Develop an urban form assessment model based on the spatial resilience approach

Document Type : review

Authors

Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
Urban resilience in the last decade, especially with the outbreak of Covid-19, is considered as a new path and strategy for urban development. The resilience of the urban form is one of the subsets of the urban resilience discourse, and although research and articles have been written about the resilience of the urban form and how to evaluate it in the past decade, this issue is still in the conceptual and exploratory stage. This article tries to make a comparative comparison between the city form resilience evaluation tools by explaining the different dimensions of the resilient place assessment toolbox which is derived from the spatial resilience framework. In this framework, urban morphology is defined as the spatial and physical manifestation of human activities resulting from the complex interactions of various social, economic, and environmental factors that affect the city's response to natural and man-made hazards. Urban tissues lacking the capacity of a resilient place (as the essence of the resilience of urban morphology) face the risk of exhaustion and deterioration of environmental qualities in the process of urban development and extensive changes, and the quality of livability and vitality of these tissues declines in the long term. In this regard, the three dimensions of body and structure, place and image (cognitive and perceptual), environment and behavior as the main axes, are justified through comparison with other frameworks and toolboxes for evaluating the resilience of urban form (literature review). This tool can provide planners, designers, and urban policymakers with the possibility of more effective interventions against changes and risks by measuring the resilience of urban forms and the resilience of places, especially in contexts exposed to development.
 
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In urban morphology, a systematic investigation of the urban form should include spatial structure, land uses, functions, and the source and evolution of “urban form” over time. Urban morphology focuses on the study of physical form, but it also implicitly associates the physical elements of the city with the social and economic forces that shape the elements. On the one hand, urban morphology results from gradual human interventions in the built environment and, on the other hand, part of human being’s environmental preferences and behavior patterns result from urban form and environment. Thus, urban morphology comprises multiple factors other than merely physical ones and includes cognitive-perceptual, environmental, and behavioral dimensions.
Urban changes have brought about many social, cultural, and economic consequences, such as changes in urban morphology, particularly in the most unpredictable and irreversible urban developments. Over time, the morphology of cities has manifested diverse and sometimes sophisticated patterns which result in different qualities and conditions in facing threats. This aspect of urban morphology has so far been disregarded and its role in increasing urban resilience has recently received considerable attention in academic circles. As a result of rapid urban changes in the contemporary era, urban morphology has lost the capability of keeping up with recent changes and, despite its potential and points of strength, it is confronted with severe issues due to the lack of adaptability in the face of crisis.
 
Methodology
This study tries to fill the gap in the development of assessment tools for the resilience of urban form in urban fabrics, particularly ones which are faced with development and change, on the meso and micro scales (with emphasis on the essence of a resilient place) through both quantitative and qualitative methods. The main question is: what are the indices need to assess the resilient urban form on the meso-scale? An extensive review of the literature extracted the indices in our assessment tool. Then, the indices were evaluated by 20 Delphi panelists in two rounds of the Delphi technique. Finally, a multi-dimensional tool with 51 indices was developed to assess the resilience of urban form against threats that could potentially help urban planning, design, development, and management to increase urban resilience.
 
Results and discussion
Today, resilience is defined as “the ability of complex socio-ecological systems to change, adapt, and, crucially, transform in response to stresses and strains”. In this new approach, resilience is conceptualized as a solution to facing indeterminacy and constant change. This concept allows creating a remarkable capacity to face and tolerate threats and pressure (even though unpredictable) and revive urban fabrics. Thus, it becomes possible to utilize resilience more practically in the urban context concerning slight, gradual changes and reinforce the belief that resilience essentially begins at the scale of an urban place and a resilient place. Given this, urban forms without the capacity of resilient place are at a higher risk of deterioration and becoming locked-in in the process of urban development and their liveability and vitality is likely to decline in the long term. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has doubled the importance of the relationship between resilience and urban form, particularly on the meso-scale. Assessment of the resilience of urban form on “the scale of resilient place” and the relevant assessment tool is considered a significant challenge in urban resilience research.
 
Conclusion
A number of approaches and frameworks for urban resilience have been proposed on different scales (local or global) with different methodologies, especially in the last two decades. The researchers developing these methods have used various terminology referring to their method, including tool, toolbox, model, framework, guide, and index.
 
 
Although many tools have been designed for assessment of the resilience of urban form on the neighborhood scale, few attempts have been made to adopt an urban-morphology approach and propose an assessment tool in the resilience literature, not least on the scale of resilient place. The resilient urban design framework on the macro-scale and the resilient place assessment (RPA) framework on the meso-scale have proposed both quantitative and qualitative indices for the assessment of urban form resilience. In contrast, the rest of the tools mainly address the quantitative dimensions of urban form. The assessment of the resilience of urban form through a resilient-place approach based on the urban morphology entails using both quantitative and qualitative approaches that could accurately evaluate the resilience of the urban system against possible threats on the meso and micro scales.

Keywords


  1. Aelbrecht, P. S. (2016). ‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers. Journal of Urban Design, 21(1), 124–152.
  2. Agryzkov, T., Tortosa, L., & Vicent, J. F. (2018). An algorithm to compute data diversity index in spatial networks. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 337, 63–75.
  3. Allan, P., Bryant, M., Wirsching, C., Garcia, D., & Teresa Rodriguez, M. (2013). The Influence of Urban Morphology on the Resilience of Cities Following an Earthquake. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 242–262.
  4. Alshehri, S. A., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2015). Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster. Natural Hazards, 75(3), 2221–2245.
  5. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton Century Crofts press.
  6. Bobkova, E., Marcus, L., & Pont, M. B. (2017). Multivariable measures of plot systems: Describing the potential link between urban diversity and spatial form based on the spatial capacity concept. Proceedings - 11th International Space Syntax Symposium, SSS 2017, 47.1-47.15.
  7. Boeing, G. (2017). OSMnx: New methods for acquiring, constructing, analyzing, and visualizing complex street networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 65, 126–139.
  8. Boeing, G. (2018). Measuring the complexity of urban form and design. Urban Design International, 23(4), 281–292.
  9. Boeing, G. (2020). A Multi-Scale Analysis of 27,000 Urban Street Networks: Every US City, Town, Urbanized Area, and Zillow Neighborhood. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(4), 590–608.
  10. Bourdic, L., Salat, S., & Nowacki, C. (2012). Assessing cities: A new system of cross-scale spatial indicators. Building Research and Information, 40(5), 592–605.
  11. Brunetta, G., & Caldarice, O. (2019). Spatial Resilience in Planning: Meanings, Challenges, and Perspectives for Urban Transition. 1–12.
  12. Caniggia, G., & Maffei, G. L. (1979). Composizione architettonica e tipologia edilizia. In Architettura e Urbanistica. Marsilio.
  13. Cerè, G., Rezgui, Y., & Zhao, W. (2019). Urban-scale framework for assessing the resilience of buildings informed by a delphi expert consultation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36, 101079.
  14. Choi, Y., Yang, Y. J., & Sohn, H. G. (2021). Resilient cultural heritage through digital cultural heritage cube: Two cases in South Korea. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 48, 36–44.
  15. Coaffee, J. (2013). Towards Next-Generation Urban Resilience in Planning Practice: From Securitization to Integrated Place Making. Planning Practice and Research, 28(3), 323–339.
  16. Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis. Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), 27, iii.
  17. D’Amico, A., & Currà, E. (2018). Urban resilience in the historical centres of Italian cities and towns. Strategies of preventative planning. Techne, 15(July), 257–268.
  18. Dalkey, N., Brown, B., & Cochran, S. (1970). Use of self-ratings to improve group estimates. Technological Forecasting, 1(3), 283–291.
  19. Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., Fünfgeld, H., McEvoy, D., & Porter, L. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planni. In Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 299–333.
  20. Dhar, T. K., & Khirfan, L. (2017). A multi-scale and multi-dimensional framework for enhancing the resilience of urban form to climate change. Urban Climate, 19, 72–91.
  21. Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 401–409.
  22. Dibble, J. (2016). Urban MorphoMetrics towards a QUantitative science of Urban form. Physics and Society, 1, 331–340.
  23. Dill, J. (2004). Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1, 11–15.
  24. Dong, B., Liu, Y., Fontenot, H., Ouf, M., Osman, M., Chong, A., Qin, S., Salim, F., Xue, H., Yan, D., Jin, Y., Han, M., Zhang, X., Azar, E., & Carlucci, S. (2021). Occupant behavior modeling methods for resilient building design, operation and policy at urban scale: A review. Applied Energy, 293.
  25. Dovey, K., & Wood, S. (2015). Public/private urban interfaces: type, adaptation, assemblage. Journal of Urbanism, 8(1), 1–16.
  26. Duffield, C. (1993). The Delphi technique: a comparison of results obtained using two expert panels. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 30(3), 227–237.
  27. English, J. M., & Kernan, G. L. (1976). The prediction of air travel and aircraft technology to the year 2000 using the Delphi method. Transportation Research, 10(1), 1–8.
  28. Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Evaluating place quality in innovation districts: A Delphic hierarchy process approach. Land Use Policy, 76, 471–486.
  29. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65–84.
  30. Ewing, R., and Clemente, O. (2013). Measuring urban design: metrics for livable places. In Island Press. Island Press.
  31. Fan, C., Cai, T., Gai Z, Wu, Y. (2020). The relationship between the migrant population’s migration network and the risk of COVID-19 transmission in China- empirical analysis and prediction in prefecture-level cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17(8), 2630.
  32. Feliciotti, A. (2018). Resilience and Urban Design: A System Approach to Study of Resilience in Urban Form Learning from the case of Grabales. University of Strathclyde.
  33. Feliciotti, A., Romice, O., & Porta, S. (2016). Design for change: Five proxies for resilience in the urban form. Open House International, 41(4), 23–30.
  34. Feng, X., Xiu, C., Bai, L., Zhong, Y., & Wei, Y. (2020). Comprehensive evaluation of urban resilience based on the perspective of landscape pattern: A case study of Shenyang city. Cities, 104, 102722.
  35. Fischer, K., Hiermaier, S., Riedel, W., & Häring, I. (2018). Morphology dependent assessment of resilience for urban areas. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6).
  36. Franck, K. A., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. In Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life. Routledge.
  37. Gehl, J. (1987). Life between the buildings: using public space. In Life between the buildings: using public space. Danish ArchiArchitectural.
  38. Gharai, F., Masnavi, M., & Hajibandeh, M. (2018). Urban Local-Spatial Resilience: Developing the Key Indicators and Measures, a Brief Review of Literature. Bagah-E-Nazar, 14(57), 19–32.
  39. Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M. C., & Zilles, C. (2008). Identifying important and difficult concepts in introductory computing courses using a delphi process. SIGCSE’08 - Proceedings of the 39th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 256–260.
  40. Goosen, Z., & Cilliers, E. J. (2020). Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework. Social Indicators Research, 150(3), 835–866.
  41. Greatorex, J., & Dexter, T. (2000). An accessible analytical approach for investigating what happens between the rounds of a Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1016.
  42. Hamidi, S., & Moazzeni, S. (2019). Examining the relationship between urban design qualities and walking behavior: Empirical evidence from Dallas, TX. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(10).
  43. Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175–194.
  44. Hermosilla, T., Ruiz, L. A., Recio, J. A., & Cambra-López, M. (2012). Assessing contextual descriptive features for plot-based classification of urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(1), 124–137.
  45. Hillier, B. (2015). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. In Space Syntax. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  46. Hoelscher, S., & Porteous, J. D. (1997). Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Geographical Review, 87(3), 422.
  47. Hooi, E., & Pojani, D. (2020). Urban design quality and walkability: an audit of suburban high streets in an Australian city. Journal of Urban Design, 25(1), 155–179.
  48. Jacobs, J. (1960). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
  49. Julsrud, T. E., & Priya Uteng, T. (2015). Technopolis, shared resources or controlled mobility? A net-based Delphi-study to explore visions of future urban daily mobility in Norway. European Journal of Futures Research, 3(1), 1–13.
  50. Kaymaz, I. C. (2012). Landscape Perception. In M. Ozyavuz (Ed.), Landscape Planning. InTech.
  51. Konkol, J. R. (2015). Urban Grain: Fostering social and economic diversity through parcelization of large urban development sites. A test case in Seattle’s Central District [University of Washington]. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  52. Kropf, K. (2013). Evolution and urban form: staking out the ground for a more mature theory. Urban Morphology, 17(2), 136–149.
  53. Kropf, K. (2018). The Handbook Of Urban Morphology. In The Handbook Of Urban Morphology (1st editio). Wiley.
  54. Lak, A., Hasankhan, F., & Garakani, S. A. (2020). Principles in practice: Toward a conceptual framework for resilient urban design. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(12), 2194–2226.
  55. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. In Journal of Architectural Education (1984-). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  56. Lee, I. M., & Buchner, D. M. (2008). The importance of walking to public health. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(7 SUPPL.1).
  57. Lee, S., & Talen, E. (2014). Measuring Walkability: A Note on Auditing Methods. Journal of Urban Design, 19(3), 368–388.
  58. Longley, P. A., & Mesev, V. (2000). On the measurement and generalisation of urban form. Environment and Planning A, 32(3), 473–488.
  59. Lowry, J. H., & Lowry, M. B. (2014). Comparing spatial metrics that quantify urban form. Computers. Environment and Urban Systems, 44, 59–67.
  60. Lu, Y., Zhai, G., Zhou, S., & Shi, Y. (2020). Risk reduction through urban spatial resilience: A theoretical framework. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 27(4), 921–937.
  61. Majic, I., & Pafka, E. (2019). AwaP-IC—An Open-Source GIS Tool for Measuring Walkable Access. Urban Science, 3(2), 31-48.
  62. Marcus, L., & Colding, J. (2014). Toward an integrated theory of spatial morphology and resilient urban systems. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1-13.
  63. Mehmood, A. (2016). Of resilient places: planning for urban resilience. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 407–419.
  64. Mehta, V. (2018). Streets and social life in cities: a taxonomy of sociability. Urban Design International, 24(1), 16–37.
  65. Mertens, A. C., Cotter, K. L., Foster, B. M., Zebrack, B. J., Hudson, M. M., Eshelman, D., Loftis, L., Sozio, M., & Oeffinger, K. C. (2004). Improving health care for adult survivors of childhood cancer: Recommendations from a delphi panel of health policy experts. Health Policy, 69(2), 169–178.
  66. Miao, C., Yu, S., Hu, Y., Zhang, H., He, X., & Chen, W. (2020). Review of methods used to estimate the sky view factor in urban street canyons. Building and Environment, 168.
  67. Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology, 7–8.
  68. (1992). A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should know. Journal of Planning Literature, 6, 331–349.
  69. Muratori, S. (1960). Studio per une operante storia urbana di Venezia. Palladio.
  70. Nasar, J. L. (1997). The avaluative image of the city. The Ohio State University, USA.
  71. Newman, O. (1996). Creating Defensible Space. DIANE Publishing.
  72. Oke TR. (1988). Street design and urban canopy layer climate. Energy and Buildings, 11, 103–113.
  73. Omer, I., & Kaplan, N. (2019). Structural properties of the angular and metric street network’s centralities and their implications for movement flows. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(6), 1182–1200.
  74. Owens, P. M. (2005). Beyond Density:Measuring Neighborhood Form in New England’s Upper Connecticut River Valley. California, Berkeley.
  75. Panerai, P., Castex, J., Depaule, J. C., Samuels, I., & Samuels, O. V. (2004). Urban forms: The death and life of the urban block. In Architectural press. Architectural press.
  76. Perera, N. M. P., & Kodituwakku, C. (2020). enhancing Urban Resilience and Livability by Leveraging Natural and Ecological Assets. elibrary.worldbank.org.
  77. Perveen, S., Kamruzzaman, M., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: A Delphi approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10).
  78. Pfefferbaum, B., Pfefferbaum, R. L., & Van Horn, R. L. (2015). Community Resilience Interventions: Participatory, Assessment-Based, Action-Oriented Processes. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 238–253.
  79. Piovani, D., Arcaute, E., Uchoa, G., Wilson, A., & Batty, M. (2018). Measuring accessibility using gravity and radiation models. Royal Society Open Science, 5(9).
  80. Plaisant, A., & Sulas, A. (2018). Gentrification-resilient cities. Urban livability and anti-gentrification requirements for improving cities and social life. Proceedings of the IFoU 2018: Reframing Urban Resilience Implementation: Aligning Sustainability and Resilience.
  81. Porta, S. & Romice, O. (2010). Plot-based urbanism: towards time-consciousness in place-making. In W. SONNE (Ed.), Dortmunder Vorträge zur Stadtbaukunst [Dortmunder Lectures on Civic Art]. Sulgen, DE.
  82. Porta, S., Romice, O., Maxwell, J. A., Russell, P., & Baird, D. (2014). Alterations in scale: Patterns of change in main street networks across time and space. Urban Studies, 51(16), 3383–3400.
  83. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man–Environment Approach to Form and Design. Plenum.
  84. Ray, B., & Shaw, R. (2018). Changing built form and implications on urban resilience: Loss of climate responsive and socially interactive spaces. Procedia Engineering, 212, 117–124.
  85. Roggema, R. (2014). Swarm Planning for Climate Change: An Alternative Pathway for Resilience. 221–251.
  86. Roggema, R. (2018). Design with voids: how inverted urbanism can increase urban resilience. Architectural Science Review, 61(5), 349–357.
  87. Rosenbaum, M. S. (2006). Exploring the social supportive role of third places in consumers’ lives. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 59–72.
  88. Ruppert, J., & Duncan, R. G. (2017). Defining and characterizing ecosystem services for education: A Delphi study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 737–763.
  89. Samuelsson, K., Colding, J., & Barthel, S. (2019). Urban resilience at eye level: Spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187(November 2018), 70–80.
  90. Shafiei-dastjerdi, M., Lak, A., Ghaffari, A. and Sharifi, A. (2021). A conceptual framework for resilient place assessment based on spatial resilience approach: An integrative review. Urban Climate, 36.
  91. Shamsuddin, S., & Ujang, N. (2008). Making places: The role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32(3), 399–409.
  92. Sharifi, & Yamagata, Y. (2018). Resilient Urban Form: A Conceptual Framework. In Y. Y. A. Sharifi (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Energy, 65, 167–179.
  93. Sharifi, A. (2019a). Resilient urban forms: A review of literature on streets and street networks. Building and Environment, 147(July 2018), 171–187.
  94. Sharifi, A. (2019b). Urban form resilience: A meso-scale analysis. Cities, 93, 238–252.
  95. Sharifi, Ayyoob, Roosta, M., & Javadpoor, M. (2021). Urban Form Resilience: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional, Semi-Planned, and Planned Neighborhoods in Shiraz, Iran. Urban Science, 5(1), 18.
  96. Sheikh Mohammad Zadeh, A., & Rajabi, M. A. (2013). Analyzing the effect of the street network configuration on the efficiency of an urban transportation system. Cities, 31, 285–297.
  97. Shi, S., Gou, Z., & Chen, L. H. C. (2014). How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 13, 148–156.
  98. Silva, M., Oliveira, V., & Leal, V. (2017). Urban Form and Energy Demand: A Review of Energy-relevant Urban Attributes. Journal of Planning Literature, 32(4), 346–365.
  99. Smith, J. W., Anderson, D. H., & Moore, R. L. (2012). Social Capital, Place Meanings, and Perceived Resilience to Climate Change. Rural Sociology, 77(3), 380–407.
  100. Song, Y., Popkin, B., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2013). A national-level analysis of neighborhood form metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 116, 73–85.
  101. Sriram, L. M. K., Ulak, M. B., Ozguven, E. E., & Arghandeh, R. (2019). Multi-Network Vulnerability Causal Model for Infrastructure Co-Resilience. IEEE Access, 7, 35344–35358.
  102. Stangl, P. (2015). Block size-based measures of street connectivity: A critical assessment and new approach. Urban Design International, 20(1), 44–55.
  103. Stangl, P. (2019). Overcoming flaws in permeability measures: modified route directness. Journal of Urbanism, 12(1), 1–14.
  104. van Nes, A., & López, M. J. J. (2007). Micro scale spatial relationships in urban studies: the relationship between private and public space and its impact on street life. Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, 023:01-023:12.
  105. Vaništa Lazarević, E, Keković, Z., & Antonić, B. (2018). In search of the principles of resilient urban design: Implementability of the principles in the case of the cities in Serbia. Energy and Buildings, 158, 1130–1138.
  106. Vaništa Lazarević, Eva, Keković, Z., & Antonić, B. (2018). In search of the principles of resilient urban design: Implementability of the principles in the case of the cities in Serbia. Energy and Buildings, 158, 1130–1138.
  107. Vialard, A. (2014). Typological atlases of block and block-face. ISUF 21st International Seminar of the Urban Form.
  108. Whyte, W. (1980). Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Doubleday.
  109. Wittkowski, K. M. (1988). Friedman-type statistics and consistent multiple comparisons for unbalanced designs with missing data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1163–1170.
  110. Zhang, S., York, A. M., Boone, C. G., & Shrestha, M. (2013). Methodological Advances in the Spatial Analysis of Land Fragmentation. Professional Geographer, 65(3), 512–526.
  111. Zhang, X., Miller-Hooks, E., & Denny, K. (2015). Assessing the role of network topology in transportation network resilience. Journal of Transport Geography, 46, 35–45.