Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 113, Issue , 2013, Pages 30-46

  Kyttä, Marketta ^a   Broberg, Anna ^a   Tzoulas, Tuija ^a   Snabb, Kristoffer ^a  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Context sensitive; Densification policy; Experiential knowledge; Location based; PPGIS; Residents

Indexed keywords

DENSIFICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LAND USE; SURVEYS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; URBAN PLANNING;

CONTEXT SENSITIVE; EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE; LOCATION BASED; PPGIS; RESIDENTS;

LOCATION;

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; GIS; LOCATION DECISION; LOCATION THEORY; METROPOLITAN AREA; PROJECT DESIGN; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; STRATEGIC APPROACH; SURVEYING; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

EID: 84875626275     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.008     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alessa L.N., Kliskey A.A., Brown G. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 85(1):27-39.
2. Alshuwaikhat H.M., Aina Y.A. GIS-based urban sustainability assessment: The Case of Damman City, Saudi Arabia. Local Environment 2006, 2:141-161.
3. Altman I., Rogoff B. World views in psychology: Trait, transactional, organismic and transactional perspectives. Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1 1987, Wiley, New York. D. Stokols, I. Altman (Eds.).
4. Arnberger A., Eder R. The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2012, 11:41-49.
5. Baerwald T.J. Prospects for geography as an interdisciplinary discipline. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2010, 100(3):493-501.
6. Bærentsen K.B., Trettvik J. An activity theory approach to affordance. NordiCHI; 19-23 October 2002, 51-60. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York.
7. Bonaiuto M., Aiello A., Perugini M., Bonnes M., Ercolani A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment: Quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1999, 19:331-352.
8. Bonaiuto M., Bonnes M. Multiplace analysis of the urban environment. A comparison between a large and a small Italian city. Environment & Behavior 1996, 28:699-747.
9. Bonaiuto M., Bonnes M., Continisio M. Neighborhood evaluation within a multiplace perspective on urban activities. Environment & Behavior 2004, 36:41-69.
10. Bonaiuto M., Fornara F., Bonnes M. Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 65(1-2):41-52.
11. Bonaiuto M., Fornara F., Bonnes M. Perceived residential environmental quality in middle- and low-extension Italian cities. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 2006, 56:23-34.
12. Brown G., Weber D. Public Participation GIS: A new method for national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 102(1):1-15.
13. Bugs G., Granell C., Fonts O., Huerta J., Painho M. An assessment of Public Participation GIS and Web 2.0 technologies in urban planning practice in Canela, Brazil. Cities 2010, 27:172-181.
14. Cutchin M.P. John Dewey's metaphysical ground-map and its implications for geographical inquiry. Geoforum 2008, 39(4):1555-1569.
15. Davison G., Rowden E. There's something about Subi: Defending and creating neighbourhood character in Perth, Australia. Journal of Urban Design 2012, 17(2):189-212.
16. Dempsey N. Are good quality environments socially cohesive? Measuring quality and cohesion in urban neighbourhoods. Town Planning Review 2009, 80(3):315-345.
17. Dempsey N., Brown C., Bramley G. The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning 2012 April, 77(3):89-141.
18. Dovey K., Woodcock I., Wood S. A test of character: Regulating place-identity in inner city Melbourne. Urban Studies 2009, 46(12):2595-2615.
19. VanDyck D., Cardon G., Deforche B., De Bourdeaudhuij I. Do adults like living in high-walkable neighborhoods? Associations of walkability parameters with neighborhood satisfaction and possible mediators. Health & Place 2011, 17:971-977.
20. European Environmental and Agency Urban sprawl in Europe: The ignored challenge 2006, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
21. Ettema, D., & Schwanen, T. A relational approach to analysing leisure travel. Journal of Transport Geography,. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.023.
22. Faludi A., Waterhout B. Introducing evidence based planning. DisP. The Planning Review 2006, 165(1):4-13.
23. Florida R., Mellander C., Stolarick K. Beautiful places: The role of perceived aesthetic beauty in community satisfaction. Regional Studies 2011, 45(1):33-34.
24. Fornada F., Bonaiuto M., Bonnes M. Cross-validation of abbreviated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neighbourhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environment & Behavior 2010, 42:171-196.
25. Gibson J.J. The ecological approach to visual perception 1979, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.
26. Hall G.B., Chipeniuk R., Feick R.D., Leahy M.G., Deparday V. Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 2010, 24(5):761-781.
27. Uudistuva kaupunki [Regenerating City]. Aalto University 2012, Aldus Ltd., Lahti. K. Hartiala (Ed.).
28. Heft H. Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James's. Radical Empirism 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
29. Hillier B. A theory of the city as objects: Or, how spatial laws mediate the social construction of urban space. Urban Design International 2002, 7(3-4):153-179.
30. Ikonen, N. (2010). Tiivistä ja hyvää? Esikaupungin täydennystä kokemusperäistä paikkatietoa hyödyntäen. [Dense and good? The densification of suburban setting utilizing experiential GIS information]. Diplom work, Aalto University, Department of Architecture.
31. Kahila M., Kyttä M. SoftGIS as a bridge builder in collaborative urban planning. Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods. The Geojournal Library, 95 2009, 389-411. Springer. S. Geertman, J. Stillwell (Eds.).
32. Kim J., Kaplan R. Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New Urbanist. Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior 2004, 36:313-340.
33. Kim Y.S., Joeng M.K., Kim M.K., Lee S.W., Kim M. Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception: A case study in a lobby. Emotional engineering. Service development 2011, Springer, New York. S. Fukuda (Ed.).
34. Kingston R. Public participation in local policy decision-making: The role of web-based mapping. The Cartographic Journal 2007, 44(2):138-144.
35. Kyttä M. Children in outdoor contexts. Affordances and independent mobility in the assessment of environmental child friendliness 2008, VDM Verlag Dr. Mv̈ller, Saarbrv̈cken, Germany.
36. Kyttä M. SoftGIS methods in planning evaluation. Evaluation for participatory and sustainable planning 2011, 334-354. Routledge, London/New York. A. Hull, E.R. Alexander, A. Khakee, J. Woltjer (Eds.).
37. Kyttä M., Kahila M. SoftGIS methodology - building bridges in urban planning. GIM International (The Global Magazine for Geomatics) 2011, 25(3):37-41.
38. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., & Kahila, M. (2011). Urban infill policy and the perceived quality of the environment. Special Issue GIS Technologies and Applications in Urban Design and Planning of Urban Design International, 16(1) 19-35.
39. Laakso, S. (2012) Helsingin seudun ja Helsingin väestökehitys. [Population growft in Helsinki and in Helsinki region]. The Report of Helsinki City Planning Department, Master Planning Division, 3. http://www.hel2.fi/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2012-3.pdf.
40. Le Néchet F. Urban spatial structure, daily mobility and energy consumption: A study of 34 European cities. CyberGeo. European Journal of Geography 2012, Article number 580.
41. Lewicka M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30(1):35-51.
42. Maier J.R.A., Fadel G.M., Battisto D.G. An affordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice. Design Studies 2009, 30(4):393-414.
43. McCrea R., Walters P. Impacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: Comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia. Housing, Theory and Society 2012, 29(2):190-206.
44. McGuirk P., Argent N. Population growth and change: Implications for Australia's Cities and Regions. Geographical Research 2011, 49(3):317-335.
45. Nordh H., Hartig T., Hagerhall C.M., Fry G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2009, 8(4):225-235.
46. Norman D.A. The psychology of everyday things 1988, New York, Basic Books.
47. Pol E. Blueprints for a history of environmental psychology (I): From first birth to American transition. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano 2006, 7(2):95-113.
48. Raman S. Designing a liveable compact city physical forms of city and social life in urban neighborhoods. Built Environment 2010, 36(1):63-80.
49. Rantanen H., Kahila M. The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:1981-1990.
50. Raymond C., Brown G. A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes towards tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2007, 15(1):520-540.
51. Raymond C.M., Brown G. Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: Socio-economic, behavioral, and spatial dimensions. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92(10):2513-2523.
52. Relph E. Place and Placelessness 1976, Pion Limited, London.
53. Rinner C., Bird M. Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps - a public participation GIS case study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, 36:588-601.
54. Sieber R. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2006, 96(3):491-507.
55. Sime J. What is Environmental Psychology? Texts, content and context. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1999, 19:91-206.
56. Talen E. Sprawl retrofit: Sustainable urban form in unsustainable places. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2011, 38:952-978.
57. Thwaites K., Porta S., Romice O., Greaves M. Urban sustainability through environmental design. Approaches to time-people-place responsive urban spaces 2008, Taylor & Francis.
58. Tuan Y.-I. Space and place: The perspective of experience 1977, The University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota.
59. Uusimaa facts (2012). page visited [04.12.12]. http://tietopalvelu.uudenmaanliitto.fi/alue/vaestontiheys/.
60. Vallance S., Perkins H.C., Moore K. The results of making a city more compact: Neighbors' interpretation of urban infill. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2005, 32:715-733.
61. Van Herzele A., van Woerkum C. On the argumentative work of map-based visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 100:396-399.
62. Walton D., Murray S.J., Thomas J.A. Relationship between population density and the perceived quality of neighbourhood. Social Indicators Research 2008, 89:405-420.
63. Williams K. Urban intensification policies in England: Problems and contradictions. Land Use Policy 1999, 16:167-178.
64. Wohlwill J.F. The Environment is not in the head. Community development series. Environmental design research 1973, 166-181. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc., Stroudsburg. W.F.E. Preiser (Ed.).