Tendencies and Future of Urban Sprawl in Two Study Areas in the Agglomeration of Budapest
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 BUDAPEST ZSUZSANNA ILLYÉS* – ÉVA PÁDÁRNÉ TÖRÖK – LÁSZLÓ NÁDASY – ZSÓFIA FÖLDI – VILJA VASZÓCSIK – ESZTER KATÓ Szent István University, Department of Landscape Protection and Reclamation; Hungary, 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 Szentendre 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 highestStatistical 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 time barely 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 Thismore means than 22%that by– approximatelytoday, spatial structurethe same contains area as an Naturaalmost equal2000 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 oflifestyle 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 realis 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 sprawlBATrT). using In with increased property values, while in rural, depopulatingsignificantly faster areas forestin urban cover agglomerations is increasing. proposals for building new apartment On a national scale, however, the growth of complexesregulatory andinstruments. industrial facilitiesFor this havepurpose, 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 newof brownfields. regulatory procedures Requirements are beinghave 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 changedNevertheless, a lot another way to ensure a sustainable spatial 3 shows the elements of the ecological structureApart fromis to influencingconserve areasurban thatsprawl, 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 indesignation: 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 protected and 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 They both are located both onlocated 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