The Experts below are selected from a list of 51447 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Mark W Burris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Urban Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares, in five submetro sections (i.e., main-center, sub-centers, non-center clusters, non-cluster urban areas, and rural areas), and explore the spatial patterns of submetro growths. We use recognized methods to delimit urban and rural areas, identify Employment centers with relative thresholds, and categorize the metros into three (i.e., small, midsize, and large) categories. Then we use descriptive statistics to determine the dynamics of Employment growth in the five submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas; (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, which also may be an effective way to curb urban expansion into rural areas; and, (3) the five submetro growths in large metros tend to be positively associated with one another, except for the main-center.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares in five submetro sections, and explore the spatial patterns of Employment growth in these submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories while the average spatial structure of US metros experienced little change from 2000 to 2010. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas, (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, and (3) large metros’ submetro sections tend to grow together, except the main-center.

Xiaoyan Huang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Urban Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares, in five submetro sections (i.e., main-center, sub-centers, non-center clusters, non-cluster urban areas, and rural areas), and explore the spatial patterns of submetro growths. We use recognized methods to delimit urban and rural areas, identify Employment centers with relative thresholds, and categorize the metros into three (i.e., small, midsize, and large) categories. Then we use descriptive statistics to determine the dynamics of Employment growth in the five submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas; (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, which also may be an effective way to curb urban expansion into rural areas; and, (3) the five submetro growths in large metros tend to be positively associated with one another, except for the main-center.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares in five submetro sections, and explore the spatial patterns of Employment growth in these submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories while the average spatial structure of US metros experienced little change from 2000 to 2010. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas, (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, and (3) large metros’ submetro sections tend to grow together, except the main-center.

Jiawen Yang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Urban Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares, in five submetro sections (i.e., main-center, sub-centers, non-center clusters, non-cluster urban areas, and rural areas), and explore the spatial patterns of submetro growths. We use recognized methods to delimit urban and rural areas, identify Employment centers with relative thresholds, and categorize the metros into three (i.e., small, midsize, and large) categories. Then we use descriptive statistics to determine the dynamics of Employment growth in the five submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas; (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, which also may be an effective way to curb urban expansion into rural areas; and, (3) the five submetro growths in large metros tend to be positively associated with one another, except for the main-center.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares in five submetro sections, and explore the spatial patterns of Employment growth in these submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories while the average spatial structure of US metros experienced little change from 2000 to 2010. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas, (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, and (3) large metros’ submetro sections tend to grow together, except the main-center.

Burak Guneralp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Urban Science, 2017
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares, in five submetro sections (i.e., main-center, sub-centers, non-center clusters, non-cluster urban areas, and rural areas), and explore the spatial patterns of submetro growths. We use recognized methods to delimit urban and rural areas, identify Employment centers with relative thresholds, and categorize the metros into three (i.e., small, midsize, and large) categories. Then we use descriptive statistics to determine the dynamics of Employment growth in the five submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas; (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, which also may be an effective way to curb urban expansion into rural areas; and, (3) the five submetro growths in large metros tend to be positively associated with one another, except for the main-center.

  • u s metropolitan spatial structure evolution investigating spatial patterns of Employment growth from 2000 to 2010
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Xiaoyan Huang, Jiawen Yang, Burak Guneralp, Mark W Burris
    Abstract:

    Urban spatial structure evolution, when using Employment as the proxy, can be explained by the change of Employment Distribution. In this study, we measure the 361 US metro areas (metros) by Employment shares in five submetro sections, and explore the spatial patterns of Employment growth in these submetro sections. The results suggest that metros’ spatial structures and growth patterns vary greatly across different size categories while the average spatial structure of US metros experienced little change from 2000 to 2010. We found that (1) small metros tend to have growth in the main-center or non-cluster urban areas, (2) midsize metros may be in the critical period of forming sub-centers, and (3) large metros’ submetro sections tend to grow together, except the main-center.

Stephen J Appold - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the impact of airports on us urban Employment Distribution
    Environment and Planning A, 2015
    Co-Authors: Stephen J Appold
    Abstract:

    The influence of airports on the Distribution of Employment within fifty-one large US metropolitan areas is measured in the context of three important elements of urban spatial structure: centers, corridors, and clusters. Analysis of tract-level census data for 2000 using spatial regression models for each metropolitan area revealed that central cities have a varying, but generally strong, effect on the Distribution of metropolitan Employment, as do highways and Employment subcenters; favored quarters had less certain impacts while the airport influence was weaker and more variable among regions. Regressing metropolitan airport-anchored distance-decay parameters on a series of regional explanatory factors suggests that airport cities develop primarily as cities expand outward rather than as a direct consequence of air transportation. These results inform plans relying upon airports to help shape and perhaps accelerate regional development.

  • the impact of airports on u s urban Employment Distribution
    Social Science Research Network, 2013
    Co-Authors: Stephen J Appold
    Abstract:

    This paper assesses the influence of airports on the Distribution of Employment within 51 large U.S. metropolitan areas by placing that influence within the context of three important elements of urban spatial structure: centers, corridors, and clusters plus the “favored quarter.” Tract-level Census Transportation Planning Package data for 2000 are analyzed using spatial regression models for each metropolitan area. The resulting airport-anchored distance decay parameters for each metropolitan area are regressed on a series of factors which could explain variation among regions. Central cities have a varying, but generally strong, effect on the Distribution of metropolitan Employment, as do highways. Employment subcenters and favored quarters had less certain but generally theoretically consistent impacts. The impact of airports on the Distribution of metropolitan Employment was weaker and more variable among regions. The impact of airports on spatial structure was negatively correlated with that of central cities, suggesting a trade-off between central and airport cities.