Multiclass Compactness Index for Urban Areas

Literature Cited

• Ahlfeldt, G., E. Pietrostefani, A. Schumann, and T. Matsumoto. 2018. Demystifying com-pact urban growth: Evidence from 300 studies from across the world. Technical report, OECD, Paris. doi: 10.1787/bbea8b78-en.
   Google Scholar
• Angel, S., J. Parent, and D. L. Civco. 2010. Ten compactness properties of circles: Measuring shape in geography. Canadian Geographies/Géographies canadiennes 54 (4):441–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00304.x.
   Google Scholar
• Bárdossy, A., and F. Schmidt. 2002. GIS approach to scale issues of perimeter-based shape indices for drainage basins. Hydrological Sciences Journal 47 (6):931–42. doi: 10.1080/02626660209493001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyce, R. R., and W. A. V. Clark. 1964. The concept of shape in geography. Geographical Review 54 (4):561–72. doi: 10.2307/212982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucarey, V., F. Ordóñez, and E. Bassaletti. 2015. Shape and balance in police districting. In Applications of location analysis, international series in operations research & management science, ed. H. A. Eiselt and V. Marianov, 329–47. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20282-2_14.
   Google Scholar
• Clayden, J. 2023. Mmand: Mathematical morphology in any number of dimensions. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mmand.
   Google Scholar
• Duque, J. C., N. Lozano-Gracia, J. E. Patino, P. Restrepo, and W. A. Velasquez. 2019. Spatiotemporal dynamics of urban growth in Latin American cities: An analysis using night-time light imagery. Landscape and Urban Planning 191:103640. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesselbarth, M. H. K., M. Sciaini, with K. A. Wiegand and J. Nowosad. 2019. Landscapemetrics: An open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography 42 (10):1648–57. doi: 10.1111/ecog.04617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hijmans, R. J. 2023. Terra: Spatial data analysis. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=terra.
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, D. D., and S. J. Franco. 2012. NCHS urban–rural classification scheme for counties. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2: Data Evaluation and Methods Research 154:1–65.
   Google Scholar
• Isserman, A. M. 2005. In the national interest: Defining rural and urban correctly in research and public policy. International Regional Science Review 28 (4):465–99. doi: 10.1177/0160017605279000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, J. A. G., and C. Schwick. 2014. Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: Weighted urban proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. Ecological Indicators 38:294–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaza, N. 2013. The changing urban landscape of United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 110:74–86. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaza, N. 2020a. Landscape shape adjusted compactness index for urban areas. GeoJournal 87 (2):1399–1409. doi: 10.1007/s10708-020-10262-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaza, N. 2020b. Urban form and transportation energy consumption. Energy Policy 136:111049. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefkaditis, D., and T. Georgios. 2009. Morphological feature selection and neural classification for electronic components. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 2 (1):151–56. doi: 10.25103/jestr.021.28.
   Google Scholar
• Li, W., M. F. Goodchild, and R. Church. 2013. An efficient measure of compactness for two-dimensional shapes and its application in regionalization problems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 27 (6):1227–50. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2012.752093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luan, H., and D. Fuller. 2022. Urban form in Canada at a small-area level: Quantifying “compactness” and “sprawl” with Bayesian multivariate spatial factor analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 49 (4):1300–13. doi: 10.1177/23998083211062901.
   Google Scholar
• Maceachren, A. M. 1985. Compactness of geographic shape: Comparison and evaluation of measures. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography 67 (1):53–67. doi: 10.2307/490799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, S., Y. Gong, and N. Green. 2019. Urban compactness: New geometric interpretations and indicators. In The mathematics of urban morphology, modeling and simulation in science, engineering and technology, ed. L. D’Acci, 431–56. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12381-9_19.
   Google Scholar
• McGarigal, K., and B. J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. FRAGSTATS Manual 97331 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Polsby, D., and R. Popper. 1991. The third criterion: Compactness as a procedural safeguard against partisan gerrymandering. Yale Law & Policy Review 9 (2):301–53. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol9/iss2/6.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Development Team. 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reock, E. C. 1961. A note: Measuring compactness as a requirement of legislative apportionment. Midwest Journal of Political Science 5 (1):70–74. doi: 10.2307/2109043.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, N. 2018. Fasterize: Fast polygon to raster conversion. Technical report. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fasterize.
   Google Scholar
• Saporito, S., and D. Van Riper. 2016. Do irregularly shaped school attendance zones contribute to racial segregation or integration? Social Currents 3 (1):64–83. doi: 10.1177/2329496515604637.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwaab, J. 2022. Sprawl or compactness? How urban form influences urban surface temperatures in Europe. City and Environment Interactions 16:100091. doi: 10.1016/j.cacint.2022.100091.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N. 2010. Urban form revisited—Selecting indicators for characterising European cities. Landscape and Urban Planning 96 (1):29–47. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugarbaker, L. J., D. F. Eldridge, A. L. Jason, V. Lukas, D. L. Saghy, J. M. Stoker, and D. R. Thunen. 2017. Status of the 3D elevation program. 2015. USGS Numbered Series 2016–1196, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Taubenböck, H., M. Wurm, C. Geiß, S. Dech, and S. Siedentop. 2019. Urbanization between compactness and dispersion: Designing a spatial model for measuring 2D binary settlement landscape configurations. International Journal of Digital Earth 12 (6):679–98. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1474957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, Y.-H. 2005. Quantifying urban form: Compactness versus sprawl. Urban Studies 42 (1):141–61. doi: 10.1080/0042098042000309748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, K. 2019. Tigris: Load Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tigris.
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, J., S. V. Stehman, D. G. Sorenson, L. Gass, and J. A. Dewitz. 2021. Thematic accuracy assessment of the NLCD 2016 land cover for the conterminous United States. Remote Sensing of Environment 257:112357. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2021.112357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, J., N. Xiao, L. Liu, and Q. Li. 2016. A weighted aggregation and closeness approach to measuring the compactness of landscape with multiple parts. Ecological Indicators 64:158–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar