دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله تغییر کاربری زمین های شهری (نشریه الزویر 2018)

تغییر کاربری زمین های شهری: نقش برنامه ریزی فضایی استراتژیک

Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning

Abstract

To date land-change science has devoted little attention to spatial policy and planning in urban landscapes despite the widely accepted premise that planning affects urban land change. This is primarily due to lack of relevant data and an underdeveloped theoretical understanding regarding the impact of spatial planning on urban land change. To be able to better analyse the role of spatial planning in urban development we need to distinguish: 1) the intentions expressed in the plans; 2) the means of implementation of the plans through governance processes and 3) the role of external conditions influencing implementation. Based on a synthesis of the current literature on how spatial planning is implemented in land-change models, and drawing from the literature on planning evaluation, we sketch a research agenda to further develop the understanding of these three components and their interconnections as well as their application in quantitative land-change modelling approaches for urban regions.

1 Introduction

Land change is one of the key processes of global environmental change (Magliocca et al., 2015; Turner II et al., 2007; Verburg et al., 2015). The studies on the topic have gradually advanced from a focus on patterns of land-use and land-cover change to an analysis of dynamic interactions within socio-ecological systems and the resulting impacts on, for example, ecosystem services and biodiversity (Rindfuss et al., 2004; Rounsevell et al., 2012). In this context, land change is understood as the result of interacting political/institutional, economic, cultural, technological and natural/spatial driving forces and the respective actors (Bürgi et al., 2004; Hersperger et al., 2010). Whereas data on economic and natural conditions have a long tradition in being used to explain land changes, researchers only recently started to pay attention to policies, plans, and regulations on land use, within their specific institutional and governmental contexts. Meta-analytical studies have emphasized the role of land-use policies and spatial planning as a major underlying driving factor for many different land-use change processes (van Vliet et al., 2016).

Compared with forest and agricultural related research, studies on land change in urban regions are so far a small part of land-system research (Geist et al., 2006; Magliocca et al., 2015; Seto et al., 2011). However, urban regions, which are also broadly defined as cities or metropolitan regions, are some of the most dynamic land-change systems worldwide. With strong further urbanization expected over the coming decades they will cover increasing areas of the earth surface and host the majority of the human population (Seto et al., 2012). At the same time, urban land change is not restricted to the core city, but includes many new urban-rural spaces functionally tied to the city (Brenner and Schmid, 2015) and has many impacts on rural hinterlands (Bren d’Amour et al., 2016) and hence deserves more attention in landchange science (Müller and Munroe, 2014).

A widely accepted premise is that, especially in urban regions, spatial planning – a multifaceted activity with many purposes, including project planning, master planning, land-use planning and strategic planning – influences patterns of land use and land cover (Couclelis, 2005). Amongst the many purposes of spatial planning, spatial planners and governments have been trying to steer urbanization processes with the aim of developing sustainable cities and regions (Albrechts et al., 2017; Collier et al., 2013). However, conceptualizing the role of planning in guiding land change is a great challenge (McNeill et al., 2014). This is partly due to the fact that research on the contribution of planning to land change is at the interface of two paradigms (Briassoulis, 2008; Hillier, 2007): planning scholars tend to stress contextuality and social construction of space; whereas land-change scientists incline to assume the existence of realities that can be objectively described and measured and lend themselves to generalizations. The difference between the two paradigms can be illustrated through how they position themselves in respect to the concepts of space and uncertainty. Many urban geographers and planning theoreticians conceive space as a social construct (Harvey, 2006; Lefebvre, 1991) and expect future urban development to be open ended. Uncertainty is inherent; to be expected and subject to exogenous factors (Graham and Healey, 1999). Land-change scientists quantify and model space by identifying correlation or causality between drivers and outcomes, and strive to identify sources and levels of uncertainty in landcover projections (Alexander et al., 2016). Research to bridge the two paradigms is sparse. Consequently, planning is not well integrated in quantitative land-change assessments.