Advertisement

Investigating the Social Impacts of High-Density Neighbourhoods Through Spatial Analysis

  • Sahar SoltaniEmail author
  • Ning Gu
  • Jorge Ochoa Paniagua
  • Alpana Sivam
  • Tim McGinley
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1028)

Abstract

Studies argue that higher density areas incur social problems such as lack of safety [1], while other studies provide evidence for the positive impact of high-density urban areas, for instance opportunities for social interactions and equal form of accessibility [2]. This paper argues that design factors can mediate the impacts of density on social aspects. Therefore, this study explores the extent to which design factors can be correlated to the social outcomes of different density areas. To do this, data from an empirical study conducted in the UK, which identified the relationship between density and social sustainability through cases of fifteen neighbourhoods, have been utilised. This paper has conducted further analysis based on these cases using a mixed method with spatial analysis tools. Outcomes show that some of the social results in the UK study such as safety are correlated with spatial factors like normalised angular choice. Moreover, the regression model created from the spatial indices can be used to predict the overall social sustainability index reported by the UK study.

Keywords

Urban density Social sustainability Spatial analysis Space syntax Urban Network Analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

References

  1. 1.
    Bramley, G., et al.: What is ‘social sustainable’, and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it? In: Proceedings of Planning Research Conference, pp. 1–40 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman, P.: Density, the sustainability multiplier: some myths and truths with application to Perth, Australia. Sustainability 6(9), 6467–6487 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newman, M.E.J.: Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hillier, B.: Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hillier, B., Hanson, J.: The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sevtsuk, A., Mekonnen, M.: Urban network analysis toolbox. Int. J. Geomatics Spat. Anal. 22(2), 287–305 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kyttä, M., et al.: Urban happiness: context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environ. Planning B: Planning Des. 43(1), 34–57 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dempsey, N., Brown, C., Bramley, G.: The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Prog. Plann. 77(3), 89–141 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raman, S.: Designing a liveable compact city: physical forms of city and social life in urban neighbourhoods. Built Environ. 36(1), 63–80 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burton, E.: Housing for an urban renaissance: implications for social equity. Hous. Stud. 18(4), 537–562 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Y.: A tale of two cities: physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. J. Am. Planning Assoc. 74(3), 307–323 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bramley, G., et al.: Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British cities. Environ. Planning A 41(9), 2125–2142 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kyttä, M., Broberg, A.: The multiple pathways between environment and health. In: Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide 2014. Wiley (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berghauser Pont, M.Y., et al.: Space, Density and Urban Form, in Urbanism, TUDelft (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soltani, S., et al.: Social sustainability in the built environment: a critical conceptual framework. In: Unmaking Waste 2018, Adelaide (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soltani, S., et al.: A computational approach to measuring density through mixed methods. In: The 24th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2019), Wellington, New Zealand (2019)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blanchard, P., Volchenkov, D.: Mathematical Analysis of Urban Spatial Networks. Understanding Complex Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hillier, B., Iida, S.: Network and psychological effects in urban movement. In: Cohn, Anthony G., Mark, David M. (eds.) COSIT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3693, pp. 475–490. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Penn, A., et al.: Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environ. Planning B: Planning Des. 25(1), 59–84 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sevtsuk, A.: Analysis and planning of urban networks. In: Alhajj, R., Rokne, J. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, pp. 25–37. Springer, New York (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6170-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bramley, G., et al.: Social sustainability and urban form: evidence from five british cities. Environ. Planning A: Econ. Space 41(9), 2125–2142 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-sayed, K.: Space Syntax Methodology. Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turner, A.: From axial to road-centre lines: a new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis. Environ. Planning B: Planning Des. 34(3), 539–555 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sevtsuk, A., Kalvo, R., Ekmekci, O.: Pedestrian accessibility in grid layouts: the role of block, plot and street dimensions. Urban Morphol. 20(2), 89–106 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hillier, B., Yang, T., Turner, A.: Normalising least angle choice in Depthmap and how it opens new perspectives on the global and local analysis of city space, vol. 3, pp. 155–193 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berghauser Pont, M., Haupt, P.A.: The spacemate: density and the typomorphology of the urban fabric, pp. 11–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kolovou, I., et al.: Road centre line simplification principles for angular segment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th Space Syntax Symposium, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansen, W.G.: How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 25(2), 73–76 (1959).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Technical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations