IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v55y2018i12p2586-2602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ungating the city: A permeability perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Guibo Sun

    (Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, China)

  • Chris Webster

    (Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, China)

  • Alain Chiaradia

    (Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

China is seeking to prohibit the construction of any new gated communities and to gradually open existing schemes after three decades of growth of large-block gated estates. In this article, we use permeability analysis to explore the ‘what if?’ question posed by the policy: what if gated communities became permeable? We ask the question in respect of non-motorised access. We use two permeability metrics, closeness and betweenness, as outcome measures of gated and non-gated versions of the city. We construct a bespoke complete pedestrian network, rather than using the road network, for our permeability modelling. Nanchang, a medium-sized Chinese city with widespread gated communities, is our study area. A series of permeability analyses with and without gated communities is conducted using GIS and spatial design network analysis (sDNA). On the basis of these analyses, we sequentially sort the gated compounds whose opening will maximise permeability gains with minimum expropriation of property rights through coercive ungating. We offer the analysis to urban scholars, planners and governments by way of a quantified simulation. This study and methodology, which is transferable without high data requirements, can assist urban practitioners in reconfiguring urban form to promote a healthier living environment (more walking) and more economically viable local service centres (greater pedestrian footfall concentrations).

Suggested Citation

  • Guibo Sun & Chris Webster & Alain Chiaradia, 2018. "Ungating the city: A permeability perspective," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(12), pages 2586-2602, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:55:y:2018:i:12:p:2586-2602
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098017733943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098017733943
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098017733943?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. Iacono, Michael & Krizek, Kevin J. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2010. "Measuring non-motorized accessibility: issues, alternatives, and execution," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 133-140.
    2. Scott, Allen J. (ed.), 2002. "Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199252305.
    3. Tao, Wendy & Mehndiratta, Shomik & Deakin, Elizabeth, 2010. "Compulsory Convenience?: How Large Arterials and Land Use Affect Midblock Crossing in Fushun, China," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(3), pages 61-82.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sadayuki, Taisuke, 2018. "Measuring the spatial effect of multiple sites: An application to housing rent and public transportation in Tokyo, Japan," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 155-173.
    2. Rahimi-Golkhandan, Armin & Garvin, Michael J. & Brown, Bryan L., 2019. "Characterizing and measuring transportation infrastructure diversity through linkages with ecological stability theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 114-130.
    3. Brendan Murphy & David Levinson & Andrew Owen, 2015. "Accessibility and Centrality Based Estimation of Urban Pedestrian Activity," Working Papers 000143, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    4. David Levinson & David Giacomin & Antony Badsey-Ellis, 2014. "Accessibility and the choice of network investments in the London Underground," Working Papers 000124, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    5. Mfinanga, David A., 2014. "Implication of pedestrians׳ stated preference of certain attributes of crosswalks," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 156-164.
    6. Tijs Neutens, 2012. "Accessibility to public service delivery: a combination of diff erent indicators," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 7, pages 118-132, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Ospina, Juan P. & Duque, Juan C. & Botero-Fernández, Verónica & Montoya, Alejandro, 2022. "The maximal covering bicycle network design problem," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 222-236.
    8. Lissy La Paix & Karst Geurs, 2015. "Scenarios for measuring station-based impedances in a national transport model," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1310, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Li, Aoyong & Huang, Yizhe & Axhausen, Kay W., 2020. "An approach to imputing destination activities for inclusion in measures of bicycle accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Basile Ndjio, 2017. "Sex and the transnational city: Chinese sex workers in the West African city of Douala," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(4), pages 999-1015, March.
    11. Michael C. Shone & P. Ali Memon, 2008. "Tourism, Public Policy and Regional Development: A Turn from Neo-liberalism to the New Regionalism," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 23(4), pages 290-304, November.
    12. Marques, Bruno Pereira, 2011. "Territorial strategic planning as a support instrument for regional and local development: a comparative analysis between Lisbon and Barcelona metropolitan areas," MPRA Paper 37457, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani, 2012. "Accessibility analysis and transport planning: an introduction," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 1, pages 1-12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Anciaes, Paulo & Jones, Peter, 2020. "A comprehensive approach for the appraisal of the barrier effect of roads on pedestrians," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 227-250.
    15. Spencer, Phoebe & Watts, Richard & Vivanco, Luis & Flynn, Brian, 2013. "The effect of environmental factors on bicycle commuters in Vermont: influences of a northern climate," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 11-17.
    16. Arellana, Julián & Saltarín, María & Larrañaga, Ana Margarita & González, Virginia I. & Henao, César Augusto, 2020. "Developing an urban bikeability index for different types of cyclists as a tool to prioritise bicycle infrastructure investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 310-334.
    17. Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2011. "Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 643-659, December.
    18. Eizaguirre-Iribar, Arritokieta & Etxepare Igiñiz, Lauren & Hernández-Minguillón, Rufino Javier, 2016. "A multilevel approach of non-motorised accessibility in disused railway systems: The case-study of the Vasco-Navarro railway," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 35-43.
    19. David Waite & Gillian Bristow, 2019. "Spaces of city-regionalism: Conceptualising pluralism in policymaking," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(4), pages 689-706, June.
    20. Diane E. Davis & Kian Tajbakhsh, 2005. "Globalization and Cities in Comparative Perspective," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 89-91, March.

    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:urbstu:v:55:y:2018:i:12:p:2586-2602. 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: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.