1. Parameterisation of Urban Sprawl Amon Boontore

2. S p r a w l P l a n i m e t e r Slpanimeter + Optional Title

3. Outline 1)Main Objective 2) Operational Indicators of Urban Sprawl 3) Pilot Study 4) Future Works

4. Main Objective Geographical Distribution of Land-uses Geographical Separation Travel Urban Sprawl Distance Travelled Measurement is a key initial step in scientific understanding (De Cola & Lam 1993). Definitions Characteristics Indicators

5. Earle Draper Perhaps diffusion is too kind of word...in bursting its bounds, the city actually sprawled and made the countryside ugly...uneconomic [in terms] of services and doubtful social value. First Used

6. Sprawl is a pattern of land use in an urbanised area that exhibits low levels of some combination of eight distinct dimensions: density, continuity, concentration, clustering, centrality, nuclearity, mixed uses, and proximity (Galster et al 2001). The term is used variously to mean the gluttonous use of land, uninterrupted monotonous development and inefficient use of land (Peiser 2001). Sprawl is the spread-out, skipped over development that characterises the non- central city metropolitan areas and non- metropolitan areas … (Ewing 1997). …low-density development beyond the edge of service and development, which separates where people live from where they shop, work, recreate, and educate- thus requiring cars to move between zones (Seirra Club 1998). 1. Low residential density 2. Unlimited outward extension of new development 3. Spatial segregation of different types of land uses through zoning regulations 4. Leapfrog development 5. No centralised ownership of land or planning of development 6. All transportation dominated by privately owned motor vehicles 7. Fragmentation of governance authority over land uses between many local governments 8. Great variances in the fiscal capacity of local governments 9. Widespread commercial strip development along major roadways 10. Major reliance upon the filtering or “trickle-down” process to provide housing for low-income households (Transportation Research Board 1998). Definitions of Urban Sprawl

7. Characteristics of Urban Sprawl Subjective Research Approach Time & Data Limitation Subjective Prejudgement Subjective 1)Form 2) Density 3) Land-use Pattern 4) Urban Process 5) Impacts 6) Dependent Variable 7) Aesthetic 8) Example 1) Low Density 2) Spatial Seclusion 3) Single Functional Use

8. 1) Low Density 2) Spatial Seclusion 3) Single Functional Use 2.1) Evenness 2.4) Centralisation 2.2) Complexity 2.3) Clustering Index of Dissimilarity Gini Entropy Atkinson Thiel’s Index Fractal Dimension PAR Geary’s Coefficient Moran’s I Centralisation Index ACI 3.1) Concentration 3.2) Exposure Duncan’s Delta ICO Relative Concentration Index ISO Interaction Index CT G ETA IJI Residential Density Urban Density Residential Land-use Density Density Gradients 1.1) Density Sprawl Conceptual Variables & Indicators

9. i, j, k = number of tract = Total developable land area = Area of developable land in tract i = Total residential land area = Area of residential land in tract i = Total non-residential land area = Area of non-residential land in tract I = Total developed land area = Area of developed land in tract i = Total residential proportion = Residential Proportion in tract i City A City tract A 1 = 100 City tract A 2 = 100

10. Index of Dissimilarity: 2.1) Evenness Sprawl Conceptual Variables & Indicators

11. 3.1) Concentration Relative Concentration Index: Sprawl Conceptual Variables & Indicators

12. 3.2) Exposure Interaction Index: Sprawl Conceptual Variables & Indicators

13. Pilot Study: Data & Methodology Land cover maps 250 metres resolution Year 2000 CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) European Environment Agency Maps Distance Travelled Data Transportation Data International Association of Public Transport (UITP) Year 1995 Case Studies 30 Austria: Graz, Vienna; Belgium: Brussels; Denmark: Copenhagen; Finland: Helsinki; Paris: Lyon, Marseille, Nantes, Paris; Germany: Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Munich, Stuttgart; Greece: Athens; Italy: Milan, Bologna, Rome; Netherlands: Amsterdam; Spain: Barcelona, Madrid; Sweden: Stockholm; UK:Glasgow, London, Manchester, Newcastle

14. Overall average trip distance (km/trip) Car Public modes Mechanised modes Private modes Motorised modes Overall Mobility (daily trips/cap) – Foot Mechanised modes Public modes Private modes Pilot Study: Data & Methodology Daily Km/cap Mechanised Private Public Motorised All

15. Mineral extraction sites Undevelopable land Inland marches Beaches, dunes, sands Bare rocks Burnt Areas Glaciers and perpetual snow Peat bogs Dump sites Salt marshes Salines Intertidal flats Water courses Water bodies Coastal lagoons Estuaries Sea and ocean Road and rail networks and associated land R N Construction sites Non-irrigated arable land Permanently irrigated land Rice fields Vineyards Fruit trees and berry plantations Olive groves Pastures Annual crops Complex cultivation patterns Natural vegetation Agro-forestry areas Broad-leaved forest Coniferous forest Mixed forest Natural grasslands Moors and heathland Sclerophyllous vegetation Woodland-schrub Sparsely vegetated areas Developable land Continuous urban fabric Discontinuous urban fabric Residential land Industrial and commercial units Port areasAirports Green urban areas Sport and leisure facilities Non-residential land Pilot Study: Data & Methodology

16. 1 9 876 543 2...n 12...1011 Pilot Study: Data & Methodology

17. Data Sourcing Evenness: IOD Concentration: RCO Exposure: INT Pilot Study: Data & Methodology

18. Pilot Study: Results R 2 =.176 Sig. =.003

19. Pilot Study: Results Grouping of Case Studies Range (million m 2 )n XS XL L M SM S 158-716 1182-3666 4796 4997-7834 10533-12521 44761 Total 5 1 10 4 1 30 9

20. Pilot Study: Results R 2 =.883 Sig. =.002 SM-M

21. Pilot Study: Results R 2 =.549 Sig. =.006 XS-S

22. Pilot Study: Results R 2 =.415 Sig. =.033 XS-S-SM

23. Pilot Study: Results XS XL L M SM S RCO-Private (12,.549,.006) IOD-Public (13,.342,.036) RCO-Private (13,.414,.018) IOD-Public (15,.305,.033) INT-Public (11,.415,.033) IOD-Mechanised (9,.714,.004) IOD-Mechanised (8,.683,.011) IOD-Mechanised (10,.733,.002) IOD-Mechanised (9,.705,.005) IOD-Mechanised (8,.833,.002) RCO-Motorised (20,.237,.03) RCO-Private (14,.374,.02) RCO-Motorised (15,.294,.037) RCO-Motorised (27,.176,.03) (5) (9) (1)(10)(4)(1)

24. Future Works 5x5 Km grid sq 1 9 876 543 2...n 12...1011 Workable Grid Size Reduction of Indicators ?

25. Future Works: Sensitivity Plot IOD

26. Future Works: Sensitivity Plot IOD

27. RCO Future Works: Sensitivity Plot

28. INT Future Works: Sensitivity Plot

29. 1) Low Density 2) Spatial Seclusion 3) Single Functional Use 2.1) Evenness 2.4) Centralisation 2.2) Complexity 2.3) Clustering Index of Dissimilarity Gini Entropy Atkinson Thiel’s Index Fractal Dimension PAR Geary’s Coefficient Moran’s I Centralisation Index ACI 3.1) Concentration 3.2) Exposure Duncan’s Delta ICO Relative Concentration Index ISO Interaction Index CT G ETA IJI Residential Density Urban Density Residential Land-use Density Density Gradients 1.1) Density Future Works: Correlations

30. Thank you