DOCSLIB.ORG

Artificialised Land and Artificialisation Processes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Artificialised Land and Artificialisation Processes Lead Scientists : Béatrice Béchet – Ifsttar, l'IRSTV CNRS (FR2488) Yves Le Bissonnais, Inra, LISAH Anne Ruas, Ifsttar, COSYS – LISIS Publication Director: Bertrand Schmitt - Inra, Delegation for Collective Scientific Expertise, Foresight and Advanced Studies (DEPE) Contacts: Béatrice Béchet : [email protected] Yves Le Bissonnais : [email protected] Anne Ruas: [email protected] Bertrand Schmitt : [email protected] To cite this document: Béatrice Béchet, Yves Le Bissonnais, Anne Ruas (pilotes), Anne Aguilera, Hervé Andrieu, Eric Barbe, Philippe Billet, Jean Cavailhès, Marianne Cohen, Sophie Cornu, Laetitia Dablanc, Cécile Delolme, Ghislain Géniaux, Mickaël Hedde, Catherine Mering, Marjorie Musy, Mario Polèse, Christiane Weber, Antoine Frémont, Sophie Le Perchec, Bertrand Schmitt, Isabelle Savini, Maylis Desrousseaux, 2017. Artificialized land and land take; drivers, impacts and potential responses. Synthesis of the collective scientific expert report, Ifsttar-Inra (France), 121 p. This document summarizes the collective scientific assessment report jointly requested by the Ministry in charge of the Environment (General Commissariat for Sustainable Development, CGDD, Ministry of Ecological and Inclusive Transition, MTES), ADEME (Environment and Energy Management Agency) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Directorate General of Economic and Environmental Performance of Enterprises, DGPE), Conventions No. 15-MBGD-GESSOL-1cvs001, No. 14- 60-C0067, No. 154-14-13. The contents of the full report and this abridged version are the sole responsibility of the authors. The overall report, source of this version, was created by the scientific experts without condition of preliminary approval by the sponsors, Ifsttar or INRA. The abridged version was validated by the authors of the report. These documents are available on the official website of INRA (www.inra.fr) Cover photo: Peri-urban area of the agglomeration of Chalon-sur-Saône – Credit : Christian Slagmulder - Inra Délégation à l’Expertise, à la Prospective et aux Etudes (DEPE) Artificialized land and land take; drivers, impacts and potential responses Synthesis of the collective scientific expert report Authors: Béatrice Béchet, Yves Le Bissonnais, Anne Ruas, Maylis Desrousseaux, Antoine Frémont, Isabelle Savini, Bertrand Schmitt Coordinating experts: Anne Aguilera, Hervé Andrieu, Eric Barbe, Philippe Billet, Jean Cavailhès, Marianne Cohen, Sophie Cornu, Laetitia Dablanc, Cécile Delolme, Ghislain Géniaux, Mickaël Hedde, Catherine Mering, Marjorie Musy, Mario Polèse, Christiane Weber December 2017 ESCo Ifsttar-Inra « Sols artificialisés et processus d’artificialisation des sols » Décembre 2017 List of acronyms ALUR: Law on Access to Housing and Renovated Town Planning CLA: Atmospheric boundary layer CLC: Corine Land Cover CLU: Urban boundary layer ETM: Metalloid and trace elements GIZC: Integrated coastal zone management HAP: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons JRC: Joint research centre ICU: Urban heat island INAO: Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (National Institute of Origin and Quality) MAJIC: Update of cadastral information MES: Suspended matter (solids) MOS: Land use PEAN: Protective perimeters around peri-urban, agricultural and natural spaces PLU/PLUI: Local urban plan / Intermunicipal urban plan) RPF: French soil classification system RUTP: Urban wet weather discharges SAFER: Land Development and Rural Settlement Society SAU: Agricultural area SCOT: Territorial coherence scheme SDRIF: Master plan of the Île de France region SGEU: Urban water management system SRU: Urban Solidarity and Renewal Law SUITMA: Soils of urban industrial traffic and military areas THR: Very high spatial resolution UGB: Urban growth boundary IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature ZAU: Zoning in urban areas 2 ESCo Ifsttar-Inra « Sols artificialisés et processus d’artificialisation des sols » Décembre 2017 Table of Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction: ‘land take’, an ambiguous scientific concept ......................................................................................................... 7 1. Methods of measuring the extent of land take in France ............................................................................................... 13 1.1. Objectives and methods for measuring land use and land-use changes .......................................................................... 13 1.1.1. Objects of the measure .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 1.1.2. Methods and data for measuring land-use change and land take ............................................................................................ 14 1.2. Measurements and trends of land take in France ............................................................................................................. 17 1.2.1. The different approaches to measuring land take in France ..................................................................................................... 17 1.2.2. Differing estimates of the extent of land take ............................................................................................................................ 19 1.2.3. General land take trends are very consistent nonetheless ....................................................................................................... 20 1.2.4. European and French trends ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 1.3. Conclusions and policy tools ............................................................................................................................................. 24 2. The impacts of land take on the characteristics and properties of soils ...................................................................... 25 2.1. Impacts of artificialization on the physical, physicochemical and chemical characteristics of soils................................... 25 2.1.1. Characteristics and classification of artificialized soils .............................................................................................................. 26 2.1.2. Characteristics and properties of artificial soils ......................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.3. Summary of the physico-chemical characteristics of artificial soils ........................................................................................... 32 2.2. Impacts of land take on soil organisms and biodiversity ................................................................................................... 32 2.2.1. Effects on different groups of organisms ................................................................................................................................. 333 2.2.2. Summary of the effects of artificialization on soil biodiversity ................................................................................................... 34 2.3. Conclusion: strategies to limit the impacts of artificialization on soil properties, and the reversibility of uses ................... 36 2. 4. Limitations of available studies and identification of research needs ............................................................................... 37 3. The impacts of land take on the characteristics and functioning of artificialized environments ............................... 39 3.1. Impacts of artificialization on landscapes, habitats and plant and animal species ............................................................ 39 3.1.1. Methodology for analysing the impact of land take on habitats and biodiversity ...................................................................... 39 3.1.2. Effects of land take on habitats, and their fragmentation .......................................................................................................... 40 3.1.3. Effect of land take on plant species and communities .............................................................................................................. 40 3.1.4. Effect of land take on on animal species and groups of species ............................................................................................... 42 3.1.5. Specific effects of road and rail infrastructure and mining areas ............................................................................................... 43 3.1.6. Conclusion, and strategies to minimise these impacts .............................................................................................................. 43 3.1.7. Limitations of available studies and identification of research needs ........................................................................................ 44 3.2. Impact of land take on urban hydrology and stormwater management ............................................................................ 45 3.2.1. Impacts of land take on hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.2. Alternative stormwater management systems ..........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Field Handbook for the Soils of Western Canada Section 4: Horizon Identification
    1 Field Handbook for the Soils of Western Canada Section 4: Horizon Identification November 2015 Dan Pennock University of Saskatchewan Kent Watson Thompson Rivers University Paul Sanborn University of Northern British Columbia 2 This field guide is one section of a Field Guide for the Soils of Western Canada, which is currently under development by the three authors. Our intent for the field guide is two-­‐fold: 1) to simplify the use of the Canadian System of Soil Classification in the field and 2) to allow field testing of a new soil order for Anthroposolic soils, which has been proposed for inclusion in the Canadian System of Soil Classification. Other than the he inclusion of t provisional Anthroposolic order there is no other (intentional) revision to the 3rd Edition of the Canadian System of Soil Classification. This section draws very heavily on material from the following: Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. rd 3 Ed. Research Branch, Agriculture -­‐ and Agri Food Canada. Publication 1646. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, Ontario. This is available on-­‐line at http://sis.a gr.gc.ca/cansis/taxa/cssc3/index.html. Our section is designed to be used in conjunction with a field guide for describing soil morphology such Section as 3 of this Field Soils Handbook, Illustrated by Kent Watson, The Field Guide for Describing Soils in Ontario, or the CanSIS Manual for Describing Soils in the Field (available on-­‐line at http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/1982 -­‐forms/index.html ). The material on Anthroposolic soils is drawn from: Naeth, A ., Archibald, H.A., Nemirsky, C.L., Leskiw, L.A., Brierley, A.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Pattern Formed by Soil Transfer When Clothing Fabrics Are Placed on Soil Using Visual Examination and Image Processing Analysis Kathleen R
    Forensic Science and Criminology Research Article An investigation of the pattern formed by soil transfer when clothing fabrics are placed on soil using visual examination and image processing analysis Kathleen R. Murray1,2*, Robert W. Fitzpatrick1,2, Ralph Bottrill2,3 and Hilton Kobus2,4 1School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 2Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science, CSIRO Land and water, Urrbrae, Australia 3Mineral Resources Tasmania, Rosny Park, Australia 4Forensic Science Research Centre, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Australia Abstract A series of soil transference experiments led to the development of two methods to identify and interpret trace soil patterns on clothing fabric. Instigated by an unsolved murder, this paper developed previous field experiments to visually interpret trace soil patterns on a simulated clothed victim placed on soil during a crime. Soil transfer patterns were easily identified using direct visual analysis. Image processing software was used to analyse digital photographs and provided objective, standardised and comprehensive numerical data. This object-oriented classification of all trace soil objects transferred (≥ 2 pixels) allowed directionality and abundance of transferred soil to be determined and additionally Munsell soil colour classification could be made. To gain greater understanding of how the physical transference of soil on a victim’s clothing might indicate the circumstances of an attack, 400 soil transfer experiments investigated two methods of placing weighted fabric on a wet or dry soil surface. The methodology has now been applied in other case work. Introduction cotton, nylon and polar fleece (polyester brushed on both sides)), 400 STEs were conducted to advance scientific knowledge of forensic soil Forensic soil evidence has the ability to help police solve crime by science.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Urban Soils Similar to Natural Soils of River Valleys?
    J Soils Sediments DOI 10.1007/s11368-014-0973-6 SPECIAL ISSUE: SUITMA 7 Are urban soils similar to natural soils of river valleys? Joël Amossé & Renée-Claire Le Bayon & Jean-Michel Gobat Received: 3 December 2013 /Accepted: 21 August 2014 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract thickness was positively correlated to soil age, while the Purpose Urban soils and soils of river valleys are constituted coarse fraction, sand content and C/N were negatively corre- of heterogeneous materials that have been manipulated, dis- lated to soil age gradient. In soils of the river valley, most of turbed or transported at different spatial and temporal scales. the chemical variables were either negatively (pHH2O and Despite these similarities, little is known about soil evolution CaCO3)orpositively(CEC,Corg and Ntot)correlatedtosoil in urban soils and their comparison with natural soils remains distance from the river. These differences between gradients therefore highly useful. We hypothesized that, according to can be mainly explained by parent material, depositional their degree of perturbation, urban soils and natural soils of conditions and land use which can influence soil processes. river valleys have similar soil processes related to their struc- However, alluvial soils were well clustered with two identified ture, physical and chemical characteristics. urban soil groups according to soil maturity. Evolved alluvial Materials and methods Using a synchronic approach, we soils far from the river were grouped with natural and near compared two soil gradients, one located in the natural reserve natural urban soils. Conversely, “young” perturbed alluvial of the Allondon River (canton of Geneva, Switzerland) and soils were most clustered with human-made soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Classification for Human Modified Soils in Canada: Anthroposolic Order
    Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order M. Anne Naeth1, Heather A. Archibald1, Candace L. Nemirsky1, Leonard A. Leskiw2, J. Anthony Brierley3, Michael D. Bock3, A. J. VandenBygaart4, and David S. Chanasyk1 1Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta, Canada T6G 2H1 (e-mail: [email protected]); 2Paragon Soil and Environmental Consulting Inc., 14805 Á 119 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5L 2N9; 3Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, #206, 7000 Á 113 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 5T6; and 4Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, K.W. Neatby Building, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6. Received 18 February 2011, accepted 1 June 2011. Naeth, M. A., Archibald, H. A., Nemirsky, C. L., Leskiw, L. A., Brierley, J. A., Bock, M. D., VandenBygaart, A. J. and Chanasyk, D. S. 2012. Proposed classification for human modified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 7Á18. With increasing anthropogenic activity, the areal extent of disturbed soils is becoming larger and disturbances more intense. Regulatory frameworks must incorporate reclamation criteria for these disturbed soils, requiring consistent descriptions and interpretations. Many human altered soils cannot be classified using the Canadian System of Soil Classification (CSSC), thus an Anthroposolic Order is proposed. Anthroposols are azonal soils, highly modified or constructed by human activity, with one or more natural horizons removed, removed and replaced, added to, or significantly modified. Defining features are severe disruption of soil forming factors and introduction of potentially new pedogenic trajectories. Disturbed layers are anthropic in origin and contain materials significantly modified physically and/ or chemically by human activities.
    [Show full text]