5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change
77
growing areas and nearly zero in remote rural regions (EEA 2006). Focusing on the
European Union, Kuemmerle et al. (2016) put this observation in relation to other
kinds of land use change: “The most widespread changes in the extent of land-use
categories in the EU between 1990 and 2006 were cropland decline (∼136,660 km
2 ),
followed by expansion of grazing land (∼75,670 km
2 ), and expansion of forest areas
(∼70,630 km
2 ). The least common conversion among broad land-use categories
was urban expansion (∼16,820 km
2 ). … At the European scale, these area changes
translate into moderate land-conversion rates in the agricultural sector between 1990
and 2006, ranging from −13.4% for permanent crops to +6.5% for meadows and
pastures, while urban areas expanded by approximately 21%” (Kuemmerle et al.
2016: 5). In addition, various other studies have provided empirical evidence that
the spreading of urban land uses has clearly exceeded population growth, resulting
in declining overall densities (e.g. Fulton et al. 2001; Glaeser and Kahn 2003; Lopez
and Hynes 2003; Angel et al. 2005; Theobald 2005). At the same time, urban density
gradients have significantly levelled off over time in metropolitan areas. Urban densities decreased between 1990 and 2000 worldwide, in East Asia by as much as 4.9%
per year and in Europe by a relatively moderate 1.9%.
However, looking merely at the size or the growth of urban areas would provide
only poor insights into the dynamics of urban land use change (even if related to population growth), because there are different kinds of urban land use change that have
rather diverse impacts (McGranahan and Marcotullio 2005). For instance, residential development on former agricultural land usually damages considerably fewer
and other wildlife habitats than industrial development on a drained wetland site;
likewise, new development in the vicinity of existing settlements infringes on the
landscape matrix to a lesser degree than the development of many small and unconnected patches of urban land. Hence, it is not only the quantity of land converted to
urban uses that needs to be considered, but also:
• the previous land use and land cover (agricultural, forest and natural);
• the dominant purpose of the new urban use (residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational or other) and the corresponding land cover features (such as the
imperviousness of surfaces and the emission of pollutants);
• the location and pattern of new urban land; and
• the efficiency of land use.
Recognition of these aspects is key not only to a comprehensive understanding of
land use change dynamics and their knock-on effects on environmental qualities, but
also as a basis for urban planning and management.
Significant improvements in the resolution and quality of digital land use and
land cover data have opened up new possibilities for a more complex monitoring of
land use change dynamics that captures differences in aspects such as urban form,
land uses, development and location patterns as well as efficiency of land use (e.g.
Schneider and Woodcock 2008). Drawing on the availability of such data, numerous
methodological approaches have been introduced to provide a quantitative assessment of urban land use change (for a brief overview see, e.g. Chin 2002; Frenkel and
Ashkenazi 2008, or Siedentop and Fina 2010). Table 5.1 lists prominent measure-
77
growing areas and nearly zero in remote rural regions (EEA 2006). Focusing on the
European Union, Kuemmerle et al. (2016) put this observation in relation to other
kinds of land use change: “The most widespread changes in the extent of land-use
categories in the EU between 1990 and 2006 were cropland decline (∼136,660 km
2 ),
followed by expansion of grazing land (∼75,670 km
2 ), and expansion of forest areas
(∼70,630 km
2 ). The least common conversion among broad land-use categories
was urban expansion (∼16,820 km
2 ). … At the European scale, these area changes
translate into moderate land-conversion rates in the agricultural sector between 1990
and 2006, ranging from −13.4% for permanent crops to +6.5% for meadows and
pastures, while urban areas expanded by approximately 21%” (Kuemmerle et al.
2016: 5). In addition, various other studies have provided empirical evidence that
the spreading of urban land uses has clearly exceeded population growth, resulting
in declining overall densities (e.g. Fulton et al. 2001; Glaeser and Kahn 2003; Lopez
and Hynes 2003; Angel et al. 2005; Theobald 2005). At the same time, urban density
gradients have significantly levelled off over time in metropolitan areas. Urban densities decreased between 1990 and 2000 worldwide, in East Asia by as much as 4.9%
per year and in Europe by a relatively moderate 1.9%.
However, looking merely at the size or the growth of urban areas would provide
only poor insights into the dynamics of urban land use change (even if related to population growth), because there are different kinds of urban land use change that have
rather diverse impacts (McGranahan and Marcotullio 2005). For instance, residential development on former agricultural land usually damages considerably fewer
and other wildlife habitats than industrial development on a drained wetland site;
likewise, new development in the vicinity of existing settlements infringes on the
landscape matrix to a lesser degree than the development of many small and unconnected patches of urban land. Hence, it is not only the quantity of land converted to
urban uses that needs to be considered, but also:
• the previous land use and land cover (agricultural, forest and natural);
• the dominant purpose of the new urban use (residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational or other) and the corresponding land cover features (such as the
imperviousness of surfaces and the emission of pollutants);
• the location and pattern of new urban land; and
• the efficiency of land use.
Recognition of these aspects is key not only to a comprehensive understanding of
land use change dynamics and their knock-on effects on environmental qualities, but
also as a basis for urban planning and management.
Significant improvements in the resolution and quality of digital land use and
land cover data have opened up new possibilities for a more complex monitoring of
land use change dynamics that captures differences in aspects such as urban form,
land uses, development and location patterns as well as efficiency of land use (e.g.
Schneider and Woodcock 2008). Drawing on the availability of such data, numerous
methodological approaches have been introduced to provide a quantitative assessment of urban land use change (for a brief overview see, e.g. Chin 2002; Frenkel and
Ashkenazi 2008, or Siedentop and Fina 2010). Table 5.1 lists prominent measure-