(Co-)development of an open-data-based tool to perform preliminary environmental analyses at district scale in different European countries
B.S. Tsai (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
L.C. Huizer (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
M. Giampaolo (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
S. Monté (TU Delft - Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science)
S. GONG (TU Delft - Architecture and the Built Environment)
G. Agugiaro – Mentor (TU Delft - Urban Data Science)
Gabriel Garcia – Mentor (Royal HaskoningDHV)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
This report details the development process of an open-data-based tool, an extension of the original interface created by Royal HaskoningDHV. The objective was to bridge the gap between geographical data and Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry applications. The tool aimed to transform spatial data for architects, facilitating contextual analysis in Rhinoceros and Grasshopper, ultimately aiding architects and engineers in enhancing designs based on environmental impact.
The initial tool focused on Netherlands data, but the ultimate goal was to make it applicable to other countries/regions. The research involved evaluating data availability for different regions, acquiring and aligning relevant data for Grasshopper, and implementing these data workflows into wind and solar analyses.
The data evaluation stage revealed challenges due to varying data availability and accessibility across countries. For example, Germany's fragmented data required navigating different portals, while Hong Kong's centralized data via API was more accessible. The lack of standardization hindered automation, necessitating manual data retrieval strategies that could be challenging for non-geomatics experts.
Data alignment methods varied, introducing complexities. For instance, Italy required 3D extrusion from 2D shapefiles, leading to unavoidable errors. Spain used a different method, showcasing the difficulty of a universal solution due to data standardization and interoperability issues.
Two techniques were envisioned for the open-data tool: TIN-based and Voxel-based methods, each with distinct qualities and limitations. The TIN-method offered high-quality analyses but required rigorous data alignment, while the Voxel-based method allowed flexibility but risked issues with resolution.
Limitations of exploratory analysis included a focus on five countries/regions and inherent constraints of Rhinoceros, limiting tool accessibility and requiring alternative approaches. Additionally, language barriers and data platform permeability might have led to overlooked datasets.
In conclusion, the report acknowledges the need for future work. Optimization of code for readability and performance is suggested, and the inclusion of additional data types (vegetation, land use, transport) in data workflows is proposed. Input from AEC professionals through methods like questionnaires or testing is recommended for further improvement. This report emphasizes the evolving nature of the tool and the importance of ongoing refinement to meet the needs of diverse AEC professionals.