A New Method to Characterize Density Adapted to a Coarse City Model

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Density is probably one of the most used indicators to characterize urban development. Even if it is a quantitative and properly defined measure, there are still difficulties in using it properly. This chapter proposes an updated approach to characterize urban density based on buildings’ footprints. It can be applied to huge datasets and allows multilevel characterization of density. We first present an original partition of urban open space. This topology helps us to define a neighborhood function. We then adapt the ground space index and floor space index indices to the previously defined tessellation. The combination of the neighborhood function and the modified indices makes it possible to assess density iteratively. For each building, these values allow one to define the density profile, which is then used in a classification process. The results highlight spatial patterns and homogeneous areas. This transposable method is adapted to urban fabric characterization and surpasses old descriptive and low formalized classifications.

Keywords

Density profile Extended FSI (Floor Space Index) Extended GSI (Ground Space Index) Open space tessellation Urban morphology 

References

  1. Berghauser Pont M, Haupt P (2007) The relation between urban form and density. Urban Morphol 11(1):62–66Google Scholar
  2. Chen Y (2011) Derivation of the functional relations between fractal dimension of and shape indices of urban form. Comput, Environ Urban Syst 35(6):442–451, (November 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Forsyth A (2003) Measuring density: working definitions for residential density and building intensity. Design Brief, 8:8Google Scholar
  4. Hamaina R, Leduc T, Moreau G (2012) Towards urban fabrics characterization based on buildings footprints. In: J Gensel , D Josselin, D Vandenbroucke (eds). Bridging the geographic information sciences, lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 327–346Google Scholar
  5. Henn A, Römer C, Gröger G, Plümer L (July 2011) Automatic classification of building types in 3D city models. GeoInformatica 16(2):281–306Google Scholar
  6. Koomen E, Rietveld P, Bacao F (2009) The third dimension in urban geography: the urban-volume approach. Environ Plann B: Plann Des, 36(6):1008–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Openshaw S (1983) The modifiable areal unit problem. CATMOG - concepts and techniques in modern geography 38:41Google Scholar
  8. Perret J, Boffet Mas A, and Ruas A (2009) Understanding urban dynamics: the use of vector topographic databases and the creation of spatio-temporal databases. In 24th international cartography conference (ICC09), Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  9. Smith DA, Crooks AT (2010) From buildings to cities: techniques for the multi-scale analysis of urban form and function. Technical report 155, centre for advanced spatial analysis (UCL), LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Thomas I, Frankhauser P, De Keersmaecker ML (2007) Fractal dimension versus density of built-up surfaces in the periphery of Brussels. Papers in regional science 86(2):287–308, (June 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachid Hamaina
    • 1
  • Thomas Leduc
    • 2
  • Guillaume Moreau
    • 1
  1. 1.LUNAM Université, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, CERMA UMR CNRS 1563NantesFrance
  2. 2.LUNAM Université, CNRS, CERMA UMR CNRS 1563NantesFrance

Personalised recommendations