Space Syntax and Pervasive Systems

  • Vassilis Kostakos
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 99)


In this paper we describe our novel use of space syntax for the design and development of pervasive systems. Pervasive systems are computer systems that are designed to be “invisible” to users because they are designed to blend in with their environment and become part of the fabric of everyday life. Pervasive systems consist of fixed, mobile and embedded components, each of which may entail interactive capabilities and intelligence. Due to their close relationship with the build environment, pervasive systems are an ideal domain for adopting a space syntax methodology. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, we present an adaptation of the space syntax methodology aimed at researchers and designers of space and pervasive systems. By developing an adaptation of the space syntax methodology we intend for space syntax to be added the arsenal of tools and theories that researchers use to understand and design pervasive systems. To exemplify how this can be achieved, we present three case studies that demonstrate crucial ways in which space syntax analysis can aid the design of pervasive systems. The case studies presented here show how space syntax can be used in the development of pervasive system as an application development tool, as an exploratory tool, and as a modelling tool.


Space syntax Pervasive and ubiquitous computing Observation Methodology Applications 



The author wishes to thank Eamonn O’Neill, John Mason, Alan Penn, Ava Fatah gen. Schieck, Shinichi Iida, Bill Hillier, Alasdair Turner, and all other members of the UCL space syntax Lab.


  1. Amorim, L., Loureiro, C. & Nascimento, C. (2007). Preserving space: Towards a new architectural conservation agenda. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 32, 1–13Google Scholar
  2. Carvalho, R. & Penn, A. (2004). Scaling and universality in the micro-structure of urban space. Physica A, 332, 539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaintreau, A., Hui, P., Crowcroft, J., Diot, C., Gass, R. & Scott, J. (2006). Impact of human mobility on the design of opportunistic forwarding algorithms. Proc. INFOCO, IEEE CS PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, J., Kim, M. & Choic, H. (2007). Evacuation efficiency evaluation model based on euclidean distance with visual depth. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 41, 1–16Google Scholar
  5. Collomosse, J.P., Al Mosawi, K. & O’Neill, E. (2006). Viewpoint invariant image retrieval for context in urban environments. Proceedings of the Conference of Visual Media Production (CVMP), IEEE Press, 177Google Scholar
  6. Crawdad (2007), Crawdad project. Last access 22 August 2007
  7. Dix, A. (2000). Welsh mathematician walks in cyberspace. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (pp. 3–7). (New York: ACM Press)Google Scholar
  8. Dix, A. (2003). Managing multiple spaces. Proceedings of the Workshop on Space, Spatiality and Technology, (Edinburgh: Napier University)Google Scholar
  9. Dourish P. & Bell, G. (2007). The Infrastructure of experience and the experience of infrastructure: meaning and structure in everyday encounters with space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(3), 414–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin)Google Scholar
  11. Graham, S. (2005). Strategies for networked cities. In L. Albrechts & S. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Planning in the network society (pp. 95–109). (Routledge)Google Scholar
  12. Greene, M. & Mora, R. (2007). Rehabilitation process in city centres: new residents in traditional areas. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 33, 1–14Google Scholar
  13. Hadjichristos, C. (2007). Prostitution spatialised: Cyprians then and now. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 113, 1–6Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, J. & Zako, R. (2007). Communities of co-rpesence and surveilalance: How public open space shapes awareness and behaviour in residential developments. Proceedings of the space syntax symposium 2007, Istanbul, 21, 1–21Google Scholar
  15. Harrison, S. & Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (pp. 67–76). (Boston, MA, USA, ACM Press)Google Scholar
  16. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  17. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J. & Penn, A. (1987). Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture & Behaviour, 3(3), 233–250Google Scholar
  18. Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  19. Hillier, B. & Penn, A. (2004). Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B, 31, 501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Grajewski, T. and Burdett, R. & Musgrove, J. (1985). Space standards and configuration in research laboratories. Technical report. Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, UCL, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillier, B. & Sahbaz, O. (2005). High resolution analysis of crime patterns in urban street networks: an initial statistical sketch from an ongoing study of a London borough. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2005, 1, 451–478Google Scholar
  22. Hillier, B. & Shu, S. (2000). Crime and urban layout: the need for evidence. In S. Ballantyne, V. MacLaren & K. Pease (Eds.), Secure foundations: key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety (pp. 224–248). (London, UK: Institute for Public Policy Research)Google Scholar
  23. Hillier, B., Turner, A., Yang, T. & Park, H.T. (2007). Metric and topo-geometric properties of urban street networks: some convergences, divergences and new results. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 1, 1–21Google Scholar
  24. Jiang B. (2009). Ranking spaces for predicting human movement in an urban environment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. Preprint,, 23(7), 823–837Google Scholar
  25. Jiang B., Zhao S. & Yin J. (2008). Self-organized natural roads for predicting traffic flow: A sensitivity study. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, July, P07008, Preprint, Scholar
  26. Karimi, K., Amir, A., Shafiei, K., Rafor, N., Abdul, E., Zhang, J. & Mavridou, M. (2007). Evidence-based spatial intervention for regeneration of informal settlements: the case of Jedda central unplanned areas. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 34, 1–14Google Scholar
  27. Kim, Y.O. & Penn, A. (2004). Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the environment. Environment and Behaviour, 36(4), 483–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kisimoto, T., Kawasaki, S., Nagata, N. & Tanaka, R. (2007). Optimal location of route and stops of public transportation. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 75, 1–10Google Scholar
  29. Kostakos, V. & O’Neill, E. (2007). Quantifying the effects of space on encounter. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 97, 1–9Google Scholar
  30. Marcus, L. (2007). Spatial capital and how to measure it: an outline of an analytical theory of the social performativity of urban form. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 5, 1–11Google Scholar
  31. Mason, J. (2007). I spy with my little eye. University of Bath, Department of Computer Science, undergraduate dissertationGoogle Scholar
  32. Muramatsu, J. & Ackerman, M.S. (1998). Computing, social activity, and entertainment: A field study of a game MUD. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(1–2), 87–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O'Neill, E., Johnson, P. & Johnson, H. (1999). Representations and user-developer interaction in cooperative analysis and design. Human Computer Interaction, 14(1–2), 43–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Neill, E., Kostakos, V., Kindberg, T., gen. Schieck, A.F., Penn, A., Fraser, D.S. & Jones, T. (2006). Instrumenting the city: developing methods for observing and understanding the digital cityscape. Proceeding of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) 2006, 315–332Google Scholar
  35. Peponis, J., Conroy-Dalton, R., Wineman, J. & Dalton, N. (2004). Measuring the effects of layout upon visitors behaviors in open plan exhibition settings. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design, 31, 253–273Google Scholar
  36. Peponis, J., Wineman J, Bafna, S., Rashid, M. & Kim, S.H. (1998). On the generation of linear representations of spatial configuration. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design, 25, 559–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peponis, J., Wineman, J., Rashid, M., Kim, S.H. & Bafna, S. (1997). On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: convex partitions and their local properties. Environment and Planning (B): Planning and Design, 24, 761–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ratti, C. (2004). Space syntax: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B, 31, 487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ribeiro, R.J.D.C. & Holanda, F.R.B.D. (2007). What integration adds to quality of life. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 81, 1–12Google Scholar
  40. Sailer, K. & Penn, A. (2007). The performance of space – exploring social and spatial phenomena of interaction patterns in an organisation. Proceedings of the International Architecture and Phenomenology Conference, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  41. Shiode, N. & Kanoshima, T. (1999). Utilising the spatial features of cyberspace for generating a dynamic museum environment. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Virual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) 1999 (pp. 79–84). (Paderborn, Germany: ACM Press)Google Scholar
  42. Spinello, R.A. (2000). Excerpt from cyberethics: morality and law in cyberspace. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30(1), 10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner, A. (2001). Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2001, 31, 1–9Google Scholar
  44. Turner, A. & Penn, A. (2002). Encoding natural movement as an agent-based system. Environment and Planning B, 29(4), 473–490Google Scholar
  45. United Nations (2007). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision, [electronic version]. Retrieved from, last access August 28, 2007
  46. Wang, J., Zhu, Q. & Mao, Q. (2007). The three-dimensional extension of space syntax. Proceedings of the Space Syntax Symposium 2007, Istanbul, 48, 1–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Madeira Interactive Technologies InstituteFunchalPortugal

Personalised recommendations