Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde (FH) · Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 28 · D-16225 Eberswalde 4/08/2014
Elisa Gurske
B.Sc. Landschaftsnutzung & Naturschutz 3 . Semester Forest Information Technologies Modul: Research Project
Supervisor: PD Dr. rer. nat. habil. Ulrich Walz
The development of land use by settlement and transport
in protected areas in Hesse & Thuringia from 2006 to 2012
Structure
1. Introduction 2. Methods
a) Changes in boundaries of protected areas b) Development of land use
3. Results 4. Discussion 5. Conclusions 6. Literature
Introduction
Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER) in Dresden • “Monitor of Settlement and Open Space Development” (2010)
• www.ioer-monitor.de
• federal internet based information system
• different indicators (land use, settlement, nature conservation) Basic idea:
• Spatial changing of protected areas (BMVBS, 2010)
• No studies for land use in protected areas (RÖRIG, 2007)
• Calculation based on the indicators „Landscape protection“ & „Nature & species protection“
• Landscape protection: nature preserve, Biosphere reserve, nature park • Nature & species protection: National park, Nature conservation area,
Introduction
Investigation area/ Timeframe: • Hesse & Thuringia
• 2006 to 2012 Data base:
• Protected areas:
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (further processed by IÖR)
• Land use by settlement & transport: ATKIS Basis-DLM
Figure 1: Overview map Hesse and Thuringia
Methods
• Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis • Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases • Data errors
Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Figure 2 – Functionality „Symmetrical Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
Figure 4 – Example
Digitalization (yellow– 2006, hatched– 2012)
Methods
• Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis • Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases • Data errors
Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Figure 1 – Functionality „Symmetrical Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
Methods
• Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis • Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases • Data errors
Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Figure 2 – Functionality „Symmetrical Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
Figure 4 – Example
Digitalization (yellow– 2006, hatched– 2012)
Methods – Spatial changes of boundaries
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium Page 11
Methods – Land use in protected areas
Proportion of land use in protected areas • Based on Indicator E7 (BMVBS, 2010)
• Tabulate Intersection
Newly constructed settlement and transport (SaT) • In protected areas
• Symmetrical Difference (5 m buffer) • Tabulate Intersection
(Newly constructed SaT/protected areas) • Summary Statistics
• In formerly protected areas • Tabulate Intersection
(Newly constructed SaT/ formerly protected areas) • Summary Statistics
Figure 6 – Categories of built-up area and
transportation (IOER-MONITOR, 2014)
Results
Land use by settlement & transport in protected areas
Results
Land use by settlement & transport in protected areas
Category Mean SaT proportion 2006 Mean SaT proportion 2012 Difference Mean Difference Minimum Difference Maximum Standard Deviation LSP 8.7 9.5 0.8 -3.7 8.1 2.0 NSP 1.6 1.5 -0.1 -1.4 1.2 0.3
Results
Land use by new settlement & transport in protected areas
Category Mean proportion of new settlement
and transport Thu ringia non-protected 1.2 LSP 1.0 NSP 0.3 Hesse non-protected 0.6 LSP 0.4 NSP 0.1 Th /He non-protected 0.9 LSP 0.6 NSP 0.2
Results
Land use by new settlement & transport in formerly protected areas
Category
Number of excluded areas
Mean Min Max SD
Hesse NSP 68 6,2 0,0 79,2 11.9 LSP 129 2,7 0,0 33,6 6.1 Th urini ga NSP 1 46,8 46,8 46,8 0,0 LSP 3 4,6 0,1 13,2 7,5 Hesse Th urini ga NSP 69 6.8 0.0 79.2 12.8 LSP 132 2.8 0.0 33.6 6.2
Table 3 – Proportion of newly constructed settlement in formerly
Discussion
Spatial changes of boundaries of protected areas • Detection of changes was possible
• Not 100% accurate
• Good assessment of developments and trends SaT in protected areas
• The higher the protection status, the lower the proportion of SaT • Reasons for decrease of SaT for NSP:
• Exclusion of SaT by digitalization • SaT-dismantling (RÖRIG, 2007)
Discussion
Newly constructed SaT in protected areas • Not 100% accurate due to used buffer • Showed expected results
Newly constructed SaT in formerly protected areas • Inverse ratio compared to SaT in protected areas
• mean of newly constructed settlement is conspicuously higher in both categories • Increase of SaT near by rare and sensitive areas is veiled
Conclusion
• certain data quality standards are already reached less data cleansing, more accuracy
• ATKIS- Data very good data base throughout Germany • reliable and transparent data is needed
• lack of studies regarding land use and transportation in protected areas • Assessment of ecological burden of protected areas
• Identify weakpoints and demands for improvement
• Formely protected areas needs to be included in studies
Literature
- BUNDESINSTITUT FÜR BAU UND STADTENTWICKLUNG (BMVBS), Hrsg. (2007):
Nachhaltigkeitsbarometer Fläche – Regionale Schlüsselindikatoren nachhaltiger Flächennutzung für die Fortschrittsberichte der Nationalen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie - Flächenziele ; ein Projekt des Forschungsprogramms "Allgemeine
Ressortforschung" des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) und des Bundesamtes für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR), Bonn.
- RÖRIG, A. (2007): Untersuchung der instrumentellen Leistungsfähigkeit des
naturschutzrechtlichen Schutzgebietssystems zur Steuerung der
Flächeninanspruchnahme durch Siedlung und Verkehr – Die Entwicklung der Siedlungs- und Verkehrsfläche in naturschutzrechtlichen Schutzgebieten am Beispiel ausgewählter Reisegebiete. Dissertation, Universität Rostock.
Image References:
Figure 1: http://www.galabau-mitgliedschaft.de/img/inhalt/Karte_Verbaende/ karte_hessen_thueringen_klein.png
Figure 2: ARCGIS (2012): Symmetrical Difference (Analysis). Online:
http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop
/10.0/help../index.html#//00080000000r000000. Last changed 4/4/2012 (Checked: 02/11.2014).
Figure 6: IOER-MONITOR (2014):Flächenschema. Online: http://www.ioer-monitor.de/flaechenschema/. Checked: 23/03/2014).
