The development of land use by settlement and transport
in protected areas in Hesse & Thuringia from 2006 to 2012
with a particular focus on formerly protected areas
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
Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde (FH) · Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 28 · D-16225 Eberswalde
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 1
Structure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction
Methods
a) Changes in boundaries of protected areas
b) Development of land use
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Literature
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 2
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,
FFH, SPA
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 3
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
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 4
Methods
•
•
Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis
Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases
• Data errors
Figure 2 – Functionality „Symmetrical
Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
 Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Figure 4 – Example
Digitalization (yellow– 2006,
hatched– 2012)
Page 5
Methods
•
•
Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis
Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases
• Data errors
Figure 1 – Functionality „Symmetrical
Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
 Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 6
Methods
•
•
Tool „Symmetrical Difference“ of ArcGis
Problem: 800.000 tiny fragments
• Overlapping areas
• Improved digitalization/map bases
• Data errors
Figure 2 – Functionality „Symmetrical
Difference“ (ArcGIS, 2012)
 Data cleansing necessary
Figure 3 – Example „Tiny fragments“
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Figure 4 – Example
Digitalization (yellow– 2006,
hatched– 2012)
Page 7
Methods – Spatial changes of boundaries
Figure 5 – Working steps
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 9
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
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Figure 6 – Categories of
built-up area and
transportation (IOERMONITOR, 2014)
Page 11
Results
Land use by settlement & transport in protected areas
Figure 7 – Proportion of SaT in protected areas in 2012 and the difference of proportion to 2006.
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 16
Results
Land use by settlement & transport in protected areas
Table 1: Summary Statistics (proportion of SaT in protected areas)
Category
LSP
NSP
Mean SaT Mean SaT
Difference Difference Difference Standard
proportion proportion
Mean
Minimum Maximum Deviation
2006
2012
8.7
9.5
0.8
-3.7
8.1
2.0
1.6
1.5
-0.1
-1.4
1.2
0.3
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 17
Results
Land use by new settlement & transport in protected areas
Table 2 – Proportion of newly constructed SaT in protected areas
Th/He
Hesse
Thuringia
Category
Mean proportion of new settlement
and transport
non-protected
1.2
LSP
1.0
NSP
non-protected
0.3
0.6
LSP
0.4
NSP
0.1
non-protected
0.9
LSP
0.6
NSP
0.2
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 20
Results
Land use by new settlement & transport in formerly
protected areas
Table 3 – Proportion of newly constructed settlement in formerly
protected areas (Indictor/State)
Min
Max
SD
68
6,2
0,0
79,2
11.9
LSP
129
2,7
0,0
33,6
6.1
NSP
1
46,8
46,8
46,8
0,0
LSP
3
4,6
0,1
13,2
7,5
NSP
69
6.8
0.0
79.2
12.8
LSP
132
2.8
0.0
33.6
6.2
Hesse
NSP
Thuriniga
Mean
Hesse
Thuriniga
Category
Number of
excluded
areas
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 21
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)
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 22
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
Strong regional differences
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 23
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
investigation of increase of land use nearby protected areas (e.g. 1 km-buffer)
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 24
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.
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 25
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.ioermonitor.de/flaechenschema/. Checked: 23/03/2014).
Figure 2- 5; 7: Own Maps/Images
Elisa Gurske · FIT · Research Project Colloquium
Page 26