5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change
87
land use on a particular plot of land, e.g. the reduction of agricultural land,
significant land use-related environmental problems, such as the modification of urban climate conditions (“urban heat islands”) or an increase in
runoff, usually result from the cumulative effects of development activities.
3. After a closer look, it is possible to add a third kind of urban land use change
impact. Contextual impacts depend on the characteristics of the larger territory (context) in which a land use change takes place. One example of this
type of impact is the generation of traffic due to the development of an
exurban retail facility.
4. Siedentop and Fina (2010) distinguish between three key dimensions of
urban land use which they use to explain and model a broad range of land
consumption impacts. These are land cover features (surface), the pattern
of land use (the spatial configuration of urban and non-urban land patches)
and the intensity of use (urban density).
5. Last but not least, the literature on urban sprawl in particular has often
adopted a decidedly normative stance as to the impacts of urban land use
change in that it distinguishes between costs and benefits. However, the
sharp disagreement about the overall assessment on whether urban sprawl
is “good” or “evil” illustrates that it is a matter of perspective (if not a
political standpoint) if a certain issue is assessed in positive or negative
terms.
Last but not least, the impact of urban land use change on motorised transport
demand is probably the most frequently discussed issue in this field of research.
Many scholars have argued that households in peripheral, low-density environments
have long travel distances and tend to use their car extensively (Banister 1999; Naess
2003). Some critics dispute the causality between urban form and travel behaviour,
pointing to the possibility that private households self-select themselves to places that
are in accordance with their preferences for particular modes of transport (Handy
2005). At the same time, studies that controlled for demographic, socioeconomic
and attitudinal variables (such as household income, family size or age) proved the
significant effect of urban form on transport (Cervero 2003; Naess 2007; Vance and
Hedel 2007; Ewing and Cervero 2010).
5.4 Policies on Urban Land Use Change
The desire to control the dynamics of land consumption was one of the earliest motivations for spatial planning. However, while this desire used to be of minor importance in comparison to the goal of mitigating land use conflicts and safeguarding
the most rational form of urban growth, it has since become one of the major issues
in land use policy (e.g. Gallent 2006). This issue is probably most disputed in the
87
land use on a particular plot of land, e.g. the reduction of agricultural land,
significant land use-related environmental problems, such as the modification of urban climate conditions (“urban heat islands”) or an increase in
runoff, usually result from the cumulative effects of development activities.
3. After a closer look, it is possible to add a third kind of urban land use change
impact. Contextual impacts depend on the characteristics of the larger territory (context) in which a land use change takes place. One example of this
type of impact is the generation of traffic due to the development of an
exurban retail facility.
4. Siedentop and Fina (2010) distinguish between three key dimensions of
urban land use which they use to explain and model a broad range of land
consumption impacts. These are land cover features (surface), the pattern
of land use (the spatial configuration of urban and non-urban land patches)
and the intensity of use (urban density).
5. Last but not least, the literature on urban sprawl in particular has often
adopted a decidedly normative stance as to the impacts of urban land use
change in that it distinguishes between costs and benefits. However, the
sharp disagreement about the overall assessment on whether urban sprawl
is “good” or “evil” illustrates that it is a matter of perspective (if not a
political standpoint) if a certain issue is assessed in positive or negative
terms.
Last but not least, the impact of urban land use change on motorised transport
demand is probably the most frequently discussed issue in this field of research.
Many scholars have argued that households in peripheral, low-density environments
have long travel distances and tend to use their car extensively (Banister 1999; Naess
2003). Some critics dispute the causality between urban form and travel behaviour,
pointing to the possibility that private households self-select themselves to places that
are in accordance with their preferences for particular modes of transport (Handy
2005). At the same time, studies that controlled for demographic, socioeconomic
and attitudinal variables (such as household income, family size or age) proved the
significant effect of urban form on transport (Cervero 2003; Naess 2007; Vance and
Hedel 2007; Ewing and Cervero 2010).
5.4 Policies on Urban Land Use Change
The desire to control the dynamics of land consumption was one of the earliest motivations for spatial planning. However, while this desire used to be of minor importance in comparison to the goal of mitigating land use conflicts and safeguarding
the most rational form of urban growth, it has since become one of the major issues
in land use policy (e.g. Gallent 2006). This issue is probably most disputed in the