Central urban areas have become more complex and comprehensive over the last several decades. Today, the study of these areas must include an understanding of urban spatial structure and morphology. However, the predominant research perspective comes from the current interdisciplinary quantitative discussion of the spatial form of urban space structures, rather than from the use of formats to quantitatively examine urban centers or business districts. The business mode is an important aspect of research in central areas and is more reflective of the core characteristics of the urban center. This study provides an in-depth examination of the industrial morphology of urban centers, especially that of megacities. To do so, the study utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods of case choice and kernel density analysis to link urban industrial form data with urban spatial structure. The purpose of this research is to determine the association between urban industrial form data and the relationship between urban spatial structure and urban morphology, as well as summarize the related characteristics from data and spatial statistics results. In exploring this relationship, this study addresses significant research gaps while contributing to spatial planning and related policy-making in the central urban district.
Urban central areas Spatial structures Industrial form data
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51708296 and 51708103) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2017M611823).
Banzhaf, E., S. Kabisch, K. Knapp, D. Rink, M. Wolff, and A. Kindler. 2017. Integrated research on land-use changes in the face of urban transformations: An analytic framework for further studies. Land Use Policy 60: 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.R. 2010. Managing the retail format portfolio: An application of modern portfolio theory. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (1): 1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davisa, L., and N. Hodges. 2012. Consumer shopping value: An investigation of shopping trip value, in-store shopping value and retail format. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2): 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhar, T.K., and L. Khirfan. 2017. A multi-scale and multi-dimensional framework for enhancing the resilience of urban form to climate change. Urban Climate 19: 72–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, K., and E. Bridges. 2010. Consumer innovativeness: Impact on expectations, perceptions, and choice among retail formats. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (6): 492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, M., O. Mihaescu, Y. Li, and N. Rudholm. 2017. Comparison and one-stop shopping after big-box retail entry: A spatial difference-in-difference analysis. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogle, J., D. Delparte, and H. Sanger. 2017. Quantifying the sustainability of urban growth and form through time: An algorithmic analysis of a city’s development. Applied Geography 88: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pili, S., E. Grigoriadis, M. Carlucci, M. Clemente, and L. Salvati. 2017. Towards sustainable growth? A multi-criteria assessment of (changing) urban forms. Ecological Indicators 76: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, B., and J. Yang. 2015. Scale, distribution, and pattern of mixed land use in central districts: A case study of Nanjing, China. Habit International 46: 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, C., H. Kotzab, B. David, and D.B. Grant. 2012. The relevance of shopper logistics for consumers of store-based retail formats. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (1): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valls, F., E. Redondo, D. Fonseca, R. Torres-Kompen, S. Villagrassa, and N. Marti. 2018. Urban data and urban design: A data mining approach to architecture education. Telematics and Informatics 35 (4): 1039–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, D., Y. Nong, and W. Zhu. 2011. Study on consumer behavior and commercial space structure of Wangfujing Street. City Planning Review 35 (7): 43–60.Google Scholar