FCL G – DEN

1. Introduction

The sustainable integrated district planning approach helps to address economic challenges in two ways: (1) by promoting a self-sustaining urban ecosystem where people can live, work, and enjoy leisure activities within the same district, and (2) by focussing on the development and optimisation of specific economic functions within a city. This localised focus allows for tailored solutions that support the unique characteristics, challenges and needs of each district. One approach cities employ is fostering knowledge production in a well-governed urban space by strategically clustering innovative districts, educational institutions, and residential areas. This can lead to a skilled workforce, knowledge sharing, and innovation as businesses feed off each other’s ideas and advancements. Another strategy is to stimulate the production and consumption of amenities and services by co-locating consumer amenities and activities near one another. Sustainable integrated districts can be deliberately designed to be centres of such specialised activities and services. The presence of consumer amenities, like shopping centres, restaurants, cultural venues, and recreational facilities, plays a significant role in the decisions made by both businesses and households about where to locate. Businesses are attracted to areas where their employees can enjoy a high quality of life, while residents seek neighbourhoods that offer convenience and a desirable lifestyle. Research has shown that areas with a concentration of consumer amenities tend to experience economic growth and attract investments. The growth can stem from increased consumer spending, job creation, and improved urban vitality.

The contribution of this work package is as follows:

  1. The study investigates the mobility patterns of the specific socioeconomic groups using the economic context of the districts, measures mobility patterns and compares the “living room effects” that arose as the result of social interactions and the use of business and service spaces.

  2. The study proposes an integrated framework for sensing the underlying hierarchical urban spatial structure of social hotspots, which benefits from both detailed human movement information and networks at a fine-grained scale and allows for a comparison of integration effects across districts.

2. Methodology

The case study one-north is compared to two control cases: Science Park I and II. Mobile phone locational data and datasets on various urban features, including points of interest (POI), were collected from different internet platforms and provided the basis for accessing economic performance in the selected sustainable integrated districts. A social interaction is defined as a serendipitous incident of at least two users being simultaneously in the same place within the respective district. Several measures of social hotspots and mobility patterns measures, such as Mobility Signature, were developed to assess the economic performance of sustainable integrated districts. The study employed spatiotemporal statistics and normalisation methods (1) to detect, measure and visualise mobility patterns, (2) profile Mobility Behaviour and social Hotspots and (3) investigate the “living room effect” that arises as the relationship between mobility and social hotspots in the districts. For instance, if a knowledge district has a more vibrant social hotspot than another, then its users are more mobile, and they also produce more social interactions and knowledge exchange, indicating a higher degree of spatial integration within a district. Suppose a consumer district has a higher share of non-local customers and a wider impact zone than another district with a similar predominant economic function; in that case, it borrows some of the agglomeration benefits of their neighbours while avoiding agglomeration costs, indicating a higher degree of spatial integration within the urban system.

3. Main Findings

The study of one-north SID uncovered a compelling set of findings: two smaller areas within one-north (also called subsites) —Fusionopolis and Biopolis—outperform Science Parks I and II in terms of intra-, inter-, and inner-zone spatial interaction patterns and ‘the living room effect.” These findings indicate the presence of more flexible zoning and vibrant street design for economic integration in these two business parks in one-north compared to the spatial structure of both science parks.

Figure 1 locates the Workplace Social Hotspots and demonstrates the spatiotemporal distributions. The observed hotspots are stable throughout the four workday periods in all three districts. The higher intensity of social activity is indicated in yellow and documented in Fusionopolis and Biopolis business parks.

Figure 1. Spatiotemporal distribution of social hotspots

Figure 2 maps the hierarchical networked spatial structure of social hotspots in terms of nodes that show the Betweenness Index as the node size; the node heat represents the zone-district connectivity, and the heat of the edges was used to visualise the actual traffic flows. Based on spatial interaction relatedness and hierarchical urban structure, the highest degree of the “living room effect” was observed in Fusionopolis and Biopolis.

Figure 2. Hierarchical networked spatial structure of social hotspots

Research Team