Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012

INPUT 2012

Evaluating Axial Growth in Hamburg
using a Cellular Automata Model and
Landscape Metrics
11.05.2012

Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge
Institute for Geography, University Hamburg
christian.daneke@uni-hamburg.de

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

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

The „Axial Planning“ in Hamburg

Implementation in
Original Sketch from 1919
Regional Development Plan


Monocentric layout in the study region


Infrastructure fostering axial growth


Axial growth as an area-based planning strategy


Experimental Setup to evaluate the impacts of an axial policy

Situation 2005 Diverging Scenarios for 2050 Alternated Planning

Compact
With planning

Compact City

Compact City

Sprawl
with planning

Sprawl

Sprawl


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


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


Results I: Impacts in the axial corridors

Compact City with planning Sprawl with planning

Compact City Sprawl


Results II: Impacts in the non-corridors


Compact City Sprawl


Results III: Regional differences in axial growth on district level

Mean Area of Settlements
Segeberg Segeberg

Pinneberg Storman Pinneberg Storman

Stade Hzg. Lauenburg Stade Hzg. Lauenburg

Harburg Lüneburg Harburg Lüneburg


Compact City Sprawl


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


Thank You!
Feel free to ask questions!

Christian Daneke, Jürgen Oßenbrügge

christian.daneke@uni-hamburg.de
ossenbruegge@geowiss.uni-hamburg.de

Institut für Geographie
Universität Hamburg
Bundesstraße 55
20146 Hamburg

Land Use Demands

Analysis 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


Example of the Modelresults: Compact City


Example of Modelresults: Sprawl


Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

More from INPUT 2012

More from INPUT 2012 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Daneke & Oßenbrügge - input2012