There's a short paper I read which proposed a new model of representing the way that regulations evolve in relation to spatial dynamics. (Or otherwords, "spatial regulation"). There's a lot of technical terminology in it but it basically advanced a single mechanism through a progression of three models.

The first model is that of spontaneous local organization. What they showed through this model is that changing the rules of interaction at the local level does indeed change the patterns of spontaneous organization.

The second model is that of externally-based regulatory pressure. What this model showed is that regulation pressure (especially in defining zones and thresholds, such as whether land is to be used for residential or commercial purposes) really does affect how the use of the land develops even beyond the direct regulatory definitions themselves. This would mean to say that the spontaneous organization doesn't go away, and so there are "diverging consequences" that comes from that pressure. It means that how the use of space gets realized in actuality - diverges. It diverges from the expectation set out by the regulation, even though the regulatory pressure has its effect.

The third model combines the two, but on a whole nother order of magnitude. It is a divergence-based co-evolutionary model of spatial regulation. It doesn't just track the changes, but the rate of change (of the divergence). In the nitty gritty, it says that the divergence is used as feedback for evolving the regulation endogenously (not externally-based, but interally-generated). The divergence is measured, narrow or wide; and it is also measured based on whether it is narrowing or widening, and whether that narrowing/widening dynamic is slowing down or speeding up. They produced full formulas for it.

They ran simulations which showed how this is possible. It revealed a core mechanic in those same three ways:

• local rules affect spontaneous organization

• spatial regulation applies effective pressure on spontaneous organization, with divergence

• divergence, magnitude of divergence, change of divergence, and rate-of-change (of divergence) then co-evolve with the regulatory pressure , by way of engagement and feedback

I thought this was pretty interesting because it revealed a broader perspective on shelter, built environment, and social survival than I ever had before. This is the center of the civilized world. It isn't out in the wilderness, where no one is regulating spatial organization (or spatial dynamics). It's here, in the real estate of life.

It's, even, a relief, for me, because it actually looks sane to me. I cannot imagine how else it should be done, at least, not in any way that would seem healthy.

So I posted this in off-topic because it is so out-of-the-box here. Have you heard of this before? Do you know more?