Development of Shannon-Weaner Entropy Model Based on Urban Development Paradigm Based on Urban Mixed Land Use

Subject Areas :

Maryam Ghahremani ¹ (PhD Student of Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning,Faculity of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.)
Mohamad Pourjafar ² (Full Professor of Urban Planning, Faculity of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tarbiat Modares University,Tehran, Iran)
navid saeidi rezvani ³ (azad university of qazvin)

Received: 2019-06-01 Accepted : 2019-10-18 Published : 2021-01-20

Keywords: diversity, Shannon Entropy Model, Urban Development Paradigms, Mixed land-Use, Place Diversity Model (PDM),

Abstract :

Although, the significance of development of the Urban Mixed land use approach is specified in the urbanization and urban planning process but this approach is not necessarily a dominant approach but also it produces the structure of the city for the contemporary paradigms of urban planning such as New Urbanism and Smart Growth. The notable issue of urban mixed development is that this form of development is a form of Urban "Place Making". For the dynamics of this new approach, it is necessary to rethink the factors and elements that the structure and form of the city that generates diversity. Diversity Index is a subset of the distribution model, which is one of the components of the mixing evaluation model. The indicators presented in this model are highly ambiguous and complex; Therefore, in order to explain this concept, it used interdisciplinary studies and borrowed from biodiversity concepts and developed on based on urban development paradigms Based on Urban Mixed land use paradigms that directly affect the environment. The most important indicator of species diversity evaluation in ecological concepts is "Shannon Entropy Model", which includes two indicators of number and species. In order to develop this model, researches, theories, models, methods of evaluation of "diversity" were investigated. The implications of these indicators were very complex and ambiguous, and considering these indices simultaneously, they added ambiguity. Some of these indicators overlap and others have had a different degree of significance. In addition to the extracted indexes based on the Qualitative Content analysis method, using Delphi Method new indexes was extracted based on expert opinions and experts. The statistical methods and Scatter, Deflection Point & Qualitative Content data Processing Method were used to evaluate and prioritize the extracted results. The results of all of the concepts and indicators examined were described as the "Place Diversity Model (PDM)".
Extended Abstract
Introduction: Although, the significance of development of the Urban Mixed land use approach is specified in the urbanization and urban planning process but this approach is not necessarily a dominant approach but also it produces the structure of the city to for the contemporary paradigms of urban planning such as New Urbanism, smart growth. The notable issue of urban mixed development is that this form of development is a form of Urban "Place Making". For the dynamics of this new approach, it is necessary to rethink the factors and elements that the structure and form of the city that generates diversity. Diversity Index is a subset of the distribution model, which is one of the components of the mixing evaluation model.
Methodology: The philosophical perspective of this research is an exploratory and deductive research approach. Research Method the qualitative research and the techniques used are Delphi method and Shannon technique and statistical methods, "scattered points" and "breakpoints" are used. The statistical population of this study includes all experts and experts in urban area. Since the sampling and selection of experts in the Delphi method was based on purposive sampling and not random, the subjects were selected according to the criteria of the research subject. Data collection tools are specialized texts, observation, interviews and documents and urban planning criteria. The mixed-use scale is the scale of a metropolitan area to a building that emphasizes neighborhoods in this study.
Results and discussion: The indicators presented in this model are highly ambiguous and complex; therefore, in order to explain this concept, it used interdisciplinary studies and borrowed from biodiversity concepts and developed on based on urban development paradigms Based on Urban Mixed land use paradigms that directly affect the environment. The most important indicator of species diversity evaluation in ecological concepts is "Shannon Entropy Model", which includes two indicators of number and species. In order to develop this model, researches, theories, models, methods of evaluation of "diversity" were investigated. The implications of these indicators were very complex and ambiguous, and considering these indices simultaneously, they added ambiguity. Some of these indicators overlap and others have had a different degree of significance. In addition to the extracted indexes based on the Qualitative Content analysis method, using Delphi Method new indexes was extracted based on expert opinions and experts. The statistical methods and Scatter, Deflection Point & Qualitative Content data Processing Method were used to evaluate and prioritize the extracted results. The results of all of the concepts and indicators examined were described as the "Place Diversity Model (PDM)". Category "A" with average batch weight (0.310) includes land use mixing index, category "B"  with average batch weight (0.270) including land use per capita, neighborhood access, production rate Travel and intersection density, category "C" with mean category weight (0.240) including occupancy density indices, housing mixing grade and plaque area, and category "D" with mean category weight (0.180) including density indices Demographic, ownership, sex, and age composition are in fact category "A" with the mean weight of the category (0.310) being the most important and category "D" having the least weight of the category (0.180) being the least important.
Conclusion: How the socioeconomic aggregation of urban contexts is related to the composition of community groups, activities, uses, buildings and public open spaces of the city. Hybrid developments are related to the variety of people's wants and their lifestyles, and must be adapted to the cultural needs of the people, and are, in a sense, their physical expression. Another condition for achieving diversity in the hybrid urban development pattern is the real estate development conditions in these complexes, which is a very complex and ambiguous dimension. Homes should be varied, so that for all social groups based in mixed locations, it should be possible to choose and pay in terms of purchases and rentals. In this case, one can expect more people to choose and encourage them to live. The housing model should be able to accommodate all age groups, from the elderly to the young, and from all low-income to high-income social groups, to the other purpose of the complex development of land uses that combine and bring together generations and social groups.

References:

1. Abdullahi, S. and B. Pradhan. (2018): Land use change modeling and the effect of compact city paradigms: integration of GIS‑based cellular automata and weights‑of‑evidence Techniques. Environmental Earth Sciences. Vol. 77, pp: 1-15.


2. Abdollahi, A and Fatahi, M, (2017): Measuring Urban Smart Growth Indices Using the Electrode Technique (Case Study: Kerman City Areas). Journal of Space Planning and Preparation, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 171-147.


3. Angotti, T. and E. Handhardt, (2001): Problems & Prospects for Healthy Mixed-use Communities in NewYork City. Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp: 145-154.


4. Atkins, K. (2008): Analysis of Town Center Mixed-Use Developments to Determine Key Retailer Success Factors. Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, (http:// trace.tennessee. edu/utk_gradthes/581).


5. Azar, A, (2001): Development of Shannon Entropy Method for Data Processing in Content Analysis. Journal of Humanities, Alzahra University, Vol. 11, No. 37 and 38.


6. Baycan-Levent, T. (2010): Diversity and Creativity as Seedbeds for Urban and Regional Dynamics. European Planning Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp: 565-694.


7. Bell, J. (2004): A mixed-use Renaissance: A renewed interest in creating a vibrant urban feel in city centers & in sub-urban settings in propelling successful mixed-use development. Here are three projects that blend the best of mixed use. Mortgage Banking, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp: 66-74.


8. Chrysochoou, M. (2012): A GIS and indexing scheme to screen brownfields for area-wide redevelopment planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp: 187–198.


9. Costello, A. and J. Osborne, (2005): Best practice in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Journal of practical Assessment, research & evaluation, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp: 1-9.


10. Duanny, A. and E. Plater_Zyberk, (2010): The Neighborhood, The District and the corridor.in peter katz, The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, McGtawHill Publication, New York.


11. Elshater, A, (2012): New Urbanism Principles versus Urban Design Dimensions towards Behavior Performance Efficiency in Egyptian Neighbourhood Unit. Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 68, pp: 826- 843.


12. Esmaili, Sh., Moslem and Taghvai, A. (2011): Assessment of City Vulnerability by Passive Defensive Approach Using Delphi Method; Case Study: Birjand City. Urban Management Journal, Volume 9, Number 28, Tehran. pp. 110-93.


13. Fainstein, s. (2003): Readings in Planning Theory (Studies in Urban and Social Change), Wiley-Blackwell Publication, New Jersey.


14. Galster, G. and H. Royce, and M.R. Ratcliff, and H. Wolman, and S. Coleman, and  J. Friehage, (2001): Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept. Journal of Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, No.4, PP:681-717.


15. Grant, J. (2002): Mixed-use in Theory and Practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. APA Journal, Vol. 68. No 1, pp: 71-84.


16. Gholami, Y., Hayati, S and Ghanbari, M, (2015): Understanding the Physical-Spatial Growth Pattern of Iranian Metropolises (Case Study: Mashhad, Shiraz, Isfahan, Tabriz Metropolitan Cities). Journal of Urban Areas Studies, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Volume 2, Number 3, pp.  100-79.


17. Heldt, B. (2010): A Healthy Mix? Health Food Retail & Mixed-use Development: Mobility-related Analysis of Grocery Shopping Behavior in Irvine, California. Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies (NEURUS) Report. Humboldt University, Geographisches Institute. University of California, Irvine, Department of Social Ecology.


18. Hirt, s. (2007): The Mixed-use Trend Planning Attitudes & Practices in Northeast Ohio. Journal of Architectural & Planning Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp: 224-246.


19. Hoppenbrouwer, E and E. Louw, (2005): Mixed-use Development: Theory and Practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands, European Planning Studies,Vol. 13, No. 7, pp: 967-983.


20. Hsu, CC. and B. A.Sandford, (2007):  The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation Journal, Vol. 12, No. 10, pp: 1-8.


21. Heydari, Y., Movahed, A and Tabei, H, (2017): Revitalization of Worn Urban Textures with Emphasis on TND Approach (Case Study: Lalehzar District, Tehran). Journal of Geographical Sciences, Architecture and Urban Planning Studies, Volume 1, Number 9, pp. 112-87. 112-87.


22. Jafari, A and Askari, Y, (2016): Comparison of Different Biodiversity Indices in Different Sampling Plans: (Case Study: Chahar Mahak and Bakhtiari Forest Reserve). Journal of Environmental Research , Volume 7, Number 14. pp. 144-135.


23. Javadi, Gh., Talei, M and Karimi, M, (2013): Assessing the Use of Diversity Indicators in Urban Land Use Mixing. Journal of Urban and Regional Studies and Research, Volume 4, Number 16. pp. 46-23.


24. Landeta, J. (2006): Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73, No.5, pp: 467-82.


25. Lang, Ursula. (2014): Cultivating the sustainable city: Urban agriculture policies and gardening projects in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Urban Geography, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp: 477–485.


26. Lim, H. (2016): Planning for Emergency: Confronting Rule Based and Design-Based Urban Development. Master Thesis, Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.


27. Marshall, S. (2009): Cities, Design and Evolution, translated by Dr. Seyyed Hossein Bahraini and Dr. Ameneh Bakhtiar, University of Tehran Publications, First Edition, Tehran.


28. Metzger, K.L. and M.B. Coughenour, and R.M. Reich, and R.B. Boone, (2005): Effects of seasonal grazing on plant species diversity and vegetation structure in a semi-arid ecosystem. Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp: 147-160.


29. Mori, Y.N. and S. Sodhi, and S. Kawanishi, and S.Y. Amagishi, (2001): The effect of human disturbance and flock composition on the flight distances of waterlow species. Ethology, Vol. 19, pp:115-119.


30. Pourahmad, A., Mohammadpour, S., Manoochehri, A and Khalili, A, (2012): Evaluation and Measurement of Distribution and Compression Shape of Cities Using Quantitative Models (Comparative Study of Tehran and Sydney Metropolis). Iranian Geographical Society, Volume 10 , No. 32. pp. 74-49.


31. Pueyoa, Y. and C.L. Aladosa, and C. Ferrer-Benimeli, (2006): Is the analysis of plant community structure better than common species-diversity indices for assessing the effects of livestock grazing on a Mediterranean arid ecosystem?. Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 64, No 4, pp: 698-712.


32. Schwanke, D. (2005): Mixed-use Development Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.


33. Seifeddini, F., Ziyari, K., Ahmadpour, A and Nikpour, A, (2014): Explaining the Distribution and Compaction of Urban Forms in Amol with a Sustainable Urban Form Approach. Human Geography Research, Volume 44, Number 80, pp. 176-155.


34. Soleimani, M., Zanganeh, A and Farjam, R, (2015): The Mixed Development of Urban Uses; From Theory to Practice, University Jihad Publications, Kharazmi Branch, First Edition, Tehran.


35. Song, Y. and K. Gerrit-Jan, (2004): Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp: 663-680.


36. Stafford County Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Development Standards Plan. (2012): International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, vol 2, No 7. 195-203.


37. Talen, E. and G. Knaap, (2003): Legalizing smart growth: An empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois. Journal of Planning Education & Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp: 345-359.


38. Traditional Neighborhood Design Lessons and Best Practices. Ulster County Planning, Fair Street, Kingston NY 12401. (2010).


39. Rahnama, M and Razagian, F, (2013): Locating High-Rise Buildings with Emphasis on Urban Smart Growth Theory in District 9 of Mashhad. Journal of Space Geography, Volume 3, Number 9, pp. 45-63.


40. VanTeijlingen, E. and E, Pitchforth, and C. Bishop, and E. Russell, (2006): Delphi method and nominal group technique in family planning and reproductive health research. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp: 249-452.


41. Wiener, N. (1939). The ergodic theorem. Duke Mathematical Journal, 5, ]page numbers omitted in the paper[.


42. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Wiley, New York.


43. Wiener, N. (1949).The interpolation, extrapolation, and smoothing of stationary time series. Wiley, New York.


44. Windle, PE. (2004): Delphi technique: assessing component needs. J Perianesth Nurs, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp: 46-47.


45. www.CNU.org https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2017/03/30/great-idea-traditional-neighborhood-development). (https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/top-10-tnd-mistakes).


46. Youn-kyung, K. and L. Jolly, and A. Fairhurst, and K. Atkins, (2005): Mixed-Use Development: Creating a Model of Key Success Factors. Journal of Shoping Center Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp: 53-75.