The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Characterising urban concentration and land-use diversity in simulations of future land use

Open Access
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

This paper presents two sets of functional indicators that were implemented and tested for the assessment of spatial aspects of future land-use configurations as simulated by a land-use model. This is potentially useful for the ex-ante evaluation of spatial planning policies. The indicators were applied in a Dutch case study and relate to two important themes in Dutch spatial planning: compact urbanisation and mixing of land uses. After a short introduction of these themes, the sets of indicators are presented which are used for their evaluation. These indicators are applied to simulations based on two scenarios for land-use development in the Netherlands up to 2030. After a discussion of the results we conclude that the combined application of land-use models and indicators produces new and potentially useful information for policy makers, although both the model and the associated indicators are still in a state of development.

JEL Classification

C15 C53 R14 R52 

References

  1. Agarwal C, Green GM, Grove JM, Evans TP, Schweik CM (2002) A review and assessment of land-use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice. Gen Tech Rep NE-297, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Newtown Square, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen E (2001) INDEX: Software for community indicators. In: Brail RK, Klosterman RE (eds) Planning supporting systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redlands, pp 229–261Google Scholar
  3. Baumgärtner S (2004) Measuring the diversity of what? And for what purpose? A conceptual comparison of ecological and economic measures of biodiversity. Interdisciplinary Institute for Environmental Economics, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  4. Boyce RR, Clark WA (1964) The concept of shape in geography. Geogr Rev 54:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brueckner JK (2000) Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. Int Region Sci Revi 23:160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Nijs T, Crommentuijn L, Farjon H, Leneman H, Ligtvoet W, de Niet R, Schotten K (2002) Vier scenario’s van het Landgebruik in 2030, Achtergrondrapport bij de Nationale Natuurverkenning 2. RIVM-rapport 408764 003, RIVM, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  7. de Nijs TCM, de Niet R, Crommentuijn L (2004) Constructing land-use maps of the Netherlands in 2030. J Environ Manage 72:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dieleman FM, Dijst MJ, Split T (1999) Planning the compact city: the Randstad Holland experience. Euro Plann Stud 7(5):605–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frenkel A (2004) The potential effect of national growth management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland. Land Use Policy 21(4):357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geurs KT, van Wee B (2006) Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands. Urban Stud 43(1):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glaeser E, Kahn M (2004) Sprawl and urban growth. In: Henderson V, Thisse JF (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics: cities and geography. Handbooks in economics, vol 4. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Guerois M (2003) Les formes des villes européennes vues du ciel, Une contribution de l’image CORINE à la comparaison morphologique des grandes villes d’Europe occidentale, Thèse, Université Paris I Pantheon-SorbonneGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hall P (1998) Cities in Civilization. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hilferink M, Rietveld P (1999) Land Use Scanner: an integrated GIS based model for long term projections of land use in urban and rural areas. J Geogr Syst 1(2):155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaeger J (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Lands Ecol 15(2):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jenerete GD, Wu J (2001) Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Lands Ecol 16:611–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnston RJ, Voas D, Poulsen MF (2003) Measuring spatial concentration: the use of threshold profiles. Environ Plann B 30:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klosterman RE (1999) The What-If ? collaborative planning support system, Environ Plann B. 26:393–408Google Scholar
  20. Koole B, Luijt J, Voskuilen MJ (2001) Grondmarkt en grondgebruik—Een scenariostudie voor Natuurverkenning 2, Werkdocument 2001—212, Landbouw-Economisch Instituut, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  21. Koomen E, Kuhlman T, Groen J, Bouwman A (2005a) Simulating the future of agricultural land use in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96(2):218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koomen E, Kuhlman T, Loonen W, Ritsema van Eck J (2005b) De Ruimtescanner in ‘Ruimte voor landbouw’; data- en modelaanpassingen, Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  23. Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (2007) Modelling land-use change; progress and applications, GeoJournal Library, vol. 90. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  24. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Longley PA, Mesev V (2000) On the measurement and generalization of urban form. Environ Plann A, 32:473–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton university press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. McGarigal K (2002) Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics, vol 2. Wiley Sussex, pp 1135–1142Google Scholar
  28. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Medda F (2000) The assembled city. Ph.D. thesis, Thela Thesis, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. MNP (2002) Nationale Natuurverkenning 2, 2000–2030, Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau/Kluwer, Alphen aan de RijnGoogle Scholar
  31. Nagendra H, Munroe DK, Southworth J (2004) Introduction to the special issue; from pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NAI (2004), Exposition ‘Hybrid Landscapes’, Schalkwijkse kom, Nederlands Architectuur Instituut http://www.nai.nl/pagpdfs/hybride_schalkwijk.pdf, last accessed: 22 June 2005Google Scholar
  33. O’Neill RV, Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Jones KB (1999) Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment. Ecosyst Health 5(4):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. RNP (1958) De ontwikkeling van het Westen des Lands, Rijksdienst voor het Nationale Plan, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  35. Scholten HJ, van de Velde R, Rietveld P, Hilferink M (1999) Spatial information infrastructure for scenario planning: the development of a land use planner for Holland. In: Stillwell J, Geertman S, Openshaw S (eds) Geographical information and planning, Springer, Berlin, pp 112–134Google Scholar
  36. Schotten CGJ, Goetgeluk R, Hilferink M, Rietveld P, Scholten HJ (2001) Residential construction, land use and the environment. Simulations for the Netherlands using a GIS-based land use model. Environ Model Assess 6:133–143Google Scholar
  37. Selkirk KE (1982) Pattern and place an introduction to the mathematics of geography. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Solecki WD, Oliveri C (2004) Downscaling climate change scenarios in an urban land use change model. J Environ Manage 72:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Song Y, Knaap G (2004) Measuring urban form: is Portland winning the war on sprawl? J Am Plann Assoc 70(2):210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Statistics Netherlands (1996): land use registration 1996 (CBS Bodemstatistiek 1996). Voorburg: CBSGoogle Scholar
  41. Thinh NX, Arlt G, Heber B, Hennersdorf J, Lehmann I (2002) Evaluation of urban land-use structures with a view to sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev 22:475–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Patt Process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. V&B (1960) Nota inzake de ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Bouwnijverheid staatsdrukkerij en uitgeverijbedrijf, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  45. V&RO (1966) Tweede Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke ordening, Staatsuitgeverij, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  46. V&RO (1977) Derde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening (verstedelijkingsnota), Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke ordening, Staatsuitgeverij, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  47. van Dam F, Bijlsma L, van Leeuwen M, Pálsdottir HL (2005) De Landstad, landelijk wonen in de netwerkstad. NISR/NAI, The Hague/RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Editorial; Predicting land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Kok K, de Koning GHJ, Priess J, Bergsma AR (2001) The need for scale sensitive approaches in spatially explicit land use change modelling. Environ Model Assess 6:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Verburg PH, Chen YQ (2000) Multiscale characterization of land-use patterns in China. Ecosyst 3:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verburg PH, Veldkamp A (2004) Projecting land-use transitions at forest fringes in the Philippines at two spatial scales, Lands Ecol 19:77–98Google Scholar
  52. Verburg PH, Veldkamp A (2005) Introduction to the Special Issue on Spatial modeling to explore land use dynamics. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 19 2:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A (2004) Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities, GeoJ 61:309–324Google Scholar
  54. Vreeker R, de Groot HLF, Verhoef ET (2004) Urban multifunctional land use: theoretical and empirical insights on economies of scale, scope and diversity. Built Environ 30(4):289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. VROM (1989) Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke ordening en Milieubeheer, SDU uitgeverij, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  56. VROM/LNV/V&W/EZ (2004) Nota Ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. Ministeries van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Verkeer en Waterstaat en Economische zaken, SDU uitgeverij, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang X, Lo CP (2003) Modelling urban growth and landscape changes in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 17(5):463–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for Spatial ResearchThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations