IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v47y2020i8p1418-1439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban modeling for streets using vector cellular automata: Framework and its application in Beijing

Author

Listed:
  • Zimu Jia
  • Long Chen
  • Jingjia Chen

    (12442Tsinghua University, China)

  • Guowei Lyu

    (College of Land Science and Technology/Center of Land Policy and Law, 34752China Agricultural University, China)

  • Ding Zhou

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1259University of Michigan, USA)

  • Ying Long

Abstract

Zones, cells, and parcels have long been regarded as the main units of analysis in urban modeling. However, only limited attention has been paid to street-level urban modeling. The emergence of fine-scale open and new data available from various sources has created substantial opportunities for research on urban modeling at the street level, particularly for modeling the spatiotemporal process of urban phenomena. In this paper, the street is adopted as the spatial unit of an urban model, and a conceptual framework for such modeling based on cellular automata is proposed. The validity of the proposed framework is verified by an empirical application to the urban space within the Fifth Ring Road in Beijing from 2014 to 2018. The results show that the density of points of interest simulated by the cellular automata model for 2018 is basically consistent with the actual distribution according to direct observation, and there is no significant difference in the proportion of high, medium, and low points of interest density streets between different ring roads. In addition, the deviation rate and Kappa index are 0.1171 and 0.97, respectively, indicating the proposed model can replicate historical patterns well and predict the transition of points of interest density at the street level. Subsequently, we considered three scenarios, adopting 2018 as the base year and using the proposed model to simulate the distribution of points of interest density in 2022 and the changes in points of interest density from 2018 to 2022. The conceptual framework and empirical application also provide support for urban planning and design based on the integration of linear public space and big data.

Suggested Citation

  • Zimu Jia & Long Chen & Jingjia Chen & Guowei Lyu & Ding Zhou & Ying Long, 2020. "Urban modeling for streets using vector cellular automata: Framework and its application in Beijing," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1418-1439, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:8:p:1418-1439
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808320942777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320942777
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808320942777?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Wegener, 2011. "From Macro to Micro—How Much Micro is too Much?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 161-177.
    2. Deal, Brian & Schunk, Daniel, 2004. "Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: a simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 79-95, November.
    3. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.
    4. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero, 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(3), pages 265-294.
    5. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    6. Landis, John D., 1994. "The California Urban Futures Model: A New Generation of Metropolitan Simulation Models," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9pb6g3g6, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Alex Anas & Yu Liu, 2007. "A Regional Economy, Land Use, And Transportation Model (Relu‐Tran©): Formulation, Algorithm Design, And Testing," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 415-455, August.
    8. Ying Long & Kang Wu, 2017. "Simulating Block-Level Urban Expansion for National Wide Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    2. Fernando Fonseca & Escolástica Fernandes & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Walkable Cities: Using the Smart Pedestrian Net Method for Evaluating a Pedestrian Network in Guimarães, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Mingfei Ma & Ying Jin, 2019. "Economic impacts of alternative greenspace configurations in fast growing cities: The case of Greater Beijing," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1498-1515, June.
    4. Neatt, Kevin & Millward, Hugh & Spinney, Jamie, 2017. "Neighborhood walking densities: A multivariate analysis in Halifax, Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 9-16.
    5. Bojing Liao & Yifan Xu & Xiang Li & Ji Li, 2022. "Association between Campus Walkability and Affective Walking Experience, and the Mediating Role of Walking Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    6. Dorsa Alipour & Hussein Dia, 2023. "A Systematic Review of the Role of Land Use, Transport, and Energy-Environment Integration in Shaping Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    7. De Vos, Jonas, 2018. "Do people travel with their preferred travel mode? Analysing the extent of travel mode dissonance and its effect on travel satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 261-274.
    8. Otsuka, Noriko & Wittowsky, Dirk & Damerau, Marlene & Gerten, Christian, 2021. "Walkability assessment for urban areas around railway stations along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Rongrong Zhang & Song Liu & Ming Li & Xiong He & Chunshan Zhou, 2021. "The Effect of High-Density Built Environments on Elderly Individuals’ Physical Health: A Cross-Sectional Study in Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Shima Hamidi & Somayeh Moazzeni, 2019. "Examining the Relationship between Urban Design Qualities and Walking Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Dallas, TX," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    11. Young-Jae Kim & Ayoung Woo, 2016. "What’s the Score? Walkable Environments and Subsidized Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Kii, Masanobu & Nakanishi, Hitomi & Nakamura, Kazuki & Doi, Kenji, 2016. "Transportation and spatial development: An overview and a future direction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 148-158.
    13. Joreintje Dingena Mackenbach & Edward Randal & Pengjun Zhao & Philippa Howden-Chapman, 2016. "The Influence of Urban Land-Use and Public Transport Facilities on Active Commuting in Wellington, New Zealand: Active Transport Forecasting Using the WILUTE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-14, March.
    14. Fernando Fonseca & George Papageorgiou & Simona Tondelli & Paulo Ribeiro & Elisa Conticelli & Mona Jabbari & Rui Ramos, 2022. "Perceived Walkability and Respective Urban Determinants: Insights from Bologna and Porto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Ivan Blečić & Tanja Congiu & Giovanna Fancello & Giuseppe Andrea Trunfio, 2020. "Planning and Design Support Tools for Walkability: A Guide for Urban Analysts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, May.
    16. YongJin Ahn & JiYoung Park & Tim A Bruckner & Simon Choi, 2018. "Do local employment centers modify the association between neighborhood urban form and individual obesity?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(5), pages 1128-1143, August.
    17. Schneider, Robert James, 2011. "Understanding Sustainable Transportation Choices: Shifting Routine Automobile Travel to Walking and Bicycling," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt06v2g6dh, University of California Transportation Center.
    18. Kenneth Joh & Sandip Chakrabarti & Marlon G. Boarnet & Ayoung Woo, 2015. "The Walking Renaissance: A Longitudinal Analysis of Walking Travel in the Greater Los Angeles Area, USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-27, July.
    19. Jeremy Gabe & Spenser Robinson & Andrew Sanderford, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Location Efficiency," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 384-418, October.
    20. Hudyeron Rocha & Manuel Filgueiras & José Pedro Tavares & Sara Ferreira, 2023. "Public Transport Usage and Perceived Service Quality in a Large Metropolitan Area: The Case of Porto," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-15, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:47:y:2020:i:8:p:1418-1439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.