Click here to download

Strategies to reduce land consumption. A comparison between italian and german city regions
Journal Title: ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI 
Author/s: Stefan Fina, Paolo Pileri, Stefan Siedentop, Marta Maggi 
Year:  2013 Issue: 108 Language: English 
Pages:  20 Pg. 37-56 FullText PDF:  1484 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ASUR2013-108003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The purpose of this paper is to develop robust comparative information on land use and land use changes (LUCs) for representative European cities (Stuttgart in Southern Germany, and Milano and Brescia in Northern Italy). In the paper we present a measurement approach to analyze recent LUCs in the outskirts of the three cities and critically evaluate the results. Apart from the comparative results between the selected cities, the innovation in this study lies both in comparing for the first time Italian-German cases on these topics and in the novel approach to standardize this type of information for international policy assessments. In conclusion, we return to two main questions: 1. what indicators can be used to monitor drivers and environmental effects of LUCs; 2. what kind of urban containment strategies and policies can be identified as being effective.
Keywords: Land use change, urban sprawl, agricultural resources.

  1. with it? Environment and Planning B, 35: 1-24.
  2. Gallego F. J., ed. (2002). Building Agro Environmental Indicators. Focussing on the European Area Frame Survey Lucas. Ispra: European Commission.
  3. Geurs K. T. and van Wee B. (2006). Ex-post evaluation of thirty years of compact urban development in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 43: 139-160.
  4. Gordon P. and Richardson H. W. (1997). Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63: 95-106.
  5. Angel S. (2011). Making Room for a Planet of Cities. Policy Focus Report. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  6. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2010). Genügend Raum für den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien? BBSR-Berichte KOMPAKT, 13/2010.
  7. Hall P. (2002). Urban & Regional Planning. New York: Routledge.
  8. Bundesinstitut für Bau-, S.-U. R. (2012). Trends der Siedlungsflächenentwicklung. In: Bundesinstitut für Bau-, S.-U. R., ed., BBSR-Analysen KOMPAKT. Bonn.
  9. Communities and Local Government (2011). Land Use Change Statistics (England) 2010 – Provisional Estimates. Available: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1955706.pdf (Accessed 4 September 2012).
  10. Hasse J. E. and Lathrop R. G. (2003). Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography, 23: 159-175.
  11. Couch C., Koeontidou L. and Petschel-Held G., eds. (2007). Urban Sprawl in Europe – Landscapes, Land-Use Change & Policy. Oxford: Blackwell.
  12. Henger R. and Bizer K. (2010). Tradable planning permits for land-use control in Germany. Land Use Policy, 27: 843-852.
  13. Dallhammer E., Bory B. and Bory U. F. (2009). Collection of (policy) instruments influencing the use and protection of soil from the partners of the project URBAN SMS In: GMBH, U., ed., Urban SMS Soil Management Strategy. Vienna: Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (ÖIR).
  14. Hoffmann J. and Greef J. M. (2003). Mosaic indicators – Theoretical approach for the development of indicators for species diversity in agricultural landscapes.
  15. European Environment Agency (2006a). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge.
  16. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 98: 387-394.
  17. European Environment Agency (2006b). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The Ignored Challenge. EEA Report No 10/2006. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
  18. European Environment Agency (2010a). The European Environment – State and Outlook 2010: Biodiversity. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
  19. Kommission Bodenschutz beim Umweltbundesamt (2010). Flächenverbrauch einschränken – jetzt handeln. Empfehlungen der Kommission Bodenschutz beim Umweltbundesamt. Dessau.
  20. European Environment Agency (2010b). The European Environment – State and Outlook 2010: Land Use. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
  21. Ewing R. and Rong F. (2008). The impact of urban form on U. S. residential energy use. Housing Policy Debate, 19: 1-30.
  22. Forman R. T. T. (2008). Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning beyond the City. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Kuhn S. (2012). Inwertsetzung und Plausibilität von ATKIS-Basis-DLM und ALKBodenschätzung für ein Monitoring des Agrarflächenverlustes in Baden-Württemberg: Trendanalyse von 2004 bis 2011. Diploma Thesis, Universität Stuttgart.
  24. 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: 357-369. Frenkel A. and Ashkenazi M. (2008). Measuring urban sprawl: how can we deal
  25. Lexer W., Huber S. and Kurzweil A. (2010). Existing soil management approaches within urban planning procedures: Transnational synthesis. In: Umweltbundesamt
  26. GMBH, A., ed., Urban SMS Soil Management Strategy. Vienna: Centre for Soil and Plant Management.
  27. Lopatka A., Siebielec G., Zurek A., Gluszynska M. and van Delden H. (2010). Forecast of urban sprawl under alternative soil protection scenarios. In: Umweltbundesamt GMBH, A., ed., Urban SMS Soil Management Strategy. Pulawy: Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation.
  28. Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat Baden-Württemberg (2010). Nachhaltiges Flächenmanagement in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat Baden-Württemberg.
  29. Newman P. (2006). The environmental impact of cities. Environment and Urbanization, 18: 275-295.
  30. OECD (2010). Cities and Climate Change. Paris.
  31. OECD (2012). Compact City Policies: A Comparative Assessment Publishing. OECD Green Growth Studies. Paris.
  32. Pontius R. G. J., Shusas E. and Mceachern M. (2003). Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 101: 251-268.
  33. Priemus H. (2004). Spatial memorandum 2004: A turning point in The Netherlands’ spatial development policy. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 95: 578-583. Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (2004). Mehr Wert für die Fläche: Das “Ziel-30-ha” für die Nachhaltigkeit in Stadt und Land. Berlin: Rat für Nachhaltige Entwicklung.
  34. Sachs N., Kaule G., Güthler M., Klamt C., Krewitt W. und Friedrich R. (2000).
  35. Vorprojekt zur Entwicklung und Anwendung eines räumlich differenzierten Indikatorsystems zur Messung einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.
  36. Schneider A. and Woodcock C. E. (2008). Compact, dispersed, fragmented, extensive? A comparison of urban growth in twenty-five global cities using remotely sensed data, pattern metrics and census information. Urban Studies, 45: 659-692.
  37. Schwarz N. (2010). Urban form revisited. Selecting indicators for characterizing European cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96: 29-47.
  38. Siedentop S. and Fina S. (2012). Who sprawls most? Exploring the patterns of urban growth across 26 European countries. Environment and Planning B, 44: 2765-2784.
  39. Tsai Y.-H. (2005). Quantifying urban form: compactness versus “sprawl”. Urban Studies, 42: 141-161.
  40. Van Eetvelde V. and Antrop M. (2004). Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes – Two examples from Southern France. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67: 79-95.

Stefan Fina, Paolo Pileri, Stefan Siedentop, Marta Maggi, in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 108/2013, pp. 37-56, DOI:10.3280/ASUR2013-108003

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content