2. Theory
2.1. Quality of Place (QoP)
The term “Quality of Place (QOP) is introduced in this study to support an assessment of socio‐
environmental framework‐conditions and prerequsites. It answers research‐question 1 and assesses the contribution of future housing sites to a sustainable and resource‐preserving settlement development. The introduced political targets of the German Council for Sustainable Development to reduce land consumption evoke the impression of being fixed arbitrarily. These targets lack any approaches of a practical realization within land use planning. Therefore an operationalization of reduced land consumption is inevitable to develop strategies and methods to assess future housing sites within a city and to develop adequate planning strategies.
QoP has been discussed in recent literature in many different ways and under varying premises. It appears as an umbrella‐term covering aspects such as RICHARD FLORIDA´s (2000) quality of a place as
74 SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a, p. 103
75 KÖTTER & WEIGT 2006
76 PAULEIT ET AL. 2005, p. 295f.
77 TYRVÄINEN ET AL. 2007. Note also the books “The compact city” of JENKS, BURTON & WILLIAMS 1996 and “Compact Cities” of JENKS & BURGESS 2000 providing a sound compilation of critical research on the sustainability of compact urban development focusing on both the social and ecological dimension.
2 Theory
16
places, cities, regions being attractive to live and work in due to job opportunities, economic factors or lifestyle amenities within the new economy. “Quality‐of‐place ‐ particularly natural, recreational and lifestyle amenities – is absolutely vital in attracting knowledge workers and in supporting leading‐edge high technology firms and industries. Knowledge workers essentially balance economic opportunity and lifestyle in selecting a place to live and work”78. He considers QoP‐strategies as essential elements of regional economic development strategies to provide attractiveness by enhancing economical, social and ecological amenities providing a certain QoL.
JÍRON & FADDA (2000) follow this concept and define QoP as “the physical environment and surroundings [that] play a deterministic role in one’s QoL” (p.3). They not only highlight closer connections to the term QoL, but also define the ecological, social and economic side of QoP. In their sense, QoP‐studies are based on aggregated governmental statistics and are used “to measure the conditions of places, rank them and infer that the highly rated cities offer high QoL” (p.3).
In this study, the term QoP is used according to these definitions and narrows the view by providing an operationalization of the terms “sustainable and resource‐protecting settlement development”. It focuses innovatively on socio‐environmental prerequisites that a housing site has to provide in order to enable the defined development pathways of settlement development. The elaborated operationalization of QoP and translation into suitable indicators within this study provides innovative planning‐ and assessment‐approaches for a resource‐preserving settlement development and intelligent land use.79 Sites, that provide the preservation of natural resources and a suitable provision of social and infrastructural amenities, score high in providing QoP. These sites promote a sustainable settlement development.80
Detailed ecological determinants of QoP are determined as the preservation of existing natural resources and landscape functions as well as environmental risk factors (e.g. flood risk), which influence QoP and the suitability of a place for living.81 The assessment in terms of social suitability of future housing sites focuses on the technical and nature‐oriented quality of living surroundings and human well‐being. Availability and accessibility of adequate recreational facilities as well as social and technical infrastructure, are of central interest. A second focus is put on the attractiveness of living surroundings in terms of noise exposure and accessibility of recreational areas82.
The associated indicators used for QoP‐assessment will be presented in chapter 3.
2.1.1. Settlement‐development and Obstacles for Sustainability
If we want to learn about the possibilities to steer and assess sustainable settlement development, becoming aware of its obstacles and the major socio‐environmental impacts of land use planning
78 FLORIDA 2000, p. 5
79 SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a; SCHETKE ET AL. (in prep.); KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a,b
80 KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a; SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a
81 SCHETKE ET AL. (in prep.)
82 KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a; SCHETKE ET AL. 2009a
2 Theory
17 (see tab.1) and specifically of urban sprawl and land consumption83 is inevitable. They are bridging factors for translating sustainability‐issues into suitable indicators and assessment‐procedures.
Moreover, the ultimate scale for analysis has to be chosen to adjust land use planning to the goals of sustainability.
Table 1: Socio‐environmental impacts of urban sprawl (Modified according to KRAMPULZ 2005; PAULEIT ET AL 2005, GAINSBOROUGH 2002; HAASE 2009; EPA 2001, ALBERTI 2005, 2009, MARZLUFF ET AL. 200884)85
Ecological Consequences Social Consequences
Limitation of soil functions:
‐ Seeping and flood‐protection
‐ Buffer‐function
‐ Increased surface runoff
Social Segregation due to suburbanization
‐ Segregation of unprivileged groups
‐ Danger of inner‐urban desolation
Loss of connected open spaces:
‐ Destruction of habitats und limitation of biodiversity
‐ Reduction of recreational function
‐ Disturbance of natural scenery
Reduced financial power of core‐cities
‐ Reduction of local quality of life due to loss of central facilities and cultural infrastructure
Implication of additional individual traffic:
‐ Additional emissions of CO2 and noise
‐ Increasing pollutant emissions into the water, soil and atmosphere
Deficient provision of daily needs for an aging society in suburban areas
‐ Long distances
‐ Insufficient infrastructure
Loss of fertile soils
As mentioned in chapter 2.1 current political targets to reduce land consumption only provide arbitrarily fixed benchmarks. But concrete planning strategies remain elusive. Moreover, scientists criticize that a quantitative benchmark alone such as the 30‐ha‐goal suggests the minimization of long‐term threats and downplays obvious ecological concerns. These concerns focus on the fragmentation of landscape elements, a reduction of biodiversity and also socio‐economical nuisances such as rising investive and follow‐up costs for existing and additional infrastructure.86 Here, the level of preparatory land use planning (“Vorbereitende Bauleitplanung”) and the land use plan as its tool, offers a suitable opportunity and a strategic level to adjust future settlement development to a sustainable development and foster qualitative approaches for assessment. With around 38 % of total daily land consumption87, the development of new residential land is a major driver of these effects. Socio‐environmental prerequisites contributing to the QoP of future housing sites displayed in a land use plan can be assessed at an early stage.
83 Here, HAASE (2009) recently delivered a compilation of major social and ecological concerns related to urban sprawl as expressed within recent studies. See also UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2001 “Our built and natural environments.”
84 ALBERTI (2005, 2009) and MARZLUFF ET AL. (2008) impressively highlight the interconnections between landscape pattern, ecological processes and the impacts of urbanization. In doing so, they use the term ”urbanization processes” and the modification of natural habitats in general. Here, urban sprawl needs to be regarded as the a major driver of these patterns.
85 See also HAASE & NUISSL (2007) or NUISSL ET AL. (2009) for a concise literature‐ overview of socio‐environmental effects of
urban sprawl and compare also the multidimensional impacts summarized by SIEDENTOP (2005)
86 SIEDENTOP 2002; KÖTTER ET AL. 2009a
87 JERING ET AL. 2003, p. 3
2 Theory
18
Sites which enhance an efficient and resource‐preserving settlement growth counting for both natural and social resources will achieve best scores in QoP. Whilst natural resources are to be sustained and preserved, resources of social infrastructure are to be used to capacity. In doing so settlement growth should focus on the use of already existing infrastructures, enhancing compact settlement growth, avoiding longer distances as well as increased individual traffic and limiting parallel infrastructures and rising costs.
Accordingly, the following system is suggested: Sites promoting a valuable contribution to sustainable settlement development within the assessment are suggested to be bequeathed to binding land use planning (“Verbindliche Bauleitplanung”) and shall be covered with residential houses. Sites failing to provide a suitable QoP are not suggested to proceed to binding land use planning, as they counteract a sustainable settlement development. Figure 6 below outlines an insight into the system of land use planning and the possibilities to strategically influence its adjustment towards sustainable settlement development.
Figure 6 Principle of land use planning whilst integrating QoP‐assessment (author´s draft)
The concept of QoP was introduced to provide an analysis of overall socio‐environmental framework‐
conditions within a city and the contribution of potential housing sites displayed in a land use plan due to their respective location. The following impact‐assessment as conducted within this study as the second step of the MCA is dedicated to the special role of urban green spaces to its target‐
systems QoL and UES. According to current literature, urban green spaces have significant impacts on
both and act as a linking element.
2 Theory
19