| Literature DB >> 35457661 |
Sutian Duan1, Zhiyong Shen1, Xiao Luo1.
Abstract
As the relationship between the built environment and the sense of human experience becomes increasingly important, emotional geography has begun to focus on sentiments in space and time and improving the quality of urban construction from the perspective of public emotion and mental health. While youth is a powerful force in urban construction, there are no studies on the relationship between urban youth sentiments and the built environment. With the development of the Internet, social media has provided a large source of data for the metrics of youth sentiment. Based on data from more than 10,000 geolocated Sina Weibo comments posted over one week (from 19 to 25 July 2021) in Shanghai and using a machine learning algorithm for attention mechanism, this study calculates the sentiment label and sentiment intensity of each comment. Ten elements in five aspects were selected to assess the built environment at different scales and also to explore the correlations between built environment elements and sentiment intensity at different scales. The study finds that the overall sentiment of Shanghai youth tends to be negative. Sentiment intensity is significantly associated with most built environment elements at smaller scales. Urban youth have a higher proportion of both happy and sad sentiments, within which sad sentiments are more closely related to the built environment and are significantly related to all built environment elements. This study uses a deep learning algorithm to improve the accuracy of sentiment classification and confirms that the built environment has a great impact on sentiment. This research can help cities develop built environment optimization measures and policies to create positive emotional environments and enhance the well-being of urban youth.Entities:
Keywords: Weibo comments; built environment; machine learning; sentiment; youth
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35457661 PMCID: PMC9027732 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19084794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Age distribution of Weibo users.
Summary of previous studies.
| Researchers | Built Environment Evaluation Elements | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Env. | Land Use | Road Traffic | Eco-Space | Public Service | |
| Lin et al. [ | Population density, Deviation index of employment and residence | Buses available | Green rate | Diversity of public facilities | |
| Lv et al. [ | Population density | Urban spatial structure | Bus station density, Street height to width ratio | Green view rate | |
| Xie et al. [ | Job–housing relationship | Land use intensity | Residents’ travel behavior | ||
| Xu et al. [ | Soundscape | ||||
| Long et al. [ | Street crossing facilities, Motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle isolation, Walkway width | Street greening | Street facilities | ||
| Leslie [ | Land use | Traffic safety, Street connectivity, Traffic flow | Green rate | Infrastructure | |
| Ettema [ | Attractiveness | Accessibility, Traffic safety | Facilities | ||
| Ewing [ | Land use | Accessibility | Green rate | ||
| Yuan [ | Population density | Land use degree, Land type, Residential land ratio | Bus station density, Density of road network, Intersection density | Green rate | |
| Wang et al. [ | Land use degree | Density of road network, Buses available | Density of public service | ||
Example of Weibo comments.
| ID | Time | Longitude | Latitude | Weibo Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19 July | 121.4861 | 31.23672 | Chinese Comments: ‘好久不更博,最近把微博给忘了’. |
| 2 | 19 July | 121.4422 | 31.22382 | Chinese Comments: ‘失踪人口回归’. |
| 3 | 19 July | 121.4446 | 31.22577 | Chinese Comments: ‘吃六个带两个回家,上海限定豫园奶昔也太好喝’. |
Figure 2Distribution of Weibo check-in points in Shanghai.
Figure 3The sentiment classification algorithm framework.
Figure 4Baseline module [64].
Figure 5Multi-loss constraint framework.
Figure 6Reanalysis module.
Model evaluation of sentiment analysis.
| Method | Score (Acc %) |
|---|---|
| FastText | 0.639 |
| TextCNN | 0.657 |
| TextRCNN | 0.645 |
| Transformer | 0.650 |
|
|
|
Figure 7Sentiment classification distribution.
Results of sentiment classification.
| District | Sentiment Label | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Happy | Surprise | Neutral | Angry | Sad | Fear | Total | |
| Huangpu | 380 | 32 | 649 | 182 | 301 | 0 | 1544 |
| Yangpu | 84 | 12 | 145 | 62 | 83 | 0 | 386 |
| Hongkou | 77 | 8 | 137 | 41 | 70 | 0 | 333 |
| Jingan | 222 | 13 | 292 | 107 | 155 | 0 | 789 |
| Putuo | 107 | 3 | 136 | 67 | 83 | 1 | 397 |
| Changning | 131 | 9 | 166 | 58 | 113 | 0 | 477 |
| Xuhui | 245 | 14 | 314 | 134 | 167 | 2 | 876 |
| Chongming | 22 | 1 | 25 | 14 | 10 | 0 | 72 |
| Fengxian | 54 | 4 | 67 | 27 | 31 | 0 | 183 |
| Qingpu | 154 | 8 | 252 | 64 | 85 | 0 | 563 |
| Songjiang | 154 | 6 | 200 | 94 | 131 | 1 | 586 |
| Jinshan | 29 | 1 | 34 | 23 | 33 | 0 | 120 |
| Pudong | 684 | 48 | 900 | 370 | 516 | 4 | 2522 |
| Jiading | 131 | 8 | 131 | 74 | 111 | 1 | 456 |
| Baoshan | 122 | 10 | 133 | 80 | 108 | 0 | 453 |
| Minhang | 310 | 22 | 419 | 152 | 256 | 0 | 1159 |
| Total | 2906 | 199 | 4000 | 1549 | 2253 | 9 | 10,916 |
Figure 8Proportion of positive sentiment.
Sentiment intensity.
| District | Happy | Surprise | Angry | Sad | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Huangpu | 0.78 | 0.45 | −0.09 | 0.90 | 1.19 | 0.97 | −0.58 | 0.90 |
| Yangpu | 0.71 | 0.44 | −0.17 | 0.31 | 1.06 | 0.90 | −0.64 | 0.74 |
| Hongkou | 0.78 | 0.51 | −0.38 | 0.23 | 1.27 | 0.73 | −0.61 | 1.09 |
| Jingan | 0.70 | 0.52 | −0.35 | 0.40 | 1.24 | 0.80 | −0.54 | 0.93 |
| Putuo | 0.71 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 1.06 | 0.83 | −0.45 | 0.92 |
| Changning | 0.71 | 0.43 | −0.11 | 0.77 | 1.10 | 0.85 | −0.55 | 0.96 |
| Xuhui | 0.74 | 0.43 | −0.07 | 0.78 | 1.15 | 0.87 | −0.52 | 1.02 |
| Minhang | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.09 | 0.72 | 1.33 | 0.88 | −0.67 | 0.89 |
| Fengxian | 0.80 | 0.64 | −0.50 | 0.25 | 1.19 | 0.97 | −0.77 | 0.50 |
| Qingpu | 0.75 | 0.43 | −0.13 | 0.61 | 1.09 | 0.99 | −0.42 | 1.16 |
| Songjiang | 0.69 | 0.54 | 1.17 | 0.47 | 1.35 | 0.55 | −0.73 | 0.86 |
| Jinshan | 0.72 | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 0.63 | −0.33 | 1.19 |
| Pudong | 0.69 | 0.54 | −0.31 | 0.67 | 1.19 | 0.81 | −0.65 | 0.87 |
| Jiading | 0.77 | 0.50 | −0.50 | 0.50 | 1.05 | 0.92 | −0.46 | 1.08 |
| Baoshan | 0.81 | 0.46 | −0.10 | 0.09 | 1.14 | 0.82 | −0.65 | 0.86 |
| Chongming | 0.73 | 0.38 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.93 | 1.07 | −0.30 | 1.01 |
Built environment elements.
| District | Land Use Degree | Job–Housing Relationship | Road Network (km/km2) | Transportation Station | Green Rate | Shopping Facilities | Food Services | Entertainment Facilities | Medical Services | Exercise Facilities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huangpu | 0.52 | 1.32 | 17.86 | 1.32 | 0.14 | 694.03 | 230.7 | 29.7 | 44.85 | 25.85 |
| Yangpu | 0.65 | 0.56 | 13.77 | 0.45 | 0.11 | 207.49 | 99.56 | 14.02 | 23.29 | 11.69 |
| Hongkou | 0.53 | 0.67 | 17.05 | 0.77 | 0.1 | 362.53 | 159 | 20.34 | 39.36 | 20.08 |
| Jingan | 0.67 | 1.01 | 16.55 | 0.71 | 0.12 | 508.99 | 183.57 | 21.09 | 40.19 | 21.28 |
| Putuo | 0.71 | 0.61 | 15.76 | 0.4 | 0.24 | 243.69 | 96.37 | 13.12 | 20.85 | 12.31 |
| Changning | 0.68 | 0.90 | 16.81 | 0.48 | 0.31 | 248.88 | 122.44 | 16.64 | 32.07 | 17.26 |
| Xuhui | 0.63 | 1.07 | 16.27 | 0.63 | 0.22 | 232.15 | 114.84 | 14.79 | 24.8 | 17.09 |
| Minhang | 0.74 | 0.51 | 6.73 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 66.06 | 31.01 | 4.36 | 4.65 | 3.53 |
| Fengxian | 0.76 | 0.37 | 3.94 | 0.15 | 0.47 | 21.1 | 6.25 | 1.11 | 1.38 | 0.47 |
| Qingpu | 0.74 | 0.40 | 3.88 | 0.15 | 0.41 | 19.15 | 6.77 | 0.76 | 1.15 | 0.54 |
| Songjiang | 0.74 | 0.35 | 5.15 | 0.17 | 0.42 | 30.36 | 13.94 | 2.05 | 2.03 | 1.22 |
| Jinshan | 0.64 | 0.43 | 4.04 | 0.21 | 0.54 | 15.28 | 4.74 | 0.86 | 1.1 | 0.35 |
| Pudong | 0.84 | 0.53 | 6.08 | 0.18 | 0.31 | 44.35 | 18.49 | 2.37 | 3.46 | 2.05 |
| Jiading | 0.77 | 0.41 | 5.8 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 41.49 | 16.15 | 1.95 | 2.74 | 1.32 |
| Baoshan | 0.78 | 0.30 | 6.67 | 0.13 | 0.55 | 72.46 | 27.9 | 3.8 | 4.69 | 2.64 |
| Chongming | 0.77 | 0.41 | 2.9 | 0.13 | 0.62 | 4.04 | 0.78 | 0.49 | 0.34 | 0.1 |
Correlation between public sentiment intensity and built environment (scale: district).
| Built Environment | Happy | Surprise | Angry | Sad |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use Degree | 0.207 | −0.143 | 0.132 | −0.238 |
| Job–housing | 0.261 | −0.590 * | −0.106 | −0.135 |
| Road Network | −0.292 | 0.462 | −0.036 | 0.016 |
| Transportation | −0.168 | 0.436 | 0.061 | 0.042 |
| Green Rate | −0.013 | −0.559 * | 0.03 | 0.051 |
| Shopping Facilities | −0.162 | 0.402 | 0.055 | −0.003 |
| Food Services | −0.198 | 0.413 | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Entertainment | −0.225 | 0.424 | 0.033 | −0.003 |
| Medical Services | −0.205 | 0.37 | −0.003 | 0.034 |
| Exercise Facilities | −0.234 | 0.436 | 0.016 | 0.04 |
* Significant at the 0.05 level.
Correlation between public sentiment intensity and built environment (scale: 500 m × 500 m).
| Built Environment | Happy | Surprise | Angry | Sad |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land Use Degree | 0.014 * | 0.076 ** | −0.034 ** | −0.052 ** |
| Job–housing | −0.003 | −0.012 | 0.007 | 0.021 ** |
| Road Network | −0.044 ** | −0.212 ** | 0.102 ** | 0.166 ** |
| Transportation | −0.003 | −0.103 ** | 0.034 ** | 0.074 ** |
| Green Rate | 0.018 ** | 0.161 ** | −0.078 ** | −0.131 ** |
| Shopping Facilities | −0.052 ** | −0.217 ** | 0.090 ** | 0.150 ** |
| Food Services | −0.080 ** | −0.282 ** | 0.107 ** | 0.221 ** |
| Entertainment | −0.064 ** | −0.242 ** | 0.106 ** | 0.194 ** |
| Medical Services | −0.071 ** | −0.197 ** | 0.085 ** | 0.150 ** |
| Exercise Facilities | −0.053 ** | −0.268 ** | 0.117 ** | 0.205 ** |
** Significant at the 0.01 level, * significant at the 0.05 level.