English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In growing cities, the evolution of urban form is partially motivated in principle by travel distance benefits. Evidence from travel data can support the categorisation of activity organisation as monocentric, polycentric or dispersed. We consider centricity measures at a fine geographical scale for Sydney, Australia using two data sets: Census journey-to-work transit data and commute trips from Opal transit smartcards. Only a few top-order centres are detected, and there is a significant level of dispersed activity in areas that are not centres. Further, most top-order centres that are detected are clustered spatially. Thus, we find that a comparison of the data sets does not support the polycentric model but instead a legacy monocentric model combined with dispersal.

Defining urban centres using alternative data sets