Territories -in- between: A Cross-case Comparison of Dispersed Urban Development in Europe
There is an increasing body of literature suggesting that the conventional idea of a gradual transition in spatial structure from urban to rural does not properly reflect contemporary patterns of urban development and their potential for sustainable development. Furthermore, it is argued that large parts of the dispersed urban areas of Europe are neglected in urban and spatial planning policies. Such areas tend to be labelled simply as sprawl, though there is little evidence about whether such dispersed development is more or less sustainable than other forms of urban development. Moreover, evidence points in the direction that a large amount of dispersed urban development also asks for different planning approaches and instruments, which reflect the complexity and network structure of theses specific settlement patterns.
The research introduces the concept of territories-in-between (TiB) to address the issues surrounding dispersed urban development and to contribute to the understanding of sustainable urbanisation. TiB is an umbrella term that avoids the simple dichotomy of spatial structure into ‘urban’ and ‘rural’. It also avoids the notion of an urban-rural continuum, and is not limited by cultural connotations that come with some other terms like Zwischenstadt, Città diffusa or Tussenland, because those terms belong to a specific place and are not generic.
A cross-case comparison research design was chosen to avoid an approach that is too contextspecific and solution-oriented but which is able to develop methods and principles that can be transferred to other geographical contexts. Ten cases in five countries were studied with the aim to answer the following questions:
–– What spatial structures characterise dispersed urban areas in Europe?
–– Which morphological and functional structures of dispersed urban areas offer the potential for more sustainable development? If so, how can this potential be mapped and measured to inform regional planning and design?
–– Are there similarities and dissimilarities concerning potentials of dispersed urban areas in different locations, planning cultures, topographies and histories?
These questions were answered in detail in four papers, which are summarised below.
Beyond urban-rural classifications: characterising and mapping territories-in-between across Europe
Much of the physical territory of Europe does not fit classic ‘urban-rural’ typologies but can best be described as ‘territories-in-between’ (TiB). There is considerable agreement that TiB is pervasive and very significant. However, typologies of territory or spatial development continue to employ only degrees of either urban or rural. Similarly, spatial planning and territorial development policies rarely make use of the notion of in-between areas but tend instead to divide the territory into urban and rural zones. Questions have been raised therefore, about the lack of understanding of territories-in-between and the lack of attention given to them in planning policy. This paper contributes to a better understanding of TiB, by proposing a method for their characterisation and mapping. It asks if there can be a common definition of TiB that reflects consistent and distinctive characteristics across the great variety of spatial development contexts in Europe. It proposes spatial and demographic criteria for their definition, mapping and comparison. The comparison with widely used urban-rural classifications shows that the notion of TiB has three advantages: (i) it maps the complexity of the spatial structure of urbanised areas on a regional scale, and thereby helps to overcome the prevalent idea that urbanised regions are characterised by a spatial gradient from urban centre(s) to rural periphery; (ii) it emphasises the network structure of territories-in-between and the underlying connectivity of places with different functions; and (iii) it raises awareness that in some parts of Europe a settlement pattern has developed that cannot be understood as either urban or rural.
Towards sustainable territories-in-between: a multidimensional typology of open spaces in Europe
The improvement of ecosystem services provided by open spaces in dispersed urban areas is a crucial challenge for sustainable spatial development in Europe. The typology presented in this article illustrates the different potentials that open spaces in territories-in-between have across ten cases in Europe. Unlike other typologies, neither function nor form is used for the classification, but the potential interaction of open spaces with social, technical and ecological networks. Therefore, the typology informs regional spatial planning and design about the potential ecosystem services in networked urban regions. Consequently, the importance of territories-in-between, which are often neglected by mainstream spatial planning and design, for sustainable development is highlighted.
Comparing the landscape fragmentation and accessibility of green spaces in territories-in-between across Europe
The positive effects provided by green spaces on human well-being in dispersed urban areas is a potential advantage in urban development and a key challenge for sustainable spatial development in Europe. This article presents a methodology that allows for the comparison of the potential of green spaces in territories-in-between across Europe, in a way that crosses the fields of urban ecology and urbanism. The article adds to the existing knowledge and understanding of the relation between the spatial organisation of systems of green spaces and their accessibility to biodiversity and human wellbeing. First, it adapts a green space fragmentation index in a way that it can be applied to the specific spatial characteristics of territories-in-between. Second, it combines the fragmentation index with an indicator for the accessibility of green spaces in order to integrate aspects of ecology, human wellbeing and the spatial heterogeneity of the relation between them. The methodology is applied to ten areas across western Europe in order to inform decision and policy makers including urban planners, designers and environmental agencies. The approach enables assessment of the potential of the system of green spaces for biological diversity and human well-being in an integrated manner.
Territories-in-between: investigating forms of mixed-use in Europe’s dispersed urban areas
A large part of Europe’s population lives in dispersed urban settlements, much of it labelled as sprawl: monofunctional low-density urbanisation. There is increasing evidence though that this may be a too simplistic way of describing them, as some of these territories-in-between (TiB) urban and rural have undergone a process of densification and diversification. This paper investigates whether and how mixed-use appears in TiB. The paper uses data on the location of economic activities and the residential population at a 500 m by 500 m resolution. It concludes that in the eight cases in four European countries mixed-use is widespread and that more than 65 per cent of the area is mixed. Moreover, the paper demonstrates, by developing a multi-scalar typology of settlement characteristics including measures of grain, density, permeability and centrality, that local and regional settlement characteristics can explain the location and intensity of mixed-use areas. Although the building types and form of local urban tissue vary significantly in mixed-use areas, we conclude that across all four countries, the cross-scale settlement characteristics are similar.
Atlas of territories-in-between
The four papers are completed by an Atlas of Territories-in-between and a meta-analyses across all papers and cases. The Atlas presents a rich compendium of original maps illustrating the morphological, functional and relational properties of TiB, and the resulting potentials for present and future sustainability. The cross-case comparison of the ten dispersed urban areas across Europe uses 25 indicators to assess the current state and potentials for the future sustainability of these areas. The indicators cover the aspects of the provision of different ecosystem services, multifunctionality and mixed-use. The methods developed to assess the potential for future sustainable development combine both regional and systemic aspects with local and place-specific elements. It does so drawing on extensive modelling and spatial analyses of the settlement patterns, systems of built and unbuilt open spaces as well as on demographic and economic location patterns.
Do dispersed urban areas have distinct characteristics? In sum, the findings show that dispersed urban areas in Europe are quite distinct from urban and rural areas and that they share characteristics from one place to another. The findings also show that the well-worn notion of a continuum from urban to rural does not stand up to the evidence, and is a crude simplification of the complexities and socio-ecological systemic relations which characterise TiB. It follows that effective spatial planning for such areas needs to be built on a more careful analysis of characteristics and potential for sustainable development.
The research investigated three aspects of sustainable spatial development, the potential of multifunctionality, the provision of ecosystem services and the presence and potential for mixed-use. The potentials for multi-functionality in TiB go beyond the buildings. Especially grey open spaces provide a significant potential for multifunctionality. Greenspaces have an inherent potential through multifunctional use to not only lessen the negative impact of climate changes but also to provide a positive effect on the liveability of citizens.
The maps presented in this study show that the most common green spaces, but also significant parts of grey spaces in TiB have the potential for multiple ecosystem services. The form of the potential is very distinct according to the spatial relation of a specific open space to its centrality as a resulting characteristic of the street network, accessibility to and connectivity of services as well as densities of services, production and consumption.
Mixed-use, preferably integrated into a pedestrian-oriented environment, is a further aspect of sustainability. The research shows that TiB are more mixed than commonly referred to. The typology presented in this paper shows that mixed-use in TiB could be related to specific settlement characteristics. The characteristics investigated were: grain, density, permeability, centrality and closeness to transit stations and motorway entries.
This leads to a generalised conclusion: the networks of small towns and cities form a robust spatial structure that can facilitate multi-functionality, mixed-use and ecosystem services, on both local and regional scales. But these qualities are under pressure by one-dimensional planning approaches which tend to focus on densification only. There is a significant potential to develop green and grey open spaces along with the network of grey infrastructures to provide ecosystem services and also facilitate multi-functionality.
Albrechts, L. (2004). Strategic (Spatial) Planning Reexamined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065
Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208
Amati, M. & Taylor, L. (2010). From green belts to green infrastructure, Planning Practice and Research, 25(2), pp. 143–155. doi:10.1080/02697451003740122.
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., & Ahrné, K. (2007). Measuring social–ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 17(5), 1267–1278. doi:10.1890/06-1116.1
Andexlinger, W., Kronberger, P., Mayr, S., Nabielek, K., Ramière, C., & Staubmann, C. (2005). TirolCity. Vienna, Austria: Folio Verlag.
Angold, P. G., Sadler, J. P., Hill, M. O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K., . . . Thompson, K. (2006). Bio- diversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total Environment, 360(1), 196–204. doi:10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2005.08.035
Annual Review of Public Health 26(1), 341–365 (DOI: 10.1146/annurev. publhealth.26.021304.144708).Arango, J. et al. (2017). “Implementing the New Urban Agenda by Strengthening Urban-Rural Linkages - Leave No One and No Space Behind.” http://www.unhabitat.org.
Aronson, M. F., La Sorte, F. A., Nilon, C. H., Katti, M.,Goddard, M. A., Lepczyk, C. A., . . . Dobbs, C. (2014). A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity reveals key anthropogenic drivers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1780).
Baccini, P., and Oswald, F. (2008a). “Designing the Urban?: Linking Physiology and Morphology.” : 79–88.
———. 2008b. “Designing the Urban?: Linking Physiology and Morphology.” Handbook of transdisciplinary research: 79–88. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_5 (January 8, 2014).
Barman-Krämer, G., Brandl, A., Unruh, P., Magnago Lampugnani, V., & Noell, M. (2007). Handbuch Zum Stadtrand: Gestaltungsstrategien Für Den Suburbanen Raum. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Basilico, G. & Boeri,S. (1998). Italy: Cross Sections of a Country. Scalo. https://books.google.nl/books?id=vspqQgAACAAJ.
Berke, E., West, A., Wallace, A. & Weeks, W. (2009). Practical and Policy Implications of Using Different Rural-Urban Classification Systems: A Case Study of Inpatient Service Utilization among Veterans Administration Users. The Journal of Rural Health: Official Journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association 25(3): 259–66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566611 (January 25, 2012).
Berry, H. L., 2007, ‘”Crowded suburbs” and “killer cities”: A brief review of the relationship between urban environments and mental health’, New South Wales Public Health Bulletin 18(12), 222–227.
Beninde, J., Veith, M., & Hochkirch, A. (2015). Biodiversity in cities needs space: A meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecology Letters, 18(6), 581–592. doi:10.1111/ele.12427
Beumer, C., & Martens, P. (2014). Biodiversity in my (back)yard: Towards a framework for citizen engage ment in exploring biodiversity and ecosystem services in residential gardens. Sustainability Science, 10(1), 87–100. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0270-8
Boeri, S. (1997). Eclectic Atlases. Documenta Documents, 3(Journal Article), 4–14.
Bölling, L. (2007). Das Bild Der Zwischenstadt. Dekodierung Und Inszenierung ‘Räumlicher Identität’ Als Potenzial Zur Requalifizierung Der Verstädterten Landschaft. (September 1967).
Borsdorf, A. (2004). On the Way To Post-Suburbia? In A. Borsdorf & P. Zembri (Eds.), EUROPEAN CITIES Strucutres Insights on Outskirts (pp. 7–29). Retrieved from http://urbamet.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/Urbamet/0259/Urbamet-0259438/EQUTEX00010091_1.pdf%23page=5
Braat, L. C. & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy, Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011.
Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. Available at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip059/2005007591.html.
Bureau van Dijk. (2014). A Database of Comparable Financial Information for Public and Private Companies Across Europe. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Author.
Campi, M., Bucher, F., & Zardini, M. (2000). Annähernd perfekte Peripherie: Glattalstad. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Carmona, M. (2010a). Contemporary public space: part one, critique, Journal of Urban Design, 4809(September), 123–148. doi:10.1080/13574800903435651.
Carmona, M. (2010b). Contemporary public space, part two: classification, Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 157–173. doi:10.1080/13574801003638111.
Carr, S. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available at https://books.google.com/ books?hl=en&lr=&id=pjo4AAAAIAAJ&pgis=1.
Caso, O. (1999). The City, the Elderly, and Telematics. Design Aspects of Telematic Applications in a Residential Neighbourhood (Doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Spatial Planning Group, Delft, The Netherlands.
Castells, M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanisation: Reflections on the spatial dynamics of the information age. Urban Studies, 47(13), 2737–2745.
Caves (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of the city. London, UK/New York, USA: Routledge.
Charmes, E., & Keil, R. (2015). The Politics of Post-Suburban Densification in Canada and France. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(3), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12194
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Re- view, 51(4), 661–703. doi:10.1137/070710111
Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(1), 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002
Couch, C., Leontidou, L. & Gerhard, P.-H. (Eds) (2007). Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-use Change & Policy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Convention. Florence, France: European Treaty Series.
Cranz, G. & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the sustainable park: a fifth model for urban parks, Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102–120. doi:10.3368/lj.23.2.102.
Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: a review of the empirical evidence, Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1–31. Available at http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2s2.00008506946&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
Crucitti, P., Latora, V., & Porta, S. (2006). Centrality in networks of urban streets. Chaos, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2150162
Davies, C., MacFarlane, R. & McGloin, C. (2015). Green Infrastructure Planning Guide. Available at http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/North_East_Green_Infrastructure_Planning_ Guide.pdf.
Dehaene, M. (2018). Horizontal Metropolis: Issues and Challenges of a New Urban Ecology Statements. In The Horizontal Metropolis Between Urbanism and Urbanization, eds. Paola Viganò, Chiara Cavalieri, and Martina Barcelloni Corte. Cham: SPRINGER, 269–82.
Dessemontet, P., Kaufmann, V. & Jemelin, C. (2010). Switzerland as a single metropolitan area? A study of its commuting network, Urban Studies, 47(13), 2785–2802. doi:10.1177/0042098010377371
Di Giulio, M., Holderegger, R., & Tobias, S. (2009). Effects of habitat and landscape fragmentation on humans and biodiversity in densely populated landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(10), 2959–2968. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.002
Dramstad, W. E., Olson, J. D., & Forman, R. T. T. (1996). Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2004). Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-first Century, 2nd rev. Kansas, USA: University Press of Kansas.
Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2010). European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Dupuy, G. (1991). L’urbanisme des réseaux. Théories et méthodees. Paris, France: Armand Colin.
Dupuy, G. (2008). Urban Networks-Network Urbanism. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Techne Press.
Ehrlich,P. R. & Ehrlich, A. H. (1982). Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Available at http://books.google.nl/books/about/Extinction.html?id= KUwzHAAACAAJ&pgis=1.
Eigenbrod, F., Bell, V. A., Davies, H. N., Heinemeyer, A., Armsworth, P. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2011). The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1722), 3201–3208. doi:10.1098/ rspb.2010.2754
European Commission. (1997). The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies (Regional Development Studies 28). Luxembourg, Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Environment Agency. (2011). Analysing and managing urban growth. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/analysing-and-managing-urban- growth
European Environment Agency. (2011). Landscape frag-mentation in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: EEA.
EUROSTAT. (2012). Urban–rural Typology. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/statistics explained/index.php/Urban-rural typology
EUROSTAT (2016). Urban Europe, statistics on cities, towns and suburbs. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
Faeth, S. H., & Kane, T. C. (1978). Urban biogeography: City parks as islands for diptera and coleoptera. Oecologia, 32, 1217–133. doi:10.1007/BF00344697
Farinha-Marques, P. et al. (2011). Urban Biodiversity: A Review of Current Concepts and Contributions to Multidisciplinary Approaches. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 24(3): 247–71.
Farley, J. (2012). Ecosystem services: The economics debate, Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002.
Fishman, R. (1990). Metropolis unbound: the new city of the twentieth century, Flux, 6(1), 43–55. doi: 10.3406/flux.1990.1172.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Ruddin, L. P. (2006). Stupid ! Social Scientists , (December 2004), 797–812.
Forsyth, A. (2012). Defining suburbs. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(3), 270–281.
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. doi:10.2307/3033543.
Freire, Sergio; Halkia, Matina; Pesaresi, Martino (2016): GHS population grid, derived from EUROSTAT census data (2011) and ESM 2016. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) Dataset PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/jrc-ghsl-ghs_pop_eurostat_europe_r2016a
Frijters, E., Hamers, D., Kürschner, J., Lörzing, H., Nabielek, K., Rutte, R., … Van Veelen, P. (2004). Tussenland. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: NAi Uitgevers. Available at http://www.worldcat.org/ title/tussenland/oclc/254976120.
Galea, S. and Vlahov, D., 2005, ‘Urban health — Evidence, challenges, and directions’,
Gallent, N., Bianconi, M. & Andersson, J. (2006). Planning on the edge: England’s rural–urban fringe and the spatial-planning agenda, Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 33(3), 457–476. Available at http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/70921/.
Gallent, N., Shoard, M., Andersson, J., Oades, R. & Tudor, C. (2004). Inspiring England’s urban fringes: multi-functionality and planning, Local Environment, 9(3), 217–233. doi:10.1080/13 54983042000219342.
Galster, G., et al. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate-Washington, 12(4), 681–718.
Garreau, J. (1991). Edge city: Life on the new frontier. New York, USA: Doubleday. Available at http://www.amazon. com/Edge-City-Life-New-Frontier/dp/0385424345.
Geddes, P.(1915). Cities in evolution: An introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics. Williams & Norgate, London
Geneletti, D. La Rosa, D., Spyra M., & Cortinovis, C. (2017). A Review of Approaches and Challenges for Sustainable Planning in Urban Peripheries. Landscape and Urban Planning 165: 231–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.013.
Gerring, J. (2007). 1 Social Science Case Study Research: Principles and Practices.
Girvetz, E. H., Thorne, J. H., Berry, A. M., & Jaeger, J. (2008). Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi- scale case study from California, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(3), 205–218. doi:10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2008.02.007
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. doi:10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (1996). Beyond polycentricity: The dispersed metropolis, Los angeles, 1970-1990. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975695
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Grahn, P. and Stigsdotter, U. A., 2003, ‘Landscape planning and stress’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening2(1), 1–18 (DOI: 10.1078/1618-8667-00019)
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D.C. & Mcdonald, D. (2002). Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative. University of Florida/IFAS: 1–3. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394.
Hajer, M. & Reijndorp, M. (2001). In Search of New Public Domain. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: NAi.
Hall, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regions in Europe. UK: Earthscan Ltd.
Harnik, P. (2012). Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC, US: Island Press. Available at https:// books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cTAJZy765RsC&pgis=1.
Hanzl, M. (2010). Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-use Change and Policy. Planning Practice and Research (Vol. 25). https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740312
Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G. W., 1991, ‘Restorative effects of natural environment experiences’, Environment and Behavior 23(1), 3–26 (DOI: 10.1177/0013916591231001)
Hausleitner, B. and Berghauser Pont, M. (2017) ‘Development of a configurational typology for micro-businesses integrating geometric and configurational variables’, in Proceedings - 11th International Space Syntax Symposium, SSS 2017. Lisbon.
Healy, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times . London and New York: Routledge.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016). Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2016–March, 3928–3937. IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2016.488
Herndon, JD 2011, Mixed-Use Development in Theory and Practice: Learning from Atlanta’s Mixed Experiences.
Herndon, JD 2011, Mixed-Use Development in Theory and Practice: Learning from Atlanta’s Mixed Experiences.
Higgs, G., Fry, R., & Langford, M. (2012). Investigating the implications of using alternative GIS-based techniques to measure accessibility to green space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(2), 326–343. doi:10.1068/b37130
Hoppenbrouwer, E., & Louw, E. (2007). Mixed-use development : Theory and practice in Amsterdam ’ s Eastern Docklands Mixed-use Development : Theory and Practice in Amsterdam ’ s Eastern Docklands, 4313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500242048
Huhlmann, F., & Promski, M. (2007). Assessing contemporary cultural landscapes. Presented at European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools Conference: Belgrade, Serbia.
Ibes, D. C. (2015). A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: a novel methodology and case study application, Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, pp. 122–137. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.014.
Indovina, F. (1990). La città diffusa. Venice, Italy: Istituto Universitario di Architettura.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Available at http://books.google.nl/ books/about/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cit.html?id=P_bPTgOoBYkC&pgis=1.
Jaeger, J. A. G. (2002). Landschaftszerschneidungeine transdisziplinäre Studie gemäß dem Konzept der Umweltgefährdung; mit 50 Tab. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
Jaeger, J. A. G., Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., Müller, K., Steinmeier, C., Ewald, K. C., & Ghazoul, J. (2008). Implementing landscape fragmentation as an indicator in the Swiss Monitoring System of Sustainable Development (Monet). Journal of Environ-mental Management, 88(4), 737–751. doi:10.1016/ j.jenvman.2007.03.043
Jaeger, J. A. G., & Schwick, C. (2014). Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: Weighted Urban Proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. Ecological Indicators, 38, 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.022
Jaeger, J. A.G, Soukup, T., Madriñán, L. F., Schwick, C., & Kienast, F. (2011). Landscape fragmentation in Europe (EEA Report No 2/2011). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environmental Agency.
Kambites, C. & Owen, S. (2006). Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK 1, Planning Practice and Research, 21(4), 483–496. doi:10.1080/02697450601173413.
Kane, K., Connors, J. P., & Galletti, C. S. (2014). Beyond fragmentation at the fringe: A path-dependent, high-resolution analysis of urban land cover in Phoenix, Arizona. Applied Geography, 52, 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.05.002
Kasanko, M., Barredo, J. I., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V., & Brezger, A. (2006). Are European cities becoming dispersed?: A comparative analysis of 15 European urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1), 111–130. doi:10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2005.02.003
Kennedy, C., Pincetl S., & Bunje, P. (2011). The Study of Urban Metabolism and Its Applications to Urban Planning and Design. Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987) 159(8–9): 1965–73. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21084139 (August 11, 2013).
Kühn, M. (2003). Greenbelt and green heart: separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1–2), 19–27. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00198-6.
Laidley, T. (2016). Measuring Sprawl: A New Index, Recent Trends, and Future Research. Urban Affairs Review 52(1): 66–97.
Le Galès, P., & Zagrodzki, M. (2010). Cities are back in town: The US/Europe Comparisson. Paris, France. Cahier Européen
Le Jeannic, T., & Vidalenc, J. (1997). Pôles urbains et péri- urbanisation. Le zonage en aires urbaines. INSEE première, 516, 1–2.
Lerner, A. M., & Eakin, H. (2011). An obsolete dichotomy? Rethinking the rural–urban interface in terms of food security and production in the Global South. The Geographical Journal, 177(4), 311–320. doi:10.1111/ j.1475-4959.2010.00394.x
Louis, H. (1936). Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin. In W. PANZER (Ed.), Krebs-Festschrift. Stutgart, Germany: Engelhorn.
Lovell, S. T. & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States, Landscape Ecology, 28(8), pp. 1447–1463. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y.
Low, S., Taplin, D. & Scheld, D. (2005) Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. Austin, USA: University of Texas Press.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587–592. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043125.
Marulli, J., & Mallarach, J. M. (2005). A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: Application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71(2/4), 243–262. doi:10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2004.03.007
Mashhoodi, B. and van Timmeren, A., 2018. Local determinants of household gas and electricity consumption in Randstad region, Netherlands: application of geographically weighted regression. Spatial Information Research, 26(6), pp.607-618.
Mashhoodi, B., 2018. Spatial dynamics of household energy consumption and local drivers in Randstad, Netherlands. Applied Geography, 91, pp.123-130.
Matsuoka, R. H. & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions, Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 7–19. doi:10.1016/j. landurbplan.2007.09.009.
Mcrit. (2010). Urban and rural narratives and spatial development. Barcelona, Spain: Mcrit. Available at: 220.127.116.11/urban_rural/220710_URBANO_RURAL_ING.pdf
Mell, I. C. (2009). Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 162(1), pp. 23–34. doi:10.1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis . Washington, DC, USA: Island Press).
Miller, J. R., 2005, ‘Biodiversity conservation and theextinction of experience’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution20(8), 430–434 (DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013)
Mikelbank, B. A. (2004). A typology of U.S. suburban places. Housing Policy Debate, 15(4), 935–964.
Moudon, A. V. (1994). Getting to know the built landscape: typomorphology. In A. F. Karen & L. H. Schneekloth (Eds), Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Moudon, A. V., 2009, ‘Real noise from the urban environment: How ambient community noise affects health and what can be done about it’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 37(2), 167–171 (DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.019).
Müller, F. & Burkhard, B. (2012). The indicator side of ecosystem services, Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 26–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.001.
Müller, N., & Werner, P. (2010). Urban biodiversity and the case for implementing the convention on bio- logical diversity in towns and cities. In N. Müller, P. Werner, & J. G. Kelcey (Eds.), Urban biodiversity and design (pp. 3–33). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Nadin, V. & Stead, D. (2013). Opening up the compendium: an evaluation of international comparative planning research methodologies, European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1542–1561. doi:10.108 0/09654313.2012.722958.
Neutelings, W. J. (1994). Explorations into wonderland: Riding the periphery of Low Countries, The Patchwork Metropolis. Architectural Design, 64, 58–63.
Niemelä, J., Saarela, S.-R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S. & Kotze, D. J. (2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study, Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3225–3243. doi:10.1007/ s10531-010-9888-8.
Nivola, P. S., 1999, Laws of the landscape: How policies shape cities in Europe and America. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
OECD. (2010). OECD regional typology. Available at https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/OECD_regional_typology_Nov2012.pdf
Oswald, F., Baccini, P., & Michaeli, M. (2003). Netzstadt: Designing the urban. NY, USA: Springer.
Oueslati, W., Alvanides, S., & Garrod, G. (2015). Determinants of Urban Sprawl in European Cities. Urban Studies 52(9): 1594–1614.
Passarge, S. (1968). Stadtlandschaften der Erde. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Park, S. (2015). Spatial assessment of landscape ecological connectivity in different urban gradient. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(7), 425. doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4645-9
Parker, S. S. (2015). Incorporating critical elements of city distinctiveness into urban biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(3), 683–700. doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0832-1
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Phelps, N., & Wood, A. (2011). The New Post-suburban Politics?, 48(September), 2591-2610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011411944
Pickett, S., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Groffman, P. M., Band, L. E., Boone, C. G., . . . Wilson, M. A. (2008). Beyond urban legends: An emerging framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study. BioScience, 58(2), 139. doi:10.1641/B580208
Pincetl, S., Bunje, P. & Holmes, T. (2012). An expanded urban metabolism method: toward a systems approach for assessing urban energy processes and causes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 193–202. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.006.
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., & Tosics, I. (Eds.). (2011). Peri-urbanisation in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: Forest & Landscape University of Copenhagen.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 15(5), 319–37. doi:10.1080/09603120500155963
Read, S. (2013). Intensive urbanisation: levels, networks and central places, The Journal of Space Syntax, 4(1), pp. 1–17.
Regional Statistics Team. (2013a) Urban-Rural Typology Update – Statistics Explained. Statistics in Focus, Vol. 16. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Urban- rural_typology_update.
———. (2013b). 16 Statistics in focus Urban-Rural Typology Update - Statistics Explained. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Urban-rural_typology_update (September 24, 2015).
Rocco, R. (2008). An Urban Geography of Globalisation: New Urban Structures in the Age of Hyper- connectivity. Delft, the Netherlands: TU Delft.
Rooij, R. M. (2005). The Mobile City: The Planning and Design of the Network City from a Mobility Point of View, TRAIL thesis series. Available at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=760528.
Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking? Planning Practice & Research, 11(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459650036477
Salvati, L. (2016). The ‘Sprawl Divide’: Comparing models of urban dispersion in mono-centric and polycentric Mediterranean cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413512843
Salvati, L., & Tombolini, I. (2018). Land quality and the city: Monitoring urban growth and land take in 76 Southern European metropolitan areas. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(4), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516684827
Sandercock, L. (2004). Towards a planning imagination for the 21st century, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 133–141. doi:10.1080/01944360408976368.
Sandstroem, U. (2002). Green infrastructure planning in urban green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden, Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), pp. 37–41. doi:10.1080/0269745032000074461.
Schneider, A., & Woodcock, C. E. (2008). Compact, Dispersed, Fragmented, Extensive? A Comparison of Urban Growth in Twenty-five Global Cities using Remotely Sensed Data, Pattern Metrics and Census Information. Urban Studies, 45(3), 659–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007087340
Scholz, J. (2009). Rural Regions in Europe. A new typology based on regional development potentials. Hannover, Germany: RUFUS.
Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., . . . Coles, R. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1–52. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001
Seale, From Clive et al. (2004). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Practice: 420–34.
Seaman, D. E. & Powell, R. A. (2013). An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis, Ecological Society of America, 77(7), 2075–2085.
Secchi, B. (1991). La periferia. Casabella, 583.
Secchi, B. (2010). Préface. In B. Grosjean, Urbanisation sans urbanisme: Une histoire de la” ville diffuse”. Wavre: Mardaga.
Sevtsuk, A. & Mekonnen, M. (2012). Urban network analysis a new toolbox for ArcGIS, Revue Internationale de Géomatique, 2, 287–305. doi:10.3166/RIG.22.287-305.
Shane, D. G. (2005). Recombinant Urbanism: Conceptual Modeling in Architecture, Urban Design and City Theory. Academy Press.
Shucksmith, M. (2010). Disintegrated rural development? Neo-endogenous rural development, planning and place-shaping in diffused power contexts. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(1), 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9523.2009.00497.x
Sieferle, R.P. (2003) Die totale Landschaft. 2003. - Neue Urbanität : das Verschmelzen von Stadt und Landschaft. - ETH Zürich.
Sieverts, T. & Bölling, B. (Eds). (2004). Mitten am Rand. Auf dem Weg von der Vorstadt über die Zwischenstadt zur regionalen Stadtlandschaft. Wuppertal, Germany: Verlag Müller + Busmann KG.
Sieverts, T. (2001). Zwischenstadt zwischen Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit, Stadt und Land. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Fachzeitschriften.
Sieverts, T. (2003). Cities Without Cities: An Interpretation of the Zwischenstadt. London, UK: Routledge.
Sieverts, T. (2007) Metropolitan landscapes: attitudes, research and practice, Places: Forum of Design for the Public Realm, 19(1), 28–35.
Sieverts, T. (2008). Where we live now. In M. Stadler (Ed.), Where we live now: An annotated reader. Portland, USA: Verse Chorus Press
Sieverts, T., & Bölling, B. (Eds.). (2004). Mitten am Rand. Auf dem Weg von der Vorstadt ueber die Zwischenstadt zur regionalen Stadtlandschaft Wuppertal, Germany: Verlag Müller + Busmann KG.
Sieverts, T. (2018). The Horizontal Metropolis Needs a Soul Rereading the Book “ Zwischenstadt ” After Twenty Years: Conclusions. In P. Viganò, C. Cavalieri, & M. Barcelloni Corte (Eds.), The Horizontal Metropolis Between Urbanism and Urbanization (pp. 413–419). Cham: SPRINGER. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75975-3
Sitte, C. (1889/2002). Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen . Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
Smith & Stirling. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions, Ecology and Society, 15(1), Article 11.
Stanley, B. W., Stark, B. L., Johnston, K. L. & Smith, M. E. (2012). Urban open spaces in historical perspective: a transdisciplinary typology and analysis, Urban Geography, 33(8), 1089–1117. doi:10.2747/0272-3618.104.22.1689.
Stiles, R., Gasienica-wawrytko, B., Hagen, K., Loibl, W., Tötzer, T., Köstl, M. & Pauleit, S. (2014). Understanding the whole city as landscape. A multivariate approach to urban landscape morphology, Spool, 1, 401–418.
Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N. & Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, role and value of green space in towns and cities: an overview, Built Environment, 29(2), 94–106. doi:10.2148/benv.22.214.171.124467.
Talen, E. (2010). The spatial logic of parks, Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 473–491. doi:10.1080/ 13574809.2010.502335.
Thompson, I. H. (2012). Ten tenets and six questions for landscape urbanism. Landscape Research, 37(1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.632081
Torres, A., Jaeger, J.& Juan C. Alonso, J. (2016). Multi-Scale Mismatches between Urban Sprawl and Landscape Fragmentation Create Windows of Opportunity for Conservation Development. Landscape Ecology 31(10): 2291–2305.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J. & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
Ulied, A., Biosca, O. & Rodrigo, R. (2010). Urban and Rural Narratives and Spatial Development. Barcelona, Spain: MCRIT.
US Census Bureau. (2013). 2010 census urban and rural classification and urban area criteria. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban- rural-2010.html.
Van der Hoeven, F., & Wandl, A. (2013). Amsterwarm: Gebiedstypologie warmte-eiland Amsterdam. Delft, the Netherlands: BK Books. Available at https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/index.php/ press/catalog/book/17
Van Herzele, A. & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces, Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109–126. doi:10.1016/ S0169-2046(02)00192-5.
Van Der Hoeven, F., & Wandl, A. (2018). Hotterdam: Mapping the social, morphological, and land-use dimensions of the Rotterdam urban heat island. Urbani Izziv, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2018-29-01-001
Vaughan, L., Emma Jones, C., Griffiths, S., & Haklay, M. (2010). The Spatial Signature of Suburban Town Centres. Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1), 77–91. Retrieved from http://www.journalofspacesyntax.org/
Vicenzotti, V. & Qviström, M. 2018. Zwischenstadt as a Travelling Concept: Towards a Critical Discussion of Mobile Ideas in Transnational Planning Discourses on Urban Sprawl. European Planning Studies 26(1): 115–32.
Viganò, P. (2001) Territori della nuova modernità Provincia di Lecce, Assessorato alla gestione territoriale: Piano territoriale di coordinamento = Territories of a new modernity. Finibusterra. Napoli, Italy: Electa.
Viganò, P. (2011) Introduction. In: F. Viviana, S. Angelo & V. Paola (Eds) Landscapes of Urbanism, 8–15. Vencia, Italy: IUAV Venezia.
Viganò, P., Arnsperger, C., Lanza, E. C., Corte, M. B., & Cavalieri, C. (2017). Rethinking urban form: Switzerland as a “Horizontal Metropolis”. Urban Planning, 2(1), 88–99. doi:10.17645/up.v2i1.871
Viganò, P. (2018). The Horizontal Metropolis: A Radical Project. In P. Viganò, C. Cavalieri, & M. Barcelloni Corte (Eds.), The Horizontal Metropolis Between Urbanism and Urbanization (pp. 1–10). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Viganò, P., Cavalieri, C., & Barcelloni Corte, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Horizontal Metropolis Between Urbanism and Urbanization. SPRINGER. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75975-3
Volker, B., Flap, H. & Lindenberg, S. (2006). When are neighbourhoods communities? Community in Dutch neighbourhoods, European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99–114. doi:10.1093/esr/jcl022.
Wahler-Zak, B. (2017). Gartenstadt21 Ein neues Leitbild für die Stadtentwicklung in verdichteten Ballungsräumen – Vision oder Utopie? Bonn, Germany: BBSR.
Wandl, A. (2010). ‘Territories in between’: A comparative permeability study of two European regions between urban and rural - local and global (Master thesis). EMU-TU Delft, Delft the Netherlands.
Wandl, A., Nadin, V., Zonneveld, W., & Rooij, R. (2014). Beyond urban–rural classifications: Characterising and mapping territories-in-between across Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 50–63. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.010
Wandl, A., Rooij, R. & Rocco, R. (2012). Understanding the planning of open spaces in territories- in-between : Dupuy ’ s network urbanism approach applied to areas in-between Urban and Rural. Presented at RSA European Conference 2012: Delft, the Netherlands. uuid:fa262d0b-d2a6-42fc-bd9d-13b7b79e2be0
Webber, M. M. (1998). The joys of spread-city. Urban Design International, 3(4), 201–206.
Wells, H. G. (1902). Anticipations of the reaction of mechanical and scientific progress upon human life and thought (8th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall
Wells, N. M. and Evans, G. W., 2003, ‘Nearby nature a buffer of life stress among rural children’, Environment and Behavior 35(3), 311–330 (DOI: 10.1177/0013916503035003001).
Whyte, W. H. (1980) The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Available at http://trid.trb.org/view. aspx?id=521122.
Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: Blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography. Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK. doi: 10.1177/0309132508105001
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research . Design and Methods. SAGE Publications 26(1): 93–96.
Zonneveld, W., & Stead, D. (2007). European territorial cooperation and the concept of urban–rural relationships. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 439–453.
Zonneveld, W., Nijhuis, S., & Wandl, A. (2018). Beyond Simple Land Use Categories. Methodologies for Complexity. In V. Dewaelheyns, L. Hans, & H. Gulinck (Eds.), Challenging the boxes: Interfaces in landscape and land use (pp. 202–216). Retrieved from https://books.google.nl/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.