Advertisement

A configurational approach based on geographic information systems to support decision-making process in real estate domain

  • Valerio Di Pinto
  • Antonio M. Rinaldi
Focus

Abstract

The distribution and shape of urban spaces together with the choices that lead to their configuration have been the base of long and multidisciplinary debates taking into account several and heterogeneous factors. In this context, the decision-making process involved in urban planning actions needs of specific measures to create, improve and manage the value of a given area and manufactures. In this article, we propose a quantitative approach based on configurational analysis in the domain of real estate. The use of geographic information systems to integrate and analyze data form different data sources shows similarities among social economics models and spatial approaches which consider completely different parameters.

Keywords

Configurational analysis Space Syntax GIS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animals rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldarola EG, Rinaldi AM (2015) Big data: a survey-the new paradigms, methodologies and tools. In: Proceedings DATA 2015 - 4th international conference on data management technologies and applications, pp 362–370Google Scholar
  3. Caldarola EG, Picariello A, Rinaldi AM (2015) An approach to ontology integration for ontology reuse in knowledge based digital ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on management of computational and collective intElligence in Digital EcoSystems, ACM, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  4. Cataldo A, Rinaldi AM (2010) An ontological approach to represent knowledge in territorial planning science. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cataldo A, Pinto VD, Rinaldi AM (2014) A methodological approach to integrate ontology and configurational analysis. In: Lecture notes in computer science—part ii—proceedings of ICCSA 2014, Springer Publishing, pp 693–708Google Scholar
  6. Cataldo A, Pinto VD, Rinaldi AM (2015) Representing and sharing spatial knowledge using configurational ontology. Int J Bus Intell Data Min 10(2):123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiaradia A, Hillier B, Barnes Y, Schwander C (2009) Residential property value patterns. In: Proceedings of the 7th international space syntax symposium, KTH, Stockholm, SVE, pp 015:1–015:12Google Scholar
  8. Enstrm R, Netzel O (2007) Can space syntax help us in understanding the intraurban office rent pattern? Accessibility and rents in downtown Stockholm. J Real Estate Finance Econ 36(3):289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman L (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heyman A, Manum B (2015) Distances, accessibilities and attractiveness: Urban form correlates of willingness to pay for dwellings examined by space syntax based measurements in gis. In: Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, pp 91.1–91.12Google Scholar
  11. Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillier B (1999a) Centrality as a process. accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international space syntax symposium, pp 06.1–06.20Google Scholar
  13. Hillier B (1999b) The hidden geometry of deformed grids: or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environ Plan 26:169–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillier B (2004) Rejoinder to carlo ratti. Environ Plan 31:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillier B (2012) The genetic code for cities: is it simpler than we think?. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–152Google Scholar
  16. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hillier B, Iida S (2005) Network and psychological effects in urban movement. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–490Google Scholar
  18. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J (1993a) Natural movement: configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan 20:29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajewski T, Xu J (1993b) Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ Plan 20(1):29–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurd RM (1924) Principles of city land values. The record and guide, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahraman E, Kubat A (2015) In the effects of accessibility factors on land values in the cbd of izmir. In: Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, pp 92.1–92.11Google Scholar
  22. Law S, Penn A, Karimi K, Shen Y (2017) The economic value of spatial network accessibility for uk cities: a comparative analysis using the hedonic price approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th international space syntax symposium, pp 77.1–77.21Google Scholar
  23. Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. Macmillan, BasingstokezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthews J, Turnbull G (2007) Neighborhood street layout and property value: the interaction of accessibility and land use mix. J Real Estate Finance Econ 35:111–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mill JS (1848) Principles of political economy. John W. Parker, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  26. Muth R (1969) Cities and housing. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Narvaez L, Penn A, Griffiths S (2015) The architectural adaptation of urban economic life: location, use and form of the commercial-residential building in cardiff. In: Proceedings of the 10th international space syntax symposium, pp 95.1–95.23Google Scholar
  28. Nieminen U (1973) On the centrality in a directed graph. Soc Sci Res 2(4):371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabidussi G (1966) The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika 31(4):581–603MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Turner A (2001) Angular analysis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international space syntax symposium, pp 015:1–015:12Google Scholar
  31. Vaughan L (2007) The spatial syntax of urban segregation. Prog Plan 67(3):205–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Thünen JH (1875) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nationalökonomie. Wiegandt, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wingo L Jr (2016) Transportation and urban land. Resources for the future, Inc., Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering (DICEA)University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (DIETI)University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly
  3. 3.IKNOS-LAB Intelligent and Knowledge Systems (LUPT)University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations