Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Keywords Activity
space
￿
Daily
movement
￿
Call
data
records
￿
Mobile
phones
￿
Social
networks
￿
Friendship
￿
Relationships
￿
Cities
￿
Built
environment
Abbreviations
CDRs Call data records
GIS
Geographic information system(s)
KML
Keyhole markup language
LAS
Linked activity spaces
POIs
Points of interest
13.1
Introduction
In this chapter, we present a methodology that can help elucidate how groups of
friends, family and professional contacts use the city. We know that cities are com-
prised of two interacting components, social networks and physical infrastructure,
and that the social dynamics of encounters in urban space form the backbone of city
life (Bettencourt 2013 ). Yet our ability to model social networks and social capital
in urban spaces is very limited. This presents a problem because often our behavior
results from the influence of others (Salganik and Watts 2008 ). The establishment,
discovery and maintenance of our social ties are guided by the city. These ties will
also affect how we use the city: where we choose to meet, live and work.
Within a city, it remains an open question as to whether a citizen benefits
most from having his or her social contacts nearby or dispersed. At one extreme,
dispersed contacts can expose the ego to new neighborhoods and a variety of urban
knowledge (such as finding the quickest post office, the best doctor or an exciting
new restaurant), due to their variety of experiences in diverse parts of a city. Yet,
it may be more difficult and more expensive to meet spatially dispersed contacts.
Having friends in disparate parts of the city is also more likely to lead to a social
network where one has few friends “in common” with other friends, which can be a
key strength of social networks.
At the other extreme, a socially tight neighborhood forms trusted bonds through
multiple channels of social validation (Centola and Macy 2007 ) and through
increased exposure to one another in the outdoors and through neighborhood
institutions such as local schools. Proximal social contacts can meet conveniently,
benefiting elderly and the mobility challenged and, in some cases, poorer or im-
migrant communities who likely rely on friends and family for help with amenities
such as child care. Yet, in these enclosed neighborhoods, information and social cap-
ital from other parts of the city may be less accessible (Granovetter 1983 ) resulting
in missing or unsupportive social systems across the city (Granovetter 1973 ).
How do urbanites organize their lives to balance their need for information and
accessibility with its costs? In order to answer this question, we must measure and
model the social network of egos within the urban built environment.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search