Space syntax is an influential framework for quantifying the relationship between environmental geometry and human behavior. Although many studies report high syntactic–behavioral correlations, previous pedestrian data were collected at low spatiotemporal resolutions, and data transformations and sampling strategies vary widely; here, we systematically test the robustness of space syntax’s predictive strength by examining how these factors impact correlations. We used virtual reality and motion tracking to correlate 30 syntactic measures with high resolution walking trajectories downsampled at 10 grid resolutions and subjected to various log transformations. Overall, correlations declined with increasing grid resolution and were sensitive to data transformations. Moreover, simulations revealed spuriously high correlations (e.g. R2 = 1) with sparsely sampled data (<23 locations). These results strongly suggest that syntactic–behavioral correlations are not robust to changes in spatiotemporal resolution, and that high correlations obtained in previous studies could be inflated due to transformations, data resolution, or sampling strategies.
AppleyardD (1970)
Styles and methods for structuring a city. Environment and Behavior2(1): 110–117.
2.
BafnaS (2003)
Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and Behavior35(1): 17–29.
3.
BattyM (2001)
Exploring isovist fields: Space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 123–150.
4.
ConroyR (2001) Spatial navigation in immersive virtual environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University College London, UK.
5.
DaltonRCTroffaRZachariasJ, et al. (2011) Visual information in the built environment and its effect on wayfinding and explorative behavior. In: BonaiutoMBonnesMNenciA, et al. (eds) Urban Diversities – Environmental and Social Issues.
Göttingen:
Hogrefe, pp.6–76.
6.
de Arruda CamposMB (1997) Strategic space: Patterns of use in public squares of the city of London. In: First international symposium on space syntax. London: Space Syntax Laboratory, Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College, 1997, pp. 21.1–21.11.
7.
DesyllasJDuxburyE (2001) Axial maps and visibility graph analysis. In: Space syntax third international symposium, 2001, pp. 27.1–27.13. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
8.
EmoBHölscherCWienerJM, et al. (2012) Wayfinding and spatial configuration: Evidence from street corners. In: Eighth international space syntax symposium, Santiago de Chile, 2012, pp.1–16. Santiago de Chile: PUC.
9.
HaqSLuoY (2012)
Space syntax in healthcare facilities research: A review. Health Environments Research & Design Journal5(4): 98–117.
10.
HillierB (1999a)
The common language of space: A way of looking at the social economic and enviromental functioning of cities in a common basis. Journal of Environmental Sciences11(3): 344–249.
11.
HillierB (1999b) The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 26(2): 169–191. DOI: 10.1068/b260169.
12.
HillierBHansonJ (1984) The Social Logic of Space.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13.
HillierBMajorMDesyllasJ, et al. (1996) Tate Gallery, Millbank: A study of the existing layout and new masterplan proposal. London. Available at: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/932 (accessed 10 April 2013).
14.
HillierBPennA (2004)
Rejoinder to Carlo Ratti. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(4): 501–511.
15.
HillierBPennAHansonJ, et al. (1993)
Natural movement; or, configuration and attraction in urban space use. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design20: 29–66.
16.
JguirimIBrossetDClaramuntC (2014) Functional and structural analysis of an urban space extended from space syntax. In: GIScience 2014, Vienna, AT: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pp. 1–15. Retrieved from http://geoanalytics.net/GeoVA2014/
17.
KlarqvistB (1993)
A space syntax glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning2: 11–12.
18.
KostakosV (2010) Space syntax and pervasive systems. In: JiangBYaoX (eds) Geospatial Analysis and Modelling of Urban Structure and Dynamics.
Dordrecht:
Springer, pp.31–52.
19.
LeeSSeoKW (2013) Combining space syntax with gis-based built environment measures in pedestrian walking activity. In: The 9th international space syntax symposium, Seoul, 2013, pp. 098:1–098:14. Seoul: Sejong University.
20.
LiuJWuDHidetosiF, et al. (2015)
Investigation and analysis of urban spatial structure around the train stations in Kitakyushu by using space syntax and GIS. Open Journal of Civil Engineering5(1): 97–108.
21.
MashhadiAAcerUGBoranA, et al. (2016) Exploring space syntax on entrepreneurial opportunities with Wi-Fi analytics. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing – UbiComp ’16, Heidelberg, Germany, 2016, pp.658–669. New York: ACM.
22.
MontelloDR (2007) The contribution of space syntax to a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. In: The 6th international space syntax symposium Istanbul 2007, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007, pp.1–12. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
23.
MontelloDRPickHL (1993)
Integrating knowledge of vertically aligned large-scale spaces. Environment and Behavior25(3): 457–484.
24.
MoraRAstudilloHBravoS (2014)
Looking ahead: A vision-based software for predicting pedestrian movement. Ingeniería e Investigación34(1): 79–82.
25.
NettoMV (2016) ‘
What is space syntax not?’ Reflections on space syntax as sociospatial theory. Urban Design International21(1): 25–40.
26.
OkamotoKKanedaTOtaA, et al. (2013) Correlation analyses between underground spatial configuration and pedestrian flows by space syntax measures: A case study of underground mall complex in Nagoya Station. In: International seminar on urban form (ISUF) (eds Sanders P, Guaralda M and Carroli L), Brisbane, Australia, 2013, pp.116–128. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
27.
OmerIGoldblattR (2017)
Using space syntax and Q-analysis for investigating movement patterns in buildings: The case of shopping malls. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science44(3): 504–530.
28.
PafkaEDoveyKAschwandenG (2018) Limits of space syntax for urban design: Axiality, scale and sinuosity. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/2399808318786512.
29.
PennAHillierBBanisterD, et al. (1998) Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25(1): 59–84. DOI: 10.1068/b250059.
30.
PeponisJWinemanJRashidM, et al. (1997)
On the description of shape and spatial configuration inside buildings: Convex partitions and their local properties. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 24(5): 761–781.
31.
PeponisJZimringCChoiYK (1990)
Finding the building in wayfinding. Environment and Behavior22(5): 555–590.
32.
RattiC (2004a)
Rejoinder to Hillier and Penn. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(4): 513–516.
33.
RattiC (2004b)
Space syntax: Some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31(4): 487–499.
34.
RossG (2015)
Parametric and nonparametric sequential change detection in R: The cpm package. Journal of Statistical Software66(3): 1–20.
35.
SilvaJ (2013) Towards statistical significance of configurational models: New evidence of variance and bootstrappin. In: The 11th space syntax symposium #170 (eds Heitor T, Serra M and Silva JP, et al.), Lisbon, Portugal, 2013, pp.170.1–170.16. Lisbon: Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Arquitetura e Georrecursos.
36.
TurnerA (2003)
Analysing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30(5): 657–676.
TurnerADoxaMO’SullivanD, et al. (2001)
From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 103–121.
39.
TurnerAPennA (1999) Making isovists syntactic: Isovist integration analysis. In: 2nd International Symposium on Space Syntax (Vol. 1) (ed. F Holanda), Brasília, BR, pp. 01–01.9.
40.
TurnerAPennA (2002)
Encoding natural movement as an agent-based system: An investigation into human pedestrian behaviour in the built environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design29(4): 473–490.
41.
TzortziK (2009) The art museum as a city or a machine for showing art? In: Proceedings of the 7th international space syntax (eds Koch D, Marcus L and Steen J), Stockholm, 2009, pp.117:1–117:13. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
