skip to main content
research-article

Looking South: Learning Urban Perception in Developing Cities

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 December 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Mobile and social technologies are providing new opportunities to document, characterize, and gather impressions of urban environments. In this article, we present a study that examines urban perceptions of three cities in central Mexico; the study integrates a mobile crowdsourcing framework to collect geo-localized images of urban environments by a local youth community, an online crowdsourcing platform to gather impressions of urban environments along 12 physical and psychological dimensions, and a deep learning framework to automatically infer human impressions of outdoor urban scenes. Our study resulted in a collection of 7,000 geo-localized images containing outdoor scenes and views of each city’s built environment, including touristic, historical, and residential neighborhoods, and 144,000 individual judgments from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Statistical analyses show that outdoor environments can be assessed in terms of interrater agreement for most of the urban dimensions by the observers of crowdsourced images. Furthermore, we proposed a methodology to automatically infer human perceptions of outdoor scenes using a variety of low-level image features and generic deep learning (CNN) features. We found that CNN features consistently outperformed all the individual low-level image features for all the studied urban dimensions. We obtained a maximum R2 of 0.49 using CNN features; for 9 out of 12 labels, the obtained R2 values exceeded 0.44.

References

  1. 2017. Caminos de la Villa. https://www.caminosdelavilla.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2017. Delimitacion de las zonas metropolitanas de Mexico 2010. http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Zonas_metropolitanas_2010. {Online; Accessed: 15-March-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2017. FixMyStreet. https://www.fixmystreet.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2017. Map Kibera. http://mapkibera.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2017. SeeClickFix. http://seeclickfix.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2017. UNICEF Statistics. https://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/mexico_statistics.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2017. Ushahidi. http://www.ushahidi.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sean M. Arietta, Alexei Efros, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Maneesh Agrawala, et al. 2014. City forensics: Using visual elements to predict non-visual city attributes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2624--2633. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Michael D. M. Bader, Stephen J. Mooney, Yeon Jin Lee, Daniel Sheehan, Kathryn M. Neckerman, Andrew G. Rundle, and Julien O. Teitler. 2015. Development and deployment of the computer assisted neighborhood visual assessment system (CANVAS) to measure health-related neighborhood conditions. Health 8 Place 31 (2015), 163--172.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Burcu Baykurt. 2012. Redefining citizenship and civic engagement: Political values embodied in FixMyStreet.com. Selected Papers of Internet Research 1 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Egon Brunswik. 1956. Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaime S, Cardoso and Joaquim F. Costa. 2007. Learning to classify ordinal data: The data replication method. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, Jul (2007), 1393--1429. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Manuel Castells et al. 2014. Reconceptualizing Development in the Global Information Age. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Will Connors. 2015. Google, Microsoft Expose Brazil’s Favelas. http://on.wsj.com/1V3X2qI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Terry C. Daniel. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 1--4 (2001), 267--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Djellel Difallah, Elena Filatova, and Panos Ipeirotis. 2018. Demographics and dynamics of mechanical Turk workers. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’18), Marina Del Rey, CA. ACM, 135--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Carl Doersch, Saurabh Singh, Abhinav Gupta, Josef Sivic, and Alexei Efros. 2012. What makes Paris look like Paris? ACM Transactions on Graphics 31, 4 (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Abhimanyu Dubey, Nikhil Naik, Devi Parikh, Ramesh Raskar, and Cesar A. Hidalgo. 2016. Deep learning the city: Quantifying urban perception at a global scale. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Amsterdam. Springer, 196--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash. 2014. Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. Zed Books Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Eibe Frank and Mark Hall. 2001. A simple approach to ordinal classification. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Freiburg. Springer, 145--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lindsay T. Graham and Samuel D. Gosling. 2011. Can the ambiance of a place be determined by the user profiles of the people who visit it. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Barcelona. AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kotaro Hara et al. 2013. Combining crowdsourcing and Google Street View to identify street-level accessibility problems. In Proceedings of the CHI, Paris. ACM, 631--640. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Susan Jamieson et al. 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education 38, 12 (2004), 1217--1218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Bin Jin, Maria V Ortiz Segovia, and Sabine Susstrunk. 2016. Image aesthetic predictors based on weighted CNNs. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP’16), Phoenix. IEEE, 2291--2295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Frederic Jurie and Bill Triggs. 2005. Creating efficient codebooks for visual recognition. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conerence on Computer Vision (ICCV’05), Beijing. Vol. 1. IEEE, 604--610. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Rachel Kaplan, Stephen Kaplan, and Terry Brown. 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior 21, 5 (1989), 509--530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Stephen Kaplan. 1988. Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application (1988), 45--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephen F. King and Paul Brown. 2007. Fix my street or else: Using the internet to voice local public service concerns. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Macao SAR. ACM, 72--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Pall J. Lindal et al. 2013. Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013), 26--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Laura J. Loewen et al. 1993. Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13, 4 (1993), 323--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Andrés Monroy-Hernández et al. 2013. The new war correspondents: The rise of civic media curation in urban warfare. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, San Antonio, TX. ACM, 1443--1452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Nikhil Naik, Jade Philipoom, Ramesh Raskar, and Cesar Hidalgo. 2014. Streetscore-predicting the perceived safety of one million streetscapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Columbus. IEEE, 779--785. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Joan Iverson Nassauer. 1983. Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. Journal of Environmental Management 17, 1 (1983), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. L. S. Nguyen, S. Ruiz-Correa, M. Schmid Mast, and D. Gatica-Perez. 2017. Check out this place: Inferring ambiance from AirBnB photos. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 99 (2017), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Timo Ojala, Matti Pietikainen, and Topi Maenpaa. 2002. Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24, 7 (2002), 971--987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aude Oliva and Antonio Torralba. 2001. Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision 42, 3 (2001), 145--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Vicente Ordonez and Tamara L. Berg. 2014. Learning high-level judgments of urban perception. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich. Springer, 494--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kate Painter. 1996. The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark. Landscape and Urban Planning 35, 2 (1996), 193--201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Karl Pearson. 1901. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 2, 11 (1901), 559--572.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Lorenzo Porzi, Samuel Rota Bulò, Bruno Lepri, and Elisa Ricci. 2015. Predicting and understanding urban perception with convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Brisbane. ACM, 139--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. D. Quercia, N. O'Hare, and H. Cramer. 2014. Aesthetic capital: What makes London look beautiful, quiet, and happy? In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Vancouver, BC. ACM, 945--955. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ali Razavian, Hossein Azizpour, Josephine Sullivan, and Stefan Carlsson. 2014. CNN features off-the-shelf: An astounding baseline for recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus. IEEE, 806--813. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Joel Ross et al. 2010. Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10), Atlanta. ACM, 2863--2872. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Salvador Ruiz-Correa, Darshan Santani, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2014. The young and the city: Crowdsourcing urban awareness in a developing country. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on IoT in Urban Space (Urb-IoT), Rome. ACM, 74--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Salvador Ruiz-Correa, Darshan Santani, Beatriz Ramirez-Salazar, Itzia Ruiz-Correa, Fatima Alba Rendon-Huerta, Carlo Olmos-Carrillo, Brisa Carmina Sandoval-Mexicano, Angel Humberto Arcos-Garcia, Rogelio Hasimoto-Beltran, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2017. Sensecityvity: Mobile crowdsourcing, urban awareness, and collective action in Mexico. IEEE Pervasive Computing 16, 2 (2017), 44--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. James A. Russell. 1978. Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 10 (1978), 1152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. James A. Russell. 1979. Affective space is bipolar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 3 (1979), 345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. James A. Russell et al. 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38, 2 (1980), 311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Philip Salesses, Katja Schechtner, and Cesar A. Hidalgo. 2013. The collaborative image of the city: Mapping the inequality of urban perception. PLoS ONE 8, 7 (07 2013), e68400.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Robert J. Sampson et al. 2004. Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly 67, 4 (2004), 319--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Darshan Santani and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2015. Loud and trendy: Crowdsourcing impressions of social ambiance in popular indoor urban places. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Brisbane. ACM, 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Darshan Santani, Rui Hu, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2016. InnerView: Learning place ambiance from social media images. In Proceedings of the ACM Annual Symposium on Computing for Development, London. ACM, 451--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Darshan Santani, Salvador Ruiz-Correa, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2015. Looking at cities in Mexico with crowds. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computing for Development. ACM, 127--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Darshan Santani, Salvador Ruiz-Correa, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2017. Insiders and outsiders: Comparing urban impressions between population groups. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, Bucharest. ACM, 65--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Patrick E. Shrout et al. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86, 2 (1979), 420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Fredrik M. Sjoberg, Jonathan Mellon, and Tiago Peixoto. 2015. The effect of government responsiveness on future political participation. Working Paper No. 1, World Bank's Digital Engagement Evaluation Team.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. S. S. Stevens. 1946. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103, 2684 (1946), 677--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Sam Sturgis. 2015. Kids in India are sparking urban planning changes by mapping slums. http://bit.ly/1LtS9S4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Antonio Torralba and Alexei A. Efros. 2011. Unbiased look at dataset bias. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’11), Colorado Springs, CO. IEEE, 1521--1528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Jianxiong Xiao, James Hays, Krista A. Ehinger, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2010. Sun database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’10), San Francisco. IEEE, 3485--3492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Bolei Zhou, Agata Lapedriza, Jianxiong Xiao, Antonio Torralba, and Aude Oliva. 2014. Learning deep features for scene recognition using places database. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS Foundation, 487--495. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Bolei Zhou, Liu Liu, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2014. Recognizing city identity via attribute analysis of geo-tagged images. In European Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich. Springer, 519--534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Looking South: Learning Urban Perception in Developing Cities

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Social Computing
        ACM Transactions on Social Computing  Volume 1, Issue 3
        Special Issue on Group ’18 and Regular Papers
        September 2018
        95 pages
        EISSN:2469-7826
        DOI:10.1145/3297860
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 December 2018
        • Accepted: 1 May 2018
        • Revised: 1 March 2018
        • Received: 1 May 2017
        Published in tsc Volume 1, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader