4.6 Article

Identification and analysis of urban functional area in Hangzhou based on OSM and POI data

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251988

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52078245]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study accurately identified the functional areas in the central urban area of Hangzhou by combining Open Street Map and Point of Interest data, revealing spatial distribution characteristics and core-periphery differentiation. The results were consistent with the actual situation, providing references for urban planning and management.
The accurate identification of urban functional areas is of great significance for optimizing urban spatial structure, rationally allocating spatial elements, and promoting the sustainable development of the city. This paper proposes a method to precisely identify urban functional areas by coupling Open Street Map (OSM) and Point of Interest (POI) data. It takes the central urban area of Hangzhou as a case study to analyze the spatial distribution characteristics of the functional areas. The results show that: (1) The central urban areas of Hangzhou are divided into 21 functional areas (6 single functional areas, 14 mixed functional areas and 1 comprehensive functional area). (2) The single functional areas and the mixed functional areas show the geographical distribution characteristics of the looping stratification, which means Core-periphery differentiation is obvious, and the comprehensive functional area is relatively scattered. (3) The mixed degree of regional function with ecological function and production function is low while comprehensive functional areas are usually associated with higher potential and vitality. (4) The identification results are in great agreement with the actual situation of Hangzhou central urban area, and the method is feasible. Therefore, this paper can provide a reference for urban development planning and management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据