Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 April 2013
Received in revised form 25 July 2013
Accepted 10 September 2013
Keywords:
Multi-criteria analysis
Land-use conicts
Spatial indicators
Urban development indicators
Bucharest Metropolitan Area
a b s t r a c t
The appearance of land-use conicts represents one of the expressions of the increasing human pressure
on the environment, especially in complex metropolitan areas. We used a multi-criteria analysis applied
in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area to create a tool for integrating land-use conicts into the strategies
for territory planning at the metropolitan level. We selected ten main criteria for the analysis, divided
them into two categories, i.e., spatial indicators and urban development indicators, and standardized
their values. Using the method of pair-wise comparison with an expert-opinion system, we determined
the relative importance of each criterion in the form of a criteria weight. The spatial indicators reveal
high probabilities for land-use conicts in the proximity of Bucharest (range: 7.1952.48), whereas urban
development indicators show a scattered spatial distribution of land-use conicts (range: 10.0030.01).
The variability of the total score for the spatial indicators is greater than that of the urban development
indicators (standard error of 0.64 > 0.30, respectively). The total scores reveal local administrative units
characterized by a critical or high incidence of spatial-land use conicts as well as their location in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Further research should concentrate on improving the expert-opinion input
for assigning weights and revealing the potential for replication in other areas or on different subjects.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Because indicators represent a form of conscious connection to
the environment (Golusin and Ivanovic, 2009) and the resilience
of nature (Passeri et al., 2013), society uses indicators to simplify
reality or for comparison with a normal or reference state (EEA,
2010). Indicators measure the characteristic values of perceived
realities (Kurtz et al., 2001) to produce information and describe
phenomena relative to other parameters (Antrop and Van Eetvelde,
2000; Caeiro et al., 2012; de Leeuw, 2002; Hasse and Lathrop, 2003).
In the context of the increasing human pressure on the environment, especially in urban and metropolitan areas (Patroescu
et al., 2009), indicators represent instruments that can be used to
reduce information gaps (Uuemaa et al., 2013), analyze environmental impacts (Ioja et al., 2007), compare scenarios (Petrov et al.,
2011), communicate results to the public (Li et al., 2009) and aid in
the decision-making process (Jaeger et al., 2010).
Indicators of land-use changes in metropolitan areas have varied over time, from informal methods to formal methods (i.e.,
cost-benet analysis or multi-criteria analysis) (Kamruzzaman and
Baker, 2013). The chosen indicators should allow intuitive interpretation based on mathematical simplicity and modest data (Jaeger
et al., 2010) and should be quantiable, sensitive to changes in land
cover, temporally and spatially explicit and scalable (Larondelle and
Haase, 2013); they should be able to reect not only the analyzed
phenomena but also the particular needs and goals represented
by the diversity in a chosen study area (Shen et al., 2011). International institutions and organizations have developed their own sets
of indicators for monitoring of environmental aspects, e.g., the core
set indicators of the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2011)
or the sustainability indicators of the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Urbanization promotes rapid social and economic development,
but at the same time, it leads to many environmental problems
(Li et al., 2009) that are becoming increasingly contentious. Therefore, the need exists for instruments aimed at better understanding
and management of these issues (Asah et al., 2012). Frequently,
these environmental problems lead to the emergence of environmental conicts (Kamruzzaman and Baker, 2013) between various
resource owners and users.
One of the most important environmental conict sources is
land-use changes (Sleeter et al., 2012) due to their effect on the
1470-160X/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
The Bucharest Metropolitan Area (Fig. 1) is situated in the southeastern region of Romania and contains 98 local administrative
units (cities and communes corresponding to EU NUTS 5) included
in ve counties (Nita , 2012) with a total surface of 5080 km2 . We
removed Bucharest, the capital city of Romania from our study
area, because its characteristics and range of issues are of a completely different type (urban phenomena) than the remainder of
the metropolitan area (rural side mixed with urban functions). The
land use is mainly agricultural (76.8%), with the built-up environment representing only 4.65% of the metropolitan areas total land
(Patroescu et al., 2011).
The dominant relief is characterized by low elevation plains
and river oodplains (Patroescu et al., 2009). The main rivers are
tributaries of the Danube (which represents the southern limit of
the metropolitan area and the border to Bulgaria). Forests once
covered most of the study area, which is fragmented by lakes
and rivers (4.9% is covered by aquatic surfaces), but centuries of
human activities (mainly agricultural) have reduced the forests
to a small proportion (10.5% covered by forests) (Patroescu et al.,
2011). The study area has a total population of 571,315 inhabitants, but numerous inhabitants of Bucharest have second homes
in this area that are inhabited for a smaller or larger period of time
(Patroescu et al., 2009). The average population density is 111.5
inhabitants/km2 (Rey et al., 2007) with notable territorial variations
(range: 211010).
The changes in land properties after 1989 (shift from public
to private owned lands) has increased the pressure of land-use
changes according to individual purpose (Golusin and Ivanovic,
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
1 100
100 max 1 min
Z +
max min
max min
(1)
100 1
1 max 100 min
Z +
max min
max min
(2)
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
Table 1
Selected indicators used in the analysis.
Categories of indicators
Spatial indicators
Indicator code
Indicator name
Worst situation
expressed by
Explanation
X1
Agricultural land
Minimum value
X2
Built-up areas
Maximum value
X3
Semi-natural surfaces
providing ecological
services
Residential area
tendency
Minimum value
X4
Indicators of urban
development
Maximum value
Y1
Population tendency
Maximum value
Y2
Y3
Population density
Aging
Maximum value
Maximum value
Y4
Sewage
Minimum value
Y5
Water
Minimum value
Y6
Gas
Minimum value
- Constructing a GIS database containing all of the spatial information on the Bucharest Metropolitan Area and connecting it to the
data available for each local administrative unit.
- Selecting the representative indicators and transforming them
into elements of the multi-criteria analysis.
- Using a method of pair-wise comparisons to determine the relative importance of each criteria in the form of a criteria weight.
- Aggregating the data with the criteria weights and obtaining the
scores of each area.
- Spatially representing the distribution of the scores obtained for
each local administrative unit.
S=
10
(gi f (Zi ))
(3)
i=1
Fig. 2. Flow chart of the methodology for mapping the spatial distribution of landuse conicts.
As a result, the partial and total scores can vary between 1 and
100. In the nal stage, we represented the score for each criteria
and the total scores on maps of the Bucharest Metropolitan Areas
using a division of classes (Adler et al., 2010; Dixon et al., 2009)
to express differences between the magnitudes of spatial land-use
conicts.
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Relative importance of pair-wise comparisons and numerical rates after Jeong et al. (2013).
More important intensity
Denition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
1/2
1/3
1/4
1/5
1/6
1/7
1/8
1/9
Table 3
Statistical parameters of the raw data and intermediate standardized values.
Indicator
X1
X2
X3
X4
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y6
Y7
Y8
Raw data
Intermediate
standardized values
Average
Max
Min
St. dev.
Average
St. dev.
76.42
6.10
0.11
55.72
10.11
150.59
24.73
16.83
7.03
13.81
93.60
42.39
0.43
433.50
151.47
1009.94
41.65
74.50
105.00
129.90
34.71
1.28
0.00
50.45
64.09
21.38
13.22
0.08
0.00
0.00
13.23
6.31
0.10
50.65
24.53
155.33
6.79
17.04
13.61
24.78
29.88
12.62
75.05
22.72
25.79
13.94
41.08
77.72
93.37
89.47
22.24
15.19
22.14
10.36
11.27
15.56
23.65
22.67
12.83
18.89
3. Results
The differences between the values of the raw data for each indicator were signicant (Table 3), with certain of them showing a
spread of values (Y2 range of 21.381009.94, 155.33) while others presented a more concentrated pattern (X3 range of 00.43,
0.10). Using the standardization method, we normalized the values to a common level (all standard deviations of the intermediate
values ranged in the 10.3623.65 interval).
We obtained the weights for each criterion from the pairwise comparisons conducted by each author of the present study
(Table 4). It is notable that although the number of spatial indicators is smaller than that of urban development indicators, their
total weight is larger (0.53). Indicators with the highest weights
tend to represent residential surfaces (X4 0.19), the tendency of
population (Y1 0.16) and the total surface of built up areas (X2
0.15). The lowest weights were assigned to indicators representing
the infrastructure development (Y4Y6). The sensitivity analysis
in the expert weighting process has been assessed by constructing
scatter plots of the output variables against a randomly selected
input variable. The scatter plots revealed reasonable results across
the analysis, and no signicant differences were recorded.
We aggregated the weights of each indicator with the intermediated standardized values, thus obtaining the scores for each
Table 4
Weights of the selected indicators.
Indicator
Weight
Indicator
Weight
X1
X2
X3
X4
Total weight of
spatial indicators
0.13
0.15
0.06
0.19
0.53
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
Y6
Total weight of urban
development
indicators
0.16
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.47
criterion and for each local administrative unit from the Bucharest
Metropolitan Area.
The spatial indicators (Fig. 3) show a relatively similar distribution in the metropolitan area, with certain areas of concentrations
according to the characteristics of each indicator. Indicator X1
agricultural land displays heterogeneous values in the metropolitan area, with the lowest values found in the eastern part. Indicator
X2 built-up areas shows the highest values concentrated in
localities situated in close proximity to Bucharest, and intermediate values in certain regional poles of development. Indicator
X3 semi-natural surfaces providing ecological services shows a
reversed homogenous distribution, with the majority of values distributed to the worst-case scenarios due to the lack of both forests
and water bodies and with low values corresponding to localities from the north and western regions characterized by large
forest areas and water bodies. Indicator X4 residential areas tendency presents a dominance of two medium classes of values, both
characterizing increases in the surface of residential areas in the
respective localities.
The total aggregation of spatial indicators (Fig. 4) shows localities with a high probability of land-use conicts incidence situated
particularly in proximity to Bucharest and in local administrative
units that have a legal urban status. The scores range between 7.19
(lowest values in the eastern portion of the metropolitan area) and
52.48 (Voluntari, which neighbors Bucharest in the northeast), with
four other local administrative units recording scores between 25
and 50 (all small cities situated in proximity to Bucharest).
The urban development indicators (Fig. 5) vary correspondingly:
Indicator Y1 population tendency and Indicator Y2 population density show a small number of localities with high values for
the worst situation (characterizing localities that suffered important developments of residential areas in the past 20 years) while
the others recorded medium values. Indicator Y3 aging shows
a concentration of high values in the eastern portion of the
metropolitan area, and smaller values are recorded in the center. All of the infrastructure accessibility indicators, i.e., Indicator
Y4 sewage, Indicator Y5 water and Indicator Y6 gas, show
a reversed homogenous distribution, with the majority of values
distributed to the worst situation case, and only a small number of
local administrative units present the best scenario.
The total aggregation of urban development indicators (Fig. 6) in
the Bucharest Metropolitan Area reveals a scattered distribution of
a small number of local administrative units characterized by the
existence of spatial land-use conicts. The scores range between
10.00 (Joita) and 30.01 (Chitila), with the small values located in the
periphery of the metropolitan area, and high values characterizing
localities that represent poles of development.
The variability of the total score for the spatial indicators is
greater than that of the urban development indicators (standard
error 0.64 > 0.30). The total aggregation of indicators characterizing
land-use conicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area are presented
in Fig. 7 with scores ranging between 17.53 (Gurbanesti in the
eastern portion of the metropolitan area) and 76.01 (Voluntari in
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Fig. 5. Scores of the urban development indicators in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area.
the north-eastern area of Bucharest), and small values characterizing areas with a high rural degree. One local administrative unit
exhibits a value greater 75 (Voluntari) and three present a value
above 50 (Bragadiru, Chiajna and Chitila); all are small cities located
in proximity to Bucharest.
4. Discussion
The distribution of scores for the spatial indicators in
the Bucharest Metropolitan Area can be explained using the
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Fig. 6. Multi-criteria assessment of urban development indicators in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area.
Fig. 7. Multi-criteria assessment of total indicators of spatial land-use conicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area.
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
5. Conclusions
The presented sets of indicators of spatial land-use conicts are
useful instruments for improving planning policies and strategies,
increasing the social awareness of the population and providing
direct economic projections for developers. Their integration into
a multi-criteria analysis allowed us to map the areas characterized by a high incidence of land-use conicts, which can be further
used for sustainable development of the metropolitan area. The
use of multi-criteria analysis in identifying the areas of land-use
conicts can be of real help to policy makers and authorities in the
decision-making process, especially in Eastern European countries,
because this methodology can represent a starting point for these
assessments.
The main limitations of the methods lie in the availability of
data required for the construction of each criterion. In addition,
no principles or guidelines are currently available to select the
most representative criteria for the characterization of land-use
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029
G Model
ECOIND-1686; No. of Pages 10
10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Ioja et al. / Ecological Indicators xxx (2013) xxxxxx
Jeong, J.S., Garca-Moruno, L., Hernndez-Blanco, J., 2013. A site planning approach
for rural buildings into a landscape using a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis methodology. Land Use Policy 32, 108118.
Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., 2013. Will the application of spatial multi criteria evaluation technique enhance the quality of decision-making to resolve boundary
conicts in the Philippines? Land Use Policy 34, 1126.
Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., James, P., 2012. Simulating urban growth processes
incorporating a potential model with spatial metrics. Ecological Indicators 20,
8291.
Koschke, L., Frst, C., Frank, S., Makeschin, F., 2012. A multi-criteria approach for
an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to
support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 21, 5466.
Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., Omann, I., 2009. Sustainable energy futures:
methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multicriteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 197, 10631074.
Kurtz, J.C., Jackson, L.E., Fisher, W.S., 2001. Strategies for evaluating indicators based
on guidelines from Environmental Protection Agencys Ofce of Research and
Development. Ecological Indicators 1, 4960.
Larondelle, N., Haase, D., 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a
ruralurban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators
29, 179190.
Li, F., Liu, X., Hu, D., Wang, R., Yang, W., Li, D., Zhao, D., 2009. Measurement indicators
and an evaluation approach for assessing urban sustainable development: a case
study for Chinas Jining City. Landscape and Urban Planning 90, 134142.
Liu, Y., Yao, C., Wang, G., Bao, S., 2011. An integrated sustainable development
approach to modeling the eco-environmental effects from urbanization. Ecological Indicators 11, 15991608.
Mubareka, S., Ehrlich, D., 2010. Identifying and modelling environmental indicators
for assessing population vulnerability to conict using ground and satellite data.
Ecological Indicators 10, 493503.
Munier, N., 2004. Multicriteria Environmental Assessment. A Practical Guide. Kluver
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Nita , M.R., 2012. Mapping favorability for residential development, case study:
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Procedia Environmental Sciences 14, 5970.
Pacione, M., 2013. Private prot, public interest and land use planninga conict
interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgows ruralurban
fringe. Land Use Policy 32, 6177.
Passeri, N., Borucke, M., Blasi, E., Franco, S., Lazarus, E., 2013. The inuence of farming
technique on cropland: a new approach for the ecological footprint. Ecological
Indicators 29, 15.
Patroescu, M., Nita , M.R., Ioja, I.C., Vnau, G.O., 2009. New residential areas in
Bucharest Metropolitan Area location, type and characteristics. In: In 14th
International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society Cities 3.0 Strategies, Concepts and Technologies for Planning
the Urban Future REAL CORP, Sitges, pp. 767772.
Patroescu, M., Vnau, G.O., Nita , M.R., Ioja, I.C., Ioja, A.D., 2011. Land use change in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area and its impacts on the quality of the environment
in residential developments, forum geograc. Studii si cercetari de geograe si
protectia mediului 10, 5264.
Petrov, L.O., Shahumyan, H., Williams, B., Convery, S., 2011. Scenarios and indicators
supporting urban regional planning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
21, 243252.
Rey, V., Groza, O., Ianos, I., Patroescu, M., 2007. Atlas de la Roumanie. Reclus, Montpelier, Paris.
Romero, H., Vsquez, A., Fuentes, C., Salgado, M., Schmidt, A., Banzhaf, E., 2012.
Assessing urban environmental segregation (UES). The case of Santiago de Chile.
Ecological Indicators 23, 7687.
Saarikoski, H., Raitio, K., Barry, J., 2013. Understanding successful conict resolution: policy regime changes and new interactive arenas in the Great Bear
Rainforest. Land Use Policy 32, 271280.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. Multicriteria decision making the analytic hierarchy process.
Mc-Graw Hill, New York.
Shen, L.-Y., Jorge Ochoa, J., Shah, M.N., Zhang, X., 2011. The application of urban
sustainability indicators a comparison between various practices. Habitat
International 35, 1729.
Shen, L., Jiang, S., Yuan, H., 2012. Critical indicators for assessing the contribution
of infrastructure projects to coordinated urbanrural development in China.
Habitat International 36, 237246.
Shmueli, D.F., 2008. Framing in geographical analysis of environmental
conicts: theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 39,
20482061.
Sleeter, B.M., Sohl, T.L., Bouchard, M.A., Reker, R.R., Soulard, C.E., Acevedo, W., Grifth, G.E., Sleeter, R.R., Auch, R.F., Sayler, K.L., Prisley, S., Zhu, Z., 2012. Scenarios of
land use and land cover change in the conterminous United States: utilizing the
special report on emission scenarios at ecoregional scales. Global Environmental
Change 22, 896914.
Sudhakaran, S., Lattemann, S., Amy, G.L., 2013. Appropriate drinking water treatment processes for organic micropollutants removal based on experimental and
model studies a multi-criteria analysis study. Science of the Total Environment
442, 478488.
Sze, M.N.M., Sovacool, B.K., 2013. Of fast lanes, ora, and foreign workers: managing
land use conicts in Singapore. Land Use Policy 30, 167176.
Tong, S.T.Y., Sun, Y., Ranatunga, T., He, J., Yang, Y.J., 2012. Predicting plausible impacts
of sets of climate and land use change scenarios on water resources. Applied
Geography 32, 477489.
Uuemaa, E., Mander, ., Marja, R., 2013. Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics
as landscape indicators: a review. Ecological Indicators 28, 100106.
Zolin, M.B., 2007. The Extended Metropolitan Area in a new EU member state:
implications for a rural development approach. Transition Studies Review 14,
565573.
Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., Using multi-criteria analysis for the identication of spatial land-use conicts in the
Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indicat. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.029