Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 38, Issue 2 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(2): 191-201 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2022/12/8 | Accepted: 2023/01/30 | Published: 2023/06/5
Received: 2022/12/8 | Accepted: 2023/01/30 | Published: 2023/06/5
How to cite this article
Riazi H, Haghighatnaeini G, Dadashpour H. Spatial-Functional Structure in Connection with the Quality of Sustainable Urban Accessibility (Case Study: Enghelab Islami Square Area in The Tehran Metropolitan). GeoRes 2023; 38 (2) :191-201
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1421-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1421-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Art, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (544 Views)
Aims: The spatial decoration of urban activities, the spatial structure of the communication and spatial accessibility have a significant impact on the extent and quality of urban mobility and accessibility. The concept of sustainable urban accessibility emerged from the sustainability paradigm on the concepts of urban mobility and accessibility. Accordingly, the current research aims at evaluating the spatial structure of the urban activities' hot spots, stations and arteries using a spatial-functional structure and assessing their compatibility.
Methodology: This is a quantitative applied study, carried out in Enghelab Islami Square, Tehran in 2022. The analysis of the spatial-functional structure and sustainable urban accessibility in the studied area was carried out using GIS and spatial analysis methods, including space syntax analysis and urban network analysis.
Findings: The functional and spatial structure of the Enghelab Islami square region was relatively compatible. 75% and 70% of the points of interest (POI) were located around the structural arteries and in urban blocks with high spatial accessibility, respectively. Moreover, regarding the quality of sustainable urban accessibility, 85% of the POIs were within the first level of the functional radius of the sustainable transportation stations, while, 75% and 85% of parcels were located within the functional radius of the first and second level sustainable transportation stations, respectively.
Conclusion: Enghelab Islami square area is in a relatively good condition in terms of the mentioned structure's compatibility and the quality of sustainable urban accessibility.
Methodology: This is a quantitative applied study, carried out in Enghelab Islami Square, Tehran in 2022. The analysis of the spatial-functional structure and sustainable urban accessibility in the studied area was carried out using GIS and spatial analysis methods, including space syntax analysis and urban network analysis.
Findings: The functional and spatial structure of the Enghelab Islami square region was relatively compatible. 75% and 70% of the points of interest (POI) were located around the structural arteries and in urban blocks with high spatial accessibility, respectively. Moreover, regarding the quality of sustainable urban accessibility, 85% of the POIs were within the first level of the functional radius of the sustainable transportation stations, while, 75% and 85% of parcels were located within the functional radius of the first and second level sustainable transportation stations, respectively.
Conclusion: Enghelab Islami square area is in a relatively good condition in terms of the mentioned structure's compatibility and the quality of sustainable urban accessibility.
References
1. Acheampong RA (2020). Spatial structure, intra-urban commuting patterns and travel mode choice: Analyses of relationships in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Cities. 96:102432. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2019.102432]
2. Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature. 36(3):1426-1464. [Link]
3. Batty M (2009). Accessibility: In search of a unified theory. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 36:191-194. [Link] [DOI:10.1068/b3602ed]
4. Ben‐Akiva M, Lerman S (1979). Disaggregate travel and mobility-choice models and measures of accessibility. In: Hensher DA, Stopher PR, editors. Behavioural travel modelling. London: Routledge; pp. 654‐679. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781003156055-39]
5. Berry BJL, Marble DF (1968). Spatial analysis: A reader in statistical geography. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Incorporations, Englewood Cliffs. [Link]
6. Bertolini L, Le Clercq F, Kapoen L (2005). Sustainable accessibility: A conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy. 12(3):207-220. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.006]
7. Boarnet MG, Wang X (2019). Urban spatial structure and the potential for vehicle miles traveled reduction: The effects of accessibility to jobs within and beyond employment sub-centers. The Annals of Regional Science. 62:381-404. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s00168-019-00900-7]
8. Berechman J (1981). Transportation, temporal and spatial components of accessibility. Geographical Analysis. 13(2):185-187. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1981.tb00726.x]
9. Cervero R, Kockelman K (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity and design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2(3):199-219. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6]
10. Cregory D, Johnston R, Pratt G, Watts M, Whatmore S, editors (1994). The dictionary of human geography. 5th Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [Link]
11. Dalvi MQ, Martin KM (1976). The measurement of accessibility: Some preliminary results. Transportation. 5(1):17-42. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/BF00165245]
12. Dong X, Ben-Akiva ME, Bowman JL, Walker JL (2006). Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 40(2):163-180. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2005.05.002]
13. Ewing R, Cervero R (2010). Travel and the built environment. Journal of the American Planning Association. 76(3):265-294. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01944361003766766]
14. Fischer M (2006). Spatial analysis and geocomputation. Berlin: Springer; pp. 43-60. [Link]
15. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables AJ (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions, and international trade. Cambridge: The MIT press. [Link] [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/6389.001.0001]
16. Gil J (2012). Measuring sustainable accessibility potential using the mobility infrastructure's network configuration. Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium; 2012 Jan 3-6; Santaigo, Chile. [Link]
17. Handy SL (1993). Regional versus local accessibility: Implications for nonwork travel. Transportation Research Record. 1400:58-66. [Link]
18. Hansen WG (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 25(2):73-76. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01944365908978307]
19. Hillier B (1996). Cities as movement economies. URBAN DESIGN International. 1(1):41-60. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/udi.1996.5]
20. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511597237]
21. Hillier B,Vaughan L (2007). The city as one thing. Progress in Planning. 67(3):205-230. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2007.03.001]
22. Krehl A (2015). Urban spatial structure: An interaction between employment and built-up volumes. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 2(1):290-308. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/21681376.2015.1034293]
23. Le Clercq F, Bertolini L (2003). Achieving sustainable accessibility: An evaluation of policy measures in the Amsterdam Area. Built Environment. 29(1):36-47. [Link] [DOI:10.2148/benv.29.1.36.53949]
24. Li W, Sun B, Zhao J, Zhang T (2018). Economic performance of spatial structure in Chinese prefecture regions: Evidence from night-time satellite imagery. Habitat International. 76:29-39. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.05.006]
25. Marquez L, Smith NC (1999). A framework for linking urban form and air quality. Environmental Modelling & Software. 14(6):541-548. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1364-8152(99)00018-3]
26. Newman P, Kenworthy J (1999). Costs of automobile dependence: Global survey of cities. Transportation Research Record. 1670(1):17-26. [Link] [DOI:10.3141/1670-04]
27. Shen Y (2017). Understanding functional urban centrality (spatio-functional interaction and its socio-economic impact in Central Shanghai) [dissertation]. London: University College London. [Link]
28. Shen Y, Karimi K (2018). Urban evolution as a spatio-functional interaction process: The case of central Shanghai. Journal of Urban Design. 23(1):42-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13574809.2017.1337496]
29. Silva C (2012). Structural accessibility layer (SAL). In: Hull A, Silva C, Berolini L, editors. Accessibility Instrument for Planning Practice. Brussels: COST Association. [Link]
30. Sohn J (2015). Are commuting patterns a good indicator of urban spatial structure?. Journal of Transport Geography. 13(4):306-317. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.07.005]
31. Tennoy A, Knapskog M, Wolday F (2022). Walking distances to public transport in smaller and larger Norwegian cities. Environment. 103:103169. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.trd.2022.103169]
32. Živković J (2019). Urban form and function. In: Leal Filho W, Azeiterio U, Azul A, Brandli L, Ozuyar P, Wall T, editors. Climate Action. Cham: Springer; pp. 1-10. [Link]