Applying metapopulation theory for the analysis of individual-based mobility and its influence on the diversity and density of locations across a settlement network
(proposed research)
Polycentricity and densification are thought to be the solutions for accommodating a growing world population and limiting the spatial extension of urban areas, commuting distances, and their associated environmental impact (Davoudi 2003; European Commission 1999; Natl. Res. Counc. 2009). In order to find the best strategies for sustainable and high- quality urbanization, interdisciplinary approaches are needed (Acuto, Parnell, and Seto 2018; Ramaswami et al. 2012) acknowledging the interconnectivity of urban systems on larger scales (‘system of cities’, Seto, Sánchez-Rodríguez and Fragkias, 2010). The increasingly available data from new information and communication technologies (ICTs) may provide unprecedented potential to understand the dynamics of urban systems and to help direct their future development (Offenhuber and Ratti 2014; Zellner 2015). Using individual-based mobility data, we want to combine urbanism with concepts from community ecology to further our understanding of how settlement systems evolve in the context to their physical connectivity to other locations. In particular, we propose to use metapopulation theory to investigate how the connectivity given by the movement of people could affect the qualities and sizes of the locations they connect.
Metapopulation theory describes the fact that the (genetic) diversity of a geographically-defined subpopulation is influenced by its population size and the frequency of genetic exchange through migration (connectivity) with other subpopulations in the same metapopulation (Hanski 1999). The network of cities and municipalities in a defined area may be viewed as a metapopulation connected by the flow of people, in which the diversities of local human communities should grow with their connectivity and population sizes. Building on the concepts of the ‘Metacity’ framework (McGrath and Pickett, 2011) and the ‘Human Ecosystem’ (Machlis, Force, & Burch Jr, 1997), we want to take a quantitative approach to test whether the predictions of metapopulation ecology may be applied to human settlements and communities. Diversity and density will be measured using publicly available data, such as statistics regarding demography, labor, market, religions, wealth distribution, media establishments, and the connectivity assessment will be based on GPS-trajectory data as produced by smartphones. Using graph theory and regression analysis we will test, whether higher diversity is correlated with higher connectivity of settlements, similar to as in natural metapopulations. Using GPS-data we also aim to explore, whether the movement of people may suggest other clustering of the settlement network than given by politically defined boarders.
The outcome of this research would inform urban planners and policy makers to predict the flow of people, density and diversity, in order to realize a polycentric settlement network in which density and diversity are maximized and travel times for both work and leisure are minimized. Diversity may be related to the attractiveness of a location similarly to what was shown for more complex urban environments (Ewing and Handy, 2009; Lindal and Hartig, 2013) and areas of higher biodiversity (Botzat, Fischer, and Kowarik 2016; Southon et al. 2017). By distinguishing connectivity due to the labor market from connectivity due to leisure and consumption purposes will provide a more differentiated understanding of attractiveness of locations and how it is created.
References
Acuto, Michele, Susan Parnell, and Karen C. Seto. 2018. “Building a Global Urban Science.” Nature Sustainability 1(1):2– 4.
Botzat, Alexandra, Leonie K. Fischer, and Ingo Kowarik. 2016. “Unexploited Opportunities in Understanding Liveable and Biodiverse Cities. A Review on Urban Biodiversity Perception and Valuation.” Global Environmental Change 39:220–33.
Davoudi, Simin. 2003. “Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: From an Analytical Tool to a Normative Agenda.” European Planning Studies 11(8):979–1000.
European Commission, Committee on Spatial Development. 1999. ESDP-European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union: Agreed at the Informal Council of Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning in Potsdam, May 1999. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Ewing, Reid and Susan Handy. 2009. “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability.” Journal of Urban Design 14(1):65–84
Hanski, Ilkka. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press.
Lindal, Pall J. and Terry Hartig. 2013. “Architectural Variation, Building Height, and the Restorative Quality of Urban Residential Streetscapes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Machlis, Gary E., Jo Ellen Force, and William R. Burch Jr. 1997. “The Human Ecosystem Part I: The Human Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem Management.” Society & Natural Resources 10(4):347–67.
Natl. Res. Counc. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions–Special Report 298. National Academies Press.
Offenhuber, Dietmar and Carlo Ratti. 2014. Decoding the City: Urbanism in the Age of Big Data. Birkhäuser.
Ramaswami, Anu, Christopher Weible, Deborah Main, Tanya Heikkila, Saba Siddiki, Andrew Duvall, Andrew Pattison, and Meghan Bernard. 2012. “A Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of Sustainable City Systems.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(6):801–13.
Seto, Karen C., Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez, and Michail Fragkias. 2010. “The New Geography of Contemporary Urbanization and the Environment.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 35:167–94.
Southon, Georgina E., Anna Jorgensen, Nigel Dunnett, Helen Hoyle, and Karl L. Evans. 2017. “Biodiverse Perennial Meadows Have Aesthetic Value and Increase Residents’ Perceptions of Site Quality in Urban Green-Space.” Landscape and Urban Planning 158:105–18.
Zellner, Moira L. 2015. “Big Data and Urban Informatics: Innovations and Challenges to Urban Planning and Knowledge Discovery.” Proc. Of NSF Workshop on Big Data and Urban Informatics 4–32.
