Next Article in Journal
Concrete Preliminary Damage Inspection by Classification of Terrestrial Laser Scanner Point Clouds through Systematic Threshold Definition
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Physical, Social, and Housing Disorder on Neighborhood Crime: A Contemporary Test of Broken Windows Theory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatio-Temporal Change Characteristics of Spatial-Interaction Networks: Case Study within the Sixth Ring Road of Beijing, China
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies

by 1,2,*,† and 3,4,5,*,†
1
Department of Geoinformatics, Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
2
Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
3
NEtwoRks, Data, and Society (NERDS), IT University of Copenhagen, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
4
ISI Foundation, 10126 Turin, Italy
5
Complexity Science Hub Vienna, 1080 Vienna, Austria
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8(12), 584; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8120584
Received: 2 December 2019 / Accepted: 9 December 2019 / Published: 12 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies)

Abstract

:
Due to the wide-spread use of disruptive digital technologies like mobile phones, cities have transitioned from data-scarce to data-rich environments. As a result, the field of geoinformatics is being reshaped and challenged to develop adequate data-driven methods. At the same time, the term "smart city" is increasingly being applied in urban planning, reflecting the aims of different stakeholders to create value out of the new data sets. However, many smart city research initiatives are promoting techno-positivistic approaches which do not account enough for the citizens’ needs. In this paper, we review the state of quantitative urban studies under this new perspective, and critically discuss the development of smart city programs. We conclude with a call for a new anti-disciplinary, human-centric urban data science, and a well-reflected use of technology and data collection in smart city planning. Finally, we introduce the papers of this special issue which focus on providing a more human-centric view on data-driven urban studies, spanning topics from cycling and wellbeing, to mobility and land use.

1. Introduction

Disruptive technological advances over the past two decades, such as mobile phones and online social networks, have fundamentally changed how we see the world. Although digital technologies have profoundly transformed social interaction, the proclaimed “death of geography” [1] has not come to fulfillment: More people than ever live in urban areas, underlining the significance of cities as hubs of social activity [2]. However, our lives increasingly take place in virtual spaces, including social networks, digital communities, and online messengers, ultimately without requiring any personal interaction in physical space.
As a result of this transformational development, the scientific community has faced a transition from a data-scarce to a data-rich urban environment [3], which gave birth to urban informatics and reshaped geoinformatics through the increased application of data-driven approaches. These new approaches necessitate the development of new methods for data acquisition, storage, and analysis, including unsupervised machine-learning algorithms or semi-supervised learning systems, among others.
Additionally, in the past decade, the concept of “smart cities” has been driven by the idea of an ICT-infused city; that is, an urban system enriched with a number of different information technologies to support urban management and planning. However, many smart city research initiatives are promoting techno-positivistic approaches which do not account enough for the citizens’ needs [4,5]. This special issue “Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies” focuses on this challenge and provides a more human-centric view of smart cities.

2. Creating Value from Massive Urban Data Sets

IT-based planning approaches of the last decade have arisen from the aims of different stakeholders to create value out of the exploding amount of individually-generated data sets in cities. This variety of novel massive data sets is generated by different sources and for different reasons, including:
  • Geo-social network data. With the rapid rise of social networks, we have witnessed a paradigm shift in human communication, but even more so in the availability of real-time data that reflect urban processes. These data stem from geo-social networks like Twitter, Foursquare, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and many others [6]. Apart from the data’s inherent spatial and temporal nature (geolocation plus timestamp), there is an increasing focus on analyzing the semantic content of social media posts: Semantic richness allows for the extraction of relevant information, such as sentiments, opinions, or observations [7].
  • Wearable sensor data. Recently, research efforts capitalizing on new developments in physiological sensing have been flourishing, particularly in deriving emotions from physiological parameters. These efforts are driven by the increasing availability of a variety of affordable wearable sensors that measure a broad range of physiological parameters, such as heart rate, galvanic skin response, or skin temperature [8]. These new low-cost wearables are increasingly used in scientific studies in a variety of areas like health research [9], well-being assessment, extraction of emotion information [10], spatial emotion analysis, and stress detection [11]. However, as a new research field, caution has to be exercised as some research efforts in this direction have used wearable physiological sensors without prior investigation of the sensor’s exact quality parameters; i.e., how accurately a sensor actually measures a given parameter or how reliable a sensor is at producing continuously high-quality measurement results.
  • Mobile phone data. Additionally to traditional call details records, modern smartphones record high-frequency x-detail records that include internet/app activities and continuous GPS positions [12]. The recent wide spread of mobile phone technology, therefore, allows tracking both the detailed movements and socio-economic activities of the majority of a city’s inhabitants and its visitors [13]. This extensive insight into the lives of individuals implies unprecedented opportunities for computational social science [14,15], while at the same time posing new fundamental challenges to privacy [16].
  • Transport and mobile sensor data. The digitalization of private and public transport services now allows tracking of citizens in the public transportation system, such as through the London Oyster card [17], and analyzing/visualizing entire taxi systems and transportation fleets [18,19]. Further, detailed records are being generated by novel mobility sharing systems, from car and bicycle sharing to e-stroller and ride sharing. Custom sensors, installed on vehicles, can provide the potential to sense ecological urban variables and the sentiments of city dwellers in unprecedented detail [20]. All these developments have led to an explosion in data-driven research on human mobility [21].
  • Volunteered geographic information. OpenStreetMap (OSM) has become a vital source for urban analysis. Its geospatial accuracy, completeness, and semantic comprehensiveness [22] allow for supporting decisions in a number of academic and real-world use cases through high-quality and up-to-date information about urban features [23,24].
  • Economic transactions. Credit card transactions allow one to study cities from a spending behavior perspective [25]; detailed individual economic information allows street-level insights into segregation [26].
This variety of such new large-scale datasets have led to a previously unknown situation in urban science; namely, the transformation from data-scarce to data-rich research environments, implicating both unprecedented potential and challenges for research.

3. Challenges in Human-Generated Urban Data Analysis

Human-generated data are created in non-standardized processes with uncertain characteristics, including social media posts, subjective personal observations, or from wearable sensors. Their analysis with geospatial analysis methods is still a major challenge. This challenge comes from the data’s noisy characteristics with respect to location uncertainty, temporal uncertainty, semantic ambiguity, or lack of structure. In fact, these kinds of data are not designed and captured to serve a specific purpose with clearly defined syntactic and semantic content, as opposed to traditional Geodata. Thus, currently available analysis methods may be inadequate to be applied to human-generated data. To tackle this issue, new cross-disciplinary methods have to be developed, complementing single-disciplinary approaches. These joint efforts will allow for uncovering latent patterns through analyzing human-generated data, and for drawing more profound conclusions from the analysis results to shape real-world processes; i.e., to use human-generated data in urban planning and decision-making, with a strong connection to developments in the field of urban geography [27].
Further issues include the fact that social media users and posts are not uniformly distributed across all age groups and education levels, and are thus not representative of the entire population [28,29]. Moreover, the geolocation of social media posts is not necessarily the actual location of the observation of a real-world phenomenon even though they are often considered in-situ reports. Location uncertainties may also arise from geospatial inaccuracies in the measurement devices or through user-defined locations. The same applies to temporal uncertainty—it is often not entirely clear whether users refer to past, current, or future events [30]. Finally, only a smaller percentage (typically between 1% and 10%) of all social media posts contain an explicit geolocation [29], further biasing the dataset. From a semantic viewpoint, social media posts contain a large portion of slang words, abbreviations, emoticons, irregular punctuation, "yoof speak," or other words that cannot be found in standard dictionaries [31]. All these limitations reduce or eliminate the usability of currently available analysis methods.

4. Approaches to Analyzing Human-Generated Urban Data

The quantitative and computational analyses of cities started with geoinformatics in the 1970s, when computers enabled geographers to apply efficient automated analyses to geospatial data. The focus on computational aspects and large-scale data sets from new sources developed into urban computing/informatics in the early 21st century, attracting computer scientists. More recently, additional approaches have emerged from different communities, such as complex systems, developing a physics-inspired "Science of Cities" approach by applying quantitative methods and network formalisms to understand the structure, dynamics, and development of cities and their infrastructural networks [32,33,34].
With respect to the analysis of human-generated data, the high degree of uncertainty, including textual ambiguities, positional and temporal inaccuracies, and semantic irregularities, requires new analysis methods to be developed. Concretely, unsupervised self-learning systems and semi-supervised machine learning techniques seem to be a promising avenue [7,35] for several reasons: First, they reduce or eliminate the need for a priori knowledge with respect to linguistic structures, geospatial correlations, or semantic meaning. Second, it is possible to incorporate the geospatial dimension into the analysis process, in many cases in a simple fashion without having to modify the original method. This step is essential because many machine-learning algorithms have originally not been designed for handling and analysing geospatial data. Third, machine learning methods have the power to deal with large amounts of data in that data-driven approaches can be applied to mine latent, unanticipated patterns in human-generated data [7].
While all these approaches have their merits, they often neglect human complexity. Therefore it is high time to push beyond disciplinary boundaries, for an urban data science [36] that combines approaches from geography, computer science, physics, social sciences, and more, in an anti-disciplinary way. To increase democratic participation, citizen science should also be welcomed.
The variety of large-scale datasets, sensing technologies, geo-participation initiatives, collaborative mapping tools, and data science approaches have the potential to help us with gaining a better understanding of urban processes and converting them into concrete urban planning and management actions.

5. Urban Planning for Humans, Not for Technological or Entrepreneurial Self-Interest

Human-generated data constitute a valuable source of information for modern, citizen-centric urban planning. Unfortunately, urban planning is often still a closed communication process between local governmental actors, and not an open, transparent procedure that integrates, discusses, and considers the requirements of citizens and civic interest groups. In an ideal planning workflow, all arguments should be collected, weighed against each other, and discussed in workshops or other open formats to gather opinions and needs from citizens. This broad discussion procedure necessitates an equally broad understanding of the citizens’ needs and related urban processes. At the same time, care must be taken to avoid obstructing bold sustainable policy making, to reach societal goals without getting stuck in “NIMBYism” (Not In My BackYard) [37,38].
The goal of a human-centric urban data science is value creation for citizens. This objective implies an approach to smart city programs with reasonable skepticism, to scrutinize the motives of commercial and political stakeholders, and to actively repulse actors who install or abuse technology to benefit their own interests at the cost of citizens, especially regarding vulnerable demographics. Of course such a distinction is not black and white: profit-generating technology is not necessarily in conflict with usefulness for city dwellers. However, a constant open dialogue is necessary to ensure benefit for all citizens.
For example, most cities and their planning processes turned car-centric in the 20th century [39]. To undo this massive damage to urban livability (and the global climate), more and more cities are starting to take note of the principles of transport justice [40], refocusing on walkability [41] and sustainable transport such as cycling [42], creating economic benefits for society as a whole [43]. To combat the political inertia countering such efforts and to plan in a sustainable way, urban planning stakeholders must become more aware of internal biases like elite projection [44] and of the system dynamics of path-dependence [45].
Further, we agree with Hollands [5] that the label “smart city” is problematic as it easily comes with the danger of masking—if not creating—increased socio-economic inequality: “while smart cities may fly the banner of creativity, diversity, tolerance, and culture, the balance appears to be tipped towards appealing to knowledge and creative workers, rather than using IT and arts to promote social inclusion” ([5], p. 312). To the contrary, technology and data collection have the potential to be used for social good [46]—but their application must start with people rather than a blind belief that they will automatically transform and improve cities [5,47]. In any case, a human-centric urban data science must actively reject the ongoing erosion of democratic processes in unreflectingly implemented “smart cities”, and it must reject the abuse of technology and data collection for surveillance capitalism [48].

6. The Contributions of This Special Issue

This special issue explores several of the mentioned data sets, issues, and challenges in 24 research papers. Contributors to the special issue cover a spectrum of methods spanning sentiment analysis, machine learning, network science, phone data, and mobility analysis, and classical spatial analysis. A variety of human-centric topics is covered:
Cycling. Four issue papers focused on cycling, exploring the stress challenges experienced in urban environments by the vulnerable demographic of cyclists [49,50,51,52]. Werner et al. [49] and Pajarito and Gould [52] focused on improving livability through cycling, investigating cyclists’ stress sensations through route analysis. Pritchard et al. [50] also studied cycling stress, but considered a mix of indicators for assessing bicycle level of service. Zhang et al. [51] took a different approach, leveraging public bicycle-sharing data and machine learning methods to identify land use.
Wellbeing. Five issue papers focused on another aspect of urban human wellbeing: comfort [53,54,55] and crime [56,57]. The former contributions focused on sentiment analysis; the latter two used spatial and machine learning methods, respectively. Kovács-Győri et al. [53] classified parks and their visitors in London using spatiotemporal and sentiment analysis of Twitter data, going beyond traditional spatial proximity analysis. Nouman et al. [54] prototyped a mobile environmental sensor toolkit to asses outdoor comfort using data mining and sensing techniques. Bielik et al. [55] performed an empirical study to assess trade-offs in a variety of urban design parameters—social, psychological, and energetic—on planning the fundamental elements of urban form: the street network and the building massing. Concerning crime, Xiao et al. [56] analyzed the travel patterns of residential burglars in a Chinese city, disentangling origin and destination effects, while Lin et al. [57] explored different machine learning algorithms demonstrating the importance of geographic feature design for improving performance and explanatory ability in grid-based crime prediction.
Mobile phones. Two studies exploited mobile phone technology for urban research purposes [58,59]. Cottineau and Vanhoof [58] followed a computational social science approach and related massive call data records with socioeconomic census data in France, unveiling the potential for detailed insights into urban socioeconomic organization. Osaba et al. [59] used a completely different method, deploying a smartphone-based system of human behavior analysis in a “senseable space”.
Mobility. Five issue papers analyzed human mobility related issues from various human-centric perspectives [60,61,62,63,64]: railway and public transport, emergencies, nursing equity, and crowd flows. Zheng et al. [60] developed machine learning techniques to efficiently recognize modes of driving railway trains. Maeda et al. [64] created an index based on human mobility data, making it possible to predict the influence of urban development on future residential movements. Li and Zhou [61] proposed a multiobjective rescue routing model for urban emergency logistics under travel time reliability, critical for urban emergency logistics during disasters. Hu et al. [62] performed a multi-modal trip network analysis to assess the spatial equity of nursing homes in Changchun, finding heterogeneous hot spots. Finally, Zhou et al. [63] develop a neural network model to predict crowd mobility at transportation hubs such as metro/bus/bike stations.
Street networks. Three issue papers used a network science approach to street network analysis [65,66,67]. Yang et al. [67] analyzed changes in the spatio-temporal characteristics of the spatial-interaction networks of Beijing, finding specific changes in connections, which play a vital role in understanding urban spatial heterogeneity. Agryzkov et al. [66] proposed a new centrality measure for complex networks based on PageRank to establish a ranking of nodes considering the importance of some dataset associated to the network, evaluated on a street network. Hacar et al. [65] analyzed OpenStreetMap road data to characterize the behavior of OpenStreetMap contributors, finding that more experienced contributors make for more detailed contributions.
Land use. Five issue papers studied a mix of human-centric spatial topics related to land use [68,69,70,71,72]: housing, business, vegetation, gender, and digital signage. Wang et al. [68] used regression models to explore the factors affecting housing prices and changes of urban space prices, observing a particular trajectory of urban development. Sánchez-Martín et al. [69] performed hotspot analysis and outlier analysis to group accommodation businesses not only using their spatial proximity but their lodging capacity. Zhang et al. [70] quantified the temporal and spatial patterns of impervious surfaces over a timespan of 10 years, with important implications for the study of regional environmental and economic development. Lei et al. [71] used location data from Weibo users to study the human dynamics of the spatial-temporal characteristics of gender differences in Beijing’s Olympic Village in June 2014, finding gender-specific differences in spatial land use patterns. Finally, Zhang et al. [72] focused on a spatial analysis of the case of digital signage in Beijing, with the potential to enhance the sustainable management of digital signage.

Author Contributions

Both authors researched and wrote the paper.

Funding

Bernd Resch would like to express his gratitude to the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) also for supporting the projects “Urban Emotions” (reference number I-3022) and “The Scales and Structures of Intra-Urban Spaces” (reference number P 29135-N29).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cairncross, F. The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  2. Schläpfer, M.; Bettencourt, L.M.; Grauwin, S.; Raschke, M.; Claxton, R.; Smoreda, Z.; West, G.B.; Ratti, C. The scaling of human interactions with city size. J. R. Soc. Interface 2014, 11, 20130789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Miller, H.J.; Goodchild, M.F. Data-driven geography. GeoJournal 2015, 80, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Marrone, M.; Hammerle, M. Smart cities: A review and analysis of stakeholders’ literature. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2018, 60, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 2008, 12, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Salas-Olmedo, M.H.; Moya-Gómez, B.; García-Palomares, J.C.; Gutiérrez, J. Tourists’ digital footprint in cities: Comparing Big Data sources. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  7. Steiger, E.; Resch, B.; Zipf, A. Exploration of spatiotemporal and semantic clusters of Twitter data using unsupervised neural networks. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2016, 30, 1694–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zeile, P.; Resch, B.; Exner, J.P.; Sagl, G. Urban emotions: benefits and risks in using human sensory assessment for the extraction of contextual emotion information in urban planning. In Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 209–225. [Google Scholar]
  9. Birenboim, A.; Dijst, M.; Scheepers, F.E.; Poelman, M.P.; Helbich, M. Wearables and location tracking technologies for mental-state sensing in outdoor environments. Prof. Geogr. 2019, 71, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Basu, S.; Jana, N.; Bag, A.; Mahadevappa, M.; Mukherjee, J.; Kumar, S.; Guha, R. Emotion recognition based on physiological signals using valence-arousal model. In Proceedings of the 2015 Third International Conference on Image Information Processing (ICIIP), Waknaghat, India, 21–24 December 2015; pp. 50–55. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kyriakou, K.; Resch, B.; Sagl, G.; Petutschnig, A.; Werner, C.; Niederseer, D.; Liedlgruber, M.; Wilhelm, F.H.; Osborne, T.; Pykett, J. Detecting moments of stress from measurements of wearable physiological sensors. Sensors 2019, 19, 3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Ferres, L. Indoor Towers, DPIs, and More People in Parks at Night: New Trends in Mobile Phone Location Research. In Proceedings of the Companion 2019 World Wide Web Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; p. 895. [Google Scholar]
  13. Calabrese, F.; Ferrari, L.; Blondel, V.D. Urban sensing using mobile phone network data: A survey of research. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2015, 47, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alessandretti, L.; Sapiezynski, P.; Lehmann, S.; Baronchelli, A. Multi-scale spatio-temporal analysis of human mobility. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Alessandretti, L.; Lehmann, S.; Baronchelli, A. Understanding the interplay between social and spatial behaviour. EPJ Data Sci. 2018, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Montjoye, Y.A.; Hidalgo, C.A.; Verleysen, M.; Blondel, V.D. Unique in the crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  17. Roth, C.; Kang, S.M.; Batty, M.; Barthélemy, M. Structure of urban movements: polycentric activity and entangled hierarchical flows. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e15923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  18. Szell, M.; Groß, B. Decoding the City; Chapter Hubcab- Exploring the Benefits of Shared Taxi Services; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santi, P.; Resta, G.; Szell, M.; Sobolevsky, S.; Strogatz, S.H.; Ratti, C. Quantifying the benefits of vehicle pooling with shareability networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 13290–13294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  20. O’Keeffe, K.P.; Anjomshoaa, A.; Strogatz, S.H.; Santi, P.; Ratti, C. Quantifying the sensing power of vehicle fleets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 12752–12757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  21. Barbosa, H.; Barthelemy, M.; Ghoshal, G.; James, C.R.; Lenormand, M.; Louail, T.; Menezes, R.; Ramasco, J.J.; Simini, F.; Tomasini, M. Human mobility: Models and applications. Phys. Rep. 2018, 734, 1–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  22. Haklay, M. How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2010, 37, 682–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Szell, M. Crowdsourced quantification and visualization of urban mobility space inequality. Urban Plan. 2018, 3, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Crooks, A.; Pfoser, D.; Jenkins, A.; Croitoru, A.; Stefanidis, A.; Smith, D.; Karagiorgou, S.; Efentakis, A.; Lamprianidis, G. Crowdsourcing urban form and function. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2015, 29, 720–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sobolevsky, S.; Sitko, I.; Des Combes, R.T.; Hawelka, B.; Arias, J.M.; Ratti, C. Cities through the prism of people’s spending behavior. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. MIT Media Lab. Atlas of Inequality. Available online: https://inequality.media.mit.edu/ (accessed on 31 October 2019).
  27. Hartshorn, T.A. Interpreting the City: An Urban Geography; John Wiley & Sons Incorporated: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. Anstead, N.; O’Loughlin, B. Social media analysis and public opinion: The 2010 UK general election. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2014, 20, 204–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Malik, M.M.; Lamba, H.; Nakos, C.; Pfeffer, J. Population bias in geotagged tweets. In Proceedings of the Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Oxford, UK, 26–29 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Steiger, E.; Ellersiek, T.; Resch, B.; Zipf, A. Uncovering latent mobility patterns from twitter during mass events. GI_Forum 2015, 1, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  31. Eisenstein, J. What to do about bad language on the internet. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Atlanta, GA, USA, 9–14 June 2013; pp. 359–369. [Google Scholar]
  32. Batty, M. The New Science of Cities; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  33. Barthelemy, M. The Structure and Dynamics of Cities; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  34. West, G.B. Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies; Penguin: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  35. Steiger, E.; Resch, B.; de Albuquerque, J.P.; Zipf, A. Mining and correlating traffic events from human sensor observations with official transport data using self-organizing-maps. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 73, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Kang, W.; Oshan, T.; Wolf, L.J.; Boeing, G.; Frias-Martinez, V.; Gao, S.; Poorthuis, A.; Xu, W. A roundtable discussion: Defining urban data science. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2019, 46, 1756–1768. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dear, M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1992, 58, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Resch, B.; Sagl, G.; Törnros, T.; Bachmaier, A.; Eggers, J.B.; Herkel, S.; Narmsara, S.; Gündra, H. GIS-Based Planning and Modeling for Renewable Energy: Challenges and Future Research Avenues. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2014, 2, 662–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Urry, J. Societies Beyond Oil: Oil Dregs and Social Futures; Zed Books Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gössling, S. Urban transport justice. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 54, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Speck, J. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at A Time. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/walkable-city-how-downtown-can-save-america-one-step-at-a-time-by-jeff-speck/2013/02/22/785c064a-43a4-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html (accessed on 31 October 2019).
  42. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Khreis, H. Car free cities: Pathway to healthy urban living. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gössling, S.; Choi, A.; Dekker, K.; Metzler, D. The social cost of automobility, cycling and walking in the European Union. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 158, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Walker, J. The Dangers of Elite Projection. Available online: https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html (accessed on 31 October 2019).
  45. Pflieger, G.; Kaufmann, V.; Pattaroni, L.; Jemelin, C. How does urban public transport change cities? Correlations between past and present transport and urban planning policies. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 1421–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Paolotti, D.; Tizzoni, M. DSAA 2018 Special Session: Data Science for Social Good. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy, 1–3 October 2018; pp. 470–471. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lepri, B.; Staiano, J.; Sangokoya, D.; Letouzé, E.; Oliver, N. The tyranny of data? the bright and dark sides of data-driven decision-making for social good. In Transparent Data Mining for Big and Small Data; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power; Profile Books: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  49. Werner, C.; Resch, B.; Loidl, M. Evaluating Urban Bicycle Infrastructures through Intersubjectivity of Stress Sensations Derived from Physiological Measurements. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  50. Pritchard, R.; Frøyen, Y.; Snizek, B. Bicycle Level of Service for Route Choice—A GIS Evaluation of Four Existing Indicators with Empirical Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Zhang, X.; Li, W.; Zhang, F.; Liu, R.; Du, Z. Identifying Urban Functional Zones Using Public Bicycle Rental Records and Point-of-Interest Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Pajarito, D.; Gould, M. Mapping Frictions Inhibiting Bicycle Commuting. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  53. Kovacs-Györi, A.; Ristea, A.; Kolcsar, R.; Resch, B.; Crivellari, A.; Blaschke, T. Beyond Spatial Proximity—Classifying Parks and Their Visitors in London Based on Spatiotemporal and Sentiment Analysis of Twitter Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Nouman, A.S.; Chokhachian, A.; Santucci, D.; Auer, T. Prototyping of Environmental Kit for Georeferenced Transient Outdoor Comfort Assessment. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  55. Bielik, M.; Schneider, S.; Kuliga, S.; Griego, D.; Ojha, V.; König, R.; Schmitt, G.; Donath, D. Examining Trade-Offs between Social, Psychological, and Energy Potential of Urban Form. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Xiao, L.; Liu, L.; Song, G.; Ruiter, S.; Zhou, S. Journey-to-Crime Distances of Residential Burglars in China Disentangled: Origin and Destination Effects. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Lin, Y.L.; Yen, M.F.; Yu, L.C. Grid-Based Crime Prediction Using Geographical Features. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  58. Cottineau, C.; Vanhoof, M. Mobile Phone Indicators and Their Relation to the Socioeconomic Organisation of Cities. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  59. Osaba, E.; Pierdicca, R.; Malinverni, E.S.; Khromova, A.; Álvarez, F.J.; Bahillo, A. A Smartphone-Based System for Outdoor Data Gathering Using a Wireless Beacon Network and GPS Data: From Cyber Spaces to Senseable Spaces. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Zheng, H.; Cui, Z.; Zhang, X. Identifying Modes of Driving Railway Trains from GPS Trajectory Data: An Ensemble Classifier-Based Approach. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  61. Li, Q.; Tu, W.; Zhuo, L. Reliable Rescue Routing Optimization for Urban Emergency Logistics under Travel Time Uncertainty. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Hu, S.; Song, W.; Li, C.; Lu, J. The Spatial Equity of Nursing Homes in Changchun: A Multi-Trip Modes Analysis. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  63. Zhou, Y.; Chen, H.; Li, J.; Wu, Y.; Wu, J.; Chen, L. Large-Scale Station-Level Crowd Flow Forecast with ST-Unet. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  64. Maeda, T.N.; Mori, J.; Ochi, M.; Sakimoto, T.; Sakata, I. Measurement of Opportunity Cost of Travel Time for Predicting Future Residential Mobility Based on the Smart Card Data of Public Transportation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  65. Hacar, M.; Kılıç, B.; Şahbaz, K. Analyzing OpenStreetMap Road Data and Characterizing the Behavior of Contributors in Ankara, Turkey. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  66. Agryzkov, T.; Pedroche, F.; Tortosa, L.; Vicent, J.F. Combining the Two-Layers PageRank Approach with the APA Centrality in Networks with Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  67. Yang, J.; Yi, D.; Qiao, B.; Zhang, J. Spatio-Temporal Change Characteristics of Spatial-Interaction Networks: Case Study within the Sixth Ring Road of Beijing, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Wang, W.C.; Chang, Y.J.; Wang, H.C. An Application of the Spatial Autocorrelation Method on the Change of Real Estate Prices in Taitung City. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  69. Sánchez-Martín, J.M.; Rengifo-Gallego, J.I.; Blas-Morato, R. Hot Spot Analysis versus Cluster and Outlier Analysis: An Enquiry into the Grouping of Rural Accommodation in Extremadura (Spain). ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  70. Zhang, P.; Pan, J.; Xie, L.; Zhou, T.; Bai, H.; Zhu, Y. Spatial–Temporal Evolution and Regional Differentiation Features of Urbanization in China from 2003 to 2013. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  71. Lei, C.; Zhang, A.; Qi, Q.; Su, H.; Wang, J. Spatial-Temporal Analysis of Human Dynamics on Urban Land Use Patterns Using Social Media Data by Gender. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  72. Zhang, X.; Ma, G.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, C. Analysis of Spatial Characteristics of Digital Signage in Beijing with Multi-Source Data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Resch, B.; Szell, M. Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8120584

AMA Style

Resch B, Szell M. Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2019; 8(12):584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8120584

Chicago/Turabian Style

Resch, Bernd, and Michael Szell. 2019. "Human-Centric Data Science for Urban Studies" ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 8, no. 12: 584. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8120584

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop