IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p322.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Derivation of robust predictor variables for modelling urban shrinkage and its effects at different scales

Author

Listed:
  • Dagmar Haase

Abstract

Currently, we observe diverging processes of growth and shrinkage in European Cities. Whereas in the 80ies and 90ies partially accelerated through the crash of the socialist system mostly urban growth and suburban development occurred in European Cities, today we find a general decline of population as well as an increase of aged people (as results of the demographic change in Europe and worldwide, Cloet 2003, Lutz 2001). These processes influence land use pattern (state of the environment) and land use changes in urban areas enormously. Land use pattern reflect the current socio-economic development of an urban area and give an idea of how the urban ecosystem is influenced by man. In doing so, for instance, surface sealing reduces the filtering and remediation capacity of soils and the water retention in general as well as minimises habitat quality for wetland species. At the same time, the ecosystem(s) provide so-called ecosystem services, benefits people obtain from ecosystems: water availability, drinking water, remediation and filtering of waste, places to settle, recreation facilities in nature and others. Their quantification enables to bring the change (availability/loss) of ecosystem services into relation with effective costs (economic sphere, Farber 2002, De Groot et al. 2002). The above mentioned population decline and related shrinkage processes will have enormous consequences on the demand and availability of ecosystem services needed to sustain a high and even increasing status of quality of life for European citizens in the next future. Therefore, the predictor variables describing on the one hand shrinkage-related land use changes and on the other its effects are most important but at the same time it is still a challenge; to extract such predictor variables from a huge catalogue of urban socio-economic and environmental indicators elaborated by many studies for different landscape types and scales; to derive relevant digital and spatially explicit data as model input to calculate the effects of land use (change) and; to validate the model results at the city and the quarter level (scale) as well as to prove the response of the (gained/released) ecosystem service (environmental quality) at the city and at quarter level (closing the circle). Here, the author will give some expressive examples showing the derivation of predictor variables for modelling peri-urban growth and inner city shrinkage as well as its effects on water balance, habitat quality (urban green network) and recreational space. Of major interest is the approach of how to tackle the problem of urban shrinkage in spatially explicit land use (change) modelling (Haase et al. 2004).

Suggested Citation

  • Dagmar Haase, 2005. "Derivation of robust predictor variables for modelling urban shrinkage and its effects at different scales," ERSA conference papers ersa05p322, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/322.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lesley Hemphill & Jim Berry & Stanley McGreal, 2004. "An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance: Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(4), pages 725-755, April.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Ekins, Paul & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "Identifying critical natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 159-163, March.
    4. Landis, John D., 1994. "The California Urban Futures Model: A New Generation of Metropolitan Simulation Models," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9pb6g3g6, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Kathleen P. Bell & Nancy E. Bockstael, 2000. "Applying the Generalized-Moments Estimation Approach to Spatial Problems Involving Microlevel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 72-82, February.
    6. Caballero, Ricardo J. & Hammour, Mohamad L., 1998. "Jobless growth: appropriability, factor substitution, and unemployment," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-94, June.
    7. Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & Skanberg, Kristian, 2003. "The critical natural capital of ecosystem performance as insurance for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 205-217, March.
    8. F Wu & C J Webster, 1998. "Simulation of Land Development through the Integration of Cellular Automata and Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 25(1), pages 103-126, February.
    9. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    10. J D Landis, 1994. "The California Urban Futures Model: A New Generation of Metropolitan Simulation Models," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 21(4), pages 399-420, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brand, Fridolin, 2009. "Critical natural capital revisited: Ecological resilience and sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 605-612, January.
    2. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    3. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman, 2019. "Climate Change Preparedness: Comparing Future Urban Growth and Flood Risk in Amsterdam and Houston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Ravulaparthy, Srinath & Goulias, Konstadinos G., 2011. "Forecasting with Dynamic Microsimulation: Design, Implementation, and Demonstration," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2x12q5pv, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    7. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    9. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    10. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    11. Still, B. G. & May, A. D. & Bristow, A. L., 1999. "The assessment of transport impacts on land use: practical uses in strategic planning," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 83-98, April.
    12. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    13. Tschangho John Kim & Jinsoo You & Seung-kwan Lee, 1998. "An integrated urban systems model with GIS," ERSA conference papers ersa98p374, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Dominati, E. & Mackay, A. & Green, S. & Patterson, M., 2014. "A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 119-129.
    15. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    16. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    17. David Levinson, 2004. "The Evolution of Transport Networks," Working Papers 200510, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    18. Daams, Michiel N. & Sijtsma, Frans J. & Veneri, Paolo, 2019. "Mixed monetary and non-monetary valuation of attractive urban green space: A case study using Amsterdam house prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Rafał Blazy & Hanna Hrehorowicz-Gaber & Alicja Hrehorowicz-Nowak & Arkadiusz Płachta, 2021. "The Synergy of Ecosystems of Blue and Green Infrastructure and Its Services in the Metropolitan Area—Chances and Dangers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.