Visual analytics of graffiti spatial patterns across 30 European city centres

Abstract

Graffiti as an urban phenomenon comes in different forms and materials, from simple spray slogans to wall paintings and art, containing multi-thematic content. Despite the contradictory nature of various literature opinions, reports of a positive association between wall-graffiti and fear of crime or streetscape value have emerged. However, comparative urban studies registering graffiti locations are non-existent, thereby hindering the benchmarking of urban liveability. In this work, the spatial patterns of graffiti-vandalism across 30 European city centres were investigated, using Google Street View–derived observations. A significant variation in graffiti presence across Europe was recorded, ranging from about 3%–9% of street segments in London, Oslo and Vienna, to roughly 70%–76% in Madrid, Athens and Sofia. In addition, their spatial polarisation that reflects the presence of potential socio-spatial inequities requiring further attention was demonstrated. Overall, the created geo-visualisations could enable European policymakers to facilitate better-informed response strategies and researchers to delve into the effects of graffities on urban systems and societies.

Unraveling the Dynamic Relationship between Neighborhood Deprivation and Walkability over Time: A Machine Learning Approach

“…Both of the subjective and the objective measures have their own merits and demerits. The subjective approaches typically ask the residents to score their feelings of safety, beauty, pleasure, and comfort based on street view images and further predict the perceived walkability at segment or intersection scales [19,20,41,42]. Nevertheless, the score rating is highly sensitive to the interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics as well as the sample size [42][43][44].…”

“…Step 1: Selection of amenities and determination of weight In reference to prior related studies [7,41], selecting the amenities accorded with the 'Chinese Standard for Urban Community Design' and these amenities were divided into six major categories, including commercial services (A), education and training (B), public services (C), transport facilities (D), medical care (E), and finance and communications (F). Then, 800 questionnaires were randomly collected to record the use frequency of the amenities among the urban residents in the study area.…”