Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

2018 Edition
| Editors: Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Analysis and Planning of Urban Networks

  • Andres Sevtsuk
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_43




Property of a location that describes the ease with which the location can be accessed from surrounding urban form and land use attractions

Built Environment

A combination of urban form and land use mix of an area


Refers to metrics that describe how centrally an event is located in a spatial network (see “Centrality Measures”)

Land Use Pattern

The spatial distribution of human activities accommodated within urban form

Urban Form

The physical pattern of urban infrastructure and buildings


Network analysis concepts have been used in the design and planning of cities for several decades. Until recently, however, they were common in only highly specialized applications – disaster planning problems, critical facilities’ location problems, and costly utility and transportation infrastructure design problems. Efforts to apply network analyses to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Berge C (1962) The theory of graphs and its applications. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Casalania V, Rittel H (1967) Generating floor plans from adjacency matrices. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garrison WL (1960) Connectivity of the interstate highway system, papers and proceedings, vol 6. Regional Science Associations, Philadelphia, pp 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garrison WL, Marble DF (1962) The structure of transportation networks, no. 62-II. U.S. Army transportation command technical report, pp 73–78Google Scholar
  6. Habraken NJ, Teicher J (1998) The structure of the ordinary: form and control in the built environment. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Haggett P, Chorley JC (1969) Network analysis in geography. Butler & Tanner Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Handy S, Niemeier AD (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plan A 29:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Plan Assoc 25(2):73–76Google Scholar
  10. Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison-Wesley, ReadingzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heywood (1998) Introduction to geographic analysis. Addison Wesley Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillier B, Burdett R, Peponis J, Penn A (1987) Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? Archit Comport Archit Behav 3(3):233–250Google Scholar
  15. Jiang B, Claramunt C, Batty M (1999) Geometric accessibility and geographic information: extending desktop GIS to Space Syntax. Comput Environ Urban Syst 23(2):127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kansky KJ (1963) Structure of transportation networks: relationships between network geometry and regional characteristics. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. König R, Schneider S, Bielik M (2012) The parametric exploration of spatial properties – coupling parametric geometry modeling and the graph-based spatial analysis of urban street networks. In: Proceedings of the symposium on simulation for architecture and urban design, Orlando, pp 123–129Google Scholar
  18. Levin PH (1964) The use of graphs to decide the optimum layout of buildings. Archit J 7:809–815Google Scholar
  19. Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT, Cambridge, p 194Google Scholar
  20. March L (1976) The architecture of form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. March L, Steadman P (1971) The geometry of environment: an introduction to spatial organization in design. RIBA Publications, London, p 360Google Scholar
  22. Miller HJ, Wu Y-H (2000) GIS software for measuring space-time accessibility in transportation planning and analysis. Geoinformatica 4(2):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohsenin M (2011) The impact of urban geometry on cognitive maps. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SMArchS thesisGoogle Scholar
  24. Okabe A, Shiode S (2001) SANET: a toolbox for spatial analysis on a network. J Geogr Anal 38(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Okabe A, Sugihara K (2012) Spatial analysis along networks: statistical and computational methods. Statistics in practice. Wiley, Hoboken, p 296zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. Geo Books, NorwickGoogle Scholar
  27. Parish Y, Muller P (2001) Procedural modeling of cities. In: ACM SIGGRAPH, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  28. Peponis J, Bafna S, Zhang Z (2008) Connectivity of streets: reach and directional distance. Environ Plan B Plan Des 35:881–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Porta S, Crucitti P, Latora V (2005) The network analysis of urban streets: a primal approach. Environ Plan B 35(5):705–725Google Scholar
  30. Porta S, Strano E, Iacoviello V, Messora R, Latora V, Cardillo A, Wang F, Scellato S (2009) Street centrality and densities of retail and services in Bologna, Italy. Environ Plan B Plan Des 36:450–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raford N (2010) Social and technical challenges to the adoption of Space Syntax methodologies as a planning support system (PSS) in American urban design. In: Proceedings of the 7th international Space Syntax symposium, Stockholm, pp 090:1–090–12Google Scholar
  32. Ratti C (2004) Space Syntax: some inconsistencies. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31:487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rittel H (1970) Theories of cell configuration: emerging methods in environmental design and planning. In: Moore GT (ed) Proceedings of the Design Methods Group first international conference. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Rodrigue J-P, Comtois C, Slack B (2006) The geography of transport systems. Routledge, Abingdon/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Sabidussi G (1966) The centrality index of a graph. Psychmetrika 31:581–603MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sevtsuk A (2010) Path and place: a study of urban geometry and retail activity in Cambridge and Somerville, MA. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Sevtsuk A, Mekonnen M (2012) Urban network analysis toolbox. Int J Geomat Spat Anal 22(2):287–305Google Scholar
  38. Tabor P (1976) Networks distances and routes. The architecture of form. In: March L (ed). MIT, Cambridge, pp 366–367Google Scholar
  39. Vanegas C, Garcia-Dorado I, Aliaga DG, Benes B, Waddell P (2012) Inverse design of urban procedural models, unpublishedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vragovic I, Louis E, Diaz-Guilera A (2005) Efficiency of information transfer in regular and complex networks. Phys Rev E 71:026122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie F, Levinson D (2007) Measuring the structure of road networks. Geogr Anal 39(3):336–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Design, City Form LabHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.City Form LabSingapore University of Technology and DesignSingaporeSingapore

Section editors and affiliations

  • Fabrizio Silvestri
    • 1
  • Andrea Tagarelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Yahoo IncLondonUK
  2. 2.University of CalabriaArcavacata di RendeItaly