查看更多>>摘要：Global trends of increased urbanisation have resulted in rising spatial inequality across cities, and land use challenges in providing adequate infrastructure, housing and employment for efficient, sustainable and productive urban systems. One policy response worldwide has been to use sub-regional quantity-driven job-housing targets, such as self-sufficiency, self-containment and jobs housing ratios, to redistribute jobs away from city central business districts into outer areas. To set these, city or state governments predict employment rises in often unclear and simplistic ways with no provision for job location differentials in type and residential access to opportunity. Despite the documented lack of success of such targets in addressing spatial inequality across a city, there is limited research into alternative tools. We address this gap by exploring a ratio to distinguish between strategic and population-driven jobs. Drawing on a case study of Greater Perth, Western Australia, we demonstrate rising spatial inequality despite over 60 years of land use policy measures to decentralise employment and equalise job provision across the city. Using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, we classify and characterise 474 occupations into either strategic or population-driven jobs for the specific Greater Perth context. Our discussion highlights the importance of differentiating between job types, rather than targeting absolute growth, in order to implement more location sensitive employment redistribution. Our findings highlight that disaggregated sub-regional job ratios may be a more appropriate land use planning tool to address spatial inequality than previous job-housing ratios.
Sponagel, ChristianBendel, DanielaAngenendt, ElisabethWeber, Tobias Karl David...
19页
查看更多>>摘要：Human interventions, i.e. settlement and construction activities, in the agricultural landscape including farmland but also natural and semi-natural habitats are a major driver of biodiversity loss. Consequently, their impacts on nature and landscape have to be compensated by no net loss policies in many countries around the world. However, their practical implementation often poses challenges with regard to the optimal spatial coordination and assessment of measures, especially in the case of eco-accounts or other habitat banking approaches.Against this backdrop, different approaches to offset biodiversity loss at regional level are analysed with due consideration of indicators of economy, ecology, landscape aesthetics and food production. We used an interdisciplinary modelling approach based on estimates for offsetting demand until 2030. In the integrated land use model, we associated a biophysical crop growth model with an economic optimisation model. The Stuttgart Region - an area with stiff competition amongst anthropogenic land use patterns in Germany - served as the study area. Our main focus was on arable land that has a high potential for nature conservation enhancement. In this context, farmers are deemed to be a major stakeholder group.We observed differing economic and ecological outcomes for the offsetting scenarios we considered. In urban areas with high population density and low biodiversity (e.g. Stuttgart city), compensation close to the site of intervention (on-site) may be more expensive than off-site compensation. However, further added value can be generated by on-site compensation in terms of visual landscape quality enhancement and habitat connectivity, provided that the measures lend themselves to establishing connectivity. Consequently, spatially unrestricted markets for eco credits may exacerbate ecological polarisation between urban and rural areas. Therefore, we concluded that offset site selection should not be driven solely by economics, as this may not optimise overall welfare from a societal perspective, resulting in the need for legal constraints.Our results show the trade-offs between the political goals of spatial planning approaches and compensation strategies. They can, therefore, thus provide valuable information that enables political decision-makers to more clearly weigh up the effects of policy measures in this area.
NSTL
Elsevier