Towards a Spatial Semantics to Analyze the Visual Dynamics of the Pedestrian Mobility in the Urban Fabric

  • Thomas LeducEmail author
  • Francis Miguet
  • Vincent Tourre
  • Philippe Woloszyn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC, volume 0)


The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impact of visual ambiences (visualscape) onto an urban pedestrian pathway. This work takes place within the interdisciplinary research project called Ambioflux, dealing with the sustainable mobility issues in the city. We add to the spatial semantic layer GDMS (Generic Datasource Management System) an innovative method based on partial isovists fields in order to compute the visibility of the pedestrian all along his pathway. This method allows “concatenating” several partial visibility polygons in order to represents the visual perception of the pedestrian.

After a brief overview of the visibility analysis context, we justify the need of a specific semantic tool to develop the type of dynamics visual analysis we focus on. The remainder of this paper is dedicated to the methodology of the mobile pedestrian pathway’s visual fingerprint characterization using the spatial formalism already described. At last, we present a use case based on a real city tour so as to identify the best rotation’s direction from the visual perception point of view.


Spatial Data Infrastructure Aperture Angle Urban Fabric Optic Array Weighted Coverage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The AMBIOFLUX project was funded by CNRS and the French MEEDM Ministry under PIRVE’s (Programme Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Ville et Environnement) contract #1004. Part of the GearScape developments is funded by the AMBIOFLUX project.

Special thank to Fernando GONZÁLEZ CORTÉS (Spain) for all the developments performed on the GearScape platform.


  1. Anguix, A. and Carrion, G. (2005). gvSIG: Open Source Solutions in spatial technologies. In GIS Planet, Estoril, Portugal.Google Scholar
  2. Batty M (2001). Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Planning and design: Environment and planning B, 28(1):123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batty M and Jiang B (1999). Multi-agent simulation : new approaches to exploring space-time dynamics in GIS. CASA Working Papers Series, London, UK, (10):25.Google Scholar
  4. Benedikt ML (1979). To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 6(1):47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benedikt ML and Burnham CA (1985). Perceiving architectural space: From optic arrays to isovists. In Persistence and Change, pages 103–114. edited by WH Warren and RE Shaw. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Couclelis H (1992). People Manipulate Objects (but Cultivate Fields): Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate in GIS. In Frank AU, Campari I, and Formentini U, editors, Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space, International Conference GIS - From Space to Territory: Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 65–77, Pisa, Italy. Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson JJ (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Hillier B and Hanson J (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  9. Leduc, T., Bocher, E., González Cortés, F., and Moreau, G. (2009a). GDMS-R: A mixed SQL to manage raster and vector data. In GIS Ostrava 2009 - Symposium on Seamless Geoinformation Technologies, Ostrava, Czech Republic. Leduc T, Woloszyn P, and Joanne P (2009b). GDMS: A spatial semantics to evaluate soundmarks effects on an urban pedestrian pathway. In 12th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science — AGILE’2009, Hanover, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Lynch KA (1976). Managing the sense of a region. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Meilinger T, Franz G, and Bülthoff HH (2009). From isovists via mental representations to behaviour: first steps toward closing the causal chain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  12. Morello E and Ratti C (2009). A digital image of the city: 3D isovists in Lynch’s urban analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(5):837–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peponis J, Wineman J, Rashid M, Hong Kim S, and 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(5):761–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Piombini A (2006). Modélisation des choix d’itinéraires pédestres en milieu urbain approche géographique et paysagère. PhD thesis, Université de Franche-Comté. Ecole Doctorale “langages, espaces, temps, sociétés”.Google Scholar
  15. Sarradin F, Siret D, Couprie M, and Teller J (2007). Comparing sky shape skeletons for the analysis of visual dynamics along routes. Planning and design: Environment and planning B, 34(5):840–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stamps AE (2005). Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(5):735–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tandy CRV (1967). The isovist method of landscape survey. Methods of Landscape Analysis. Ed. H C Murray, Landscape Research Group, PO Box 53, Horspath, Oxford, OX33 1WX.Google Scholar
  18. Teller J (2003). A spherical metric for the field-oriented analysis of complex urban open spaces. Planning and design: Environment and planning B, 30(3):339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turner A, Doxa M, O’Sullivan D, and Penn A (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Planning and design: Environment and planning B, 28(1):103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Woloszyn, P. and Follut, D. (2000). The visualization of the urban "ambients" parameters. In 14th International symposium "Computer Science for environmental protection" of Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), pages 173-186, Bonn, Germany. METROPOLIS Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Woloszyn, P. (2002). From fractal techniques to subjective quantification: towards an urban ambient metric? In Landscape and Architectural Modeling Symposium, pages 1-6, Sousse, Tunisia.Google Scholar
  22. Yang PPJ, Putra SY, and Li W (2007). Viewsphere: a GIS-based 3D visibility analysis for urban design evaluation. Planning and design: Environment and planning B, 34(6):971–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zacharias J (2001). Pedestrian behaviour and perception in urban walking environments. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(1):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Leduc
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francis Miguet
    • 1
  • Vincent Tourre
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philippe Woloszyn
    • 3
  1. 1.CERMA laboratory UMR CNRS 1563Nantes cedex 2France
  2. 2.Ecole Centrale de NantesNantes cedex 3France
  3. 3.RESO laboratory, ESO, Maison de la Recherche en Sciences SocialesUniversité de Haute Bretagne - Rennes II, place du recteur Henri Le MoalRennes cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations