1. Introduction and Motivation
1.3. Methods and Structure of the Study
To answer the research‐questions, an integral innovative part of this study is dedicated to the theoretical and methodological conception of a Multicriteria Assessment –scheme (MCA) which covers two targets: i) the analysis of socio‐environmental framework‐conditions of future housing sites of a city displayed in a land use plan and their contribution to a sustainable settlement development and ii) the assessment of direct socio‐environmental impacts due to housing‐
development at those sites. Figure 5 outlines the major components of the approach and sketches the prerequisites for sustainable urban planning and housing development (QoP) and the socio‐
environmental impacts of the same due to modifications of green land uses and structures on QoL and UES.
62 SCHETKE & HAASE 2008
63 a.o. DE SOUSA 2003, ZERBE ET AL. 2003; MCKINNEY 2002; WHITFORD ET AL. 2001
1 Introduction and Motivation
12
Figure 5 Concept of the study and the relation of urban development to the central concepts of the MCA (author´s draft)
The MCA as described in figure 5 (see also fig. 11 later) is applied for future housing‐sites displayed at the strategic level of a land use plan as a tool of preparatory land use planning in Germany. The MCA and its set of indicators are set against three theoretical concepts and divided into two separate groups.
Group I represents those indicators assessing the QoP of a housing site and supports the first step of the MCA. These indicators are set against a set of uniform, normative threshold‐values of planning‐
standards which remain constant throughout the case‐study area. This indicator‐set aims at applicability and decision‐relevance within planning processes. It is used to assess the physical framework conditions and socio‐environmental prerequisites of future housing sites at the level of preparatory land use planning.
Group II represents indicators providing an on‐site impact‐assessment of future housing sites using the concepts of QoL and UES. It supports the second step of the MCA. These indicators are set against local threshold‐values which vary throughout the case‐study area. This group is focusing on urban residents and impacts on their closer living surroundings due to housing development.
To enable a simultaneous assessment of both prerequisites/ framework‐conditions and impacts of settlement‐growth a prototype of a Decision‐Support‐System (DSS) executed within a Visual‐Basic‐
Interface will be presented.
1 Introduction and Motivation
13 Firstly, the concept of “Quality of Place”64 (QoP) is used to assess the socio‐environmental prerequisites of future housing sites with an emphasis on reduced use of natural resources and promotion of equitable access to facilities of social infrastructure. The operationalization of the concept of QoP and its translation into a set of indicators is an innovative approach of this study. It helps to translate arbitrarily fixed political targets to reduce land consumption (as presented above) into concrete and comprehensive ways and to implement the vision of sustainable settlement development into planning strategies. To join the multifarious definitions of QoP with the somewhat blurry term “sustainability” recent findings from the author’s current research embedded into the project FIN.3065 at the University of Bonn66 were adopted for operationalization67. The indicator‐set was consensually elaborated and tested during stakeholder workshops with urban planners of three partner cities in North Rhine‐Westphalia68. Its complexity, structure and comprehensibility are adjusted to the demands of communal planners.
Secondly, the concepts of Quality of Life69 (QoL) and Urban Ecosystem Services (UES) are used as target‐systems to assess to socio‐environmental impacts of settlement‐growth. Answers on frequently expressed socio‐environmental concerns on both infill‐ and greenfield development will be given. This impact‐assessment is executed within different housing‐scenarios with varying urban structure types and different housing‐densities. The concepts of QoL and the broad concept of Ecosystem Services (ESS)70 are discussed in scientific literature beside each other. Despite a common‐
sense of their interrelations and mutual dependencies71 valuable theoretical approaches and indicator‐sets to link the two concepts remain elusive. This study strives for filling the gap of missing linkage. Therefore, a major innovative contribution of this study is to provide with a sound theoretical approach elaborating the prominent role of urban green spaces as binding elements of both concepts. An indicator‐set, which integratively depicts both concepts and enables a quantifiable scenario‐steered impact‐assessment72 will be developed.
In this context, this study introduces the term “Urban Ecosystem Services” (UES). UES only refer to the urban ecosystem and the services that are provided by mainly urban green73 and are regarded as a subset of the broad range of the above mentioned ESS. In doing so, a novel classification of UES uniquely related to the urban environment with a close relationship to residents´ QoL will be
64 According TO JÍRON & FADDA 2000; FLORIDA 2000; with modified operationalization following KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a & SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a
65 The project FIN.30 is adjusted to the research initiative REFINA (see www.refina‐info.de/en) and funded by the German
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Major target of FIN.30 is the conception of a MCA‐scheme promoting analysis, decision‐making and monitoring of land use as the central part in coping with sustainable spatial development.
66 Institute of Geodesy and Geoinformation, Department of Urban Planning and Real Estate Management
67 SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a; KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a
68 Essen, Euskirchen and Erftstadt
69 As defined by FADDA & JÍRON 1999 or SANTOS & MARTINS 2007
70 As defined according to concepts of COSTANZA ET AL 1997 referring to ESS, the author introduces the term “Urban Ecosystem Services” to which this study will refer to. Get closer insights from a recent publication of SCHETKE ET AL*.
71 a.o. BOLUND & HUNHAMMAR 1999
72 SCHETKE ET AL.*
73 See also first studies on ecosystem services in urban areas from BOLUND & HUNHAMMAR (1999) individually exemplified in
the area of Stockholm.
1 Introduction and Motivation
14
elaborated. A new approach of linking QoL and UES using urban green as a center of attention resulting from this classification will be presented.
The conceptual approach of the MCA will be applied using the City of Essen located in the German Ruhr Area as a pilot case‐study. Essen with its past as a city of heavy industry has been shrinking during the last years. However, it still provides an enormous amount of industrial brownfields and has to cope with a very challenging greenfield development, as cities in the Ruhr Area tend to merge into each other. As housing‐development is a major driver of land consumption, future housing sites displayed in a draft of a new regional land use plan (status 2008) of the City of Essen will be subject to both assessment of socio‐environmental prerequisites and scenario‐based impact‐assessment.
To adjust the formulated research‐questions to a sound theoretical basis, the following paragraphs will give an insight into the major target concepts of this work and their meaning for the conceptualization of a MCA assessing both the framework‐conditions (step 1) and impacts (step 2) for and of settlement development. Chapter 3 presents the methodological design of the study.
Chapter 4 is dedicated to the presentation of the results of both potential‐analysis following the concept of QoP and scenario‐steered impact‐assessment against the target‐systems QoL and UES. All results will be discussed in chapter 5 and a typology of future housing‐sites according to socio‐
environmental prerequisites and impacts will be presented. Major conclusions from this work are presented in chapter 6. Chapter 7 is then dedicated to an outlook presenting suggestions for and demands of further research.