140
6. Conclusion
Following the major hypothesis of this study460, the aforementioned paragraphs discussing findings from both the assessment of QoP and impact assessment of QoL/UES will be synthesized and put into relation with the preceding chapters of this work. Two research questions and one major hypothesis of this work shall guide us on this way.
The results presented in chapter 4 gave a valuable and significant differentiation of two different strategies of settlement development against their contribution to the principles of sustainability:
infill and greenfield development. In doing so, a highly innovative and planning‐oriented indicator‐
framework was presented in chapter 3 and applied in a first pilot study of the City of Essen (chapter 4). Accordingly, an answer on research question 1 and focusing on the first part of the MCA could be given:
1. Which socio‐environmental prerequisites exist in inner‐urban and suburban areas determining the suitability of site (“QoP”) for housing purposes against the demand for sustainable and resource‐preserving settlement‐development? How can Quality of Place be operationalized by indicators applicable and understandable for both planners and scientists?
The interplay of indicators and expert‐weights, as outlined in chapter 4, did reveal a differentiation of the QoP of greenfield‐ from infill sites and significantly detected decision‐relevant indicators on socio‐environmental prerequisites. In chapter 4 and 5, we learnt that the overall QoP of greenfield sites is generally limited compared to the QoP of infill sites which is very good in ecological terms and quite heterogeneous in social terms. Chapter 3 gave an answer on the second part of the question and presented a highly innovative indicator‐framework for QoP‐assessment. The indicators derived from a participative approach of scientists and planners and are supported by findings form current literature and planning as outlined before. The requirements of this step of the MCA were set clearly and three major tasks had to be fulfilled: i) it has to fulfill scientific demands, ii) to be applicable within the planning process, iii) to assess socio‐environmental prerequisites of housing sites under the headline of sustainability.
Highly valuable results on a general classification of infill and greenfield sites support an especially critical discussion of urban sprawl, as presented in chapter 1, and on finding new ways to adjust settlement growth according to its contribution to sustainability and resource‐preservation. It supports planners to assess the suitability of future housing sites at the strategic level of land use planning against the principles of sustainable settlement growth and demographic oriented land use planning. Using such a tool can help to achieve goals of reduced land consumption such as the 30‐ha‐
goal as they shed light on the potentials cities hold in favor of a fostered infill development.
Here, the gap between science and planners could be bridged but also claimed concession especially at the side of complexity and scientific demands. Following a participative approach, the indicator‐
framework of QoP was highly condensed and limited the capacity for in‐depth analysis and
460 “The success of a strategy of fostered infill development cannot be generalized. Both the suitability of a site for housing purposes and its socio‐environmental impacts at local level – due to either infill or greenfield development – are significantly determined by individual prerequisites and framework‐conditions.”
6 Conclusion
141 extensively diverse assessment in its single dimensions of sustainability. Moreover, future housing sites deriving from one case study were chosen and according to current planning frameworks461. An expanded indicator‐framework together with an expanded set of future housing sites could have improved the differentiations of QoP at infill and greenfield sites leading to unambiguous statements but would have counteracted the requirements of a planner‐oriented MCA as presented above.
The second part of the MCA, as presented in chapter 3.2, shed light on the consequences and impacts of a fostered infill development in order to answer research question 2:
2. What socio‐environmental impacts can be stated due to infill‐and greenfield development? And can we per se state positive or negative effects on Quality of Life (“QoL”) and Urban Ecosystem Services (“UES”) of a strategy of fostered infill development or do we need to consider additional external effects?
This part of the MCA enabled a clear and quantified insight into socio‐environmental impacts due to infill and greenfield development. It could state overall negative consequences of greenfield development. In terms of infill development both very positive but also single negative impacts had to be stated according to characteristic of the sites themselves, surrounding conditions and according to housing density. Whilst positive socio‐environmental impacts could be stated at brownfield sites, sites of infill development integrated into merely rural surroundings showed negative impacts.
The major hypothesis of this work therefore has to be partially verified:
“The success of a strategy of fostered infill development cannot be generalized. Both the suitability of a site for housing purposes and its socio‐environmental impacts at local level – due to either infill or greenfield development – are significantly determined by individual prerequisites and framework‐
conditions.”
Following these findings, the question emerged in chapter 4.3 and 5.3, whether sites of positive QoP meaning positive socio‐environmental prerequisites for housing development, will also benefit from positive socio‐environmental impacts or if they –due to their integrated location and embedding into existing settlement structures‐ will suffer from negative impacts on QoL and UES. This would confirm the restrictive expressions towards infill development which have already been mentioned in the introductory part.
In terms of greenfield development a clear picture was derived from both assessments. Proving a merely low QoP because of the partial use of natural resources and the limited accessibility of daily commodities also negative impacts on the provision of UES and their influences on residents´ QoL could be stated in the second step of the MCA. In doing so, findings from current literature as presented in chapter 2 about clearly negative effects of greenfield development could be confirmed.
The results of infill development could not be harmonized and generalized at all. Proving a general better QoP due to the avoided use of natural resources and unmodified land use classes in most cases and a general good accessibility of daily commodities despite limitations due to nuisances and
461 Sites of RFNP‐draft of 2008 for the City of Essen and analyzed of SCHAUERTE ET AL. 2007.
6 Conclusion
142
contaminations, positive preconditions of infill development could be stated.462 Still, the results from QoL/UES‐ impact assessment showed the second part of the medal of socio‐environmental impacts due to infill development, which is reflected within this integrated assessment of QoP and QoL/UES.
This very heterogeneous picture tells us an important lesson: The prerequisites/QoP of infill development, indicated according to this study, show a general positive picture and would recommend a fostering of infill development according to political notions and evident negative impacts of urban sprawl and greenfield development. In terms of socio‐environmental impacts and related concerns as expressed by scientists, a possible limited acceptance of infill development amongst selected groups and additional ecological problems at selected sites as mentioned above could be indicated but cannot be generalized at all. Referring to chapter 5.3 major positive socio‐
environmental impacts could be stated for infill‐sites. Here, the MCA‐scheme proved suitable for land use assessment adjusted to demographic features and prerequisites.
It can be concluded, that a strategy of fostered infill development cannot be rejected unbiased, demands further in‐depth analysis but still proves general positive effects.
And as a matter of fact, it can be stated, that infill development needs to be regarded mandatorily as an alternative to greenfield development and urban sprawl and demands to be fostered in current urban planning. Moreover, social and ecological concerns as expressed by scientists as discussed in chapter 1 could be widely smoothed out and put into perspective by highlighting selected means of infill development and external surroundings of each site.
We have learnt, that not only a quantitative and political target such the 30‐ha‐goal and a qualitative 3:1 regulation of fostering infill development are sufficient to effectively influence and promote sustainable settlement growth. Moreover local framework conditions, demographic aspects and the integration of future housing sites into their surroundings are of prime importance. Additionally, the issue of paradox settlement growth as outlined in chapter 1.1 expands this problematic and adds the topic of uneven settlement patterns planners have to deal with. The question is not about the legitimacy of the development of a certain amount of land but moreover about the use of existing infrastructure, the provision with adequate living surroundings, environmental health, resource preservation and a good QoL. This count for both growing and shrinking cities and best depicts the tasks of current urban planning. Here, the question of how to adjust current planning strategies to these demands will endure.
462 See comparable results of HOWLEY 2009 for the UK.