DOI: 10.21120/LE/10/2/3 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88

TENDENCIES AND FUTURE OF URBAN SPRAWL IN TWO STUDY AREAS IN THE AGGLOMERATION OF

ZSUZSANNA ILLYÉS* – ÉVA PÁDÁRNÉ TÖRÖK – LÁSZLÓ NÁDASY – ZSÓFIA FÖLDI – VILJA VASZÓCSIK – ESZTER KATÓ Szent István University, Department of Landscape Protection and Reclamation; , 1118 Budapest, Villányi út 29-43., [email protected] [email protected]

Received 20 March 2016, accepted in revised form 3 June 2016

Abstract The Budapest agglomeration is a rapidly changing environment. Urban sprawl has been a prominent change of regimes. In our paper, we analyse the tendencies of urban development, the role of territorial protectionprocess in municipalitiesand the types aroundof land theuse Hungarianmostly threatened capital, and by urbanits pace sprawl has significantly in two study increased areas within since the

- Budapest agglomeration. A significant part of the Northern study area – located on Island – is beenunder expanding territorial at protection, a much slower while pace the Southern than their study Southern area counterparts,– located on Csepel where Island in the –absence has a consider of effec- ably lower amount of protected areas. We found that the settlements of the Northern study area have areas. In addition, the Spatial Plan of the agglomeration allows the same tendencies to continue in both areastive restrictions, in the future extensive as well. areas – mostly former agricultural fields – have been converted into built-up

Keywords: landscape history, Budapest Metropolitan Area Urban sprawl, ecological network, ecological conflicts, land cover changes, 1. Introduction In historical times, population growth was the main factor in the growth of settlements. The concept of the environment as a After the Turkish rule, the defensive role potential built-up area, focusing on the of walls and fences was diminished, which monetary value of land was the typical point of view of the last century. However, Later, the appearance of new settlement in recent years the expansion of built-up led to the first wave of urban expansion. and permanently altered areas on former to intensive agriculture gaining land over agricultural and natural sites has created a extensivetypes – farms, husbandry, ranches, allowed manors the etc. network –, due demand for building regulations based on a of built-up areas to expand even further. new, different, conservation-based approach in several European countries. In our paper, we wish to reveal the local aspects, causes cultivatedData from land Hungarian in Hungary Central was highest Statistical in and spatial context of land-use change, along Office (KSH) shows that the proportion of the example two settlement groups located the first third of the 20th century (Fig. 1), inwith the the Budapest ecological agglomeration. conflicts they cause, on coveredat that timebarely non-cultivated over 6% of the land country’s – which total is essentially synonymous with built-up areas – 76 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88

Fig. 1. Changes in proportion of different land Fig. 2. Changes in proportion of different land uses and the population in Hungary (1853-2011) uses and the population in Hungary (1990-2013) area.(KSH In2012a; contrast, KSH 2012b; in 2013 KSH non-cultivated 2012c; KSH 2014) land (KSH 2012a; KSH 2012b; KSH 2012c; KSH 2014) not caused by the decrease in arable land, but byconcerns the dynamic in itself expansion – ecological of land problems uses with are forests.covered This more means than 22%that by – approximatelytoday, spatial structurethe same contains area as an Naturaalmost equal 2000 amount sites orof monoculture plantations of exotic species witheven lesslow ecologicalecological value. value Construction and spontaneous sites, forests of invasive species occupy the place ecologically important areas and significantly of grasslands, gardens, vineyards, reeds valuealtered or areas even (settlements, cause ecological infrastructure problems. and and marshlands, which has adverse effects mines),The backgroundwhich generally of non-productive have low ecological land on biodiversity and landscape diversity. Therefore, the questions are whether the of the 20th century. Hungary’s population network of areas with virtually no ecological reacheduses changed its peak significantly around 1980, in the and second has been half value will overcome the system of traditional decreasing ever since. However, since 1990, land use and whether the ecological system the proportion of non-cultivated areas has will remain sustainably functional in the changed spatial structure. It is very urgent phenomenon can only partly be explained to determine the characteristics and still grown from 11% to 20% (Fig. 2). This lower number of persons per household and for the future that does not threaten the theby theincrease dramatic in the changes number in of lifestyle households. – the arrangement (?) of such spatial structure Another, perhaps even more prominent This paper focuses on two study areas locatedecosystem within within the a Budapestspecific region. agglomeration, the spatial structure of these is regulated usereason and real is theestate differences development. in –economic by the Spatial Plan of the Budapest benefit between continuous agricultural land been different in each part of the country. It is 2011 the goal of the amendment of the Naturally, the speed of this change has BATrTAgglomeration was to control (thereinafter urban sprawl BATrT). using In with increased property values, while in rural, depopulatingsignificantly fasterareas forest in urban cover agglomerations is increasing. proposals for building new apartment On a national scale, however, the growth of complexesregulatory and instruments. industrial facilities For this have purpose, been built-up areas still outweighs the growth of restricted, settlement coalescence has been forest cover. This process is partly due to the decreasing amount of land necessary for the new developments is now restricted in a 200 food supply of the same number of people, meterprohibited wide (5§zone (3)), around and the designationadministrative of which, combined with the population decline, boundaries of the municipalities. The naturally causes the shrinking of agricultural restriction of the growth of built-up areas areas. This would not raise environmental (a limit of 2%) was aimed to increase the Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 77 According to the original proposal, buffer been imposed on some developments, zones would have protected core areas and whilevalue new of brownfields.regulatory procedures Requirements are being have ecological corridors in a continuous, wide implemented. The BATrT, while restricting belt. However, their designation often failed new developments in general, creates or their area was reduced due to the interests the possibility, named „land switch”, for of urban development, agriculture, industry municipalities to change their previous, sites for proposed development and, according In Hungary, the aforementioned restrictive to a revised urban development concept, protectionand mining system (Nagy 2004).reached its full extension designate new sites of the same size in their amended Structural Plan. Land switch does not decrease new developments, but at least bothwith thethe adoption spatial structureof the National and theSpatial content Plan makes structural corrections possible. of(thereinafter conservation OTrT) measures in 2003. has changed Nevertheless, a lot another way to ensure a sustainable spatial 3 shows the elements of the ecological structureApart fromis to influencingconserve areas urban that sprawl, are networkat several and planning built-up levels areas since of regional then. Figure level still in favourable ecological conditions. In the early 1990s EU member states had to apparently do not meet the original principles recognize that the previous practice of nature as designated by BATrT. Buffer areas (Fig. 3.) to form a wide belt, but they are basically missingof PEEN in designation: most of the not agglomeration only do they area, fail conservation – based on species protection which means that core areas and ecological habitats.and the designationThe shrinking of protectedand fragmentation areas – is corridors are often directly adjacent to ofnot these sufficient habitats to ensure brought the survival attention of naturalto the residential areas without any buffer zone. importance of ecologically less valuable, but widespread associations in the conservation 2. Study areas of interconnected habitat networks. As a result, in 1993 in Maastricht the idea of a The investigated settlement groups are located in a similar geographical The main principle behind the development environment, but they have had markedly ofEuropean the network Ecological was to Networksurpass the was previous born. different histories of settlement development dichotomy of „protected areas vs. non- protected areas” and to protect habitats Budapest agglomeration, near the capital. from further degradation and fragmentation They(Fig. 4).are Theyboth arelocated both on located islands within on the together with their surroundings. Danube. However, there are key differences of Europe, all accessing states signed the spatial consequences as well. The Budapest Pan-EuropeanIn 1995, on theBiological proposal and of theLandscape Council agglomerationin their past and presentis a regionthat have particularly significant affected and threatened by the process of set the development of the Pan-European change. The Environmental Management Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) in Sofia, which Programme of the region drew attention to main goals. The directive for setting up a Ecological Network (PEEN) as one of its coherent spatial system of natural and semi- conservationthe predominance and investmentof greenfield purposes investments, and naturalunified networkecosystems, stated habitats that the and network landscape is a the ongoing resulting loss conflictsof natural betweengreen surfaces nature as elements, consisting of core areas, ecological corridors, buffer areas and restoration areas, which, following habitat restoration, especiallyfar back as prominent 2007 (Budapesti regarding Agglomerációs small and may even join the network as core areas. Fejlesztési Tanács 2007). This process is

already fragmented habitats and (semi-) 78 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88

Fig. 3. Built-up areas and the OÖH according to the Structural Plan of the Budapest Agglomeration (Pestterv 2011)

processesby several around authors Budapest in 2008, have (Schuchmann also been 2008; Csemez 2008). The urban sprawl

stated,studied among from theothers, sociological that biologically (Kocsis 2013)active surfacesand spatial had (Szirmai been constantly2011) aspects. shrinking Authors in the Budapest agglomeration, while built-up areas had been steadily expanding. As the extent of non-productive land use had been expanding at an increasingly fast rate, by

in the inner ring of the urban agglomeration 2008 their proportions approached – and and non-built-up areas regarded to be the limiteven exceededof regionally – the sustainable 1/3-2/3 ratio land of use. built-up The proportion of forested areas had also been decreasing, and with the expansion of paved

as well, resulting in a deterioration of drainagesurfaces, and the water runoff management coefficient conditions declined Figure 4. The location of the study areas (light natural green surfaces which have no green) within the Budapest Metropolitan Area particular value by themselves and are not The main differences between the two study(Schuchmann areas can 2008). be seen when comparing population dynamics and changes in land under specific legal protection but belong to use, these, in turn, show the dynamics functionthe National as a Ecological locally important Network refuge (Országos for of settlement development and the wildlife.Ökológiai Hálózat, thereinafter OÖH) and characteristics of urban sprawl tendencies. Such problems in the Budapest metropolitan area were brought into focus The settlements of the Northern study area Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 79

Fig. 5. Changes in proportion of different land uses and population of the Northern study area (1895- 2014) KSH 2012a; KSH 2012b; KSH 2012c; KSH 2014)

Fig. 6. Changes in proportion of different land uses and population of the Southern study area (1895- 2014) KSH 2012a; KSH 2012b; KSH 2012c; KSH 2014) been in existence before the 20th century, though population has been growing since with(located a population on Szentendrei between Island) 1000 had and already 6000 until the change of regimes – and even than in the other study area. This stability is of almost all municipalities were stagnating then, the growth rate is significantly lower – the same range as today. The population also reflected by land use proportions, the 80 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 sion of urban areas between 1990 and 2012. The comparative analysis of the onlyextent been of non-cultivatedgrowing at a moderate land (the rate land in usethe land cover data and the proposed land lastcategory two includingdecades. built-upThe growing areas aspopulation well) has use designated by regional plans shows is facilitated by more intensive use of built- - up recreational areas but only partially eas threatened by land use changes by gardens, orchards or vineyards. The andthe valuable therefore – allowsbut unprotected us to predict – ar the settlements of Szentendre Island have been magnitude of possible future ecological loss. By this analysis we determined ar- The municipalities located in the southern eas have mostly been eliminated from studymoderately area expandingtook their (Fig. present 5). form later, the ecological structure due to the lack and Halásztelek only becoming of protection, and habitats expected to independent in the second half of the 20th century. Their population shows a constant proposed network of potential built-up and dynamic growth, today they have between areasdisappear will notin the necessarily future. Naturally, be realized the 10,000 and 40,000 residents. The population in the foreseeable future. However, it growth has been especially fast since the is indicative of the potential pace of change of regimes and the construction of the development, and therefore the pro- portion of possible changes in the near in land use are proportional to population future in the two study areas. growth,M0 highway the ringamount around of non-cultivated Budapest. Changes land By comparing the two study areas in both is growing rapidly. Gardens, vineyards and questions we wish to reach conclusions orchards formerly characteristic of the area about the complex interactions among urban sprawl, population dynamics and regulatory by built-up areas and the proportion of arable measures. landshave competelyalso have been reduced.The transformed/replaced settlements Several territorial protection tools have been implemented to restrict development intensively expanding settlements within the in planning practice. Protective zones, on Csepel Island are among the most protected areas and land use categories

3.agglomeration Materials (Fig. and 6.). Methods urbanpreventing sprawl orthreatening restricting intended building-up/ land use construction/installation help controlling aquifer protection and the designation of Our analysis comprises of two distinct – or natural conditions. Nature conservation, but• thematically connected – topics, which at protecting natural resources directly. are asregulations follows: and restrictions as plan- the National Ecological Network (OÖH) aim ningIn order tools, to wedetermine analyse the efficiencynetworks of of different territorial protections on forHowever, the conservation there are several of nature, land usesit is (militarymerely a our study sites. Based on the history of resultareas, ofairports, the restricted etc.) restrict use. A development common feature not protected areas we assessed their roles of the two study areas is that drinking water regarding not only in conservational extraction from gravel terraces of the river ecologically important habitats, but in Danube had an important part in the history reducing urban sprawl. of their land use. • - territorial protection and the effectiveness analyseThe Corine and Land assess Cover ecologically database- valu en- of Inproperty order to speculation determine thestrategies efficiency we of ablecompassing areas and four habitats surveys destroyed – allows toon all analysed the parts of the ecological system studied municipalities by the expan- that have been replaced or destroyed by Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 81

Remoteurban development sensing and in thesatellite last 20-25imaging years, is the riverbanks – to ensure the water supply using the Corine Land Cover (CLC) database. butof Budapestrestrictions – hashad beenbeen restrictingin place even the changes in land cover, and they have been development of riverside (costal?) areas, successfullyconsidered anused efficient for monitoring tool of tracking urban wells on Szentendre Island started in 1899, andbefore. the The presence construction of territorial of the firstprotection row of Using the database, the change of the land on the island can be dated from this year sprawl as well (Nagyváradi et al. 2011). the conservation of the quality of vulnerable Wecover compared – and therefore the changes the change in land ofuse land data use of aquifers(Károlyi has – Tolnai, become 2008). the centre Since of the attention. 1980s, with ecological value – can be studied as well. The conservation of vulnerable water usingdifferent ESRI CLC ArcMAP surveys 10 (1990, software, 2000, with 2006 special and 2012) published so far on the survey areas, regulatedresources by – likea Governmental the bank-filtered Decree aquifers since up surfaces in order to monitor the scale of of Szentendre and Csepel Islands – has been urbanregard expansion. to areas turned into artificial built- 1997. Protective areas and zones (inner land cover categories as built-up areas theand water outer resources,areas, hydrogeological based on the travel-timeA, B and C We considered the following Corine ofzones) the hypothetical are designated pollution for the to protection the water of

1.1.2(Commission „Discontinuous of the European urban fabric”, Communities 1.2.1. and restrictions regarding development, „Industrial1995): 1.1.1 or commercial „Continuous units”, urban 1.2.2. fabric”, „Road landextraction use and site access(Liebe 2006).within Thethe prohibitionszones, even and rail networks and associated land”, though these are not based or aimed at 1.2.3. „Port areas”, 1.2.4. „Airports”, 1.3.3. to the conservation of the remaining alluvial areas”, 1.4.2. „Sport and leisure facilities”. habitats,ecological as purposes, the designated contribute ecological significantly network „Construction sites”, 1.4.1. „Green urban Several levels of protection ensure the (We did not consider mineral extraction sites conservationcontains these of areas natural almost values entirely of Szentendre (Fig. 7). (1.3.1.)Afterwards, and dump we sitescompared (1.3.2) asthe built-up latest areas despite their artificiality.) in 1974 within the municipal boundaries of as built-up areas in the current Structural Island. The first protected area was designated (2012) land cover data with areas designated isolated protected areas were designated. which shows the amount of land use change Tahitótfalu. By 1981, three other, smaller and andPlan urban of the Budapestexpansion Agglomeration allowed by the (BATrT), current regulation compared to the land cover of theThe largestcounty-level area was protection designated to in the 1985 entire by a 2006, making it possible to determine the island.decree of the Council, extending areas threatened by development. The council decree stated that the intention of protection was the conservation of the 4. Results and discussions image of the island’s landscape, the botanical, zoological, geological and cultural values The role of territorial protection in within the area and the aquifer providing nature conservation and in controlling urban sprawl people. This protection was not really water supply for a significant amount of it drew the attention of municipalities to the Northern study area importanceefficient in preventingof restricting urban certain expansion, land uses. but The expropriation of waterworks and 82 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88

In 1990,Fig. 7.the Water authority resource over protection county-level and nature conservation in the Northern study area protection and the power to designate new protected areas was passed over to thewildlife European that do Union. not belongTwo Special to the Areas DINP of is municipalities. In 1992, the municipalities of protected by the Natura 2000 network of the island unanimously lifted the protection from the entire island and ensured the anConservation elongated area are designatedstretching along on the the island. river Danube,One of these touching is „Duna many és ártere” settlements (HUDI20034), apart from those on Szentendre Island, protecting municipalprotection decrees. of areas Upon of creation significant of Duna- value – islets, alluvial forests, pastures – via municipal-level protected areas were lifted to formainly the floodplainprotection habitats. of the remainingThe other onesandy is Ipoly National Park (DINP) in 1997, the grasslands„Szigeti homokok” formed (HUDI20047),on the higher designatedelevations Park. The parts of the island with valuable the national level as part of the new National in the centre of the island (European Union Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 83

Fig. 8. Water resource protection and nature buildingconservation restrictions in the Southern and, studypartially, area to the The core areas and ecological corridors of conservation of ecologically valuable areas 1995-2016). here as well, although with lesser extent than the National Ecological Network, designated area „Szigethalmi homokbuckák” used to be a onin 2003,Szentendre were basedIsland. onEcological DINP’s areascorridors and fenced,in the northern guarded, study closed area. area The as the Natura protective 2000 the elements of the Natura 2000 Network outer protection areas of water resources andwere protective designated forests chiefly of the on hydrogeological the inner and zone for the waterworks of Csepel Works „A” zone. Elements for the ecological of(a thehighly remaining important patches industrial of forests facility and ofsandy the corridor network were only designated grassland.era). Its environmental Another example value ofmainly a buffer consists area without any previous protection South designated in connection with the protective from Szigetmonostor, on a forested area zone of a technical facility is the radio tower with protective functions. Buffer areas were only designated on a few smaller plots, but network is based on an earlier restriction in even there without the originally described of Lakihegy – the element of the ecological function of a „protective zone” around core areas. this case as well (Fig. 8.). The National Ecological Network is mainly Southern study area based on Natura 2000 areas on Csepel Island („Duna és ártere” HUDI20034, „Szigethalmi aquifers for Budapest began only in the 1980s homokbuckák” HUDI20045, „Ráckevei Duna- Water extraction from the Csepel Island forág” the HUDI20042) elements of (European the ecological Union network 1995- 2016). Building and land use restrictions reached– due to itsthe full high capacity, concentration its wells ofcompletely iron and Development plots cannot be designated manganese – when Szentendre Island has are described in the National Spatial Plan. Protective zones were designated at the same and ecological corridors. An exception time,constructed therefore (Debreczeny water resource - Jancsár, protection 1993). – only in exceptional cases – on core areas could only contribute to the conservation the settlements of the southern study area of ecologically valuable areas in the last 30 havefrom submitted this restriction such maya request be requested based on – years. Aquifer protection contributes to existing recreational use, while the northern 84 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88

Territorial protection (protection of Table 1. ComparisonTerritorial protection of (naturethe extent conservation) of territorial protection types in the two study areas water resources)

National Ecological Network (OÖH) Inner Inner and outer pro- National-level Natura 2000 and outer tective area + hydro- Municipality Core Buffer Ecological OÖH protected areas (SCI) protective geological protective area area corridor combined area zone “A” Northern study area Pócsmegyer 22% 35% 12% - 31% 53% 21% 62% Szigetmonostor 23% 62% 23% - 58% 81% 41% 80% Tahitótfalu 34% 44% 24% 2% 30% 56% 13% 41% Kisoroszi 26% 35% - 13% 47% 60% 41% 81% Southern study area Halásztelek - 15% - 9% 18% 27% 27% 54% Szigethalom - 3% - - 20% 20% - - Szigetszentmiklós - 5% 3% 2% 4% 9% 1% 7% Tököl - 9% - - 25% 25% 5% 16% settlements have submitted similar requests Land cover types replaced by urban ex- for the same reason and also for harbour pansion expansion. Northern study area Comparison Between 1990 and 2000 very little changed A common feature of the two areas that in the studied land cover types of Szentendre their ecologically valuable areas currently Island. Only one formerly biologically active area was turned into a category considered otherbelonging protection to the National or restriction Ecological that Network helped their(OÖH) survival used to haveindirectly (and often by restricting still have) someland as settlement area: the Magyar Golfing Club use. This phenomenon is almost exclusive coveringappeared just in over Kisoroszi 30 ha represents to replace 0.33% former of theagricultural combined land area (Fig. of the 9). settlement The golf course,group. protected by nature conservation are based The area affected by urban development on on earlier both studytypes of areas territorial – virtually protection. all areas the northern study area was even smaller Table 1 shows the proportions of different protection types within the boundaries total area of 17.2 ha, became built-up areas of each municipality. It shows that the between 2000 and 2006 – four sites, with a proportion of areas affected by restrictions southern– a new horse end of ranch the island. in Tahitótfalu Less than and 0.2% a new of theDanube total area bridge of the (Megyeri four municipalities Bridge) near were the in the Northern study area is considerably affected. Urban development has apparently ishigher the thanmost on extensive, Csepel Island. integrational The data shows area, become even slower between 2006 and coveringthat National and connecting Ecological smaller Network areas, (OÖH)which are often affected by several different types of protection. There is a high level of correlation that2012, a asmajority only one of site,the siteswith anwe area considered of 5.39 hato be(0.06%) transformed was built into up. Itnon-productive is also worth notingareas aquifer protection. The low proportion of are actually newly created recreational areas buffer(?) between areas is thealso notable. ecological network and with considerable green surfaces. The network of built-up areas designated Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 85

Fig. 9. Changes in land cover in the Northern study area between 1990 and 2012 (Comission of the EC in the most recent BATrT allows a relatively1995) foreseeable future. Territorial protection low amount of expansion on Szentendre Island compared to the built-up areas shown the place could be built up has already been builteffectively up. prohibits further development: all Potential built-up areas designated by the notingby the datathat ofaccording the 2012 to CLC the surveyAgglomeration – urban BATrT and built-in surfaces recorded by the sprawl is stagnating (Fig. 10). It is also worth almost completely identical. However, this in Plan, the settlements of Pócsmegyer and thisCLC case survey not in due 2012 to the in Tahitótfaluecological network, are also couldSzigetmonostor hypothetically (and also merge, Surány which and Horány,would as the proportion of fringes between resultwhich area built-up under theirarea respectiveof considerable jurisdiction) size in the centre of the island, occupying current fringe areas. Areas designated as parts of innerdeveloped parts areas of the and island. parts Potentialof the OÖH built-up is low – the ecological network does not cover the of the total administrative area of the four the National Ecological Network restrict the municipalitiesareas designated of theby island.the BATrT cover 14.5% toexpansion the south, of therefore Pócsmegyer their (and urban Surány) areas are to the north and Szigetmonostor (and Horány) Southern study area byapproaching the ecological each other.network, As Kisoroszi its built-up is almost areas arecompletely almost completely(at 90% of unchangedits fringe) surrounded since 2012 undeveloped sites were changed into Between 1990 and 2000, five formerly and this trend is not likely to change in the built-up land cover types, all of them 86 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 within the administrative boundaries study area. In case the designated built-up areas replacing arable land. The new land uses were were actually fully built-up in the future, residential,of Szigetszentmiklós industrial andand all transportation the five are study area would be reduced to isolated elementsthe ecological with networkno connection of the to Csepel each Islandother, (Fig. 11), covering a total area of 75.7 hectares increasing the threat of degradation of the (0.74% of the administrative area of the four remaining habitats. The spatial connection settlements). The speed of land cover change of the residential and industrial areas of developmentincreased significantly during this between period as 2000 between and 2006 – twice as much land was affected by between the Danube and its side-branch calledSzigetszentmiklós Ráckeve Danube. would Although cut the presumablyconnection were1990 permanently and 2000. More altered, than which 158 represents hectares – development will continue to occur on mostly former arable lands and grasslands – agricultural lands, the potential coalescence tendencies continued between 2006 and of the settlements poses a threat to the 1.55% of the total study area. These survival of remaining wildlife by itself. consumed by the settlements in this period. When comparing the two study areas, it is The2012 proportion as well: 160 of newly hectares developed (1.57%) areas were can be characterized with a very low rate evident that while the Northern study area is significantly higher than the respective of land use change and a relatively stable ecological network, the Southern study thanareas on of Szentendrethe Northern Island. study area – the pace of urban sprawl is much faster on Csepel Island area has been rapidly changing since 1990. Built-up areas of the four municipalities These processes are allowed to continue by the BATrT as well. If the proposed network of built-up areas actually is realized, the designated by the BATrT are significantly Structurallarger than Plan, the the extent creation of of artificial a continuous land urbancover inarea 2012 is (Fig.possible, 12). Accordingwith Tököl to and the asremaining opposed areasto the oflong-term significant stability ecological of the Halásztelek the only two settlements biologicallyvalue cease active to be areas a functioning of Szentendre network Island. – without a direct connection to each other. 5. Conclusion Furthermore, the Agglomeration Plan allows As sites within the study areas in an a direct connection of Szigetszentmiklós and ecological condition worthy of protection Budapest. The significantly lower proportion of areas protected by the National Ecological Szentendre Island has a role in the expansion land use restrictions, it can be stated that Network on Csepel Island compared to long-termhave survived restricted – or appeared use has – duean importantto former role in the conservation of the ecological of designated built-up areas – apart from the sites of variable size represent the Ecological system. Danube and its floodplains, only six isolated Analyses of two regions of the agglomeration of Budapest, an area critically formNetwork. a real Therefore, network, which the elements opens the of gate the affected with urban sprawl showed that forNational urban Ecological development. Network The are designated unable to mutual dynamic factors are an essential built-up areas cover 44.6% of the area of the part of the spatial systems of both urban four studied municipalities, which means and ecological areas. High proportions of that almost half the southern study area can heavily restricted areas compared to the be considered as potential settlement area. total municipal area result in a direct contact This is almost three times higher than the

of built-up areas and areas with significant corresponding data (14.5%) for the Northern Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 87

Fig. 10. Comparison of the potentially built-up Fig. 12. Comparison of the potentially built-up areas in BATrT and the built-up surfaces in CLC areas in BATrT and the built-up surfaces in CLC 2012 in the Northern study area (Commision of 2012 in the Southern study area (Commision of the EC 1995; Pestterv 2011) the EC 1995; Pestterv 2011)

Fig. 11. Changes in land cover in the Southern study area between 1990 and 2012 (Comission of the EC 1995) 88 Landscape & Environment 10 (2) 2016. 75-88 ecological value. A high proportion of territorial protection conservational leads to szerepe a városszerkezetben – Falu Város passing of problems instead of solving them. Régió 15(1): p.45-51 In contrast, a lower proportion of Debreczeny,Budapest. I. – 109 Jancsár, p. P (ed., 1993): A 125 éves protected areas leads to the loss of ecological Fővárosi Vízművek. – Fővárosi Vízművek, connections and the isolation of valuable sites. A low level of conservation as a weaker European Union (1995-2016): Natura 2000 Network resistance attracts development. viewer. http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#. (last accessed: 2016. 08. 27.) In conclusion, the two situations hold Feranec, J., Soukup, T., Hazeu, G., Jaffrain, G. (ed., 2016): European Landscape Dynamics: permanent disturbance on the fringe of the CORINE Land Cover Data ecologicaldifferent dangers network for due the to ecological the proximity system: of Károlyi,Budapest. A. - Tolnai, 97 p. B. (2008): Víz-rajz 140 éve a built-up areas on the northern study area and főváros szolgálatában. – Fővárosi Vízművek, isolation on the southern settlement group. Polycentric Urban Development in Budapest According to these two main results, the Kocsis, J. B. (2013): Urban sprawl and Budapest – current spatial structure and functional units Metropolitan Area. Conference of European Network of Housing Research, Tarragona. 20 p. are incapable of protecting ecologically of the National Ecological Network (OÖH) Központi Statisztikai Hivatal (2012a): Magyarország, important habitats in agglomerating regions. 2011. – KSH, Budapest. (http://www.ksh.hu/ In order to prevent the complete coalescence docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/mo/mo2011.pdf) of built-up areas, current arable lands have Központi Statisztikai Hivatal (2012b): Népszámlálás to be integrated into the ecological network 2011. http://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/ as buffer zones, with continued agricultural tablak_teruleti_00 Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népességtudományi protective zone between the urban fabric and Kutató Intézet (2012c): Demográfiai Portré valuableland use –habitats. with restrictions. This can create a 2012 – Jelentés a magyar népesség helyzetéről – KSH, Budapest. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal (2014): Magyarország 6. References földterülete művelési ágak szerint 1853-2013. https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/agrar/html/ tabl1_3_1.html Budapesti Agglomerációs Fejlesztési Tanács Liebe, P (ed., 2006): Guide – Groundwaters in (2007): Budapesti Agglomeráció Hungary II. – Ministry for Environment and Környezetgazdálkodási Kiemelt Prgrajábak Water, Budapest: p. 51-52 Aktualizált Változata és Budapesti Nagy, D.(2004) Az ökológiai hálózat védelme Agglomeráció Környezetgazdálkodási – a természetvédelem új kihívása in Cselekvési Terve. – Budapesti Agglomerációs Környezetállapot Értékelés Program, Fejlesztési Tanács, Budapest. (http://www. 2003-2005, MTA Talajtani és Agrokémiai terport.hu/webfm_send/2134) MonitoringKutatóintézet. the 37 p.changes of a suburban BOSSARD, M.; FERANEC, J.; OTAHEL J. 2000. CORINE Nagyváradi,settlement L., Gyenizse,by remote P.,sensing. Szebényi, AGD A.Landscape (2011): Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000. Technical report No 40. Copenhagen (EEA). http://terrestrial.eionet.eu.int & Environment 5(2). p. 76-83. BÜTTNER, G.; FERANEC,J.; JAFFRAIN,G.; MARI,L.; PESTTERV (2011): Budapesti Agglomeráció MAUCHA,G.; SOUKUP, T. 2004b. The Területrendezési Terve. – PESTTERV, Budapest CORINE Land Cover 2000 Project. – EARSeL Schuchmann, P. (2008): A zöldövezetek fejlesztési eProceedings 3(3), p. 331-346. lehetőségei a Budapesti Agglomerációban. – Commission of the European Communities (1995): Falu Város Régió 15(1): p. 7-12 Corine Land Cover. http://www.eea.europa. Szirmai,Budapest. V. (ed., 280 2011): p. Urban Sprawl in Europe. eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_ Similarities or Differences? – Aula Kiadó, download/file. (last accessed: 2016. 06. 27.) Csemez, A (2008): Változó városkörnyék - a Budapest III. kerületi téglagyárak és bányautótájak