Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF URBAN
SPRAWL IN THE BRAŞOV METROPOLITAN AREA
Matei COCHECI
PhD Candidate, "Simion Mehedinţi" Doctoral School, Faculty of
Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, e-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract. The objective of this paper is to identify the critical areas
regarding land use changes in the Brasov Metropolitan area. In order to
achieve this, a comparison of built surfaces between the 1981
Topographical Map of Romania and the 2005 and 2011 satellite images of
the metropolitan area was realized. The data regarding the increase of built
surfaces and the decline in natural and agricultural land, obtained through
GIS techniques, has been used as an indicator of environmental impact,
along with statistical data such as number of dwellings dynamic or increase
in population. The results show a significant increase in built area,
especially along the main national roads that enter the city of Brasov. While
many residential projects have been realized in the area (especially in the
municipalities situated north of Brasov), there are also new industrial parks
and commercial facilities which have drastically changed the landscape,
leading to environmental quality degradation. In the end, the
environmental impact assessment can serve as a basis for drawing policies
which should be applied in order to control urban sprawl in the future and
reduce its negative environmental effects.
Key words: land use change, land use policies, environmental quality,
metropolitan management
1. Introduction
The objective of this paper is to identify
the critical areas regarding land use
changes in the Braşov Metropolitan
Area. As urbanisation is considered to
be one of the main vectors of
environmental change at the global
level (Bălteanu and Şerban, 2005),
assessing the environmental impact of
urban sprawl in metropolitan areas,
often described nowaday ’s as so ciety’s
engine of social, economic and cultural
development (Jurczek, 2008), can prove
to be an important step in the planning
and management of these territories.
The concept of urban sprawl refers to a
low density occupation phenomenon, a
leapfrog development in which urban
growth occur s in a discontinuo us
manner, leaving urban voids and
spreading onto rural areas or urban
fringes (Polidoro et al., 2011). It implies
an increase in built surface s over
21
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
agricultural or natural areas, often
without an adequate planning (EEA,
2006, Burchell et al., 2005). This
uncontrolled development of urban
areas can be asso ciated not only with
important resource consum ption, but
also with problems such as residential
developments
in
areas
without
sufficient technical infrastructure (Iojă,
2008).
factors, there are also demographic
cause s (migration tendencies from
crowded urban centres to the rural
areas nearby) and natural ones, as the
topography greatly influences the
sprawl patterns of cities (Grigorescu et
al., 2012).
To sum up, the main cause s for urban
sprawl can be divide d into social and
economic factors (acce ssibility, existence
of technical infrastr ucture, lower land
prices beyond de city boundaries, the
emergence of new activities which
require space – commercial centres) and
political factors, such as the decision to
extend the surface of land which can be
built in a city’s administrative territory.
Urbanisation can be measured as a
condition of land use, with low v alues
registered in at least one of the
following
dimensions:
density,
continuity, concentration, compactity,
centrality,
nuclearity,
diversity,
proximity (Mookherje et al., 2006). From
a formal perspective (a form of urban
development), urban sprawl can be
labelled as a process of urban change
(Couch et al., 2007), whose origins can
be found in the year s of the Industrial
Revolution (Newman, 1992).
The effe cts of urban sprawl can be
noticed not only on the environment,
but also at the social and economic
levels. As far as the environment is
concerne d, the increase of urban areas
is, first of all, a space-consuming
process (Stanilov, 2007; Bur chell et al.,
2005).
Furthermore,
like
any
anthropogenic process, urban sprawl
implies
significant
resource
consumption (especially constr uction
materials), which also leads to an
alteration of soil properties through
compaction or loss of permeability
(EEA, 2006).
In Central and Eastern Europe, the
existence of a planned settlement
development system de termined a
compact growth of urban areas between
1945 and 1989. Since 1990, the political
and economical changes face d by the
countries in this part of Europe have
also been reflected in the urban form.
One of the main factors was the
privatisation process, which greatly
diminished the control of public
authorities on land use (Stanilov, 2007).
In Romania’s case, three main causes
have led to an increase in urban sprawl
and land use change after 1990. Firstly,
the political decisions (Law no. 18/1991
– the Land Law) determined the
transition from agricultural land in
collective property to smaller par cels in
private property, more vulnerable to
residential conversion (Grigorescu et al.,
2012). In addition to these political
In addition to this, urban sprawl
determines an expansion towar ds the
urban
fringes
of
environmental
problems usually related to the city,
such as pollution: a raise in the quantity
of waste water (Alpo pi, 2008), air
quality issues (Stanilov, 2007) through
the rise of energy consumption and
carbon dioxyde emissions, climate
change asso ciated risks at local level
(rise of soil temperature and run-off –
Pauleit et al., 2005).
22
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
Consequently, there are studies which
underline urban sprawl as a major
factor in air pollution, as disperse d
developments tend to cause 20-50 %
more
pollution
than
compact
developments (Nozzi, 2003).
extent
of
the
urban
sprawl
phenomenon often determine s a ri se of
land price through spe culation (EEA,
2006).
Social impacts of urban sprawl are
more difficult to q uanti fy, but can be
deducted through case studies. Firstly,
a so cial segreg ation phenomenon is
noticeable, le ading to an emphasize d
social polari sation and a change in
social structure (Allen, 2003, Stanilov,
2007) - urb an centre s remain only for
people who cannot afford to move to
the ne w resi dential areas in the sub urbs
(EEA, 2006). He nce , urb an spr awl does
not encour age mixed so cial elements
(Freeman, 2001), ofte n being a cause for
extreme e xample s such as gate d
communities (Arbury , 2006). Another
significant so cial impact is relate d to
health i ssues cause d by urb an spr awl,
espe cially thro ugh the r aise in air
pollution through the e xtension of built
surface s (Fr umkin, 2002).
Natural areas can also be affected by
urban spr awl, as the expansion of the
built environment affects environmental
services such as water de toxification,
filtration of pollutants or nutrient
recyclying (Pătroescu et al., 2011). New
urban areas also tend to expand
towards natur al protected areas, often
leading
to
habitat
fragmentation
through
the
newly
propose d
infrastructure. The se impacts are even
greater in coastal or mountain areas,
where the pressure of tourism must also
be dealt with. However, most often new
urban developments are re alized on
agricultural
land,
modifying
the
structure of rural environments and
leading to a loss of biotopes (EEA,
2006).
Table 1 pre sents a sy nthe sis of the main
environmental, so cial and e conomic
impacts which can be cause d by urban
sprawl in any given territory. As urb an
growth de termines a gr eater spee d of
environmental anthropization (Sârb u,
2005), a better under standing of this
phenomenon is of great im portance
consi dering the fact that the assessment
of the degree of anthropization is a
focal point in sustainable develo pment
strategies (Ianoş, 2000).
The economic impacts of urban sprawl
are mostly co st-relate d. Thus, while
this kind of development is cheaper for
the developer , the costs are in fact
transferred to the community, as
additional public inve stments in
infrastr ucture (te chni cal infrastructure
and ro ads – Speir and Ste phenson,
2002) or publi c se rvices nee d to be
made. Indire ct costs are also involve d,
in relation to air pollution, traffic safety
(Arbury , 2006), commuting (Bur chell et
al., 2005) or health issues (Dumitr ache,
2004). Urban sprawl through greenfield
developments, which are cheaper for
the investor s, often leads to the
abando nment of industrial are as
located in the city in favor of new periurban de velopments (EEA, 2006,
Stanilov, 2007). Moreover, a larg e-scale
The peri-urban territory of Br aşov
(administrative centre of the county of
Braşov ) is char acteri zed by the
conne ctions betwee n the se ttlements in
the are a (Lăzărescu, 1977), as Braşov,
the main urban ce ntre of the county,
forms a complex urb an system with the
other nearby citie s (Codle a, Săcele,
23
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Râşnov , Zărneşti, Pre deal). Before 1990,
this territory conce ntrated the majority
of the county ’s industrial activities,
which determine d the emergence of
commuting (Mihăilescu, 1963).
Feldioara
(Braşov
Agency, 2012).
Metro politan
Almost 90 % of the metropolitan are a’s
populatio n lives in urban areas
(Br aşov Metro politan Ag ency, 2012).
Thus, besi des Braşov (the region’s
main city ), the seco ndary centr es of
Săcele and Codle a have a signifi cant
role in relieving some of the pre ssure
on public servi ces put on Braşov
(Sârbu,
2007).
The
terri tory’s
topography gre atly i nfluences ci ty’s
possibilities of growth, as it can only
exte nd its built sur face to war ds the
north, in the Braşov de pre ssio n.
However , the exi ste nce o f a signifi cant
number o f national roads me ans that
the area has a ver y goo d accessibility
at lo cal, regional and national le vel,
thus fo steri ng ur ban sprawl along the
main tr anspor t axes i n the last 20
years.
The connections betwee n these cities
have been mai ntaine d even after 1990,
despite the de cline of industrial
activity.
The se
conne ctions were
further stre ngthene d by the deci sion of
16 communities to form a partnershi p,
the
Metropolitan
Ag ency
for
Sustainable Development Braşov, thus
creating the premises of a functional
metropolitan area.
As a result,
nowadays the Braşov Metro politan
Area consists of three m unici palities
(Braşov, Săcele, Codlea), three cities
(Ghimbav, Prede al, Râşnov) and 10
rural communes - Cristian, V ulcan,
Bod, Hăl chiu, Sânpetru, Tărlungeni,
Hărman,
Prejmer ,
Crizbav
and
Table 1. Urban spra wl and associa ted impa cts
Type of impact
Impacts caused by urban sprawl
Environmental
-
Resource consumption (la nd and natural resou rces)
impacts
-
Changes in soil p roperties
-
Air pollution (u rban form whic h favou rs car dep end enc y, ris e of
energy consumption)
-
Climate cha nges at local level
-
Natural ecosystem f ragmentation
-
Reduction of agricultural land
-
Lower environm ental capacity in providing environmental
services
-
Social segregation
-
Emphasized social pola risation a nd loss of socia l mixity
-
New d evelopments make social relations hips harder to build
-
Health issues through pollution
-
Greater c osts for t he communit y (need f or public investments in
infrastructure and public services)
-
Indirect costs: traffic congestion, healt h issues, traffic safety
-
Rise of land price through speculation
Social impacts
Economic impacts
24
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
2. Methodology
The environmental impact assessment
was based on a comparison between the
settlement limits according to the 1981
Topographical Map of Romania (scale
1:25 000) situation and the 2005 (sour ce:
ANCPI) and 2011 (sour ce: Google Earth)
sattelite images (scale 1:5 000) of the
Braşov Metropolitan Area. While the
whole metropolitan area was subjecte d
to the analysis of urban sprawl until
2005, the lack of spatial data for 2011
limited the analysis only on the first belt
of municipalities around Braşov (the
cities of Braşov, Săcele, Ghimbav and
Râşnov and the communes of Sânpetru
and Hărman).
urban sprawl char acteristics in the
Braşov Metropolitan Area was obtaine d,
including the critical areas regarding
the environmental impact of sprawl.
3. Results
3.1. Urban spraw l between 1981 and 2005
A preliminary analysis base d on the
Markov model (the comparison of
CORINE Land Cover 1990 and 2006
data) revealed a raise in built surface of
approx. 575 ha – this reflecte d, in fact, a
225 ha loss of natural land (forests,
pastry) and a 350 ha loss of agricultural
land (Fig. 2). The analysis emphasized a
tendency of new developments to be
realized on agricultural land, however
the low fidelity of Corine data for
greater scale analysis determined the
need
to
identify
new
urban
developments on sattelite images, with
the 1981 Topographi cal Map of
Romania as reference point.
Throug h GIS proce ssing , it was
possible to obtain the new surface of
residenti al, industrial or commercial
developments which have emerge d
since 1981. The ty pe of develo pment
(reside ntial – single family housing,
residenti al
–
collective
housing,
industrial
and
storage
facilities,
commercial, service s, o ther) was mostly
determine d thro ugh direct on-field
observation. The rise of b uilt surface
for each urban function and each
municipality was then associate d with
statistical
data
concerning
the
popul ation and number of dwellings
dynami cs (base d on 2002 and 2011
census data). The de cline of natural
and agri cultural surfaces was realize d
by using the Markov chai n model
(Pătr u-Stupari u, 2011), thro ugh a
compariso n of the C ORINE Land Cover
1990 and 2006 datase ts (EEA, 2010).
The GIS Analysis of the urban
development between 1981 and 2005
revealed an increase of built surface in
the Braşov Metropolitan Area of over
786 he ctares (or approximately 12 % rise
between 1981 and 2005). For each case,
the surface of the entire built parcel was
considered in the new development
surface, not just the surface of the
building itself. While the greatest
amount of new urban development is
located in the city of Br aşov (309.66
hectares – over 39 % of the total), the
greatest weight gain in total built
surface has been observed in the nearby
municipalities of Cristian, Ghimbav and
Hărman – over 20 % since 1981 (Table 2.
and Fig. 3). On the other hand, the rural
areas of Vul can and Crizbav, with
weaker connections to the national road
grid, have suffere d the least from urban
sprawl.
The
primary
indicators obtained
through GIS, CORINE Land Cover data
and statistical data pro cessing were
then related to different environmental
data in or der to build impact indi cators
(Fig. 1). In the end, a clear image of the
25
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Fig. 1. Methodol ogy
Fig. 2. Natural land and agri cul tura l land loss due to urban spra wl
26
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
Table 2. Urban developmen t fr om 1981 to 200 5 in the Braşov Me tr opolitan Area
Municipality
Bod
Braşov
Codlea
Cristian
Crizbav
Feld ioara
Ghimbav
Hălchiu
Hărman
Predeal
Prejmer
Râşnov
Săcele
Sânpetru
Tărlungeni
Vulcan
TOTAL
Built area 1981
(ha)
174.69
2977.04
510.72
151.94
68.12
197.08
125.56
186.41
181.86
251.66
302.34
297.75
576.20
182.36
246.95
114.21
6544.89
Urban development 19812005 (ha)
19.80
309.66
45.22
47.08
7.24
27.17
35.57
14.13
37.53
22.93
26.64
39.75
77.67
33.72
34.03
8.24
786.38
Rise of built surface 19812005 (%)
11.33
10.40
8.85
30.99
10.63
13.79
28.33
7.58
20.64
9.11
8.81
13.35
13.48
18.49
13.78
7.21
12.02
Fig. 3. Rise of built sur fa ce in the Braşov Me tr opol itan Area 19 81-2005 (%)
27
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Single-family housing and industry and
storage account for almost 90 % of the
total urban development in the 19812005 period (Table 3, Fig. 4). However,
in certain m unicipalities (Hărman,
Predeal, Tărlungeni, Crizbav, Vulcan,
Râşnov), over 65 % of the urban sprawl
development is determined by singlefamily houses that have appeare d in the
post-communist era, espe cially along
the main roads. On the other hand, the
municipalities of Cristian, Codlea
Hălchiu, Feldioara and Prejmer have
known a great increase in industrial and
storage facilities in the same period
(over 65 % of the total rise in built
surface area). As far as commercial
areas
are
concerne d,
the
new
developments can be mostly found in
the city of Braşov (72 % of the total
commercial development in the 19812005 period).
Table 3. Types of urban devel opment (1981 -20 05)
Type of de velopment
Rise of built surface (ha)
Percent of total rise (%)
7.17
39.08
31.01
357.43
339.97
11.72
0.91
4.97
3.94
45.45
43.23
1.49
Other
Collective Housing
Commerc e
Industry and storage
Single- housing
Services
Fig. 4. Municipali ty profile a ccording to dominan t type of new urban devel opment
28
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
3.2. Urban spraw l between 2005 and 2011
The analysi s of urb an spr awl for the
2005-2011 time frame was focused only
on the fir st belt of munici palitie s
around the city o f Braşov (the
communes Cristi an, Sânpetr u and
Hărman and the citie s Braşov, Săcele,
Ghimbav , Râşnov ). While the city of
Pre deal can also b e consider ed a part
of this fir st belt, the natural
characteri sti cs of the territory (high
altitude s which hinder continous
urban develo pment) i solate s this city
from the re st o f the me tropolitan are a.
For this reason, Predeal was not
incl ude d in this analysi s.
b etwee n 2005 and 2011, o nly the ci ty
o f Râşnov re duced i ts sprawl
tendenci es, whil e the other si x have
v al ue s whi ch clo sely re ssem ble or
e ve n
surpass
those
re giste re d
b etwee n 1981 and 2005 (Table 4).
From 2005-2011, the domi nant ty pe of
new urb an develo pment i s also
residenti al or industrial – over 80 % of
the ne w b uilt surface. As far as the
new commer cial ar eas are concer ne d,
over 85 % of them are lo cated in the
city o f Braşov.
The data for the whole analyze d
timeframe
(1981-2011)
reveal s a
growth of b uilt sur face o f almo st 25 %
for the first belt of muni cipali ties –
approx. 1180 ha of new urb an
develo pment
since
2011.
The
communes o f Sânpe tru, Hărman,
Cristian and the city of Ghimb av
registere d a gro wth of over 50 % in
built surface , whi ch r efle cts the gre at
develo pment of these admini strative
units in the last 30 year s (Fig. 5).
Fo r thi s terri tor y, a ri se in b uil t
surface of 592.82 he ctare s was
ob se rve d i n the 2005-2011 perio d,
g re ate r than the ri se fo r the 1981-2005
pe rio d. Thi s data i llustr ate s the e ffect
of
the
im po rtant
real
e state
i nve stme nts
in
the
2005-2009
time fr ame
on
me tro poli tan
de velo pm ent.
From
the
seve n
admini str ati ve
units
analy ze d
Table 4. Urban spra wl in the fir st belt of muni cipal itie s – 1981 - 20 11
Municipality
Urban sprawl
1981-2005 (ha)
Total urban
Urban sprawl
sprawl 1981-2011
2005-2011 (ha)
(ha)
Rise of built surface
1981-2011 (%)
Braşov
309.66
236.00
545.66
18.33
Cristian
47.08
68.76
115.84
76.24
Ghimbav
35.57
69.68
105.25
83.82
Hărman
37.53
56.62
94.15
51.77
Râşnov
39.75
18.77
58.52
19.65
Săcele
77.67
74.51
152.18
26.41
Sânpetru
33.72
74.48
108.20
59.33
TOTAL
580.98
598.82
1179.8
26.26
29
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Fig. 5. Rise of built sur fa ce 1981 -2011 (%)
3.3. Statistical data an alysis – 2002-2011
The census data analysis for the years
2002 and 2011 revealed an increase in
the number of dwellings for 11 out of
the 15 administrative units of the Braşov
metropolitan area (Table 5). However,
during the same timeframe only six
administrative units also experienced an
increase in population – a possible
explanation is that people have retained
their official residence in the city of
Braşov while actually moving in the
surrounding communes. The case of the
commune of Hălchiu is a special one, as
its great decrease in number of
dwellings and po pulation from 2002 to
2011 is due to the separ ation of the
commune of Crizbav, which had been a
part of Hăl chiu until late 2002.
(over 65 000 fewer inhabitants in 2011 in
comparison to 2002), the number of
dwellings in the area has increase d by
over 5 000, with the most significant
rises being registered in the communes
of Hărman and Sânpetr u, located north
of
Braşov.
Moreover,
in
all
municipalities the rate of growth in the
number of dwellings surpassed the
population’s rate of growth. The city of
Ghimbav illustrates this very well –
while the city’s population has
decrease d between 2002 and 2011 by
over 11 %, the number of dwellings
increased in the same period by over 13
%. The dynamics of the number of
dwellings represents an important
element in the environmental impact
assessment of urban sprawl, as
residential
areas
influence
environmental quality on local, regional
and global level (Pătroescu et al., 2012).
Although the po pulation of the
metropolitan area has greatly decrease d
30
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
Table 5. Census data compari son 2 002 -2011
Municipality
Bod
Braşov
Codlea
Cristian
Crizbav
Feld ioara
Ghimbav
Hălchiu
Hărman
Predeal
Prejmer
Râşnov
Săcele
Sânpetru
Tărlungeni
Vulcan
TOTAL
Number of
dwellings (2011
compared to
2002)
89
1636
158
172
74
-89
244
190
651
526
102
357
200
510
319
0
5139
Rise of number
of d wellings (%
- 2011 - 2002)
Population
(2011 compared
to 2002)
Rise of
population (% 2011 - 2002)
6.16
1.47
2.10
12.03
11.14
-4.05
13.98
14.15
44.90
18.33
3.69
7.01
2.00
39.91
13.30
0.00
3.31
-156
-56635
-4450
391
240
-750
-573
41
777
-1182
-202
-1375
-3008
1136
421
175
-65150
-3.97
-19.90
-18.32
9.96
11.22
-11.66
-11.21
1.01
17.56
-21.05
-2.43
-8.90
-10.06
32.94
5.69
4.10
-15.76
3.4. Envir onmental impact indicators
The primary indi cators obtained after
these analysis (Table 6) were processe d
(through the use of estimates or
corellation with other data) to obtain
secondary indi cators that illustrate
better the impact of urban sprawl on the
environment.
by re si dential develo pme nt in the
Br aşov
Metro poli tan
ar ea
was
re alize d.
As the statistical data suggests, the
Braşov Metropolitan Area experience d
an important rise of reside ntial area
surface between 2002 and 2011. In this
case, residential areas can be regarded
as a generator of environmental
degradation
problems,
influencing
environmental quality through their
damage of air, water and soil quality
and their impact on biodiversity
(Pătroescu et al., 2012).
These
prim ary
indi cator s
we re
consi der ed
suffi cie nt
for
the
i de ntifi catio n o f the criti cal areas
re gar di ng the e nviro nme ntal im pact
o f urb an sprawl. Thi s hy po the si s was
b ase d on the fact that a gre at part o f
the i mpact i ndicato rs that can be
ob tai ne d (emi ssi ons, waste water
vol ume ,
waste
q uanti ties,
soil
cove ring b y ar tifi cial surfaces) can be
deri ve d from this prim ary indi cators,
as they are dire ctly r elate d to the ri se
in b uilt surface, popul ation or numb er
or dwelli ngs. To illustrate thi s, a
pre se ntation o f the im pacts generate d
One of the metho ds of impact
quantification is determining the
ecological footprint of a household,
defined as the surface of biologically
productive land necessary to satisfy the
population’s nee ds and absorb its waste
(Wackerangel and Rees, 1995 in
Pătroescu et al., 2012).
31
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Analysis
Corine Lan d Cover
analysis 19 90-2006
Compa rative GIS
analysis 19 81-2005 2011
Analiză date sta tistice
Table 6. Primary indi ca tor s obtained thr ough analysis
Primary indica tors obtained
Loss of agricultur al land (h a) - gl obally
Loss of natur al land (h a) – globally
Urban sprawl 1 981 – 2005 (ha) - globally
Urban sprawl 1981 -2011 (ha ) – fir st belt of
municipalitie s
Rise of re siden tial, in dustrial, commer cial, service
surface s (ha ) – globally and for each m unici pality
(1981 -201 1)
Rise of number of dwe llings (gl obally and for e ach
muncipa lity 2002 -20 11)
Popul ati on dynami cs (gl obally and for e ach
muncipa lity 2002 -20 11)
The ecological footprint can be
separate d into spatial footprint (the
space occupied by the dwelling) and
energetic footprint, which takes into
account the consumption of materials,
energy, water, travelled distances and
waste pro duced (Pătroescu et al., 2009).
Value s
350 ha
225 ha
768.23 ha
1 179.80 ha
Residenti al: 706.31 ha
Industria l: 539.04 ha
Commer cial: 77.42 ha
Service s: 37.59 ha
5 139 (globally )
-65 150 (gl obally)
metropolitan area (Braşov Metropolitan
Agency, 2012) leads to a degradation of
air quality through emissions of
greenhouse effe ct gases (C O2, C O, SO2)
and acidifying gases like NO2, SO2
(Pătroescu et al., 2012). If the individual
heating system is functioning on natural
gas, the air eliminated in the
atmosphere will have the following
pollutant concentrations: C O - 40 ppm,
CO2 - 117.000 ppm, NO 2 - 92 ppm, SO2 1 ppm and particulate matter (7 ppm) –
(Global Greenhouse Warming, 2010).
Table 7 pre sents a synthesis of these
impacts.
As a result, the ecological footprint of
an
individual
dwelling
from
a
metropolitan area can be determined.
Although it occupies, on average, a
surface of 100 sqm, such a dwelling has
a total ecological footprint of 580 sqm if
the following elements are considered:
construction material consumption of
1000 sqm, energy consumption of 70kW,
water consumption of 100 liters/day (or
142.2 cubic meters per year – White,
2002), 750 km travelled by car each
month (commuting) and 190 kg of waste
produced each month (estimates after
Pătroescu et al., 2012).
Other relevant indicators are those
related to the technical infrastructure
network. An insufficient gas network
can prove to have detrimental effects on
the environment, espe cially in the case
of Braşov where a great part of the
metropolitan area is dependant on
individual heating systems (Braşov
Metropolitan Agency, 2012). This can be
explained by the fact that other fuels
than natural gas induce a greater
damage on air quality (Pătroescu et al.,
2012). Moreover, the length of sewage
networks is an indicator of the capacity
of residential areas to manage exce ss
Furthermore, if we consider that 87.37
% of the total water consumed in a
household ends up as waste water
(White, 2002), the total volume of waste
water per year for a household will be
124.41 cubic meters. The pre dominance
of individual heating systems in the
32
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
water (Mar shall, 2011) and thus avoid
negative effects of overflowing waste
water into natur al receptors.
surface) was take n i nto co nsi de ratio n
for e ach admini str ati ve uni t (Table 8).
The
r esults
i ndicated
sever al
problem s reg ar ding the cov erag e o f
techni cal
infrastr uctur e
in
m uni ci pali tie s wi th an im por tant
gro wth of r esi de nti al are as such as
Ghimb av or Tărl ung eni .
In or der to allow a pro pe r com pariso n
o f the se indi cator s, the de nsi ty o f gas
and sewage network s (leng th o f
network di vi de d by to tal b uilt are a
Table 7. Impa cts of resi dential urban spra wl in the Bra şov Me tr opolita n Area
Value
Global value- Braşov
Metropolitan Area*
Land consumption / dwelling (mp)
100 sqm
51,39 ha
Construction material consumption / dwelling - sqm
1000 sqm
513,9 square km
70kW
359 370 kW
142,4 sqm
731 793,6 sqm
Distance covered every month by ca r / household
(km)
750 km
3 854 250 km
Mont hly quantity of waste / household (kg)
190 kg
976,41 t
124,41 sqm
639 343 sqm
Impact indicator
Mont hly energy consumption / household (kW)
Annual water consumption / household (cubic
meters)
Annual waste water volume / household
* 5139 new dwellings 2002-2011
Table 8. Density of gas and se werage networks [Da ta sour ce: Braşov Metropoli tan Agency, 2012 ]
Gas network density 2010 (km/sq
km)
Sewerage network 2010 (km/sq km)
Bod
7.97
1.80
Brasov
12.90
10.91
Codlea
8.89
6.66
Cristian
10.34
8.14
Ghimbav
9.32
3.73
Halchiu
10.62
4.69
Harman
14.20
9.56
Predeal
20.61
6.15
Prejmer
6.96
0.97
Râsnov
10.95
9.63
Sacele
15.18
4.39
Sânpetru
12.87
8.09
Tarlungeni
7.47
No data
Vulcan
12.98
No data
Municipality
33
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
4. Discussions
All in all, the spatial data regar ding
urban sprawl since 1981 (Fig. 6) aids in
the identi fication of the criti cal are as
affe cted by sprawl in the Br aşov
Metropolitan Ar ea. In m unici palities
like Bod, Crizbav , Vul can or Hălchi u,
isolated from the national road
network, the urban development was
slower than in the administrative units
located along a national road. In
relation to this, the new commercial
and industrial developments were
realized mostly on the periphery of
Braşov , a fact which is illustr ated by
the ne w urban areas develope d in the
Braşov – Săcele area (on DN 1), in the
north
of
Braşov
(Stupini
neighbourhood – on DN 13) or in the
Crisitan – Ghimbav area (we st of
Braşov ). On the other hand, the new
residenti al areas are co nce ntrate d
mostly north of Braşov, in the
commune s of Sânpe tru and Hărman,
while smaller resi dential projects have
been develope d in the cities of
Ghimbav, Râşnov and Săcele or in the
commune s Cristian and Tărl ungeni.
Commuting also implies a raise in air
pollution along the main transport axes.
Moreover, the development of new
residential areas has another important
environmental effect, being a risk for
natural protecte d areas (specifically the
Dealul Cetăţii – Mlaştina Hărman
Natura 2000 site, which is located close
to the new developments in Sânpetru
and Hărman).
In addition to resi dential development,
with
its
associate d
negative
environmental impacts, new industrial
and commer cial are as have also been
develope d aro und Br aşov. Thi s leads
not only to negative impacts such as
pollutant emissions associate d to the
new industrial units, excessive soil
coverage with artifi cial surface s or rise
in traffic levels, but also to e conomic
impacts such as the abandonment of
former industrial platforms locate d
inside the city. To uristical areas have
suffered from landscape degr adation,
as the nee d to balance the demand for
accommodation has often resulte d in
unco ntrolled development of new
hotels, espe cially in the Poiana Br aşov
area.
Of great interest is the increase of
number of homes since 1990, especially
in Sânpetr u and Hărman. Associate d
with the lack of efficient metropolitan
public transport and the fact that Braşov
still concentrates the greatest number of
jobs and the greatest variety of public
services, this growth in the number of
homes actually translates into increase d
commuting. This is further sustained by
data indicating that while the number of
homes has grown, the population has
not, which implies that many people
still have their job in Braşov and choose
to commute every day from their new
residences.
The analysi s reveale d the possibility of
asse ssing the environmental impact of
urban spr awl thro ugh indicators, even
if these indicators are limited, due to
lack of data, to the rise of built sur faces
or number of dwellings. The main
objective of this study was thus
achieve d – i dentifying the criti cal are as
regarding urb an sprawl environme ntal
impact aro und the city of Braşov.
Furthermore, the se areas coinci de with
the territories already affe cte d by
environmental problems relate d to air
quality or waste manageme nt.
34
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
Fig. 6. Synthesis of satteli te image analysis an d connection between spr awl and na ti onal roads pmen t
As a r esult, i n the case o f Br aşo v’s
peri urb an
ar ea,
urb an
sprawl
em phasize s e xisting envi ronm ental
degr adation.
− Integr atio n
of
al ready
dev eloped ne w urb an are as
thro ug h
strategi c
pl anning
b ase d
on
i nte rco mmunal
coo per atio n
The co nclusio ns o f the envi ronm ental
im pact asse ssme nt of urban sprawl
can be use d as a basis for identifyi ng
pote nti al interv entions me tho ds i n
this are a. Co nseq uently, thr ee mai n
obj e ctiv es can b e de fined i n o rder to
solve so me o f the pro blems face d by
the Braşov Metro politan ar ea in thi s
re gar d:
− Dimini shi ng
e nviro nmental
im pact of urb an sprawl thro ugh
integ rate d poli cie s invol ving
public tr ansportatio n o r waste
m anageme nt
− C ontrol
of
future
ur b an
spr awl
thro ug h
a
str i ct
r e g ul atio n of ar e as that can be
de v elo pe d
Howe ver , these type s o f i nter ventions
sho ul d adapt to the chall eng es face d
nowaday s b y m etro politan planni ng
in Romania, mai nly the l ack o f
legi slative instr um ents give n the nonadmi nistr ativ e status o f me tro politan
areas.
5. Co nclusio ns
While
urban
sprawl
doe s not
re pr esent a part o f a poli cy , progr am
or pro je ct, it can be subje cted to
e nviro nme ntal im pact asse ssment. As
a phe nomeno n r esulti ng from a sum
o f i ndi vidual proj e cts, thi s kind o f
urb an e xpansio n ofte n lack s proper
planing . Although i ndi vi dually the se
35
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 5 • Nr. 2• 2014 •
Bălteanu D., Şerban M. (2005), Global changes of the
environment. An interdisciplinary assessment
of uncertainties [in Romanian], Editura
Coresi, Bucharest, Romania.
Braşov Metr opolitan Agency. (2012), Sustainable
Development Strategy of the Braş ov
Metropolitan
Area
2012-2020
[in
Romanian], Agenţia Metropolitană pentru
Dezvoltare Durabilă Braşov, Braşov,
Romania.
Burchell R.W., Downs A., McCann B., Mukherji S.
(2005), Sprawl Costs – Economic Impacts of
Unchecked Development, Island Press,
Washington DC, USA.
Cocheci R.M. (2013), Urban Sprawl in the Braşov
Metropolitan Area, Romania – Environmental
Impact Assessment and Solutions for a
Sustainable Metropolitan Development, in:
Maric I., Petric J., 2nd International
scientific conference Regional Development,
Spatial Planning and Strategic Governance –
RESPAG 2013 Book of Abstracts, Institute of
Architecture and Urban & Spatial
Planning of Serbia, Printed Grafo Nin
d.o.o, Belgrade, Serbia, 136 pp., ISBN 97886-80329-75-8, pp. 34.
Cocheci R.M. (2013), Urban Sprawl in the Braşov
Metropolitan Area, Romania – Environmental
Impact Assessment and Solutions for a
Sustainable Metropolitan Development, in:
Maric I., Petric J., 2nd International
scientific conference Regional Development,
Spatial Planning and Strategic Governance –
RESPAG 2013 Book of Abstracts, Institute of
Architecture and Urban & Spatial
Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia, 1169
pp, ISBN 978-86-80329-76-5, pp. 176-187.
Couch C., Leontidou L., Petschel-Held G. (Eds.)
(2007), Urban Sprawl in Europe – Landscape,
Land Use Change and Policy, Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Dumitrache L. (2004), The Health State of Romania’s
Population – a Geographical Approach [in
Romanian],
Editura
Universitară,
Bucharest, Romania.
European Environmental Agency (EEA). (2006),
Urban sprawl in Europe – The ignored
challenge, EEA Report 10, Luxemburg:
Office for Offi cial Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg
European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2010),
CLC
Data
Download,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/land
use/interactive/clc-download
Freeman L. (2001), The Effects of Sprawl on
Neighbourgood Social Ties: An Explanatory
proj ects do no t r eq uire envi ronm ental
im pact assessme nt (from a leg al poi nt
o f view), thei r cum ulative im pact has
im por tant
conseq ue nces o n
the
e nviro nme nt.
A q uanti tative analy sis lik e the o ne
pro posed i n thi s paper can have an
im por tant role i n de fini ng the areas
wher e the neg ati ve effe cts of urban
sprawl have the l arge st exte nt. Once
the se areas ar e kno wn, di ffere nt
instruments can be em ploye d in o rder
to re duce the neg ativ e effe cts and
contai n sprawl.
Ackno wledgm ents
Thi s pape r details the wo rk pre sente d
at the RESPAG 2013 Inte rnational
Co nfe rence held in Belgr ade i n May
2013 and publi she d as Co che ci , 2013a
– ab str act - and Co che ci , 2013b – full
paper .
I wo ul d lik e to thank my te acher s
Pro f. Univ . Dr . Mari a Pătro escu and
Le ct. Univ . Dr. Gab riel V ânău from
the
Facul ty
of
Ge ogr aphy
Unive rsi ty o f Buchar est fo r their
g re at
suppor t in
de fi ning my
di sser tatio n thesis, whi ch sto o d as a
fo undatio n fo r this arti cl e.
R EF ER ENCES
Allen A. (2003), Environmental planning and
management of the peri-urban interface:
perspectives
on
an
emerging
field,
Environment and Urbanization 15(1): 135147.
Alpopi C.. (2008), Effects of urban agglomeration on
the
environment,
Economia
seria
Management 11(2): 12-20.
Arbury J. (2 006 ), Fr om Urb an Spr awl to
Comp act Ci ty – an an alys is of u rb an
gr owth man agemen t in Auckl an d, MA
The si s, Univ er si ty of Auck lan d, Ne w
Zeala nd.
36
Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the
Braşov Metrop olitan Area • M. Cocheci
Urbanism
Analysis, Journal of the American
Planning Association 67(1): 69-77.
Frukmin H. (2002), Urban Sprawl and Public Health,
Public Health Reports 117 (3): 201-217.
Global Greenhouse Warming (2010), Gas vs Coal,
http://www.global-greenhousewarming.com/gas-vs-coal.html
Grigorescu I., Mitri că B., Kucsi csa G., Popovi ci
E.A., Dumitraşcu M., Cuculici R. (2012 ),
Pos t-communist l and use changes related to
urban
sprawl
in
the
R omani an
Metr op olitan Are as, Journal of Studie s
and Resear ch in Hum an Geogr aphy
6(1): 35 -46.
Ianoş I. (2000), Territorial systems [in Romanian],
Editura Tehnică, Bucharest, Romania.
Iojă I.C. (2008), Technics and methods of assessing
environmental quality in the Bucharest
Metropolitan Area [in Romanian], Edi tura
Universităţii din Bucureşti, Bucharest,
Romania.
Jurczek P. (2 008 ), Eur op ean Me tr op oli tan
Regi ons in Ger man y: a ne w sp ati al
plann ing
s tr ateg y
in
Eur op e,
Kommunal -und
regi ona lwissen scha ftli che
Arbei te n
onl ine 1 6: 2 -1 0.
Lăzărescu C. (1977), Urbanism in Romania [in
Romanian], Editura Tehnică, Bucharest,
Romania.
Marshall S. (2011), Urban Coding and Planning,
Routledge, New York, USA.
Mihăilescu V. (1963), Romania’s South-Eastern
Carpathians [in Romanian], Editura
Ştiinţifică, Bucharest, Romania.
Mookherjee D., Hoerauf E., Freelan S., McAuley
M. (2006), Urban Growth and Metrop olitan
Sprawl in a Small Metr opolitan Area,
FOCUS on Geography 49(3): 29-36.
Newman P. (1992), The Compact City: an Australian
perspective, Built Environment 18(4): 285300.
Nozzi D. (2003), Road to Ruin: An Introduction to
Sprawl and how to Cure it, Greenwood
Publishing Group, Westport, CT, USA.
Pauleit S., Ennos R., Golding Y., (2005), Modeling
the environmental impacts of urban land use
and land cover change – a study in
Merseyside, UK, Landscape and Urban
Planning 71(2): 295-310.
Pătroescu M., Niţă M., Iojă C., Vânău G. (2009),
The ecological footprint – indicator f or
analyzing the environmental impact of
residential surfaces in metropolitan areas.
Case study: Bucharest Metropolitan Area,
RealCorp Proceedings, Sitges, Spain, pp.
887-892.
Pătroescu M., Niţă M.R., Iojă C., Vânău G., Iojă A.
(2011), Land Use Change in the Bucharest
Metropolitan Area and its Impacts on the
Quality of the Environment in Residential
Developments, Forum geografic. Studii şi
cercetări de geografie şi protecţia
mediului 10(1): 177-186.
Pătroescu M., Iojă C., Rozylowicz L., Vânău G.,
Niţă M., Pătroescu-Klötz I., Iojă A. (2012),
Integrated Assessment of Environmental
Quality
in
Residential
Spaces
[in
Romanian], Editura Academiei Române,
Bucharest, Romania.
Pătru-Stupariu I. (2011), Landscape and Sustainable
Management of the Territory – Aplications on
the
Trans-Carpathical
Br an-RucărDragoslavele Corridor [in Romanian],
Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti,
Bucharest, Romania.
Polidoro M., de Lollo J.A., Barros M.V.F. (2011).
Environmental Impacts of Urban Sprawl in
Londrina, Parana, Brasil, Journal of Urban
and Environmental Engineering 5(2): 73-83.
Sârbu C. (2005), Urban habitat in periurban expansion
[in Romanian], Editura Universitară „Ion
Mincu”, Bucharest, Romania.
Sârbu C. (2007), Braşov Metropolitan Area Report –
PATJ and urbanism study [in Romanian],
Centrul
de
Cercetare,
Proiectare,
Expertiză şi Consulting, Universitatea de
Arhitectură şi Urbanism „Ion Mincu”,
Bucharest, Romania.
Speir C., Stephenson K. (2002), Does Sprawl Cost
Us All? Isolating the Effects of Housing
Patterns on Public Water and Sewer Costs,
Journal of the American Planning
Associati on 68(1): 56-70.
Stanilov K. (Ed.) (2007), The post-soci alist city:
urban form and space transformations in
Central and Eastern Europe af ter socialism
(Vol. 92), Springer.
White R. (2002), Building the ecological city, CRC
Press, Cambridge, UK .
Received: 13 December 2012 • Revised: 18 October 2013 • Accepted: 22 November 2013
37