Marco, Dorigo, and Thomas Stützle. 2004. Ant colony optimization.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mathey, A.-H., E. Krcmar, S. Dragicevic, and I. Vertinsky. 2008.
Object-oriented cellular automata model for forest planning prob-
lems. Ecological Modelling 212:359-71.
Matott, L. S., A. J. Rabideau, and J. R. Craig. 2006. Pump-and-treat
optimization using analytic element method flow models.
Advances in Water Resources 29:760-75.
Matsuba, Ikuo, and Masanori Namatame. 2003. Scaling behaviour in
urban development process of Tokyo City and hierarchical
dynamical structure. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 16 (1): 151-65.
Matteo, Matteucci, and Lorenzo Mussone. 2006. Ant colony
optimization technique for equilibrium assignment in congested
transportation networks. GECCO 2006:87-88.
Matthews, B., Nigel G. Gilbert, Alan Roach, J. Gary Polhill, and Nick
M. Gotts. 2007. Agent-based land-use models: A review of
applications. Landscape Ecology 22:1447-59.
Matthews, K. 2001. Applying genetic algorithms to multi-objective
land-use planning. PhD diss., Macaulay Land Use Research
Institute, Aberdeen, UK.
Metropolis, N., A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Telle, and E. Teller.
1953. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines.
Journal of Chemical Physics 21:1087-92.
Michael, B. Lowry. 2004. Coordinated regional and city planning
using a genetic algorithm. Master’s thesis, Brigham Young
University, Provo, UT. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/
etd444.pdf
Michaela, Buergle, Michael Loechl, Urs Waldner, and Kay W.
Axhausen. 2005. Land use and transport simulation: Applying
urbanism in the greater Zurich area. http://www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/
publications/reports/ab292.pdf
Michel, Hagoort, Stan Geertman, and Henk Ottens. 2007. Spatial
externalities, neighbourhood rules and CA land-use modelling.
Annals of Regional Science 42:39-56.
Michel, Jules Dreyfus-Leon 1999. Individual-based modelling of fish-
ermen search behaviour with neural networks and reinforcement
learning. Ecological Modelling 120:2-3.
Millan, W., A. Clark, and E. Dawson. 1997. Smart hill climbing finds
better Boolean functions. Workshop on Selected Areas in Cryptol-
ogy 1997, Workshop Record, 50-63.
Miyagi, T. 2004. A modelling of route choice behaviour in transpor-
tation networks: An approach from reinforcement leaning. Urban
Transport 10:235-44.
Milner-Gulland, E. J., C. Kerven, R. Behnke, I. A. Wright, and A.
Smailov. 2006. A multi-agent system model of astoralist behaviour
in Kazakhstan. Ecological Complexity 3 (1): 23-36.
Mohamad, E. A., M. M. Mansour, S. EI-Debeiky, K. G. Mohamad,
N. D. Rao, and G. Ramakrishna. 1996. Results of Egyptian unified
grid hourly load forecasting using an artificial neural network with
expert system interface. Electric Power System Research 39 (3):
171-77.
Moller-Jensen, L., 1990. Knowledge-based classification of an urban
area using texture and context information in Landsat-TM ima-
gery. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 56 (6),
pp. 899-904.
262
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
Moller-Jensen, L. 1997. Classification of urban land cover based on
expert systems, object models and texture. Computers, Environ-
ment and Urban Systems 21:291-302.
Mota, G.L.A., Feitosa, R.Q., Coutinho, H.L.C., Liedtke, C.-E., Muller,
S., Pakzad, K., Meirelles, M.S.P.2007. Multitemporal fuzzy classi-
fication model based on class transition possibilities. ISPRS Jour-
nal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 62 (3), pp. 186-200.
Nara, Atsushi, and Paul M. Torrens. 2005. Simulating inner-city
gentrification using hybrid models of cellular automata and multi-
Agent Systems. Presented at 8th International Conference on Geo-
Computation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, July 31.
Niandry, Moreno, Raquel Quintero, Magdiel Ablan, Rodrigo Barros,
Jacinto Dávila, Hirma Ramı́rez, Giorgio Tonella, and Miguel F.
Acevedo. 2007. Biocomplexity of deforestation in the Caparo Tro-
pical Forest Reserve in Venezuela: An integrated multi-agent and
cellular automata model. Environmental Modelling and Software
22 (5): 664-73.
Nicholas, Gazulis, and Keith C. Clarke. 2006. Exploring the DNA of
our regions: Classification of outputs from the SLEUTH model.
ACRI 2006:462-71.
Norte Pinto, Nuno, and António Pais Antunes. 2007. Cellular auto-
mata and urban studies: A literature survey. ACE: Architecture,
City and Environment 1 (3): 368-99.
Oh, K., and Y. Jeong. 2002. The usefulness of the GIS-fuzzy set
approach in evaluating the urban residential environment. Environ-
ment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29 (4): 589-606.
Openshaw, S., and C. Openshaw. 1997. Artificial intelligence in
geography. New York: John Wiley.
OptTek Systems, Inc. 2004. Optquest engine manual [1].
www.OptTek.com
Owen, S. M., A. R. MacKenzie, R. G. H. Bunce, et al. 2006. Urban
land classification and its uncertainties using principal component
and cluster analyses: A case study for the UK West Midlands.
Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (4): 311-21.
Pallav, Negi. 2006. Artificial immune system based urban traffic con-
trol. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi.
Papini, L., G. A. Rabino, A. Colonna, V. Di Stefano, and S. Lombardo.
1998. Learning cellular automata in a real world: The case study of
the Rome metropolitan area. ACRI’96: Proceedings of the Third
Conference on Cellular Automata for Research And Industry,
165-83. London: Springer-Verlag.
Parker, D. C., S. M. Manson, M. A. Janssen, M. J. Hoffmann, and
P. Deadman. 2003. Multi-agent systems for the simulation of
land-use and land-cover change: A review. Annals of the Associa-
tion of American Geographers 93:314-37.
Passone, S., P. W. H. Chung, and V. Nassehi. 2002. Case-based rea-
soning for estuarine model design. Lecture Notes Artificial Intelli-
gence 24 (16): 590-603.
Pijanowski, B. C., Daniel G. Brown, Bradley A. Shellito, and Gaurav A.
Manik. 2002. Using neural networks and GIS to forecast land use
changes: A land transformation mode. Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems 26 (5): 553-75.
Pijanowski, B. C., S. Pithadia, B. A. Shellito, and K. Alexandridis.
2005. Calibrating a neural network based urban change model for
two metropolitan areas of the upper Midwest of the United States.
Wu and Silva
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 19 (2):
197-215.
Pinto, N. 2006. Microsimulation approach for modelling the
growth of small urban areas. Master’s thesis, Civil Engineering
Department, School of Engineering of the University of Porto,
Portugal.
Piyathamrongchai, K., and M. Batty. 2007. Integrating cellular
automata and regional dynamics using GIS. Modelling Land-Use
Change 90:259-77.
Plant, R. E., and M. P. Vayssieres. 2000. Combining expert system
and GIS technology to implement a state-transition model of oak
woodlands. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 27:71-94.
Qin, F., H. Y. Wang, and Z. H. Wang. 2007. Research on the methods
of automatic-generation of 3D virtual city. Geoinformatics 2007:
Geospatial Information Science 6753:Z7531.
Rajkishore, Prasad, and A. K. Sinha. 2002. IRS-1B based FCC image
interpretation for land use and land cover mapping: An expert sys-
tem approach. Map India, New Delhi.
Rocha, P., J. C. Ferreira, J. Simoes, and J. A. Tenedorio. 2007.
Modelling coastal and land use evolution patterns through neural
network and cellular automata integration. Proceedings of the
9th International Coastal Symposium, 827-31.
Roda, I. R., M. Sanchez-Marre, J. Comas, U. Cortes, and M. Poch.
2001. Development of a case-based system for the supervision
of an activated sludge process. Environmental Technology
22:477-86.
Rogers, James L., Collin M. McCulley, and Christina L. Bloebaum.
1996. Integrating a genetic algorithm into a knowledge-based sys-
tem for ordering complex design processes. Technical Report:
NASA-96-icai.jlr. Langley, VA: NASA Langley Technical Report
Server.
Rossiter, R. G. 1990. ALES: A framework for land evaluation using a
microcomputer. Soil Use and Management 5:7-20.
Sell, P. S. 1985. Expert systems—A practical introduction. Camelot
Press. Halsted Press, ISBN-10: 0470202009, New York.
Semboloni, F. 2000. The dynamic of an urban cellular automata model in
a 3-D spatial pattern. Presented at XXI National Conference, Aisre:
Regional and Urban Growth in a Global Market, Palermo, Italy.
Shi, X., A. X. Zhu, J. Burt, et al. 2004. A case-based reasoning
approach to fuzzy soil mapping. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 68 (3): 885-94.
Shie-Yui, Liong, and M. Atiquzzaman. 2004. Optimal design of water
distribution network using shuffled complex evolution. Journal of
the Institution of Engineers 44 (1): 93 -107.
Sietchiping, Remy. 2004. A geographic information systems and cel-
lular automata-based model of informal settlement growth. PhD
thesis, SAGES-School of Anthropology, Geography and Environ-
mental Studies, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Silva, E. A. 2001. The DNA of our regions. Artificial intelligence in
regional planning. Presented at World Planning Schools Congress
(Paper 5019), Shanghai, China.
Silva, Elisabete A. 2004. The DNA of our regions: Artificial intelli-
gence in regional planning. Futures 36 (10): 1077-94.
Silva, Elisabete A. 2006. Waves of Complexity: bifurcations or phase
transitions, paper presented in IIIRD Meeting of AESOP Thematic
Group on Complexity, Cardiff, UK, May 4-5.
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
263
Silva, Elisabete A. 2008a. Complexity and CA, and application to
metropolitan areas. In A planners meeting with complexity, ed.
G. D. Roo and Elisabete A. Silva. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Silva, Elisabete A. 2008b. Waves of complexity. Theory, models, and
practice. In A planners meeting with complexity, ed. G. D. Roo and
Elisabete A. Silva. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Silva, E. A., and K. C. Clarke. 2002. Calibration of the SLEUTH
urban growth model for Lisbon and Porto. Computer, Environment
and Urban Systems 26:525-52.
Silva, Elisabete A., and Keith Clarke. 2005. Complexity, emergence
and cellular urban models: Lessons learned from appling
SLEUTH to two Portuguese cities. European Planning Studies
13 (1): 93-115.
Silva, Elisabete A., J. Wileden, and J. Ahern. 2008. Strategies for
landscape ecology in metropolitan planning: Applications
using cellular automata models. Progress in Planning 70
(4): 133-77.
Silva, E. A., Wileden, J. and Ahern, J. 2008b. Strategies for Landscape
Ecology in Metropolitan Planning: Applications Using Cellular
Automata Models. Progress in Planning 70(4):133-177.
Srinivasan, D., Ruey Long Cheu, and Young Peng Poh. 2001. Hybrid
fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm technique for automated detection of
traffic incidents on freeways. Proceedings of 2001 IEEE, Intelli-
gent Transportation Systems, 352-57.
Stefanov, W. L., M. S. Ramsey, and P. R. Christensen. 2001.
Monitoring urban land cover change: An expert system approach
to land cover classification of semiarid to arid urban centers.
Remote Sens. Environ 77:173-85.
Steven, J. D’Amico, Shoou-Jiun Wang, Rajan Batta, and Christo-
pher M. Rump. 2002. A simulated annealing approach to
police district design. Computers & Operations Research 29
(6): 667-84.
Stevens, D., S. Dragicevic, and K. Rothley. 2007. A GIS-CA model-
ling tool for urban planning and decision making. Environmental
Modelling & Software 22 (6): 761-73.
Stuckens, J., P. R. Coppin, and M. E. Bauer. 2000. Integrating con-
textual information with per-pixel classification for improved
land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment
71:282-96.
Sudhira, H. S. 2004. Integration of agent-based and cellular automata
models for simulating urban sprawl. http://www.itc.nl/library/
Academic_output/2004/MSc_theses_2004.asp
Sudhira, H. S., T. V. Ramachandra, Andreas Wytzisk, and C.
Jeganathan. 2005. Framework for integration of agent-based and
cellular automata models for dynamic geospatial simulations.
Technical Report 100, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Insti-
tute of Science, Bangalore.
Spall, J. C. 2003. Introduction to stochastic search and optimization:
Estimation, simulation, and control. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 595 pp.
Tang, J., L. Wang, and S. W. Myint. 2007. Improving urban classi-
fication through fuzzy supervised classification and spectral mix-
ture analysis. International Journal of Remote Sensing 28:4047-
63.
Teodorovic, D., and M. Dell’Orco. 2005. Bee colony optimiza-
tion—A cooperative learning approach to complex
263
264
transportation problems. Advanced OR and AI Methods in
Transportation. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the EURO
Working Group on Transportation, September 2005, Poznan,
Poland, 51-60.
Teodorovic, D., and M. Dell’Orco. 2008. Mitigating traffic conges-
tion: Solving the ride-matching problem by bee colony optimiza-
tion. Transportation Planning and Technology 31:135-52.
Teodorovic, D., and P. Lucic. 2005. Schedule synchronization in
public transit by fuzzy ant system. Transportation Planning and
Technology 28:47-77.
Theodor, J. Stewart, Ron Janssen, and Marjan van Herwijnen. 2004.
A genetic algorithm approach to multiobjective land use plan-
ning. Computers and Operations Research Archive 31 (14):
2293-2313.
Tobler, W. R. 1979. Cellular geography. In Philosophy in geography,
379-86. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
Torrens, P., and D. O’Sullivan. 2000. Cities, cells, and complexity:
Developing a research agenda for urban geocomputation. Pre-
sented at 5th International Conference on Geocomputation, Uni-
versity of Greenwich, London.
Torrens, P., and D. O’Sullivan. 2001. Editorial: Cellular automata and
urban simulation: Where do we go from here? Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 28:163-68.
Tseng, M.-H., et al. 2007. A genetic algorithm rule-based approach for
land-cover classification. International Journal of Photogramme-
try and Remote Sensing 63 (2): 202-12.
Tzai-Zang, Lee, Chien-Hsing Wu, and Hsien-Hui Wei. 2008.
KBSLUA: A knowledge-based system applied in river land
use assessment. Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2):
889-99.
Venkataraman, P. 2001. Applied optimization with Matlab
programming. New York: John Wiley.
Verburg, P. Schot, M. Dijst, and A. Veldkamp. 2004. Land use change
modelling: Current practice and research priorities. Geojournal
61:309-24.
Voorhees, A. M. 1959. Land use and traffic models. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 25:55-57.
Wagner, P., and M. Wegener. 2007. Urban land use, transport and
environment models: Experiences with an integrated mircroscopic
approach. Dis P 170 (3/2000): 45-56.
Wahle, J., and M. Schreckenberg. 2001. A multi-agent system for on-
line simulations based on real-world traffic data. Presented at
Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE
Computer Society.
Wang, Changyao, Luo Chengfeng, and Liu Zhengjun. 2005. Integrat-
ing genetic algorithm method with neural network for land use
classification using SZ-3 CMODIS data. Progress in Natural
Science 15(10): 937-942.
Wang, W., X. J. Feng, and Y. Wang. 2007. The optimization study on
passenger organization at large-scale passenger station during
rush hours based on multi-agent and cellular automata. 2007
IEEE International conference on automation and logistics l1
(6): 121-25.
Webster, C. 1996. Urban morphological fingerprints. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 23:279-97.
264
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
Journal of Planning Literature 24(3)
Williamson, P., M. Birkin, and P. Rees. 1998. The estimation of pop-
ulation microdata using data from small area statistics and
samples of anonymised records. Environment and Planning A 30
(6): 785-816.
Wilson, Alan. 2008. Urban and regional dynamics—3: ‘‘DNA’’ and
‘‘genes’’ as a basis for constructing a typology of areas. CASA
Working Paper 130. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL),
London, UK.
Witlox, F. 2003. MATISSE: A relational expert system for industrial
site selection. Expert Systems with Applications 24 (1): 133-44.
Witlox, F. 2005. Expert systems in land-use planning: An overview.
Expert Systems with Applications 29 (2): 437-45.
Wong, S. C., C. K. Wong, and C. O. Tong. 2001. A parallelized
genetic algorithm for the calibration of Lowry model. Parallel
Computing 27 (12): 1523-36.
Wu, F. 1998. Simulating urban encroachment on rural land with
fuzzy-logic-controlled cellular automata in a geographical infor-
mation system. Journal of Environmental Management 53 (4):
293-308.
Wu, F. L., and D. Martin. 2002. Urban expansion simulation of
southeast England using population surface modelling and cellular
automata. Environment and Planning A 34:1855-76.
Wu, Ning, and Elisabete A. Silva. 2009. Artificial intelligence and
‘‘waves of complexity’’ for urban dynamics. WSEAS. Recent
Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Engineering and
Databases, 459-69.
Wu, Ning, and Elisabete A. Silva. n.d.-a. Artificial intelligence and
‘‘waves of complexity’’ for urban dynamics.
Wu, N., and E. A. Silva. n.d.-b. Dynamic models in urban land studies—
Exploring sophisticated modeling for urban land dynamics.
Li X, Liu X P. 2008. Embedding sustainable development strategies in
agent-based models for use as a planning tool. International Jour-
nal of Geographical Information Science, 22(1), 21-45.
Xu, Xibao, Jianming Zhang, and Xianjian Zhou. 2006. Integrating
GIS, cellular automata and genetic algorithm in urban spatial
optimization: A case study of Lanzhou. Geoinformatics 2006:
Geospatial Information Science 6420:1-10.
Yasser, Hammam, Antoni Moorea, and Peter Whighama. 2007. The
dynamic geometry of geographical vector agents. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 31 (5): 502-19.
Yeh, A. G., and X. Li. 2003. Simulation of development alternatives
using neural networks, cellular automata, and GIS for urban
planning. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
69:1043-52.
Yizengaw, T., and W. Verheye. 1995. Application of computer
captured knowledge in land evaluation, using ALES in central
Ethiopia. Geoderma 66 (3-4): 297-311.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8 (3): 338-53.
Zecchin, A. C., A. R. Simpson, H. R. Maier, M. Leonard, A. J.
Roberts, and M. J. Berrisford. 2006. Application of two ant colony
optimisation algorithms to water distribution system optimization.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling 44:451-68.
Zhang, Liquan, and Zhen Yu. 2006. An artificial neural network
model of the landscape pattern in Shanghai metropolitan region.
Frontiers of Biology in China 1:463-69.
Wu and Silva
Zhang, X., and M. P. Armstrong. 2008. Genetic algorithms and the
corridor location problem: Multiple objectives and alternative
solutions. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
35:148-68.
Zhou, J., and D. Civco. 1996. Using genetic learning neural networks
for spatial decision making in GIS. Photogrammetric Engineering
& Remote Sensing 62:1287-95.
Zhu, X., R. J. Aspinall, and R. G. Healey. 1996. ILUDSS: A
knowledge based spatial decision support system for strategic
land-use planning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
15:279-301.
Downloaded from jpl.sagepub.com at CAMBRIDGE UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2012
View publication stats
265
Bios
Ning Wu is a final-year PhD student in urban planning at the Univer-
sity of Cambridge. His current work focuses on artificial intelligence
solutions (particularly genetic algorithm, cellular automata, and agent-
based models) for dynamic urban modeling.
Elisabete A. Silva is a university lecturer (assistant professor) at the
University of Cambridge (Department of Land Economy). She has
an extensive research track record in both the public and private sec-
tor. Her research interests cover both policy development and compu-
tational applications; many of her papers are centered on the
application of new technologies to spatial planning, in particular city
and regional planning.
265