Analysis of patterns of spatial occupancy in urban open space using behaviour maps and GIS

The article concentrates on emerging relationships between physical characteristics of urban open spaces and their uses. It draws on a combination of behaviour mapping and geographic information system (GIS) techniques – as applied to urban squares and parks in two European cities, Edinburgh (UK) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) – to reveal common patterns of behaviour that appear to be correlated with particular layouts and details. It shows actual dimensions of effective environments for one use or more of them and shows how design guidance can be arrived at, based on the particulars of the case study sites and cities. In addition, the value of this article is in exploring GIS, a tool that is currently irreplaceable in spatial analysis and planning processes for urban areas, as a detailed analytical and visualisation tool that helps to describe inner structure of places revealed by behaviour patterns.

[1]  Quentin Stevens,et al.  Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life , 2006 .

[2]  Catharine Ward Thompson,et al.  Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park spaces , 2010 .

[3]  Claus Lassen,et al.  The potential for the exploration of activity patterns in the urban landscape with GPS-positioning and electronic activity diaries , 2005 .

[4]  B. Goličnik,et al.  People in place : a configuration of physical form and the dynamic patterns of spatial occupancy in urban open public space , 2005 .

[5]  Ken Worpole,et al.  Here Comes the Sun: Architecture and Public Space in Twentieth-Century European Culture , 2000 .

[6]  Bob Martens,et al.  Designing Social Innovation: Planning, Building, Evaluating , 2005 .

[7]  J. Foltête,et al.  Urban layout, landscape features and pedestrian usage , 2007 .

[8]  Francesco Repishti,et al.  Dictionary of today's landscape designers , 2003 .

[9]  Catharine Ward Thompson,et al.  Urban open space in the 21st century , 2002 .

[10]  Romedi Passini,et al.  Wayfinding design: logic, application and some thoughts on universality , 1996 .

[11]  Barbara Goličnik,et al.  Parki in njihovi uporabniki , 2008 .

[12]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Predicting movement choices in virtual environments , 2001 .

[13]  Henk Ter Heide,et al.  To know and to make: the link between research and urban design , 1996 .

[14]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[15]  Harvey J. Miller,et al.  What about people in geographic information science? , 2003, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[16]  Christopher J Coutts,et al.  Greenway Accessibility and Physical-Activity Behavior , 2008 .

[17]  Mark Greaves,et al.  Urban sustainability through environmental design: approaches to time, people and place responsive urban spaces , 2007 .

[18]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  Environmental psychology: man and his physical setting , 1970 .

[19]  Jan Gehl,et al.  Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space , 2003 .

[20]  J. Gehl,et al.  Public Spaces, Public Life , 1996 .

[21]  Katherine Jane Southwell,et al.  Utility of behavioural science in landscape architecture: investigating the application of environment-behaviour theory and its research methods to fit the spatial agenda of design , 2004 .

[22]  Barbara Goličnik,et al.  Parks and their users , 2008 .

[23]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  What designers know , 2018, The Design Student’s Journey.

[24]  Marc Treib.  The Content of Landscape Form [The Limits of Formalism] , 2001, Landscape Journal.

[25]  Bill Hillier,et al.  The social logic of space: Contents , 1984 .

[26]  Edward Robbins,et al.  Why Architects Draw , 1997 .

[27]  Kheir Al-Kodmany.  GIS in the Urban Landscape: Reconfiguring neighbourhood planning and design processes , 2000 .