Advertisement

Sustainable Planning for Peri-urban Landscapes

  • Daniele La Rosa
  • Davide Geneletti
  • Marcin Spyra
  • Christian Albert
  • Christine Fürst
Chapter

Abstract

Urban systems keep growing worldwide with different intensities and characters. As a direct consequence, peripheries increase in number, typologies, and complexity, and their growth is highly dependent on local territorial and socioeconomic conditions. Particularly in peri-urban areas, landscapes underwent fast socioeconomic transitions that have deeply modified their territorial assets and land uses. Forests, agricultural and seminatural areas in peri-urban contexts have been affected by processes of urban developments that heavily modify the provision of ecosystem services. Urban development has produced discontinuous and low-density patterns so that outside the main city, the landscape is characterized by a strong fragmentation of farmlands, forests, seminatural areas, and strong mixes of urban and non-urban land uses.

Planning approaches are required to deal with complex drivers of urban and landscape development to achieve a sustainable growth of peri-urban landscapes and maintain the current provision of ecosystem services. This chapter outlines the main characteristics of peri-urban landscapes and introduces a set of planning topics, solutions, and approaches that are under the lens of current applied research of sustainable planning. Examples from recent literature of such approaches are presented, along with a discussion about their potentials, uncertainties, limitations, and trade-offs about the usability and effectiveness in reaching a better level of sustainability.

Keywords

Planning Peri-urban Sustainability Urban agriculture Nature-based solutions 

References

  1. Aguiar MR, Sala OE (1999) Patch structure, dynamics and implications for the functioning of arid ecosystems. Trends Ecosyst Evol 14:273–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahaiblame L, Engel B, Chaubey I (2012) Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(7):4253–4273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P (2014) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc Ecol 29:1277–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen A (2003) Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives and emerging field. Environ Urban 15:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Soft spaces, planning and emerging practices of territorial governance. In: Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Soft spaces in Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge, London, pp 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aquino FL, Gainza X (2014) Understanding density in an uneven city, Santiago de Chile: implications for social and environmental sustainability. Sustain Basel 6:5876–5897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aubry C, Ramamonjiso J, Dabat MH, Rakotoariso J, Rakotondraib J, Rabehariso L (2012) Urban agriculture and land use in cities: an approach with the multi-functionality and sustainability concepts in the case of Antananarivo (Madagascar). Land Use Policy 29:429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker DC, Sipe NG, Gleeson BJ (2006) Performance-based planning: perspectives from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. J Plan Educ Res 25(4):396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbedo J, Miguez JM, van der Horst D, Marins M (2014) Enhancing ecosystem services for flood mitigation: a conservation strategy for peri-urban landscapes? Ecol Soc 19(2):54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benis K, Ferrão P (2017) Potential mitigation of the environmental impacts of food systems through urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA)–a life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 140:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benjamin K, Bouchard A, Domon G (2007) Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: an analysis of perceptions and representations. Land Urban Plan 83:228–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berke PR, Conroy MM (2000) Are we planning for sustainable development? J Am Plann Assoc 66(1):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourne LS (2000) Living on the edge: conditions of marginality in the Canadian urban system. In: Lithwick H, Gradus Y (eds) Developing frontier cities, the GeoJournal Library. Springer, Netherlands, pp 77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carruthers J, Vias AC (2005) Urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl in the Rocky Mountain West: evidence from regional adjustment models. J Reg Sci 45(1):21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cash C (2014) Towards achieving resilience at the rural–urban fringe: the case of Jamestown, South Africa. Urban Forum 25(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark JK, Munroe DK (2013) The relational geography of peri-urban farmer adaptation. J Rural Community Dev 8(3):15–28Google Scholar
  17. Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (2016) Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Commission of the European Communities (2006) Thematic strategy for soil protection. www.ec.europa.eu/environment/soil. Accessed 10 May 2017
  19. Conedera M, Del Biaggio M, Seeland K, Moretti M, Home R (2015) Residents’ preferences and use of urban and peri-urban green spaces in a Swiss mountainous region of the Southern Alps. Urban For Urban Gree 14:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coppola A (2004) An economic perspective on land abandonment processes. Paper presented at the AVEC Workshop on Effects of land abandonment and global change on plant and animal communities, 11–13 Oct 2004, Anacapri, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  21. Dai D (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene? Landsc Urban Plan 102:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deelstra T, Girardet H (2000) Urban agriculture and sustainable cities. In: Bakker N, Dubbeling M, Gundel S, Sabel-Koschela U, de Zeeuw H (eds) Growing cities, growing food: urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Deutsche Stiftung fur Internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Feldafing, pp 43–65Google Scholar
  24. Dijkstra L, Poelman H (2008) Remote rural regions: how proximity to a city influences the performance of rural regions. In: COM—Commission of the European Communities (ed) Regional policy 1/2008. European Commission, Brussels, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  25. Donadieu P (1998) Les Campagnes Urbaines. Actes Sud, ArlesGoogle Scholar
  26. Dorning MA, Koch J, Shoemaker DA, Meentemeyer RK (2015) Simulating urbanization scenarios reveals tradeoffs between conservation planning strategies. Landsc Urban Plan 136:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DTLR (Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions) (2002) Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe The ignored challenge. Report 10. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  29. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2015) State of the environment report. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  30. EUROSTAT (2010) Regional yearbook 2010. Chapter 15: a revised urban–rural typology. EUROSTAT, Luxemburg, pp 240–253Google Scholar
  31. FAO (2002) Urban and peri-urban forestry sub-programme: strategic framework for the Biennium 2002–2003 and mid- term 2002–2007. FAO FORC, RomeGoogle Scholar
  32. Fletcher TD, Shuster W, Hunt WF, Ashley R, Butler D, Scott A, Trowsdale S, Barraud S, Semadeni-Daves A, Bertrand-Krajewski JL, Mikkelsen PS, Rivard G, Uhl M, Dagenais D, Viklander M (2014) SUDS, LIDS, BMs, WUDS and more – the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water J 12(7):525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Forrest M, Konijnendijk CC, Randrup TB (eds) (1999) COST action E12-Research and Development in urban forestry in Europe. Official Printing Office of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  35. Foster J (2014) Hiding in plain view: vacancy and prospect in Paris’ Petite Ceinture. Cities 40:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) A balance score card tool for assessing how successful the ecosystem services concept is applied in participatory land use planning. Landsc Ecol 29:1435–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gallent N, Shaw D (2007) Spatial planning, area action plans and the rural next urban fringe. J Environ Plan Manag 50:617–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gallent N, Andersson J, Bianconi M (2006) Planning on the edge : the context for planning at the rural-urban fringe. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gant RL, Robinson GM, Shahab Fazal S (2011) Land-use change in the ‘edgelands’: policies and pressures in London’s rural-urban fringe. Land Use Policy 28:266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Geneletti D (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Geneletti D, La Rosa D, Spyra M, Cortinovis C (2017) A review of approaches and challenges for sustainable planning in urban peripheries. Landsc Urban Plan 165:231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S, Theuray N, Lindley SJ (2008) Characterising the urban environment of UK cities and towns: a template for landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 87:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goldthau A (2014) Rethinking the governance of energy infrastructure: scale, decentralization and polycentrism. Energy Res Soc Sci 1/0:134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goodling E, Green J, McClintock N (2015) Uneven development of the sustainable city: shifting capital in Portland, Oregon. Urban Geogr 36(4):504–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gret-Regamey A, Altwegg J, Sirén EA, van Strien MJ, Weibel B (2016) Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—a spatial decision support tool. Landsc Urban Plann 165:206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren A, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, Kabisch K, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall E, McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, Wurster D, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Haller A (2014) The “sowing of concrete”: peri-urban smallholder perceptions of rural–urban land change in the Central Peruvian Andes. Land Use Policy 38:239–247PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hara Y, Murakami A, Tsuchiya K, Palijon AM, Yokohari M (2013) A quantitative assessment of vegetable farming on vacant lots in an urban fringe area in Metro Manila: can it sustain long-term local vegetable demand? Appl Geogr 41:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Harman BP, Choy DL (2011) Perspectives on tradable development rights for ecosystem service protection: lessons from an Australian peri-urban region. J Environ Plann Manag 54(5):617–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hedblom M, Andersson E, Borgströmc S (2017) Flexible land-use and undefined governance: from threats to potentials in peri-urban landscape planning. Land Use Policy 63:523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heimlich RE (1989) Metropolitan agriculture: farming in the city’s shadow. J Am Plann Assoc 55:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am Polit Sci Rev 97(2):233–243Google Scholar
  54. Hough M (2004) Cities and natural process: a basis for sustainability. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Johnson MP (2001) Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ Plann A 33:717–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kline JD, Thiers P, Ozawa CP, Alan Yeakley J, Gordon SN (2014) How well has land-use planning worked under different governance regimes? A case study in the Portland, OR-Vancouver, WA metropolitan area, USA. Landsc Urban Plann 131:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Konijnendijk CC (2003) A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy Econ 5:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Korthals Altes WK, van Rij E (2013) Planning the horticultural sector. Managing greenhouse sprawl in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 31:486–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. La Greca P, La Rosa D, Martinico F, Privitera R (2011) Agricultural and green infrastructures: the role of non-urbanised areas for eco-sustainable planning in a metropolitan region. Environ Pollut 159:2193–2202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. La Rosa D (2014) Accessibility to greenspaces: GIS based indicators for sustainable planning in a dense urban context. Ecol Indic 42:122–134Google Scholar
  61. La Rosa D, Privitera R (2013) Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban context. Landsc Urban Plann 109:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. La Rosa D, Barbarossa L, Privitera R, Martinico F (2014) Agriculture and the city: a method for sustainable planning of new forms of agriculture in urban contexts. Land Use Policy 41:290–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lee Y-C, Ahern J, Chia-Tsung Yeh C-T (2015) Ecosystem services in peri-urban landscapes: the effects of agricultural landscape change on ecosystem services in Taiwan’s western coastal plain. Landsc Urban Plann 139:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Leichenko RM, Solecki WD (2008) Consumption, inequity, and environmental justice: the making of new metropolitan landscapes in developing countries. Soc Nat Resour 21:611–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lindley SJ, Handley JF, Theuray N, Peet E, Mcevoy D (2006) Adaptation strategies for climate change in the urban environment: assessing climate change related risk in UK urban areas. J Risk Res 9:543–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lörzing H (2006) Reinventing suburbia in The Netherlands. Built Environ 32(3):298–310.  https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.32.3.298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Loupa Ramos I, Ferreiro M, Colaço C, Santos S (2013) Peri-urban landscapes in metropolitan areas: using transdisciplinary research to move towards an improved conceptual and geographical understanding. In: proceeding of the AESOP-ACSP joint congress, 15–19 July 2013, Dublin, p 1145. Available at http://aesop-acspdublin2013.com/uploads/files/AESOP_Programme_final.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017
  68. Martinico F, La Rosa D, Privitera R (2014) Green oriented urban development for urban ecosystem services provision in a medium sized city in southern Italy. iForest 7:385–395.  https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1171-007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mason RJ, Nigmatullina L (2011) Suburbanization and sustainability in metropolitan Moscow. Geogr Rev 101(3):316–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Meeus S, Gulinck H (2008) Semi-urban areas in landscape research: a review. Living Rev Landsc Res 2:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Miguez MG, Mascarenhas F, Canedo de Magalhães L, D’Alterio C (2009) Planning and design of urban flood control measures: assessing effects combination. J Urban Plann Dev 135(3):100–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miller RW (1997) Urban forestry: planning and managing urban green spaces, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  73. Miller JD, Kim H, Kjeldsen TR, Packman J, Grebby S, Dearden R (2014) Assessing the impact of urbanization on storm runoff in a peri-urban catchment using historical change in impervious cover. J Hydrol 515:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moreira F, Fontes I, Dias S, Batista e Silva J, Loupa-Ramos I (2016) Contrasting static versus dynamic-based typologies of land cover patterns in the Lisbon metropolitan area: towards a better understanding of peri-urban areas. Appl Geogr 75:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Moss T, Newig J (2010) Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environ Manag 46(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Munoz F (2003) Lock living: urban sprawl in Mediterranean cities. Cities 20(6):381–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neuvonen M, Sievänen T, Tönnes S, Koskela T (2007) Access to green areas and the frequency of visits—a case study in Helsinki. Urban For Urban Gree 6:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For Urban Gree 4:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. O’Brien K, Sygna L, Haugen JE (2004) Vulnerable or resilient a multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway. Clim Change 64:193–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. O’Brien L, DeVreese R, Kern M, Sievanen T, Stojanova B, Atmis E (2017) Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban green infrastructure across different European countries. Urban For Urban Gree 24:236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. OECD (2002) Redefining territories: the functional regions. Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD), ParisGoogle Scholar
  82. Opdam P, Albert C, Fürst C, Gret-Regamey A, Kleemann J, Parker DC, La Rosa D, Schmidt K, Villamor GB, Walz A (2015) Ecosystem services for connectingactors – lessons from a symposium. CASES – Change Adapt Soc Ecol Syst 2:1–7Google Scholar
  83. Padeiro M (2016) Conformance in land-use planning: the determinants of decision, conversion and transgression. Land Use Policy 55:285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Padgham J, Jabbour J, Dietrich K (2015) Managing change and building resilience: a multi-stressor analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Africa and Asia. Urban Climate 12:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pappalardo V, Campisano A, Martinico F, Modica C (2016) Supporting urban development master plans by hydraulic invariance concept: the case study of Acquicella catchment. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Novatech, Lyon, July 2016Google Scholar
  86. Pappalardo V, La Rosa D, La Greca P, Campisano A (2017) The potential of GI application in urban runoff control for land use management: a preliminary evaluation from a southern Italy case study. Ecosyst Serv.,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.015 26:345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Patz JA, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley JA (2005) Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 438(7066):310–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Paül V, McKenzie FH (2013) Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of alternative food networks: insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Land Use Policy 30:94–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Piorr A, Ravetz J, Tosics I (2011) Peri-urbanisation in Europe: towards a European policy to sustain urban-rural futures. University of Copenhagen – Academic Books Life Sciences, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  90. Provè C, Dessein J, de Krom M (2016) Taking context into account in urban agriculture governance: case studies of Warsaw (Poland) and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy 56:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pugnare FI, Lazaro R (2000) Seed bank and understorey species composition in a semi-arid environment: the effect of shrub age and rainfall. Ann Bot London 86:807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pulighe G, Fava F, Lupia F (2016) Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosyst Serv 22:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ramos-Santiago LE, Villanueva-Cubero L, Santiago-Acevedo LE, Rodriguez-Melendez YN (2014) Green area loss in San Juan’s inner-ring suburban neighborhoods: a multidisciplinary approach to analyzing green/gray area dynamics. Ecol Soc 19(2)Google Scholar
  94. Rauws W, de Roo G (2011) Exploring transitions in the peri-urban area. Plan Theory Pract 12(2):269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Roose A, Kull A, Gauk M, Tali T (2013) Land use policy shocks in the post-communist urban fringe: a case study of Estonia. Land Use Policy 30(1):76–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ros-Tonen M, Pouw N, Bavinck M (2015) Governing beyond cities: the urban-rural interface. In: Gupta J, Pfeffer K, Verrest H, Ros-Tonen M (eds) Geographies of urban governance. Advanced theories, methods and practices. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 85–105Google Scholar
  97. Rupprecht CD, Byrne JA, Ueda H, Lo AY (2015) It’s real, not fake like a park’: residents’ perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landsc Urban Plann 143:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ryan S, Throgmorton J (2003) Sustainable transportation and land development on the periphery: a case study of Freiburg, Germany and Chula Vista, California. Transportation Res D-Tr E 8:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Salet W, Savini F (2015) The political governance of urban peripheries. Environ Plann C 33(3):448–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Salet W, Vermeulen R, Savini F, Dembski S, Thierstein A, Nears P, Vink B, Healey P, Stein U, Schultz H, Salet W, Vermeulen R, Savini F, Dembski F (2015) Planning for the new European metropolis: functions, politics, and symbols/metropolitan regions: functional relations between the core and the periphery/business investment decisions and spatial planning policy/metropolitan challenges, political responsibilities/spatial imaginaries, urban dynamics and political community/capacity-building in the city region: creating common spaces/which challenges for today’s European metropolitan spaces? Plann Theory Pract 16:251–275.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1021574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schipperijn J, Ekholm O, Stigsdotter UK, Toftager M, Bentsen P, Kamper-Jørgensen F, Randrup TB (2010) Factors influencing the use of green space: results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc Urban Plann 95:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shkaruba A, Kireyeu V, Likhacheva O (2017) Rural–urban peripheries under socioeconomic transitions: changing planning contexts, lasting legacies, and growing pressure. Landsc Urban Plann.: dx.doi.org 165:244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Smith A (2007) Emerging in between: the multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 35(12):6266–6280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, Owen N (2008) Association of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationship? J Epidemiol Commun H 62(5):e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Swanwick C (2009) Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26:S62–S75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tan Z, Zhang F, Rotunno R, Snyder C (2004) Mesoscale predictability of moist baroclinic waves: experiments with parameterized convection. J Atmos Sci 61:1794–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Taylor Lovell S (2010) Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustain 2:2499–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Terres JM, Nisini Scacchiafichi L, Wania A, Ambar M, Anguiano E, Buckwell E, Coppola A, Gocht A, Nordström Källström H, Pointereau P, Strijker D, Visek L, Vranken L, Zobena A (2015) Farmland abandonment in Europe: identification of drivers andindicators, and development of a composite indicator of risk. Land Use Policy 49:20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. The Sierra Club (1999) The dark side of the American dream: The costs and consequences of suburban sprawl. Available at http:// http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/report.asp
  111. Thompson A, Stalker Prokopy L (2009) Tracking urban sprawl: using spatial data to inform farmland preservation policy. Land Use Policy 26:194–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Todes A (2004) Regional planning and sustainability: limits and potentials of South Africa’s integrated development plans. J Environ Plann Manag 47(6):843–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Tu G, Abildtrup J, Serge Garcia S (2016) Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: an analysis of stated residential choices. Landsc Urban Plann 148:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystems and human health using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plann 81:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Van Herzele A, Wiedemann T (2003) A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc Urban Plann 63:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Van Herzele A, De Clercq EM, Wiedemann T (2005) Strategic planning for new woodlands in the urban periphery: through the lens of social inclusiveness. Urban For Urban Gree 3:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vejre H, Søndergaard Jensen F, Jellesmark Thorsen B (2010) Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecol Complex 7:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Webber S, Hanna K (2014) Sustainability and suburban housing in the Toronto region: the case of the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan. J Urban Int Res Placemaking Urban Sustain 7(3):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Westerink J, Haase D, Bauer A, Perpar A, Grochowski M, Ravetz J, Jarrige F, Aalbers C (2013) Dealing with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in peri-urban planning across European city regions. Eur Plan Stud 21:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Whitehand JWR (1988) Urban fringe belts: development of an idea. Plan Perspect 3:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Woodruff SC, BenDor TK (2016) Ecosystem services in urban planning: comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc Urban Plann 152:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Yang Z, Hao P, Liu W, Cai J (2016) Peri-urban agricultural development in Beijing: varied forms, innovative practices and policy implications. Habitat Int 56:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture-a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28:639–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Zasada I, Loibl W, Berges R, Steinnocher K, Koestl M, Piorr A, Werner A (2013) Rural-urban regions: a spatial approach to define urban-rural relationships in Europe. In: Nilsson K, Pauleit S, Bell S, Aalbers C, Nielsen TAS (eds) Peri-urban futures: scenarios ad models for land use change in Europe. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zezza A, Tasciotti L (2010) Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 35:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Zimmerman J (2001) The “nature” of urbanism on the new urbanist frontier: sustainable development, or defense of the suburban dream? Urban Geogr 22(3):249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Žlender V, Ward Thompson C (2017) Accessibility and use of peri-urban green space for inner-city dwellers: a comparative study. Landsc Urban Plann 165:193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele La Rosa
    • 1
  • Davide Geneletti
    • 2
  • Marcin Spyra
    • 3
  • Christian Albert
    • 4
  • Christine Fürst
    • 3
  1. 1.Department Civil Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Dept. Sustainable Landscape DevelopmentMartin Luther University HalleHalleGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations