5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change
81
quality of urban services, specific priorities and demands of different social groups
in terms of urban and environmental amenities, or the desire to live in a socially
homogeneous neighbourhood. The Tiebout Local Public Finance Model (Tiebout
1956) suggested that people decided to locate in a particular jurisdiction based on
their preferences and taste for local amenities. Tiebout described factors that “pull”
people out of the central areas of metropolitan regions on account of attractive characteristics of suburban communities (e.g. good service levels or lower taxes) and
others that “push” people out of central areas as a result of inner city problems
such as poor environmental quality and services, or crime. Theoretical accounts of
this nature hint at the importance of particular social-cultural trends that mould the
current demand for urban land, such as the proliferation of both land-consuming
urban lifestyles (tourism and recreational activities, second homes) on the one hand
and a (re)orientation (particularly among upper middle-class households) towards
urban centres (“reurbanisation”) on the other.
With urban sprawl and land consumption being a major environmental concern,
recent scholarly efforts have broadened the knowledge on its causes and drivers
significantly. However, while it is often possible to explain the intensity of urban land
use change on a broader scale, e.g. on the European (Oueslati et al. 2015) or global
scale (Creutzig et al. 2019), predicting its spatial patterns remains a challenging
issue. As a consequence, spatially explicit land use models have been developed
which not only explain at what rates urban land use change occurs in a given period
of time, but also address the question where it will take place, i.e. its likely location
(Frenkel 2004). Poelmans and van Rompaey (2010) have distinguished five groups
of explanatory variables that have been frequently used in models of urban land use
change:
• Biophysical factors, such as the slope or water table, have an impact on the suitability of land tracts for the construction of buildings or infrastructure facilities,
and can explain why certain areas are excluded from development.
• Social factors reflect the location preferences of households (or household types).
Examples include the income level or ethnic composition of nearby neighbourhoods, and the availability of open green spaces. These factors may encourage or
discourage a household’s choice of development site.
• Economic factors refer to accessibility features as proxy values for market access.
Frequently used measurements include the distance to urban centres or main roads,
and the availability of public transport services within a walkable distance. Undeveloped properties with good accessibility are more likely to become urbanised
in the future.
• Neighbourhood interactions refer to an observed spatial autocorrelation between
new developments and existing urbanised areas. In contrast, some potentially
conflicting land uses (e.g. residential and industrial development) are unlikely to
be located directly next to each other.
• Spatial policy and planning include the possibility to legally define, i.e. distinguish
the usability of different land parcels. These policies can be labelled “negative
planning” inasmuch as they aim to protect current land uses (habitat conservation,
81
quality of urban services, specific priorities and demands of different social groups
in terms of urban and environmental amenities, or the desire to live in a socially
homogeneous neighbourhood. The Tiebout Local Public Finance Model (Tiebout
1956) suggested that people decided to locate in a particular jurisdiction based on
their preferences and taste for local amenities. Tiebout described factors that “pull”
people out of the central areas of metropolitan regions on account of attractive characteristics of suburban communities (e.g. good service levels or lower taxes) and
others that “push” people out of central areas as a result of inner city problems
such as poor environmental quality and services, or crime. Theoretical accounts of
this nature hint at the importance of particular social-cultural trends that mould the
current demand for urban land, such as the proliferation of both land-consuming
urban lifestyles (tourism and recreational activities, second homes) on the one hand
and a (re)orientation (particularly among upper middle-class households) towards
urban centres (“reurbanisation”) on the other.
With urban sprawl and land consumption being a major environmental concern,
recent scholarly efforts have broadened the knowledge on its causes and drivers
significantly. However, while it is often possible to explain the intensity of urban land
use change on a broader scale, e.g. on the European (Oueslati et al. 2015) or global
scale (Creutzig et al. 2019), predicting its spatial patterns remains a challenging
issue. As a consequence, spatially explicit land use models have been developed
which not only explain at what rates urban land use change occurs in a given period
of time, but also address the question where it will take place, i.e. its likely location
(Frenkel 2004). Poelmans and van Rompaey (2010) have distinguished five groups
of explanatory variables that have been frequently used in models of urban land use
change:
• Biophysical factors, such as the slope or water table, have an impact on the suitability of land tracts for the construction of buildings or infrastructure facilities,
and can explain why certain areas are excluded from development.
• Social factors reflect the location preferences of households (or household types).
Examples include the income level or ethnic composition of nearby neighbourhoods, and the availability of open green spaces. These factors may encourage or
discourage a household’s choice of development site.
• Economic factors refer to accessibility features as proxy values for market access.
Frequently used measurements include the distance to urban centres or main roads,
and the availability of public transport services within a walkable distance. Undeveloped properties with good accessibility are more likely to become urbanised
in the future.
• Neighbourhood interactions refer to an observed spatial autocorrelation between
new developments and existing urbanised areas. In contrast, some potentially
conflicting land uses (e.g. residential and industrial development) are unlikely to
be located directly next to each other.
• Spatial policy and planning include the possibility to legally define, i.e. distinguish
the usability of different land parcels. These policies can be labelled “negative
planning” inasmuch as they aim to protect current land uses (habitat conservation,