Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012

Evaluating Axial Growth in Hamburg using a Cellular Automata Model and

Landscape Metrics

INPUT 2012

Landscape Metrics

Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge

Institute for Geography, University Hamburg

[email protected]

11.05.2012

Presentation Layout

1. Hamburg and „Axial Planning“

• Introduction to the study region and local planning

2. Testing the „Axial Planning“ policy

• How does the experimental setup work?

3. Methods

2 Christian Daneke 17.05.2012

3. Methods

• How to model and measure the impacts?

4. Results

• Impacts on Hamburg and neighbouring districts

5. Conclusion

• Does the „Axial Planning“ work in the future?

Location and extend of the study region

Functional Region of Hamburg

Hamburg plus 7 Districts

Main commuting-region

Population

Hamburg: 1,8 Mio

Region: 3,4 Mio

Planning policy

Axial Planning Policy since 1969

Measurements

Area: 8525 sqkm

Diameter: 150 km

3 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012

The „Axial Planning“ in Hamburg

Original Sketch from 1919Implementation in

Regional Development Plan


Monocentric layout in the study region


Infrastructure fostering axial growth


Axial growth as an area-based planning strategy


Experimental Setup to evaluate the impacts of an axial policy

Compact

With planning

Compact City

Situation 2005 Diverging Scenarios for 2050 Alternated Planning


Sprawl

Sprawl

with planning

Compact City

Sprawl

SuitabilitySuitability

Transition RuleTransition RuleChange cells to land-use for which

Stochastic Stochastic perturbationperturbation

0 0.5 1

[ ]( )αrandvt

ln1 −+=

Land useLand use

Conceptual Layout of the Metronamica Modelling Framework


ZoningZoning

Change cells to land-use for which they have the highest transition potential until the demands aremet.

AccessibilityAccessibility TransitionTransitionPotentialsPotentials

Landscape Metrics to measure the impacts

Elements Landscape


Indicator Description

Patch Density Elements per Area

Patch Size Mean size of all Elements

Patch ShapeMean Complexity of all Elements as the comparison to a

perfect square

Compaction Mean extend / reach of all elements

Fractal Mean Fractal Index of Elements

Aggregation Index Probability that two cells of the same class are neighbours

Results I: Impacts in the axial corridors


Compact City with planning

Compact City

Sprawl with planning

Sprawl

Results II: Impacts in the non-corridors



Compact City


Sprawl

Results III: Regional differences in axial growth on district level

Segeberg

Storman

Hzg. LauenburgStade

Pinneberg

Segeberg

Storman

Hzg. LauenburgStade

Pinneberg

Mean Area of Settlements


Hzg. Lauenburg

LüneburgHarburg

Stade Hzg. Lauenburg

LüneburgHarburg

Stade


Compact City


Sprawl

Segeberg

Storman

Hzg. LauenburgStade

Pinneberg

Results III: Regional differences in axial growth on district level

Segeberg

Storman

Hzg. LauenburgStade

Pinneberg

Mean Area of Settlements

Hzg. Lauenburg

LüneburgHarburg

Stade


Hzg. Lauenburg

LüneburgHarburg

Stade


Compact City


Sprawl

• Axial Growth

• Strengthening

Conclusion

• Strong axial growth

• Axial growthdominant

Compact City SprawlGeneral Impacts


• Strengtheningeffect

• Preserving effect

• Competing withthe inner city

growth

• Controlling impacton growth

• Sprawlingdevelopment isprevented

dominant

• Non-corridorsshrink

• Policy amplifies theeffects

• Strong regional differences

Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge

Thank You!

Feel free to ask questions!

[email protected]

[email protected]

Institut für Geographie

Universität Hamburg

Bundesstraße 55

20146 Hamburg

Land Use Demands

Definition

New Population

Per Year

LU 1 LU 2 LU 3

Analysis per Land Use Class

Buildings Population

Land Use

Block-scale


Density Density Density

Nr. new

flats

Nr. new

flats

Nr. new

flats

Demand Demand Demand

Number of

flats

Area per Class

needed to house

n flats

Example of the Modelresults: Compact City


Example of Modelresults: Sprawl


Technology

Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012