R

Bt

Da

Nb

h

••••

a

ARRA

KDTSUG

1

N

Wr

h0

Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

j o ur na l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

esearch Paper

eyond urban–rural classifications: Characterising and mappingerritories-in-between across Europe

.I. Alexander Wandla,∗, Vincent Nadina, Wil Zonneveldb, Remon Rooij a

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Department of Urbanism, Chair of Spatial Planning and Strategy,etherlandsOTB Research Institute, Chair of Urban and Regional Development, Netherlands

i g h l i g h t s

Large parts of Europe’s settlement pattern cannot be understood as either urban or rural.We improved territorial classification methods.The idea of a spatial gradient from urban centre to rural periphery is modified by introducing territories-in-between.TiB show a specific underlying connectivity of different functions and intensities.

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 4 April 2013eceived in revised form 21 June 2014ccepted 21 June 2014

eywords:ispersed urban developmenthe Tyrolouth-Hollandrban rural classificationIS-mapping

a b s t r a c t

Much of physical territory of the Europe does not fit classic ‘urban–rural’ typologies but can best bedescribed as ‘territories-in-between’ (TiB). There is considerable agreement that TiB is pervasive and verysignificant. However, typologies of territory or spatial development continue to employ only degrees ofeither urban or rural. Similarly, spatial planning and territorial development policies rarely make useof the notion of in-between areas but tend instead to divide the territory into urban and rural zones.Questions have been raised therefore about the lack of understanding of territories-in-between and theirnegligence in planning policy. This paper contributes to a better understanding of TiB, by proposing amethod for their characterisation and mapping. It asks if there can be a common definition of TiB thatreflects consistent and distinctive characteristics across the great variety of spatial development contextsin Europe. It proposes spatial and demographic criteria for their definition, mapping and comparison. Thecomparison with widely used urban–rural classifications shows that the presented classification of TiBhas three advantages: (i) it maps the complexity of the spatial structure of urbanised areas on a regional

scale, and thereby helps to overcome the prevalent idea that urbanised regions are characterised bya spatial gradient from urban centre(s) to rural periphery; (ii) it emphasises the network structure ofterritories-in-between and the underlying connectivity of places with different functions and (iii) it raisesawareness that in some parts of Europe a settlement pattern has developed that cannot be understoodas either urban or rural.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Europe is largely made of ‘middle landscapes’ or ‘hybrid geogra-phies’. ‘Urban’ areas can be found in rather rural areas. . . while

∗ Corresponding author at: Julianalaan 134, P.O. Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, Theetherlands. Tel.: +31 644674326.

E-mail addresses: A.Wandl@tudelft.nl, alex.wandl@gmail.com (D.I. Alexanderandl), v.Nadin@tudelft.nl (V. Nadin), w.A.M.Zonneveld@tudelft.nl (W. Zonneveld),

.M.Rooij@tudelft.nl (R. Rooij).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.010169-2046/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

‘rural’ areas can be found within urban environments. (MCRIT,2010: 41)

Much of the territory of Europe is neither distinctly urbannor rural but something ‘in the middle’ or ‘in-between’. Theseareas cannot be understood as simply places of intensification ofurban functions in the rural environment or places of interactionof urban and rural territories. Rather they have specific spatial

and programmatic features that do not fit the classic urban–ruraldichotomy (Garreau, 1991; Sieverts & Bölling, 2004; Viganò, 2001).This paper aims to unravel the complex relation between urbanand rural in the territories-in-between (TiB) of the European Union

pe and

(Tbocmshte

irr

1

twZfmo12pccvrbtoagatita

fwst(ohtao2cfdwtetstdpc

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

EU) and thereby introduce a new territorial classification method.erritories-in-between are not a specific European phenomenon,ut as Castells (2010), building on Hall and Pain’s (2006) workn European polycentric metropolis, puts it, they are a definingharacteristic of metropolitan regions across the planet. Aetropolitan region is a new form because it includes in the same

patial unit urbanised areas and agricultural land, open space andighly dense residential areas’ (Castells, 2010: 2739). What makeserritories-in-between in Europe of specific interest is that they alsomerged outside of the metropolitan regions.

In this introductory section we first introduce our understand-ng of territories-in-between. Second, we describe the challengeselated to the overlooking of territories-in-between in existing ter-itorial classification models.

.1. Territories-in-between

The many names given to the form of spatial development inerritories-in-between reflect its pervasiveness across Europe asell as the particular context in which it is discussed. They include:

wischenstadt (Sieverts, 2001), Tussenland (Frijters et al., 2004), cityringe (Louis, 1936), Città diffusa (Secchi, 1991), territories of a new

odernity (Viganò, 2001), Stadtlandschaft (Passarge, 1968), shad-wland (Hamers in Andexlinger et al., 2005), spread city (Webber,998), and Annähernd Perfekte Peripherie (Campi, Bucher, & Zardini,000). A translation of the non-English terms is not given so as toreserve the meaning embedded in the original language. (We willome back to this in Section 2 where we discuss a variety of con-epts). However, while the precise form and meaning of these termsary, we argue that they share a common conceptual base. Theyepresent a discrete class of territorial development: ‘territories-in-etween’ urban and rural which are more than a simple mixing ofhe two. The variety in naming is an indication that within this classf territory there is some diversity. At the same time, these termsre an indication of two general issues: (i) the growing attentioniven in the literature to changing relationships between the urbannd the rural and the implications of their interconnections; and (ii)he uncertain relationship between policy and spatial developmentn territories-in-between in terms of policy influences on the loca-ion of housing and economic activities, mobility, social relationsnd the overall sustainability.

Although this spatial phenomenon has been identified in Europeor at least three-quarters of a century, territories-in-between (inhatever guise) have not generally found their way into main-

tream spatial planning discourse and policy until the 2000s, andhen only in very limited ways. The geographer Friedrich LeydenSieverts & Bölling, 2004) noted as early as 1933 that the areasutside the Berliner Ringbahn developed in ways that go beyondow spatial organisation is generally understood. It created a non-raditional urban form requiring fresh analysis. He describes thesereas as an intermingling of urban and rural land uses and lifestyles,f city and landscape. Decades later Hamers (in Andexlinger et al.,005) identified a similar phenomenon in the Netherlands, andalled it ‘Shadowland’. He understands this as comprising areasorgotten and neglected by planners and policy makers. ‘Planners,esigners and administrators often lack a sufficient insight intohat goes on in areas that cannot be pinned down in conven-

ional categories. They deny the conditions in which such areasmerged, . . . who is active in them’ (p. 50). Hamers’ conclusion forhe Dutch case was confirmed by a survey among 136 experts onpatial planning across Europe undertaken by MCRIT (2010). More

han 80 per cent agreed that the European territory is mostly ‘mid-le landscapes’. More than 50 per cent expressed the opinion thatlanning policies have to be reformed to consider the many impli-ations of this distinctive form of spatial organisation.

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 51

1.2. The problem of territorial classifications

An important factor affecting the way that government policiesmay address territories-in-between is the classification of types ofterritory, which underpins analysis and policy-making. Territories-in-between have been overlooked in the dominant schemes ofclassification of territory which generally only define land as eitherurban or rural, or in degrees of urban. Furthermore, the methodsused to separate urban from rural tend to be dominated by the useof one criterion – resident population density (OECD, 2010; Scholz,2009).

Spatial planning policy-making processes based on this kind ofclassification have produced, not surprisingly, policies for ‘urban’and ‘rural’, indeed often seeking to divide urban from rural andignoring the real nature of territories-in-between. One conse-quence of the oversimplification of categorisations of territory hasbeen vagueness in the many terms that are used to explain thisform of spatial development. Geographers and planners use notionssuch as suburbanisation, sprawl, urban–rural relations, fringe andperi-urban to try to capture the real diversity and complexity ofsuch territories. But these terms tend to be ambiguous overgen-eralisations with little common definition, while some of them –especially sprawl – have become rather pejorative. For example,Forsyth (2012) gives an overview of the very diverse meaningsof ‘suburb’ and related concepts. Bruegmann (2005) and Galsteret al. (2001) set out the plethora of meanings and connotations thatare attached to the term sprawl. This ambiguity undermines bothspatial planning policy and the empirical research that underpinsit. A clearer specification of territories-in-between should providemuch needed clarity in meaning and also a means of measurementand comparison.

This paper proposes an alternative classification of territory,which is precise enough to represent the complex (socio-) spa-tial configuration of territories-in-between and distinguish themfrom urban and rural areas. This preciseness is achieved by a com-bination of freely available geo-datasets which allow for a detailedclassification and mapping of territories-in-between, going beyondexisting typologies. The proposed classification can make a signifi-cant contribution comparison of the form of territories-in-between,their performance in terms of sustainability, and the evaluation ofspatial policies applied within them territories-in-between.

2. Methodology and structure of the paper

2.1. Research approach

This new classification method is based on analyses of a varietyof concepts that are used across Europe to describe dispersed urbandevelopment within different cultural and topographic settings.These concepts understand urbanised areas not as gradients fromurban and rural but as distinct and highly interconnected regions.Therefore, the presented classification forms a solid base for cross-European comparisons which go beyond the problematic use ofadministrative boundaries as the classification unit and simple pop-ulation density studies. The method is especially appropriate forspatial analyses of the networked territory in Europe.

The overarching general concept of territories-in-between isused here as a starting point. The term incorporates all formsof mixed urban and rural that have so far been mentioned. Themeasurement and analysis of comparative cases using specifiedparameters provide more specific descriptions of particular types

of territories-in-between.

We first review the existing concepts used to describe dispersedurban development across Europe in order to define commonspatial characteristics (Section 3). In the next step explained in

52 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

l charS nhage

SoatSappacm

2

NtT7wiDststt

ott

Fig. 1. Case study locations, spatiaource: Authors’ own. Data sources: ESRI 2013; DeLorme; USGS, NPS and EEA Cope

ection 4, we review existing territorial classification models, inrder to understand which criteria and spatial classification unitsre commonly used, and what are their advantages and limita-ions. In Section 5 we use two cases, the Tyrol in Austria andouth-Holland in the Netherlands, to test which commonly avail-ble geographic datasets and thresholds for them can be used toroduce a geographical information system (GIS) supported map-ing of territories-in-between. The results are verified by fieldworknd the analyses of aerial pictures. Finally, in Section 6 we dis-uss the outcomes in comparison to other existing classificationethods.

.2. Two test cases

The test areas are The Tyrol in Austria and South-Holland in theetherlands. They represent two extreme cases for European terri-

ories, being very different in topography and population density.he Tyrol is a mountainous area in the eastern Alps, with around50,000 people living in area of 12.5 thousand square kilometres, ofhich actually only 20% (the valleys) is inhabitable. South-Holland,

s the southern wing of the Randstad a metropolitan area in theutch delta. Around 3.5 million of people live on an area of 3.5 thou-

and square kilometres. The assumption is that if the same methodo map territories-in-between is successful in these two cases, ithould be applicable to a European-wide selection (see Fig. 1 forhe location, as well as impressions and major characteristics ofhe two test case study areas).

Our criteria for being successful are: (1) avoidance of illogicalutcomes meaning the selection of areas, which are obviously noerritories-in-between; (2) showing the relational nature of manyerritories-in-between, i.e. the strong linkages with infrastructure;

acteristics and visual impressions.n 2010.

(3) use of existing and comparable databases with a minimum needof additional local knowledge to filter out illogical outcomes.

3. The characteristics of territories-in-between

Caplan and Nelson pointed out in the context of social problems,‘what is done about a problem depends on how it is defined’ (1973:200, quoted in Forsyth, 2012: 271). This is very appropriate for defi-nitions of ‘territory’, if territories are defined as either urban or ruralthen policy and action will follow in the same pattern. So the realityof spatial development including territories-in-between needs tobe defined and mapped, that means they should be geographicallylocated and distinguished from other related spatial conditionsthat are primarily urban or rural. The definition of territories-in-between requires careful selection of demographic and spatialfeatures that are on the hand, common characteristics for all suchareas, but which on the other, can also accommodate variationsresulting from historical and cultural differences. Although the dis-cussion that follows reveals varying views about the nature ofterritories-in-between (and thus the use of different terms) thereis sufficient agreement in a wide field of literature, projects andplans dealing with disperse urban development, about key spatialand demographic properties that define them.

Table 1 presents a summary of the most used terms forterritories-in-between in the literature together with an explana-tion of their meaning and the approach followed by the authors andresearchers.

Some approaches remain firmly rooted in the idea of anurban–rural dichotomy, explaining territories-in-between in termsof a gradient of urban to rural or vice versa. They concentrateheavily on characterising territory based on resident population

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 53

Table 1Recent characterisations of territories-in-between across Europe in comparison to sprawl and peri-urban.

Concept Country authors Summary of approach and explanation

Annähernd PerfektePeripherie

SuisseCampi et al. (2000)

Campi et al., describe the territory between Zurich and its airport as one example of an area with a new formof urbanity, characterised by a heterogeneity of fragments of urban and rural land uses. They come to theconclusion that such areas cannot be described as periphery but form an autonomous city, the ‘Glattalstadt’,

Tussenland NetherlandsFrijters et al. (2004)

The term Tussenland (Dutch for in-between land) arose from research done by the Dutch NationalEnvironmental Agency that aimed to identify and raise awareness of territories-in-between for Dutchplanning practice. It focuses on the manifoldness of actors interacting in the production of the Tussenland,developed in the shadow of Dutch spatial planning which has given priority to the containment of cities andprotection of green spaces over recent decades.

Città diffusa ItalyIndovina (1990)Secchi (1991)

Città diffusa describes the dispersed urban development of parts of the Veneto Region in northern Italy and itsdistinct urban form and socio-economic condition. The fine-grained character of its urban structure is thebasis for its spatial diversity and decentralised but heavily interconnected economy, supporting a variety oflifestyles.

Territori della nuovamodernità

ItalyViganò (2001)

In Territories of a New Modernity, a spatial development strategy for the Salento region in the province of Leccein southern Italy, Paola Viganò and colleagues explain the porosity of the landscape as a driving spatialproperty for future development. They stress that in the Città diffusa an approach that focuses more onrelations than on functions and that understands the landscape as the major infrastructure, offers morepossibilities for local and regional development than traditional plans that primarily concentrate on the cites.

Urban fringe EnglandGallent, Bianconi, &Andersson (2006)

In a series of articles from 2000 to 2006 Gallent et al. describe the English urban–rural fringes and theirplanning challenges. They investigate the role (or not) that planning played in ‘urban fringe’ development inEngland. They explain the struggles of an urban containment orientated spatial planning with areas whereurban and rural uses intermingle. They conclude that, while spatial planning in the UK focused on thecontainment of cities and the separation of urban and rural land uses, the edges of cities evolved into amixture of less favoured urban uses, agriculture and other rural land uses.

Zwischenstadt GermanySieverts (2001) Sievertsand Bölling (2004)

The term Zwischenstadt (German for in-between city) was introduced by Thomas Sieverts in the late 1990s todescribe a new emerging type of city that is in-between on three dimensions: between built and openlandscape; between the local rooted and global economy; and between recent young urban development anda yet unknown urban future. He argues that a better understanding of the Zwischenstatd is the base forplanners and designers to contribute to its ‘qualification’.

TyrolCity AustriaAndexlinger et al.(2005)

TirolCity is a provocative study of the State of The Tyrol in Austria taking the scenario of the whole federalstate being seen as one city (TirolCity). The study investigates what this paradigm change would mean forplanning for an area that has a traditional self-understanding as an ‘Alpine rural landscape idyll’. The authorsconclude that large parts of the Tyrol are a territories-in-between.

Sprawl For an overview ofdefinitions see(Bruegmann, 2005)

There are manifold definitions of sprawl, in this article the following is used: sprawl is a land developmentpattern that spreads residential units over a large area [. . .] sprawl also encompasses the separation ofresidential from commercial land uses, the absence of clustered development of town centres, and reliance onthe automobile (Dreier, Mollenkopf, & Swanstromm, 2004, p. 59).

Peri-Urban FranceLe Jeannic and Vidalenc(1997)

The term Peri-urban is from French origin, and is used in to identify the wide territory of urban diffusionaround urban centres. Only recently, it entered the planning discussion within the EU, primarily through thePLUREL project, which defines peri-urban areas as discontinuous built development, containing settlements of

n avere rura

dSgwuhssuaus

tptu2owhti

EUPiorr et al. (2011)

less than 20,000, with ahinterland they form th

ensity. Prominent in this category is the notion of urban sprawl.prawl is characterised as low-density urban dispersion with segre-ation of employment and residential development. It is associatedith very negative views of urban development including in partic-lar, high car dependency and major traffic infrastructure such asighways and extensive car parking. Galster et al. (2001: 681–682)et out the limitations of this approach. From a European per-pective Couch et al. understand ‘sprawl, not as a pattern ofrbanisation, as it is more common in the literature, but rathers a process of urban change’ (2007: 4). This is a first step towardsnderstanding territories-in-between as more than just the inten-ification of urban uses in the rural.

Similarly, the approach coined in terms of urban–rural rela-ions reinforces the urban–rural dichotomy. The notion has beenarticularly popular in European policy studies to draw attentiono urban–rural interrelationships in a context of dominance ofrban policy (Dühr, Colomb, & Nadin, 2010; Zonneveld & Stead,007). Although the concept is based on a dynamic understandingf urban–rural relations, research is mainly focused on redefining

hat the two ‘opposites’ ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ mean and thus is notelpful in understanding ‘the in-between’, although it has helpedo undermine the separation of urban and rural policy. Concern-ng spatial characteristics, the focus is very much on flows, the

age density of at least 40 persons per km2. Together with the urban and the rurall–urban region

exchange of people and goods, and therefore, the importance oftransport and other infrastructure. This is taken forward into theanalysis below.

The idea of territories-in-between being a distinctive form ofterritory was introduced by Jean Gottmann in his1957 study ofthe Boston-Washington metropolitan region. He described this asthe “BosWash” – Megalopolis – the outcome of poly-nuclear urbangrowth in urban and suburban areas along a 600-mile axis betweenthe cities. Subsequently, the significance of Gottman’s megalopo-lis concept to be ‘a blurring of the distinction between urban andrural areas, it gave an impetus to a vast array of studies on bothsides of the Atlantic which focused on how to delineate urban andmetropolitan areas’ (Zonneveld in Caves, 2005). Gottman was argu-ing that the BosWash represented a fundamentally different formof socio-spatial organisation. Later, Castells (2010: 2739) was toreinforce this argument in relation to metropolitan regions acrossthe world:

the metropolitan region is not just a spatial form of unprece-

dented size in terms of concentration of population andactivities. It is a new form because it includes in the same spa-tial unit urbanised areas and agricultural land, open space andhighly dense residential areas: there are multiple cities in a

5 pe and

hoDr

fi(L&BStm

••

•

s

3

ut(btasadlha

ceIlitmKGsot

ht

3

bofi

4 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

discontinuous countryside. It is a multi-centred metropolis thatdoes not correspond to the traditional separation between cen-tral cities and their suburbs.

The ‘new form’ of spatial organisation that Castells refers toas been shown to exist beyond the major metropolitan regionsf Europe into the Alpine valleys (Andexlinger et al., 2005;essemontet, Kaufmann, & Jemelin, 2010) and along the Mediter-

anean coast line (Viganò, 2001).Numerous studies have undertaken analysis of this new

orm of territory from various disciplinary perspectives includ-ng geography, environmental and spatial planning, and urbanismAndexlinger et al., 2005; Barman-Krämer, Brandl, Unruh, Magnagoampugnani, & Noell, 2007; Campi et al., 2000; Couch, Leontidou,

Gerhard, 2007; Frijters et al., 2004; Gallent et al., 2004; Oswald,accini, & Michaeli, 2003; Secchi, 1991; Sieverts & Bölling, 2004;ieverts, 2001; Viganò, 2001; Woods, 2009). They have broadenedheir characterisation beyond population density to examine three

ain spatial qualities:

the morphology of mixed built and open spaces;the connecting and separating role of infrastructure at differentscales; andthe specific mix of functions at the regional scale.

The findings for each variable are presented in the followingections.

.1. The morphology of built and open spaces

In relation to morphology, inherent in all of the studies is annderstanding of the ‘urban landscape as a large interlocking sys-em rather than as set of discrete cities surrounded by countryside’Bruegmann, 2005: 277). This interlocking system is characterisedy an intermingling of built and unbuilt where ‘the sharp distinc-ion between city and countryside has dissolved into an ecologicalnd cultural continuum of a built structure between city and land-cape’ (Huhlmann & Promski, 2007). Unbuilt or open land becomesccording to Viganò (2001) a critical feature for planning andesigning in metropolitan regions. Planning approaches such as,

andscape urbanism, green infrastructure and eco system servicesave all in common that the approach the relation between builtnd unbuilt from the perspective of the open space.

For some authors this distinctive morphology also has a culturalomponent. In explaining his concept of the Zwischenstadt, Siev-rts uses examples such as the Regionalpark Rhein-Main and theBA Emscherpark (International Bauausstellung Emscherpark). Theatter was a ten year long regeneration and redevelopment projectn the German Ruhr area which aimed to demonstrate the potentialo (re)develop a landscape based on its topography and history in

ining and heavy industry leading to a kind of continuum of ‘Stadt-ultur-Landschaft’, city-cultural-landscape. Another example is thelatttal, a term coined by Barman-Krämer et al. (2007). It empha-ises the importance of a landscape feature, namely the river valleyf the Glatt as a structural element to create a unifying ‘identity’ forhe ‘peripheral’ region in the north Zurich.

Both examples, the Glatttal as well as IBA Emscherpark, showow the specific morphology of a territory-in-between influencedhe planning approaches and instruments in a specific area.

.2. The connecting and separating role of infrastructure

The second common character of the literature on territories-in-etween is infrastructure, and its role in creating a distinctive spatialrganisation. Infrastructure includes primarily transport and traf-c infrastructure, but also services such as power plants and water

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

treatment facilities. For Viganò infrastructure plays a crucial role forthe concept of a porous territory, but infrastructure in her view isnot just big traffic infrastructure like highways and railways, whichshe calls tubes, but also the dense network of secondary roads (andother connections) which she calls the sponge. The structure of adiffuse territory needs to be understood through its infrastructure:‘where dispersion of settlement has reached serious proportionsand caused the formation of an enormous extended city, the exten-sion of the road network and, generally speaking, the network ofinfrastructure also plays a primary role’ (Viganò, 2001: 27).

There is a common understanding that infrastructure plays dif-ferent roles at the local and regional scales. At the local scaleinfrastructure divides the territory, physically separating adjacentland uses. At the regional scale infrastructure has a connectingrole – linking places and functions. The outcome for territories-in-between is that they are a network of distant but functionallyconnected areas at the regional scale, and a patchwork of proxi-mate but functionally disconnected areas at the local scale. In otherwords, adjacent land uses may not have any spatial or functionalinterconnection, whereas there are closer socio-economic func-tional relations between areas that are not in the same local area.The result is often a seemingly monofunctional landscape at thelocal level but a surprising mix of functions at the regional scale.

3.3. The specific mix of functions at the regional scale

Gallent et al. (2004: 227) argue that multi-functionality is a keyissue in spatial structure: ‘working out how the built environmentcan be sustainable often leads to the conclusion that the way for-ward is to lessen the impact of the existing built form by enablingit to perform other desirable objectives’. But already a closer lookat territories-in-between shows that, despite the dominant view,these areas are not monofunctional sleeping suburbs or simplyareas only occupied by transport and logistics uses but exhibit acomplex mix of functions. Particularly from a regional perspectivethe mix of uses often results in a surprisingly high level of func-tional diversity. For example, as the analysis of two test cases inthe following sections will show, territories-in-between are oftencharacterised by a ratio of 0.5 jobs per residents. This is a slightlyhigher ratio than in the urban areas of South-Holland (0.4) and alsohigher than the ratio in rural areas in the Tyrol (0.25). This showsalso that calling TiB sprawl would be extremely misleading as thelatter is characterised as nearly mono-functional residential.

In addition to the three main spatial qualities, the literaturealso indicates a fourth common concern, the relationship betweenspatial characteristics of territories-in-between and public pol-icy, particularly spatial planning. In general, there is a view thatexisting design and planning tools and policies are inadequateto address the conditions and drivers of spatial development interritories-in-between (Andexlinger et al., 2005; Frijters et al.,2004; MCRIT, 2010). For example, authors agree that networks ofinfrastructure result from both top-down planning and bottom-uppressures, which interact and often conflict in the same area. Thisinteraction may lead to informal responses with a high level of self-organisation, often in loopholes of regulations, which do not reflectthe demands of people living and working there. The examinationof planning policy for territories-in-between is beyond the scopeof this paper, though the argument for the analysis set out hereand the intention to provide a more accurate characterisation ofterritories-in-between is motivated by the need for a better rela-tionship between policy and the reality of spatial development interritories-in-between.

To summarise, numerous studies have demonstrated specificcharacteristics of territories-in-between, and argued that theyconstitute a specific variable form of spatial structure that is dis-tinctive from urban and rural classes of territory. The studies draw

pe and

atoilnsti

4

tfE

4

nr

oaalIa

•

•

•

aciiItI‘c

orTa

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

ttention to three interrelated variables or spatial characteristicshat distinguish them from urban and rural areas: the interminglingf built and unbuilt or open land; the importance of infrastructuren defining spatial organisation, and the varying mix of functions atocal and regional scales. Planning policy has not generally recog-ised the distinctive character of Territories-in-between. The nextection explains how much policy has been based on classifica-ions of the territory that characterise Territories-in-between onlyn degrees of urban or rural.

. A critical review of urban and rural classifications

There are four principal forms of characterising and classifyinghe spatial structure of the territory. Here we critically review theseour approaches with references to typologies of territory used inurope and elsewhere.

.1. Population density-based classifications

The most well-known and globally used typology is the Orga-isation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD)egional typology.

Regions of OECD member countries have been classified intoPredominantly Urban, Intermediate and Predominantly Rural totake into account geographical differences among them. Com-paring the socio-economic performance of regions of the sametype (whether urban or rural) across countries is useful indetecting similar characteristics and development paths.

(OECD Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Devel-opment 2010: 2)

Like other urban–rural typologies the OECD approach is basedn thresholds of population density within a specific spatial entitys the organising factor. The OECD method first classifies localdministrative units (LUAs) (mostly municipalities) with a popu-ation density below 150 inhabitants per square kilometre as rural.n a second step, these lower level units are aggregated to higherdministrative levels (TL3). Classifying the latter as:

predominantly urban (PU), if the share of the population living inrural local units is below 15%;intermediate (IN), if the share of population living in rural localunits is between 15% and 50%;predominantly rural (PR), if the share of population living in rurallocal units is higher than 50%.

In a final step the predominantly rural units according to steps 1nd 2 are reclassified to intermediate where they contain an urbanentre of more than 200,000 inhabitants. Similarly predominantlyntermediate areas are reclassified to predominantly urban areasf they contain an urban centre of more than 500,000 inhabitants.n both cases this only applies if the population of the urban cen-re is representing at least 25 per cent of the regional population.t is important to mention that the OECD defines urban centresby population density and size, not by functional criteria such asommuting’ (OECD, 2010: 3).

Newer typologies like the new European Union (EU) typologyf ‘predominantly rural’, ‘intermediate’ or ‘predominantly urban’egions use population data based on a spatial grid (1 km × 1 km).his approach was intended to overcome difficulties with using

dministrative boundaries that led to distorted results.

The first distortion is due to the large variation in the area oflocal administrative units level. The second distortion is due tothe large variation in the surface area of NUTS 3 regions and the

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 55

practice in some countries to separate a (small) city centre fromthe surrounding region. (EUROSTAT, 2012)

Eurostat also provides examples for such distortions. ‘For exam-ple, Aldea de Trujillo in Spain is classified as urban despite havinga population of only 439 inhabitants’ or ‘Badajoz and Cáceres inSpain and Uppsala in Sweden are classified as rural despite all threehaving a population of 150,000 or more’ (EUROSTAT, 2012).

To avoid this distortion Eurostat adjusted the OECD methodol-ogy starting from the urban rather than rural, namely every 1 km2

grid cell that has more than 300 inhabitants within its boundariesas well as more than 5000 in the boundaries of the eight grid cellsfrom its centre. All other grid cells are considered rural.

To achieve a classification at the regional scale the values of thegrid cells are aggregated to the NUTS 3 level, using the same thresh-old of the share of rural population (50%) for the division betweenpredominantly rural and predominantly intermediate as used bythe OECD. The border between predominantly intermediate andpredominantly urban was changed to a share of 20% of the popu-lation living in rural grid cells. This change is argued by EUROSTAT(2012) ‘to ensure that the population share in predominantly urbanregions does not differ too much from the original OECD classifica-tion applied to NUTS 3 regions’. It is worth noting here that withoutthis adaptation most of Europe would be classified as intermediate.

4.2. Land cover based classifications

The Coordination of Information on the Environment Project orCORINE uses remote sensing methods to monitor and assess landcover changes in Europe to support policy making. The CORINEland cover classification – maintained by de European EnvironmentAgency – is not an urban–rural classification per se, but was usedto define and map urban morphological zones (UMZs) (EEA, 2011).UMZs are defined as built-up areas lying less than 200 m apart. Theyare primarily made up of four CORINE land cover classes.

• ’Continuous urban fabric’ comprises buildings, roads and artifi-cially surfaced area covering almost all ground; non-linear areasof vegetation and bare soil are exceptional.

• ’Discontinuous urban fabric’ comprises buildings, roads and arti-ficially surfaced areas with vegetation and bare soil occupyingdiscontinuous but significant surfaces.

• ’Industrial or commercial units’ primarily comprise artificial sur-faces (concrete, asphalt) devoid of vegetation but also containbuildings and/or vegetated areas.

• ’Green urban areas’ are patches of vegetation within the urbanfabric including parks and cemeteries with vegetation.

In addition, port areas, airports, and sport and leisure facilitiesare included within UMZs if they are adjacent to these four landcover classes. Road and rail networks and water courses are con-sidered part of a UMZ if they are located within 300 m. Forest andscrub areas belong to the UMZ if they are completely encircled byone or more of the four core classes.

The CORINE methodology has on the one hand the advantagethat it allows for a division between urban and rural at a veryprecise resolution of 100 m, taking into account geographic andtopographic features. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage

that the same urban land cover may host very different intensitiesof urban use. For example a big villa style single family house whichhosts four persons could have the same land cover as a housingtower block being home to many more people.

5 pe and

4c

g(md((atscpuocfose

liaopsoie

4

Rncasnooeaw

cilatiotS

6 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

.3. A combination of land cover and population density-basedlassifications

The EU project on Peri-urban Land Use Relationships – Strate-ies and Sustainability Assessment Tools for Urban–Rural LinkagesPLUREL) defines peri-urban areas as ‘discontinuous built develop-

ent, containing settlements of less than 20,000, with an averageensity of at least 40 persons per km2 (averaged over 1 km2 cells)’Piorr, Ravetz, & Tosics, 2011: 10). Together with the urban areacontinuous urban areas and cities with over 20,000 population)nd the rural hinterland (less than 40 inhabitants per square metre)hey form the rural–urban region (Piorr et al., 2011: 25). The PLURELynthesis report presents this graphically as a gradient from urbanore to rural. Nevertheless the report also points out that, ‘in theolycentric version, the peri-urban areas do not only surround therban, they are also a geographical type and territory unto theirwn’, and that ‘the reality on the ground is often complex and fasthanging’ (Piorr et al., 2011: 25). This is an important starting pointor the following discussion on territories-in-between, as it raisesther questions about whether territories-in-between emerge out-ide or around urban centres, or if they emerge without them, orven within them.

This discussion of urban–rural territorial classification methodseads to a number of conclusions for the task of putting territories-n-between on the map so as to inform regional planning. First, anccuracy similar to that used in the UMZs should be achieved. Sec-nd, a combination of land use and population density seems moreromising than using only one of these variables, as one and theame land use unit may be inhabited by widely varying numbersf people. Third, a classification of territories-in-between shouldnclude aspects that recognise functional relations between differ-nt areas.

.4. Comparing US and EU classifications

The United States Census Bureau used for its 2010 Urban andural Classification a combination of resident density and adjacenton-residential urban land uses. Of specific interest is the territoriallassification unit that is used: the census block, which is neither

regular grid nor an administrative jurisdiction, but bounded bytreets, roads or creeks. The result is that in cities, infrastructureetworks define a census block, but in rural areas with fewer roads,ther features, like rivers, may limit blocks. The area and populationf census blocks varies greatly. The US Census Bureau (2013) differ-ntiates between urbanised areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people,nd urban clusters (UCs) of at least 2500 and less than 50,000 peoplehile all other areas are considered rural.

It is particular interest to note that only nine and a half perent of the US population lives in UCs (CENSUS, 2010), whereasn Europe, depending on the definition, up to 50% of the populationives in territories-in-between (Piorr et al., 2011). This highlights

major difference between cities in Europe and the US, namelyhe relatively large proportion of the European population livingn small and medium-sized cities and the stability of this patternver time. Le Galès and Zagrodzki (2010: 11) summarise the factorshat distinguish European spatial structure from that in the Unitedtates.

Europe is characterized firstly by its very large number of citiesand their marked proximity to one another: secondly, by the factthat the major cities of Europe are not huge: large metropoliseswith a population of over two or three million are rare, and ‘if

one compares the total number of urban areas of over 200,000,the average size is of the order of 800,000 in Europe, as against1.3 million in the United States and Japan [. . .] and thirdly, by therelative importance of small and medium-sized cities: Europe

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

distinguishes itself by its relatively large number of urban areasof between 200,000 and one or two million.

They also hint that, at least until recently, suburbs grew in theUS, while city centres lost inhabitants, whereas in Europe smalland medium sized cities both the centre as well as in the peripheryhave grown. In the US the urban pattern is related with sprawl, inthe sense of low density, car dependent, monofunctional residentialdevelopment. In Europe, the urban pattern has followed the formof territories-in-between, mixed open and urban land of varyingdensity, intersected by infrastructure including public transport. InEurope urban development has tended to be less monofunctionalwith mixed uses, especially at the regional scale. The distinctionis valid for typical development, although we should beware over-generalisation because some older suburbs in the States also havea more complex configuration as in Europe (Bruegmann, 2005;Fishman, 1990; Mikelbank, 2004).

5. Putting different forms of territories-in-between on themap

This section explains how we translated the characteristicsof territories-in-between described above, into operational prop-erties (or proxies) used to measure and map, using commonlyavailable data sets in a geographical information system (GIS).The data sets were chosen because their availability allows forrelatively uniform application across different countries, and theapproach can be repeated and replicability tested rather easily byother researchers. Formerly comparison of territories-in-betweenhas relied on more qualitative verbal description than quantita-tive analysis. The approach adopted here continues to incorporatea qualitative analysis of the character of the areas but the under-lying spatial analysis provides a much more solid base to examinetheir actual characteristics and make international comparisons.

5.1. Mapping territories-in-between in the Tyrol andSouth-Holland

For the task of mapping characteristics of territory the size of thespatial unit or entity is very important. In previous research (Wandl,2010, masked for blind review) has shown that a 500 m × 500 mgrid delivers the most useful results. Thereafter, different analy-ses and geoprocessing tools of the commercial GIS software ArcGiswere used to combine the selected spatial characteristics to map thelocation of territories-in-between in the two test areas. The resultof the GIS mapping was then confronted with observations madein the field and with aerial images obtained from Google Earth inorder to evaluate whether the areas selected do have the spatialproperties described in the literature.

One important lesson from the review above is that forterritories-in-between functions like shopping malls or distribu-tion centres often located in these areas, would be considered ‘rural’in the traditional territorial typologies, as the resident populationis usually around zero or at least very low. This is also true for otherparts of territories-in-between that may exhibit important urbanfunctions but where people work or spend their leisure time, andwhere there is very small resident population. In other words, ifthe living population is considered as the only demographic factor,certain areas with function that are typically located in territories-in-between, would be ignored. Therefore, the method explainedhere includes the working population as an additional demographicfactor (as explained below) and together with the resident popu-

lation adds up to what we call the ‘maximum population’. We areaware that this may entail counting the working population twice,once as residents and once as employees in those cases where peo-ple live and work in the same unit. Nevertheless, until we have

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 57

F dividef erritou

rmb

t

12

3

4

s

5

5

pinaaswp

gHwtgdat

ig. 2. The four steps in mapping territories-in-between. First, the area of interest isor every grid cell. Third, rural grid cells containing infrastructure are added to the tnbuilt are subtracted from territories-in-between.

eliable and large-scale dynamic census, this is the easiest andost reliable way to cover the spatial dynamics in Territories-in-

etween.In summary, the spatial selection method can be described in

he following four steps, which are also illustrated in Fig. 2:

. dividing the area of interest into 500 m × 500 m grid cells;

. selecting those grid cells with a maximum population densitythat is characteristic for territories-in-between;

. adding those grid cells with a maximum rural population thatspatially overlap with typical infrastructures and services;

. subtracting those grid cells with a Territories-in-between cor-responding maximum population that are not characterised bythe intermingling of built and open landscape pattern.

The thresholds for the single steps are explained in the followingection.

.2. Defining the thresholds of territories-in-between

.2.1. Maximum population densityAs described above, using only the residential aspect of the

opulation would exclude areas that are considered as territories-n-between. In an ideal case the working population as well as theumber of tourists and secondary home ‘residents’ would be addeds spatial selection criteria, but data on these aspects is either notvailable at all, or not available in sufficient detail. Therefore, theum of the number of inhabitants and the number of jobs per km2

as used as the first selection criteria, and referred to as maximumopulation density.

For the Tyrol both numbers were available on a 250 m × 250 mrid basis and were aggregated into a 500 m × 500 m grid. In South-olland both numbers where available per six digit postal code,hich is as small as a block in bigger cities and parts of a street in

owns and villages. They were also aggregated to the 500 m × 500 m

rid. As there was no existing classification method available aeductive and iterative approach using spatial queries, fieldworknd the interpretation of aerial pictures led to the definition of thehresholds. For the delimitation of the territories-in-between to the

d into a 500 m × 500 m grid. Second, the maximum population density is calculatedries-in-between grid cells. Fourth, grid cells that have no intermingling of built and

rural (the lower threshold of maximum population) the Tyrol wasused as the primary case as it can be considered as the more ruralone; whereas to distinguish the territories-in-between from thedense urban areas (the higher threshold) the case of South-Hollandwas used as it is the more urbanised one. Both values were thenapplied to the other case and their validity tested.

5.2.2. Separating territories-in-between from the ruralFig. 3 shows how different maximum population densities relate

to urbanisation patterns in the Tyrol. The image shows three typ-ical steps of the urbanisation process in the Tyrol. Starting from asingle farm (1) to a farm with additional single family houses origi-nally used by the families who did not inherit the farm in the main(2) and finally a settlement pattern with farm, single family housesand other additional uses (3). In the latter case, multi-story hous-ing or other building forms of a rather urban kind can be found.The in-between may include types 2 and 3 but not type 1. There-fore, the lower limit of territories-in-between to rural was definedwith a maximum population density of 150 persons/km2, whichis equal to a maximum population density of 37.5 persons in a500 m × 500 m.

5.2.3. Separating territories-in-between from the urbanThe case of South-Holland is used to define the upper limit of the

maximum population density threshold. South-Holland is for thisexercise a specifically interesting case because, there is no land inHolland which is classified as contiguous urban fabric in the senseof the CORINE land cover classification, although it is very denselyinhabited. This means that a land cover based distinction betweenurban and the in-between is not possible. This also means that acertain intermingling of built and open land uses is present overthe entire area.

Fig. 3 presents different ranges of maximum population den-sity in a part of South-Holland and shows that a maximum of

5000 people/km2 or 1250 persons per 500 m × 500 m, describesvery well the low rise urban edges around the cities, as well as areaswith ‘big box development’ and vast greenhouse areas, which area specific form of territory in this region.

58 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

pulatB olland

tcpiul

5

tiaslststaT

i

TO

Fig. 3. Overlay of different urbanisation patterns and maximum poackground image: Bing Maps aerial imagery, data Sources: TIRIS; Province Zuid-H

The resulting spatial selection shows that at this stage most ofhe areas with the spatial properties of territories-in-between areovered, but that areas with just infrastructure are omitted andarts of the cities are selected that are not characterised by an

ntermingling of built and unbuilt. Therefore, further adjustmentssing information about the location of infrastructure as well as

and cover have to be added.

.2.4. Infrastructure and intermingling of built and unbuiltRegional and global transport infrastructure like motorways,

rain lines and airports are a characteristic feature of territories-n-between. They produce the typical duality of spatial segregationnd what Graham and Marvin (2001) call premium networkedpaces, i.e. areas of high global accessibility. Additionally theiterature review showed that specific uses like waste andewage treatment plants or power plants are typically situated inerritories-in-between. In the two test areas, two kinds of infra-tructure are particularly important. For South-Holland these arehe logistics centres, like the Rotterdam seaport, and the glasshouse

reas with an underlying infrastructure of gas and CO2 pipes. In theyrol the tourist resorts play a similar role.

The glasshouse areas are captured in the analysis already. Thiss because the working population was considered in the spatial

able 2verview of data sets used for analysis of infrastructure and land use.

Data Set Description Source

CORINE land cover data 2006 for both cases1.2.1 Industrial or commercial units The Eur1.2.2 Road and rail networks and associated

landThe Eur

1.2.3 Port areas The Eur1.2.4 Airports The Eur1.3.2 Dump sites The Eur1.4.2 Sport and leisure facilities The Eur

South-HollandNational and regional

roadsAll roads that are categorised‘autosnelweg’ of ‘regionale weg’ andare wider than 4 m

TOP 10

Railways TOP 10

The TyrolRailways TIRIS

National and mainregional roads

All roads that are categorised: A, ASand LST B

TIRIS

Skiing Areas TIRIS

1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric The Eur

ion density in the Tyrol on the left and South-Holland on the right..

selection. For the tourist areas in the Tyrol this is true for the vil-lages, but the large areas covered and crisscrossed by winter sportinfrastructure like cable cars and snowmaking facilities are left out,though they should be considered when choosing the spatial prox-ies for the aspect of infrastructure.

A combination of CORINE land cover data (Seamless Vector2006) and vector data for motorways, regional roads, railways and(in the case of Tyrol) skiing resorts, provided by the planning agen-cies of the Tyrol and South-Holland is used to add grid cells tothose already selected as territories-in-between. An overview ofthe datasets used is given in Table 2. Fig. 4 shows the result ofthe combination of maximum population and infrastructure on theselection of territories-in-between.

Fig. 4 shows how the inclusion of infrastructure extends theparts of the territory identified as in-between, incorporating areaslike the harbour in Rotterdam and big infrastructure nodes. Thisfactor also leads to the inclusion of the densest parts of the cites,particularly in the Tyrol. This contradicts the spatial characteristicof intermingling of built and unbuilt. Therefore, grid cells that areprimarily covered with continuous urban fabric (>80% impervious

land cover) following the CORINE land cover classification, need tobe excluded from the selection to give a final result. Figs. 5 and 6show the final result of the spatial selection method explained inthis paper.

Date

opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011

opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011

– Kadaster January 2010

– Kadaster January 2010

December 2009December 2009

December 2009opean Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information. August 2011

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 59

F ause

( tructur the a

mT

12

3

4

Fa

B

ig. 4. Grid cells considered as territories-in-between in both case study areas bec1,1) fulfil both aspects; yellow cells (1,0) are selected only by the aspects of infraseferences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of

To summarise, the method and the developed thresholds toap the extent of Territories-in-between in South-Holland and The

yrol has followed four steps:

. dividing the area into 500 m × 500 m grid cells;

. selecting those grid cells with a population between 38 and 1250inhabitants per 500 m × 500 m;

. adding grid cells, with a rural density of maximum popula-tion density that overlap with areas of the CORINE land coverclasses industrial or commercial units, port areas, airports,mineral extraction sites, waste sites, port and leisure facili-

ties, and all major roads and railway tracks and associatedland;

. subtracting all cells that are classified continuous urban fabricaccording to the CORINE land cover classification.

ig. 5. Territories-in-between (red) in South-Holland. (For interpretation of the referenrticle.)

ackground image: USGS, NPS, ESRI, TANA, AND.

of either maximum population density and/or location of infrastructure: red cellsre; violet cells (0,1) by the maximum population aspect. (For interpretation of therticle.)

To illustrate the applicability of this method and the general andnetworked characteristics of territories-in-between more fully, itwas applied to two other regions in Europe: west of Lille in Franceand parts of the Veneto in Italy. A map of the results is shown along-side the findings for the two test cases reported in this paper inFig. 7. To be able to apply the method to other cases across Europetwo adaptations had to be made. First, instead of locally acquireddata sets for the road infrastructure, open street map data was used.Cross-checking results in the field showed that the open street mapdata were reliable and makes no difference in the results, at leastconcerning the national and regional roads that were used. Second,data on the location of workplaces had to be acquired on a case-

by-case basis as there are no consistent data sets on the location ofworkplaces. The results confirm that the method, which was devel-oped in two extreme cases, can be applied to other locations anddeliver reliable results.

ces to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the

60 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

Fig. 6. Territories-in-between (red) in the Tyrol.Background image: USGS, NPS, ESRI, TANA, AND. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Fig. 7. Territories-in between (in red): four examples in Europe: top left, parts of the Tyrol (Austria); on the bottom left-hand side, the area west of Lille (France), on the topright-hand side, parts of the Veneto (Italy) and finally on the bottom right-hand side, parts of South-Holland (The Netherlands). The green areas are rural areas, and the blackareas are urban. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 61

Table 3Comparison of characteristics of Territories-in-between and their wider regions.

Test areas Inhabitants total Inhabitants TiB Jobs total Jobs TiB Area total in km2 Area TiB in km2

33,09492,264

6

6

iertaie

tisT

Fa

South-Holland 3,450,488 2,267,898 (65%) 1,4The Tyrol 693,703 591,574 (85%) 2

. Discussion

.1. The importance of Territories-in-between

Having completed the analysis to define territories-in-betweenn the two test cases, it is possible to examine and compare thextent of these areas and their significance in their respectiveegions. The findings in Table 3 show that more than two thirds ofhe population live and/or work in these areas and the ratio of jobsnd population is higher than outside of Territories-in-betweenn both cases, mirroring the continuing spatial decentralisation ofconomic activity over recent decades.

The results broadly support that our understanding oferritories-in-between. In South Holland the number of people liv-

ng outside territories-in-between, both urban and rural, is veryignificant and equals the number of inhabitants of Rotterdam andhe Hague together. Considering the low rise nature of Dutch cities

ig. 8. A comparison of the territories-in-between classification (left) and the UMZ classreas in both cases.

1,102,561 (78%) 32,295 17,567 (54%) 241,404 (82%) 126,185 1366 (1%)

and comparably large areas of open space (like parks and canals)within them, the results confirm that the decision to start the selec-tion with a demographic aspect was appropriate. It ensures that thecity centres of The Hague and Delft for example are excluded. Thiswould not have been the case if the land cover category ‘discontin-uous urban’ was chosen as a starting point.

The spatial selection also shows areas that are characterisedby an intermingling of built and unbuilt which on the one handexcludes the larger parts of primarily agricultural areas within theDen Haag–Rotterdam metropolitan area in South-Holland; whileon the other, includes the rather small green ‘left-over spaces’within the alpine valleys in the Tyrol.

However, the most striking part of the mapping exercise is thatin both cases the resulting image is one of a network or web of

territories-in-between. This reflects their relational nature where,as explained in the literature (inter)connections are more relevantthan spatial proximities.

ification (right) in a 45 km per 45 km square showing the most densely inhabited

6 pe and

6

ctpsSoc

sIbrrcuwticso

ptsteacbw

sugbris

Cgdhitaroa

7

cbtacwmi

2 D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

.2. Evaluation of the proposed classification

In this section we compare our approach with the urban–rurallassification methods presented in Section 4 and discuss advan-ages as well as disadvantages. In the OECD classification the centralart of the Tyrol, which includes the state capital Innsbruck, is clas-ified as intermediate, while the rest of the state is classified as rural.outh-Holland is completely classified as predominantly urban. Thenly difference in the new EEA urban–rural typology is that theentral part of the Tyrol is classified as predominantly urban.

The method proposed in this paper gives a more detailed analy-is and mapping, as the results are not aggregated to NUTS 3 level.t therefore describes the complex pattern of urban, rural and in-etween areas much more clearly. We argue that this reflects theeality of urbanisation patterns in the test areas far more accu-ately than other methods. For example, the Inn-valley in the Tyrolan be described as a ribbon city, including parts of densely built-p and populated Innsbruck and other towns, but interminglingith agricultural land and other open spaces. The same is true for

he urbanisation pattern of South Holland that exhibits a complexntermingling of built and open land. Both the OECD and the EUlassifications do not represent these patterns well, instead theyhow either sharp transitions from urban to rural, as in the Tyrol,r define the whole area as urban, as in South Holland.

South-Holland was also used as a case study in the PLURELroject which developed a more sophisticated and detailed methodhan the OECD one. The comparison of the map in the synthe-is report (Piorr et al., 2011: 28) with our classification showswo major differences. First our classification shows a softerdge between urban areas and territories-in-between, while alsocknowledging that territories-in-between can be found withinities. The second major difference is that large parts of the har-our of Rotterdam are classified by the PLUREL approach as rural,hereas we classify these areas as territories-in-between.

The first difference may be explained by a diverging under-tanding of the structure of urbanised areas. Apparently, thenderstanding of peri-urban as a result of an urban centre to edgeradient was dominant within PLUREL. The second difference coulde either a result of using old or limited sets of land use data, oresulting from the fact that the working population is not includedn the PLUREL method. Both points indicate that the proposed clas-ification method here has advantages.

The urban morphological zones (UMZs) derived from theORINE land cover mapping do not share the disadvantage of aggre-ation to large administrative areas. Therefore, a closer look atifference, between the UMZ and the proposed method presentedere is shown in Fig. 8. The figure demonstrates that the inclusion of

nfrastructure offers significant benefits. The presence of infrastruc-ure is clearly a driving force of both urban development patternsnd the daily routines of life within territories-in-between. Thiselational aspect provides a glue-like function for spatial devel-pment of metropolitan regions and therefore is crucial to thenalysis.

. Conclusions

We started with the aim to develop a new territorial classifi-ation method, and in particular to unravel the complex relationetween urban and rural in territories-in-between. We have shownhat by using a combination of publicly available data on residentnd working population, CORINE land cover and infrastructure, we

an separate Territories-in-between from urban and rural areasith logical outcomes. The maps resulting from the classificationethod show the relational nature of many territories-in-between,

.e. the strong linkages of urbanisation with infrastructure.

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63

In conclusion we argue that the methods of the dominant terri-torial classifications have significant disadvantages, particularly indefining areas of great importance for Europe’s contemporary spa-tial development, the territories-in-between. The aggregation toNUTS 3 level may be convenient for administrations but it resultsin gross overgeneralisation, and does not consider detailed topo-graphic aspects. The higher grade of detail makes the new selectionmethod better suited to map, understand and therefore, to under-take planning and design tasks in territories-in-between. Urbandevelopment patterns are increasingly characterised by places thatare neither urban nor rural but ‘in-between’. Current territorialtypologies tend to be limited to shades of urban and rural that donot reflect the reality of urban development and are thus less use-ful in explaining the nature of spatial development and supportingspatial planning policy and action. A method of defining types ofterritory is needed that reflects the actual complex morphology ofbuilt and unbuilt land, mix of functions, and the connecting andseparating effects of infrastructure. The method reported here is afirst attempt to meet that objective. The testing of the method sug-gests that this general approach can be more widely applied andhas three advantages in making a typology of the territory: (i) itmaps the complexity of the spatial structure of urbanised areas ona regional scale, and thereby helps to overcome the prevalent ideathat urbanised regions are characterised by a spatial gradient fromurban centre(s) to rural periphery; (ii) it emphasises the networkstructure of territories-in-between and the underlying connectivityof places with different functions and intensities; and (iii) it raisesawareness that in some parts of Europe a settlement pattern hasdeveloped that cannot be understood as either urban or rural.

References

Andexlinger, W., Kronberger, P., Mayr, S., Nabielek, K., Ramière, C., & Staubmann, C.(2005). TirolCity. Vienna: Folio Verlag.

Barman-Krämer, G., Brandl, A., Unruh, P., Magnago Lampugnani, V., & Noell, M.(2007). Handbuch Zum Stadtrand: Gestaltungsstrategien Für Den SuburbanenRaum. In Manual for the city fringe: Design strategies for suburban area (GermanEdition). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A compact history. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Campi, M., Bucher, F., & Zardini, M. (2000). (Almost perfect peripher: Greater Zuricharea) Annähernd perfekte Peripherie: Glattalstadt/Greater Zurich Area (Germaned.). Basel: Birkhäuser.

Castells, M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanisation: Reflections on the spa-tial dynamics of the information age. Urban Studies, 47(13), 2737–2745.

Caves (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of the city. London/New York: Routledge.Couch, C., Leontidou, L., & Gerhard, P.-H. (Eds.). (2007). Urban sprawl in Europe:

Landscapes, land-use change & policy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Dessemontet, P., Kaufmann, V., & Jemelin, C. (2010). Switzerland as a single

metropolitan area? A study of its commuting network. Urban Studies, 47(13),2785–2802.

Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J., & Swanstrom, T. (2004). Place Matters: Metropolitics for theTwenty-first Century, 2nd rev. University Press of Kansas.

Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2010). European spatial planning and territorialcooperation. Routledge.

European Environment Agency. (2011). Analysing and managing urban growth. Avail-able at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/analysing-and-managing-urban-growth [accessed 06.06.14]

EUROSTAT. (2012). Urban–rural Typology. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics explained/index.php/Urban-rural typology [accessed06.06.14]

Fishman, R. (1990). Metropolis unbound: The new city of the twentieth century.Flux, 6(1), 43–55.

Forsyth, A. (2012). Defining suburbs. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(3), 270–281.Frijters, E., Hamers, D., Kurschner, J., Lorzing, H., Nabielek, K., Rutte, R., et al. (2004).

Tussenland (Inbetweenland). Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.Gallent, N., Shoard, M., Andersson, J., Oades, R., & Tudor, C. (2004). Inspiring

England’s Urban Fringes: Multi-Functionality and Planning. Local Environment,9(3), 217–233.

Gallent, N., Bianconi, M., & Andersson, J. (2006). Planning on the edge: England’s

rural – urban fringe and the spatial-planning agenda. Environment and PlanningB: Planning and Design, 33(3), 457–476.

Galster, G., et al. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuringan elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate-Washington, 12(4), 681–718.

Garreau, J. (1991). Edge city: Life on the new frontier. Doubleday.

pe and

G

H

H

I

L

L

L

MM

OOP

P

S

Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: Blurring boundaries and making connections.Progress in Human Geography.

D.I. Alexander Wandl et al. / Landsca

raham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. Routledge.

all, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regionsin Europe. Earthscan Ltd.

uhlmann, F., & Promski, M. (2007). Assessing contemporary cultural landscapes.In ECLAS conference.

ndovina, F. (Ed.). (1990). La città diffusa (The diffuse city). Venezia: Dipartimento diAnalisi Economica e Sociale del Territorio,. Istituto Universitario di Architettura.

e Galès, P., & Zagrodzki, M. (2010). Cities are back in town: The US/Europe comparison,Paris.

e Jeannic, T., & Vidalenc, J. (1997). Pôles urbains et périurbanisation: le zonage en airesurbaines (Urban centers and peri-urbanization: the urban zoning), Insee-Pientière,n◦ 516.

ouis, H. (1936). Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin. In W. PANZER (Ed.),Krebs-Festschrift. Stutgart: Engelhorn.

crit. (2010). Urban and rural narratives and spatail development, Barcelona.ikelbank, B. a. (2004). A typology of U.S. suburban places. Housing Policy Debate,

15(4), 935–964.ECD. (2010). OECD regional typology.swald, F., Baccini, P., & Michaeli, M. (2003). Netzstadt: Designing the urban. Springer.assarge, S. (1968). (City-landscapes of the Earth) Stadtlandschaften der Erde. De

Gruyter.iorr, A., Ravetz, J., & Tosics, I. (Eds.). (2011). Peri-urbanisation in europe. Copenhagen:

Forest & Landscape University of Copenhagen.cholz, J. (2009). Rural Regions in Europe. A new typology based on regional develop-

ment potentials. Hannover: RUFUS.

Urban Planning 130 (2014) 50–63 63

Secchi, B. (1991). La periferia. Casabella, 583.Sieverts, T. (2001). Zwischenstadt zwischen Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit,

Stadt und Land. (Cities without Cities). verb. Gütersloh [u.a.]: BertelsmannFachzeitschriften.

Sieverts, T., & Bölling, B. (Eds.). (2004). Mitten am Rand. Auf dem Weg von der Vorstadtueber die Zwischenstadt zur regionalen Stadtlandschaft (Right on the edge. Fromsuburb via the cities without cities towards the regional cityscapes). Wuppertal:Verlag Müller + Busmann KG.

US Census Bureau. (2013). 2010 census urban and rural classification and urbanarea criteria. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html. Accessed 06.06.14

Viganò, P. (2001). Territori della nuova modernità Provincia di Lecce. In Assessoratoalla gestione territoriale: Piano territoriale di coordinamento = Territories of a newmodernity. Electa: Napoli.

Wandl, (2010) ‘Territories in between’: A comparative permeability study of twoEuropean regions between urban and rural - local and global; final Thesis EMU-TU Delft, Netherlands.

Webber, M. M. (1998). The joys of spread-city. Urban Design International, 3(4),201–206.

Zonneveld, W., & Stead, D. (2007). European territorial cooperation and theconcept of urban–rural relationships. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3),439–453.