4.7 Review

Exploring the relationship between landscape characteristics and urban vibrancy: A case study using morphology and review data

期刊

CITIES
卷 95, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102389

关键词

Urban landscapes; Urban vibrancy; Regression analysis; Spatial metrics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41501420]
  2. Shandong Science and Technology Research Project [2017GSF22102]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province of China [ZR2019MD043]
  4. National Keypoint Research and Invention Program of Shandong Province [2017CXGC0304-X]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban vibrancy is a vital component that supports urban form and is dependent on the physical entities in urban landscapes. Thus, the relationship between urban landscapes and urban vibrancy is a major concern for city planners. While existing studies mainly capture mixed land use, density, and accessibility properties of the physical environment, urban characteristics depicted by the city morphologies have seldom been addressed. To fill this gap, a novel framework is proposed in this paper to explore the relationship between landscape characteristics and urban vibrancy. First, research approaches for delineating multi-level urban landscape characteristics including places, land use, and single and multiple landscape elements using spatial metrics were analysed. Then, place-based reviews from social media data were applied as proxies to quantitatively measure urban vibrancy. Finally, regression analyses were proposed to assess the relationship between landscape characteristics and urban vibrancy. Satisfactory regression model performances were attained with adjusted R-2 values of 0.65, 0.65, 0.66, and 0.67 at each landscape characteristic level. The results indicate that changes in urban vibrancy are variable and highly,dependent on the proposed multi-level characteristics. These findings may provide guidance for city planning and urban landscape design.

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