A problem in human dynamics: modelling the population density of a social space

Abstract

Human dynamics and sociophysics suggest statistical models that may explain and provide us with better insight into social phenomena. Here we tackle the problem of determining the distribution of the population density of a social space over time by modelling the dynamics of agents entering and exiting the space as a birth-death process. We show that, for a simple agent-based model in which the probabilities of entering and exiting the space depends on the number of agents currently present in the space, the population density of the space follows a gamma distribution. We also provide empirical evidence supporting the validity of the model by applying it to a data set of occupancy traces of a common space in an office building.

Assessment of the Impact of Basic Public Service Facility Configuration on Social–Spatial Differentiation: Taking the Zhaomushan District of Chongqing, China

“…Early research methods were mainly based on empirical qualitative analysis. After the advancement of computer technology and population survey statistics technology, research methods based on multivariate statistics and spatial analysis technology began to be applied [36,37]. Analysis methods such as geographic information systems, human dynamic models, spatial syntax, type morphology, social network analysis, clustering methods, etc., began to deepen traditional research methods.…”

Task-based paradigm for the design of office occupant-building interactions

“…The second platform is an ABM that replicates occupant behavior of individuals and their interactions with the environment and other individuals (Axtell et al, 2002;Bonabeau, 2002;Klein et al, 2012;Levene & Fenner, 2020). ABM has been particularly useful to understand and manage multi-disciplinary systems with many interacting elements because it is able to embody the dynamic complexities of occupant behavior, including feedback, adaptation, and heterogeneity, better than traditional evaluation platforms (Auchincloss & Diez Roux, 2008;Axelrod, 1997;Bonabeau, 2002;Macy & Willer, 2002;Vellei et al, 2016).…”