Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012

532 views

Published on

Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge on "Evaluating Axial Growth in Hamburg using a Cellular Automata Model and Landscape Metrics"

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
532
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012

  1. 1. INPUT 2012Evaluating Axial Growth in Hamburgusing a Cellular Automata Model and Landscape Metrics 11.05.2012 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge Institute for Geography, University Hamburg christian.daneke@uni-hamburg.de
  2. 2. 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 • 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? 2 Christian Daneke 17.05.2012
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. The „Axial Planning“ in Hamburg Implementation in Original Sketch from 1919 Regional Development Plan 4 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  5. 5. Monocentric layout in the study region 5 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  6. 6. Infrastructure fostering axial growth 6 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  7. 7. Axial growth as an area-based planning strategy 7 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  8. 8. Experimental Setup to evaluate the impacts of an axial policySituation 2005 Diverging Scenarios for 2050 Alternated Planning Compact With planning Compact City Compact City Sprawl with planning Sprawl Sprawl 8 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  9. 9. Conceptual Layout of the Metronamica Modelling Framework Stochastic perturbation Land use v = 1 + (− ln [rand ]) t α Suitability 0 0.5 1 Transition Rule Change cells to land-use for which they have the highest transition potential until the demands are met. Accessibility Transition Zoning Potentials 9 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  10. 10. Landscape Metrics to measure the impacts Elements Landscape Indicator Description Patch Density Elements per Area Patch Size Mean size of all Elements Mean Complexity of all Elements as the comparison to a Patch Shape 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 10 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  11. 11. Results I: Impacts in the axial corridors Compact City with planning Sprawl with planning Compact City Sprawl 11 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  12. 12. Results II: Impacts in the non-corridors Compact City with planning Sprawl with planning Compact City Sprawl 12 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  13. 13. Results III: Regional differences in axial growth on district level Mean Area of Settlements Segeberg SegebergPinneberg Storman Pinneberg StormanStade Hzg. Lauenburg Stade Hzg. Lauenburg Harburg Lüneburg Harburg Lüneburg Compact City with planning Sprawl with planning Compact City Sprawl 13 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  14. 14. Results III: Regional differences in axial growth on district level Mean Area of Settlements Segeberg SegebergPinneberg Storman Pinneberg StormanStade Hzg. Lauenburg Stade Hzg. Lauenburg Harburg Lüneburg Harburg Lüneburg Compact City with planning Sprawl with planning Compact City Sprawl 14 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  15. 15. Conclusion General Impacts Compact City Sprawl • Axial growth • Axial Growth • Strong axial dominant • Strengthening growth • Non-corridors effect • Controlling impact shrink • Preserving effect on growth • Policy amplifies the • Competing with • Sprawling effects the inner city development is • Strong regional prevented differences 15 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  16. 16. Thank You! Feel free to ask questions!Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge christian.daneke@uni-hamburg.deossenbruegge@geowiss.uni-hamburg.de Institut für Geographie Universität Hamburg Bundesstraße 55 20146 Hamburg
  17. 17. Land Use DemandsAnalysis per Land Use Class Definition Land Use New Population Block-scale Per Year Buildings Population LU 1 LU 2 LU 3 Density Density Density Number of flats Nr. new Nr. new Nr. new flats flats flats Area per Class needed to house Demand Demand Demand n flats 17 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  18. 18. Example of the Modelresults: Compact City 18 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012
  19. 19. Example of Modelresults: Sprawl 19 Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge 17.05.2012

×