Hi Rui
Thanks for your reply and I will read your recommendation. I am I must say
very interested in the limits you place on the term 'spatial', and this
starts really to answer my question about the presumptions that underpin
'spatial analytic' work. And speaking purely for myself, what is interesting
about space is trying to find effective limits to the term - and trying to
find a purchase on effects which interest us. Can spatial analysis or space
syntax help us to uncover a space of the intensities of urban public space
use? Can it help us uncover a space of human perception? What I say here
points to a view of spaces as being multiple and constructed to reveal
matters of our concern rather than being by definition this or that. But no
doubt some space syntaxers will disagree with me on both issues -
construction and multiplicity.
Stephen
Dr Stephen Read
Spacelab: Research Laboratory of the Contemporary City
Delft School of Design
International MSc (Urbanism)
Room 8.05
Berlageweg 1
2628 CR Delft, The Netherlands
+31 (0)15 278 4272
On 23/6/06 19:14, "Rui Carvalho" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:10:42 +0200, stephen read <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rui
>>
>> I (like a lot of space syntaxers I think) am very interested in spatial
>> analysis and think space syntax is something other than spatial analysis
> per
>> se. What would be more useful is if you gave us some recommendations,
> rather
>> than a search list on Amazon. I am particularly interested in current
>> spatial models and theory and how they translate into practice - less in
> the
>> practicalities of GIS and statistical methods. I notice Spatial Data
>> Analysis : Theory and Practice by Robert Haining, Models in Spatial
> Analysis
>> (Geographical Information Systems series) by Lena Sanders, and Spatial
>> Analysis : A Guide for Ecologists by Marie-Josée Fortin and Mark R. T.
> Dale.
>>
>> What do you recommend?
>
>
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> "Geographic Information Systems and Science" by Longley, Goodchild and
> Maguire is probably a good place to start if you're interested in
> applications. Chapters 14 to 16 are dedicated to spatial analysis.
>
> If, like you say, you are not interested in the practicalities of GIS and
> statistical modelling, then you’re probably not interested in spatial
> analysis itself…
>
> The field ranges from interacting with geographical databases, algorithms
> to determine length, areas, slopes, etc. It also focuses on statistical
> inference, spatial clustering methods, pattern detection, routing
> problems, optimum paths, etc. Finally, the field includes spatial
> modelling: traffic simulation, groundwater vulnerability, pedestrian
> modelling (mainly in crowded spaces), cellular automata (and its
> derivatives) modelling, cartographic modelling and map algebra, etc.
>
> The field encompasses the disciplines of applied maths, economics and
> econometrics, urban and regional planning as well as geography.
>
> I quote from p 316:
> "The techniques covered in these three chapters are generally termed
> spatial rather than geographic, because they can be applied to data
> arrayed in any space, not only geographical space. Many of the methods
> might potentially be used in analysis of outer space by astronomers or in
> analysis of brain scans by neurologists. (...)
> Spatial analysis (...) includes all of the transformations, manipulations,
> and methods that can be applied to geographic data to add value to them,
> to support decisions, and to reveal patterns and anomalies that are not
> immediately obvious"
>
>
> I'd like to make a few points here:
>
> First, over the last few years in space syntax, there has been a move from
> being a knowledge producer to being a knowledge consumer -paper output has
> decreased and with it citation counts, so very little is actually new in
> this field. That may justify the *borrowing* of “spatial
> analysis”, “spatial network analysis software”, “spatial networks” –you
> name it– the SS Wikipedia pages are filled with this sort of stuff.
>
> Second, the contribution that space syntax WILL make to spatial analysis
> is yet to be seen -at the moment, this community is borrowing the term
> without even bothering too much about what it means (a lot of food for
> thought here!).
>
> Third, the same is happening with "spatial networks" -even more food for
> thought as space syntax networks have always been topological, not
> spatial!!! In fact, space syntax literature has gone to great extents to
> justify why we don't need to weight the edges with distance -in other
> words, SS is YET to be spatial.
>
> Overall, if this community is moving towards the knowledge consumer end of
> the spectrum, then you need to start giving credit to the knowledge
> producers. And those at the helm need to start giving the example!
>
>
> BR,
> Rui
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On 22/6/06 18:36, "Rui Carvalho" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:56:52 +0100, Rui Carvalho
> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are the SS graduate students being taught these days? That the
> SLoS
>>>> is a book on spatial analysis? That SS is about studying spatial
> networks?
>>>
>>>
>>> Urban Traffic Dynamics: A Scale-Free Network Perspective
>>> http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606086
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone at space syntax know what these things are??? Have any of
> the
>>>> graduate students ever cared to do a search for Œspatial analysis¹ in
>>>> google or amazon???
>>>
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/qrrwy
>>>
>>>
>>> Rui
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rui
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and I thought it was you that asked us not to ignore this
>>>> request... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Alan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you be as kind as to send us a published (journal) reference
> which
>>>>>> points this out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You see, we've all read enough emails by now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>> On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Alan Penn
>>>>>>> Sent: 03 March 2006 14:53
>>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [SPACESYNTAX] NOT ignore please
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its funny isn't it? I wonder why people have trouble with this one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RA equation puts mean depth onto a 1-0 scale between the deepest
>>>> and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> shallowest you could possibly have given that number of nodes in the
>>>>>> graph.
>>>>>>> This is a normalisation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RRA equation then relativisies this as compared to the mean
> depth
>>>> of
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> diamond shaped structure with the given number of nodes. This is an
>>>>>>> empirical relativisation ie. not particularly 'theory driven' in
> that
>>>> it
>>>>>>> works statistically in removing the effects of number of nodes in
>>>> urban
>>>>>>> axial graphs from the average mean depth in a system. There are many
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> ways that this could be done, and since there is no pre-existing
>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>> assumption built into this process nothing is lost by ding it a
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> way. However, it does allow you to compare some properties of graphs
>>>>>> between
>>>>>>> maps of different sizes on a more or less comparable basis.
> Something
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> certainly cannot do for the unrelativised RA values.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03/03/06, Bin Jiang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Usually we compare space syntax measures within a same system, not
>>>>>>>>> across different systems. This is my perception. Am I wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, if you use local integration for a single axial map you *are*
>>>>>>>> comparing different systems because the number of nodes involved to
>>>>>>>> calculate this measure vary for each node. It is the same if you
>>>>>>>> compare global integration between different maps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore, if you do not agree that RRA / Diamond Shapes provides
>>>> some
>>>>>>>> help... forget the whole thing about local integration... just does
>>>>>>>> not work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me it is quite OK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not convinced by the popular saying that the local
>>>> integration
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> good indicator of pedestrian or vehicle flows. Recently I happened
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> get some vehicle observation datasets with pressure-sensed
>>>>>> techniques
>>>>>>>>> (so must be very precise observation). I compared the datasets
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> local integration, and did not end up with a good correlation (R
>>>>>> square
>>>>>>>>> value about 0.5).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have got the same in this paper:
>>>>>>>> "Continuity lines: aggregating axial lines to predict vehicular
>>>>>>>> movement patterns"
>>>>>>>> http://www.mindwalk.com.br/papers/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is a problem. I produced a continuity map that reveals clearly
>>>>>>>> the main street system of my city (Recife, Brazil). But ...
>>>> correlate
>>>>>>>> abstract graph properties with real movement is another issue.
> There
>>>>>>>> are many other factors, such as attractors, street width, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore, this is just a matter what is the number you accept as a
>>>>>>>> good proof that the urban grid itself (ignoring the other factors)
>>>> can
>>>>>>>> organise movement patterns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards!
>>>>>>>> Lucas Figueiredo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CASA - Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis
>>>>>>>> University College London
>>>>>>>> 1-19 Torrington Place
>>>>>>>> London WC1E 7HB England
>>>>>>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
> ========================================================================
>>>>
> ========================================================================
>> ========================================================================
|