4.7 Article

A century of decoupling size and structure of urban spaces in the United States

期刊

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s43247-020-00082-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Earth Lab through UCB's Grand Challenge Initiative
  2. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at UCB
  3. Innovative Seed Grant program at UCB
  4. NSF's Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment program [1924670]
  5. University of Colorado Boulder Libraries Open Access Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Data-driven statistical analyses reveal that urban spaces across the United States have developed similarly by most metrics between 1910 and 2010. However, shape- and structure-related characteristics have developed along more complex trajectories, indicating a long-term decoupling of these two sets of attributes over time.
Most cities in the United States of America are thought to have followed similar development trajectories to evolve into their present form. However, data on spatial development of cities are limited prior to 1970. Here we leverage a compilation of high-resolution spatial land use and building data to examine the evolving size and form (shape and structure) of US metropolitan areas since the early twentieth century. Our analysis of building patterns over 100 years reveals strong regularities in the development of the size and density of cities and their surroundings, regardless of timing or location of development. At the same time, we find that trajectories regarding shape and structure are harder to codify and more complex. We conclude that these discrepant developments of urban size- and form-related characteristics are driven, in part, by the long-term decoupling of these two sets of attributes over time. Urban spaces across the United States have developed similarly between 1910 and 2010 by most metrics, however, shape- and structure-related characteristics have developed along more complex trajectories, according to data-driven statistical analyses

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

4.7
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