Journal of Urbanism: International Research on

Placemaking and Urban Sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Comparing approaches in urban morphology

Cláudia Monteiro & Paulo Pinho

To cite this article: Cláudia Monteiro & Paulo Pinho (2021): Comparing approaches in
urban morphology, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban
Sustainability, DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2021.1936602

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1936602

Published online: 12 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 132

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjou20
JOURNAL OF URBANISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1936602

Comparing approaches in urban morphology

Cláudia Monteiro and Paulo Pinho
CITTA- Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Oporto, Oporto, Portugal

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Comparing different approaches to urban form has been Urban morphology; urban
acknowledged as one of the most important lines of research form; comparative studies;
in urban morphology. This challenge has been reinforced over integrated approaches
the last decade. While some studies compare different morpho­
logical perspectives, others attempt to go one step further,
establishing composite views. In both cases, there is still
a need to undertake more systematic research supported by
rigorous comparisons of findings. Against this background, the
paper seeks to demonstrate the benefits of an integrated mor­
phological approach for a better understanding of human set­
tlements. For that purpose, the article compares the separate
application of three dominant perspectives on urban form (his­
torico-geographical, process typological and configurational
approaches) with an integrated view and methodology, the so-
called MAP – Morphological Analysis and Prescription. MAP is
framed by a ground-breaking understanding of morphological
zoning, typology, and configuration. The comparison is devel­
oped in a case study in Oporto, Portugal.

1. Introduction
Despite its relevance in today’s morphological agenda (Kropf 2017a; Oliveira 2016;
Whitehand 2012, 2015, 2019), comparative research in urban morphology was seminally
acknowledged by Conzen (1986) who has also pointed out the need for interdisciplinarity
and cross-cultural research. Regardless of the differences between the main approaches
that have been growing separately over the last decades, there is a common ground for
the development of comparative studies (Kropf 2009; Moudon 1997; Scheer 2016). This
paper discusses the possibility of comparing different morphological approaches, focus­
ing on their specificities and similarities, and promoting connections to support each
other to build an enhanced view on the physical form of cities. Through the comparison of
morphological insights offered by three mainstream approaches (historico-geographical,
process typological and configurational) and physical knowledge given by an integrated
approach (bringing those together), the paper seeks to make evident and discuss the
benefits of a combined view.

CONTACT Cláudia Monteiro anaclaudiapmonteiro@gmail.com

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

2. Comparative studies and composite frameworks

The historico-geographical approach draws on M.R.G. Conzen (1969) work and on its
relationship with German urban geography in the first decades of the twentieth century
(Whitehand 1981). Conzen designs an analytical view of the urban landscape based on the
ideas of a tripartite division (ground plan, building fabric, and land and building utiliza­
tion) and morphogenesis. In addition, he proposes several concepts to explain the urban
development process, such as the morphological region, the fringe belt and the burgage
cycle (Whitehand 2001). After the 1970s this view is further developed by J.W.R.
Whitehand and his colleagues in the University of Birmingham (Oliveira 2019).
The seminal work of Saverio Muratori, on Rome and Venice (Muratori 1959; Muratori,
Bollati, and Marinucci 1963), followed by the research developed by his assistant
Gianfranco Caniggia, have established the principles of the process-typological approach
(Cataldi 2003). This school of thought tries to establish a structural relationship between
urban history and the future transformation of cities. Both concepts of type, offering a tool
to analyse large numbers of buildings, and process, allowing organizing the evolution of
different types into a timeline, are fundamental in the development of the typological-
process method (Caniggia and Maffei [1979] 2001).
Space syntax is a social theory of space developed by Bill Hillier and Julianne Hanson at
the University College London, after the 1970s (Hanson 1998; Hillier 1996; Hillier and
Hanson 1984). In this theory, space is defined as inherent to human activity and it is
understood as configurational, meaning that is influenced by network relationships. By
analysing the spatial layout of cities (or buildings) space syntax describes the potential
human movement and its social and formal perceptions and interactions. The theoretical
and methodological development of this approach is supported by specific techniques
and software (Turner 2004). Space syntax developed several modes of configurational
analysis based on axial, segment, and convex maps. In recent years, angular segment
analysis has been acknowledged as a major configurational advance in capturing the
social logic of space (Hillier 2008, 2009; Turner 2007).
Over the last decades, some comparative studies of these approaches have been
developed. The relation between the historico-geographical and the process typological
approaches, framed by the development of the International Seminar on Urban Form
(ISUF), is probably the most explored (Kropf 1993; Marzot 1998, 2005; Costa and Netto
2015; Whitehand 2003). Maffei (2009) goes back to the 1930s to find the preliminary links
between Italian architects and British geographers. Based on the morphogenetic common
ground, two concepts, the morphological period and the typological process, have been
extensively compared (Maffei and Whitehand 2001; Whitehand et al. 2014), through
developing the relationship between historical development and evolutionary process.
Despite the clear differences in the way the historico-geographical and configurational
approaches deal with urban form, there is also an opportunity to explore a relationship
between both (Larkham 2006), as examined by Pinho and Oliveira (2009), Rifaioğlu (2016)
or Li and Zhang (2021).
In a ground-breaking paper, Kropf (2009) used a comparative theoretical framework to
identify the physical form as a common aspect to four dominant approaches (historico-
geographical, process typological, configurational, and spatial analysis), to encourage “a
composite view in which the different approaches support each other to provide a better
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 3

understanding of urban settlements” (Kropf 2009, 105). Oliveira, Monteiro, and Partanen
(2015) went one step further in the line of research launched by Kropf, applying these four
approaches to the same case study, the Rua Costa Cabral, in Oporto, and identifying the
points of contact that can support a co-ordinating framework: elements of urban form,
levels of resolution and time. The paper develops this line of research towards effective
integration.
Some authors have attempted to develop frameworks to understand the complexity of
urban form through compositive views. Kropf (1993) joined concepts from the historico-
geographical and the process typological approaches in an analytical structure based on
nine levels of resolution and on the concept of urban tissue as a synthesis of all
components of the hierarchy (Kropf 1996). Osmond (2010) brings together Kropf’s sub­
division of urban form and space syntax, through a methodology based on the definition
of Urban Structural Units. Recently, Kropf (2017b) developed the structural overlap that
allows to combine the concept of urban tissue and configurational analysis. The author
emphasizes the benefits of this combination, as configuration provides a basis for identi­
fying types of urban tissues and urban tissues establish a more specific context for
configurational measures.
Griffiths et al. (2010) and Oliveira (2013) have brought together the tripartite division of
the historico-geographical approach (ground plan, building fabric and land and building
utilization) with space syntax. The first methodology, applied to the suburbs of London,
drawn conclusions about the configurational and historical relationship, and about the
suburban built form and socioeconomic activity. The second, named Morpho, assesses the
urbanity of urban areas based on the analysis of patterns of combination between streets
(space syntax has a methodological utilization), street blocks, plots and buildings (Oliveira
2013; Oliveira, Medeiros, and Corgo 2020).
Although there are different and consolidated views to understand, explain and design
urban form, urban morphology can go beyond those views through comparison and
development of new composite views. This paper addresses this challenge. It is in three
parts. The first part applies, individually, the historico-geographical, process typological
and configurational approaches, to the city of Oporto. The second part applies the
integrated methodology for Morphological Analysis and Prescription (MAP) to the same
case study. Finally, the third part promotes a comparative discussion of results derived
from the first two.

3. Three different morphological approaches: application to the Amial case

study, Oporto
Three morphological methods, conceived within three different morphological
approaches, were selected based on a literature review, with a particular focus on
a comparative line of research started by Kropf (2009) and developed by Oliveira,
Monteiro and Partanen (2015). Morphological regionalization (historico-geographical),
typological process (process typological) and angular segment analysis (space syntax)
were applied into the Amial case study, in the city of Oporto. This area was selected due to
its morphological diversity and its clear physical boundaries. It is in the northern part of
Oporto, located between the inner ring road (VCI) and the outer ring road (Circunvalação),
which limits the city at north. The area comprises 30 street blocks between Rua do Amial,
4 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

a structural axis (south/north) that was an ancient route linking Oporto to the north of
Portugal, and Rua São Tomé, a street that started to be built in the nineteenth century.

Morphological regionalization/historico-geographical approach

A morphological region is an area with formal unity, distinct from the surrounding areas in
terms of ground plan, building fabric, and land and building utilisation. The design of the
map of morphological regions follows the analysis of the historico-geographical structure
of the urban landscape, in a sequence of steps: the study of historical documents and
cartography (from the earliest map of 1892 to the latest of 2010); plot-by-plot field survey;
mapping of form complexes (ground plan, building fabric, and land and building utiliza­
tion – Figure 1 to 3); and the combination of the three form complexes to obtain the
delimitation of the hierarchy of morphological regions and their characterization. The
regions are hierarchically classified by orders considering the principle of morphogenetic
priority of the form complexes – the ground plan is the most permanent form, the
building fabric is less permanent, followed by utilization. The main morphological regions
boundaries (first order) are delimited giving priority to ground plan characteristics. The
ground plan also contributes to the recognition of an intermediate rank of regions,
together with building fabric and, to a lesser extent, the land and building utilization.
The criteria for the lower rank of regions are building fabric, and land and building
utilization (Conzen 1969, 2004). This general priority of the different form complex
identified by Conzen is also applicable to Oporto. Yet, as Conzen (1969, 10) recognized,

Figure 1. Mapping of form complexes of the Amial case study: ground plan (streets, plots, buildings).
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 5

Figure 2. Mapping of form complexes of the Amial case study: building fabric (building type, building
age, number of storeys above ground).

this can have exceptions like “in larger towns affected by revolutionary planning measures
at present”. These exceptions seem to exist in some Chinese contexts, where the building
fabric tends to be more resistant to change than the ground plan (Song, Dai, and Li 2017).
The historical analysis and field survey allowed an understanding of the urban forma­
tion and development process within and around the study area. There is a major
distinction between areas of traditional origin (formed up to 1925 – Monarchy/1st
Republic), areas developed under the authoritarian regime (formed between 1926 and
1959 – Dictatorship/Estado Novo), and the modernist areas (formed after 1960 and
expanded in the democratic period after 1974 – late Estado Novo/Democracy). Fifteen
first-order morphological regions have been identified: (i) four stretches of arterial ribbon;
(ii) three regions of continuous frontage; (iii) one terraced-houses region; (iv) two regions
of semi-detached houses; (v) one detached houses region; and (vi) four regions of
apartment blocks. In addition, a set of fringe-belt areas has been delimited (Figure 4).
There are six regions of traditional formation. Four of these are in Rua do Amial,
a structural street for the growth of the city. Its urbanization process has been intensified
in the early twentieth century. This arterial ribbon has a residential character with mixed
uses on the ground floor. MR1 (arterial ribbon north) is characterized by traditional narrow
plots (6 m width), with two to four-storey row buildings, and facades coincident with the
plot frontages. MR2 (arterial ribbon centre-north) is distinguished by buildings that set­
back from the street. MR3 (arterial ribbon centre-south) has suffered successive processes
of plot amalgamation and only few plots remain original. Most of the buildings have four
storeys and were built after 1974. MR4 (arterial ribbon south) maintains a higher pre­
valence of narrow plots with traditional single-family buildings facing the street. The two
other regions are of medium-density continuous frontage (north, MR5 and south, MR6).
6 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

Figure 3. Mapping of form complexes of the Amial case study: building and land utilization.

These areas are organized around ancient roads that had a late urbanization process. They
are made of traditional plots, 6 m width.
The regions formed after the beginning of the authoritarian regime, in 1926, are mainly
made of single-family houses. The low-density continuous frontage region (MR7) has
small plots, 6 m width, and two-storey row houses. The terraced-house region (MR8) is
a small housing district with a strong typological homogeneity. Two other regions are of
semi-detached houses (north, MR9 and east, MR10). MR9 conforms to the surrounding
existing street pattern, having slightly larger plots. MR10 is a new neighbourhood with
a clear typological uniformity and a regular street layout. It has small street blocks, small
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 7

Figure 4. Morphological regions (first order) of the Amial case study.

plots, and one to two-storey houses. Finally, the detached houses region (RM11) is
structured by a planned street built in the mid-twentieth century. It has medium-size
plots and mainly three-storey buildings.
After the 1960s, modernist planning introduced significant changes in the urban
landscape of Amial. The first three apartment-blocks regions (MR 12 to 14) are integrated
into planned multi-family housing districts with a strong typological uniformity.
Apartment-block south (MR15) is a new region built in the twenty-first century. It is
made of isolated buildings on large plots, up to six-storey.
The fringe-belt features (Conzen 2009) are characterized by urban forms and activities
originally located on a peripheral position, and its formation is associated with pauses in
urban growth. It is mainly composed of institutional buildings, industry, and open spaces.

Typological process of basic buildings/process-typological approach

Based on historical research and critical analysis, the typological process develops
a detailed interpretation of the urban formation processes – through the succession of
changes in type over time in the same cultural context (diachronic mutations). It is deeply
grounded on the concept of process. Without process, the type is just a simple
8 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

composition of forms with no historical context (Petruccioli 2013). The typological process
of basic buildings (houses as distinct from specialized buildings) characterizes the evolu­
tion and adaptation of the concept of “house” over a sequence of time periods (or
phases). Starting from the identification of the basic type (monocellular building), it
explores the succession of building types up to the most complex ones, as a product of
a learning experience (Caniggia and Maffei [1979] 2001).
The diachronic typological process of basic buildings of Amial (Table 1) have been
identified and synthesized as a sequence of phases after the end of the nineteenth
century when the urbanization process began. Based on field survey and historical
documents, some examples of each building type were studied (including the internal
organization of rooms). The most relevant changes are related to the plot size (length
and width) and the type of housing (transformation of single-family into multi-family
housing).
The basic type has been identified – a single-family house with one frontage, related to
the traditional plot of Oporto (6 m width), composed of one or two rooms with flexible
utilization. The first five phases of evolution involve adaptations of this house. Initially
(phase 2), row buildings and semi-detached buildings, built in narrow and shallow plots,
do not have any significant change in the overall organization. Yet, these houses have
three or four rooms. Phases 3 and 4 correspond to the progressive extension of the house
into the backyard and include a staircase and an upper floor. In semi-detached buildings,
the entrance on the side façade (phase 4) leads to changes in the interior of the house.
This additional access allows the transformation into i. a two-family building (phase 6),
with independent entrances; ii. a multi-family building (phase 7). An important change in
row buildings occurs in phase 5. The significant increase in the house depth leads to the
relocation of the staircase, meaning a fundamental change in dwelling organization (one
room facing the main façade, another room facing the rear façade). Phase 6 corresponds
to the division of one single-family house into two houses with independent accesses.
Phase 7 is the development into multi-family housing, by transforming the single-family
house into a building of one dwelling per floor (increasing height), with shared access. In
row buildings, the next phases are based on the amalgamation of two (phase 8) or more
plots (phase 9). The new multi-family type of phase 8 has two dwellings per floor. The plot
size continues to define the location of the staircase and the interior organization of
dwellings. Phase 9 includes buildings with several dwellings per floor served by a shared
access. These last phases involve, in general, the replacing of existing buildings by new
ones. The increase in plot size allows for a new type, the detached building (phase 5). This
represents a significant typological variation, both outside and inside the dwelling.
Changes are more profound in the case of multi-family housing in very large plots (phases
8 and 9), in rupture with traditional buildings.

Angular segment analysis/space syntax

Angular segment analysis is a quantitative and configurational assessment of the accessi­
bility patterns of a street system represented by a model – the segment map. The unit of
analysis is the street segment, providing a more detailed understanding of the system than
the axial line (Hillier 2008). The distance between segments is measured topologically
along with the angular changes from one segment to another, corresponding closely to
Table 1. The typological process of basic buildings of the Amial case study.
JOURNAL OF URBANISM
9
10 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

the way people move in space (Hillier and Iida 2005; Serra and Hillier 2019). The radius of
analysis defines the metric distance, measured along segments, from each segment to
others. 500, 750 and 1000 m have been considered for the local radius and 5000 m has
been taken as global radius. The two selected syntactical measures offer a simulation of
main components of human movement, the “to-movement” (integration) and the
“through-movement” (choice). Considering the shortest path (least angular paths) between
every pair of segments, integration determines the destination potential of each segment
and choice determines the route potential of each segment. The syntactic measurement
characterizes each street segment by a numeric value and by a colour. Warm colours
indicate high movement potential, and cold colours indicate low movement potential.
Due to Amial peripheral position, the model includes Oporto and the surrounding
cities. Metric radii were used to limit the analysis, on a global and local scale. For the
analysis only the streets within the study area were considered.
At global scale, the street system of Oporto has the highest integration values in
several east/west structural axis, and in a set of traditional arterial ribbons towards
north (including Rua do Amial). Some segments of Circunvalação (with a hybrid character,
somewhere between high-traffic and urban) and VCI (inner ring road) have also high
values of integration. At this scale, Amial is well-integrated in the city. It has also a high
potential of choice, even if these values are more distributed in the city. Rua do Amial and
Circunvalação have high values for choice, while VCI presents low values.
At the local scale, the central part of the city is the most integrated (Figure 5). In the
Amial area, compared to the global scale, there is a decrease in the integration values.
That is the case of the VCI, starting to act as a barrier. However, Rua do Amial continues to
have high values of integration, especially in its southern part, maintaining its importance
at the local scale. It is followed by Rua Coronel Almeida Valente (an ancient route that has
structured the early stages of Amial urbanization) and Rua Conde de Avranches (planned in
the mid-twentieth century). The culs-de-sac and access to collective housing have the
lowest values of integration. It is also noted the low local integration of the housing estate
Bairro da Azenha. It is important to refer that integration values, high or low, may not
literally mean “good” or “bad”, and must be interpreted in relation to the purpose of the
urban system (Koch 2004). For instance, in a single-family housing neighbourhood,
centrality may not be a fundamental objective.
At the local scale, the choice potential appears to be evenly distributed throughout the
city (Figure 6). Amial maintains a high potential of choice at this scale. Rua do Amial
(southern and northern parts), Rua Coronel Almeida Valente and Rua Conde de Avranches
have a high potential of choice, similarly to the potential of integration. The Amial street
system has, generically, high to medium levels of choice, emphasising also Rua da Azenha
and Rua São Tomé. The culs-de-sac have the lowest values of choice.

Synthesis
The application of the three morphological methods to the same territory, allowed the
identification of the main strengths and weaknesses of each method (Table 8). To a large
extent, the parallel reading of the different contributions allowed to conclude on their
complementarity, as summarized below. The morphological regionalization and the
typological process, even if following different paths and having distinct focus of analysis,
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 11

Figure 5. Angular segment analysis: integration r 1.000 – local scale (source: the segment map has
been kindly given by Miguel Serra).

Figure 6. Angular segment analysis: choice log r 1.000 – local scale (source: the segment map has
been kindly given by Miguel Serra).

are mostly coincident in the reading of the territory. The typological process can comple­
ment the morphological regionalization, by adding a specific procedure for building
interpretation. Angular segment analysis, at the local scale, can add a quantitative char­
acterization to the street patterns of morphological regions. The identification of these
relations has supported the design of a compositive view aiming at offering a more
comprehensive understanding of the territory, at different levels of resolution.
12 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

4. A methodology for Morphological Analysis and Prescription (MAP)

The MAP methodology has been recently proposed in the debate. Its conceptual and
methodological framework was substantiated and explained in detail (authors, 2021). It
draws on the combination of three approaches (historico-geographical, process-
typological, and configurational), and three methods within these approaches (morpho­
logical regionalization, typological process and angular segment analysis). MAP brings
together the specific contributions of each approach and method, through an integrated
view of parts and whole, composed of different scales of analysis and of complementary
ways of approaching the elements of urban form.
The basis that supports the integrated framework of MAP is the division of the urban
landscape into morphological units (deduced from the concept of morphological regions)
complemented by the typological process of basic buildings and the angular segment
analysis of the street system. MAP is applied in six phases (Table 2). The first three are
analytical and the last three are prescriptive, aiming at defining the rules of future
transformation for the urban landscape based on a thorough understanding of the
existing situation.
As the purpose of the paper is the comparison between the three morphological
methods of analysis, taken in isolation, and MAP, this section will focus only on the
analytical phases of MAP. Yet, it is important to mention that in the prescription phases,
MAP converts the main criteria of the analysis into guidelines for urban form transforma­
tion. Aiming to be a useful morphological contribution to planning practice, prescription
is based on some base principles: both urban preservation and development follows the
recognition of the morphological character of the territory; prescription focuses mainly on
ground plan; and rules are selective. Seeking planning flexibility, MAP recommends
a stronger control on the most persistent elements of urban form (ground plan), and
a more flexible control on the building fabric and land utilisation. For more about the
practical relevance of MAP methodology see Monteiro and Pinho (2021).

5. The application of MAP to the Amial case study

MAP is applied into an extension of the Amial area. The nature of MAP and the expected
test results required a larger study area. It is important to highlight that a wider morpho­
logical zoning enables MAP to demonstrate in a more effective way the typological and

Table 2. MAP procedural framework.

Phase Approach Method
Analysis 1 Delimitation and characterization of historico-geographical morphological regionalization
morphological units (process-typological) (typological process)
2 Identification of the typological process-typological typological process
process
3 Development of angular segment space syntax angular segment analysis
analysis
Prescription 4 Regulation of the street system space syntax angular segment analysis
5 Definition of guidelines for urban historico-geographical morphological regionalization
form transformation process-typological typological process
6 Contribution to the zoning map and
regulation
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 13

configurational relationships, for both analysis and proposal. The “smaller area” (isolated
approaches application) is included in the “larger area” (MAP application), and the
fundamental comparison purposes remained unchanged (Figure 8). This area includes
95 street blocks, 1270 plots and 1312 buildings.

Phase 1. Delimitation and characterization of morphological units

The first phase of MAP is the division of the urban landscape into morphological units,
based on the morphological regionalization method. To be more effective in the articula­
tion with the other approaches and to facilitate its application into planning, MAP only
recognizes one order of regions. A higher order was introduced in the hierarchy – the
“zero order”, that does not assume the principle of continuity, which underlines the
concept of morphological region. Based on the authors’ interpretation of the concept
of morphological region, it takes the designation of “morphological unit”.
The identification of morphological units is based on the ground plan characteristics.
The redesign of cartography allowed the mapping of the three components of the ground
plan: streets, plots, and the block-plans of buildings (Figure 7). The combination of these
elements defines the urban patterns that support the delimitation of the different
morphological units. Each morphological unit is identified and characterized according
to a limited number of criteria, established in advance, considering the geometry and
composition of the ground plan elements (Table 3).
The differences between the elements of ground plan reflect the progressive differ­
entiation of historical formation periods (as described in the subsection Morphological
regionalization). The historical stratification leads to the delimitation of three morpholo­
gical units: i) continuous frontage (MU1); ii) discontinuous frontage (MU2); and iii) frag­
mentation (MU3). One fringe-belt unit, named “exceptional” (MU4) was also delimited
(Table 3; Figure 8).
The morphological unit of continuous frontage (MU1) is made of streets of traditional
formation, medium to small street blocks, narrow and deep plots (6 m width), and
buildings facing the street and defining a continuous frontage. The traditional street
system, which had a structural role in the construction of this part of the city, has survived
until today. The plot division has also remained quite stable despite some amalgamation
processes and replacements of single-family buildings.
Distinct from this first unit, the morphological unit of discontinuous frontage (MU2) is
made of planned regular streets and small street blocks. This corresponds mostly to
single-family housing neighbourhoods. Plots tend to have a larger frontage and a more
regular structure than those of MU1. Detached or semi-detached buildings, setback from
the street, create a discontinuous façade.
The morphological unit of fragmentation (MU3) is related to changes introduced in the
modern period. This transformation began in the late-Estado Novo (c. 1960), was intensi­
fied with democracy (April 25 1974), and continued until today. This unit is related to the
dissemination of multi-family housing and it is mainly made of isolated apartment blocks.
Contrary to what happens in the previous morphological units (particularly in the first
one), the street, as an element of urban form, loses importance. The new streets are not
integrated in the street system, culs-de-sac are dominant, and large street blocks are
created. The size of plots increases exponentially. This morphological unit is also
14 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

Figure 7. Maps of ground plan elements (streets, plots, and buildings).

 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 15

Figure 8. Map of morphological units.

characterized by large apartment blocks that assume a structural role in urban composi­
tion. Buildings often stand out in the middle of plots, with no relation to the street.
The last morphological unit of exceptional character (MU4) is part of a fringe belt,
including some diversity of forms, characterized by large special buildings (non-
residential uses) in large plots. Figure 8 and Table 3 show the map of morphological
units and their characterization.

Phase 2. Identification of the typological process

The identification of the typological process of basic buildings applied in the second
phase of MAP relates two scales of analysis: buildings and urban tissues. Buildings and the
derivation of types correspond to significant distinctions in urban tissue types. Each
building type reflects changes of position in the plot and different relations with the
street. As such, the analysis of buildings within the study area is based on the different
building types that characterize each of the three residential morphological units identi­
fied previously. This second phase means more than just adding another method to the
first. On the one hand, the application of the typological process itself is informed by the
analysis of phase 1. On the other hand, it increases the characterization of each morpho­
logical unit through the evolution of its specific building type.
Considering the three units, a diachronic typological process for each building type is
presented. These are the typological processes of: i) row building, characterizing the
morphological unit of continuous frontage (MU1); ii) detached/semi-detached building,
 16

Table 3. Morphological units.

C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 17

characterizing the morphological unit of discontinuous frontage (MU2); and iii) apartment
block, characterizing the morphological unit of fragmentation (MU3).
The typological process of row building (MU1), namely in early stages, represents the
adaptation of existing buildings on traditional narrow plots (Tables 4 and 5). The exten­
sion of the basic type into the backyard allowed the introduction of a staircase and the
transformation of a single-storey row house (phase 2) into a two-storey row house
(phase 3). The increased plot size and building depth (phase 4) led to change in the
position of the staircase, meaning a fundamental typological change. The introduction of
two independent accesses transforms the type into a two-family house (phase 5). The 6th
phase corresponds to the transformation into multi-family housing, including one dwell­
ing per floor with common access. Important plot changes generate subsequent building
transformations. The amalgamation of two traditional plots changes the staircase position
and allows two dwellings per floor (phase 7). The increase of plot width changes the type
through new access systems and several dwellings per floor (phase 8). The number of
storeys tends to increase up to four; therefore, this morphological unit is characterized by
a variation in building heights.
The typological process of semi-detached/detached building (MU2) has developed
within small and shallow plots (wider than traditional nineteenth century plots) – Tables 6
and 7. The initial phases show the adaptation of existing single-family house. Phase 2
transforms the basic type, in a wider plot, keeping a simplified organization of two rooms.
Phase 3 extends the house into the backyard, allowing the introduction of a staircase
leading to an upper floor. The increasing of depth and width of plots and buildings
characterize the subsequent phases. Phase 4 changes the type into a detached single-
family house. The next phases represent the transformation into a two-family house with
independent access (phase 5) or into a small multi-family building of one dwelling per
floor (phase 6). The increase of plot width allowed the emergence of up to three-storey,
small multi-family buildings (phase 7), with two dwellings per floor. As the number of
storeys tends to stabilize, a general uniformity in buildings heights is expressed in this
morphological unit.
The apartment block (MU3), exclusively for multi-family housing, emerged in Oporto
by the end of 1950s in clear rupture with the local urban tradition. In the typological
analysis the progressive differentiation between types is more evident in older buildings
than in recent ones. The variable geometry of the plot, the increase of plot and building
size, and the free-position of building on the plot, introduced important changes.
Although it is possible to verify typological continuity (phase 1 to 3), phases 4 and 5
introduce major typological changes in the organization of the building. The rupture of
the typological process occurs essentially at the level of the ground plan, resulting in
a new building type. The number of storeys usually ranges from 4 to 6.

Phase 3. Development of angular segment analysis

The third phase of MAP focuses on the neighbourhood-scale accessibility of the street
system. It is correlated with the morphological zoning established in phase 1 and it uses
angular segment analysis at local metric radius (750 m and 1000 m). The addition of
integration and choice to the morphological units allows relating the type of street
patterns to the accessibility values and understanding whether there are certain urban
 18

Table 4. Typological process of row buildings (continuous frontage morphological units).

C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

Table 5. Examples of row buildings.

Table 6. Typological process of semi-detached / detached buildings (discontinuous frontage morphological units).

Table 7. Examples of semi-detached / detached buildings.

JOURNAL OF URBANISM
19
20 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

tissues that are more accessible than others. The average values of integration and choice
of morphological units were calculated in a GIS platform, by joining the attributes of the
segment map with the morphological zoning. The accessibility of each morphological
unit is measured by the average values of all streets that belong to that unit. With this
procedure it is possible to characterize quantitatively the street system accessibility within
each morphological unit. It also enables relating the accessibility values with the different
formal contexts that distinguish the street patterns of each morphological units, and how
these are related to each other in the street network.
The overlap of local integration values with the morphological zoning points to high
integration in morphological units of continuous frontage (MU1), low integration in
morphological units of discontinuous frontage (MU2) and even lower integration in
morphological units of fragmentation (MU3) – Figure 9. MU1 has a well-defined street
structure, with many street segments, corresponding to medium to small street blocks,
well-connected with the surroundings. Intrinsic to the “traditional city”, this street struc­
ture contributes to the centrality of these areas and to the aggregation of different
functions. Although with a well-defined street structure, MU2 has a dual performance,
with high integration values in streets well connected with the global street system, and
low integration values in single-family neighbourhoods. These single-family residential
neighbourhoods formed under the Estado Novo preserve the importance of the street as
a fundamental element of urban form. These units have their own internal structure,
a well-connected street pattern with small street segments, corresponding to small street
blocks. However, these units are poorly connected with the surrounding structure, some­
how fulfilling the premise of an exclusively residential and single-family neighbourhood.
The lower values of local integration belong to morphological units of fragmentation
(MU3), of modern formation. Their street patterns are often made of disconnected streets,
with long street segments and large street blocks, often without material boundaries. This
follows the logic of the building access, prioritizing culs-de-sac and devaluating the
connection of the street with the surrounding network. This modern conception has
been introducing strong implications in Oporto’s urban structure since the mid-twentieth
century. The lower integration of these units is also visible in the lack of mixed uses. MU4
has an exceptional character, more heterogeneous and distinct from the other residential
morphological units. While the MU4 areas structured by traditional street patterns have
high integration values, areas composed of large street blocks and barely permeable
streets (long street segments) have low integration values.
Segment angular choice points to strong route potential in morphological units of
continuous frontage (MU1), low in morphological units of discontinuous frontage (MU2),
and even lower in morphological units of fragmentation (MU3) and, in general, in
morphological units of exception (MU4). The high local route potential can be related
with well-connected street patterns, linked with the overall street structure, with several
street segments (small to medium street blocks). The choice values are lower in units with
large street blocks, with long street segments and few crossings, often giving priority to
culs-de-sac, isolating these areas from their surroundings and reducing the chances of
route movement.
The overlap of local choice values with the morphological zoning suggests that
morphological units with higher local integration potential also have higher choice
potential. Similarly, the ones with lower local integration values have also lower choice
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 21

Figure 9. Integration values (r 750) of morphological units.

values. Continuous frontage units have high values of local integration and choice, and
fragmentation units have low values of local integration and choice. This indicates that
certain street patterns may be potentially more accessible than others.

6. Discussion
The last sections have described the application of three established methods (Section 3) and
the MAP methodology (Section 5). This section compares the analysis of the urban landscape
carried out by each method. Comparisons are made by looking at the results of
22 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

morphological regionalization, typological-process and angular segment analysis in relation

to MAP. The results are discussed bearing in mind the main purpose of each method, the
specific application procedures, as well as the focus of analysis and the final outcomes
(Table 8).
Each of the methods develops a specific way of analysis and interpretation of the urban
landscape, with different purposes, even if concurrent in the observed elements of urban
form. The morphological regionalization aims at understanding the structure of the urban
landscape and the underlying development processes, based on the historical expressiv­
ity of the landscape and on the morphogenetic priority of the different elements of urban
form. The typological process of basic buildings aims at understanding the progressive
transformation of building types over time, grounded on a process were adaptations of
the existing forms, in a period of time, establish the basis for the creation of new forms in
the following period. Angular segment analysis aims at understanding the human move­
ment based on the configuration of the street system, evaluating the accessibility of
streets according to a set of syntactical measures. MAP aims at understanding the urban
landscape in complementary scales of analysis, through synthesis and convergence of
different methodological contributions, giving priority to the ground plan elements, that
are then related to building types and street configuration.
The application of each method has different procedures. Morphological regionaliza­
tion and typological process are comprehensive methods requiring a great deal of time
for application. While angular segment analysis is of expeditious application, it has
a restricted scope of analysis. MAP gathers the wider scope with moderate time of
application. As the two first methods are very detailed this leads to a meticulous and time-
consuming application, based on extensive plot-by-plot field survey and exhaustive and
laborious analysis. This has difficulties of time and human resources, acting as a limitation

Table 8. Comparison of ability of analysis of morphological methods.

Historico-geographical Process typological Space syntax
morphological typological angular segment
regionalization process analysis MAP
Purpose interpretation and interpretation and interpretation and Interpretation, explanation,
explanation of urban design evaluation of street and prescription of urban
landscape based on of building fabric system accessibility landscape based on
form complexes and its based on based on different scales of analysis
formation process transformation process configuration through synthesis and
combination of single
methodological
contributions
Application comprehensive comprehensive restricted comprehensive
high consumption of high consumption of low consumption of moderate consumption of
time time time any territorial time
town scale town scale scale city scale
Focus ground plan building fabric street ground plan
building fabric building fabric
utilization utilization
Outcome hierarchical zoning by typological evolution classification of street zoning by morphological
morphological of buildings over system – map of homogeneity – map of
homogeneity – map of time – table of street segments morphological units (MU),
morphological regions typological process measured by integrated with the
integration and typological evolution of
choice buildings by MU and with
the classification of the
street system by MU
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 23

to the size of the territory to be analysed. On the contrary, space syntax has a few, easy
and fast procedures, that can be used for addressing different territorial scales. Yet, it is
more restricted in scope and more closed on its own discourse (particularly when
compared to the first and second methods), restraining the focus on the configuration
of the street system. MAP performs a comprehensive analysis at different levels of
resolution, and it is based on a set of systematic and well-defined steps. It applies the
morphological regionalization and the typological process, in a combined and simplified
way, based on the structural elements of each method. This process enables: i. an easy
application of MAP, in terms of time and resources, considering a wide territorial scale;
and ii. the combination of the first and second methods, making use of the configura­
tional analysis in a second stage of analysis.
All these methods carry out a clear and rigorous morphological analysis, whether the
focus is on one or on several elements of urban form. The morphological regionalization
devotes the same rigor of analysis to the three complexes of urban form – ground plan,
building fabric, and land and building utilization. It then assigns different weights to each
of these complexes according to their degree of persistence (higher in the ground plan,
intermediate in the building fabric, and lower in land utilization), and describes the urban
landscape based on this hierarchy. The typological process focuses on an exhaustive and
detailed research of buildings. This analysis provides information about all dimensions of
buildings, including its interior organization, emphasizing the ground floor and the
relationships with the street. Subsequently, a critical interpretation allows reconstructing
the transformation process and identifying the different building types that characterize
the urban landscape, from the basic to the most complex types. The angular segment
analysis focuses exclusively on the public space, and more precisely on its configuration.
This analysis isolates one single element of urban form and assigns each street segment
a numerical and relational value to quantify the movement potential in the street system.
MAP recognizes the three complexes of urban form – ground plan, building fabric and
land and building utilization – assigning different priorities to each scale of analysis. The
focus is on the ground plan, which is carefully analysed and divided into morphological
units. Following that first step, each morphological unit is characterized by a type of
building, that is assessed through its typological process. The ground plan analysis, and
specifically the street system, is then complemented and consolidated by configurational
analysis, which is rigorously related with the morphological zoning.
Each method offers different outcomes. The morphological regionalization provides
a map of morphological regions that fully characterizes the urban landscape. It is
a compartmentalized hierarchical zoning even if considering only the first order morpho­
logical regions. This makes evident the rigor of the analysis, but it also shows how difficult
it is to extend this reading to a wide territorial scale. The typological process offers
a synthesis table with the main phases of the typological evolution of basic buildings
over time, characterizing in detail the building fabric of the study area. Angular segment
analysis produces several maps of street segments, based on integration and choice,
within each chosen metric radius. It characterizes the accessibility of the street system and
the movement potential. MAP produces a map of morphological units. It is a simplified
zoning map based on the ground plan. This has the potential for zoning a wider territorial
scale, dividing it into a reduced number of units based on a limited number of criteria.
Each MU is characterized by a synthesis table of the typological process of its basic
 24

Table 9. Synthesis of MAP morphological analysis.

C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 25

buildings. The interpretation of the building type is related with the type of urban fabric in
which it is inserted and whose character it better defines. The morphological zoning is
complemented with the accessibility values provided by angular segment analysis at
a local scale. Configurational analysis is also interpreted in relation to the formal street
pattern that defines each morphological unit. MAP provides a complete characterization
of the urban landscape through the integration of different levels of analysis – ground
plan, building fabric and accessibility of the street system – based on the division of the
territory into morphological units (Table 9).

7. Conclusion
By focusing on the comparison between different approaches to urban form, this paper
has explored the use and benefits of a composite view. The application of three morpho­
logical methods used by dominant approaches and the integrated methodology for
Morphological Analysis and Prescription (MAP) to a study area in Oporto offers relevant
findings. The pilot study of the three approaches underlined their potential and clarified
the possible relationships (the common ground) that allowed to accurately combine the
different methods into the MAP methodology. Subsequent comparison with MAP has
shown that there are advantages in combining these approaches.
The application of MAP has demonstrated that it is possible to integrate in a systematic
way these three methods of analysis, using each one’s strengths in a logic of complemen­
tary. The three well-established methods are powerful morphological tools. Grounded on
this proven capability, MAP combines their different abilities to deal with distinct elements
of urban form. MAP focuses on the main characteristics of each method to facilitate the
integration of complementary morphological data. Drawing on this, MAP offers a structured
analysis of the different elements of urban form and allows a new insight about the
relationships between street network, ground plan and building types (Table 9).
That is achieved by the incorporation and combined reading of the different levels of
resolution provided by the different tools. The simplification of morphological regionali­
zation and typological process methods facilitates their integration. It also enables to
explore further the connections with configurational analysis. This simplification makes it
possible to combine the structural elements of each method and increases the potential
of the method for application on a larger territorial scale.
This paper, and the investigation supporting it, tried to offer answers to some key
questions in the field of urban morphology, about the comparison between different
morphological approaches and the crossing of research paths, advancing towards the
creation of an effective integrated framework to better describe, explain and prescribe
urban form.

Acknowledgments
The lead author is grateful to Jeremy Whitehand for the PhD co-supervision. The authors are
grateful to Emily Talen and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments on earlier
versions of the paper.
26 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under the
Operational Human Capital Program (POCH) co-funded by the European Social Fund and National
funds of the MCTES, under Grant SFRH/BD/110996/2015; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
[SFRH / BD / 110996/2015].

Notes on contributors
Cláudia Monteiro is an architect (1999, FAUP) and has a PhD in Urban Planning (2020, FEUP). She is
a senior researcher at CITTA and a practitioner in architecture and planning. She is part of the
editorial board of Revista de Morfologia Urbana (assistant editor between 2015 and 2018).
Paulo Pinho is Full Professor of Spatial and Environmental Planning at the Faculty of Engineering,
University of Oporto, founder and Director of CITTA, the Research Centre for Territory, Transports
and Environment, and former Secretary General of AESOP (2015-2019). His recent research focuses
on urban metabolism and low carbon cities, urban morphology and metropolitan dynamics,
shrinking cities and new forms of urban space production.

ORCID
Cláudia Monteiro http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1587-2357
Paulo Pinho http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5159-8856

References
Caniggia, Gianfranco, and G. L. Maffei. [1979] 2001. Architectural Composition and Building Typology:
Interpreting Basic Building. Translated by J. S. Fraser. Florence: Alinea.
Cataldi, Giancarlo. 2003. “From Muratori to Caniggia: The Origins and Development of the Italian
School of Design Typology.” Urban Morphology 7 (1): 19–34.
Conzen, M. R. G. 1969. Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-plan Analysis. 2nd ed. Institute of
British Geographers Publication 27. London: Institute of British Geographers Publication, Institute
of British Geographers.
Conzen, M. R. G. 1986. An Interview with Professor M. R. G. Conzen. Interviewed by Terry Slater and
J. W. R. Whitehand. Birmingham.
Conzen, M. R. G. 2004. “Morphogenesis, Morphological Regions and Secular Human Agency in the
Historic Townscape, as Exemplified by Ludlow.” In Thinking about Urban Form: Papers on Urban
Morphology, 1932-1998, edited by M. P. Conzen, 116–142. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Conzen, Michael P. 2009. “How Cities Internalize Their Former Urban Fringes: A Cross-cultural
Comparison.” Urban Morphology 13 (1): 29–54.
Costa, Stael Pereira, and M. Netto. 2015. Fundamentos De Morfologia Urbana. Belo Horizonte: C/Arte.
Griffiths, Sam, C., E. Jones, L. Vaughan, and M. Haklay. 2010. “The Persistence of Suburban Centres in
Greater London: Combining Conzenian and Space Syntax Approaches.” Urban Morphology 14 (2):
85–99.
Hanson, Julienne. 1998. Decoding Homes and Houses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillier, Bill. 1996. Space Is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 JOURNAL OF URBANISM 27

Hillier, Bill, and S. Iida. 2005. “Network and Psychological Effects in Urban Movement.” In Spatial
Information Theory: COSIT 2005, edited by A. G. Cohn and D. M. Mark, 475–490. Berlin:
Springer.
Hillier, Bill. 2008. “Using Depthmap for Urban Analysis: A Simple Guide on What to Do once You
Have an Analysable Map in the System.” Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, UCL, January 14.
Acessed 1 December 2019. https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
Hillier, Bill. 2009 “Spatial Sustainability in Cities. Organic Patterns and Sustainable Forms” In
Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, edited by D. Koch, L. Marcus, and
J. Steen, K01:1–20. Stockholm: KTH.
Hillier, Bill, and J. Hanson. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koch, Daniel. 2004. “Spatial Systems as Producers of Meaning: The Idea of Knowledge in Three Public
Libraries.” Licentiate Thesis. Stockholm: KTH School of Architecture.
Kropf, Karl. 1993. “An Enquiry into the Definition of Built Form in Urban Morphology.” Unpublished
PhD Thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Kropf, Karl. 1996. “Urban Tissue and the Character of Towns.” Urban Design International 1 (3):
247–263. doi:10.1057/udi.1996.32.
Kropf, Karl. 2009. “Aspects of Urban Form.” Urban Morphology 13 (2): 105–120.
Kropf, Karl. 2017a. The Handbook of Urban Morphology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kropf, Karl. 2017b. “Bridging Configurational And Urban Tissue Analysis.” In Proceedings of the 11th
Space Syntax Symposium, edited by T. Heitor, M. Serra, J. P. Silva, M. Bacharel, and L. C. Da Silva,
165.1–13. Lisbon: Instituto SuperiorTécnico.
Larkham, Peter. 2006. “The Study of Urban Form in Great Britain.” Urban Morphology 10 (2): 117–141.
Li, Xiaoxi, and Y. Zhang. 2021. “Combining the Historico-geographical and Configurational Approaches
to Urban Morphology: The Historical Transformations of Ludlow, UK and Chinatown, Singapore.”
Urban Morphology 25 (1): 23–41.
Maffei, Gian Luigi. 2009. “The Historico-geographical Approach to Urban Form.” Urban Morphology
13 (2): 133–135.
Maffei, Gian Luigi, and J. W. R. Whitehand. 2001. “Diffusing Caniggian Ideas.” Urban Morphology 5 (1):
47–48.
Marzot, Nicola. 1998. “The Role of History in Conzen’s and Caniggia’s Approaches to Urban
Morphology.” Urban Morphology 2 (1): 54–55.
Marzot, Nicola. 2005. “Typological Analysis and Hermeneutics in the Conzenian and Caniggian
Schools: Overlaps and Differences.” Urban Morphology 9 (1): 48–50.
Monteiro,Cláudia, and Paulo Pinho. 2021. “MAP_a Methodology for Morphological Analysis and
Prescription.” Urban Morphology 25 (1): 57–75.
Moudon, Anne Vernez. 1997. “Urban Morphology as an Emerging Interdisciplinary Field.” Urban
Morphology 1 (1): 3–10.
Muratori, Saverio. 1959. “Studi per una operante storia urbana di Venezia I.” Palladio 3–4: 1–113.
Muratori, Saverio, R., Bollati, S. Bollati, and G. Marinucci. 1963. Studi per una operante storia urbana di
Roma. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Riceche.
Oliveira, Vítor. 2013. “Morpho, a Methodology for Assessing Urban Form.” Urban Morphology 17 (1):
149–161.
Oliveira, Vítor. 2016. Urban Morphology. An Introduction to the Study of the Physical Form of Cities.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Oliveira, Vítor. 2019. “An Historico-geographical Theory of Urban Form.” Journal of Urbanism 12 (4):
412–432.
Oliveira, Vítor, C., Monteiro, and J. Partanen. 2015. “A Comparative Study of Urban Form.” Urban
Morphology 19 (1): 73–92.
Oliveira, Vítor, Valério Medeiros, and João Corgo. 2020. “The Urban Form of Portuguese Cities.”
Urban Morphology 24 (2): 145–166.
Osmond, Paul. 2010. “The Urban Structural Unit: Towards a Descriptive Framework to Support
Urban Analysis and Planning.” Urban Morphology 14 (1): 5–20.
Petruccioli, Attilio. 2013. “On Typology.” In Australian lectures, edited by C. D’Amato and
Attilio Petruccioli, 107–130. Rome: Gangemi Editore.
28 C. MONTEIRO AND P. PINHO

Pinho, Paulo, and V. Oliveira. 2009. “Different Approaches in the Study of Urban Form.” Journal of
Urbanism 2 (2): 103–125.
Rifaioğlu, Mert Nezih. 2016. “An Investigation into the Methods for Analyses and Conservation of
Historical Urban Forms.” Civil Engineering and Architecture 4 (2): 47–53. doi:10.13189/
cea.2016.040202.
Scheer, Brenda Case. 2016. “The Epistemology of Urban Morphology.” Urban Morphology 20 (1):
5–17.
Serra, Miguel, and B. Hillier. 2019. “Angular and Metric Distance in Road Network Analysis:
A Nationwide Correlation Study.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 74: 194–207.
doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.11.003.
Song, F., Y. Dai, and N. Li. 2017. “Reflections on the Gap between Academic Research in Urban
Morphology and Heritage Conservation.” Urban Morphology 21 (1): 87–89.
Turner, Alasdair. 2004. “Depthmap 4: A Researcher’s Handbook.” Bartlett School of Graduate Studies,
UCL. Accessed 1 December 2019. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/2651/1/2651.pdf
Turner, Alasdair. 2007. “From Axial to Road-centre Lines: A New Representation for Space Syntax and
A New Model of Route Choice for Transport Network Analysis.” Environment and Planning. B,
Planning & Design 34 (3): 539–555. doi:10.1068/b32067.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 1981. “Background to the Urban Morphogenetic Tradition.” In The Urban
Landscape: Historical Development and Management, edited by J. W. R. Whitehand, 1–24.
Institute of British Geographers Special Publication 13. London: Academic Press.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2001. “British Urban Morphology: The Conzenion Tradition.” Urban Morphology
5 (2): 103–109.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2003. “From Como to Alnwick: In Pursuit of Caniggia and Conzen.” Urban
Morphology 7 (2): 69–72.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2012. “Issues in Urban Morphology.” Urban Morphology 16 (1): 55–65.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2015. “Seeking an Integrated Approach to Urban Form: Tasks Ahead.” Urban
Morphology 19 (1): 3–4.
Whitehand, J. W. R. 2019. “ISUF and Urban Morphology: 25 Years on and Counting.” Urban
Morphology 23 (2): 103–104.
Whitehand, J. W. R., K. Gu, M. P. Conzen, and S. M. Whitehand. 2014. “The Typological Process and
the Morphological Period: A Cross-cultural Assessment.” Environment and Planning. B, Planning &
Design 41 (3): 512–533. doi:10.1068/b39097.