## 2 Study Area
### District-Level Socio-Economic Growth Analysis  
The socio-economic development in different districts of Wuhan from 2012 to 2020 highlights the variability in growth patterns across the city. The districts analyzed include Caidian, Dongxihu, Hanyang, Hongshan, Jiang'an, Jianghan, Jiangxia, Qiaokou, Qingshan, and Wuchang. Key socio-economic variables such as GDP, government revenue, gross output construction, and population density were examined for percent growth during this period. Dongxihu district experienced the highest GDP growth at 17.44%, followed by Wuchang at 16.30%. In contrast, the Caidian and Hanyang districts saw relatively lower GDP growth rates of 2.52% and 2.80%, respectively as shown in Table 1. This significant variation in GDP growth reflects the differing economic activities and development policies implemented across the districts. In terms of government revenue, Wuchang district again showed the highest growth at 17.63%, indicating strong fiscal performance and possibly effective tax collection and economic policies. On the other hand, Caidian was the only district with a negative growth \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Districts** & **Caidian** & **Dongxihu** & **Hanyang** & **Hongshan** & **Jiang/an** & **Jiangshan** & **Jiangxia** & **Qiaokou** & **Qingsshan** & **Wuchang** \\ \hline GDP & 2.52 & 17.44 & 2.80 & 9.17 & 13.33 & 13.81 & 8.69 & 8.32 & 7.62 & 16.30 \\ \hline Government & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.53\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{7.49} & \multirow{2}{*}{14.17} & \multirow{2}{*}{14.58} & \multirow{2}{*}{11.57} & \multirow{2}{*}{15.89} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.09} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.25} & \multirow{2}{*}{8.86} & \multirow{2}{*}{17.63} \\ Revenue & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Gross output & \multirow{2}{*}{2.15} & \multirow{2}{*}{8.07} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.97} & \multirow{2}{*}{31.93} & \multirow{2}{*}{10.13} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.04} & \multirow{2}{*}{6.18} & \multirow{2}{*}{5.94} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.54} & \multirow{2}{*}{22.06} \\ of construction & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Population density & \multirow{2}{*}{0.92} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.71} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.86} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.34\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-16.84\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{32.98} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.57} & \multirow{2}{*}{25.11} & \multirow{2}{*}{13.34} & \multirow{2}{*}{40.70} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Percentage growths in key socio-economic variables in different districts of Wuhan from 2012 to 2020 [34] sourced from ([[https://ij.wiuhan.gov.cn/ijfw//jinj/](https://ij.wiuhan.gov.cn/ijfw//jinj/)]([https://ij.wiuhan.gov.cn/ijfw//jinj/](https://ij.wiuhan.gov.cn/ijfw//jinj/))) obtained at 20 April 2025. Figure 1: Comprehensive urban analysis of Wuhan using GHSL Data. Top left: Administrative map of China with Hubei province highlighted. Below, a map contrasts Wuhan city (highlighted in light blue) against the broader Hubei province (in blue). On the right side, a building height map of Wuhan obtained from GHSL’s Global Settlement Characteristics (10 m) 2018 (P2023A) [36] is categorized into five classes from less than 3 m to over 30 m. This map displays data for the nominal year 2018, representing the specific GHSL product version available and utilized as an independent reference for comparison against PSInSAR results in this study. rate of \(-0.53\%\), which could be due to various factors, including economic downturns or reduced investment in the area. Hongshan district saw a substantial increase in gross output construction at 31.93%, reflecting significant infrastructure development. This suggests a focus on expanding urban infrastructure and building projects in Hongshan. In contrast, Qingshan had the lowest growth rate at 1.54%, which might indicate slower construction activity or a different developmental focus in that district. Population density changes also varied significantly across the districts.