More than half a century has passed since the first use of models in urban planning. Most urban planners have agreed on using models either to simplify complicated systems or to make simulations of such systems in order to predict their future. There is, however, disagreement on how far such simplifications and simulations have worked toward the planners’ goals and objectives. In this paper, through historical analysis, we placed the model-theory interaction into the broader scope of scientific modeling to develop guidelines applicable to the narrow field of urban modeling. Here, we developed an argument that models’ applicability and meaningfulness in urban planning are primarily dependent on planning theories, that is, models and theories should move parallel to achieve all the functions and capabilities claimed by models. Thus, an interactive process shapes the model as the mediator between the theory and the phenomenon: (a) the theory explains an abstract phenomenon, (b) the model provides an understanding of that phenomenon, and (c) the original abstract explanation is revisited and made more practical. This evolutionary process is our view of the “mediator model,” that is, a new definition of the urban model.
AlbeverioSAndreyDGiordanoP, et al. (2008) The Dynamics of Complex Urban Systems: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
2.
AlonsoW (1971) Beyond the inter-disciplinary approach to planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners37(3): 169–173.
3.
AnasA (1982) Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation: Economic Theory, Econometrics and Policy Analysis with Discrete Choice Models. New York, NY: Academic Press.
4.
Bailer-JonesDM (1999) Tracing the development of models in the philosophy of science. In: Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Boston, MA: Springer, pp.23–40.
5.
Bailer-JonesDM (2002) Scientists’ thoughts on scientific models. Perspectives on Science10(3): 275–301.
6.
Bailer-JonesDM (2003) When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science17(1): 59–74.
7.
Bailer-JonesD (2004) Theodore L. Brown, Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Illinois, USA: University of Illinois Press. 55(4): 811–815.
8.
Bailer-JonesDM (2009) Scientific Models in Philosophy of Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9.
BattyM (1976) Urban Modelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BattyM (1979) Progress, success, and failure in urban modelling. Environment and Planning A11(8): 863–878.
11.
BattyM (2007) Model cities. Town Planning Review78(2): 125–151.
12.
BattyM (2009) Urban modeling. In: International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier.
13.
BattyM (2013) The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
BattyM (2017) Science in planning: Theory, methods and models. In: SanchezTW (ed.) Planning Research and Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.241–254.
15.
BinderG (2012) Theory (izing)/practice: The model of recursive cultural adaptation. Planning Theory11(3): 221–241.
16.
BoyceDE (1984) Urban transportation network-equilibrium and design models: Recent achievements and future prospects. Environment and Planning A16(11): 1445–1474.
17.
BoyceDE (1988) Renaissance of large-scale models. Papers in Regional Science65(1): 1–10.
18.
CartwrightN (1999) The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DeutschKW (1951) Mechanism, organism, and society: Some models in natural and social science. Philosophy of Science18(3): 230–252.
20.
DonaghyKPHopkinsLD (2006) Coherentist theories of planning are possible and useful. Planning Theory5(2): 173–202.
21.
FaludiA (1973) A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon.
22.
FischlerR (2000) Communicative planning theory: A Foucauldian assessment. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 358–368.
23.
FlyvbjergB (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
24.
FootD (2017) Operational Urban Models: An Introduction. Milton: Taylor and Francis.
25.
GoodchildMF (2005) GIS and modeling overview. In: GIS, Spatial Analysis, and Modeling. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press, pp.1–18.
26.
HarrisB (1965) New tools for planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31(2): 90–95.
27.
HarrisB (1988) The emerging unity of science and humanism in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association54(4): 521–524.
28.
HarrisB (1994) The real issues concerning Lee’s “requiem”. Journal of the American Planning Association60(1): 31–34.
29.
HealeyP (1992) Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review63(2): 143.
30.
HealeyP (2006) Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
31.
HellyW (1975) Urban Systems Models. New York, NY: Academic Press.
32.
HesseM (1966) Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
33.
HuttenEH (1954) The role of models in physics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science4(16): 284–301.
34.
InnesJE (1998) Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association64(1): 52–63.
35.
KlostermanRE (1994a) An introduction to the literature on large-scale urban models. Journal of the American Planning Association60(1): 41–44.
36.
KlostermanRE (1994b) Large-scale urban models retrospect and prospect. Journal of the American Planning Association60(1): 3–6.
37.
KuhnTS (2012) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
LeeDBJr (1973) Requiem for large-scale models. Journal of the American Institute of Planners39(3): 163–178.
39.
MagnaniLNersessianNJ (2002) Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
40.
MarchA (2010) Practising theory: When theory affects urban planning. Planning Theory9(2): 108–125.
41.
McFaddenD (1974) The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics3(4): 303–328.
42.
MertonRK (1967) On Theoretical Sociology: Five Essays, Old and New. New York, NY: The Free Press.
43.
MorganMSMorrisonM (1999) Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
NersessianNJ (1999) Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In: MagnaniLNersessianNJThagardP (eds) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Berlin: Springer, pp.5–22.
45.
NeumanM (2005) Notes on the uses and scope of city planning theory. Planning Theory4(2): 123–145.
46.
NourianFJaberi MoghaddamM (2014) Who makes out the elephant? Disagreement among urban planning theorists’ claim on rationality. Armanshahr7(12): 191–201.
47.
PackHPackJR (1977) The resurrection of the urban development model. Policy Analysis3(3): 407–427.
48.
PaulleyNJWebsterFV (1991) Overview of an international study to compare models and evaluate land-use and transport policies. Transport Reviews11(3): 197–222.
49.
PutmanSH (1975) Urban land use and transportation models: A state-of-the-art summary. Transportation Research9(2–3): 187–202.
50.
PutmanSH (1979) Urban Residential Location Models. Heidelberg; New York: Physica-Verlag.
51.
RosenbluethAWienerN (1945) The role of models in science. Philosophy of Science12(4): 316–321.
52.
RydinY (2007) Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory6(1): 52–68.
53.
SayerRA (1976) A critique of urban modelling: From regional science to urban and regional political economy. Progress in Planning6: 187–254.
54.
SayerRA (1979) Understanding urban models versus understanding cities. Environment and Planning A11(8): 853–862.
55.
SuttonRIStawBM (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly40(3): 371–384.
