Bradley, P E (2010) An ultrametric interpretation of building related event data. Construction Management and Economics, 28(3), pp. 311-326. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
The long-term behaviour of the built environment is relevant to practising architects and engineers as well as to investors and policy makers. In contrast to this, the size, structure and dynamics of that important capital of society are not well established. As a first step towards assessing the dynamics of new constructions, refurbishments, demolitions and other building related event variables in urban building stocks in Southwest Germany, a first random sample of event data is examined using the more efficient ultrametric hierarchical classification in order to compare their dynamics. To this end, different ways of binary encodings of the multivariate data are carried out, and their ultrametric classification results compared. It turns out that municipalities of comparable sizes show similar behaviour in contrast to those of differing sizes, which corresponds to previous findings. Consequently, ultrametric methods can be applied to the study of building stock dynamics by revealing inherent hierarchical structure in data.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building stock dynamics; hierarchical classification; ultrametric methods |
| Index terms: | architect, building stock, society, built environment, investor, municipality, Germany, engineer, encoding, dynamics |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, asset management, Geography, profession, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, data science, sociology, communities and social development |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here