Next Article in Journal
Agricultural Drought Risk Assessment Based on a Comprehensive Model Using Geospatial Techniques in Songnen Plain, China
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Resilience Evaluation—Case Study for Six Cities in China, Europe, and the Americas
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characterizing Sprawl Development in Urban China: A Perspective from Urban Amenity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/land12061183
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study on the Regeneration of City Centre Spatial Structure Pedestrianisation Based on Space Syntax: Case Study on 21 City Centres in the UK

by
Tianyang Ge
1,
Wenjun Hou
1,* and
Yang Xiao
2,3
1
School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
2
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
3
Key Laboratory of Spatial Intelligent Planning Technology, Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(6), 1183; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land12061183
Submission received: 1 May 2023 / Revised: 24 May 2023 / Accepted: 2 June 2023 / Published: 4 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Technologies and Methods in Spatial Planning)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pedestrian priority is an important requirement for city centre regeneration. The quantitative analysis of the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles is a key technique to measure the walkability of city centre regeneration. This paper proposes a method for measuring the walkability of the spatial structure in city centres, based on spatial topological relationships. Using space syntax as a platform, the walkability of the spatial structure of city centres is quantitatively analysed from the perspective of separation of pedestrians and vehicles, and the regeneration of pedestrianisation. Based on 21 cases of major city centres in the United Kingdom (UK), the trend of pedestrianisation regeneration from the early 20th century to the present is analysed. The analysis of the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles and the analysis of regeneration models and the comparative analysis found that: (1) from the early 20th century to the present, the spatial structure of major city centres in the UK clearly trended toward pedestrianisation. (2) The regeneration process can be categorised into three models: the Gradual Growth Model, One Step Model and Long-Term Planning Model. (3) The three models contribute differently to the separation of pedestrians and vehicles in city centres, and their advantages and disadvantages differ. This study has implications for the theory and practice of pedestrianisation regeneration in city centres.

1. Introduction

Pedestrianisation is a key aspect of spatial quality enhancement in the city centre. The city centre is the main commercial and business area of a city. The city centre serves a wide range of people and is characterised by dense pedestrian flows, important status, complex structure and prominent contradictions, making it the main battleground for spatial quality improvement. The pedestrian system is an important carrier of human activities and spatial organisation in the city centre and plays an irreplaceable role in improving the quality of the city centre. The regeneration and optimisation of the pedestrian priority can promote human activities, improve spatial quality, enhance urban vitality and optimise spatial structure. Internationally, many city centres have constructed a spatial structure with a high-quality pedestrian system as the framework, which has effectively improved spatial quality [1].
The United Kingdom (UK) has a wealth of practical experience in the regeneration of city centre pedestrianisation and has achieved some success. In terms of regeneration trends, the central role of the pedestrian system in the city centre has been clearly defined, and the total amount of pedestrian space has steadily increased over the years. In terms of spatial structure, a “ground-level pedestrian-core, public-transport-first, pedestrian-vehicle-separated circle structure” has been constructed [2,3]. In terms of the design approach, the design focuses on the in-depth integration of urban and architectural spaces led by the pedestrian system. In terms of management techniques, a variety of traffic restriction methods are used to achieve fine spatial management. In terms of regeneration practice, many excellent city centre regeneration projects with pedestrian systems at their core have been born, such as Oxford Circus (London, 2012), Paradise Circus (Birmingham, 2018), New Street Station (Birmingham, 2015), Media City UK (Manchester, 2013), Liverpool One (Liverpool, 2009), Trinity Leeds (Leeds, 2013), St David’s Centre (Cardiff, 2009) and many others. Birmingham has been ranked as the city with the highest quality of life in the UK for its successful network of pedestrian, plaza and public spaces in the city centre [4]. The separation of pedestrians and vehicles is an important means of enhancing walkability. It can provide a safer and more comfortable environment for pedestrians, a faster and undisturbed environment for vehicles, and more easily provides a suitable environment for buses, scooters, and bicycles in transition areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.
The separation of pedestrians and vehicles can be achieved through many means, including physical isolation, such as pedestrian bridges and vehicular tunnels, access management, such as restricted roads, bicycle and bus lanes, and pedestrian streets, and spatial structure optimization, such as ring road construction and road network regeneration.
The regeneration of city centre spatial structure pedestrianisation in the UK has been ongoing for at least a hundred years and has become a significant reference for improving city centre walkability. However, a key question that must be answered to conclude from the UK experience is how to quantitatively analyse the effects of different spatial structure regeneration models in improving the walkability of city centres from the perspective of the separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the UK. This question can be divided into three parts: first, how to quantify the separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the city centre spatial structure and its regeneration trends. Second, what regeneration models have been used to regenerate the spatial structure of major city centres in the UK? Third, what are the actual results of the various regeneration models and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?
This paper focuses on the separation of vehicles and pedestrians achieved through spatial structure regeneration, and proposes a method for quantitatively measuring the walkability of spatial structures in city centres and their regeneration, based on spatial topological relationships, using space syntax as a platform.
We collected information on the regeneration of the spatial structure of 21 major cities in the UK from the early 20th century to the present day and developed the study based on three aspects. First, a technical method is proposed to quantitatively measure the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles of a city centre spatial structure, based on space syntax. Second, the regeneration models of the 21 major city centres are categorised according to their regeneration processes. Third, the actual results achieved by the various regeneration models are compared, and each regeneration model is then comparatively analysed.

2. Literature Review

The regeneration of city centres is an important research topic in the international academic community [5]. In recent years, research has focused on “people-oriented and sustainable development” [6]. Peter Hall discussed the development trend of contemporary cities and pointed out that a good city is one that provides people a high quality of life [7,8]. Jan Gehl also emphasises the humanised city and studies urban space from a human perspective [9,10]. The regeneration and development of the city centre should not only aim at “efficiency first and growthism” [11], but should also focus more on “people”, their living, working and living environment [12], increasing the resilience of the city [13] and making it suitable for people’s activities [14]. In addition to green space [15], commerce [16] and culture [17], walkable streets have been widely valued for their important role in carrying ‘human activity’ [18,19,20,21,22], and Tallon outlines aspects of what a sustainable central area should be [23]. The contribution of central area traffic patterns [24,25] and open space organisation patterns [26,27] to reducing carbon emissions and achieving humane and sustainable development has been widely recognised [28]. Superblocks (also known as Superillas and Supermanzanas) in Barcelona show a typical regeneration case of pedestrianisation [29]. Similarly, the quality of the urban environment influences people’s behaviour and drives change in the urban structure [30].
Over the years, the concept and policy of pedestrian priority in the UK have matured. The concept of pedestrian priority in the UK emerged in the context of the proliferation of cars and the degradation of the environment [31]. Home Zones were introduced in the UK in the 1930s, closing roads to motor vehicles to create a liveable street environment [32]; traffic calming began in the Netherlands in the 1980s, was replicated in Germany and introduced in the UK, where it has been widely developed due to its own successful track record [33,34]. The “Basic Road Statistics 1987” aims to protect residents, pedestrians and cyclists by reducing speeds through various measures [35]. The “Traffic Calming Act 1992” provides a convenient and efficient approval process for its implementation, controlling traffic, enhancing safety, and protecting and improving the environment [36,37]. Since the 2000s, the UK’s own policies have progressively improved, and walking priorities have been refined in various ordinances and plans. In 1998, the “White Paper: A New Deal for Transport” [38] was published, restricting car travel and encouraging walking, cycling and public transport. In 2000, the “Transport Act 2000” [39], the “Transport Ten Year Plan 2000” [40] and the “Framework for a Local Walking Strategy” [41] were introduced, which were seen as a follow-up to the 1998 “White Paper: A New Deal for Transport” and were widely received and acclaimed. In 2004, the “White Paper: A New Deal for Transport” was republished as “The Future of Transport” [42], explicitly promoting walking and cycling over the next 20–30 years. Plans, such as the 2017 “Birmingham Development Plan” [4], clarify the centrality of pedestrians to transport in the city centre in the form of statutory provisions.
A growing body of research focuses on quantitatively evaluating pedestrian networks. Such evaluation tools have been developed in several countries, including the Walk Score and Walkability Score in the USA and the Walkability App in Europe, etc. International perspectives on walkability include social factors [43], facilities [44], physical activity [45], social justice [46], aging-friendliness [47,48,49] and neighbourhood [50]. The tools for evaluating walkability include space syntax [51,52], GIS [53], deep learning [54], environmental sensors [54], virtual reality [55], hierarchical clustering technique [56], mobile methodologies [57] and BIM [58]. In the UK, the “4Es” evaluation criteria have been established for linear slow-moving spaces, in terms of “Experience, Enhancement, Engagement and Economy” and so has The Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS). In the US, the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) and the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) have been established. New Zealand has established the Community Street Review (CSR).
Space syntax is an effective method to study pedestrian behaviour in city centres. It is a network analysis method invented in the 1970s [59,60] by Bill Hillier [61] and Julienne Hanson at University College London. The main research institutions are the Space Syntax Laboratory at University College London [62] and the Space Syntax Company [61]. The method can quantitatively measure and analyse the impact of architectural spaces and urban spaces on people and their movement through space [63,64]. Although space syntax has its limitations [65,66,67], it can be applied to study spatial network structure [68], spatial morphological evolution [69], bicycle traffic [47,70], public transport [71], ecological network [72], tourism [73] and many other aspects. In the research of city centre spatial structure pedestrianisation regeneration, space syntax can be used for pedestrian movement [74,75,76,77,78], street network [79,80,81], comparison between pedestrians and vehicles [82] and spatial structure evolution [83].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The UK has 28 cities with a built-up area population of 200,000 or more [84]. Of these cities, 21 (accounting for 75% of the total) were selected to obtain a full picture of the spatial structure and regeneration of city centres in the UK over the past century (Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Table 1). This study excludes London since, with a population of 8.78 million (7.3 times that of the second-ranked city of Birmingham), it is very different from the other cases in terms of spatial structure and is thus considered a special case, not general in nature.

3.2. Method Design

The research methodology contains three main components, including separation degree of pedestrian and vehicle analysis, regeneration model categorisation analysis and their comparison analysis.

3.2.1. Separation Degree of Pedestrians and Vehicle Analysis

The analysis has six steps to quantitatively measure the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles and the regeneration trend (Figure 3).
(1)
Dividing stages
From the early days until the early 20th century, the spatial structure of the city centres was characterised by a mix of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. From the early 20th century to the present, the concept of pedestrian priority was enriched and the practice of pedestrian-oriented urban regeneration developed. This study takes the early 20th century as the starting point and divides historical maps of 21 case cities into four stages: the early, mid, and late 20th century and the early 21st century, to summarise and analyse the general trend of pedestrianisation in the spatial structure regeneration of city centres in the UK over the past two centuries. The historical maps of each phase were selected as the basis for the study (Figure 4).
(2)
Map digitalization
The historical maps of the various stages were collected and the road axes mapped in AutoCAD (Autodesk), then imported into the depthmapX (an open source computer software originally developed by Alasdair Turner [85]) and converted into the Segment Map for analysis. In a segment map, road axes are broken at their intersections into road segments that are connected together as a network [86]. The segment is the base for segment analysis including Choice analysis in the next step.
Taking the Bradford city centre as an example, the maps of the four stages of the city centre were digitised. The same criteria were used to translate the various stages of the historical maps into a uniform style, to meet the analysis requirements (Figure 5).
(3)
Choice analysis
The study uses the space syntax “Choice” as the basis indicator. In the line segment model, any two line segments can be connected through other line segments. Choice measures the frequency with which a line segment is used as the shortest topological distance between two line segments in the entire system or within a predetermined distance (radius) from each segment [87]. Choice reflects the importance of the line segment in network interconnections. Total Choice reflects the importance of a line segment in global interconnections. The Local Choice reflects the importance of a line segment in local interconnections within a specified radius.
In this study, the Total Choice of a road segment represents its importance in long-distance traffic, including transit traffic and external traffic, which is normally vehicle traffic. The Local Choice of a road segment represents its importance in short-distance traffic, including internal traffic, which is normally pedestrian traffic (Figure 6).
If road segments with high Total Choice and high Local Choice are the same road segments, it means that these roads are important for both vehicles and pedestrians (Figure 6a,e). If road segments with high Total Choice and high Local Choice are different, it means that roads important for both vehicles and pedestrians are different roads, so there is a separation between vehicles and pedestrians (Figure 6d,h).
(4)
Scatter plot analysis
A coordinate system is constructed using the Total Choice as the horizontal coordinate and the Local Choice as the vertical coordinate. Each line segment is labelled at its corresponding position in the coordinate system. Each point in the scatter plot corresponds to a segment in the line segment model, and the vertical and horizontal coordinates of the point in the scatter plot are the values of the Local Choice and Total Choice of the corresponding segment, respectively (Figure 7).
The scatter plot can be interpreted as in Figure 8. The scatter plot can be divided into two main areas, those with low Total Choice and Local Choice called the ‘low-value area’, and those with high Total Choice or Local Choice, or both, called the ‘high-value area’. The high-value area can be divided into three areas, the ‘middle area’ and the two ‘wing areas’. The middle area has high Total Choice and Local Choice, while the two wing areas have only one high value. The analysis finds that most of the road segments are located in the low value area, which weakly affects the traffic in the city centre. The road segments in the high value area have a greater effect on the traffic in the city centre, and these roads in the high-value area are the main object of the study.
The distribution of road segments in the high value area can reflect the separation of vehicles and pedestrians. If more road segments in high value area are distributed in the middle area, it means that these roads have both high Local Choice and high Total Choice, and these roads are important for both the vehicles and the pedestrians (Figure 7a). If more road segments in high value area are distributed in the two wing areas, it means that roads important for vehicles and for pedestrians are different roads, so there is a separation between vehicles and pedestrians (Figure 7d).
(5)
Separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles analysis
The separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles means “the degree of separation between the space for pedestrians and the space for vehicles of city centres”. It also reflects “the degree of separation between the space for the internal traffic and the space for the external (transit) traffic of city centres”. The space syntax platform expresses it as “the degree of spatial separation between the Local Choice representing pedestrian and internal (transit) traffic and the Total Choice representing the vehicle and external traffic of the city centre”.
Linear regression was performed on the scatter plot to find a straight line, expressed as y = ax + b. The linear regression of a total of 84 samples from 21 cities revealed that all the regression lines had one important feature in common: the coefficients a in the regression line y = ax + b were all positive, and the lines all led from near the origin of the low-value area to the middle of the high-value area in the scatter plot.
The Goodness of Fit refers to the degree to which the regression line fits the observed values. The coefficient of determination, R2, which ranges from 0 to 1, measures the Goodness of Fit. The closer the value of R2 is to 1, the better the fit of the regression line to the observed values; conversely, the closer the value of R2 is to 0, the worse the fit of the regression line to the observed values.
Let the “separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles” be “A”, then
A = 1 − R2
where A is the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles, and R2 is the Goodness of Fit of the scatter plot.
The “A” value can reflect the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles. The lower “A” is, the higher the Goodness of Fit is, the closer road segments are distributed to the regression line, the more road segments are distributed in the middle area in the scatter plot, and the lower is the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles. The higher “A” is, the lower the Goodness of Fit is, the farther road segments are distributed from the regression line, the more road segments are distributed in the two wing areas in the scatter plot, and the higher is the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles.
(6)
Multi-stage comparative analysis
When comparing the “A” values of individual city centres at various stages, the trend clearly reflects the change in the spatial separation between the local and global traffic in the city centre. An increase in “A” indicates that the local traffic in the city centre tends to spatially separate from the global, which means that pedestrian traffic separates from vehicle traffic and internal traffic separates from external (transit) traffic. A decrease in “A” indicates that the local traffic in the city centre tends to spatially coincide with the global, which means that the pedestrian traffic coincides with the vehicle traffic, and the internal traffic coincides with the external (transit) traffic (Figure 9).

3.2.2. Regeneration Model Categorisation Analysis

The 21 cases selected were categorised and analysed to determine the model the regeneration of each city centre area falls into.
(1)
Model summary
The regeneration histories of the 21 city centres were analysed by historical map sorting and summarizing. Over the past 100 years, city centres in the UK have been transformed from a vehicle core spatial structure to a pedestrian core spatial structure, thanks to the consistent long-term pedestrian-oriented urban policies and spatial plans. However, the regeneration models vary from city to city. Three regeneration paths can be summarised as the “Gradual Growth Model, One Step Model and Long-Term Planning Model”. Of the three regeneration models, the pedestrian core is formed similarly, with the core carriageway being downgraded and gradually transformed into pedestrian paths forming a pedestrian core. The main difference lies in the way the vehicle ring road is formed. In the Gradual Growth Model, the vehicle ring road is mainly created by the grade adjustment and partial reconstruction of existing roads. The regeneration process includes the vehicle centre stage, ring road formation stage, centre expansion stage and ring road expansion stage (Figure 10a). In the One Step Model, a new ring road is planned and built in a short period of time. The regeneration stages include the vehicle centre stage, ring road formation stage, inner ring road transition stage and pedestrian centre stage (Figure 10b). In the Long-term Planning Model, a new ring road is planned, but built in stages over several years. The regeneration stages include the vehicle stage, ring road formation stage 1, ring road formation stage 2 and pedestrian centre stage (Figure 10c).
(2)
Categorisation of cases
The main development stages of the 21 cities were compared with the three regeneration models, and the regeneration processes of the 21 city centres were grouped into three groups, which were used to support the analysis of the regeneration effects of each regeneration model.

3.2.3. Comparison Analysis

The changes in the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles in the spatial structure of each city centre were compared with their regeneration models to study the effects of various regeneration models on the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles.
(1)
Effectiveness analysis
By comparing the data, the amount of change in the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles brought about by each regeneration model is quantified and analysed.
(2)
Mechanism analysis
The advantages, disadvantages and application scenarios of each regeneration model are analysed.

3.3. Research Data

The study spans the period from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day, and the representative year maps were selected on the basis of two principles. First, the interval years are approximately equal. Second, the maps of representative years can reflect the main characteristics of the spatial structure of the city centre area at that stage The representative years for the 21 city centre districts selected for this study are listed in Table 2.

4. Results

4.1. Overall Changing Trends of Choice

Analysis of Local Choice of the 21 city centres in the UK shows that the areas with high Local Choice have remained in the same location over the century and have gradually developed in their original locations. This indicates that the spatial location of local traffic, such as pedestrian and internal traffic, is relatively stable in UK city centres.
Analysis of Total Choice in the 21 city centres in the UK shows that over the past 100 years, areas with high Total Choice have shown an outward migration. This indicates that global traffic, such as car and transit traffic, has been gradually evacuated to the periphery of the central area in the UK city centres (Figure 11 and Figure 12 are two examples of Coventry and Stoke city centre).

4.2. Changing Trends of the “Separation Degree of Pedestrians and Vehicles”

The study was carried out in 21 cities, with four stages in each city, to obtain values for the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles (Figure 13, Table 3).
The results show an increasing trend in the separation degree values. This indicates that the regeneration of city centres in the UK over the last 100 years follows a clear trend towards the separation of local from global traffic, the separation of pedestrians and vehicles, and the separation of internal and external (transit) traffic (Figure 14).
The separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles shows a clear upward trend in 21 cases overall, although some cities have experienced up or down fluctuations over the four stages of regeneration. In 20 cases, the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles increased, with the largest increases in Stoke (0.454), Derby (0.445), Coventry (0.421), and Bradford (0.360), and only one city, Manchester, with a small decrease of 0.003 (Table 3, Figure 15).
The average separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles for the 21 cities increased from 0.418 to 0.604, an increase of 0.186 (Table 3).
In stage 4, the four cities with the highest levels of separation were Derby (0.871), Stoke (0.862), Wolverhampton (0.841) and Leeds (0.748).

4.3. Cities Categorised into Three Regeneration Models

The historical maps of the 21 case cities show that the regeneration history of each city centre can be summarised into three categories: “Gradual Growth Model, One Step Model and Long-term Planning Model”. Thirteen city centres, or 62% of the total, regenerated using the Gradual Growth Model, including Bradford, Liverpool, Cardiff, etc. Four city centres, or 19% of the total, regenerated using the One Step Model, including Coventry, Plymouth, Birmingham and Bristol. Four city centres, or 19% of the total, regenerated using the Long-term Planning Model, including Stoke, Derby, Leicester and Wolverhampton (Table 4).

4.4. Comparison of the Increase between the Three Models

The following conclusions can be drawn from comparing the change in the separation degree of the three models (Figure 16).
All three regeneration models result in a general increase in the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles. All three regeneration models produced a significant increase. Among the four city centres with the highest increases, two are in the Long-Term Planning Model (Stoke, Derby), one is in the One Step Model (Coventry) and one in the Gradual Growth Model (Bradford), suggesting that all three regeneration models effectively increase the pedestrian/vehicle separation.
Among the three regeneration models, the one that most increases the separation of pedestrians and vehicles is the Long-term Planning Model, with an average increase of 0.357, followed by the One Step Model with an average increase of 0.239, and the least is the Gradual Growth Model with an average increase of 0.117 (Figure 17).

5. Discussion

5.1. General Characteristics of the Regeneration of Spatial Structure Pedestrianisation

The spatial structure of the major city centres of the UK has become pedestrianised over many years of regeneration, guided by the concept of pedestrian priority. This change is reflected in two ways: the gradual pedestrianisation of the core roads in the city centre and the development of ring roads in its periphery to disperse vehicle traffic to the periphery.

5.1.1. Decentralisation of the Vehicle Traffic to the Periphery around City Centres

The UK city centre is characterised by a circular structure separating pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Vehicle ring roads divert transit traffic from the central area and organise external traffic to the central area, so that traffic is diverted to the periphery of the central area, and pedestrians and vehicle traffic can be separated. A safer and more comfortable environment for pedestrians was provided. In addition, a suitable environment for buses, scooters, and bicycles was also provided in transition areas of pedestrians and vehicles.

5.1.2. Gradual Pedestrianisation of Roads in City Centres

The UK city centres were initially developed with a network of crossroads, with the city centre located at the intersection of major roads [98]. The pedestrian priority concept has significantly transformed this structure. Under the pedestrian priority philosophy, most of the major vehicle roads in the UK city centres have evolved into pedestrianised streets and pedestrian-oriented restricted roads. Notably, in city centres the road space previously occupied by vehicle traffic does not disappear or become displaced by buildings, but remains where it was and is only artificially defined and pedestrianised as a pedestrian road.
The conversion of vehicle roads to pedestrianised streets in city centres is a widespread practice in the UK, with almost all city centres experiencing the conversion of major vehicle roads to pedestrianised streets or restricted roads to a greater or lesser extent. This objectively reflects the UK’s philosophy on the creation of pedestrianised city centres. By converting vehicle roads into pedestrianised streets, an approach that improves the pedestrian system and limits vehicle traffic, people can be effectively encouraged to choose pedestrian transport as a means of travel, achieving an environmentally friendly, healthy, liveable and sustainable development.

5.2. Differences between Regeneration Models

Although all of them achieve increased separation of pedestrians and vehicles, the characteristics of the three regeneration models differ (Table 5). The Long-term Planning and the One Step Model result in a greater increase in the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles. While the Gradual Growth Model results in a smaller increase, this model was employed in the largest number of city centres among the three models. This indicates that each of the three approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages.

5.2.1. Gradual Growth Model

In city centres where the Gradual Growth Model is adopted, the spatial structure is mainly developed through grade adjustment and partial reconstruction of existing roads. As the city centre develops, the spatial scale of the vehicle ring road is adjusted to maintain a match with the city centre.
The advantages are as follows. Faster realisation—no need to specifically build roads at a large scale, so the ring road takes less time to build. High adaptability—no matter what the original road network form is, the spatial structure can be transformed through the grade adjustment and partial reconstruction of existing roads. High suitability—flexibility of the ring road for traffic, the ability to keep pace with the development of the city centre and always fit the scale of the city centre.
The disadvantage is that the increase of separation degree of the Gradual Growth Model is lower than the other two models, because the spatial structure is not regular in form, as it is mostly based on existing roads, resulting in a less regular spatial form.

5.2.2. One Step Model

In city centres where the One Step Model is adopted, completely new vehicle ring roads are planned and built in a short period of time. As the ring road might be too large for the city centre due to its plan for development over a long time, an inner ring road may initially exist for transitions, such as in Coventry city centre.
Its advantage is that its form is regular. The vehicle ring road and the spatial structure are carefully planned and built within a short period, which is conducive to the formation of a perfect spatial structure with complete form and function.
Its disadvantages are as follows. More costly—building a vehicle ring road in the old city centre in a short period requires massive changes to the original urban road network and construction, which is difficult and costly to achieve. Inflexible—the ring road is fixed in scale and less flexible to match the scale development of the city centre. For example, in Birmingham city centre, when the scale of the pedestrian zone grows beyond the ring road, the ring road becomes an element that even hinders the development of the city centre and is eventually broken up [99,100].

5.2.3. Long-Term Planning Model

In city centres where the Long-Term Planning Model is adopted, a new ring road is planned, which is not built at once, but in stages over a long period. In the process of construction, the new roads are combined with existing urban roads to form a semi-ring structure, which serves as a transition.
The advantage is both regular shape and good suitability. While the form of the ring road is relatively regular, its scale gradually increases during the transition period to match the development of the city centre.
The disadvantage is the long construction period, which can last for decades, during which the planned spatial structure does not fully play its role.

6. Conclusions

This paper proposes a new method for effectively and quantitatively measuring the walkability of spatial structures in city centres and their regeneration, based on spatial topological relationships, using space syntax as a platform, from the perspective of the separation of pedestrians and vehicles.
Twenty-one major city centres are used as examples to analyse the trend of the regeneration of city centre spatial structure pedestrianisation from the early 20th century to the present in the UK. The following conclusions were found.
(1)
City centre spatial structure optimization can effectively enhance the walkability of city centres from the perspective of the separation of pedestrians and vehicles. From the early 20th century to the present, the spatial regeneration of major city centres in the UK has clearly trended towards pedestrianisation. The separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles analysis based on space syntax shows that the spatial structure of the major city centres of the UK has been significantly enhanced in terms of the separation of pedestrians and vehicles.
(2)
The regeneration process can be categorised into the Gradual Growth Model, the One Step Model and the Long-Term Planning Model, all of which are effective in transforming the spatial structure of city centres from vehicle to pedestrian core.
(3)
The three models contribute differently to the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles in the city centre, and their advantages and disadvantages differ. Among the three models, the Long-Term Planning Model and the One Step Model have achieved better results in practice, while the Gradual Growth Model is easier to realise and can also achieve significant results.
This study also has some limitations. The pedestrianisation of the city centres is a complex mega-system, involving a wide range of aspects. This study examines only the degree of separation of pedestrians and vehicles in the spatial structure, but the public transport, parking layout, functional layout of city centres, and so on also play an important role in the regeneration of city centre pedestrianisation, and further research is needed.
According to this study, different regeneration models can be chosen to optimise the pedestrianisation of the city centre spatial structure according to its own circumstances and different requirements.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.G. and W.H.; methodology, T.G., W.H. and Y.X.; software, T.G. and Y.X.; investigation, T.G. and W.H.; resources, T.G. and W.H.; data curation, T.G. and W.H.; writing—original draft preparation, T.G. and Y.X.; writing—review and editing, T.G. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51908115); “The 14th Five-Year Plan” National Key Research and Development Program (Grant No. 2022YFC3800302); Jiangsu Postdoctoral Research Funding Program (Grant No. 2021K386C).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hass-Klau, C. The Pedestrian and the City; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hou, W.; Ge, T.; Yang, J. Spatial organization and renewal of pedestrian-oriented city centre: A case study on birmingham in the UK. City Plan. Rev. 2019, 43, 102–113. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ge, T.; Hou, W.; Yang, J. Pedestrian-oriented City Centre Development in the UK. Urban Plan. Int. 2019, 34, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Birmingham City Council. Birmingham Development Plan, Part of Birmingham’s Local Plan Planning for Sustainable Growth Adopted January 2017; Birmingham City Council: Birmingham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. Roberts, P.; Sykes, H.; Granger, R. Urban Regeneration, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Loneon, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ge, T.; Yang, J.; Hou, W. Urban renewal design based on inventory planning: A case study of zhengzhou jingguang road area. City Plan. Rev. 2017, 41, 62–71. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall, P. Sociable Cities The 21st-Century Reinvention of the Garden City; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hall, P. Good Cities, Better Lives How Europe Discovered the Lost Art of Urbanism; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gehl, J. Cities for People; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA; Covelo, CA, USA; London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gehl, J.; Svarre, B. How to Study Public Life: Methods in Urban Design; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA; Covelo, CA, USA; London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rydin, Y. The Future of Plannig Byond Growth Dependence; Policy Press 2013: Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Punter, J. Urban Design and the British Urban Renaissance; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chokhachian, A.; Santucci, D.; Auer, T. A Human-Centered Approach to Enhance Urban Resilience, Implications and Application to Improve Outdoor Comfort in Dense Urban Spaces. Buildings 2017, 7, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Jones, P.; Evans, J. Urban Regeneration in the UK, 2nd ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhang, S.M.; Zhang, W.S.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, X.Y.; Song, P.H.; Tian, G.H.; Mayer, A.L. Comparing Human Activity Density and Green Space Supply Using the Baidu Heat Map in Zhengzhou, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bjorklund, M.; Abrahamsson, M.; Johansson, H. Critical factors for viable business models for urban consolidation centres. Res. Transp. Econ. 2017, 64, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Garcia-Hernandez, M.; de la Calle-Vaquero, M.; Yubero, C. Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under Pressure. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Mehta, V. The Street A Quinteessential Social Public Space; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Madanipour, A. Whose Public Space? International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. Madden, D.J. Neighborhood as spatial project: Making the urban order on the downtown Brooklyn waterfront. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 471–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cooper, C.H.V.; Harvey, I.; Orford, S.; Chiaradia, A.J.F. Using multiple hybrid spatial design network analysis to predict longitudinal effect of a major city centre redevelopment on pedestrian flows. Transportation 2021, 48, 643–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Tao, Y.Q.; Zhang, W.; Gou, Z.H.; Jiang, B.Y.; Qi, Y. Planning Walkable Neighborhoods for “Aging in Place”: Lessons from Five Aging-Friendly Districts in Singapore. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tallon, A. Urban Regeneration in the UK Second Edition; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lähde, T.; Niemi, J.V.; Kousa, A.; Rönkkö, T.; Karjalainen, P.; Keskinen, J.; Frey, A.; Hillamo, R.; Pirjola, L. Mobile Particle and NO x Emission Characterization at Helsinki Downtown: Comparison of Different Traffic Flow Areas. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2014, 14, 1372–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Thornbush, M.J. Building health assessed through environmental parameters after the OTS in the city centre of Oxford, UK. Area 2015, 47, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Henchoz, S.; Weber, C.; Maréchal, F.; Favrat, D. Performance and profitability perspectives of a CO 2 based district energy network in Geneva’s City Centre. Energy 2015, 85, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pearson, A.L.; Nutsford, D.; Thomson, G. Measuring visual exposure to smoking behaviours: A viewshed analysis of smoking at outdoor bars and cafés across a capital city’s downtown area. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gregorio, V.; Seixas, J. Energy savings potential in urban rehabilitation: A spatial-based methodology applied to historic centres. Energy Build. 2017, 152, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Amati, M.; Stevens, Q.; Rueda, S. Taking Play Seriously in Urban Design: The Evolution of Barcelona’s Superblocks. Space Cult. 2023, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McNabola, A.; Broderick, B.M.; Gill, L.W. Relative exposure to fine particulate matter and VOCs between transport microenvironments in Dublin: Personal exposure and uptake. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 6496–6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gunnarsson, S.O. The Pedestrian and the City-A Historical Review, from the Hippodamian City, to the Modernistic City and to the Sustainable and Walkingfriendly City. In Proceedings of the Walk21-V Cities for People, Copenhagen, Denmark, 9–11 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hansard. Local Acts Ch XCVii. 1933. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/14/1991-02-01 (accessed on 4 April 2017).
  33. Hass-Klau, C. Environmental Traffic Management: Pedestrianisation and Traffic Restraint—A Contribution to Road Safety. In Proceedings of the Transport Policy, Proceedings of Seminar K Held a Summer Annual Meeting, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, 14–17 July 1986. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bowers, P.H. Environmental Traffic Restraint: German Approaches to Traffic Management by Design. Built Environ. 1986, 60–73. [Google Scholar]
  35. Department of Transport; Traffic Advisory Unit. Measures to Control Traffic for the Benefit of Resident, Pedestrians and Cyclists; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  36. British Road Federation. Basic Road Statistics 1987; British Road Federation: London, UK, 1987; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  37. British Parliament. Traffic Calming Act 1992; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  38. Department of the Environment, and Transport and the Regions. White Paper: A New Deal for Transport; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  39. British Parliament. Transport Act 2000; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  40. Department for Transport. Transport Ten Year Plan 2000; Department for Transport: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  41. Department for Transport. Framework for a Local Walking Strategy; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  42. Department for Transport; Great Minster House. The Future of Transport; Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  43. Battista, G.A.; Manaugh, K. Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 67, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lu, Y. Walkability Evaluation based on People’s Use of Facilities by Walking. Urban Plan. Forum 2013, 5, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  45. Suminski, R.R.; Dominick, G.M. A comprehensive evaluation of physical activity on sidewalks and streets in three US Cities. Prev. Med. Rep. 2022, 26, 101696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Su, S.L.; Zhou, H.; Xu, M.Y.; Ru, H.; Wang, W.; Weng, M. Auditing street walkability and associated social inequalities for planning implications. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 74, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ryu, S.; Chen, A.; Su, J.; Liu, X.; Yu, J. Considering Space Syntax in Bicycle Traffic Assignment with One or More User Classes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Weiss, R.L.; Maantay, J.A.; Fahs, M. Promoting Active Urban Aging: A Measurement Approach to Neighborhood Walkability for Older Adults. Cities Environ. 2010, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Okabe, D.; Tsuji, T.; Hanazato, M.; Miyaguni, Y.; Asada, N.; Kondo, K. Neighborhood Walkability in Relation to Knee and Low Back Pain in Older People: A Multilevel Cross-Sectional Study from the JAGES. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Jaskiewicz, M.; Besta, T. Polish Version of the Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS-Poland). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Kim, J.-H.; Lee, M.-Y. Integration of Space Syntax Theory and Logit Model for Walkability Evaluation in Urban Pedestrian Networks. J. Korea Inst. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2016, 15, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dhanani, A.; Tarkhanyan, L.; Vaughan, L. Estimating pedestrian demand for active transport evaluation and planning. Transp. Res. Part A-Policy Pract. 2017, 103, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Battista, G.A.; Manaugh, K. Generating walkability from pedestrians’ perspectives using a qualitative GIS method. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, Y.Q.; Yabuki, N.; Fukuda, T. Integrating GIS, deep learning, and environmental sensors for multicriteria evaluation of urban street walkability. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 230, 104603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nakamura, K. Experimental analysis of walkability evaluation using virtual reality application. Environ. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 2021, 48, 2481–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hasan, M.M.; Oh, J.S.; Kwigizile, V. Exploring the trend of walkability measures by applying hierarchical clustering technique. J. Transp. Health 2021, 22, 101241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Erturan, A.; Aksel, B. Multidimensional analyses of walkability in city centres by using mobile methodologies: Besiktas and Delft experiences. Urban Des. Int. 2023, 28, 52–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kim, J.I.; Koo, B.; Suh, S.; Suh, W. Integration of BIM and GIS for Formal Representation of Walkability for Safe Routes to School Programs. Ksce J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 20, 1669–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hillier, B. Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hillier, B.; Leaman, A.; Stansall, P.; Bedford, M. Space syntax. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1976, 3, 147–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Space Syntax Limited. Space Syntax. Available online: http://www.spacesyntax.com/ (accessed on 4 April 2017).
  62. UCL. Space Syntax Laboratory. Available online: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/research/space-syntax-laboratory (accessed on 4 April 2017).
  63. Hillier, B.; Hanson, J.; Graham, H. Ideas are in things: An application of the space syntax method to discovering house genotypes. Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des. 1987, 14, 363–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Jiang, B.; Claramunt, C. Integration of space syntax into GIS: New perspectives for urban morphology. Trans. in GIS 2002, 6, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ericson, J.D.; Chrastil, E.R.; Warren, W.H.J.E. Space syntax visibility graph analysis is not robust to changes in spatial and temporal resolution. Env. Plan. B-Urban Anal. CIty Sci. 2020, 48, 1478–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pafka, E.; Dovey, K.; Aschwanden, G. Limits of space syntax for urban design: Axiality, scale and sinuosity. Env. Plan. B-Urban Anal. CIty Sci. 2020, 47, 508–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ratti, C. Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2004, 31, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Turner, A. From axial to road-centre lines: A new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2007, 34, 539–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Li, Y.; Xiao, L.; Ye, Y.; Xu, W.; Law, A. Understanding tourist space at a historic site through space syntax analysis: The case of Gulangyu, China. Tour. Manag. 2016, 52, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Soltani, A.; Allan, A.; Javadpoor, M.; Lella, J. Space Syntax in Analysing Bicycle Commuting Routes in Inner Metropolitan Adelaide. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Koohsari, M.J.; Sugiyama, T.; Mavoa, S.; Villanueva, K.; Badland, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Street network measures and adults’ walking for transport: Application of space syntax. Health Place 2016, 38, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Huang, B.X.; Chiou, S.C.; Li, W.Y. Landscape Pattern and Ecological Network Structure in Urban Green Space Planning: A Case Study of Fuzhou City. Land 2021, 10, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Qin, X.A.; Du, X.T.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.A. Spatial Evolution Analysis and Spatial Optimization Strategy of Rural Tourism Based on Spatial Syntax Model-A Case Study of Matao Village in Shandong Province, China. Land 2023, 12, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hillier, B.; Penn, A.; Hanson, J.; Grajewski, T.; Xu, J. Natural movement—or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environ. Plan. B-Plan. Des. 1993, 20, 29–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Hillier, B.; Iida, S. Network and psychological effects in urban movement. In Spatial Information Theory, Proceedings; Cohn, A.G., Mark, D.M., Eds.; Springer-Verlag Berlin: Berlin, Germay, 2005; Volume 3693, pp. 475–490. [Google Scholar]
  76. Shatu, F.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Bunker, J. Shortest path distance vs. least directional change: Empirical testing of space syntax and geographic theories concerning pedestrian route choice behaviour. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 74, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Omer, I.; Kaplan, N. Using space syntax and agent-based approaches for modeling pedestrian volume at the urban scale. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2017, 64, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lerman, Y.; Rofe, Y.; Omer, I. Using Space Syntax to Model Pedestrian Movement in Urban Transportation Planning. Geogr. Anal. 2014, 46, 392–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Huang, B.-X.; Chiou, S.-C.; Li, W.-Y. Accessibility and Street Network Characteristics of Urban Public Facility Spaces: Equity Research on Parks in Fuzhou City Based on GIS and Space Syntax Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nag, D.; Sen, J.; Goswami, A.K. Measuring Connectivity of Pedestrian Street Networks in the Built Environment for Walking: A Space-Syntax Approach. Transp. Dev. Econ. 2022, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Soltani, A.; Javadpoor, M.; Shams, F.; Mehdizadeh, M. Street network morphology and active mobility to school: Applying space syntax methodology in Shiraz, Iran. J. Transp. Health 2022, 27, 101493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, Y.K.; Qiu, W.S.; Jiang, Q.R.; Li, W.J.; Ji, T.; Dong, L. Drivers or Pedestrians, Whose Dynamic Perceptions Are More Effective to Explain Street Vitality? A Case Study in Guangzhou. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, T.T.; Tang, G.X.; Lian, Z.F. The Mathematics of Spatial Structure Evolution: Using Syntactical Data to Compare the Humble Administrator’s Garden in the Sixteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Nexus Netw. J. 2023, 15, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Citypopulation. UNITED KINGDOM: Countries and Major Cities (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Available online: https://www.citypopulation.de/UK-Cities.html (accessed on 4 May 2021).
  85. The Bartlett School of Architecture. DepthmapX: Visual and Spatial Network Analysis Software. Available online: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/research/space-syntax/depthmapx (accessed on 24 May 2023).
  86. Turner, A. Depthmap 4: A Researcher’s Handbook; Bartlett School of Graduate Studies: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  87. Hillier, B.; Burdett, R.; Peponis, J.; Penn, A. Creatl’ng Life: Or, Does Architecture Determine Anything? Archit. Et Comport. Archit. Behav. 1987, 3, 233–250. [Google Scholar]
  88. Alexander. Alexander Town Routes and Motor Manual; Alexander Duckham & Co. Ltd.: London, UK, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  89. Geogre Philip & Son. Nuffield Road Atlas; Geogre Philip & Son Ltd.: Oxfordshire, UK, 1951. [Google Scholar]
  90. Geographia. National Benzole 57 Town Plans: Find Your Way at Once; ‘Geographia’ Ltd.: London, UK, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  91. John Bartholomew & Son. Road Atlas of Great Britain; John Bartholomew & Son Ltd.: Edinburgh, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  92. Automobile Association. AA Directory of Town Plans in Britain; The Automobile Association 1986 & The Automobile Association: Basingstoke, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  93. Automobile Association. AA Great Britain Road Atlas; The Automobile Association: Basingstoke, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  94. Automobile Association. AA Great Britain Road Atlas 1998; The Automobile Association: Vasingstoke, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  95. Automobile Association. AA Great Britain Road Atlas 2002; Automovile Association Developments Limited: Vasingstoke, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  96. Automobile Association. AA for the Road Ahead Glovebox Atlas Britain with 85 Town Plans, 14th ed.; AA Media Limited: Basingstoke, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  97. Collins. 2015 Collins Vritain Essential Road Atlas; Harper Collins publishers Ltd.: Bishopvriggs, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  98. Times. The Times Atlas of Britain; Times Books Group Ltd.: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  99. Collins. Collins Town Plans & Approach Routes; Harper Collins publishers Ltd.: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  100. Collins. 2001 Collins Handy Town Plan Atlas Britain with Approach Routes; Harper Collins publishers Ltd.: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
Land 12 01183 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of studied city centres.
Figure 1. Location of studied city centres.
Land 12 01183 g001
Land 12 01183 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of studied cases and sampling rate. The numbers of cities in each population range in the UK are 1, 1, 5, 3, 4, 7, 7. The numbers of cities studied in this research in each population range are 0, 1, 5, 3, 3, 6, 3. The sampling rates in each population range are 0%, 100.0%,100.0%, 100.0%, 75.0%, 85.7%, 42.9%. The total sampling rate is 75.0%.
Figure 2. Number of studied cases and sampling rate. The numbers of cities in each population range in the UK are 1, 1, 5, 3, 4, 7, 7. The numbers of cities studied in this research in each population range are 0, 1, 5, 3, 3, 6, 3. The sampling rates in each population range are 0%, 100.0%,100.0%, 100.0%, 75.0%, 85.7%, 42.9%. The total sampling rate is 75.0%.
Land 12 01183 g002
Land 12 01183 g003 550
Figure 3. The flowchart.
Figure 3. The flowchart.
Land 12 01183 g003
Land 12 01183 g004 550
Figure 4. Maps of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Figure 4. Maps of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Land 12 01183 g004
Land 12 01183 g005 550
Figure 5. Vector maps of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Figure 5. Vector maps of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Land 12 01183 g005
Land 12 01183 g006 550
Figure 6. Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Figure 6. Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Land 12 01183 g006
Land 12 01183 g007 550
Figure 7. Scatter plot and regression analysis of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Figure 7. Scatter plot and regression analysis of each stage taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Land 12 01183 g007
Land 12 01183 g008 550
Figure 8. Scatter plot interpretations.
Figure 8. Scatter plot interpretations.
Land 12 01183 g008
Land 12 01183 g009 550
Figure 9. Changing trends of the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Figure 9. Changing trends of the separation degree of pedestrians and vehicles taking Bradford city centre as an example.
Land 12 01183 g009
Land 12 01183 g010 550
Figure 10. Regeneration stages of three models and examples.
Figure 10. Regeneration stages of three models and examples.
Land 12 01183 g010
Land 12 01183 g011 550
Figure 11. Coventry city centre Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage. At stage 1, high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads were basically the same roads. By stage 4, high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads were separated. High Local Choice roads remained at the central area, while high Total Choice roads changed to the periphery of the central area.
Figure 11. Coventry city centre Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage. At stage 1, high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads were basically the same roads. By stage 4, high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads were separated. High Local Choice roads remained at the central area, while high Total Choice roads changed to the periphery of the central area.
Land 12 01183 g011
Land 12 01183 g012a 550Land 12 01183 g012b 550
Figure 12. Stoke city centre Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage. Stoke showed the same trend with Coventry that high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads separated from stage 1 to stage 4. High Local Choice roads remained at the central area, while high Total Choice roads changed to the periphery of the central area.
Figure 12. Stoke city centre Local Choice and Total Choice analysis of each stage. Stoke showed the same trend with Coventry that high Local Choice roads and high Total Choice roads separated from stage 1 to stage 4. High Local Choice roads remained at the central area, while high Total Choice roads changed to the periphery of the central area.
Land 12 01183 g012aLand 12 01183 g012b
Land 12 01183 g013 550
Figure 13. Scatter plot of four stages of UK city centres.
Figure 13. Scatter plot of four stages of UK city centres.
Land 12 01183 g013
Land 12 01183 g014 550
Figure 14. Separation degree change trends of UK city centres.
Figure 14. Separation degree change trends of UK city centres.
Land 12 01183 g014
Land 12 01183 g015 550
Figure 15. Amount of separation degree total change in UK city centres since the 1930s.
Figure 15. Amount of separation degree total change in UK city centres since the 1930s.
Land 12 01183 g015
Land 12 01183 g016 550
Figure 16. Separation degree increase of cities of three regeneration models.
Figure 16. Separation degree increase of cities of three regeneration models.
Land 12 01183 g016
Land 12 01183 g017 550
Figure 17. Average separation degree increases of three regeneration models.
Figure 17. Average separation degree increases of three regeneration models.
Land 12 01183 g017
Table
Table 1. Studied cities and their population.
Table 1. Studied cities and their population.
PopulationNumber of CitiesNumber of Studied CitiesSampling RateCity NamesCity Population
above 1,500,000100.0%
1,000,000–1,500,00011100.0%Birmingham1,121,408
500,000–1,000,00055100.0%Glasgow631,690
Leeds536,321
Liverpool506,552
Edinburgh505,310
Sheffield500,552
400,000–500,00033100.0%Manchester470,411
Bristol425,232
Leicester406,588
300,000–400,0004375.0%Cardiff348,546
Coventry344,322
Bradford333,931
250,000–300,0007685.7%Nottingham299,797
Newcastle286,468
Brighton277,106
Derby275,599
Plymouth266,983
Stoke260,602
200,000–250,0007342.9%Southampton249,604
Wolverhampton234,015
Portsmouth223,312
Total282175.0%
Table
Table 2. Study cities and their data years (source: references [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Maps of 10 different years were used in all, and were derived from 10 atlases. Maps of the same year were all from the same atlas).
Table 2. Study cities and their data years (source: references [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Maps of 10 different years were used in all, and were derived from 10 atlases. Maps of the same year were all from the same atlas).
City NameStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4
Birmingham1934197219972014
Glasgow1934197219972014
Liverpool1934197219972014
Bristol1934197219972014
Sheffield1934197219972014
Manchester1934197219972013
Leeds1934197219972013
Edinburgh1951197219972013
Leicester1934197219972013
Bradford1934197219972014
Cardiff1934197220012014
Coventry1934197219892014
Nottingham1934197219972014
Stoke1961197619972013
Newcastle1934197219972014
Derby1951197219972014
Southampton1961197219972014
Portsmouth1934197219972014
Plymouth1951197219972014
Brighton1934197219972014
Wolverhampton1961197219852013
Table
Table 3. Separation degree of four stages of UK city centres.
Table 3. Separation degree of four stages of UK city centres.
City NameStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4Total Change Amount
Birmingham0.3790.6430.6780.5720.193
Bradford0.3750.5160.6520.7340.360
Brighton0.5440.4850.6400.5960.052
Bristol0.5470.7080.8250.6720.124
Cardiff0.4690.4660.6730.5570.088
Coventry0.4140.5310.7650.8340.421
Derby0.1290.2650.4920.5740.445
Edinburgh0.5190.4430.7210.5740.055
Glasgow0.6780.7410.7020.7470.069
Leeds0.2520.4800.2820.3880.136
Leicester0.3520.4540.6800.6380.286
Liverpool0.3300.3790.4040.5040.175
Manchester0.4990.5730.5490.496-0.003
Newcastle0.5140.4760.5250.6130.098
Nottingham0.3770.5850.7280.4610.084
Plymouth0.4330.7550.6300.6510.218
Portsmouth0.7300.5280.8110.8000.071
Sheffield0.4840.5350.7000.7510.268
Southampton0.4620.5010.5450.5340.072
Stoke0.1380.2230.6090.5920.454
Wolverhampton0.1590.2790.3180.4020.243
Average0.4180.5030.6160.6040.186
Table
Table 4. Cities categorised into three regeneration models.
Table 4. Cities categorised into three regeneration models.
Model TypeNumber of CitiesModel Type PercentageName of Cities
Gradual Growth Model1362%Manchester, Brighton, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Portsmouth, Southampton, Nottingham, Cardiff, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bradford
One Step Model419%Bristol, Birmingham, Plymouth, Coventry
Long-Term Planning Model419%Wolverhampton, Leicester, Derby, Stoke
Table
Table 5. Comparison of the three regeneration models.
Table 5. Comparison of the three regeneration models.
Model TypeGradual Growth ModelOne Step ModelLong-Term Planning Model
Formation of a pedestrian coreCore vehicle roads conversion into pedestrian streets
Formation of vehicle ring roadsGrade adjustment of existing roadsPlan and build a new ring road in a short timePlan a new ring road, and build the ring road over a long period
AdvantagesFaster realisation,
good suitability		Regular shapeRegular shape,
good suitability
DisadvantagesIrregular shapeHigher cost
Less flexible		Long period
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ge, T.; Hou, W.; Xiao, Y. Study on the Regeneration of City Centre Spatial Structure Pedestrianisation Based on Space Syntax: Case Study on 21 City Centres in the UK. Land 2023, 12, 1183. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land12061183

AMA Style

Ge T, Hou W, Xiao Y. Study on the Regeneration of City Centre Spatial Structure Pedestrianisation Based on Space Syntax: Case Study on 21 City Centres in the UK. Land. 2023; 12(6):1183. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land12061183

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ge, Tianyang, Wenjun Hou, and Yang Xiao. 2023. "Study on the Regeneration of City Centre Spatial Structure Pedestrianisation Based on Space Syntax: Case Study on 21 City Centres in the UK" Land 12, no. 6: 1183. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/land12061183

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