Daniele La Rosa

Riccardo Privitera

Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and

green infrastructure in urban contexts

Università di Catania - Dipartimento di Architettura

LAboratorio per la Progettazione del Territorio e dell’Ambiente

Buildings

Cultivated

Trees

Herbaceous

vegetation

Fig. 2 Land cover types iden

Synthesizing different perspectives on the valueof urban ecosystem services

Lodz,15-16 July, 2011

outline

• Non-Urbanised Areas (NUAs) in metropolitan contexts

• Study area

• Characterization of NUAs (method & results)– Land Cover Analysis

– Fragmentation Analysis

– Proximity Analysis

– Land Use Suitability Model (LUSM)

– Compatibility Matrix

• Conclusions

Aim of the work

Presence of evapotranspiration features

Degree of fragmentation

Proximity to urban areas

Current land use

Proposition of new land uses for Non Urbanized Areas in metropolitan

contexts aimed at enhancing the provision of ecosystem services and

climate change adaptations

Which parameters for Non-Urbanized Areas characterization?

How?

Characterizing Non Urbanized Areas to re-think their role in environmental

urban planning

Non Urbanized Areas (NUAs)

New scenario of new land uses to protect and

enhance ecosystem services provided by NUAs

Natural Areas, woods, shrubs, abandoned farmaland, urban green spaces

PressuresClimate Changes

outdoor places with significant amounts of vegetation, mainly semi-natural areas that

represent the last remnants of nature in urban areas

Non-urbanized Areas in metropolitan regions (1)

Urban Sprawl

Response

Provided services for environment, landscape, health and urban quality

cleaning the air

storing and cycling nutrients,

conserving and generating soils

regulating climate, protecting

against storm and flood damage,

maintaining hydrologic regimes

providing heterogeneous

landscapes

filtering and cooling water

Non-urbanized Areas in metropolitan regions (2)

The study area (1)

Catania Metropolitan Area

27 Municipalities

Area: ~ 950 Km2

Pop: 581413

Built up areas AREA [sqm] %

% cumulated

Before 1936 3353327 6,2% 6,2% From 1936 to 1964 2867105 5,3% 11,5% From 1964 to 1985 37249790 69,0% 80,5% From 1985 to 2000 10550606 19,5% 100,0%

Total 54020828 100,0%

~ 1600% growth in 80 years

The study area (2)

Municipalities of Mascalucia , Tremestieri Etneo and Gravina di Catania

•Population almost doubled twice since 1936 (27482 inhabitants)

•Agriculture oriented economy, mainly based on wine production, completely

swiped out by urban sprawl

•Urban land increased by more than 2000 % between 1928 and 2008

The study area (3)

Land Use

Residential Areas Farmlands

Abandoned Farmlands Woods and Shrubs

Sources:

•vector cartography (1:10,000) regional authorities•municipal vector cartography (1:2000)

•recent high resolution ortophotos (2007-2008)

•Field surveys (for most recent changes)

The study area (4)

Mascalucia Municipality

•Residential land covers almost half of the

municipality

•Farmland (cultivated and abandoned)

almost 30 %

•wood and shrubs (18,7 %).

•Relevant amount of small patches of

farmland, eroded by urban sprawl.

Land Use

Farmlands, Woods and shrubs, Parks and Public

Gardens are the Non-Urbanized

100,0%2504Total

0,5%12,7Roads and parkings

1,3%31,4Trading

2,6%64,9Services and utilities

46,1%1154,4Residential

0,3%6,4Manufacturing

18,7%468,5Woods and shrubs

1,4%34,3Parks and public

gardens

11,8%295,3Farmland

17,9%448,9Abandoned farmland

%Area

[ha]Land use types

From Land Use to Land Cover

Land use categories not

able to provide

indications about land

cover features.

Each patch of a single

land use type

composed by a

(complex) mix of land

covers

Characterizing land uses type by

different land covers becomes crucial

for environmental planning (i.e.

climate change adaptation strategies)

Different percentages of

evapotranspiring surfaces can be

taken into account in deciding

prospective land uses or safeguard

measures.

Why a Land Cover Analysis of NUA?

Land Cover Analysis (1)

Buildings

Cultivated

Impervious

Shrubs

Trees

Herbaceous

vegetation

Bare soils

Grass

Fig. 2 Land cover types iden

Land Cover Analysis (2)

Land Cover Types

Composition of land cover surfaces for each land use type*

Land Cover Analysis (3)

1008.102.1019.2221.462.094.6131.2011.52Woods &

shrubs

10013.772.190.256.149.100.270.9567.34

Parks &

public

gardens

1003.401.1215.2128.070.4312.1128.3711.30Abandoned

farmland

1004.681.647.3213.291.1351.6513.356.94Farmland

TOTImperviousBuildingsBare soilHerbaceous

vegetationGrassCultivatedShrubsTrees

Land cover types percentages [%]Land Use

Type

19.2210.1970.89Woods and shrubs

0.2515.9583.80Parks and public gardens

15.214.5180.28Abandoned farmland

7.326.3286.36Farmland

% bare

soil

% impervious

surface

% evapotranspiring surface

(ET)Land Use Types

• evapotranspiring LC types = Trees, Shrubs, Cultivated, Grass,

Herbaceous Vegetation

• impervious LC types = Buildings and Impervious

Fragmentation analysis (1)

Why a fragmentation assessment of NUA?Fragmentationdividing up contiguous ecosystems into smaller areas (patches), as the result of human activities

Consequences for NUAincreasing number of patches, decreasing of the mean patch size, increasing of the total amount of edges (disturb. effects)

For climate change adaptation strategies, characterizing NUA by different fragmentation degree becomes important to differently address their land use

http://chesapeake.towson.edu/landscape/forestfrag/process.asp

Fragmentation analysis (2)

Low fragmented NUA

High fragmented NUA

Environmental

Conservation

Leisure or new forms

of agriculture

Fragmentation analysis (3)

Number of patches inside a 500 m buffer (density measure, NP)Patch area (dimension measure, PA)

Fragmentation Index* :Fr = (1-PA) + NP

* Preliminary normalization of values PA = PA / PAmax NP = NP / NPmax

2 simple indicators for each patch of NUA

Fragmentation analysis (4)

Fragmentation index (FA)

High

Fragmentation

Medium

Fragmentation

Low

fragmentation

Proximity analysis (1)

NUAs with high proximity to residential areas

should be oriented to particular land uses (i.e.

Small gardens, playgrounds or allotment gardens)

This is particularly important for patches with

high fragmentation.

Need of appropriate metric to assess the

proximity of NUAs to residential areas

∑=

=n

j ji

j

dist

PopPROXi

1

Proximity

analysis

total number of people (by census data) that can access to each NUA and weighs this

number with the inverse of the distance of each residential patch

gravity potential expression

Proximity analysis (2)

•Central and southern patches have higher proximity (due to concentration of residential

parcels)

•5 clusters of high proximity patches with high fragmentation levels

Land Use Suitability Model (1)

•3 dimensions matrix(Evapotranspiration, fragmentation

and proximity levels)

•Evapotranspiration, fragmentation and proximity levels divided in

classes of equal interval (respectively

3, 3 and 2)

•New Prospective Land Uses (PLUs) proposed, as the intersection

between the different levels of

evapotranspiration, fragmentation

and proximity.

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

strategic purposes

Land Use Suitability Model (2)

Natural parks

large highly natural areas

with relevant vegetation

cover within a

metropolitan context

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Land Use Suitability Model (2)

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Agricultural parks

large farmland areas

where productive uses

(organic farming) are

implemented together

with rural landscape

protection and fruition

Land Use Suitability Model (2)

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Friche

network of natural, semi

natural and restored to

natural state areas within,

around and between

developed patches, mainly

aimed at environmental

protection

Land Use Suitability Model (2)

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Community Supported

Agriculture (CSA)

partnerships between

farmers and community

for local quality food

production sharing

economic risk

Land Use Suitability Model (2)

LEISUREENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL GREEN

SERVICES

URBAN AGRICULTURE

Informal recreation areas

semi natural areas and

mainly oriented to leisure

and wellness, aimed

mainly at reducing work-

related stress

Compatibility Matrix (1)

PLUS can be, in most cases, different from the current onesIt is important to check the compatibility of the proposed transformations.

Current land uses of NUAs are characterized by the relationship of different bio-physical features with the way these features are used during human activities. A PLU is considered compatible with current land-use when it fits or does not contrast with this relationship.

•Farmlands to Natural Parks: not compatible (altering the characteristics of the land cover and generate loss of agricultural values)•Farmlands to Community supported agriculture: compatible

Map of Prospective Land UsesProspected Land

Uses (PLUs)

Number of

patches

% num of

patches

Total Area (ha)

% area

Average Patch Area

(ha) ET FR PD

Agricultural Park 88 0.07 263.625 0.21 29957.3864 80.3 1.1611 34.0 FRICHE 16 0.01 3.7333 0.00 2333.3125 83.8 1.3077 39.6 LUP 217 0.17 210.97 0.17 9722.1198 70.9 1.1731 33.3 Natural Park 190 0.15 184.8221 0.15 9727.4789 85.4 1.1781 37.3 Playgrounds 27 0.02 11.5051 0.01 4261.1481 70.9 1.4244 41.9 Allotment Gardens 15 0.01 18.9961 0.02 12664.0667 80.3 1.4313 43.7 Informal Recreational Areas

378 0.30 246.0479 0.20 5732.2516 70.9

1.4058 29.2

CSA 331 0.26 307.2429 0.25 4736.4405 83.5 1.4278 31.8

Most frequent: Informal recreational areas (378 patches and 246 ha)

Largest average patch area: Agricultural parks (3 ha)\

Less frequent: Allotment gardens (15 patches)

Smallest: Friches (0.2 ha)Highest evapotranspiration: Natural

Park (85.4)Highest fragmentation: Allotment

Gardens (1.43)Highest proximity: Allotment Gardens

(43.7)

Strategic role of NUAs in the provision of ecosystem services, especially in urban metropolitan areas.

Need of the characterization of NUAs with appropriate analytical tools (LCA, FA, PA, LUSM, CM) to better choose the most appropriate land uses to maintain their integrity and provided ecosystem services.

The results propose a new spatial configuration of NUAs, with a highly differentiated scenario of new land uses. This scenario will give municipalities a varied range of possibilities for the implementation of planning policies on NUAs aimed at conservation and increased provision of ecosystem services.

This is extremely relevant In metropolitan areas, where NUAs have suffered from urban sprawl and have always been considered as generic farmlands or undefined urban green spaces.

Conclusions

Buildings

Cultivated

Impervious

Shrubs

Trees

Herbaceous vegetation

Bare soils

Grass

Fig. 2 Land cover types iden

Daniele La Rosa

Riccardo Privitera

Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use planning of agricultural and

green infrastructure in urban contexts

Thanks!

Synthesizing different perspectives on the valueof urban ecosystem services

Lodz,15-16 July, 2011

dlarosa@darc.unict.it

riccardo.privitera@virgilio.it

Università di Catania - Dipartimento di Architettura

Viale A. Doria 6 – 95125 – Catania - Italy