A Comprehensive Methodological Approach for the Assessment of Urban Identity

Abstract

Urban identity, defined as the dynamic interplay between individuals and their environment, reciprocally shapes each other within the context of unique and defining characteristics of an urban locale. This concept has served as rich fodder for intellectual discourse, yet practical, applied studies have been restricted to local-scale “place identity” or linked to urban preservation and heritage concepts. Such constraints confine the understanding of urban identity to a retrospective view, leaving its contemporaneous and prospective dimensions underexplored. Furthermore, the multi-dimensional nature of urban identity, encompassing social, cultural, historical, and spatial elements, has rendered it a complex phenomenon to define and measure, leading to its neglect in applied studies. In an era when cities face multifaceted challenges ranging from climate change to socioeconomic disparities, understanding and leveraging urban identity becomes more than a matter of civic pride; it is a strategic necessity. Addressing this, our central research question asks: “Can we develop an integrated and dynamic methodology for assessing urban identity that is applicable to various case studies, accounting for its multifaceted nature and constant evolution, and can this methodology steer urban planning and policy decisions?” To answer these questions in detail, this study was divided into two phases. The first phase identifies and examines descriptive and analytical approaches to identity and urban identity, evaluating processes and highlighting key debates, issues, and gaps. The second phase constructs a methodology for assessing urban identity based on insights from the theoretical analysis. Through this research, three main dimensions in urban identity are unveiled: spatial scale, observer, and the dynamic state over time which framed our proposed methodology. By considering these dimensions and categorising components into material and immaterial dimensions, an enriched view of urban identity, capturing its dynamic and evolving nature is reached. Incorporating seven data collection methods, it classifies urban identity into three distinct states: “stable, fragmented, and lost”, enabling strategic interventions to foster favourable transformations. This methodology serves as a tool to address contemporary challenges such as climate change, socioeconomic disparities, and public safety, thereby transforming the traditional understanding of urban identity.

1. Introduction

When we define urban identity based on existing academic knowledge, we can say that it encapsulates the intricate interplay between individuals and their surrounding environments, wherein each exerts formative influences upon the other’s identity. A broader array of distinctive elements—both palpable and abstract—situates this dynamic relationship that confers uniqueness upon an urban locale, shaping its distinctive sense of place. Urban identity is an intricate concept that reflects a city’s or urban area’s distinct physical, social, and cultural characteristics [1]. The built environment, economic structures, cultural practices, and social interactions all play a role in shaping it [2,3]. The advancement in the study of urban identity requires being able to evaluate and assess it in order to capture the complexity and diversity of urban systems [3,4] which can be achieved through systematic and rigorous assessment methodologies. Assessing urban identity is not a luxury or a mere marketing tool for cities, but rather a key approach to address the pressing challenges of contemporary urban environments [3,5]. A well-developed urban identity, properly understood and assessed, can guide planners, policymakers, and communities towards more resilient, equitable, and sustainable cities [6]. Despite this realisation, searching “Scopus”, “Web of Science”, and “JSTOR” databases with the term’ Urban Identity’ retrieved 841, 534, and 2764 results, respectively. The same search with the terms “Measuring urban identity”, “Assessing urban identity”, and “Evaluating urban identity”, or any other combination of these terms, resulted in 5, 4, and zero studies, respectively. (The search was an “exact match”. We conducted it using quotation marks at the beginning and end of the sentences on the 29 June 2023.) This outcome indicates that urban identity has garnered significant attention in academic disciplines, as evidenced by the substantial volume of available theoretical studies. However, these theoretical studies have not been able to develop an integrated methodology for studying and evaluating urban identity. Thus, we can clearly notice a gap in the current literature regarding the translation of qualitative studies on urban identity into applicable assessment methods independent of objective or subjective analysis. This lack of standardised methodologies can make it difficult to compare and evolve studies on urban identity, which is a clear limitation in the field [5,7]. This can lead to a focus on specific case studies and the analysis of individual components of urban identity in isolation rather than considering their interdependence and interconnectedness across multiple spatial scales [3,6]. While these studies can provide valuable insights into the unique characteristics of a particular city or urban area, they often do not represent the broader urban landscape. This narrow focus can result in a fragmented understanding of urban identity and may not adequately capture the dynamic and complex nature of urban systems [8,9].

Assessment methodologies for urban identity serve as a vital tool for urban planning, enabling a nuanced understanding of cities in their totality. They aid in identifying the core characteristics that define a city, its strengths and weaknesses, and potential opportunities for improvement. This helps create planning strategies that are economically viable, socially inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and culturally respectful.

The challenge in developing comprehensive methodologies for the study of urban identity primarily stems from its intricate nature. Urban identity’s complexity, lacking a universally accepted definition, is influenced by multifaceted factors such as history, culture, and politics [10,11]. Furthermore, the intricate components shaping urban identity, including objective, subjective, tangible, and intangible factors, time, urban memory, and heritage make it exceptionally difficult to set a quantifiable methodology to assess urban identity [4,12]. Historically, urban identity has often been viewed as a static state rather than a continuously evolving outcome of various societal and environmental shifts [13,14,15].

Thus, the main objective of this research paper is to introduce a methodology for assessing urban identity not by quantifying it but through the critical analysis of its evolution over time. We particularly focus on delineating the progression among three identified states of urban identity, which are “Stable”, “Fragmented”, and “Lost”. We anchored this methodology in three key dimensions: spatial scale, the observer’s viewpoint, and a temporal comparison to ascertain identity changes over different periods. This approach asserts the dynamic nature of urban identity achieving a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Hence, informing policy and decision-making processes, guiding future decisions in a more informed manner.

Our secondary objective to reach this goal involves a critical analysis and review of the prevailing definitions, theories, and perspectives on urban identity, aiming to provide a holistic understanding of the concept. This includes delving deep into the intricacies and constraints of the diverse elements shaping urban identities, spanning objective and subjective factors, urban memory, heritage, and the dimension of time. Simultaneously, we seek to redefine the traditionally static and historical viewpoint of urban identity, underlining its evolving nature moulded by an array of social, demographic, economic, and environmental transformations.

In light of the aforementioned gaps and limitations, the central question is: “Can we develop an integrated and dynamic methodology for assessing urban identity that is applicable to different case studies and takes into account the multifaceted nature and continuous evolution of identity, and can this methodology steer urban planning and policy decisions?” In our exploration, we believe that the extensive database of theoretical research on urban identity offers potential. We propose that a methodology critically analysing urban identity’s evolution over time can effectively capture its essence, leading to resilient and sustainable cities. This approach guides our investigation towards bridging the identified gaps and contributing to both the academic field and real-world urban planning practices.

By being able to assess the transition of urban identity, this study could be an important tool for urban planning, aiding in a nuanced understanding of cities and creating planning strategies that are economically viable, socially inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and culturally respectful. It contributes to the field by bridging the theoretical gap and offering practical implications for planners, policymakers, and communities.

2. Methods

This article aims to translate qualitative studies into a comprehensive and adaptable methodological approach for assessing urban identity. It aims to identify and assess urban identity as a dynamic and transitional phenomenon by assessing its changes across three identified states over different periods of time. The methodology underscores three critical dimensions—spatial scale, observer’s perspective, and temporal evaluation—to enable a nuanced understanding of changes in urban identity. To achieve this goal, we divided the research into two main phases that include a literature review and development of a methodology.

In the first phase of the research, we conducted a comprehensive literature review to examine the definitions, theories, perspectives, and methodologies proposed in the academic field of urban identity. The review focuses on three domains: the evolution of the concept and definition of urban identity, design principles and methodologies to assess urban identity, and the components of urban identity and their role in shaping the identities of cities.

The literature search was conducted using “Scopus”, “Web of Science”, “JSTOR”, and “Google scholar” databases with a combination of keywords related to the three domains of focus such as “Urban Identity”, “Urban identity assessment”, “Urban identity components”, “Urban identity History”, and others.

A rigorous selection process was carried out to include the most relevant search results, while those not meeting the specific focus and methodological depth were excluded. The selection of the results was based on relevance to the concept of urban identity, methodological contributions, and publication in peer-reviewed journals or being a scholarly book.

Among the theoretical studies on urban identity, we scrutinised prior methodological attempts, assessing their merits and shortcomings.

In the second phase of the research, we introduced a methodology to evaluate urban identity, informed by insights from our literature review, emphasising the need for multiple empirical evaluations of a city across different spatial scales and from varying observer perspectives. We presented a comprehensive division of urban identity components, applicable for comparing various cities, and not merely tailored for a specific city.

The proposed methodology in this research aims to provide a thorough assessment of urban identity and monitor its evolution across different historical epochs. The following section delves into the state of the art concerning the concepts of identity and urban identity, laying a critical foundation for the issues under discussion.

3. Literature Review

Various scientific disciplines investigated the concept of “identity”. However, despite the numerous perspectives and studies, the concept remains a complex and multi-faceted subject [16,17]. This part constitutes the literature review, where we explore the subject of urban identity in depth. The first section delves into how researchers define and understand urban identity, offering various perspectives and meanings. The second section traces the historical evolution of the urban identity concept. The third section focuses on understanding urban identity components and their roles in shaping the overall identity of the urban environment. The fourth section looks at the different ways urban identities can be studied and analysed, including the examination of different approaches and perspectives. The fifth section evaluates previous methodologies for assessing urban identity in the scientific literature.

3.1. Urban Identity Definition

Urban identity is a widely discussed concept in urban design, research, policymaking, and design projects. However, there is a lack of consensus on its definition, with different scholars and urbanists offering varying perspectives. This section aims not to list definitions of urban identity textually, but to delve into the evolution of urban identity definitions, highlighting the diverse perspectives and theories that have shaped the understanding of this concept.

The influential urban planner Kevin Lynch presented one of the earliest views on urban identity in his pivotal theory of environmental image, where he posits that identity constitutes a subjective element in forming a place’s image. In delineating the environmental image, he identifies three constituent components: “identity, structure, and meaning.” [18] (p. 8). Lynch contends that identity emerges as a reaction to the recognition and categorisation of objects within a spatial context, arguing that identity relies on a distinct structure encompassing the spatial or patterned relationships among objects. Moreover, the significance of objects to the observer, which may be either emotional or practical, constitutes an additional critical determinant, as meaning inherently amplifies the calibre of spatial and pattern relationships. The integration of these three components culminates in the construction of a place’s image. Paralleling Lynch’s research on the image of the city, the famous geographer Edward Relph emphasises that “place identity” repeatedly manifests as the “place’s image” [19]. Understanding place identity, which Relph sees as a composite of various elements and a crucial aspect of urban design, requires an appreciation of the image’s social structure [20]. While we agree with Lynch’s theory concerning the crucial role of identity in forming a place’s image, we propose that the image reciprocally fosters place identity. This perspective suggests a symbiotic relationship between place identity and image, where each mutually reinforces and shapes the other. Employing the term “image” exclusively to characterise urban identity or placeness is inadequate [3]. In his book “The Image”, Boulding elaborates on urban identity as an extensive mental representation of the place, forged from the assemblage of “experiences, attitudes, memories, and immediate sensations” [21] (p. 56). Consequently, we should not designate the image as the only definition of urban identity because that is imprecise. Instead, we should regard it as a multitude of reflections encompassing a place’s objective and subjective features.

During the 1970s, the concept of “sense of place” gained prominence, primarily through the work of Edward Relph [19]. Cox defines this notion as “place-identity,” describing it as a “sense of continuity of place that is essential for people’s sense of reality”. He further contends that this connection to a place fosters relationships between people and the place itself, thereby serving as the foundation for human experience and personal identity [22]. This connection is established through a spectrum of consciousness, ranging from simple recognition to an empathetic response to the identities of various places [3].

Although there exists a propensity to equate “sense of place” with “urban identity,” Relph emphasises their distinction and defines the sense of place as “authentic place-making” [19] (p. 63). He further characterises the sense of place as a capacity for recognition and differentiation, essential for distinguishing localities [19]. In this context, Trilling, in his book “Sincerity and Authenticity”, argues that the sense of place transcends mere authenticity [23]. Norberg-Schulz regards it as the “genius loci” reflecting a place’s spirit, which can be harnessed to enhance, manipulate, and heal the environment [24]. Other scholars refer to this as the “phenomenology of spirit” or “silence of design” [25], representing the fundamental idea of establishing a place’s meaning.

In a more contemporary reflection, Rose notes that identity is shaped through a place that is “infused with meaning and feeling” [26] (p. 88), a concept that represents the “sense of place”. This term is frequently employed to depict urban identity and underscores the importance of spatial attributes and societal wellbeing.

In a more recent discourse, the concept has become closely associated with the notion of “placeness,” often defining “urban identity” as “place identity” [3]. This definition regards urban identity as a manifestation of a place’s distinctive characteristics and materialities. The concept of place-identity further encompasses a “set of meanings associated with any particular cultural landscape which any particular person or group of people draws on in the construction of their own personal or social identities.” [27] (p. 6). Consequently, we can perceive place identity as an all-encompassing reflection of a place’s impact on an individual’s identity.

A unique perspective on the concept of placeness, termed “the understanding of place,” asserts that comprehending a place requires the use of various techniques and investigations, focusing on “space, nature, and time” as key factors [28] in [29] (p. 1). On the other hand, another view posits that place is a human environment filled with significant meanings and social concerns, converging to form “meanings, activities, and a landscape.” This perspective further elaborates that these elements interrelate, emphasising that “place is more than just a location” [30] (p. 37).

One comprehensive definition of the concept comes from famous environmental psychologists Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff. It states, “Built environment undoubtedly influences how city dwellers define themselves within society. Place identity is, after all, a part of self-identity. Place identity grows out of direct experience with the physical environment. It therefore reflects the social, cultural, and ethnic aspects of place. At the same time, it is central to a person’s well-being in that it helps maintain self-identity and facilitates adaptation to changing circumstances.” [31] apud [32] (p. 59).

City authorities and reports, even decades later, underscore the importance of societal well-being by characterising urban identity as a “descriptive norm” that illuminates the relationship between place and people [3].

Recent trends in urban identity research consistently emphasise the mutual relationship between humans and place [11]. However, given the predominance of social, sociological, and psychological studies, there is a tendency to perceive urban identity as an exclusively “socially constructed” phenomenon. Edward Relph argues that “meanings of places may be rooted in the physical settings, objects and activities, but they are not a property of them—rather they are a property of human intentions and experiences” [19] (p. 47). This underscores the mutual relationship between space and humans, referred to as the sense of place or spirituality of place [3]. Aligning with this viewpoint, one perspective suggests that an individual is not separate from their place, but rather, they are that place [33]. Reinforcing this idea, another perspective asserts that identity claims us wherever we have a relation to being [34]. Consequently, the relationship between the self and the other in the urban context is crucial in shaping urban identity. However, this relationship is not limited to social constructs but is also influenced by the environment and the elements and activities within it [11].

From an urbanism perspective, we argue that this concept framing is limited and neglects the role of the urban environment and its components in shaping urban identity. Moreover, it is evident that these studies restrict the context of “place” to a small urban scale, seldom extending beyond the neighbourhood level. In this regard, we contend that neither of the previous defining ideas of “urban identity” comprehensively represents the concept. Additionally, equating “urban identity” with “place identity” is problematic. We argue that “place identity” can only represent urban identity at a small spatial scale, where identity is predominantly socially constructed. To counter this narrow view, we believe it is essential to consider the spatial scale as a critical factor in defining urban identity and to differentiate between “outsideness and insideness observers” according to the scale of the studied area. In turn, this will lead to diverse experiences, perspectives, and recognitions. Another limitation in the definitions of urban identity is disregarding its dynamic nature, despite acknowledging it as a process. Studies often analyse urban identity at a specific point in time; therefore, we argue that urban identity is in a constant state of change, and our analyses should focus mainly on tracking this change and its direction over time.

Relationships between people and place, between the place and its elements, and between the elements themselves all contribute to urban identity [3]. To fully comprehend urban identity, it is imperative to consider not only the social constructions but also the impact of the urban environment, spatial scale, and the extent and direction of change over time. Thus, we should approach urban identity as a dynamic, multi-faceted, and contextualised phenomenon shaped by both social and physical elements.

Suppose we are to add one more definition to the list of urban identity definitions. In that case, we say, “Urban identity is the collective and dynamic representation of the relationship between individuals, their physical and social surroundings, and the cultural and historical context in urban environments over different spatial scales, temporal layers and the changing perspectives and experiences of those who occupy and engage with these spaces.”

In conclusion, studying urban identity necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationships between humans, their environment, and the various components that shape their experiences. By acknowledging urban identity’s dynamic and context-dependent nature, researchers and urban planners can better address the complexities inherent in urban environments and contribute to creating more inclusive, adaptive, and meaningful spaces.

3.2. History of Urban Identity

The studies on identity started as philosophical and psychological debates focusing on the person’s understanding of himself [35]. Studies linking the identity concept to the surrounding urban environment began in the 1960s [5]. The majority of these works concentrated on how a person’s identity was affected by the place they lived in, which researchers referred to as “place identity” and “self-identity” [1]. Marco Lalli notes limitations with psychology research on “place identity,” such as a lack of measuring tools, disparate theoretical underpinnings and formulations, and a dearth of empirical studies [5]. Over time, researchers proposed several theories on place and identity, including the “identity process theory”, “social identity theory”, and “place identity theory” [36,37]. The place identity theory, first introduced by [31,38], focuses on the role of the environment in shaping a person’s self. Despite its prominence in environmental psychology, its lack of structure and process details received a lot of criticism [5,36]. In contrast, social identity theory highlights a person’s sense of belonging but ignores the built environment [17,36].

Identity process theory, introduced by [39,40], explores the connection between the urban environment and identity formation. This theory suggests that our attachment to certain symbols and components in the urban environment significantly shapes identity [36,41]. The four main elements of identity according to this theory are: “continuity, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and distinctiveness” [17] (p. 205).

We can understand that the research on identity and its relation to the place started in the psychology and environmental psychology field. Despite eager attempts to comprehend the relationship between place and people, these studies emphasised the effect of place on the self [5]. In this sense, studies confined the concept of the place to include the home, workplace, or, at most, the neighbourhood [1,42]. Here we can say that environmental psychology researchers did not merely consider the spatial scale of the urban environment while the focus was mainly on subjective and social factors of urban identity [1,32]. However, these studies paved the way to understanding that shaping identity is a process and an interrelationship between people and place. As the physical urban environment around us contributes to shaping our identities, we contribute equally to shaping this urban environment’s identity.

In the field of urbanism, the study of urban identity has shifted its focus toward the built environment and heritage, giving rise to a diverse range of theories and perspectives for examining the question of urban identity. In particular, historical value has been seen as a crucial element in shaping the identities of cities [13]. Famous architect Rem Koolhaas criticised this trend from a historical point of view. He stated that what is considered historical now will seem trivial in the long-term future of the city [15]. This perspective aligns with other studies that view the identity of a city as a continuous and cumulative result of various social, demographic, economic, and environmental changes throughout its history [14].

The concept of the character of a place, sometimes referred to as the “genius loci” or “spirit of place”, has gained prominence in discussions of urban identity. Reflecting on the character of a place can provide insight into the needs and rights of citizens living in heritage sites and help guide decision makers and designers in preserving the character of the place. Researchers often saw genius loci as the root of the “sense of place” [43]. In his famous book “Space and Place”, Tuan argued that the meaning of space and place are interrelated and that as people become more familiar with and assign value to a space, it transforms into a place [44]. He defined places as centres that satisfy biological needs and that people attribute value to [44]. The term “place” gained prominence in the 1970s among humanistic researchers in architecture and geography [45], and was the subject of works on the existence of a “genius loci” [9,24], “sense of place”, and “placelessness” [19], and on emotional attachments to a location [44,46,47], dubbed “topophilia” [36]. The terms “insideness” and “outsideness” were used by Relph and Tuan to describe people’s sentiments of belonging to a place. While Tuan described the sense of place as a positive feeling of a place and rootedness as a feeling at home [46], Relph emphasised the need for an authentic experience of the identity of places [19,29]. Despite the numerous studies on these concepts, the term “place” still has strong connotations and is difficult to replace.

The genius loci, for humanist geographers, does not signify a tutelary spirit, but rather, it denotes the essential character of a place that distinguishes it from others and makes it liveable [9,19,43]. Further, a viewpoint contends that our comprehension of city space connects deeply with memory, with images playing a pivotal role in this process. However, this process might be deceptive as it involves personal emotions, allowing the observer to construct their subjective spatiality or conception of place [48].

Studies on urban identity, character of place, genius loci, and spirit of place have realised that cities reflect the human societies that occupy them. These societies differ in their political, social, environmental, and economic conditions, as well as their spiritual, cultural, and historical needs [49]. As a result, each city’s natural end is to be a unique and unrepeatable event [6]. However, as a humanitarian product, the city itself is in a perpetual state of change, where communities and their conditions are constantly changing over time [50]. As a natural consequence of this condition of perpetual change, temporary identities are created, each expressing a historical epoch represented by a temporal layer [10]. The proper sequence of these layers is to be stacked progressively on top of one another, not for one layer to remove or erase another so that it forms a tangible spatiotemporal structure within the physical formation of the city [51]. In other words, every city is a story whose events, connected and sequenced logically, create meaning. Thus, the city is transformed into a network of interconnected and compounded loops that are difficult to dismantle and provide us with an intense feeling of time [49].

The concept of urban identity proves to be more complex since it links not only with physical heritage (material/tangible heritage) but also with other non-physical factors, such as popular knowledge, traditions, memories, historical and religious celebrations, landscape value, among others (intangible heritage) [52]. As a whole, cultural heritage tends to create an urban identity for the rest of the city and the surrounding neighbourhoods [13,53,54,55,56]. In this sense, “balance, rational progress, recognising the past without causing any social disruption and without upsetting the references that allow the link between man and the place in which he lives to survive” [57] (p. 107) is essential. Urban identity studies have evolved beyond solely focusing on heritage, exploring comprehensive and multidisciplinary approaches that consider time as a crucial factor in both the past and the future. We will discuss these new trends in a subsequent section.

3.3. Urban Identity Components

In the urban sphere, city and place identity have garnered considerable attention from numerous architects and urban planners, who have proposed various definitions from distinct perspectives. All definitions emphasise that a unique blend of subjective and objective factors distinguishes one city from another [4,9]. These factors include physical structure, social life, culture, emotional aspects, memory, natural elements, and climate [3]. Determinants such as geographical location, spatial shape, and their relationship with human-made components crucially shape urban identity [24]. We characterise a place based on features including location, relationship with urban form, various aspects, specific environments, spaces with particular characteristics, colours, structures, sounds, smells, temperature, wind movement, and the presence of distinct social groups engaged in particular activities [37,58]. The significance of physical form and the interaction between the physical environment and its context also come to the forefront, with social environments, lifestyles, and cultural meanings being reflected in buildings and urban spaces. Thus, the physical shape of a city ascends to one of the most crucial cultural expressions of a community [59].

In essence, every city element inherently contributes to its identity. Therefore, attempting to enumerate every detailed component of urban identity would be futile. Some studies have focused on components that distinguish a city within a specific scope, such as cultural landscape or urban heritage [12,52,60]. Other researchers propose a general classification of these elements into three main categories: natural, human, and human made [61,62]. This simple classification encompasses a comprehensive set of urban identity elements mentioned in seminal works by Kevin Lynch, Edward Relph, and other researchers [18,19,63]. Relph posited that identity consists of three interconnected components: (a) physical attributes, both natural and man made, (b) activities, including events and functional patterns, and (c) meanings and symbols, formed through user experiences and interactions within a place [19]. Drawing on Relph’s study, ref. [64] classified elements affecting a user’s perception of a place into three categories: (a) forms, (b) activities, and (c) images [12]. While terminological differences exist, we can distil previous categorisations of urban identity components into two fundamental dimensions. The first dimension, the material aspect, encompasses directly perceptible elements such as tangible, visual, audible, and olfactory values corresponding to the physical environment. The second dimension, the immaterial aspect, relates to non-visible perceptual factors underlying visible ones, primarily influenced by our experiences in various urban spaces. See Figure 1.

These factors contribute to identity formation not by superseding one another but by mutually supporting each other [9,61]. The critical aspect lies in establishing a connection between these factors, whether direct or indirect, tangible or imperceptible. The intellectual relationships between these factors and the connection between physical structure, socio-cultural, memory, and nature are crucial in shaping a place’s identity [19]. Each social group differentiates the identity of their urban environment, which they inhabit, from the rest of the city [65]. This distinction primarily results from their unique lifestyles and interactions with urban spaces.

Despite the importance of this relationship in forming the place’s identity, it is not enough to understand the overall concept. We must add a fourth dimension to the common three-dimensional physical analysis, “the time” [28,29]. The city is a human reality, where both “city and man” are in a process of continuous change over time [49,50,66]. The mental image is a double process between the observer and the object and is always changing. The old city seems to be the perfect space to fuel this process of identity-making since its enduring recalls the observer of its own ephemeral condition [48].

3.4. Urban Identity Framework

Contrary to other social sciences, urban planning extends its focus beyond the city’s social structure. It encompasses the urban environment’s physical structure, which is influenced by a diverse spectrum of factors, including social ones. In the previous sections, we have comprehensively understood the concept of urban identity within various social sciences fields. In this section, we will concentrate on the study of urban identity within the field of urbanism, including its theories and practices. While current research does not yet offer comprehensive assessment methodologies for urban identity, it does form a robust foundation for creating such methodologies. In this regard, we have identified three major trends in the study of urban identity:

3.4.1. Spatial Scale Matters

One primary critique of urban identity studies in social sciences is the confinement of the concept of “place” to the home, workplace, or, at most, the neighbourhood [5,42]. We can argue that the spatial scale of the urban environment has been overlooked, with a primary focus on the subjective and social factors of urban identity [1,32].

Urban identity is a multi-faceted concept encompassing physical, cultural, and social attributes characterising a city or urban area. Within the built environment, urban identity manifests differently at varying spatial levels, resulting in diverse recognitions [3,42]. This underscores the importance of contextualising urban identity according to the referenced scale [7]. Urban identities function as “informative norms”, striving for distinctiveness and fostering relationships across all spatial scales [11].

Contextualising urban identities in multiple, interconnected levels helps clarify their function across various urban planning contexts [42]. In his book “Identity of Cities and City of Identities”, Ali Cheshmehzangi emphasises the importance of the scale of a studied area and proposes a scale division into four primary levels [3].

We can explain the four primary levels as follows:

1.

The Global Outlook or “Global Level”: At its broadest level, it represents an overarching aspect of urban identities. This level is characterised by the recognition and perception of a specific city or environment on a global scale. While design details may not be emphasised at this level, it is essential to note that social concerns still shape a city’s or urban environment’s global outlook.

2.

The Urban setting or “Macro level”: In this level, we differentiate a specific area or region from others through its unique features or characteristics, which may be specific to a particular part of the city, while still maintaining its connection with other parts. This level helps to define the urban area’s character and image and plays an essential role in shaping the overall urban identity of a city or region.

3.

The Environmental framework or “Medium Level”: Frequently expressed as “place identity”, encompasses relationships between people and places. These relationships are not individualised but positioned within an extensive framework. Moreover, it offers a structured context for connecting individuals and locations.

4.

The personal perspective or “Micro level”: Also referred to as the Personal Scale, represents the most intricate and particular dimension of urban identity. This level concentrates on an individual’s perception of a place or city, with urban identities at this level being highly diverse and subjective. These identities vary across cultures, locations, experiences, and individuals. The Micro Level embodies the most individualised form of urban identity, offering a distinct insight into personal relationships between people and places. This level plays a crucial role in shaping the overall experience of an urban environment, as it mirrors the unique perspectives and experiences of individuals within the urban context.

In conclusion, taking into account the spatial scale is of paramount importance in the study of urban identity. This consideration enables a more refined comprehension of the physical, cultural, and social attributes that contribute to the identity of a city or urban area, as well as the relationships between distinct neighbourhoods and regions. By contextualising urban identities at various levels, we can achieve a more profound understanding of the roles these identities play in urban design.

3.4.2. The Role of the Observer

The study of urban identity involves a complex interplay of various physical, social, cultural, and historical elements, and the role of the observer cannot be underestimated [7]. In the context of urban identity, the observer refers to the individual or group responsible for conducting research, collecting data, and making assessments.

In his book “Place and Placelessness”, Relph introduces the concept of urban identity as the “essence of place” and raises the crucial question, “The essence for whom?” [19]. The identity of an urban environment is experienced differently by different people and communities, such as residents, tourists, politicians, or planners. It depends on whether it is an inside or an outside observation [19]. He further suggested that a city can have multiple identities, depending on who is observing it. However, this viewpoint was challenged, with emphasis placed on the need for in-depth investigations and strategies centred around “nature, space, and time” as pivotal factors in understanding place identity [28]. Aligning with the approach of valuing subjective perspectives, the idea that place identity stems from a set of meanings drawn from the urban cultural landscape, which can differ between individuals or groups, was put forward [27].

In the 1960s, Lynch introduced another approach to conceptualising urban identity in his book “The Image of the City.” In it, he described how individuals form mental maps of the city based on five distinct features—pathways, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks—and how they perceive and interact with the built environment, which defines the city’s image. For Lynch, identity was a subjective element that formed the place’s image, and he identified “identity, structure, and meaning” as the three main components shaping it. He emphasised the importance of the spatial environment and structures as objective factors in forming the environmental image while underlining identity as subjective, and its meaning as a relationship between people and the place.

The process of generating meaning depends on both the visualisation of the image as an individual outlook, and on a mental reflection that combines subjective and objective components drawn from life experiences, memories, and sensations [21].

The role of the observer in studying and assessing urban identity is a complex and multi-faceted topic, with different perspectives and theories presented by various authors. While some emphasise the importance of considering the observer’s perspective [19], others emphasise the need for in-depth investigations based on objective factors [28]. Regardless, all of these authors agree that the observer plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of urban identity.

3.4.3. Time, Urban Memory, and Urban Identity as a Dynamic Transitional Concept

Urban identity is shaped and reshaped by time and is influenced by the events, memories, and experiences of its inhabitants and visitors. For this reason, it is essential to focus on the evolution of urban identity over time and understand the factors contributing to its change. This evolution can be positive or negative, and it is crucial to recognise and evaluate these changes to gain a comprehensive understanding of urban identity [48,50]. One of the most critical factors in the formation and evolution of urban identity is the role of urban memory. Researchers defined Urban memory as the collective memory of a city and its inhabitants, which is formed and maintained through sharing experiences and events over time [67]. It is a dynamic process constantly being reshaped by new experiences and events and plays a crucial role in shaping urban identity [48].

The study of urban memory is essential in understanding the impact of history and past events on the formation and evolution of urban identity. For example, the physical and cultural remnants of a city’s past, such as its architecture and monuments, play a significant role in shaping its collective memory and, therefore, its identity. Additionally, how a city’s inhabitants remember and interpret past events and experiences contributes to forming urban identity [48].

Multiple factors take part in forming identity; one is not superior to others, with the different characteristics supporting each other simultaneously [9,61]. The essential aspect is creating a link between these factors, whether direct or indirect, tangible or imperceptible. The intellectual relationships formed between these factors and the connection between physical structure, socio-cultural aspects, memory, and nature are critical in forming the place’s identity [19]. The well-known architect Christopher Alexander highlights that every social group distinguishes the identity of the urban environment they inhabit from the rest of the city, which is mainly an outcome of each specific lifestyle and its relation with urban space [65].

Despite the importance of this relationship in forming the place’s identity, it is nevertheless not enough to understand the overall concept, as a fourth dimension must be added to the common three-dimensional physical analysis: time [28,29]. The city is a human reality where a continuous process of change is happening [49].

Additionally, the city possesses multi-dimensional memory layers that go as far into the future as they do into the past, reflecting the current reality in an unmistakably distinct shape and character [49,67]. This makes the city’s architectural, social, and physical shape palpable and intelligible as a history of events [50,67]. In other words, the timeline demonstrates how the city evolved as a consequence of a series of events. The process of establishing a city’s identity is primarily and directly related to the component of time. Identity is a process, not a “discovered item” [6,68] (Figure 2).

In this sense, we can see that the attempts to assess urban identity through measuring factors and components will only give us a momentary result. Understanding that identity formation is a process forces us to assess it that way logically. We can do this by studying it periodically, measuring the change throughout these periods, and assessing its direction, whether positive or negative

3.5. Previous Methodologies

Researchers have conducted limited studies on developing an applied methodology for assessing urban identity. A literature search on Scopus and Web of Science using keywords such as “Measuring urban identity”, “Assessing urban identity”, “Evaluating urban identity”, or any other combination resulted in a maximum of five articles: Oktay and Bala [51], Ziyaee [12], Erdoğan and Ayataç [69], Jang and Kim [70], and Jokar et al. [71].

In our research on the subject, we also considered the work of Lalli [5], which presents the earliest attempt at reaching an applied methodology in academic research on urban identity subject.

Lalli [5] primarily relied on residents’ opinions in his assessment of urban identity and emphasised the scale of the case study. Although he recognised the importance of the scale in assessing identity, his focus was on “place identity” rather than urban identity as a whole. The elements of urban identity assessment vary depending on the study scale, and some elements that are crucial on a small scale may lose importance on a larger scale. However, Lalli’s study represents one of the first efforts to measure and evaluate urban identity. It highlights the potential for such an assessment, even though it relies heavily on subjective criteria and neglects objective criteria.

Further, Erdoğan and Ayataç [69] presented a study measuring a public square’s urban identity, adopting objective and subjective criteria. Despite the authors’ efforts, their study is limited in scope and only assesses “local identity” or “place identity” rather than urban identity.

Oktay and Bala [51] developed the first methodology for studying urban identity on a large scale, the city as a metropolitan area, based on both objective and subjective criteria. The study considered both the opinions of researchers and the population and used questionnaires in addition to objective analysis. However, the study only focused on one scale and failed to consider the dynamic nature of urban identity and its changes over time.

Ziyaee [12] assessed urban identity through a matrix of cultural landscapes, considering a wide range of factors, including subjective, objective, material, immaterial, tangible, and intangible factors. The study provides a comprehensive view of the factors affecting urban identity but does not offer a methodology for effectively using these factors in a comprehensive assessment. Additionally, the study presents urban identity as a static object rather than a process, ignoring changes over time.

Jang and Kim [70] approached urban identity assessment differently, relying on cognitive mapping based on crowd-sourced text data from social media. This methodology provides a new perspective on urban identity, but it confines the concept of urban identity to its image and lacks a theoretical background. Furthermore, it does not consider changes over time or different scales.

Lastly, Jokar et al. [71] conducted a study to guide the development of residential neighbourhoods to create a stronger sense of identity. Like previous studies, this study focused on a small scale, with the subject being “local identity,” and lacked a comprehensive methodology for assessing urban identity on a larger scale.

Table 1. Previous methodologies for the assessment of urban identity.

Study	Pros	Cons
Lalli [5]	Highlighted the importance of scale in assessing urban identity.	Relied heavily on the subjective criteria and neglected the objective criteria.
Erdoğan and Ayataç [69]	Adopted objective and subjective criteria. Presented important points about the factors associated with identity, such as historical values, topography, and geography.	Very small scale. No comprehensive assessment of the topic.
Oktay and Bala [51]	Presented the first methodology for studying urban identity based on objective and subjective criteria. Took into account both the opinions of researchers and the population.	The study focused on only one scale. The lack of focus on the phase changes of the city’s identity over time. Gives the impression that the identity is static.
Ziyaee [12]	The most comprehensive idea about the factors affecting urban identity. Subjective, objective, material, immaterial, tangible, and intangible factors were all addressed.	Do not provide a methodological approach to effectively use these factors in assessing urban identity comprehensively; the case study provided was on small scales of urban environments.
Jang and Kim [70]	A novel methodology to tackle the subject using cognitive mapping based on crowd-sourced text data from social media focusing on intangible and subjective criteria.	Minimising the concept of urban identity to its image. The lack of theoretical background on the subject. No specific scales, periodical changes.
Jokar et al. [71]	Taking the future aspect into the identity subject.	One small scale. One observer. No periodical changes in assessment. Do not provide a comprehensive assessment of identity.

provides a summary of these methodologies and their strong and weak aspects.

4. Results

In light of the previous discussion on urban identity and the different approaches taken in understanding and evaluating the identity of cities, we can identify the main pillars in understanding and studying urban identity as follows.

I.

The spatial scale of the case study: In this approach, we need to divide the studied city into different scales to facilitate the evaluation of urban identity and obtain a clear idea of the main components that should be analysed. At each scale, the components affecting urban identity are different. For example, at the metropolitan scale, the social component’s effect on urban identity is much lower than at the neighbourhood scale.

II.

The time period: We cannot assume that we can study urban identity without dividing it into different periods, where the changes that happened in each period are assessed distinctively from the previous ones to spot the irregular changes that might distort identity. After all, the city is a cumulative result of different time layers. What is essential in this aspect is that each layer builds on the previous ones instead of abolishing and erasing them.

III.

The observer: Taking into consideration the previous two aspects in studying urban identity, it is evident that we will obtain different results when studying them according to the viewpoint of the observer. An urban planner will have a different viewpoint and assessment than a resident or a tourist (Figure 3).

The explanation of the three notions mentioned is as follows:

(A) 

On the notion of spatial scale: Several studies highlighted the importance of the spatial scale of the urban environment in assessing urban identity. Researchers criticised previous works in environmental psychology for focusing solely on the neighbourhood, home, and workplace scales [1,5]. More recent studies emphasised the importance of the spatial scale of the studied urban environment. The ones of particular importance are [3,42]. In their assessment of place attachment and place identity, ref. [42] implemented it on different scales. The spatial scale differentiation in this study pertained to the city size, with cities divided into “large”, “medium”, and “small sized”. On the other hand, ref. [3] proposed a completely different spatial division where each city, despite its size, is divided into four main scales described in the literature review above. Another important notion in the study of ref. [42] is that the subjective impressions of individuals vary according to scale.

In our proposal for a methodological approach, we believe that the spatial division approach presented in ref. [3] can give us a more inclusive understanding and assessment of the city’s urban identity. However, we are proposing a division that is more spatially oriented to the city as follows:

a.

Metropolitan area.

b.

City centre.

c.

Neighbourhood.

d.

Street or public space.

(B) 

On the notion of the time period: Treating the city as a static 3D dimensional structure minimises the possibility of conceptualising its identity. Furthermore, focusing solely on heritage and preservation of historical sites narrows the concept of identity [15]. Time is a critical factor in studying and understanding urban identity. Many researchers emphasised that the identity of the city is a process happening over time in the shape of overlapping layers of temporal identities [10,14,41,68]. The city’s identity is not static, it is changing by the also changing context of the city [6].

This leads us to include time as a central pillar in our methodological approach to studying and assessing urban identity. As each city has specific milestones in its urban growth and formation, we propose that studies conceptualise any city’s identity by dividing their approach into different periods of time. This allows us to track the changes happening to the city’s identity, which may be positive and enhance the sense of identity or might be negative and lead the city towards losing its identity “with an intervention to mitigate this loss becoming opportune”. Thus, we can emphasise that what really matters in assessing urban identity is measuring this change and its direction more than quantifiably measuring the static state of the components affiliated with urban identity.

(C) 

On the notion of the observer: We can call this the perceptual dimension of urban identity or the person’s mental mapping of the city. The most famous work on this topic is perhaps the work of Lynch, in which he defined the environmental image and its relationship to identity as a mental analysis of all the city’s components, reflected in how we utilise and access our cities. Furthermore, Relph stressed the necessity of distinguishing between several types of city observers [19]. He is concerned with cultures’ perceptions of place identity, recognising that various groups and societies have varying interests and knowledge of place identities. A city’s identity may vary according to who lives in its slums, minority districts, and suburbs, as well as according to planners and a number of prominent members [19]. He used the phrases “insideness” and “outsideness” to refer to the state of perceiving a place from the outside and the inside. The traveller or tourist may look at the city from a distance, but from the inside, a person experiences the place that surrounds them as a part of it. This division into internal and external constitutes a simple but essential duality, one of which is central to our experience of the lived space, while the other expresses the essence of the place.

In the work of [72], this approach was validated by obtaining different results of place attachment and identity among native and non-native residents in the city. Hernandez’s [72] work focused on subjectively measuring the sense of identity and place attachment based on the participant’s answers. In this sense, we propose that each study on urban identity, to give a more inclusive insight, is supposed to study the city in question from the point of view of different observers. This will allow us to get a detailed cognitive mapping of the city.

In this sense, we propose to take each study of urban identity from the point of view of two inside observers who are native and non-native residents of the city and two outside observers who are tourists and urban planners.

4.1. Analysing the Components of Urban Identity

Upon reviewing previous research, we have determined that the components of urban identity are multi-faceted, yet they primarily fall under two fundamental dimensions: the material and the immaterial. These dimensions encompass a myriad of elements, rendering it impossible to compile a definitive list suitable and applicable for every city or a large number of urban environments.

Researchers have conducted a substantial number of studies on the subject of urban identity components. The majority have neglected the variances in these components within a single city, depending on the study’s scale. For instance, it becomes evident that, as the scale of the study expands, the impact of social factors on urban identity minimises, allowing physical and natural factors to assume a more significant role in identity formation [3]. Consequently, given the foundational role of scale in shaping our methodology for evaluating urban identity, it is crucial for us to categorise the components of urban identity spatially according to the scale, incorporating both their material and immaterial dimensions. In the subsequent section, we will present this categorisation while ensuring that the proposed components remain applicable to a diverse range of cities or urban settings, allowing us to employ the methodology across multiple case studies.

(A) The Material Dimension

Urban identity is a complex concept encompassing both physical and emotional elements. The material dimension of urban identity consists of visual elements constituting the urban space, including geographical location, natural features, territorial boundaries, regional characteristics, vegetation cover, and climatic conditions. These factors contribute to forming a mental image of the city for individuals. Urban morphology, such as settlement formation, spatial style, street layout, building blocks, public spaces, squares, parks, and gardens, constitute key components of the physical environment.

Various theories and studies facilitate the analysis of the material dimension of urban identity. For instance, ref. [18] examines the physical properties related to identity elements and city structure within the mental image, identifying components such as roads, edges, sectors, nodes, and distinctive features. Christopher Alexander presents a unique perspective by investigating cities, buildings, and urbanism through 253 specific patterns, each representing a common problem in the urban environment [65]. In his book “The Architecture of the City”, Rossi regards urban morphology as an art form, illustrating human-created urban forms and recommends using disciplines such as urban geography, topography, and architecture for analysis [73]. Topographical and morphological elements of urban space, such as streets and squares, serve as essential components of the urban environment [74]. The relationship between urban assembly and landscape also significantly influences urban identity formation [75]. In addition, although we criticised that most studies of urban identity focused mainly on heritage and historical value, we cannot deny the importance of this aspect in shaping urban identity. Cities distinguished by their historical and archaeological features often possess a well-defined urban identity, with history being a primary component. Some cities have established their image and meaning in people’s minds through their historical identity. Preserving these historical values is crucial for sustaining their urban identity. The European Urban Charter (1992) emphasises the importance of urban heritage in preserving the memory, identity, and sense of community in cities.

In conclusion, a range of physical elements, encompassing geographical location, urban morphology, and the relationship between urban assembly and landscape, influence urban identity’s material dimension. The aforementioned theories and studies provide valuable insights into the factors contributing to urban identity formation. They can be employed to devise an effective list of material factors affecting urban identity. Considering the study’s scale, we can reach a more comprehensive division within the scope of these factors, making our methodology more dynamic, still generalised, and applicable to different case studies.

Table 2. The material dimension of the urban identity and its factors.

Factors	Metropolitan Scale	City Centre Scale	Neighbourhood Scale	Street/Public Space Scale
Geographical location	Regional positioning in relation to neighbouring cities and natural features	Location within the metropolitan area, proximity to key city features	Location within the city centre, proximity to local amenities	Position on the street grid, relationship to nearby public spaces and landmarks
Natural features	Large-scale landscape elements (mountains, rivers, forests)	City parks, waterfronts, and prominent natural features	Green spaces, community gardens, and smaller natural features	Street trees, planters, and micro-scale natural features
Territorial boundaries	Overall city limits and administrative borders	Boundaries of central business districts, historical centres, or key city zones	Boundaries of residential, commercial, or mixed-use areas	Edges and transitions between different types of public spaces, building frontages, and land uses
Regional characteristics	Unique aspects differentiating the city from other metropolitan areas (climate, culture, architecture)	Distinct architectural styles, cultural institutions, and urban patterns in the city centre	Local cultural, architectural, and demographic characteristics of neighbourhoods	Specific design elements, materials, or cultural references at the street or public space level
Vegetation cover	Distribution of green spaces and natural areas throughout the metropolitan region	Presence and distribution of parks, gardens, and green spaces within the city centre	Community parks, gardens, and other green spaces within neighbourhoods	Street trees, planters, and greenery integrated into the design of streets and public spaces
Climatic conditions	Prevailing weather patterns and conditions affecting the entire metropolitan area	Microclimate influences due to the density and arrangement of buildings in the city centre	Localised climatic conditions within neighbourhoods, influenced by vegetation and building patterns	Microclimate influences at the street or public space level, such as wind patterns or sun exposure
Urban morphology	Macro-scale layout and design of the metropolitan area, including major transportation networks and land uses	Spatial organisation of the city centre, including major streets, public spaces, and building arrangements	Layout and design of neighbourhoods, including street patterns, building types, and land uses	Spatial layout and design of individual streets or public spaces, including street furniture and amenities
Historical and Archaeological Characteristics	Investigates the broad historical and archaeological narratives and landmarks of the city	Assesses the city centre’s specific historical narratives and archaeological sites	Examines historical narratives and archaeological remnants specific to the neighbourhood	Looks at historical narratives and archaeological features tied to specific streets or public spaces

presents a summary of these factors and complement the components presented in Figure 1 and provides a spatially scaled division of these components.

(B) The Immaterial Dimension

The interplay between individuals’ activities and actions, and their influence on lifestyles and the built environment, is crucial in defining a city’s identity. Cities known for specific activities or sectors often derive their unique identity from these features, with the population’s primary income source frequently resulting from their economic dependence on these activities. Characterising a city by its functions sheds light on its urban identity, as inhabitants earn their livelihood through these activities. Some people may rely on these activities for their entire lives, whereas others may diversify their income sources over time.

Edward Relph posits that the meaning of places is rooted in both physical location and elements, activities, as well as human aspirations and experiences [19]. Consequently, the meaning of a city may vary according to its residents’ social, cultural, and historical values, which significantly impact both the people and urban space. The urban fabric is an organisation of space, time, meaning, and connection, categorising meanings in the urban context into high level, medium level, and low level [58].

Cultural heritage, encompassing both tangible and intangible elements, plays a pivotal role in the immaterial dimension of urban identity. It bridges the past, present, and future, fostering social cohesion and engendering a sense of belonging among city inhabitants [12]. Consequently, preserving and promoting cultural heritage is vital for maintaining a city’s unique identity (European Urban Charter, 1992). Cultural and traditional activities within a city reflect the community’s meanings and values, with social relationships, special rituals, and festivals in public urban spaces serving as vital indicators of the city’s identity. Lynch identifies events and their identity as the “sense of occasion,” which manifests in special ceremonies and large rituals that strengthen each other to construct a living present [76]. The religious beliefs and activities of the community also contribute to shaping the external features of urban identity.

Decisions concerning urban formation and functions significantly impact a city’s identity. A distinct and respected character allows for a strong identity of the place that is not only framed in the past but also incorporates the role of urban identity in shaping the future of urban environments. Urban identity shall be evaluated through two dimensions, focusing on the transformation of urban identity, its challenges, and its potentials. Being social factors in nature, trying to divide these factors further according to the scale risks the applicability of this methodology to different case studies. Therefore, applying the proposed methodology shall study all these factors leaving the division of these factors to the researcher in accordance with what suits the case study.

Based on previous studies, a summary of the immaterial factors influencing urban identity is presented in

Table 3. The immaterial dimension of the urban identity and its factors.

Factors	Description
Social and cultural values	Investigates the shared social norms, cultural practices, and community beliefs that shape the identity of the city. These values often significantly impact both the people and urban space.
Meaning in Urban content	Evaluates the symbolic significance and perceived meanings of spaces within the city, including how physical elements, activities, human aspirations, and experiences shape these meanings. Understanding these meanings can vary greatly based on individual and collective interpretations.
Cultural activities	Cultural activities that reflect the community’s meanings and values, including social relationships, special rituals, and festivals in public urban spaces, serving as vital indicators of the city’s identity.
Economic activities	Assesses the dominant industries and sectors that fuel the city’s economy, including the main commercial and business activities prevalent within it. Evaluates how inhabitants earn their livelihood and the extent to which they rely on these activities.
Cultural Heritage	Examines the city’s collective cultural practices, rituals, and celebrations. These practices contribute to the city’s identity, serving as vital indicators of it.
Religious Beliefs and Activities	Studies the dominant religions and religious practices in the city. The religious beliefs and activities of the community contribute to shaping the external features of urban identity.

which complements the components presented in Figure 1.

4.2. Data Collection and Assessment Criteria

The primary objective of our methodology, as discussed earlier, is not the quantitative evaluation of urban identity. Instead, we designed a methodology to assess changes in urban identity over time, distinguishing whether these shifts are positive or negative. We aim to propose strategic interventions for future city planning that amplify the positive aspects of these changes while mitigating the negative ones.

We can identify three states of urban identity in this context based on the findings of the literature review:

Stable Urban Identity: This type boasts a robust and enduring sense of identity, allowing easy distinction of the city or neighbourhood by its defining features. These features accurately mirror the local community and the urban environment’s inherent natural, cultural, environmental, and social challenges. Residents here exhibit strong ties to the place and share a collective consciousness of its history, culture, and values.

Fragmented Urban Identity: Here, urban identity appears unclear or inconsistent. Rapid, disruptive changes blur the urban identity, particularly if these alterations fail to mirror the community’s ethos. Residents might struggle to identify what embodies their city or neighbourhood, resulting in a weakened sense of place.

Lost Urban Identity: In this state, urban identity has altered so drastically that it no longer aligns with the ongoing social, cultural, and environmental changes. Consequently, the city or neighbourhood loses its distinctiveness. Residents may feel disconnected from the area, and the locality’s history and culture may fade or undergo radical transformations. Influences like aggressive development and modernisation, significant migration, or cataclysmic events such as wars or natural disasters can contribute to this loss. Recreating or redefining the local identity in such cases often demands considerable effort concerning the place’s history, culture, and social values.

Our proposed methodology, through consistent assessment of the fundamental components of urban identity (both material and immaterial dimensions), allows us to ascertain the state of urban identity across different time periods. Should the identity shift from a stable state to a fragmented or erased one, such a transition is deemed negative. In this scenario, we can enact measures to mitigate these impacts and guide future developments toward a positive trajectory. The data collection process in this process will vary depending on the scale and the observer of the study. We propose conducting more objective-oriented analyses on larger scales, while more subjective ones fit the study of smaller scales.

The following data collection methods can be employed:

Archival Research: Examine historical documents, photographs, maps, and plans can provide valuable insights into the urban identity of different periods. This can reveal changes in architectural style, land use, and the layout of public spaces, among other things.

Spatial Analysis: Employ Geographic Information System (GIS) tools to analyse spatial data at various scales. This could involve studying the layout and connectivity of streets, land use patterns, density of built environments, distribution of natural features, and more.

Surveys and Questionnaires: We can use them to gather data on residents’ perceptions of urban identity. Questions could cover residents’ sense of belonging, perceptions of architectural and natural features, and views on changes over time.

Semi-structured Interviews: In-depth conversations with local stakeholders, including residents, urban planners, architects, historians, merchants, businessmen from cities, social and non-governmental organisations, and local government officials, can offer rich qualitative data on changes in urban identity. They may provide insight into reasons for certain changes, responses to them, and future aspirations.

Observation and Fieldwork: Physically visiting sites allows researchers to observe the built environment and human behaviour within it, enhancing understanding of the current urban identity. This could involve taking photographs, sketching, and noting important features and activities.

Focus Groups: Small discussion groups can effectively delve deeper into the community’s perceptions of urban identity, identifying common themes and differing viewpoints.

Content Analysis: Review and analyse local media (news articles, blogs, social media) to understand public perception and discourse about changes in urban identity over time.

Table 4. Data collection methods by observer and urban scale.

	Metropolitan Scale	City Centre Scale	Neighbourhood Scale	Street/Public Space Scale
Urban Planners	Spatial analysis (GIS), Archival research, Observation and Fieldwork, Content Analysis	Spatial analysis (GIS), Archival research, Observation and Fieldwork, Content Analysis	Observation and Fieldwork, Surveys and Questionnaires	Detailed fieldwork (use of space, people–environment interactions, built environment characteristics), Surveys and Questionnaires
Native Residents	Surveys, Questionnaires	Surveys, Question-naires, Focus group discussions	Surveys, Questionnaires, Semi-structured interviews	Surveys, Questionnaires, Semi-structured interviews
Non-native Residents	Surveys, Questionnaires	Surveys, Question-naires, Focus group discussions	Surveys, Questionnaires, Semi-structured interviews	Surveys, Questionnaires, Semi-structured interviews
Tourists	Observation, Surveys, Questionnaires, Content Analysis	Observation, Surveys, Questionnaires, Content Analysis	Observation, Surveys, Questionnaires, Content Analysis	Surveys, Questionnaires, Semi-structured interviews

presents an organised summary of the methodologies used for each observer type across the four urban scales of analysis.

4.3. Summary

The methodology proposed herein is a complex and multifaceted approach aimed at comprehending and assessing urban identity. This summary provides a comprehensive analysis of the essential elements, their respective contributions to the overarching framework, and the underlying reasoning behind these selections.

The methodology employed in this study places considerable emphasis on the spatial scale of the case study. This approach facilitates the analysis of the city by dividing it into distinct scales, such as the metropolitan area, city centre, neighbourhood, and street/public space. This acknowledges the diversity of factors influencing urban identity at various levels, enabling a more intricate and spatially focused comprehension.

The inclusion of the time period enables the examination of shifts in urban identity over time, acknowledging the city as an amalgamation of distinct temporal strata. By dividing the urban identity into distinct time periods, the methodology enables the observation of transitions and modifications, highlighting the dynamic nature of urban identity rather than offering a static analysis.

The methodology also considers the role of the observer and places emphasis on incorporating multiple perspectives, including those of native residents, non-native residents, tourists, and urban planners. By acknowledging the potential divergence of perspectives among various stakeholders, a comprehensive comprehension of urban identity could be achieved, thereby facilitating a more thorough cognitive representation of the city.

Another crucial aspect is the definition of the components of urban identity within two dimensions, material and immaterial, and categorising them spatially according to scale. This complex categorisation provides a comprehensive overview of urban identity, including physical elements like urban morphology and immaterial factors like cultural heritage.

The methodology incorporates a range of data collection and assessment criteria, including Spatial Analysis, Surveys, and Focus Groups. It also classifies urban identity into three distinct states: Stable, Fragmented, and Lost. We believe that this approach could enable a comprehensive comprehension of shifts in urban identity, with the objective of suggesting tactical interventions to emphasise favourable transformations and alleviate unfavourable ones. The implementation of a diversified data collection approach facilitates a comprehensive and scalable comprehension of urban identity.

In the proposed methodology we aimed to present a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to the examination of urban identity. The incorporation of spatial scale, observer, and time period, within the framework acknowledges the intricate, evolving, and diverse characteristics inherent in urban identity. The inclusion of diverse spatial scales enhances the comprehension of how distinct elements influence urban identity across multiple levels. The emphasis on diverse observers guarantees an encompassing and comprehensive viewpoint, acknowledging the varied interpretations of urban identity. The incorporation of temporal dimensions offers valuable perspectives on the development and alteration of urban identity, underscoring its dynamic and ever-changing nature.

Moreover, the categorisation into tangible and intangible aspects aims to provide a comprehensive perspective on the diverse elements that contribute to the formation of urban identity. The methodology has been developed with data collection and assessment criteria that are specifically designed to enable a comprehensive and practical analysis. As a result, we believe that it is well suited for application in diverse urban contexts and at different scales.

A summary of our methodology is depicted in Figure 4. It includes four subdivisions in the scale dimension and another four in the observer’s dimension, leading to sixteen studies conducted across different scales and perspectives to provide a comprehensive status of urban identity.

To implement the proposed methodology effectively, researchers are advised to commence by selecting a singular spatial scale from those delineated within the methodology. Subsequently, they should adopt a specific observer’s perspective, as outlined in the methodological framework. A crucial subsequent phase involves pinpointing the key temporal milestones characterising the city’s urban evolution. Armed with this temporal delineation, the investigator can then delve into a thorough analysis of both the material and immaterial facets of urban identity, as systematically categorised within this methodology. Drawing on the data collection techniques specified within the methodological framework will enrich this exploration.

Upon analysis, the emergent results should be systematically categorised into one of the three distinct states of urban identity delineated within the methodology. Should the trajectory of urban identity evolution exhibit positive trends, an intervention framework should be instituted to bolster and perpetuate these developments. Conversely, if the trajectory reflects adverse shifts, corrective measures should be introduced via a framework designed to mitigate these undesirable changes.

For a more comprehensive and multifaceted understanding, researchers are encouraged to replicate this assessment across varied spatial scales pertaining to the case study, while also integrating diverse observer perspectives. This iterative approach can lead to a holistic appraisal of urban identity, enriching the depth and breadth of insights garnered.

In conclusion, we hope that this methodology can contribute significantly to the field of urban studies by providing a versatile, scalable, and in-depth framework for understanding and evaluating urban identity. We aimed for it to reflect an integrated understanding of the complex interactions between spatial, perceptual, temporal, and material/immaterial aspects of urban life, aiming to guide future urban planning and development in a responsive and informed manner.

5. Discussion

Urban identity research often remains theoretical, with limited practical methodologies. This study intends to address this shortcoming. Our assessment indicates that despite advancements in theories related to urban identity, a comprehensive approach for its measurement and understanding remains a challenge. Existing research often sidesteps the physical aspects of urban identity in favour of a socially constructed viewpoint. This study intends to address these shortcomings.

From our research, three primary orientations emerge as crucial for evaluating urban identity: spatial scale, the observer, and temporal dynamics. Recognising these factors helps urban planners make more grounded decisions.

Addressing these identified gaps, we have developed an assessment methodology that combines these key factors into a cohesive framework. This method examines urban identity through its three major dimensions and offers subdivisions within each, facilitating detailed analyses. Our methodology categorises urban identity into states such as “stable,” “fragmented,” and “lost,” providing planners insights into the current status of an urban area’s identity and potential interventions.

Our method emphasises the continuous nature of urban identity, promoting periodic assessments. This allows for necessary adjustments and ensures that urban planning aligns with evolving city identities, prioritising areas such as social cohesion, environmental care, and cultural sensitivity.

However, we understand our methodology’s limitations. While it offers a general framework for various cities, there is an acceptance that every city’s unique circumstances must be considered. Even if conditions are not universally identical for all cities, the methodology accounts for each city’s uniqueness, aiming to produce comparable results.

While it may appear that this approach does not ensure equal conditions for comparing results across different cities, it does provide equity by acknowledging that each city has unique circumstances. Customised studies allow for the most appropriate analysis of each city according to its circumstances, ultimately yielding comparable results.

To sum up, this research presents a dynamic method for understanding and evaluating urban identity. Future validation with diverse case studies will enhance its applicability, but we anticipate it will offer valuable guidance for urban development fostering more equitable, sustainable, and resilient cities in the face of pressing global challenges.

6. Conclusions

Through a thorough analysis of literature on urban identity, this research provides a clearer understanding of its multifaceted nature, offering a new definition that captures its holistic and dynamic character. Conventional methods often limit urban identity to a static representation, overlooking its dynamic nature. This study promotes a comprehensive evaluation of urban identity over time, taking into account spatial scales, observer perspectives, and temporal elements.

The introduced methodology incorporates various scales and perspectives to better understand urban identity. It offers urban planners, researchers, and policymakers an integrated way to assess urban identity’s current status and historical development. This method goes beyond quantification, aiding in identifying urban development opportunities that enhance resilience and adaptability to challenges like climate change, socio-economic disparities, and public safety.

This methodology is not just about recognising city uniqueness. It is about creating sustainable, resilient cities that acknowledge their socio-economic, natural, and cultural uniqueness. By emphasising urban identity, the approach helps address ongoing global challenges.

Urban identity’s dynamic nature is central to this study, suggesting new ways to gauge its shifts and transformations and posits urban identity as a pivotal lens through which cities can adapt, evolve, and sustain themselves in a rapidly changing world. This is achieved by leveraging diverse data collection methods, providing insights that can influence policy and strategic decisions. By recognising urban identity’s fluid and dynamic character, we believe that communities also can utilise this approach to harness their unique socio-cultural narratives and historical contexts, thus fostering urban environments that are not only resilient but also deeply connected to their inhabitants.

However, this research has its limitations. Applying the methodology across various urban contexts might necessitate adjustments and may not capture every nuance, given the broad scope of urban identity. This calls for ongoing refinement to enhance its feasibility and efficiency.

The methodology in this study offers a valuable framework for urban studies, highlighting the relationship between different facets of urban life. This is not just a theoretical proposition; it aims to guide urban planning with clarity. It offers a perspective that helps understand current urban identities and anticipate potential changes. By recognising the distinctive attributes of cities, it suggests a direction for urban development in line with social, cultural, and environmental underpinnings, promoting more vibrant urban communities. Overall, this research provides a tool to help guide cities towards sustainable futures that uphold their unique identities while fostering adaptability.

Future Studies

Applied studies on urban identity, in general, are scarce. Hence, future research should prioritise bridging this chasm between theoretical and empirical research. We perceive this methodology as an initial stride towards achieving this aim. In addition, our next step, will be conducting subsequent research in a chosen city and develop a template to guide other academics and residents how to apply this research on urban identity to their own city.

In formulating this methodology, we addressed numerous significant concerns that warrant more exhaustive examination and emphasis. For instance, we can underscore the pivotal role of time in studying urban identity and the imperative need to apply the concept of identity to shape the future of cities rather than merely preserving the past.

Due to the complexity of this work, applying it to various case studies is crucial to illuminate its strengths and potential pitfalls. In our subsequent research on the subject, we intend to apply this methodological approach to a chosen city. Moreover, extending this methodology to other case studies will significantly supplement the applied research on urban identity, thereby enriching the discourse in this field.