Measuring the Influence of Functional Proximity on Environmental Urban Performance via Integrated Modification Methodology: Four Study Cases in Milan

Although how cities’ forms are structured is studied, more efforts are needed on systemic comprehensions and evaluations of the urban morphology through quantitative metrics that are able to describe the performance of a city in relation to its formal properties. More research is required in this direction in order to better describe the urban form characteristics and their impact on the environmental performance of cities and to increase their sustainability stewardship. With the aim of developing a better understanding of the built environment’s systemic structure, the intention of this paper is to present a holistic methodology for studying the behavior of the built environment and investigate the methods for measuring the effect of urban structure to the environmental performance. This goal will be pursued through an inquiry into the morphological components of the urban systems and the complex relationships between them. Particularly, this paper focuses on proximity, referring to the proximity of different land-uses, is a concept with which Integrated Modification Methodology (IMM) explains how land-use allocation might affect the choice of mobility in neighborhoods, and especially, encourage or discourage non-motived mobility. This paper uses proximity to demonstrate that the structure attributes can quantifiably relate to the performing behavior in the city. The target is to devise a mathematical pattern from the structural elements and correlate it directly with urban performance indicators concerned with environmental sustainability. The paper presents some results of this rigorous investigation of urban proximity and its correlation with performance indicators in four different areas in the city of Milan, each of them characterized by different morphological features.

• M. Tadi
• M. Hadi Mohammad Zadeh
• Ozge Ogut

• Built environment
• ecology
• sustainable indicators
• sustainability
• urban morphology.

[1] World Health Organization, “Global Tuberculosis Report,” 2015.
[2] C. Holman, R. Donovan, and B. Corti, “Factors influencing the use of physical activity facilities: results from qualitative research,” Heal. Promot. J. Aust. Off. J. Aust. Assoc. Heal. Promot. Prof., 1996.
[3] B. Giles-Corti and R. J. Donovan, “The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity,” Soc. Sci. Med., 2002.
[4] T. Pikora, B. Giles-Corti, F. Bull, K. Jamrozik, and R. Donovan, “Developing a framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and cycling,” Soc. Sci. Med., 2003.
[5] M. Winters, M. Brauer, E. M. Setton, and K. Teschke, “Built environment influences on healthy transportation choices: Bicycling versus driving,” J. Urban Heal., 2010.
[6] J. Gehl, “Life between the buildings: using public space,” in Life between the buildings: using public space, 1987.
[7] S. Vahabzadeh Manesh and M. Tadi, “Sustainable Morphological Transformation via Integrated Modification Methodology (I.M.M): The case study of Surfers Paradise district of Gold Coast city, Australia,” 2013.
[8] http://www.immdesignlab.com/informazioni/ (last accessed: 20/06/2020)
[9] S. V. Manesh and M. Tadi, “Sustainable urban morphology emergence via complex adaptive system analysis: Sustainable design in existing context,” in Procedia Engineering, 2011.
[10] G. Gartner, L. Meng, and M. P. Peterson, Location Based Services and TeleCartography II: From Sensor Fusion to Context Models. 2010.
[11] J. Yun and S.-S. Lee, “Human Movement Detectionand Identification Using Pyroelectric Infrared Sensor.” 2014.
[12] P. Stangl, “Overcoming flaws in permeability measures: modified route directness,” J. Urban., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2019.
[13] P. Olszewski and P. Krukowski, “Quantitative assessment of public transport interchanges,” Eur. Transp. Conf., no. October 2012, pp. 1–12, 2012.
[14] R. Cervero, “Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American housing survey,” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 1996.
[15] S. Vahabzadeh Manesh, M. Tadi, and F. Zanni, “Integrated sustainable urban design: Neighbourhood design proceeded by sustainable urban morphology emergence,” WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ., 2011.
[16] M. H. M. Zadeh, “A Systemic Modeling Methodology for Evaluating Built Environment Performance: Measuring Urban Proxinit,” Politecnico di Milano, 2020.
[17] J. Gehl, “Public spaces for a changing public life,” in Open Space: People Space, 2007.
[18] M. Bradshaw, “Cities for people,” T. Ctry. Plan, 1988.
[19] M. C. Keller et al., “A warm heart and a clear head: The contingent effects of weather on mood and cognition,” Psychol. Sci., 2005.
[20] M. Nikolopoulou and K. Steemers, “Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces,” in Energy and Buildings, 2003.
[21] R. Lombardia, “Topographic Regional Database.” (Online). Available: http://www.geoportale.regione.lombardia.it/.
[22] C. Milano, “Territorial Information System (SIT).”
[23] B. J. Mohler, W. B. Thompson, S. H. Creem-Regehr, H. L. Pick, W. Warren, “Visual flow influences gait transition speed and preferred walking speed,” Exp Brain Res. 2007.
[24] R. V. Levine, and A. Norenzayan, “The pace of life in 31 countries,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1999.