int. j. geographical information science, 1998, vol. 12, no.

7, 651± 671

Review Article

GIS-based urban modelling: practices, problems, and prospects

DANIEL Z. SUI
Department of Geography,Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843-3147, USA
e-mail: D-Sui@tamu.edu

Abstract. This paper reviews the practices, problems, and prospects of GIS-
based urban modelling. The author argues that current stand-alone and various
loose/tight coupling approaches for GIS-based urban modelling are essentially
technology-driven without adequate justi® cation and veri® cation for the urban
models being implemented. The absolute view of space and time embodied in the
current generation of GIS also imposes constraints on the type of new urban
models that can be developed. By reframing the future research agenda from a
geographical information science (GISci) perspective, the author contends that
the integration of urban modelling with GIS must proceed with the development
of new models for the informational cities, the incorporation of multi-dimensional
concepts of space and time in GIS, and the further extension of the feature-based
model to implement these new urban models and spatial-temporal concepts
according to the emerging interoperable paradigm. GISci-based urban modelling
will not only espouse new computational models and implementation strategies
that are computing platform independent but also liberate us from the constraints
of existing urban models and the rigid spatial-temporal framework embedded in
the current generation of GIS, and enable us to think above and beyond the
technical issues that have occupied us during the past ten years.

1. Introduction
For almost two decades in the 1960s and the 1970s, GIS and urban modelling
developed in parallel with few interactions. The integration of GIS with urban
modelling did not take place until the late 1980s, as a part of the GIS community’s
e€ orts to improve the analytical capabilities of GIS (Goodchild et al. 1992, Anselin
and Getis 1992, Fischer and Nijkamp 1992, Fotheringham and Rogerson 1994,
Fischer et al. 1996). Nowadays, GIS users and urban modellers have increasingly
recognized the mutual bene® ts of such an integration from the preliminary successes
of the past ten years. Various urban modelling techniques have enabled GIS users
to go beyond the data inventory and management stage to conduct sophisticated
modelling and simulation. For urban modeling e€ orts, GIS has provided modelers
with new platforms for data management and visualization (Nyerges 1995). The
massive di€ usion of GIS in society has the potential to make models more transparent
and to enable the communication of their operations and results to a large group of
users. The growing literature on the integration of GIS with urban modelling attests
the recognition of such mutual bene® ts (Brail 1990, Birkin et al. 1990, Batty 1992,
Brooks et al. 1993).
The objective of this paper is three-fold: (1) to review the current practices of
GIS-based urban modelling; (2) to identify the existing problems of current e€ orts
to link GIS with urban modelling; (3) to discuss a new research agenda from the
emerging geographical information science (GISci) perspective.
1365-8816/98 $12.00 Ñ 1998 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
652 D. Z. Sui

This paper is organized into ® ve sections. After a brief background introduction

in section one, the current practices of GIS-based urban modeling are reviewed in
section two. Section 3 discusses the existing problems of coupling GIS with urban
modelling. Future prospects of urban modelling from the perspective of geographical
information science are covered in § 4, followed by concluding remarks in § 5.

2. GIS-based urban modelling: current practices

By the early 1990s, it was (and perhaps still is) a general consensus within the
GIS community that the lack of sophisticated analytical and modelling capabilities
was one of the major de® ciencies in the current generation of GIS technology
(Openshaw 1991). Several recent research initiatives in North America and Europe
focus on the improvement of spatial analytical and modelling capabilities of GIS
technology. The integration of GIS with urban modelling was part of these broad
research e€ orts to link spatial analysis and modelling with GIS. Although overlapping
with many other GIS modelling e€ orts in terms of the general methodology, GIS-
based urban modelling has a set of substantially di€ erent conceptual issues from
GIS-based environmental modelling (Goodchild et al. 1993, 1996). Current practices
of GIS-based urban modelling thus deserve a separate scrutiny.
Generally speaking, four di€ erent approaches have been widely used to integrate
GIS with urban modelling (® gure 1). My discussions here are con® ned to method-
ological issues only. Those interested in the details of speci® c models are referred to
Wegener (1994).

1. Embedding GIS-like functionalities into urban modelling packages. This

approach aims to embed GIS functionalities in urban modelling packages, and has
been adopted primarily by urban modellers and spatial statisticians who think of
GIS essentially as a mapping tool. Usually no commercially available GIS software
packages are involved, as illustrated by Putnam (1992) in the US, the Leeds group
in the UK (Clarke 1990, Birkin et al. 1996), and Haslett’s SPIDER system (Haslett
1990), etc. This approach usually gives system developers maximum freedom for
system design. Implementation is not constrained by any existing GIS data structures,
and usually this approach is capable of incorporating the latest development in
urban modelling. The downside of this approach is that the data management and
visualization capabilities of these urban modelling software packages are in no way
comparable to those available in commercial GIS and programming e€ orts also
tend to be intensive and sometimes redundant. Also, we should recognize that most
urban modelling software packages were developed by individual researchers geared
toward speci® c projects. Although they possess certain conceptual commonalties,
these urban modelling packages use a great variety of data structures, programming
tools, and hardware platforms that make this approach extremely di cult for
other users.
2. Embedding urban modelling into GIS by software vendors. Although still pre-
dominantly an academic pursuit, a few leading GIS software vendors in recent years
have made extra e€ orts to improve the analytical and modelling capabilities of their
products. Pioneered by the urban data management system (UDMS) (Robinson and
Coiner 1986), several commercial software vendors have developed stand-alone GIS
software packages with functions that can be used for a variety of urban modeling
needs (Ferguson et al. 1992). Certain urban modelling functions have been embedded
in leading generic GIS software packages such as TransCAD, ArcView’s SPATIAL/
 GIS-based urban modelling 653

Figure 1. Integrating GIS with urban modelling: current practices.

NETWORK Analysts, and SPANS etc. This approach builds on top of a commercial
GIS software package and takes full advantage of built-in GIS functionalities, but
the modeling capabilities are usually simplistic and calibrations must take place
outside of the package. Also because the market for modelling capabilities is still
much smaller than that for data management and mapping, most GIS software
vendors have not been very enthusiastic in integrating sophisticated modeling capab-
ilities in the their software products.
3. L oose coupling. This approach usually involves a standard GIS package (e.g.
Arc/Info) and an urban modelling program (e.g. TRANSPLAN or TRIPS) or a
statistical package (e.g. SAS or SPSS). Urban modelling and GIS are integrated, via
data exchange using either ASCIII or binary data format, among several di€ erent
software packages without a common user interface. The advantage of this approach
is that redundant programming can be avoided, but the data shuƒ ing and conversion
between di€ erent packages can be tedious and error prone (Sui and Lo 1992, Shaw
1993, Brooks et al. 1993; Geertman and van Eck 1995). Because computer program-
ming is minimal, this approach may be the most realistic method for most GIS users
to conduct modelling work.
654 D. Z. Sui

4. T ight coupling. This approach embeds certain urban models with a commercial
GIS software package via either GIS macro or conventional programming (Miller
1991, Batty and Xie 1994 a, 1994 b, Ding and Fotheringham 1992, Anselin et al.
1993). With the recognition of the users’ need to develop customized applications,
more and more GIS software vendors are providing macro and script programming
capabilities so that users can lump a series of individual commands in a batch mode
or develop a customized user interface for speci® c applications. Such languages are
seldom powerful enough to implement sophisticated models, however, an alternative
method is to incorporate user-written routines into a GIS. Several software packages
have already developed mechanisms to allow user-developed modelling libraries or
routines to be called within the normal pull-down menu of a particular software
package. This approach, however, requires a well-de® ned interface to the data
structures held by the GIS. The challenge will be to develop new mechanisms for all
users to access spatial data without needing to know about the particular data
structures used in the GIS (Goodchild et al. 1992).
The ® rst two approaches lend the integration e€ ort to software developers, users
have minimal involvement in the technical aspects of the integration whereas the
third and fourth approach put the technical task of integration squarely on the
shoulders of the users. Although GIS software vendors have increasingly recognized
the importance of analytical and modelling capabilities, most of the recent GIS-base
urban modelling e€ orts are made via the loose or tight coupling approach (Anselin
and Bao 1997).
Although conventional urban models, such as di€ erent versions of the Lowry-
Garin models and monocentric population density models, still dominate current
practices, two other features of the recent GIS-based urban modelling e€ orts are
worth noting.

1. T he development and introduction of a series of new concepts and techniques in

urban modelling. These concepts and techniques include, but are not limited to,
cellular automata, fractals, neural networks, parallel processing, and genetic algo-
rithms (Batty and Xie 1994 c, Batty and Longley 1994, Gimblett et al. 1994, Kirtland
et al. 1994, Openshaw 1994, Clarke and Gaydos 1998). Such e€ orts mark a dramatic
shift from conceiving cities based upon predominantly physical metaphors as
machines to conceptualizing cities using a biological metaphor as organisms. While
the traditional urban models based upon gravity or entropy maximization favours
a top-down approach emphasizing global patterns, the new urban models based up
cellular automata and fractals take a bottom-up approach stressing local rules and
variations. Although to what extent this shift represents progress in modelling urban
reality is still debatable, research interests in these biologically inspired models
continue to grow among urban modellers. This kind of biologically motivated
thinking is not just con® ned to urban modelling but is permeating the entire intellec-
tual terrain, and some even argue that this marks the rise of a new biological
civilization (Kelly 1994). Perhaps, what is more important is that the new models
have not only been implemented using GIS, such as cellular automata in a raster-
based GIS (Itami 1994), but also have stimulated discussions of new concepts about
space and time which can be used to redesign GIS (Couclelis and Takeyama 1995).
2. T he rise of urban modelling applications in the private sector. In terms of
applications, we have witnessed a gradual decline and even a phasing out (such as
in the UK) of urban modelling applications in the public sector, and a rapid increase
 GIS-based urban modelling 655

in the private sector applications relating to marketing and geodemographic analysis

(Longley and Clarke 1995, Birkin 1996, Birkin et al. 1996). Long term strategic
planning by government agencies has increasingly been replaced by short-term
expediencies dominated by data collection and information management e€ orts
(Batty 1989). This dramatic shift of urban modelling e€ orts from public to private
has profound social implications given the wide adoption and di€ usion of GIS
technology in society (Pickles 1995). Private sector modelling e€ orts tend to be more
pro® t-driven rather than motivated by grand socio-economic goals of e ciency
and equity.
These e€ orts toward integrating GIS with urban modelling, coupled with emer-
ging computer networks such as the Internet for various social economic activities,
have fundamentally transformed our conceptions of cities and urban life (Sui 1997).
Almost everything in our cities is becoming digital or is digitally presentable, and
hence easier for all kinds of manipulation and simulation. Popular urban simulation
games such as SimCity are at the ® nger tips of ® ve-year olds. This phenomenon has
been referred to as `computable cities’ (Batty 1995). According to Batty (1995, 3),
`Within 50 years, everything around us will be some form of computer and the ways
we will access this and use it to interact with each other will be through software.’
However, I think we should not uncritically accept the computability of cities. Many
assumptions behind current GIS-based urban modelling e€ orts should be critically
scrutinized. Dazzling technical progress tends to blind us to more critical issues such
as what it is we are trying to model and why.

3. Computable cities and the computability of cities: existing problems

With cities becoming increasingly computable, the computability of cities has
been challenged by numerous social theorists (Lake 1993, Pickles 1995). Besides
philosophical critiques at the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and eth-
ical levels (Sui 1994), I would like to discuss the following two substantive issues in
the current practices of GIS-based urban modelling.

3.1. Problems of the urban models.

Although conventional urban modelling coupled with GIS is still practiced world-
wide (Batty 1994, Wegener 1994), the fundamental assumptions in these models need
to be re-evaluated. With the massive transformation from an industrial to an informa-
tional society, the urban models integrated with GIS via various strategies outlined
above fail to adequately describe the new urban forms and processes in Western
society. These models were developed for the industrial cities with the goal of
controlling land use and containing the impacts of the automobile, and they are
inappropriate for modelling cities in the information age. For example, various
modi® ed versions of the Lowry-Garin model for land use and transportation planning
represent a fusion of gravitational concepts underpinning spatial interaction with
macro-economic theory as re¯ ected in input-output and economic base models.
These models are essentially spatial interaction models ( based upon Newtonian
social physics) coupled with a crude economic base mechanism ( based upon
Keyenesian economics). Besides those vocal critics of urban modelling, such as
Douglas Lee (1973) and Andrew Sayer (1979), modelers themselves have begun to
admit that this type of model represents a rather narrow conception of cities (Batty
1989). Lowry-Garin models characterize cities as being comprised of distinct land
use types that can be articulated in measurable economic and demographic activities.
656 D. Z. Sui

The model was designed to locate such activities in spatial units usually represented
by zones at the census tract level. Spatial interaction and trip-making were embodied
in gravitational analogues while model structure was conceived along simple econo-
metric lines. The assumptions of the economic base model as being unidirectional
in causation have been challenged by several researchers, and the division between
the basic versus the non-basic sector is arbitrary. With the transition to a post-
industrial society, the growth of multinational corporations, and the sharp decline
of the manufacturing base (Castells 1989), the basic and non-basic split in the local
economy is becoming more ambiguous, if not meaningless, and in some areas, we
have even witnessed the wholesale disappearance of the traditional basic sector for
some time. With this fundamentally di€ erent urban reality, urban models must be
reconceived in order to be useful in the planning and decision making process.
Several advances have been made in the formation of spatial interaction models,
such as Wilson’s entropy maximization or McFadden’s random utility maximization,
and the introduction of numerous new mathematical techniques such as catastrophe
theory, chaos theory, and self-organizing concepts (Bertuglia et al. 1990, Nijkamp
and Reggiami 1992, Roy 1996). However, these techniques pertain mostly to model
estimation and speci® cation. They tend to be technique-based rather than substance-
based, focusing more on the syntax than the semantics of urban modelling. Those
new urban modelling e€ orts based upon cellular automata and fractals, although
conceptually interesting, are still at an experiential stage and to what extent those
e€ orts may contribute to our understanding of urban forms and urban processes
remains to be seen. E€ orts are also being made to model urban development using
derived land use units instead of the ® xed census tract boundaries (Landis 1995),
but these models still inherit the conceptual foundations that have long been aban-
doned by urban planners and policy makers. In sum, it is quite obvious that we
cannot a€ ord to remain oblivious to the conceptual de® ciencies of these urban
models even though they have been successfully integrated with GIS and may be
still applicable in some developing countries. There is a crying need for models that
can capture the new urban reality of the information age.

3.2. Problems of GIS

With its historical roots in computer cartography and digital image processing,
the development of GIS to date has relied upon a limited map metaphor (Harris
and Batty 1993, Burrough and Frank 1995). Consequently, the representation
schemes and analytical functionalities in GIS are geared toward map layers and
geometric transformations. The layer approach implicitly forces a segmentation of
geographical features (Peuquet 1988, Raper and Livingstone 1995). This representa-
tion scheme is not only temporally ® xed but is also incapable of handling overlapping
features (Gazelton et al. 1992). Perhaps more importantly, as so many GIS theorists
have pointed out, underneath this crude map metaphor in the current generation of
GIS is an implicit conceptualization of absolute space based upon Newtonian mech-
anics (Couclelis 1991, Gatrell 1991). The absolute conceptualization of space has
forced space into a geometrically indexed representation scheme via planar enforce-
ment. In contrast, embedded in various urban models is essentially a relative/
relational conceptualization of space, as manifested in various kinds of spatial struc-
ture, spatial dynamics, and spatial organization models. This relative view of space
is not compatible with the notion of space built into commercially available GIS,
either as an inert assembly of polygons or as a lattice of raster cells. Although
 GIS-based urban modelling 657

technically we can plug in various urban models into GIS through the strategies
outlined in the previous section, GIS and urban models are not really integrated
because of the di€ erent spatial data representation schemes involved (Abel et al.
1994). Therefore, in order to accomplish the seamless integration of GIS and urban
models, we need to conduct research at a higher level, that is to develop and
incorporate novel approaches to conceptualizing space and time.
Obviously, the current practices of integrating GIS and urban modelling are
essentially technical in nature and have not touched upon the more fundamental
issues in either urban models or GIS. We have succeeded only in putting old wines
in new bottlesÐ an improved means for unimproved ends. Simply being able to run
a Lowry type model in Arc/Info improves neither the theoretical foundation nor the
performance of the model. GIS-based urban modeling, like GIS-based environmental
modeling (Raper and Livingstone 1995), has resulted in a tremendous amount of
representational compromise. Such problems call for a fresh look at the integration
of GIS with urban modelling. We must think above and beyond the technical domain
on this issue. Instead of being dictated by GIS technology, the emerging geographical
information science (GISci) itself should drive the next round of urban modelling
e€ orts.

4. GISci-based urban modelling: future prospects

Problems in the current practices of GIS-based urban modelling can not be
resolved if we continue to treat the integration of GIS with urban modelling as
essentially a technical issue. Instead, we must challenge the implicit assumptions
behind urban models and GIS, and shift our research e€ orts to more fundamental
issues in conceiving and representing the urban reality in the appropriate spatial-
temporal framework during the information age. We need to switch our research
e€ orts to a broader conceptual basis and frame our future research agenda from a
geographical information science perspective in order to avoid being trapped in the
narrowly de® ned technical issues researchers have pursued so far. To set up the
context for GISci-based urban modelling, it would be instructive to take a quick
look at the core elements of GISci.

4.1. Elements of geographical information science (GISci)

Since Goodchild (1992) ® rst raised the banner of a new discipline called geo-
graphic information science, the GIS community has increasingly recognized the
importance of transcending the limits of GIS technology to focus on the more generic
issues in spatial data handling. During the past ® ve years, the GIS community has
responded enthusiastically to Goodchild’s call, as evidenced by the establishment of
the new university consortium of geographical information science in the US, the
development of the new on-line GISci. curriculum, and the publication of several
new journals in GISci. Although still in its infancy, and the disciplinary status may
be debatable, the three core elements of a geographical information science as
articulated in a recent NCGIA proposal are crucial for a research agenda on GISci-
based urban modelling (NCGIA 1996 a). These three core elements in GISci. are:

1. Cognitive models of geographical space. NCGIA contends that our under-

standing of key geographical concepts and their appropriate representations
is currently incomplete. The ® rst area GISci should investigate is how key
geographical concepts such as space and time have been conceptualized by
658 D. Z. Sui

Figure 2. GISci-based urban modelling: major tasks.

di€ erent people and di€ erent disciplines. As ease of use is increasingly import-
ant in the information age, studies on fundamental geographical concepts
will be critical for us to better understand the geographical world around us.
2. Computational implementations of geographical concepts. This area concen-
trates on building new computational models of geographical spaces and the
social and environmental processes that operate in them. Exploring the best
computational strategy for the implementation of various conceptualizations
of space will promote interoperability among di€ erent computational models.
3. Geographies of the information society. This element focuses on the positive
and negative impacts of technology on individuals, organizations, and society.
GISci examines what kinds of new spatial relationships are emerging in the
new information society and what the societal impacts are by introducing
GIS into various facets of our social practices. These three core areas in
GISci provide us a broad guideline for the future research of GISci-based
urban modelling. I believe that the success of GISci-based urban modelling
will depend upon how successfully we have developed new urban models,
new conceptualizations of space and time, and their e cient/interoperable
implementations on various new computing platforms (® gure 2).

4.2. T he development of new urban models

This is closely related to the topic of geographies of the information society in
GISci. Since the urban models developed so far no longer adequately describe the
urban reality in the information age, we need to develop new models that capture
the form, process, and policy aspects of this new reality. It is generally conceded
among social scientists that a technological revolution of historic proportions is
dramatically transforming the fundamental dimensions of urban society (Graham
and Marvin 1996, Couclelis 1996). The voluminous recent urban literature on world
cities, especially North American cities, is replete with assertions that a major
reorganization of the spatial structure of cities is underway. A series of distinctive
new urban forms is emerging from a complex interplay among social, economic,
political, and cultural forces (Bourne 1991). It has been argued that these new forms
 GIS-based urban modelling 659

Figure 3. Elements of an integrated model for informational cities.

are characterized by the continued decentralization of both population and employ-

ment, the increasing levels of social diversity and spatial polarization, the emergence
of an elite gentri® ed inner city, and the deepening spatial mismatch between jobs
and labour. These new urban forms have been attributed to societal, institutional,
and individual decision making processes. Numerous policy proposals have been
made for various development scenarios for cities in the twenty-® rst century, ranging
from going back to a more compact pedestrian-based urban form, to stimulating the
development of a completely footloose electropolis.
In order to weave all these di€ erent aspects of urban studies into a coherent
research agenda, we need to develop and articulate a new, eclectic, and inclusive
conceptual framework. I believe that the new theoretical framework should have
three integral components (Sui 1996). First, it should enable us to describe the new
emerging urban forms in more comprehensive ways. Second, it should empower us
to explain the underlying processes contributing to the emerging new urban forms.
Third, it should o€ er us new insights to prescribe e€ ective urban policies to redirect
the underlying processes to promote the most desirable urban forms. It is beyond
the scope of this paper to present detailed discussions on this synthetic framework.
Instead, the following is a broad-brush outline of the crucial elements of this urban
research framework (® gure 3).

4.2.1. Urban forms

A metropolis in the twenty-® rst century will be a tale of three di€ erent, but
interrelated, cities. The speci® c urban forms will be determined by the interplay of
the following three components:

E T echnopolis. Scholars have used a variety of di€ erent names to refer to this
emerging technopolis, ranging from ’electropolis’ and ’wired cities’ to ’city of
bits’, ’computational city,’ and ’virtual community’. Technopolis, narrowly
de® ned, refers to the constellation of massive transportation, telecommunica-
tions, and information networks to move goods, people, and information; it
is a combination of wheels, wires, and air waves. Technopolis, especially the
660 D. Z. Sui

city of bits, or the on-line virtual community, has attracted considerable

attention in recent years, but our knowledge of the wired cities remains
nothing more than futuristic prophecies, as presented in Mitchell’s City of
Bits (Mitchell 1995). Concerted research e€ orts are needed for understanding
this emerging new urban form. Because of the partial invisibility of the
technopolis (such as the information ¯ ow through the telecommunication
network), modelling and understanding it poses a new challenge for urban
scholars.
E Ecumonopolis. Ecumonopolis is also known as the sustainable city or the
ecological city. Daunting urban environmental problems have caused planners
to rethink the development policies of the past. The development of ecumeno-
polis, with its goal of seeking harmony between human beings and their
surrounding environment, has increasingly become an integral part of urban
development policy all over the world. The technopolis should be developed
in harmony with the environment and ultimately to become an ecumenopolis.
E Anthropopolis. The central component of the metropolis of the future will be
the residents in the cities. To make future cities become anthropopolis is to
make future metropolis become truly the city of / for the people. The concept
of anthropopolis emphasizes the satisfaction of human needs and the quality
of urban life as the ultimate goal for all future endeavors. We should strive
to make technopolis and ecumenopolis serve this goal. Transportation net-
works, communication networks, and urban environments should be designed
so as to stimulate the kind of life we would like to live. The goal of developing
an anthropopolis is to make all human activities (i.e., where we work, where
we live and shop, and where we go to entertain ourselves) as enjoyable as
possible. Telecommunications and computer technologies have played increas-
ingly important roles in these activities, and yet we are not sure to what
extent they are substitutive, complementary, or synergistic to traditional
means of conducting them.

With these three interrelated metropolis in mind, we should make concerted

research e€ orts to understand the optimal urban forms for the cities in the next
millennium. Do we want the relentless urban sprawl to continue, as facilitated by
the development of new transportation, communication, and information technolo-
gies? Or should we go back to more compact pedestrian-oriented urban forms as
proposed by some leading urban planners in order to better ful® ll the ideal sense of
community, sustainability, and social equity? Our understanding of the new urban
forms will de® nitely help us to answer these questions.

4.2.2. Urban processes

The processes contributing to the formation of urban forms are extraordinarily
complex, and numerous theoretical perspectives have been developed during the past
two decades to explain them. I believe that future urban theory should take a more
holistic approach. The hierarchical theory I am proposing can be broken down into
the following three levels:

E Micro-level processes. This is the individual level process using a behavioral

approach from theories and concepts of neo-classical economics and
behavioral geography (Golledge and Stimson 1997).
 GIS-based urban modelling 661

E Meso-level processes. At this intermediate level, attention should be paid to

the roles and behaviors of private and public institutions. We need to examine
how such institutions shape urban development trajectory and thus result in
di€ erent urban forms.
E Macro-level processes. At this level, we should bring the general societal trends
into consideration, putting urban development into perspectives of political
economy, economic transformation, long wave rhythms, and world systems.

4.2.3. Urban policies

I believe future policy goals should strive to achieve balance among the following
objectives:

E Economic e ciency. To develop policies to intervene at the individual, institu-

tional, and societal levels to optimize economic e ciency in technopolis at
both the intra and inter-urban levels to facilitate the ¯ ows of goods, people,
and information.
E Social equity. To design policies to intervene at the individual, institutional,
and societal levels to make the anthropopolis truly socially equitable so that
the metropolis will become a city for everybody, with equal access to all
di€ erent kinds of information and services and equal shares of environmental
burdens.
E Environmental sustainability. To initiate policies to intervene at the individual,
institutional, and societal levels to make the ecumenopolis environmentally
sustainable, with plenty of safe water, clean air, and diversi® ed urban nat-
ural habitat.

Indeed the information city poses new challenges for us and entails additional
spatial and temporal dimensions of social and economic activities. New urban
realities demand new urban models. These models should incorporate processes at
the individual, institutional, and societal levels to achieve the goals of economic
e ciency, environmental sustainability, and social equity for the metropolis of the
twenty-® rst century in which the technopolis, ecumonopolis, and anthropopolis are
synergistically and artfully integrated. This new type of city demands that we must
develop alternative spatial-temporal representation frameworks in the digital envir-
onment in order to model the urban reality realistically.

4.3. Alternative conceptualizations of space and time

The telemediated cities not only assume new urban forms, undergo fundamentally
di€ erent urban processes, and demand new urban policies, but also stimulate dra-
matic changes in the spatial/temporal rhythms of society (Graham and Marvin 1996,
Castells 1997). The rigid spatial-temporal framework embedded in the current genera-
tion of GIS is too restrictive to capture the current urban reality. The next generation
of GIS must incorporate multiple dimensions of space and time in order to become
a ¯ exible platform to implement various new urban models simulating the informa-
tion cities. The alternative conceptualization of space and time that is more compat-
ible with the new spatial-temporal rhythms will be one of the most important
cornerstones for the implementation of the next generation of GIS.
662 D. Z. Sui

4.3.1. Alternative conceptualizations of space

Philosophers from Aristotle to Kant have developed drastically di€ erent views
of space, with varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity and di€ erent concep-
tualizations regarding the relationship between space and substance (Sack 1980,
Couclelis 1993, Curry 1996). Based upon Penrose’s concepts of three worlds (Penrose
1994), I would like to group the di€ erent conceptualizations of spaces into three
major groups for the clarity of discussion (® gure 4):

E Formal/mathematical spaces. This is the space in the Platonic world of forms,

usually based upon mathematical axioms. Among the three major type of
spaces, the formal/mathematical space is perhaps logically the most consistent
and conceptually the most elegant. Although philosophers and scientists alike
still have a hard time explaining the ontological status of these abstract
representations, various formal/mathematical spaces have framed our ways
of viewing the world since the dawn of civilization. From Euclidean geometry
to N-dimensional algebraic spaces, from Hamilton’s state/phase space to
geometrical behaviour of vectors in Hilbert space, from cellular automata to
fractal geometry, each of these inventions or discoveries of new mathematical
spaces have drastically reshaped our perspectives toward the physical and
social-economic processes in the empirical world.
E Physical/Socio-Economic Spaces. This is the space created by various discip-
lines in both physical and social sciences. Although closely tied to formal/
mathematical spaces, di€ erent kinds of physical/socio-economic spaces have
di€ erent manifestations. The major dividing line is the absolute versus. the
relative conceptualization of space. The Newtonian (absolute) view treats

Figure 4. Three Worlds and Three Di€ erent Kinds of Spaces (Modi® ed after Penrose [1994]).
 GIS-based urban modelling 663

space as an empty container, independent of the objects within. Whereas the

Leibnizian (relative) view of space contends that space and substances are
inseparable, and space is primarily de® ned by the interrelationships among
the objects. Einstein’s theory of relativity injected not only the Leibnizian
view of space but also a novel conception of time or space-time into the
twentieth century consciousness. The shift from the Newtonian absolute view
of space and time to Einstein’s relative view of space-time has exerted far-
reaching in¯ uence in our e€ orts to understand socio-economic processes in
society. Thrift and Olds (1996) nicely summarized how the shift to di€ erent
conceptualizations of space may assist us in recon® guring our views of the
fundamental changes of economic processes in information society. The four
topological propositions they discussed in terms of bounded regions, networks,
¯ ows, and non-locality will have profound implications on how we actually
conceptualize the emerging new socio-economic process (Thrift and Olds
1996).
E Subjective/Experiential spaces. This is the space in the human mind. How
space is manifested in the human mind has always been a major scholarly
interest. Some philosophers, such as Kant, even speculated that space is a
synthetic a prioriÐ an innate precondition of human intellect that makes our
understanding the world possible. According to many Kantian and neo-
Kantian scholars, space is not another thing in the world, but a framework
created in our mind by the interaction of human reason with the world.
Human perceptions of space can be very di€ erent from the mathematical
spaces or physical spaces. Studies in cognitive science, behavioural geography,
and recent research e€ orts on the so-called ’naive geography’ exploring the
common sense model of the real world have revealed new dimensions of space
in the human mind (Parks and Thrift 1980, Frank et al. 1992, Egenhofer and
Mark 1995, Mark and Egenhofer 1996) . In the meantime, critical social
theorists have been arguing that space is produced entirely by various social
processesÐ the social production of space (Lefebvre 1991).

All these alternative conceptions of space have developed di€ erent vocabularies
to describe the world (table 1). Can these alternative views about space be imple-
mented in a digital environment?

4.3.2. Alternative conceptualizations of time

The representation of time in GIS is almost non-existent in the current generation
of GIS. Although many researchers have devoted their e€ orts toward incorporating
the temporal element in GIS (Langran 1992, Peuquet 1994, Al-Taha et al. 1994),

Table 1. Three spaces and their sample terminologies (Modi® ed after Couclelis (1992)).

Formal/Mathematical Physical/Socio-Economic Subjective/Experiential

Point (0-D) Location/Origin Place/Landmark

Line (1-D) Network/ Route Way/Path
Area (2-D) Region Territory/ Neighborhood
Surface (3-D) Plain Environment/Domain
Con® guration Distribution/ Flows World/Spatial Layout
664 D. Z. Sui

alternative ways of conceptualizing time should also be explored (Worboys 1995).

Similar to space, time can also be conceptualized by dramatically di€ erent structures
(® gure 5). For example, time can be either conceptualized as a discrete or a continuous
variable (® gure 5 (a)); time may be linearly or partially ordered or may form a
temporal cycle exhibiting periodicities (® gure 5 (b)); or time may be associated with
time points, intervals (durations) or disjoint unions of time intervals (® gure 5 (c)).
Stephen Hawking (1996) eloquently presented three views of linear time models,
from the cosmological arrow (the direction in which the universe increases in size)
to the thermodynamic arrow (the direction in which disorder increases) to the
psychological arrow(the direction in which we perceive time pass). In a sense, these
three temporal models parallel the three major types of spaces. Besides these linear
time models, we should also explore the implications of various non-linear cyclic
models that may be more appropriate for many phenomena we are trying to model.
These alternative views of space and time will broaden the theoretical foundations
of GIS technology. So far GIS is based upon a Newtonian absolute representation
of space coupled with the crude conception of linear time slicing. GISci-based urban
modeling should explore the new dimensions of space and time, and take a holistic
approach about the multidimensionality of space and time in order to more realistic-
ally capture the new urban dynamics during the information age. Modeling the new
urban realities demands that we shift our conceptions of space and time to
new dimensions such as the Leibnizian and Kantian view of space and a non-linear
conception of time. Perhaps, what is more challenging is how to operationalize the
concept of space-time instead of the Cartesian/Newtonian concept of space and time.
These alternative representation schemes for space, time, and space-time will not
only lay a new conceptual foundation for GIS technology, but also turn out to be
more e€ ective in many speci® c applications, such as applications of various subject-
ive/experiential conceptualizations of space in car navigation systems and navigation
aids for the visually impaired, etc. Several new research initiatives are already moving
towards these new directions, such as NCGIA’s initiative 19 on GIS and Society;
initiative 21 on NaõÈ ve, etc. Geography (Frank et al. 1992, NCGIA 1996 b, Raper
in press).

Figure 5. Alternative conceptualizations of temporal structure (After Worboys [1995]).

 GIS-based urban modelling 665

Figure 6. Dimensions of a feature-based urban GIS (modi® ed after Usery (1996)).

4.4. Computational implementation strategies

To implement these new urban models and spatial-temporal concepts, we need
to develop new computational models and implementation strategies. It should be
recognized, however, that not all of the new urban models and alternative concep-
tualizations of space and time can be implemented using the Turing computer as we
know it today. Although the development of quantum computers may blaze a new
holy grail in computation (Deutsch 1997), our understanding of the new urban
reality will be ultimately based upon a combination of computers and human
judgment. But for those urban models and alternative spatial-temporal concepts that
can be computerized, we should strive to develop the best computational model for
their implementations. In the near future, I believe that the implementation of new
urban models will hinge on two core conceptsÐ the feature-based GIS and the
interoperable GIS. To transcend the static, two- dimensional map metaphor, as being
currently implemented in GIS, Lynn Usery’s feature-based GIS (FBGIS) model
seems to be a promising strategy to implement new urban models and the multi-
666 D. Z. Sui

dimensions of space-time (Usery 1996). Unlike the layer-based GIS in which we try
to ® t a map layer containing geographical entities into a Cartesian coordinate system
(an absolute conceptualization of space and time), the FBGIS lends us a new
conceptual framework to implement those alternative views of space and time and
various new models depicting the physical and socio-economic processes in the real
world (Tang et al. 1996). In a feature-based GIS, space, time and themes are de® ned
as integral parts of a geographical feature instead of referencing all the entities into
an arbitrary Cartesian grid. By providing direct access to spatial, temporal and
thematic attributes, the FBGIS is not constrained to map and layered representations
of geography and thus supports multiple dimensions of spatial/temporal events.
However, there is a crucial element missing from the current version of Usery’s
FBGISÐ the de® nition of operations on a feature. The FBGIS model should be
further expanded to incorporate the dual aspects of the object-oriented paradigmÐ
the simultaneous de® nition of state and functionality for an object ( Worboys 1994).
The de® nition of operations on a feature should be included as an integral part of
a feature. As some preliminary results have indicated (Ralston 1993, Raper and
Livingston 1995), the inclusion of operations in the feature de® nition, together with
its capabilities of encapsulation, inheritance/composition, overloading, and poly-
morphism, can greatly facilitate the implementation of various spatial analysis and
modelling techniques.
The other very important computing trend is to cultivate the interoperability of
software products across distributed computing platforms (DCPs) according to the
concept of the Open Geo-data Interoperability Speci® cation (OGIS) (McKee 1996).
The concept of OGIS and interoperablity has already stimulated new software
development trends in the industry, and is also gaining attention among academic
researchers (Egenhofer and Goodchild 1997, Evans 1997). Instead of developing a
fully integrated GIS, software vendors and researchers are exploring new ways of
developing a much leaner core module with numerous more task speci® c, embeddable
modules. These object-oriented, embeddable modules can not only be easily integ-
rated into a core GIS package but also be seamlessly integrated with other application
programs. In addition, with explosive growth of both the Internet and the Intranet,
the development of web-based software tools is necessary so that whoever has access
to the Internet can run the program regardless of the location of the user. ESRI’s
MapObjects and the new map server on the Internet are an important step toward
full interoperability. As evidenced by Lin and Zhang (1998), new platform-
independent software development tools such as Java de® nitely provide us the
potential to develop GIS-based urban modelling and simulation tools as easily
accessible and user friendly as SimCity (Macmillan 1996).

5. Concluding remarks: beyond models, beyond technologies

This paper has reviewed the practices, the problems, and the prospects of GIS-
based urban modelling. Although we have seen some technical progress during the
past ten years, the integration of GIS with urban modeling is essentially technology-
driven without adequate justi® cation for the validity of the models and the suitability
of the spatial-temporal framework embedded in the current generation of GIS. By
reframing the future research agenda from a geographical information science per-
spective, the author contends that the integration of urban modelling with GIS must
proceed with the development of new models for the informational cities, the incorp-
oration of multi-dimensional concepts of space and time in GIS, and the expansion
 GIS-based urban modelling 667

of a feature-based strategy for the implementation of these new urban models and
spatial-temporal concepts using object-oriented and web-based programming tools.
GISci-based urban modelling will not only equip us with new computational models
and implementation strategies that are interoperable and embeddable across comput-
ing platforms, but also liberate us from the constraints of existing urban models and
the rigid spatial-temporal framework embedded in the current generation of GIS.
This paradigm shift in urban modelling will enable us to think above and beyond
the technical issues that have occupied us during the past ten years.
Last, but not least, I would like to emphasize that our future research e€ orts
need to be tied more closely to urban policies. There have been growing disparities
between what we purport to describe and manipulate using sophisticated theoretical
frameworks and technical tools in virtual reality and our ability to say anything
meaningful about what actually happens in urban reality. Just as Gunnar Olsson
(1974) put it so aptly 20 years ago: `what the analysis yielded was not more knowledge
of the phenomena the model was speaking about: what it revealed was instead the
hidden structure the model was speaking within (p. 61)’. The new research agenda
must strike a balance between the sophistication of our techniques/methods and the
real world phenomena we are talking about. We need new frameworks, new models,
and new concepts, but we must strive to translate these new structures and models
into meaningful policies and languages that society can appreciate and understand
and thus help us to build a more human urban society. Rigorous conceptual frame-
works should be coupled with meticulous empirical analysis and realistic policy
implications using state-of-the-art techniques. Otherwise, our research e€ orts may
become another self-indulging academic exercise.

References
Abel, D. J., Kilby, P. J. and Davis, J. R., 1994, The systems integration problem. International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 8, 1± 12.
Al-Taha, K. K., Snodgrass, R. T. and Soo, M. D., 1994, Bibliography on spatiatemporal
databases. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 8, 95± 103.
Anselin, L. and Getis, A., 1992, Spatial statistical analysis and geographic information
systems. Annals of Regional Science, 26, 19± 33.
Anselin, L., Dodson, R. F. and Hudak., S., 1993, Linking GIS and spatial data analysis in
practice. Geographical Systems, 1, 2± 23.
Anselin, L. and Bao, S., 1997 (in press), Exploratory spatial data analysis: Linking SpaceStat
and ArcView. In Recent Developments in Spatial Analysis, edited by M. Fischer and
A. Getis (Berlin: Springer-Verlag).
Batty, M., 1989, Urban modeling and planning: Re¯ ections, retrodictions, and prescriptions.
In Remodelling Geography, edited by B. Macmillan (Oxford: Basil Blackwell),
pp. 147± 169.
Batty, M., 1992, Urban modeling in computer-graphic and geographic information systems
environments. Environment and Planning B., 19, 663± 688.
Batty, M., 1994, A chronicle of scienti® c planning: The Anglo-American modeling experience.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, 7± 16.
Batty, M., 1995, The computable city. Keynote Address for the Fourth International
Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Melbourne,
Australia, 11± 14 July, 1995, http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/casa/melbourne.html.
Batty, M. and Longley, P.,1994, Fractal Cities: a Geometry of Form and Function (London:
Academic Press).
Batty, M. and Xie, Y. C., 1994 a, Modeling inside GIS: Part 1. Model structures, exploratory
spatial data analysis and aggregation; Part 2. Selecting and calibrating urban models
using ARC/INFO. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 8, 291±
307, 451± 470.
668 D. Z. Sui

Batty, M. and Xie, Y. C., 1994 b, Urban analysis in a GIS environment: population density
modeling using ARC/INFO. In Spatial Analysis and GIS, edited by S. Fotheringham
and P. Rogerson (London: Taylor and Francis), pp. 189± 220.
Batty, M. and Xie, Y. C., 1994 c, From cells to cities. Environment and Planning B, 21, 31± 48.
Bertuglia, C. S., Leonardi, G. and Wilson, A. G. (editors), 1990, Urban Dynamics (London:
Routledge).
Birkin, M., Clark, G., Clark, M. and Wilson, A. G., 1990, Elements of a model-based GIS
for evaluation of urban policy. In Geographic Information Systems: Development and
Applications, edited by L. Worrall (London: Belhaven), pp. 131± 162.
Birkin, M., 1996, Retail location modeling in GIS. In Spatial Analysis: Modeling in a GIS
environment, edited by P. Longley and M. Batty (London: Taylor & Francis),
pp. 207± 228.
Birkin, M., Clarke, G., Clarke, M. and Wilson, A.G., 1996, Intelligent GIS: L ocation
decisions and strategic planning (Cambridge, UK: GeoInformation International ).
Bourne, L. S., 1991, Recycling urban systems and metropolitan areas: A geographical agenda
for the 1990s and beyond. Economic Geography, 67, 185± 209.
Brail, R. K., 1990, Integrating urban information systems and spatial models. Environment
and Planning B., 17, 381± 394.
Brooks, K. R., London, J. N., Henry, M. S. and Singletary, M. S., 1993, Analysis and
simulation of employment and income impacts of infrastructure investments in a state-
wide GIS framework. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 17, 129± 151.
Burrough, P. A. and Frank, A. U., 1995, Concepts and paradigms in spatial information:
Are current geographical information systems truly generic? International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems, 9, 101± 116.
Castells, M., 1989, T he Informational City (Oxford: Blackwell).
Castells, M., 1997, T he Rise of Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell).
Clarke, K. C. and Gaydos, L. J., 1998, Long term urban growth prediction using a cellular
automaton model and GIS: Applications in San Francisco & Washington/Baltimore.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 12, 699± 714.
Clarke, M., 1990, Geographical information systems and model-based analysis. In Geographic
Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning, edited by H. Scholten and S.
Stillwell (London: Kluwer Academic), pp. 165± 175.
Couclelis, H., 1991, Requirements for planning-relevant GIS: a spatial perspective. Papers in
Regional Science, 70, 9± 19.
Couclelis, H., 1993, Location, place, region, and space. In Geography’s Inner Worlds, edited
by R. F. Abler, M. G. Marcus, and J. M. Olson (New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University
Press), pp. 215± 233.
Couclelis, H., 1996, Spatial Technologies, Geographic Information, and the City. Research
Conference Report (Santa Barbara, CA: NCGIA), Technical Report 96-10.
Couclelis, H. and Takeyama, M., 1995, Proximal space. In paper presented at the 1995 AAG
Annual Meeting, Chicago, 3 ± 11 March.
Curry, M., 1996, On space and spatial practice in contemporary geography. In Concepts in
Human Geography, edited by C. Earle, K. Mathewson, M.S. Kenzer (Lanham, MD.:
Rowman & Little® eld), pp. 3± 32.
Ding, Y. and Fotheringham, A. S., 1992, The integration of spatial analysis and GIS.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 16, 3± 19.
Deutsche, D., 1997, T he Fabric of Reality (London: The Penguin Press).
Egenhofer, M. and Mark, D. M., 1995, Naive geography. In Spatial Information T heory: a
theoretical basis for GIS, edited by A.U. Frank and W. Kuhn (Berlin: Springer-Verlag),
Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, No. 988, 1± 15.
Egenhofer, M. J. and Goodchild, M. F., 1997, Interoperating geographic information sys-
tems: Request for approval in detail. Available at http: //www.ncgia.ucsb.edu
/conf /interop97 /i20prop/i20prop.html.
Evans, J. D., 1997, Organizational and technological interoperability are intertwined in geo-
graphic information infrastructures: Evidence from sociological theory and empirical
study. Position Paper for the International Workshop on Interoperable GIS. Available
at http: //www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/interop97/work papers/evans.html.
Ferguson, E., Ross, C. and Meyer, M., 1992, PC software for urban transportation planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 238± 243.
 GIS-based urban modelling 669

Fischer, M., Scholten, H. J. and Unwin, D. 1996, Spatial Analytical Perspectives on GIS
(London: Taylor and Francis).
Fischer, M. M. and Nijkamp, P., 1992, Geographical information systems and spatial analysis.
Annals of Regional Science, 26, 5± 17.
Fotheringham, A. S. and Rogerson, P. A.(editors),1994, Spatial Analysis and GIS (London:
Taylor and Francis).
Frank, A. U., Campari, I. and Formentini, U. (editors), 1992, T heories and Methods of Spatio-
T emporal Reasoning in Geographic Space (New York: Springer-Verlag).
Gatrell, A. C., 1991. Concepts of space and geographical data. In Geographical Information
Systems: Principles and Applications, edited by D. J. Maguire, M. F. Goodchild, and
D. W. Rhind (London: Taylor and Francis), pp. 119± 134.
Gazelton, N. W. J., Leahy, F. J. and Williamson, I. P., 1992, Integrating dynamic modeling
with geographic information systems. Journal of Urban and Regional Information
Systems, 4, 47± 58.
Geertman, S. C. M. and Van Eck, J. R. R., 1995, GIS and models of accessibility potential:
an application in planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,
9, 67± 80.
Gimblett, R. H. and Ball, G. L., and Guisse, A. W., 1994, Autonomous rule generation and
assessment for complex spatial modeling. L andscape and Urban Planning, 30, 13± 16.
Golledge, R. G. and Stimson, R. J., 1997, Spatial Behavior: a Geographic Perspective (New
York: Guilford).
Goodchild, M. F., 1992, Geographical information science. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems, 6, 31± 45.
Goodchild, M. F., Haining, R. and Wise, S., 1992, Integrating GIS and spatial data analysis:
Problems and possibilities. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,
6, 407± 23.
Goodchild, M. F., Parks, B. O. and Steyaert, L. T. (editors), 1993, Environmental Modeling
with GIS (New York: Oxford University Press).
Goodchild, M. F., Parks, B. O. and Steyaert, L. T. (editors), 1996, GIS and Environmental
Modeling: Progress and Research Issues (New York: Oxford University Press).
Graham, S. and Marvin, S., 1996, T elecommunications and the city : electronic spaces, urban
places (London: Routledge).
Grossmann, W. D. and Eberhardt, S., 1992, Geographical information systems and dynamic
modeling: Potentials of a new approach. Annals of Regional Science, 26, 53± 66.
Harris, B. and Batty, M., 1993, Locational models, geographic information, and planning
support systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12, 184± 198.
Haslett, J., Wills, G. and Unwin, A., 1990, SPIDER Ð An interactive statistical tool for the
analysis of spatially distributed data. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems, 4, 285± 296.
Hawking, S., 1996, T he Illustrated A Brief History of T ime (New York: Bantam Books).
Itami, R. M., 1994, Simulating spatial dynamics: Cellular automata theory. L andscape and
Urban Planning, 30, 27± 47.
Kelly, K., 1994, Out of Control: T he new biology of machines (London: Fourth Estate).
Kirtland, D., Gaydos, L., Clarke, K., De Cola, L., Acevedo, W. and Bell, C., 1994, An
analysis of transformations in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento area. World Resource
Review, 6, 206± 217.
Lake, R. W., 1993, Planning and applied geography: Positivism, ethics, and geographic
information systems. Progress in Human Geography, 17, 404± 413.
Landis, J., 1995, Imagining land use futures: applying the California Urban Futures Model.
Journal of American Planning Association, 61, 438± 457.
Langran, G., 1992, T ime in Geographic Information Systems (London: Taylor and Francis).
Lee, D. B., 1973, Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
39, 163± 178.
Lefebvre, H., 1991, T he Social Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell)
Lin, H. and Zhang, L., 1998, Internet-based investment environment information system: a
case study on BKR of China. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
12, 715± 725.
Longley, P. and Clarke, G. (editors), 1995, GIS for Business and Service Planning (Cambridge,
UK: GeoInformation International ).
670 D. Z. Sui

Macmillan, B., 1996, Fun and games: Serious toys for city modeling in a GIS environment.
In Spatial Analysis: Modeling in a GIS environment, edited by Paul Longley and
Michael Batty (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 153± 66.
Mark, D. M. and Egenhofer, M. J., 1996, Common-sense geography: Foundations for
intuitive geographic information systems. http://www.geog.bu€ alo.edu/ncgia/i21
/papers/ GISLIS96.html# RTFToC12
McKee, L., 1996, OGIS spans distributed computing platforms. GIS World, 9, 56.
Miller, H. J., 1991, Modeling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographic
information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5,
287± 301.
Mitchell, W. J., 1995, City of Bits: Space, place, and the infobahn (Cambridge, MA.: The
MIT Press)
NCGIA, 1996a, Advancing Geographic Information Science:An Research Agenda. http://
www.ncgia.ucsb.edu /secure /main.html
NCGIA, 1996b, The social implications of how people, space, and environment are represented
in GIS. NCIGA Research Initiative 19 Proposal. http://www.geo.wvu.edu/
www/i19/proposal
Nijkamp, P. and Reggiani, A., 1992, Interaction, Evolution, and Chaos in Space (Berlin:
Springer-Verlag).
Nyerges, T. L., 1995, Geographic information system support for urban/regional transporta-
tion analysis. In T he Geography of Urban T ransportation (2nd edition), edited by S.
Hanson (New York: Guildford), pp. 240± 268.
Olsson, G., 1974, The dialectics of spatial analysis. Antipode, 6, 50± 62.
Openshaw, S., 1991, Developing appropriate spatial analysis methods for GIS. In Geographical
Information Systems: Principles and applications, edited by D. J. Maguire, M. F.
Goodchild, and D. W. Rhind (London: Longman), 1, 389± 402.
Openshaw, S., 1994, A concept-rich approach to spatial analysis: Theory generation and
scienti® c discovery in GIS using massively parallel computing. In Innovations in GIS,
edited by M. F. Worboys (London: Taylor and Francis), pp. 123± 138.
Parks, D. and Thrift, N., 1980, T imes, Spaces, and Places (New York: John Wiley and Sons).
Penrose, R., 1994, Shadows of the Mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness (New
York: Oxford University Press).
Peuquet, D. J., 1988, Representations of geographic space: toward a conceptual synthesis.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, 375± 394.
Peuquet, D. J., 1994, It’s about time: A conceptual framework for the representation of
temporal dynamics in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 84, 441± 461.
Pickles, J. (edited), 1995, Ground T ruth: T he Social Implications of Geographic Information
Systems (New York: The Guilford Press).
Putman, S., 1992, Integrated Urban Models 2 (London: Pion Press).
Ralston, B. A., 1994, Object oriented spatial analysis. In Spatial Analysis and GIS, edited by
A.S. Fotheringham and P. Rogerson (London: Taylor and Francis), pp. 165± 186.
Raper, J., In press, Multidimensional Geographies: Extending GIS in space and time (London:
Taylor and Francis).
Raper, J. and Livingstone, D.,1995, Development of a geomorphological spatial model using
object-oriented design. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9,
359± 383.
Robinson, V. B. and Coiner, J. C., 1986, Characteristics and di€ usion of a microcomputer
geogprocessing system: The urban data management software (UDMS) package.
Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, 10, 165± 173.
Roy, G. G. and Snickars, F., 1996, CityLife: A study of cellular automata in urban dynamics.
In Spatial Analytical Perspectives on GIS, edited by M. Fischer, H. J. Scholten, and
D. Unwin (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 213± 228.
Sack, R. D., 1980, Conceptions of Space in Social T hought: A Geographical Perpective
(Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).
Sayer, R. A., 1979, Understanding urban models versus understanding cities. Environment and
Planning A, 11, 853± 862.
Shaw, S. L., 1993, GIS for urban travel demand analysis: requirements and alternatives.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 17, 15± 29.
 GIS-based urban modelling 671

Sui, D. Z., 1994, GIS and urban studies: positivism, post-positivism and beyond. Urban
Geography, 15, 258± 278.
Sui, D. Z., 1996, Urban forms, urban processes, and urban policies: a research agenda for the
metropolis in the 21st century. In Spatial T echnologies, Geographic Information, and
the City, compiled by H. Couclelis (Santa Barbara, CA: NCGIA ),Technical Report
96-10, pp. 210± 213.
Sui, D. Z., 1997, Reconstructing urban reality: from GIS to electropolis. Urban Geography,
18, 74± 89.
Sui, D. Z. and Lo, C. P., 1992, A model-based GIS approach for urban development simulation.
GIS/L IS’92, 2, 737± 746.
Tang, A. Y., Adams, T. M. and Usery, E. L., 1996, A spatial data model design for feature-
based geographic information systems. International Journal of Geographic Information
Systems, 10, 643± 659.
Thrift, N. and Olds, K., 1996, Recon® guring the economic in economic geography. Progress
in Human Geography, 20, 311± 337.
Usery, E. L., 1996, A feature-based geographic information system model. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 62, 833± 838.
Wegener, M., 1994, Operational urban models: state of the art. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 60, 17± 29.
Worboys, M., 1994, Objected-oriented approaches to geo-referenced information. International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 8, 385± 399.
Worboys, M., 1995, GIS: A computing perspective (London: Taylor and Francis).