A spatially-explicit sensitivity analysis of urban definitions: Uncovering implicit assumptions in the Degree of Urbanisation

IF 7.1 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Céline Van Migerode , Ate Poorthuis , Ben Derudder
{"title":"A spatially-explicit sensitivity analysis of urban definitions: Uncovering implicit assumptions in the Degree of Urbanisation","authors":"Céline Van Migerode ,&nbsp;Ate Poorthuis ,&nbsp;Ben Derudder","doi":"10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We introduce a spatially-explicit sensitivity framework to uncover potential biases in urban delineation approaches. Our starting point is that there is no broadly shared agreement on how to define or delineate urban areas, neither in terms of methods nor in terms of thresholds or criteria. Deciding on delineation criteria thus inevitably involves making certain assumptions that may unwittingly reproduce urban realities experienced by those expressing them, and have spatially unequally distributed implications. Understanding how specific criterion choices shape our understanding of ‘the urban’ and how, why, and – especially – <em>where</em> a definition leads to specific sensitivities is therefore key, especially when the definition is utilised beyond its intended application. Our framework to uncover these sensitivities is spatially explicit in the sense that it does not rely on aggregate statistics but instead focuses on the sensitivity of the ‘urban’ classification of individual spatial units at the finest spatial granularity. Applying the framework to the definition of the <em>Degree of Urbanisation</em> reveals that sensitivity is indeed not equally distributed across the world. Certain regions (e.g., areas around Dallas – Fort Worth) and specific types of urbanisation (e.g., desakota regions in Pacific Asia) exhibit higher sensitivity than others. We discuss how these sensitivities may embody certain implicit assumptions in the definition, and examine their broader theoretical implications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48241,"journal":{"name":"Computers Environment and Urban Systems","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 102149"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers Environment and Urban Systems","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198971524000784","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We introduce a spatially-explicit sensitivity framework to uncover potential biases in urban delineation approaches. Our starting point is that there is no broadly shared agreement on how to define or delineate urban areas, neither in terms of methods nor in terms of thresholds or criteria. Deciding on delineation criteria thus inevitably involves making certain assumptions that may unwittingly reproduce urban realities experienced by those expressing them, and have spatially unequally distributed implications. Understanding how specific criterion choices shape our understanding of ‘the urban’ and how, why, and – especially – where a definition leads to specific sensitivities is therefore key, especially when the definition is utilised beyond its intended application. Our framework to uncover these sensitivities is spatially explicit in the sense that it does not rely on aggregate statistics but instead focuses on the sensitivity of the ‘urban’ classification of individual spatial units at the finest spatial granularity. Applying the framework to the definition of the Degree of Urbanisation reveals that sensitivity is indeed not equally distributed across the world. Certain regions (e.g., areas around Dallas – Fort Worth) and specific types of urbanisation (e.g., desakota regions in Pacific Asia) exhibit higher sensitivity than others. We discuss how these sensitivities may embody certain implicit assumptions in the definition, and examine their broader theoretical implications.

城市定义的空间敏感性分析:揭示城市化程度中的隐含假设
我们引入了一个空间明确的敏感性框架,以揭示城市划分方法中的潜在偏差。我们的出发点是,对于如何定义或划定城市区域,无论是在方法上还是在阈值或标准上,都没有达成广泛的共识。因此,在决定划分标准时,不可避免地要做出某些假设,而这些假设可能会在不知不觉中再现表达这些假设的人所经历的城市现实,并产生空间分布不均的影响。因此,了解具体的标准选择如何形成我们对 "城市 "的理解,以及定义如何、为何、尤其是如何导致特定的敏感性是关键,尤其是当定义的使用超出了其预期应用范围时。我们揭示这些敏感性的框架在空间上是明确的,因为它并不依赖于总体统计数据,而是在最细微的空间粒度上关注单个空间单位的 "城市 "分类的敏感性。将该框架应用于 "城市 "的定义,可以发现敏感性在全球的分布并不均衡。某些地区(如达拉斯沃斯堡周边地区)和特定类型的城市化(如太平洋亚洲的德萨科塔地区)比其他地区表现出更高的敏感性。我们将讨论这些敏感性如何体现定义中的某些隐含假设,并研究其更广泛的理论意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
111
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: Computers, Environment and Urban Systemsis an interdisciplinary journal publishing cutting-edge and innovative computer-based research on environmental and urban systems, that privileges the geospatial perspective. The journal welcomes original high quality scholarship of a theoretical, applied or technological nature, and provides a stimulating presentation of perspectives, research developments, overviews of important new technologies and uses of major computational, information-based, and visualization innovations. Applied and theoretical contributions demonstrate the scope of computer-based analysis fostering a better understanding of environmental and urban systems, their spatial scope and their dynamics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信