Assessing the Visual Complexity of Urban Form: A Typology of Measures and Indicators
محورهای موضوعی : Space Ontology International JournalAmir Shakibamanesh 1 , Narges Ahmadpour 2
1 - Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Art, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Art, Tehran, Iran.
کلید واژه: Visual Complexity, Environmental Perception, Urban Form, Visual Information, Information Theory, Complexity Measurement,
چکیده مقاله :
Visual complexity, alongside other forms of complexity in cities, serves as a daily stimulus in the perception of urban environments. Various studies have addressed optimal visual complexity and the organization of environmental data, considering the limited processing capacity of the human brain. Despite significant prior research, the challenges of quantifying visual complexity, the scarcity of indicators that predict perceptual complexity, and the dispersion of existing indicators across multiple disciplines have resulted in a lack of clarity and validity in this field. This study aims to establish a precise definition of complexity, particularly visual complexity, in relation to the physical structure of cities, and to present a comprehensive classification of visual complexity indicators applicable to urban design scales. To achieve this, the study reviews related literature from the fields of aesthetics, environmental psychology, architecture, and urban design to identify the factors influencing the visual complexity of urban forms. Additionally, a typology of methods for measuring visual complexity is presented in a table, categorized into two main groups: the first group includes methods that use urban landscape elements as units of complexity measurement, while the second group comprises methods that consider the informational units received from the visual environment as the measurement units. Given the importance of assessment scale in measuring complexity, a six-level hierarchy for evaluating indicators is proposed. This table serves as a comprehensive summary, potentially functioning as an effective tool for analyzing and determining the optimal level of visual complexity in relation to urban form. It can help prevent confusion in studies related to environmental complexity. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of movement in the perception of complexity, the role of attention, the impact of semantic dimensions, and familiarity with the environment as factors that distinguish urban complexity studies from those in other fields.
Visual complexity, alongside other forms of complexity in cities, serves as a daily stimulus in the perception of urban environments. Various studies have addressed optimal visual complexity and the organization of environmental data, considering the limited processing capacity of the human brain. Despite significant prior research, the challenges of quantifying visual complexity, the scarcity of indicators that predict perceptual complexity, and the dispersion of existing indicators across multiple disciplines have resulted in a lack of clarity and validity in this field. This study aims to establish a precise definition of complexity, particularly visual complexity, in relation to the physical structure of cities, and to present a comprehensive classification of visual complexity indicators applicable to urban design scales. To achieve this, the study reviews related literature from the fields of aesthetics, environmental psychology, architecture, and urban design to identify the factors influencing the visual complexity of urban forms. Additionally, a typology of methods for measuring visual complexity is presented in a table, categorized into two main groups: the first group includes methods that use urban landscape elements as units of complexity measurement, while the second group comprises methods that consider the informational units received from the visual environment as the measurement units. Given the importance of assessment scale in measuring complexity, a six-level hierarchy for evaluating indicators is proposed. This table serves as a comprehensive summary, potentially functioning as an effective tool for analyzing and determining the optimal level of visual complexity in relation to urban form. It can help prevent confusion in studies related to environmental complexity. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of movement in the perception of complexity, the role of attention, the impact of semantic dimensions, and familiarity with the environment as factors that distinguish urban complexity studies from those in other fields.
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, C. (2002a). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe (Book One: The phenomenon of life). The Center for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C. (2002b). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe (Book Two: The process of creating life). The Center for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C. (2004a). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe (Book Three: A vision of a living world). The Center for Environmental Structure.
Alexander, C. (2004b). The nature of order: An essay on the art of building and the nature of the universe (Book Four: The luminous ground). The Center for Environmental Structure.
Arnheim, R. (1966). Order and complexity in landscape design. In R. Arnheim (Ed.), Toward a psychology of art: Collected essays (pp. 123–135). University of California Press.
Baessler, C. & Klotz, S. (2006) Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structurearable weed vegetation over the last 50 years, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 115, pp. 43–50.
Batty, M. (2005). Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berlyne, D. E., Ogilvie, J. C., & Parham, L. C. (1968). The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22(5), 376–387.
Boeing, G. (2018). Measuring the complexity of urban form and design. Urban Design International.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Public places, urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press.
Cassarino, M., & Setti, A. (2016). Complexity as key to designing cognitive-friendly environments for older people. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1329. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01329
Cavalcante, A., Mansouri, A., Kacha, L., Barros, A. K., Takeuchi, Y., Matsumoto, N., & Ohnishi, N. (2014). Measuring streetscape complexity based on the statistics of local contrast and spatial frequency. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e87097.
Clemente, O., & Ewing, R. (2005). Measuring urban design qualities: An illustrated field manual.
Cullen, G. (1961). Concise townscape. Routledge.
de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J. A., & de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393-407.
Demirbaş, G. U. D. (2001). Spatial familiarity as a dimension of wayfinding (Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent University).
Donderi, D. C. (2006a). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 73–97.
Donderi, D. C. (2006b). An information theory analysis of visual complexity and dissimilarity. Perception, 35, 823–835.
Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M.-L. B., Tveit, M. S., Geelmuyden, A. K., & Framstad, E. (2001). Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 257–268.
Elsheshtawy, Y. (1997). Urban complexity: Toward the measurement of the physical complexity of street-scapes. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14(4), 301-316.
Ewing, R., Clemente, O., Neckerman, K. M., Purciel-Hill, M., Quinn, J. W., & Rundle, A. (2013). Measuring urban design: Metrics for livable places (Vol. 200). Island Press.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1), S223-S240.
Fernandez-Lozano, C., Carballal, A., Machado, P., Santos, A., & Romero, J. (2019). Visual complexity modelling based on image features fusion of multiple kernels. PeerJ, 7, e7075.
Forsythe, A., Mulhern, G., & Sawey, M. (2008). Confounds in pictorial sets: The role of complexity and familiarity in basic level pictures processing. Behavioral Research Methods, 40(1), 116–129.
Forsythe, A., Nadal, M., Sheehy, N., Cela-Conde, C. J., & Sawey, M. (2011). Predicting beauty: Fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 49–70.
Gabriel Richard P., Quillien Jenny, 2019, A Search for Beauty/A Struggle with Complexity: Christopher Alexander, Urban Sci. 3, 64.
Gartus, A., & Leder, H. (2017). Predicting perceived visual complexity of abstract patterns using computational measures: The influence of mirror symmetry on complexity perception. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0185276.
Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T., & Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 247-255.
He, H. S., Ventura, S. J., & Mladenoff, D. J. (2002). Effects of spatial aggregation approaches on classified satellite imagery. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(1), 93-109.
Heath, T., Smith, S., & Lim, B. (2000). The complexity of tall building façades. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(3), 206-220.
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Wiley.
Hussein, D. (2020). A user preference modelling method for the assessment of visual complexity in building façade. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 9(4), 483-501.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Julian, K. D. (2010). Memory of design features in built environments (Master’s thesis, Auburn University).
Kaplan, S. (1979). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. Proceedings of Our National Landscape (USDA Forest Service), 241-248.
Krampen, M. (1979). Meaning in the urban environment. London: Pion.
Kravchenko, A., Bagrov, A. A., Katsnelson, M. I., & Dudarev, V. (2024). Multi-scale structural complexity as a quantitative measure of visual complexity. arXiv preprint.
Lausch, A., & Herzog, F. (2002). Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: Issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators, 2(1-2), 3-15.
Lozano, E. (1988). Visual needs in urban environments and physical planning. In J. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (pp. 395-421). Cambridge University Press.
MacReynolds, P. (1960). Anxiety, perception, and schizophrenia. In D. Jackson (Ed.), The etiology of schizophrenia (pp. 248-294). Basic Books.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. W. H. Freeman.
Marin, M. M., & Leder, H. (2013). Examining complexity across domains: Relating subjective and objective measures of affective environmental scenes, paintings, and music. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e72412.
Marzi, R. (2017). Urban landscape complexity. National Conference on Applied Research in Civil Engineering, Architecture, and Urban Planning. SID.
Marzi, R., Rezaei, M., & Haghani, T. (2024). Explaining co-relationship between the visual complexity of townscape and its physical identity (Case Study: The Historical Core of Kermanshah City). Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment, 5(9), 54-71.
Mims, J. L. (2005). Rated preference, complexity and familiarity for neo-traditional and modern development patterns using alternative visual medium (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville).
Moughtin, C., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (1999). Urban design: Ornament and decoration. Routledge.
Munsinger, H., & Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(9), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093865
Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173–191.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). The effect of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(4), 499-509.
Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), 41-53.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1965). The phenomenon of place. Uma nova agenda para a arquitetura.
O’Neill, R. V., Krummel, J. R., Gardner, R. H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D. L., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G., Zygmunt, B., Christensen, S. W., Dale, V. H., & Graham, R. L. (1988). Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 1(3), 153-162.
Ode, Å., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390903414935
O'Neill, M. J. (1992). Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(4), 319-327.
Phillips, S. A. (2015). The effect of familiarity and complexity of environments, and mode of wayfinding on gaze and memory (Master's thesis, University of Waterloo).
Portella, A. (2016). Visual pollution: Advertising, signage and environmental quality. Routledge.
Portugali, J., & Stolk, E. (2016). Complexity, cognition, urban planning and design. In Post-proceedings of the 2nd Delft International Conference. Springer.
Post, R. A. G., Blijlevens, J., & Hekkert, P. (2016). "To preserve unity while almost allowing for chaos": Testing the aesthetic principle of unity-in-variety in product design. Acta Psychologica, 163, 142–152.
Quinan, J. (1981). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction by Christopher Alexander. Leonardo, 14(1), 80-81.
Rapoport, A., & Hawkes, R. (1970). The perception of urban complexity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36(2), 106-111.
Rapoport, A., & Kantor, R. E. (1967). Complexity and ambiguity in environmental design. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33(4), 210-221.
Salingaros, N. (2014). Complexity in architecture and design. Oz, 36(1), 4.
Saraee, E., Jalal, M., & Betke, M. (2018). SAVOIAS: A diverse, multi-category visual complexity dataset. arXiv preprint.
Sessions, R., & Salingaros, N. A. (2010). Urban and enterprise architectures: A cross-disciplinary look at complexity. Lecture Notes, IASA Webinar.
Seto, D. (2008). Are pedestrian path choices during exploration contingent on measures of shape complexity and visual content of the environment? (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University).
Shen, G. (2002). Fractal dimension and fractal growth of urbanized areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(5), 419–437.
Shen, Guoqiang. (2002). Fractal Dimension and Fractal Growth of Urbanized Areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 16. 419-437.
Spehar, B., Clifford, C. W., Newell, B. R., & Taylor, R. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers & Graphics, 27(5), 813-820.
Stamps III, A. E. (1999). Physical determinants of preferences for residential facades. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 723-751.
Stamps, A.E. (1998). Complexity of Architectural Facades: from Vague Impression to Define Design Features. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(2), 3, pp.1407–1417.
Stamps, A.E. (1999a). Architectural Detail, Van der Laan Septaves and Pixel Count. Design Studies, Great Britain, 20(1), pp.83–98.
Stamps, A.E. (1999b). Physical Determinants of Preferences for Residential Facades. Environment Behavior, 31(6), pp. 725–756.
Stamps, A.E. (2000). Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. San Francisco, CA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Ugwitz, P. (2017). Experimental possibilities in individual differences research: Spatial orientation in immersive virtual reality (Master's thesis, Masaryk University).
Van Geert, N., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Order, complexity, and aesthetic appreciation. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, KU Leuven.
Vandenberg, A. E., Hunter, R. H., Anderson, L. A., Bryant, L. L., Hooker, S. P., & Satariano, W. A. (2016). Walking and walkability: Is wayfinding a missing link? Implications for public health practice. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 13(2), 189-197.
Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. Museum of Modern Art
