Re:Humans of Simulated New York: an exploratory comprehensiv...
by urschrei on Thursday March 16, 2017 @12:49PM
(#13886529)
It's not completely fair to judge the quality of this paper by the first few references (8 and 25, in particular), but it does make me extremely dubious. It's not really appropriate to cite Ed Glaeser in an urban modelling paper (or anywhere, really, other than as a cautionary example), and that interpretation of Bettencourt and West won't bear much scrutiny either. I won't address the…contributions (I work in a department that does a lot of urban modelling and ABM – it's cited in the paper – but I'm not a modelling / ABM person myself)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Humans of Simulated New York: an exploratory comprehensiv...
by maxwelljoslyn on Thursday March 16, 2017 @02:01PM
(#13887287)
urschrei, can you please expand on your claim about the appropriateness of citing Ed Glaeser on this topic? I am a layman on the topics of economics and urban planning. Glaeser's Wikipedia page suggests he is an active researcher in this field; what is which you believe makes him unsuitable?
Re:Humans of Simulated New York: an exploratory comprehensiv...
by L_Rahman on Thursday March 16, 2017 @03:10PM
(#13888089)
@urschrei: Seconding the request for Glaeser criticism.
Re:Humans of Simulated New York: an exploratory comprehensiv...
by furtadobb on Saturday March 18, 2017 @11:42AM
(#13901746)
Glaeser is cited in the context of advocating for cities as a green solution (basically, the compact city advantage). See his comemercial book 'The triumph of the city' https://fee.org/articles/the-triumph-of-the-city-how-our-gre...