Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2010, volume 37, pages 911 ^ 928

doi:10.1068/b36009

Spatial allocation of future residential land use in the Elbe

River Basin

Jana Hoymann
Institute for Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Technical University of Berlin,
EB 4-2, StraÞe des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany; e-mail: jana.hoymann@tu-berlin.de
Received 15 January 2009; in revised form 1 December 2009; published online 18 August 2010

Abstract. In this paper a scenario study of the residential land-use development in the Elbe River
Basin is presented. The study uses an approach that empirically determines suitability maps for the
application within a land-use-change model. Recent urbanisation processes are explained in the first
step and are used in simulations of future land use in the second step. Binomial logistic regression
analysis is applied in an analysis of the location characteristics influencing residential land-use
change. Estimation results are adapted and used as weights in the calculation of suitability maps,
which consist of the location characteristics of residential land-use change. Including policy maps
in suitability calculations allows important spatial restrictions to be accounted for and enables the
impact of spatial planning on the allocation of residential developments to be analysed. The suitability
maps are further applied to the Land Use Scanner model to simulate spatially explicit residential
land-use developments in the Elbe River Basin. Results of this study show that empirically determined
suitability maps used in models of land-use change can contribute to the operational use of scenario
studies in political discussion support. Considerable differences in applied policy maps in terms of
their contribution to the sustainable development of residential and use are discussed.

1 Introduction
Sustainable development measures with respect to urban land consumption are purely
quantitative in Germany. Reducing urban land consumption from 120 ha to 30 ha per
day by 2020 is the objective of the German strategy for sustainable development
(RNE, 2004). The supplementary consideration of the spatial configuration of urban
land-use changes (for example, extensive suburbanisation processes), which influence
economic as well as ecological processes, should also be taken into account (Lambin
et al, 2001). For example, the impacts and costs of suburbanisation and sprawl are
reviewed by Gordon and Wong (1985). Christaller's central place theory provides one
way of considering spatial configuration and has been implemented in the national
planning policy to guide the development of urban areas (ROG, 2004). This leads to
the following research questions. Where will residential areas be developed in the future
and what are the determinants of location choice? What are the potential impacts of
the determined central places on the future patterns of observed settlement structure in
contrast to those observed when no spatial policy is implemented? To answer these
questions, a scenario study was conducted for the Elbe River Basin.
Land-use-change models can be applied to the allocation of residential developments.
Extensive reviews with respect to the purpose, scale, and theory of land-use-change models
can be found in Agarwal et al (2002), Briassoulis (2000), or Verburg et al (2004b). In this
study, the Land Use Scanner (LUS) (http://www.lumos.info/landusescanner.htm) is applied
to allocate future developments on grid cells (Hilferink and Rietveld, 1999; Schotten
et al, 2001). The model's ability to simulate urban and nonurban land-use types simul-
taneously and to integrate maps that are considered in the spatial allocation process
makes it appropriate for use in this study. Previous applications of the model include
the impact assessment of land-use changes for water management and flood risk or the
derivation of land-use-change scenarios within the framework of the Fifth National
912 J Hoymann

Physical Planning Report in the Netherlands (Dekkers and Koomen, 2007; Schotten
et al, 2001; Van der Hoeven et al, 2008).
The major challenge of this type of land-use-change model is the calculation of
suitability maps for each land-use type. Weighting and combining the different
determinants of location choice by expert knowledge is a straightforward means of
calculating suitability maps. This approach was applied several times for simulations
with the LUS (Borsboom-van Beurden et al, 2007; Hilferink and Rietveld, 1999).
However, the influence of location factors on the spatial allocation is not easily
determined, which leads to the consideration of alternative approaches. The approaches
reviewed by Verburg et al (2004b) include the recent application of logistic regression
analysis, which offers the opportunity to determine empirically the influence of differ-
ent location factors. Approaches can be categorised into binomial and multinomial
models, as well as into models explaining existing land-use patterns or past land-use
changes (eg Aspinall, 2004; Dendoncker et al, 2007; Loonen and Koomen, 2009;
Pontius and Batchu, 2003; Turner et al, 1996). While many studies use logistic regres-
sion analysis to explain landscape patterns or landscape changes, only a few have
applied the regression results to a future projection (Millington et al, 2007; Pontius
and Batchu, 2003; Wear and Bolstad, 1998). None of these projections takes into
account change in location preferences through time. This is the first study to apply
a logistic regression analysis to determine suitability maps empirically using the esti-
mated coefficients as weights for location factors that are summed up to one suitability
map. In addition, this study is the first that modifies the coefficients with respect to
scenario storylines to account for changes in location preferences and applies these
changes into the land-use-change model LUS. Accounting for these changes through
time allows the feasibility of regional planning instruments to be tested to determine
their influence on the allocation of residential areas.

2 Residential development in the Elbe River Basin

The Elbe River Basin covers the eastern and northern part of Germany and large parts
of the Czech Republic (figure 1) and is characterised by a polycentric settlement
structure, with Berlin, Hamburg, and Prague as outstanding metropolitan regions
(Adam and Go«ddecke-Stellmann, 2002). The breakdown of the political systems of
both countries in the early 1990s led to structural changes in socioeconomic develop-
ment, with an area-wide increase in residential areas of more than 10% and a decreasing
population in most regions of the Elbe River Basin (BBR, 2007; Penn-Bressel, 2003;
STABU, 2007).
The observed suburbanisation processes during this time, which were accelerated
the most in rural municipalities surrounding cities, resulted from, among other things,
a weak spatial planning policy (Coles, 1997; Dosch and Beckmann, 1999). In 2005,
12.9% and 10.3% of the land was covered by urban land use in Germany and the Czech
Republic, respectively (Eurostat, 2007; STABU, 2006). Current surveys show a slight
population increase in some cities but no decrease in suburbanisation processes in the
rural areas. In terms of the demolition of multifamily dwellings and the ambition of
reusing inner-city areas, this study focused on new developments in residential areas
because of their potentially negative impacts on sustainable development (Gordon and
Wong, 1985).
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 913

0 100 200 400 km

Figure 1. Study area. The white box indicates the subset presented in figure 3.

3 Data and methods

3.1 Logistic regression
A binomial logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine empirically weights
for the calculation of suitability maps in the LUS. The probability of residential land-
use change at a certain location is assessed relative to all other locations depending on
its suitability for this location using the following equation (Verburg et al, 2004a):
exp…bX c †
Pc … y ˆ 1† ˆ , (1)
1 ‡ exp…bX c †
Pc ( y ˆ 1) is the probability of cell c being converted into residential land,
b is a vector of the estimated coefficients of the explanatory variables X c and
Xc is a vector of explanatory variables for cell c.
The dependent variable equals one if the land became a residential area and is zero
otherwise.
The advantage of using this approach rather than determining weights by expert
knowledge is the empirical and more objective determination of weights for location
factors. The logit specification of the regression equation is identical to the original,
unconstrained allocation algorithm of the LUS, and this approach therefore allows the
estimated coefficients to be included as weights for the calculation of the suitability
maps in the land-use-change model in a straightforward way (Rietveld et al, 2001).
The interpretation of the resulting coefficients is difficult because the relationship
is not linear. The signs of the coefficients indicate a negative or positive correlation of
the independent and dependent variables. Instead, the absolute value of the coefficients
only shows a steep or shallow curve. The higher the absolute value, the steeper the curve
914 J Hoymann

and the higher the change in the probability for residential change when the independent
variable changes by one unit (Backhaus et al, 2006).
The regression analysis included three estimations. The first estimation considered
only the land use in neighbouring cells. The second estimation applied only location
factors that account for accessibility and physical characteristics. Finally, a full model
that considered both land use in neighbouring cells and location factors is estimated.
The first estimation is called the autoregressive model and is applied because spatial
dependence of the data is expected. Surrounding land-use types are assumed to have
a substantial influence on land use at a certain location (Verburg et al, 2004a). This
influence was assigned explicitly and therefore accounts for spatial autocorrelation
(Anselin, 1988; Tobler, 1979). The application of a separate autoregressive model
explicitly identified the influence of neighbourhood on residential land-use change.
The second estimation identified the influence of the location factors. All estimation
approaches were applied to residential changes between 1990 and 2000 as in Verburg
et al (2004a). A full set of variables is presented in table 1.
A sample of the database was chosen because the database is very large (containing
2.3 million grid cells) and the proportion of residential land in comparison to all other
land-use types was very disproportionate. Choice-based sample was applied where
sampling rates for categories of the dependent variable were unequal. King and Zeng
(2001) and Prentice and Pyke (1979) showed that estimated coefficients are not biased
by this sampling technique. The total sample size was 8500, consisting of 30% new
residential land and 70% of cells showing no change.
The results were validated by applying an ROC curve (relative operating character-
istic; Pontius and Schneider, 2001). The ROC is a statistic that was used in this present
study to measure the extent to which grid cells with larger probability values were
concentrated at locations that truly became residential areas between 1990 and 2000.
The ROC statistic measures the area under the curve with values from 0.5 (completely
random) and 1 (perfect fit).
3.2 The land-use-change model ö Land Use Scanner
The allocation of residential land-use change was simulated with the LUS model. The
LUS is a GIS-based operational, spatially explicit simulation model that allocates land-
use changes on grid cells. Therefore, exogenously calculated regional claim sets and
suitability maps for each land-use type should be provided. See Hilferink and Rietveld
(1999) and Dekkers and Koomen (2007) for a more detailed description. With respect
to the applied logistic regression analysis, the suitability, sc , for residential land use
corresponds with the logit of Pc :
 
Pc … y ˆ 1†
sc ˆ ln ˆ bX c . (2)
1 ÿ Pc … y ˆ 1†
As mentioned previously in section 3.1, in the basic version of the LUS model, a logit-
type approach was applied to determine the probability that a cell is converted into a
certain land-use type depending on the suitability of that cell. The model in this form
does not guarantee agreement with the exogenously provided regional claims (Rietveld
et al, 2001). Therefore, allocation is conducted with a doubly constrained logit model
that assigns land uses according to both their suitability and the pressure on land
induced by the regional claim sets according to the following equation:
Mcj ˆ aj bc exp…ascj † , (3)
Table 1. List of implemented suitability maps.

Spatial allocation of future residential land use

Abbreviation/classification Description Spatial coverage

Nature conservation areas (Land Use Scanner)

potstrcprot Biosphere reserve Elbe River Basin
potstrcprot Flora, fauna, habitat areas Elbe River Basin
potstrcprot Landscape conservation area Elbe River Basin
strcprot Nature conservation area Elbe River Basin
potstrcprot Natural park Elbe River Basin
strcprot National park Elbe River Basin
potstrcprot Bird protection area Elbe River Basin
Policy maps (Land Use Scanner)
Attracting Potential residential areas Berlin ± Brandenburg
Restricting Regional green belts Berlin ± Brandenburg
Restricting Green corridors Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Administration District of Leipzig
Restricting Priority area for arable land Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Saxony ± Anhalt, Saxony
Restricting Reserved area for nature and landscape Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Saxony ± Anhalt, Saxony
Restricting Priority area for nature and landscape Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Saxony ± Anhalt, Saxony
Restricting Reserved area for mining Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Saxony ± Anhalt, Saxony
Restricting Priority area for mining Mecklenburg ± Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Saxony ± Anhalt, Saxony
Restricting Reserved area for flood protection German part only
Restricting Priority area for flood protection German part only
Restricting Reserved area for forest areas Thuringia, Saxony
Restricting Priority area for forest areas Thuringia, Saxony
Attracting National Development Plan Czech part only
Accessibility (regression analysis and Land Use Scanner)
Euclidean distance to:
Freeway exits freeway exits Elbe River Basin
Airports airports Elbe River Basin
Stations train stations Elbe River Basin
Railroads railroads Elbe River Basin
Roads roads Elbe River Basin
Residential areas current residential areas Elbe River Basin
Metropolitan cities metropolitan cities Elbe River Basin
Middle order centres middle-order and high-order centres Elbe River Basin
Recreation recreation areas Elbe River Basin
Slope Slope Elbe River Basin
Autoregressive variables (regression analysis and Land Use Scanner) Variables are explained as examples only.
The Share of all three land-use types is calculated for both time steps and every ring.
FC3 GG1 00 Share of residential area (GG1) in the year 2000 (00) within the Elbe River Basin first ring (3  3 cell neighbourhood)
FC3 GG1 90 Share of residential area (GG1) in the year 1990 (90) within the Elbe River Basin first ring (3  3 cell neighbourhood)
FC5 GG9 90 Share of arable land (GG9) in the year 1990 (90) within the Elbe River Basin second ring (5  5 cell neighbourhood)
FC9 GG10 00 Share of pasture (GG10) in the year 2000 (00) within the Elbe River Basin third ring (9  9 cell neighbourhood)

915
N:/psfiles/epb3705w/
916 J Hoymann

where
Mcj is the amount of land in cell c of land-use type j,
aj is a balancing factor to ensure that regional claims are kept,
bc is a balancing factor ensuring the total amount of land per cell to equal the size
of that cell,
a is a factor determining the extent to which mixed land use occurs in cells (a ˆ 0
random allocation, a > 1 tendency for homogeneity of land use per cell).
The constraints, implemented as balancing factors aj and bc , ensure that the
regional claims are kept and that the total amounts of land use expected per grid cell
are equal to the size of the cell (Hilferink and Rietveld, 1999). The solution of this
model is found through iteration to find values to balance the factors until convergence
is achieved between the demand for land and the allocated land.
Thus, the LUS is an equilibrium model that acts by balancing the demand and
supply of different land-use types using a bidding process (Koomen and Buurman,
2002). The LUS is based on the classical models of von Thu«nen, Losch, and Alonso,
since transport and accessibility play an important role as determinants of land
uses (Rietveld et al, 2001). The algorithm itself uses discrete choice theory to allocate
land-use changes to grid cells.
The LUS emphasises two very important characteristics. Firstly, it integrates urban
and nonurban land-use types simultaneously (Hilferink and Rietveld, 1999). Second,
land is not always allocated on the basis of the highest bidding land-use types as there
are strong public interventions in the spatial planning policy. The LUS is able to
integrate regional spatial planning documents to account for these restrictions.
3.3 Variables and data sources
For the complete study area of the Elbe River Basin, approximately 2.3 million cells
with a spatial resolution of 250 m were calculated. Regional claims were based on
administrative regions (Hoymann, 2008). The calculation of suitability maps did not
incorporate statistical indicators such as population or economic development, because
these factors were considered in the regional claim sets. These factors did not differ in
this study, so only allocation differences due to differences in location preferences
could be compared. These location preferences (suitability maps) differed only in the
applied weights with respect to scenario storylines, while the underlying datasets
remain constant over time. This was done so that the allocation changes can be
analysed independently when the weights of location factors change. A complete list
of variables applied is presented in table 1.
The CORINE land-cover database of the year 1990 was applied to calibrate the
suitability maps in the logistic regression analysis (UBA, 2004). The corresponding
dataset from the year 2000 was used for quasivalidation of the regression analysis
and was implemented into the LUS. The land-cover types were aggregated into sixteen
classes, whereas only residential, arable land, and pasture were assumed to change over
time.
The autoregressive and the full model measures need to be defined to include the
land-use types of neighbouring cells. For these surroundings, multiple rings with differ-
ent radii and widths were defined [figure 2(a)]. The first ring with a diameter of three
cells contained the eight cells directly surrounding a given location (Fc3). The second
ring contained the next sixteen cells outside the first ring (Fc5); the third ring the
subsequent fifty-six cells (Fc9) and so on. In total, eleven rings were defined with an
outer radius of 5000 m (Fc41). This radius was chosen because residential development
took place at distances of up to 5000 m from existing residential areas between 1990
and 2000 [figure 2(b)]. The number of cells of a certain land-use type was counted for
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 917

12

New residential area (1000 ha)

10

Fc3 6
Fc5

Fc9 4

Fc13
2
Fc17
0

10 20 30 40
Diameter of outer ring (number of cells)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Definition of the autoregressive variables; (b) distribution of new residential cells
between 1990 and 2000 amongst the defined rings.

every ring and divided by the total number of cells in that ring. This resulted in the
proportion of each land-use type (residential, arable land, pasture) within the rings
surrounding a given location. The underlying assumption was that there was a positive
correlation in a given ring between the proportion of residential areas and the number
of new residential areas. Sine residential development took place nearly exclusively on
agricultural land, it was also assumed that there was a positive correlation between
these variables.
Slope, which is calculated from Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (http://www2.jpl.
nasa.gov/srtm/) data, is assumed to be the most important physical characteristic
for the allocation of residential areas; slope restricts urbanisation in a considerable
part of the study area that is characterised by low mountain ranges (CIAT, 2004).
Accessibility measures were calculated as Euclidean distances to existing residential
areas, metropolitan cities, and middle-order and high-order centres. The classification
of cities into the hierarchies of central-place theory is defined in the regional spatial-
planning documents. For the Czech part of the study area, cities were classified
manually using the criteria for central places. In addition, Euclidean distance to rail-
way stations, highway exits, railroads, roads, and airports was calculated using digital
terrain models of the German Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (http://
www.bkg.bund.de/) and ESRI datasets for the Czech part of the study area. Proximity
to infrastructure, market places, and leisure facilities was assumed to be important for
residential development.
Seven types of nature conservation areas were included in the LUS. On the basis
of their regulatory framework, nature conservation areas are expected to have a
lasting effect on the choice of location for residential land use (Heiland et al, 2006).
The types of conservation area in the analysis were grouped into strictly protected
areas (strcprot), including nature conservation areas and national parks, and into areas
that have the potential to be strictly protected (potstrcprot) if the regulatory framework
is adjusted to include all other types of nature conservation areas.
Regional spatial planning datasets originate either from state development plans
or from regional planning documents. The applied spatial planning instruments aim
to preserve land use, land-use functions, and landscapes worthy of being protected.
918 J Hoymann

These instruments were divided into priority areas and reserve areas. While the first
category excludes land-use types that impact the designated priority functions, the
latter reflects the importance of those land-use types in comparison with competing
uses. The instrument `potential residential areas' attracts the allocation of residential
land use. In the Czech part of the study area, an indicator approach was applied at
the municipal level to define development axes for urban development (MMR and
UèUèR, 2006).
Nature conservation maps and maps of regional spatial planning were not used in
the logistic regression analysis but were used in the calculation of the suitability maps
when adapting the scenario storylines within the LUS for two reasons. First, a refer-
ence image of historic trends was used to evaluate the impact of policy and no-policy
scenarios. Secondly, the underlying planning documents were first enacted at the end
of the studied decade or later and many of the nature protection areas were also
established during that time. This is especially true for the East German parts of the
study area. For the Czech Republic, the documents were not developed until the year
2000. Therefore, these documents did not influence the development of the land-use
changes between 1990 and 2000. This second factor was particularly relevant, because
a large part of the study area is located in East Germany and the Czech Republic.
3.4 Scenario description
This study is part of a larger research project being conducted until the year 2020
examining the impacts of global change on the water cycle in the Elbe River Basin
[GLOWA-Elbe (http://www.glowa-elbe.de/)]. Thus, scenarios A1 and B2 (see below),
which were based on the IPCC-SRES (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000), were analysed
with two trajectories of regional economic and demographic development and were
combined with two orientations of land-use policy (0, ‡) (Hartje et al, 2008). The 0
scenarios represent weak spatial planning policies while the ‡ scenarios indicate very
restrictive policies.
Scenario A10 assumed higher growth rates in economic development and spatial
spillover effects from metropolitan regions to peripheral regions (Blazejczak et al, 2008).
This development was supported by a weak spatial planning policy. Only the strictly
protected nature conservation areas influenced the allocation of residential areas.
On the basis of the same socioeconomic development as in scenario A10, scenario
‡
A1 was characterised by a spatial planning policy that implements sustainable devel-
opment by strictly following the spatial planning documents to realise a development
in the sense of central place theory. Due to the strict nature of this policy, residential
developments were not permitted in nature conservation areas.
Scenario B20 assumed lower economic growth rates are concentrated in the metro-
politan regions (Blazejczak et al, 2008). A weak regional spatial planning policy should
lead to a decrease in urban sprawl at the periphery of metropolitan regions. Only the
strictly protected nature conservation areas influenced the allocation of residential areas.
Scenario B2‡ was based on the same socioeconomic development as scenario B20.
However, the spatial planning policy that was consequently implemented promotes
the central place theory. Again, spatial policy restricts residential developments in any
nature conservation area.
3.5 Adaptation of regression results to the scenarios studies
The logistic regression approach was inherently similar to the allocation algorithm of
the LUS, and thus the regression estimation coefficients were directly implemented as
weights in calculating suitability values in the LUS with the following scenario-specific
adaptations.
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 919

First, the accessibility grid for the middle-order and high-order centres was used
only in the A1 scenarios while the distance to metropolitan regions was used in the B2
scenarios. Additionally, the weights were set to higher values to promote the assumed
development of the scenario storylines.
Second, the inner rings of the neighbourhood measures of residential development
were given higher values for the residential development of the B2 scenarios to restrict
the developments to the immediate neighbourhood of existing residential areas. It was
assumed that this restriction avoids sprawl.
Finally, weights for these policy maps were applied only in the scenarios with
stronger spatial policy (‡) to reduce urban sprawl and to demonstrate their influence
on residential development.
To allow for a comparison of the different adaptations in the simulation of the
different scenarios a baseline simulation was added, consisting of the unchanged
coefficients estimated by the regression analysis.

4 Results
4.1 Location preferences for residential developments
This section presents the results of the three binomial logistic regression analyses for
residential land-use changes between 1990 and 2000. An initial version of the regres-
sion models found two difficulties. Due to the inherent proximity of airports and
large cities, the distance to airports shows a strong correlation with the distances to
metropolitan regions and high-order central places. Furthermore, the neighbourhood
measures reveal uncertainty about their influence with increasing distance to a cell.
This occurs because the signs of the coefficients change between rings of larger
distance and are not significant although residential developments occur within
certain distances of existing residential areas. Therefore, all neighbourhood measures
with an outer diameter of seventeen or more cells and the distance to airports were
excluded from the regression analysis. The final regression analyses were calculated
with the reduced set of variables. The results are presented in table 2.
The signs of the coefficients of the autoregressive model were as expected. The
probability of residential development increases with increasing quantities of residen-
tial grid cells in the neighbourhood and then decreases. This relationship is associated
with the mean patch size of residential areas. Repeated increased probabilities for
residential areas indicate their development in proximity to, though not necessarily in
direct connection with, existing residential areas. The positive influence of agricul-
tural areas in residential neighbourhoods confirms current developments in which
residential areas are developed on agricultural land.
The second estimation, which included only the accessibility measures and physical
characteristics as explanatory variables, also showed a significant influence on the
locations of residential areas. The probability of developing new residential areas
decreases strongly with increasing distance to railway stations, roads, freeway exits,
residential areas, and slope. The distance to railroads had the opposite influence
because they cannot be accessed anywhere but at railway stations. Noise exposure is
another possible explanation for the positive correlation observed between distance to
railroads and residential development. The latter is also true for distance to roads and
stations, but access to roads and stations is essential to residential development and the
mobility of the residents. In contrast to railroads, access to roads is not only through
freeway exits. This also leads to the question of what comes first: settlements or roads?
Indeed, both settlements and roads influence each other.
The most important factor was distance to existing residential areas, but regional
differences were observed in distance maps to central places. These maps indicated a
920 J Hoymann

Table 2. Estimated coefficients of the binomial logit models for residential land-use changes
between 1990 and 2000. Method is Enter. (See table 1 for explanation of variables.)

Autoregressive Model with other Full model

model explanatory
variables

Euclidean distance to:

freeway exits ÿ2.934*** ÿ2.887***
stations ÿ1.678** ÿ1.624**
railroads 0.714* 0.703*
roads ÿ6.314*** ÿ6.207***
residential areas ÿ9.216*** ÿ4.790
metropolitan cities 0.185 ÿ0.024
middle-order centres ÿ0.563** ÿ0.556*
recreation ÿ1.473*** ÿ1.527***
Slope ÿ10.279*** ÿ6.127
FC3 GG1 90 2.129*** 1.509***
FC5 GG1 90 3.829*** 3.037***
FC9 GG1 90 0.390 0.098
FC13 GG1 90 1.153** ÿ1.991***
FC3 GG9 90 2.281*** 2.219***
FC5 GG9 90 0.236 0.082
FC9 GG9 90 0.711** 0.466
FC13 GG9 90 ÿ1.763 ÿ2.080***
FC13 GG10 90 0.863*** 0.851**
FC5 GG10 90 1.276** 1.205**
FC9 GG10 90 ÿ0.544 ÿ0.924
FC13 GG10 90 ÿ0.697*** ÿ1.255***
Constant ÿ2.639*** 1.535*** 0.343**
Relative operating 0.786 0.800 0.837
characteristic value
* Indicates statistical significance at the 10% level; ** indicates statistical significance at the 5%
level; *** indicates statistical significance at the 1% level.

decoupling of residential developments from economically strong metropolitan regions

and showed the comprehensive influence of all other central places.
The full factor model showed similar results except in the FC13 GG1 90 variable.
This variable produced a negative value in the full factor model indicating a decreas-
ing probability of residential areas if the proportion of residential land is already
high at larger distances. A detailed explanation for this result is difficult, but is related
to the different patch sizes of the residential areas. As the second estimation indicated,
the probability of residential development decreased with increasing distance. This
relationship was very strong. Small increases in distance produced a large decrease in
the probability of residential development. The first estimation, the autoregressive model,
showed that the probability of residential development increased when there was a large
proportion of residential cells in the neighbourhood. This was true for all the rings
considered. However, for FC13 GG1 90, a significant proportion of the residential area
(more than 25%) was observed only in and around cities. This proportion of residential
area declined with increasing distance. Around smaller settlements, the share of resi-
dential areas within the considered variable remained low. The resulting effect was that
the distance to the current residential areas could be smaller than the radius of the
FC13 neighbourhood, but the share of the residential areas in the FC13 neighbourhood
could be very different. Without the change in the sign of FG13 GG1 90, the probability
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 921

that cells were close to larger settlements became disproportionately high. Therefore,
the sign of FC13 GG1 90 changed to account for new residential areas around smaller
settlements. Furthermore, in the full model, most of the accessibility measures, physical
characteristics, and neighbourhood measures showed smaller absolute values of the
coefficients to balance their impact.
For validation purposes, the corresponding ROC value for residential development
in all three regression models are presented in table 2. Both models (the autoregressive
model as well as the model using the accessibility measures and physical characteristics
as explanatory variables) showed high ROC values. This result indicates the impor-
tance of both sets of variables in explaining the allocation of residential land-use
change. The ROC value could be marginally increased due to the combination of
both sets of variables in the full model, and therefore has the best predictive power
of the three regression models. Therefore, the full factor model is further used for the
simulation of residential land-use change.
4.2 Simulation of residential development
The estimated regression coefficients of the full binomial logistic model were adapted
and implemented into the LUS and future residential land-use change was simulated for
all five scenarios. Table 3 summarises indicators that quantify the degree of urbanisa-
tion and urban sprawl in the five simulations of total residential area (Ritsema van Eck
and Koomen, 2008). Compared with the year 2000, the number of patches decreased in
B2 scenarios and increased in A1 scenarios. Considerable increases in average patch
size accompanied this development. Changes in connectivity were only marginal in
comparison with 2000 in all five simulations. Patches of residential areas merged,
which resulted in increased patch sizes, a decreased number of patches, and decreasing
connectivity between patches. The latter was due to the merging of patches. Thus, small
distances between patches were not reflected in the statistics and the distance between
patches increased. This result was based on the development of landscape metrics
between 1990, 2000, and the baseline scenario. When applying scenario-specific weights
for suitability maps, the merging process was not pronounced. Instead, smaller patches
were observed. In all scenarios and in all parts of the study area, the connectivity index
decreased with an increase in the influence of policy (‡ scenarios).
Figure 3 shows an increase in residential land in grid cells. All five scenarios showed
hotspots of residential development in and around the metropolitan regions. This was a
continuum of the current trend. Additionally, the high-order and middle-order central
places showed significant increases in residential development, particularly in the A1
scenarios. The maps clearly show that the residential developments of the B2 scenarios
were not limited to the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolitan city of Berlin,
Table 3. Urbanisation indicators.

Current Scenarios
land use
baseline A10 A1‡ B20 B2‡
Total residential 941 812.5 992 325 994 237.5 994 162.5 991 787.5 992 018.75
area (ha)
Share of residential 6.4420 6.7902 6.8027 6.8033 6.7881 6.7865
area within
study area (%)
Number of patches 8 859 8 831 8 947 8 946 8 783 8 769
Mean residential 106.3114 112.3684 111.1252 111.11293 112.9213 113.1279
patch size (ha)
Connectivity 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0014 0.0012 0.0012
922 J Hoymann

A10 A1‡

B20 B2‡

Nature conservation areas with potential

to be strictly protected

New residential areas (2020)

Residential areas (2000)

0 5 10 20 km

Baseline

Figure 3. Absolute growth of residential area on grid cells for the five scenarios. See figure 1 for
an overview of the study area. [Source: FGG Elbe, 2005 (www.fgg-elbe.de/) and own simulations.]
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 923

but were also found in smaller settlements of the hinterland. This was an unexpected
result. This development in the hinterland was expected for the A1 scenario. Instead,
there was an overall concentration on the metropolitan city. This caused polarisation
between the metropolitan cities and the rural areas in the study area. When considering
different socioeconomic developments within the regional claims, this development
might again be different when a larger growth is expected for the A1 scenarios.
To represent the pattern observed for all planning documents, the effect of the
nature conservation areas on allocation is presented in figure 3. Without accentuat-
ing the importance of metropolitan cities such as Berlin, the distribution of new
residential areas was throughout the hinterland. This can be observed in a comparison
of the B20 and B2‡ scenarios. If nature conservation areas were strictly protected as
in the ‡ scenarios, development was relocated outside the nature conservation areas.
In scenario B2‡, the new residential area occurred in the strip that was not protected,
particularly to the west of Falkensee and in northeast Berlin.
The vast majority of municipalities showed an increase in residential areas that
were less than 5 ha in size (figure 4). Increases in residential land of more than
50 ha were found in 2.5% and 2% of all municipalities in scenarios A1 and B2,
respectively, which represented 70% and 50%, respectively, of the newly allocated
residential land. This was associated with a strong correlation between the absolute
size of current residential areas and the growth up to 2020.

100

80
Cumulative share (%)

60

40 Scenarios
A10
A1‡
20 B20
B2‡
Baseline
0

0 50 100 150 200 0 20 40 60 80 100

Size class (ha) Size class (%)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Share of municipalities in different size groups of growth (cumulative): (a) absolute
growth in ha; (b) relative growth.

Figure 5 separates the results by settlement structure and distance to current

residential areas and shows two types of municipalities: high-order and middle-order
central places as well as rural municipalities. While the central places showed high
growth under the A1 scenarios, the rural municipalities showed a high increase under
the B2 scenarios. In the past residential developments occurred over rather larger
distances, but this pattern was not reproduced by the logistic regression analysis and
by the LUS simulations where neighbourhood measures were included up to a distance
of 1500 m. Thus, the share of newly allocated residential land doubled in central place
municipalities under these scenarios in comparison with the developments between
1990 and 2000, while the share in rural municipalities decreased.
 924 J Hoymann

Finally, table 4 summarises residential developments in nature conservation areas

and regions impacted by spatial planning instruments. It becomes obvious that a
strict protection of areas that are not yet strictly protected nature conservation areas

4000
Number of cells

3000

2000
Scenarios
A10
A1‡
1000 B20
B2‡
Baseline
1900 ^ 2000
0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distance (ha) Distance (ha)
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Distribution of residential development for two types of settlement structure within
different distances from current residential areas and scenarios (cumulative). (a) Central places of
high and medium order; (b) rural municipalities.

Table 4. Number of cells allocated as residential by at least 33% of the cells in nature conservation
and planning areas (percentage change shown in parentheses).

Current Scenarios
land use
baseline A10 A1‡ B20 B2‡
Nature conservation
strcprot a 346 367 (6.07) 367 (6.07) 376 (8.67) 371 (7.23) 377 (8.96)
potstrcprot a 27 037 28 732 (6.27) 28 524 (5.50) 27 385 (1.29) 28 734 (6.28) 27 455 (1.55)

Total in nature 22 103 23 461 (6.14) 23 349 (5.64) 22 406 (1.37) 23 490 (6.28) 22 460 (1.62)
conservation area
Percent change from 6.14 5.64 1.37 6.28 1.62
current residential
land in nature
conservation areas
Share of residential areas 2.15 2.29 2.27 2.18 2.29 2.19
in nature conservation
areas (%)
Spatial planning
Instruments attracting 3 203 3 961 (23.67) 4 146 (29.44) 4 222 (31.81) 3 956 (23.51) 4 232 (32.13)
residential
developments
Instruments restricting 15 832 16 350 (3.34) 16 405 (3.62) 15 842 (0.06) 16 308 (3.01) 15 847 (0.09)
residential
developments
Total in planning areas 21 857 23 355 (6.85) 23 569 (7.83) 23 153 (5.93) 23 315 (6.67) 23 158 (5.95)
Percent change from 6.85 7.83 5.93 6.67 5.95
current residential
land in planning
areas
Share of residential areas 3.08 3.29 3.32 3.26 3.28 3.26
in planning areas (%)
a See table 1.
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 925

reduced residential developments in the ‡ scenarios in those regions. On the other

hand, the pressure on areas that are already strictly protected increased considerably.
This development was induced by the high number of nature conservation areas in
the hinterlands of Berlin and Prague where a high demand for residential land is also
projected.
The implementation of other policy maps also had a distinct impact on the alloca-
tion of residential areas. The increase in residential areas was considerably higher in
regions where policy maps attracted developments and considerably lower where policy
maps restricted development.

5 Discussion and conclusion

The first objective of this study was to analyse the feasibility of using logistic regression
coefficients as input in the weighting process for calculating maps for future land-use-
change scenarios using changing location preferences over time. The second objective
was to compare the potential impact of applying Christaller's central place theory to
the impact observed when no spatial policy was applied.
The combination of a thorough statistical approach with a relatively simple scenario
approach is promising. Explaining location preferences by logistic regression analysis
is a feasible approach, but includes all the shortcomings discussed by Verburg et al
(2004a). The adaptation of regression estimations remains subjective but includes a
deeper understanding of past developments. One means of reducing the subjective
component of scenario analysis is to find prototype regions whose current develop-
ments complies with certain scenario storylines and then carry out region-specific
statistical analyses. The region-specific estimation results could then be applied to the
different scenarios.
The autoregression variables were strongly influenced by the mean patch size of the
different land-use types, resulting in a limited ability to represent past land-use changes
but the current land-use pattern. Residential developments at a certain distance from
existing residential areas were hardly covered by the estimation results.
Other interesting variables included the distance to central places, which had a
relatively low influence during the calibration period. A plausible explanation for
this observation is that the area-wide residential development acted independently of
economic developments due to the break in the political system. An increase in the
importance of central places in all the scenarios assumes a correlation between
the economic strength of a city and the current residential developments. The influ-
ence of the planning instruments was also clearly visible in the landscape structure in
the scenario results. Differences in landscape structure between the West German and
East German parts of the study area were to be expected, due to historical differences
in spatial planning regimes, but these patterns were not in the focus of this study.
Instead, the overall effect of planning instruments on the allocation of residential
land-use change was analysed. Thus, the results of the different scenarios may provide
insight into the future of the Elbe River Basin.
Although residential developments are found in urban regions, it is the rural
municipalities of the urban regions that showed the highest increase in residential
areas. This was particularly noticeable for the A1 scenarios. In the B2 scenarios, the
demand was only satisfied if residential areas were allocated in municipalities remote
from metropolitan cities, resulting in a more dispersed development than the A1
scenarios. In any case, the metropolitan areas became more dominant in the Elbe River
Basin.
Until now, only the weights for the location factors were adapted and used in the
scenario storylines. On the basis of these results further analyses should be conducted,
926 J Hoymann

explicitly to consider socioeconomic developments. This includes the application of

scenario-specific claims and the consideration of location factors changing over time
with respect to socioeconomic development.
The application of policy maps in the weighting process of calculating suitability
maps was successful and demonstrates their impact on the allocation process. The
simulation results confirmed the theoretical analysis of Heiland et al (2006), which
showed that nature conservation areas can influence the allocation of residential areas.
However, the analysis also revealed that excessive designation of strictly protected nature
conservation areas may increase the pressure on previously existing protected areas.
This study indicates that land-use-change models are a valuable tool for supplementing
the decision-making process or the discussion process in spatial planning. The desir-
able or undesirable impacts of spatial planning instruments on land use and land
cover can be demonstrated, leading to improved recommendations for decision makers.
This procedure is already in current practice in the Netherlands (Schotten et al, 2001).
Acknowledgements. This work was part of the research project titled ``Impacts of global change on
the water cycle in the Elbe Regionörisks and options'' (http://www.glowa-elbe.de/) and was funded
by the Federal Ministry of Research and Education under the GLOWA programme (FKZ: 01 LW
0603A2).
References
Adam B, Go«ddecke-Stellmann J, 2002, ``Metropolregionen öKonzepte, Definitionen und
Herausforderungen'' Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 9 513 ^ 525
Agarwal C, Green G M, Grove J M, Evans T P, Schweik C M, 2002, ``A review and assessment
of land-use change models: dynamics of space, time, and human choice'', TP NE-297,
Northeastern Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr ne297.pdf
Anselin L, 1988 Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models (Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht)
Aspinall R J, 2004, ``Modelling land use change with generalized linear modelsöa multi-model
analysis of change between 1860 and 2000 in GallatinValley, Montana'' Journal of Environmental
Management 72 91 ^ 103
Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R, 2006 Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine
anwendungsorientierte Einfu«hrung (Springer, Berlin)
BBR, 2007,``INKAR 2006öIndikatoren, Karten und Graphiken zur Raum- und Stadtentwicklung
in Deutschland und in Europa'', Bundesamt fu«r Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn,
http://www.bbr.bund.de/
Blazejczak J, Gornig M, Schulz E, Scha«pel C, 2008, ``Szenarien zur Demographie und Oëkonomie
in der Elbe-Region'' Wirkungen des globalen Wandels auf den Wasserkreislauf im Elbegebietö
Risiken und Optionen. Schlussbericht zum BMBF-Vorhaben GLOWA-Elbe II (Potsdam),
pp 116 ^ 139, http://www.glowa-elbe.de/pdf/schlussbericht glowaii/kapitel/kapitel2 part1.pdf
Borsboom-van Beurden J A M, Bakema A, Tijbosch H, 2007, ``A land-use modelling system for
environmental impact assessment: recent applications of the LUMOS toolbox'', in Modelling
Land-use Change: Progress and Application Eds E K oomen, J Stillwell, A Bakema, H J Scholten
(Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 281 ^ 296
Briassoulis H, 2000, ``Analysis of land use change: theoretical and modeling approaches'',
Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Lesvos, http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/
Briassoulis/contents.htm
CIAT, 2004, ``SRTM data V2'', International Centre for Tropical Agriculture,
http://www.srtm.csi.cgiar.org
Coles T, 1997, ``Trading places: the evolution of the retail sector in the new German La«nder since
unification'' Applied Geography 17 315 ^ 333
Dekkers J E C, Koomen E, 2007, ``Land-use simulation for water management. Application of the
Land Use Scanner in two large-scale scenario studies'', in Modelling Land-use Change: Progress
and Application Eds E Koomen, J Stillwell, A Bakema, H J Scholten (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
pp 355 ^ 373
Dendoncker N, Bogaert P, Rounsevell M, 2007,``Empirically derived probability maps to downscale
aggregate land-use data'', in Modelling Land-use Change. Progress and Application Eds E Koomen,
J Stillwell, A Bakema, H J Scholten (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 117 ^ 131
Spatial allocation of future residential land use 927

Dosch F, Beckmann G, 1999, ``Trends und Szenarien der Siedlungfla«chenentwicklung bis 2010'',
in Perspektiven der kunëftigen Raum- und Siedlungsentwicklung Eds W Strubelt, H-P Gatzweiler,
R Kaltenbrunner (Bundesamt fu«r Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn) pp 827 ^ 842
Eurostat, 2007, ``Bodennutzung nach Hauptkategorien'', Statistical Office of the European
Communities, http://www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page? pageid=1996,45323734
& dad=portal& schema=PORTAL&screen=welcomeref&open=/env/env land&language
=de&product=EU MASTER environment&root=EU MASTER environment&scrollto=0
Gordon P, Wong H L, 1985, ``The cost of urban sprawl: some new evidence'' Environment and
Planning A 17 661 ^ 666
Hartje V, Ansmann T, Blazejczak J, Go«mann H, Gornig M, Grossman M, Hillenbrand T,
Hoymann J, Kreins P, Markewitz P, Mutafoglu K, Richmann A, Sartorius C, Schulz E,
Vo«gele S, Walz R, 2008, ``Regionalisierung der Szenarioanalyse (der Antriebskra«fte und des
Nutzungsdruckes) des globalen Wandels fu«r die Wasserwirtschaft'' Wirkungen des globalen
Wandels auf den Wasserkreislauf im Elbegebietö Risiken und Optionen. Schlussbericht zum
BMBF-Vorhaben GLOWA-Elbe II (Potsdam), pp 7 ^ 39, http://www.glowa-elbe.de/pdf/
schlussbericht glowaii/kapitel/kapitel2 part1.pdf
Heiland S, Reinke M, Siedentop S, Tra«ger T, Knigge M, Meyer-Ohlendorf N, Blobel D, 2006
Beitrag naturschutz politischer Instrumente zur Steuerung der Fla«cheninanspruchnahme Bonn,
http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/ireus/institut/siedentop.html
Hilferink M, Rietveld P, 1999, ``LAND USE SCANNER: an integrated GIS based model for long
term projections of land use in urban and rural areas'' Journal of Geographic Information
Systems 1 155 ^ 177
Hoymann J, 2008, ``Szenarien der Siedlungsfla«chenentwicklung im Elbeeinzugsgebiet'' Wirkungen
des globalenWandels auf denWasserkreislauf im ElbegebietöRisiken und Optionen. Schlussbericht
zum BMBF-Vorhaben GLOWA-Elbe II (Potsdam), pp 140 ^ 170, http://www.glowa-elbe.de/pdf/
schlussbericht glowaii/kapitel/kapitel2 part1.pdf
King G, Zen L, 2001, ``Logistic regression in rare events data'' Political Analysis 9 137 ^ 163
Koomen E, Buurman J, 2002, ``Economic theory and land prices in land use modeling'', in
Proceedings of the 5th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Palma, Balearic
Islands Eds M Ruiz, M Gould, J Rumson, http://www.agile-online.org
Lambin E F, Turner B L, Geist H J, Agbola S B, Angelsen A, Bruce J W, Coomes O T, Dirzo R,
Fischer G, Folke C, George P S, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran E F,
Mortimer M, Ramakrishnan P S, Richards J F, Skanes H, Steffen W, Stone G D, Svedin U,
Velkamp A, Vogel C, Xu J, 2001, ``The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving
beyond the myths'' Global Environmental Change 11 261 ^ 269
Loonen W, Koomen E, 2009, ``Calibration and validation of the Land Use Scanner allocation
algorithms'', in Background Studies (Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau, Bilthoven)
Millington J D A, Perry G L W, Romero-Calcerrada R, 2007, ``Regression techniques for
examining land use/cover change: a case study of a Mediterranean landscape'' Ecosystems
10 562 ^ 578
MMR, UèUèR, 2006, ``Spatial development policy of the Czech Republic'', Institute for Spatial
Development, Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic, http://www.uur.cz
Nakicenovic N, Swart R, 2000 Special Report Emissions Scenarios (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge)
Penn-Bressel G, 2003, ``Reduzierung der Fla«cheninanspruchnahme durch Siedlung und Verkehr.
Materialienband'', Federal Environment Agency, Berlin, http://www.umweltdaten.de/
publikationen/fpdf-1/2587.pdf
Pontius R G Jr, Batchu K, 2003, ``Using the relative operating characteristic to quantify certainty
in prediction of location of land cover change in India'' Transactions in GIS 7 467 ^ 484
Pontius R G, Schneider L C, 2001, ``Land-cover change model validation by an ROC method
for the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA'' Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment
85 239 ^ 248
Prentice R L, Pyke R, 1979,``Logistic disease incidence models and case-control studies'' Biometrika
66 403 ^ 411
Rietveld P, Scholten H J, Stillwell J, 2001, ``EuroScanner: a simulation model for land use change in
Europe'', in Land Use Simulation for Europe Eds J Stillwell, H J Scholten (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
pp 235 ^ 244
Ritsema van Eck J, Koomen E, 2008, ``Characterising urban concentration and land-use diversity
in simulations of future land use'' Annals of Regional Science 42 123 ^ 140
928 J Hoymann

RNE, 2004, ``Mehr Wert fu«r die Fla«che: Das `Ziel-30-ha' fu«r die Nachhaltigkeit in Stadt und Land'',
Rat fu«r Nachhaltige Entwicklung, German Council for Sustainable Development,
http://www.nachhaltigkeitrat.de/uploads/media/Broschuere Flaechenempfehlung 01.pdf
ROG, 18 August 1997 (BGB1. I S 2080), zuletzt gea«ndert am 24. Juni 2004 (BGB1. S. 1359),
Raumordnungsgesetz [Regional Planning Act]
Schotten C G J, Goetgeluk R, Hilferink M, Rietveld P, Scholten H J, 2001,``Residential construction,
land use and the environment: simulations for the Netherlands using a GIS-based land use
model'' Environmental Modeling and Assessment 6 133 ^ 143
STABU, 2006, ``Zunahme der Siedlungs- und Verkehrsfla«che: 114 ha/Tag'', Statistics Bundesamt,
http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pm2006/p4920112.htm
STABU, 2007, ``Siedlungs- und Verkehrsfla«che nach Art der tatsa«chlichen Nutzung. Erla«uterungen
und Eckzahlen 2006'' Bodenfla«che nach Art der tatsa«chlichen Nutzung Fachserie 3/Reihe 5.1,
Statistiches Bundesamt
Tobler W, 1979, ``Cellular geography'', in Philosophy in Geography Eds S Gale, G Ollson (Reidel,
Dordrecht) pp 379 ^ 386
Turner M G,Wear D N, Flamm R O, 1996, ``Land ownership and land-cover change in the Southern
Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula'' Ecological Applications 6 1150 ^ 1172
UBA, 2004, ``CORINE Land Cover'', Federal Environment Agency, DLR ^ DFD, German
Aerospace Centre ^ German Remote Datasensing Centre, http://www.corine.dfd.dlr.de/
workshop2004 en.html
Van der Hoeven N, Aerts J, Van der Klis H, Koomen E, 2008, ``An integrated discussion support
system for new Dutch flood risk management strategies'', in Planning Support Systems: Best
Practices and New Methods Eds S Geertman, J Stillwell (Springer, Berlin) pp 159 ^ 174
Verburg P H, Ritsema van Eck J R, de Nijs T C M, Dijst M J, Schot P, 2004a, ``Determinants
of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 31 125 ^ 150
Verburg P H, Schot P, Dijst M J,Veldkamp A, 2004b, ``Land use change modelling: current practice
and research priorities'' GeoJournal 61 309 ^ 324
Wear D N, Bolstad P, 1998,``Land-use changes in Southern Appalachian landscapes: spatial analysis
and forecast evaluation'' Ecosystems 1 575 ^ 594

ß 2010 Pion Ltd and its Licensors

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research
by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other
online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.