Linda Dörrzapf, Anna Kovács-Győri, Bernd Resch and Peter Zeile
well as qualitative features such as subjective sense of safety, aesthetic sensibility etc. ( Ewing et al. 2006 ; Bucksch & Schneider 2014). These indicators are often evaluated in the form of an index which is critical in terms of data reduction (the values of the individual features usually cannot be reconstructed from the final values of an index). There is weighting of individual characteristics (which is partly at the discretion of the researcher) and it often lacks spatial or socio-demographic differentiation ( Rohwer & Pötter 2002 ). Walk Score® has been
number of points are those in closer proximity to Riga. Therefore, 6 units have matched or surpassed all thresholds (8 points). Another 11 have matched or surpassed at least 6 thresholds.
Remaining 13 territorial units have a score of at least 4 points. Similarly, to the morphological approach, these mostly include territories that are located 30-60 kilometres from Riga. The results of this approach match the south-western borders of those determined in the 2017 study, whereas the eastern and northern parts differ significantly.
In this case there are 6 territorial
technology base of Smart City components (sensors, communication, open data portal), Medellín is located in 5th position out of 7 ( McKinsey Global Institute 2018 : 10). In the ranking of applications (the software base), it is last among 7 Latin American cities ( McKinsey Global Institute 2018 : 12) but in terms of the last component: of citizen experience (awareness, usage and satisfaction), it scores best across all 7 cities ( McKinsey Global Institute 2018 : 91). This kind of result can really be considered a success, as, according to some researchers, a Smart City
entanglements are particularly apparent in recent attempts to more clearly define what is truly a BRT system. In 2012, ITDP published ‘The BRT Standard’ to serve as both a scoring system and a planning tool, and provide a framework for system designers, decision-makers and the transport community to identify and implement top-quality services. The BRT Standard designates a BRT corridor as gold, silver, bronze or basic. Importantly, the designation committee is composed of representatives from all the various agencies outlined above as well as many of the transport advocates
described in two contexts, firstly as democratic (including) space, secondly, as totalitarian (egalitarian) space. The score suggests whether each particular space is of a democratic or totalitarian character ( Nawratek 2005 : 46) ( Tab. 1 ).
Source: ( Nawratek 2005 : 46), modified by the authors
Size of structure
Monumental Exceeding the in the scale traditional of its context meaning
Respecting the scale of its context
Form of structure
Monumental Harking back to
libraries such a strict number does not exist. Therefore, the E2SFCA is applied in this paper. Even though the results (E2SFCA-values) were finally calculated with a free ArcGIS add-in Download link: https://www.researchgate.net/publica-tion/261398233_USWFCA_An_ArcGIS_101102_Add-In_tool_to_compute_Enhanced_Two-Step_Floating_Catchment_Area_accessibility_scores , the underlying background process of this calculation will be summarised For further and more detailed explanations of the method see Luo and Qi (2009) . in the following outline. As the name of the method
each block and horizontal intensity of development (I H ) in each block. In field studies we used a 4-degree evaluation scale for buildings and their elevations. Each positive change in the years 2013–2016 scored +1 point while each negative change scored -1. The demolition of buildings which degraded the urban landscape scored +4 points, and a new building +5 points. Much less visible improvements than in block G took place in blocks F (I T =15.62), E (I T =13.21), C (I T =9.17), B (I T =6.83), and A (I T =2.34). The technical condition of buildings deteriorated in
in 2004 and in 2015/2016, and hence the change in share. Using this score, LSOAs are grouped into neighbourhood poverty change quintiles within each city, from those with the largest decrease in their poverty share (1) through those where poverty was little changed (3) to those with the largest increases in poverty share (5).
It is worth noting that this approach compares the distribution of poverty within the city at one point in time with its distribution at another point in time. It is measuring the relative distribution rather than absolute changes. It is not
( van Gent et al. 2009 ). Neither is there some common understanding on the criteria to be applied in delineating such areas. According to W. van Gent et al. (2009 : 55), deprived areas are places where place-based liveability issues (like vandalism, anti-social behaviour, crime etc.) are coupled with, and are assumed to be a source of, sustained economic deprivation. Multiple socio-economic variables and composite scores are used more frequently and are believed to be more appropriate measures of spatial disadvantage than simple income indicators ( Pawson & Herath