iaus.ac.rsiaus.ac.rs/upload/download/monografije/turas_1.pdf · t t u r a s ransitioning towards...

T U R A S TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

1

FFOO RR MMSS OO FF UU RR BB AANN

GG RR OO WW TT HH II NN

SSOOUUTTHHEEAASSTT EEUURROOPPEE::

TT RR AA NN SS II TT II OO NN II NN GG

TT OO WW AA RR DD SS UU RR BB AA NN

RR EE SS II LL II EE NN CC EE AA NN DD

SS UU SS TT AA II NN AA BB II LL II TT YY

VVOOLLUUMMEE 11

Edited by

Atanas Kovachev Aleksandar D. Slaev

Diliana Daskalova

Varna Free University “Chernorizets Hrabar”

Institute of Architecture and

Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia


Edited by

Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev and Diliana Daskalova

Copiright:

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.

This book has been prepared and published with the financial support by the European Union FP7-ENV.2011.2.1.5-1 (TURAS Project) Grant Agreement no. 282834. Information about the TURAS Project is available on the Internet at http://www.turas-cities.org/

Citation

Kovachev, A., A.D. Slaev, and D. Daskalova, 2016. Forms of Urban Growth in Southeast Europe: Transitioning Towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability. Varna: Varna Free University.

Printed by

Reklama consult EOOD

18 “Zhelezni vrata” St, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria

ISBN 978-954-305-428-2

Published by

Varna Free University “Chernorizets Hrabar”

KK “Chaika”, Varna 9007, Bulgaria

in cooperation with

Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia

Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

2


3

Content

Foreword .................................................................................................................... 7

1. Urban Growth and Urbanization on Sofiа, Belgrade and Rome: the Interaction between Urban Planning and the Market – A. Kovachev, A.D. Slaev, P. Nikolov, D. Daskalova, M. Vujošević, S. Zeković, J. Petrić, N. Krunić, T. Maričić, T. Bajić, M. Salvemini, L. Berardi ..................... 13

1.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 15

1.2. Processes of expansion in Sofia, Rome and Belgrade – urban growth or sprawl? ......................................................................................................... 19

1.2.1. Comparison of population dynamics in urbanized areas in Sofia, Rome and Belgrade ..................................................................................... 21

1.2.2 Demographic trends in central and peripheral areas ................................... 27

1.3. Preferences of the population – market demand as a major determinant of urban development ....................................................................................... 39

1.3.1. Historical development in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome and the formation of a specific type of market demand .......................................... 39

1.3.2. Analysis of current residential preferences and motives of in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome ..................................................................................... 45

1.4. Availability of lands for urbanization in suburban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome .......................................................................................... 57

1.4.1. Geographical, historical and other local factors governing the availability and accessibility of land for expansion of urban structures ..................................................................................................... 57

1.4.2. Legislation and national / regional system planning and regulation of land supply / access to land resources .................................................... 62

1.4.3. Provisions made in general/ master plans and access to land resources ..................................................................................................... 78

1.4.4. Results of the interaction between market and urban planning and current trends in market processes in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome regarding the development of peripheral and suburban areas and urban sprawl ................................................................................................ 95


4

1.5. Conclusions on the role of urban planning in regulating the processes of urban growth in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome and guidelines for developing specific rules and regulations ...................................................... 119

1.5.1. Sofia .......................................................................................................... 119

1.5.2. Belgrade .................................................................................................... 122

1.5.3. Rome ......................................................................................................... 127

2. Policy Recommendations: Regulations Aimed at Promoting Sustaunable and Resilient Urban Growth .................................................... 137

2.1. Proposal for measures and rules aimed to regulate the processes of uncontrolled expansion and urban sprawl in suburban areas of sofia metropolitan municipality – A.D. Slaev and A. Kovachev ................ 139

2.1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 139

2.1.2. Objectives and measures for optimization of the urbanization processes in suburban areas of Sofia metropolitan municipality and limiting sprawl-shaped urban expansion .................................................. 139

2.1.3. Proposal for the zoning of Sofia municipality suburban territory. Determination of taxation and municipal fees as tools for optimizing urbanization processes and limiting sprawl-shaped urban expansion in suburban areas of the metropolitan municipality .............................................................................................. 153

2.2. Preparation of planning and development regulations concerning peripheral territories of the city of Rome – M. Salvemini and L. Berardi ............................................................................................................ 169

2.2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 169

2.2.2 . Proposed measure ..................................................................................... 170

2.2.3. Conclusive considerations ........................................................................ 174

3. Policy Recommendations: Fiscal Zoning Tools Promoting Sustainable Urban Growth and Regulating Urban Sprawl ........................ 177

3.1. Fiscal zoning tools for balancing urban expansion – A. Kovachev and A.D. Slaev ............................................................................................... 179

3.2. Local charges and taxes as payments for ecosystem services – A.D. Slaev and A. Kovachev .................................................................................. 183

3.2.1. Classifications of ecosystem services ....................................................... 183

3.2.2 . Application of the market price method to estimate the value of provisioning services of lands in Sofia’s suburban areas.......................... 188


5

3.2.3. Application of a cost-based method to estimate the value of the habitat services of lands in Sofia’s suburban areas ................................... 192

3.2.4. Methodological arguments for assessment of the value of ecosystem services of lands in Sofia’s suburban areas ............................. 195

3.3. Cost assessment of suburban infrastructure development – Y. Lyubenov ....................................................................................................... 199

3.3.1. Value of the technical infrastructure ......................................................... 200

3.3.2 . Value of the social infrastructure .............................................................. 209

3.3.3. Total value of infrastructure...................................................................... 212

3.4. Fiscal zoning tools for regulation of suburban development – A.D. Slaev and A. Kovachev .................................................................................. 213

3.4.1. Layer structure of the system of fiscal zoning .......................................... 213

3.4.2 . Monitoring and dynamic management ..................................................... 219

4. Working Papers and Research Reports ........................................................ 223

4.1. Demographic development of the districts of Sofia – A. Kovachev and A.D. Slaev ............................................................................................... 225

4.2. Study of Sofia residents’ preferences and motivations regarding peri-urban development – A.D. Slaev and A. Kovachev ........................... 229

4.3. Survey of Bulgarian (national) planning and regulation acts and documents concerning urban sprawl – P. Nikolov .................................... 241

3.4. Population and urban growth in the outskirts of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome – P. Nikolov ................................................................................. 251

3.5. Polycentricity as an instrument of balanced development in the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia – Y. Lyubenov ....................... 279

3.6. The role of public transport for sustainable urban development – H. Topchiev .................................................................................................... 297


6


7

Foreword

This book presents the results of research conducted within Work Package 5 of the TURAS project. TURAS (Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability) is a five year Project under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union.

The “TURAS” Project works towards finding solutions to major challenges faced by European cities. These challenges refer to cities’ vulnerability to threats resulting from accelerated resource consumption and environmental change which greatly impact surrounding landscapes and the communities therein. The key challenge identified by TURAS is the need for European cities “to devise holistic transition strategies that are tailored to the needs of all stakeholders; strategies that are flexible, adaptive and applicable across urban regions and scales”. Respectively, the main goal of the Project is to address the urgent challenges of:

climate change adaptation and mitigation; natural resources shortage; unsustainable urban growth.

The Project aims to bring together urban communities, researchers, local authorities and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to research, develop, demonstrate and disseminate transition strategies and scenarios to enable European cities and their rural interfaces to build vitally-needed resilience in the face of significant sustainability challenges.

The project is structured in Work Packages, each package dealing with a specific challenge:

- geospatial infrastructure for urban resilience,

- development of green public and private infrastructure,


8

- urban regeneration,

- limiting urban sprawl,

- short-circuit urban economies,

- resilient city planning and climate-neutral infrastructure.

The new approaches and new measures developed by the TURAS Project seek to enable adaptive governance, collaborative decision-making and behavioural changes promoting sustainability and resilience of European cities. In the course of the five year duration of the project, the feasibility of the proposed approaches and measures is being tested and will be tested further in selected case study areas and neighbourhoods. Simultaneously, their impact is measured and results are compared between participating cities; thus, finally, a set of strategies and tools is being developed for demonstration, dissemination and exploitation by other European cities. SMEs are highly involved in all work packages and phases of the project. To this end specific measures have been put in place to ensure the optimal economic impact of the project is achieved. The diagram bellow illustrates the methodology employed by the TURAS Project.

Figure 0.1: Methodology of the TURAS approach

Lead partner of the “TURaS” project is the University College Dublin, Ireland.

The rest partners of TURaS are: the University of East London, IVM Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije, Belgrade, Aalborg University, Denmark, University of Stuttgart, Varna Free University, Bulgaria, University of Ljubljana, Sapienza University, Rome, BIM/IBGE, Brussels, Dublin City Council, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, Barking Riverside Ltd., London, Commune di Roma, Nottingham Development Enterprise, Sevilla Global, Seville, Municipality of Rotterdam, Verband Region Stuttgart, RRA LUR, Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Sofia Municipality, Dermot Foley Landscape Architects, Dublin, BIOAZUL S.L., Málaga, Spain, Institute for Sustainability, London, BIC


9

Lazio SpA, Rome, European Business Network, Dublin - Brussels, Climate Alliance, Frankfurt, PRACSIS, Brussels, and Helix Pflanzen GmbH, Kornwestheim.

Work Package 5 of the TURAS Project Work Package 5 of the TURAS Project explores the problems of sustainable

and resilient development of the cities in Eastern and South-east Europe on the examples of Sofia and Belgrade and their urban regions. The research draws comparisons to the forms, patterns and mechanisms of development of cities in Western/Northern and Southern Europe. For this purpose Work Package 5 also investigates the growth/expansion trend of Rome. The main goals of Work Package 5 are, therefore,

to conduct detailed studies of the physical, economic, demographic, social, and market trends in the peri-urban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome and their urban regions,

to identify the important characteristics and to evaluate these processes, to outline is their positive aspects and drawbacks, particularly regarding sustainability of urban and regional development,

to propose relevant measures to regulate urban sprawl and stimulate forms of urban growth that help cities through enhancing their resilience to cope with the challenges of development.

Seven partners from four European countries take part in Work Package 5:

Varna Free University "Chernorizets Hrabar” (VFU) – lead partner of the Work Package, with members of the research team Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev (WP5 leader), Ivan Nikiforov, Doncho Konakchiev, Diliana Daskalova, Peter Nikolov, Yordan Lyubenov and Hristo Topchiev,

The Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia (IAUS) with members of the research team Miodrag Vujošević, Slavka Zeković, Jasna Petrić, Tamara Maričić, Nikola Krunić, and Tanja Bajić,

La Sapienza University of Rome with members of th research e team Mauro Salvamini and Laura Berardi,

University of Ljubljana with members of the research team Nataša Pichler-Milanović and Robert Rijavec,

Sofia Metropolitan Municipality with members of the research team Boika Kadreva, Georgetta Rafailova, Zlatko Terziev and Beata Tzoneva,

The City of Rome (Commune di Roma) with members of the research team Claudio Baffioni, Stefano Vallocchia, Maurizio Odorico and Monica Mendozza, and

BIC Lazio with members of the research team Luca Polizzano and Mariella Iunnissi


10

The lead partners of TURAS – University College Dublin also has substantial contribution to Work Package 5 research, especially Zorica Nedovic-Budic (Principal Investigator of the Project supervising Work Package 5) and Marcus Collier (Principal Investigator and leader of the TURAS Project), and the University of Stuttgart – lead partner of Work Package 7 “Integrated Transition Strategy”.

The main research tasks executed by Work Package 5 in the course of the five years of realisation of the Project are:

Survey of city residents’ preferences, attitudes and motives for specific residential choices – The goal of this survey is to study in more detail the underlying preferences and attitudes of city residents in order to understand their motives and the reasons for specific residential choices. In the cases of Sofia and Belgrade this is related to the process of post-communist transition; in the case of Rome it is the aspirations linked to the country's movement toward advanced consumer society.

Survey of planning documents - standards, norms, plans and strategies, planning policies, etc. Two groups of planning document are studied for each of the participating cities:

- relevant legislation, regulations, norms - national and local - regional and local planning strategies, master plans and zoning concerning

the investigated cities currently operating (in force)

Application of MOLAND information technology (Monitoring Land Use / Cover Dynamics) – Within this task the physical characteristics of urban growth are studied by using GIS techniques and GIS data from the European Environment Agency in order to understand and to predict future factors and the trends of urban development in terms of land use changes, development and population densities with regard, particularly, to an overall effect of urban expansion

Market Analysis – Supply and Demand of land in central and peripheral urban areas – This includes investigating the factors of supply of land - availability, ownership and cost in the centres of compact urban territories and in the peripheral areas - open territories and in potential nodes of development; demand for land - forecasted growth of population, trends, forecasted changes in prevailing urban forms and densities and analysis of the market process - land transaction and development process and assessment of the rates of market development. Specific market meaning of preferences and attitudes of the population; meaning of planning regulations and their effect on the market process.

Study of the role and efficiency of nodes in a polycentric urban system - shortening commuting distances by matching jobs to residence – This research task includes: study of the main aspect of nodes' efficiency - shortening commuting distances by matching jobs to residences, Study aimed at evaluating the benefits and impact on urban ecological footprint of the decentralization of the City of Rome's offices and a study on the impact of the sustainable forms of transport.

Preparation of planning and development regulations concerning peripheral territories;


11

Based on the conclusions of the survey of planning documents and market analysis conducted, and the results of the survey of city residents preferences, attitudes and motives a proposal for planning and development regulations has been prepared for the peripheral territories of the investigated cities. These regulations concern physical dimensions and development factors, but also rules and requirements forming the framework of urban processes providing compactness and resilience of urban forms.

Development of indicators and assessment tools for monitoring urban and urban-market development – This research task includes the elaboration of two systems of indicators: first, a system of quantitative indicators to monitor urban growth and to assess the effect of the proposed planning regulations and, second, a system of indicators to predict and to monitor the effects on daily trips of citizens to reach workplaces and back to home, on C02 and pollutants saving, on traffic congestion, on social benefits like time saving, more intensive use of quarter services and higher attention towards its own neighbourhood.

Evaluation of short-term results and further development of the system of regulations - The final objective of Work Package 5 is to develop effective monitoring and assessment tools for -ex ante and ex post policy evaluations, criteria and indicators and recommendations on managing urban sprawl which will be demonstrated in the participating cities of the TURaS project network and in a wider European context.


12


13

11.. UURRBBAANN GGRROOWWTTHH AANNDD SSUUBBUURRBBAANNIIZZAATTIIOONN

IINN SSOOFFIIAA,, BBEELLGGRRAADDEE AANNDD RROOMMEE:: TTHHEE IINNTTEERRAACCTTIIOONN BBEETTWWEEEENN

UURRBBAANN PPLLAANNNNIINNGG AANNDD TTHHEE MMAARRKKEETT

Authors of all parts on Sofia:

Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev,

Diliana Daskalova and Peter Nikolov

Authors of the parts on Belgrade concerning the processes of expansion and the factors of market demand (sections 2 and 3):

Jasna Petrić, Nikola Krunić and Tanja Bajić

Authors of the parts on Belgrade concerning the availability of land and the conclusions on the role of urban planning (sections 4 and 5):

Slavka Zeković, Miodrag Vujošević and Tamara Maričić

Authors of all parts on Rome:

Mauro Salvemini and Laura Berardi

Authors of the Introduction and all general comments:

Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev and Diliana Daskalova


14


15

1.1. Introduction

Over the past decades, cities around the world are experiencing accelerating and increasingly more complex processes of expansion. For 40 years the world's population grew by three-quarters - from 3 billion in 1975 to 7 billion today (Wu et al., 2011). In the same period, however, the world’s urban population grew more than 2.5 times - from 1.5 billion to over 3.7 billion (World Health Organization, 2009). Urban growth in such scales inevitably generates expansion and expansion takes different forms that have their important implications in all areas of human development. Accelerated expansion of cities is evident in Europe as well. The continent's share of the urban population is already more than 75 percent.

Nowadays the process of expansion of cities in many parts of the world and Europe in particular is characterized by accelerated trends of suburbanisation. Suburbanisation is defined as growth of urban functions in peri-urban territories and is generally indicated by increases in the number of population in those territories at the expense of delayed or negative trends in central areas (Fee and Hartley, 2011).

Furthermore, modern suburbanization often takes the form of urban sprawl (Daskalova and Slaev, 2015). As Salvati notes (2014, p. 2), at the city level suburbanization trends are often characterised by a “large imbalance between a place's spatial expansion and its population change (where the former increases much more rapidly than the latter)”. Two already “classical” definitions are those of Brueckner (2000) and Ewing at al. (2002). Brueckner defines sprawl as “excessive spatial growth of cities”. According to Ewing at al. (2002, p.3) sprawl is “the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth”. According to a more detailed definition by the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2006, p.6) sprawl is "the leading edge of urban growth”, which is characterised by development that is “patchy, scattered and strung out, with a tendency for discontinuity. It leap-frogs over areas, leaving agricultural enclaves. Sprawling cities are the opposite of compact cities - full of empty spaces that indicate the inefficiencies in development and highlight the consequences of uncontrolled growth “.

Processes of urban sprawl have been observed in North American cities yet in the first half of the twentieth century, but accelerated after World War II (Jackson, 1985). In the post-war period, similar trends are observed in the western and northern parts of Europe (Lupi and Musterd, 2006) parallel with those in North America or with some delay. To describe historical trends the EEA (2006, p. 5) states that “European cities were more compact and less sprawled in the mid-1950s than they are today, and urban sprawl is now a common phenomenon throughout


16

Europe. Moreover, there is no apparent slowing in these trends”. With regard to the drivers of expansion, suburbanization and sprawl in the post-war period and in recent decades, the EEA (p. 6) recognizes that “the growth of cities has been driven by increasing urban population”. However, in Europe today, even where there is little or no population pressure, a variety of factors are still driving sprawl. These are rooted in the desire to realise new lifestyles in suburban environments, outside the inner city.”

Important for this study is the fact researchers consider sprawl an inefficient form of urban expansion with multiple drawbacks that pose serious threats to the environment and sustainable development (e.g., Nivola, 1998; Couch et al., 2007; Munafo et al., 2010; Salvati et al., 2012 – to name but a few). To Laidley (2015, p. 2) sprawl is an “urban pathology, a signifier of unchecked development which consumes an excess of resources through land speculation and low-density dispersion”. Researchers criticize sprawling urban forms for high car dependence, poor non-automotive access to jobs and services, high levels of social segregation and, above all, overconsumption of rural and virgin land (grasslands and woodlands) and natural resources (EEA, 2006; Chin, 2002; Galster et al., 2001; Ewing et al., 2002, Couch et al, 2007). The EEA (p. 10) notes that during the ten year period 1990–2000 urban sprawl and associated development of roads and infrastructure throughout Europe “consumed more than 8 000 km2 (a 5.4 % increase during the period), equivalent to complete coverage of the entire territory of the state of Luxembourg”. Other identified drawbacks of sprawl are the poor mix of uses, lack of retails and service centres integrated with housing areas, and poor pedestrian accessibility (Ewing et al. 2002).

Another important to this research factor is the relative variety of forms of urban expansion in Europe compared to that in North America. The “classical” type of sprawling suburbanization, characterized by low-densities, dispersed scattered or leap-frogging patterns, generated by the flight of the middle and upper classes from the centre to the periphery (Fishman, 1987) is only one of the forms of expansion observed in the Old Continent. A second type is sprawl caused by immigrants who came to the city from agricultural areas and smaller cities in search of livelihood (Korcelli, 1990). This flow is another driver of growth on the urban periphery, but the main motive of these immigrants is the cheaper suburban land; thus the resulting housing patterns are characterized by relatively higher densities. Similar to the third type, yet characterized by different housing patterns and different urban environment, is the development of peripheral settlements as a result of spontaneous (illegal) housing construction (Nedovic Budic, 2001, Nedovic-Budic and Tsenkova; Tsenkova, 2012). A fourth type of suburbanisation/sprawl characteristic of cities in Southern European is the one generated by movement to the urban fringe of both more affluent new settlers as well as residents of lower layers (Leontidou, 1990, Leontidou et al., 2007; EEA, 2006; Zitti et al., 2015). Finally in many Eastern and Southeast European cities a fifth type of peripheral and suburban development can be observed – that of the “socialist suburbia” – the large real estates of prefab housing developed in the socialist period (Hirt and Kovachev, 2006; Daskalova and Slaev, 2015). Though the urban landscape of most of these estates has changed over


17

the past two decades, they still form a considerable part of the urban fringe of cities in the region.

In the former communist countries in central and eastern parts of the continent, the process of suburbanisation and sprawl started with some delay. It was the end of the Soviet period in the early 90s of the twentieth century that marked the beginning of modern suburbanisation in Eastern Europe, The process was first manifested in Central Europe and the Baltic countries. EEA (2006) finds that whereas “clusters of compact cities are also evident in the former socialist countries of central and eastern Europe [...] [t]oday, these cities are facing the same threats of rapid urban sprawl as the southern European cities as the land market is liberated, housing preferences evolve, improving economic prospects create new pressures for low density urban expansion, and less restrictive planning controls prevail ". Jansons (2011, p. 51) states that “the establishment of market economy and liberal planning system after the breakdown of the Soviet Union have resulted in low political priority being given to long-term spatial planning. This has created preconditions for urban sprawl”. According to Krisjane and Berzins (2012, p. 302), since the beginning of the transitional period “suburban growth during the transition period in these countries is linked with the development of new residential areas and considerable in-migration flows”.

Trends of accelerated suburbanisation have been observed in Southeast Europe a little later than in Central Europe and the Baltic states, so they have been less explored. In comparison to research on the processes in Central Europe and the Baltics, the trends of suburbanisation in Southeast Europe thus far have been studied by a smaller number of researchers such as Nedovic-Budic and Tsenkova (2006), Nedovic-Budic et al (2012), Hirt (2007), Slaev and Kovachev (2014), Zeković et al (2016). Because of the insufficient level of research on suburbanization in Southeast Europe, it is not possible to achieve consensus on how these processes are similar to or different from the processes in the Western, Northern, Central and Southern Europe. This is an important question because the proper identification of the type of suburbanisation in the region would help define relevant policy measures to steer and regulate urban development. However, the difficulties of finding the answer to this question are underlined by the findings of some researchers (e.g., Daskalova and Sleaev, 2015; Slaev and Nikiforov, 2013) concerning the specific character of suburbanisation in Southeast Europe. Pichler-Milanovic (2008, pp. 18-19), for instance, explores some differences in the specifics of urban development throughout Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. In distinguishing between different factors for these trends, Pichler-Milanovic finds that “cultures of urbanism in Southern Europe have created compact cities in combination with infrastructure-related urban sprawl after long periods of informal suburbanisation as a means to survival (e.g., Athens)” and “state controlled/induced sprawl in Central and Eastern Europe has deconstructed the compact city/pastoral landscape dualism through the development of new suburban landscapes, which are usually not only residential after 1990s (e.g., Leipzig, Ljubljana). The role of central and new local governments (municipalities, regions) with regards to the sprawling process varies between and within Central- East and South-East European societies (e.g., illegal sprawl)”.


18

In exploring the specifics of suburbanization in Southeast Europe, the present study draws a comparison to suburban trends in Southern Europe. There are two reasons for this comparison. First reason is the geographic closeness. Second is the similarity of certain aspects of urban development, which imply possible similarities in the trends. Indeed urban densities in South-east Europe are generally similar to those in Central Europe, Germany and France (Bertaud, 2004), whereas densities in most Mediterranean cities are much higher, but the compact forms on the urban periphery, the well-defined urban fringe is a common feature of the Southeast European and many Southern cities. Whereas virtually all studies of suburbanization trends in the post-socialist countries in Central Europe and the Baltics have found numerous similarities of these trends to the trends in the Western countries, Daskalova and Slaev (2015) observe that certain characteristics of Southeast European suburbanization deviate from the “classical” western model. It should be noted that deviations from the “classical” western model have been observed in many Southern/Mediterranean cities too (Leontidou, 2007, Tombolini et al., 2013). That is why the present research is a comparative exploration of peri-urban trends in two Southeast European cities and one Southern/Mediterranean – Sofia, Belgrade and Rome.

Therefore, the goal of this research is to explore the characteristics of suburbanization and urban sprawl in the cities of Southeast Europe and to identify whether the trends observed should be referred to other European types of suburbanization. How does the heritage form the period of state socialism influence the expansion of these cities today? Are the processes on the urban fringe of Southeast-European cities similar to those observed in Western and Northern Europe, as is sprawl in the post-communist cities of Central Europe and the Baltics? Or should those trends be considered more of the Southern European Type? These are the questions that the present study explores and proposes answers to.


19

1.2.Processesofexpansion inSofia,RomeandBelgrade–urbangrowthorsprawl?

Two concepts that are fundamental to resilience in urban development will be the topic of this study. The first concept is related to the capacity of large cities to be incubators of socio-economic advancement. Indeed, cities have oft been compared to locomotives of regional development. The second concept deals with the negative perception of urban sprawl. Sprawl is a process that has been criticized for excessive consumption of natural resources (such as land, biodiversity and energy), automobile dependence and arbitrary or ill-suited zoning regulations, which render city suburbs into “bedroom-zones.” Unchecked sprawl has also been blamed for thwarting town centers, public services and inflaming social segregation. While the first concept affirms the benefits of population growth for competitive cities, the second underscores the criticisms held against certain forms of urban expansion.

We acknowledge that population growth of cities is virtually always associated with territorial expansion. The two extremes of territorial expansion (modes of growth) are compact growth and urban sprawl. On one end is perfectly compact growth, where total residents increase more than total area. On the other end, sprawl results in territorial increases that eclipse the total growth of residents. Thus, the relationship between residents and urban area is a relevant measure for the following analysis urban growth in the case study cities Sofia, Belgrade and Rome.

An appropriate model for sprawl-shaped growth is that of a cone of sand that spills onto the surrounding area and in the process leads to enlargement of the surrounding (occupied) terrain and simultaenous reduction in the height/density of the center of the cone, as cited by Couch et al in “Urban Sprawl in Europe” (2007). The following graphs further illuminate the difference between the two alternative modes of growth.

The figures below set residential density as a function of distance from the city center. Sprawl-shaped expansion is characterized by a decreasing gradient in the density of occupation (Figure 1.1) while consistent gradient indicates compact growth (Figure 1.2). The first indication of sprawl is a mean increase in population and growth of an urban area. In order to determine roughly that growth is compact, the percentage increase in population must be greater than the square of the percentage of territorial expansion. Due to the many intricate geographical, economic, social, etc. factors involved however, the application of detailed formulas is rather conditional. Even far-reaching research projects on sprawl in Europe (such as URBS PANDENS, 2003-2005) adhere to simple criteria, such as the most basic


20

comparison between population growth and that of urban area. Thus, comparing the marginal expansion of city territory to the marginal growth of population will be the fundamental method of comparison for this study urban form.

Figure 1.1: Gradient of population density typical of compact urban

growth

Figure 1.2: Gradient of population density typical of urban sprawl

The population dynamics between central and suburban areas or in other words, the ratio of central to suburban growth provides us with a second criterion to explore the form of suburbanization. Here again, we can look at the difference between the two models of development presented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The compact development pattern (Figure 1.1) is characterized by positive urban growth in all urban areas. In contrast, sprawl (Figure 1.2) is characterized by negative growth in the number of residents in central city areas and positive growth in the periphery and suburban areas. Therefore, the second method to determine urban form will be a comparison between growth exhibited in suburban populations against the growth of central populations.

Another area of distinction between sprawl and compact developments is the driving forces behind them. While urban expansion can be generated by many, different processes, there are typically two causes for suburban sprawl. The first, typical of modern western suburbanization, is driven by middle and upper class residents moving from central urban areas to the city’s outskirts in pursuit of higher residential standards. Respectively, this type of suburbanization is characterized by high quality housing with large plots and low densities, abundant and lush landscaping. Further in the text, we refer to this type of urban expansion as “middle and upper class suburbanization” or “type 1”. In contrast, the second distinguishable type of suburbanization is generated by migration of new urban citizens from smaller urban areas or rural areas to big cities in pursuit of livelihood. These residents usually settle on the urban fringe because suburban land is cheaper than urban land. They typically settle in smaller plots to economize the price of land even further. Therefore, this type of suburbanization is characterized by relatively high


21

residential densities. Throughout the rest of the text, we refer to this type of urban expansion as “suburbanization caused by rural-to-urban migration” or “type 2”.

1.2.1. Comparison of population dynamics inurbanizedareasinSofia,BelgradeandRomeResearch questions: - Is the marginal (in percentage) increase in the number

of residents equal, larger or smaller than the marginal (in percentage) increase of the urbanized territories in the cities Sofia, Rome and Belgrade?

How do growth rates (demographic trends, housing development) on the urban fringe correlate to growth rates in central areas? Is suburban growth greater or less than the growth experienced in the centre?

Sofia The town of Sofia has existed for more than two thousand years and has always

been a centre of regional importance. It was a Thracian settlement as early as the 7th century B.C. and in the 3rd century A.D.; it was the capital of Dacia Mediterranea. However, the modern city only experienced considerable population growth after it became the capital of Bulgaria, once the country gained its independence from the Turkish Empire. In 1879, the year the city was proclaimed the capital, the population was only about 20 000.

Until the end of the 1980’s, Sofia experienced remarkable growth: in 60 years (by 1939) the population grew by 380,000 (20 times) and in the next 46 years (by 1985) by another 900,000. By then, the number of residents had grown to 1,200,000. It is informative to note how municipal authorities as well as the public perceived this growth. Their views are manifested in the main master plans for Sofia in the XX century. The most widely discussed master plan before World War II was the one prepared by the German architect Adolf Muesmann. The municipal authorities commissioned Muesmann to elaborate a plan that (Kovachev, 2005) “should not expand the city’s territory, but – on the contrary – compress it, because a population of 300 thousand, at that time, or 600 thousand, in the future, could not afford investing in the improvement of urban utilities [infrastructure] on such a large scale”.

After World War II, changes in socio-economic conditions required a new policy of development. Within the next year, another master plan was prepared and approved (State Gazette, December 1945). By that time, Sofia had reached half a million residents. The new plan forecasted population growth of 300,000 new residents over the next 20 years. Actual population growth in fact exceeded these expectations and just a decade later, population growth had reached 720,000. With respect to the study of Work Package 5, it is important to note that this plan was the first to introduce the concept of a polycentric urban structure.

In 1956 the Council of Ministers declared a competition for the preparation of a new general plan. The plans of two teams became popular, after the names of the team leaders – Neikov and Siromahov. The Neikov plan envisaged compact population growth and accommodated for 1,050,000 inhabitants (prognosis for 1980) within the compact city of Sofia through densification of the urban fabric. While the


22

number of inhabitants was to grow, the territory was to remain the same and even to shrink in some locations. On the contrary – the plan of Siromahov supported the ideas for urban expansion and development of a polycentric type. New housing estates of a socialist type were to be built upon undeveloped lands in the city’s outskirts (Labov 2000, Hirt 2005).

The Neikov plan was approved and adopted in 1961. Although this plan was formally in force for more than 40 years, it was not in fact the plan that was implemented on the ground. Aspects of this plan were weakened by amendments passed after its adoption. The deviation from the Neikov plan was fuelled primarily by still greater increases of unforeseen population growth. Ongoing socialist industrialization boosted rural migration to cities and urbanization, resulting in pressure on the housing supply. City authorities, who retained strict control over housing development, implemented high occupancy prefabricated housing blocks to meet this high demand. These large scale prefabricated housing complexes required ample space, quantities which were only available in the urban periphery. Nearly half (more precisely - 47.3 percent) of Sofia’s existing housing stock was built during the socialist-era rapid prefab construction which took place between 1970 and 1990 (NSI, 2012). (See Figure 1.32 in section 1.4.4.) Therefore, it is ultimately the Siromahov plan - with its vast, peripheral “socialist suburbs,” which characterized s the capital city today.

In order to determine whether the territorial enlargement that occurred during socialism is urban sprawl, two main questions should be answered:

What was the density of the peripheral neighborhoods compared to the historical densitities in the city?

Was the city expanded continuously and uniformly?

The answers give grounds to classify Sofia’s urban expansion of 1970s and 1980s as a process of growth rather than sprawl. The average gross population density in the peripheral housing estates varies between 80 and 150 inhabitants per hectare. That is several times higher than what is considered “typical” sprawl. Furthermore, socialist estates are relatively compact, continuous with the preexisting urban fabric and with clear-cut urban rim (Hirt, 2007). They thus have little in common with “leapfrogging” and scattered development forms characteristic of urban sprawl. To conclude, despite the implementation of the Siromahov plan, Sofia’s urban structure throughout the 20th century is typified by compactness and high densities, permeating from the city center to the urban fringe.

Belgrade The Belgrade metropolitan region (the City of Belgrade), which functionally

connects the Vojvodina - Panonia - Danube area and the middle Balkan part of Serbia, has always held a distinctive position and status in the country. It was only after the World War II, and especially after the 1960s, that Belgrade experienced a true economic and demographic boom. This boom would initiate the suburbanization process. At this time, Le Corbusier’s concept of urban development was applied to the expansion of Belgrade on the left bank of the river Sava (New


23

Belgrade). This development followed to a great extent the example of other socialist metropolises; a lack of housing space initiated the construction of multistory buildings, which eventually yielded high population densities. This type of development also fostered land-use separation between places of work, living and leisure, typically concentrating places of work in the urban core.

From a demographic point of view, the Belgrade metropolitan region has grown over 2.6 times (from 634,003 to 1,659,440 or 1,025,437 inhabitants) in the period between 1948-2011 (predominantly through to 1990). In the analysed period, the administrative area of the City of Belgrade has grown from the 52 settlements of the City of Belgrade and Belgrade County (Beogradski Srez) in 1948 to the present 166 settlements, out of which 27 are urban and the other 139, so-called ‘other’ settlements.

Rome Rome, like many major Italian cities, experienced remarkable growth in the

decades preceding World War II. This was related to industrial growth across the nation, which attracted large rural populations to cities. The reconstruction after World War II gave rise to large suburban developments in proximity to large cities that drew emigrants from villages and small. Over the next decades, the suburbanization of Rome gradually turned the city into a "widespread metropolis," marked by a slow but steady erosion of agricultural areas and natural coastline.

Since both the Province of Rome and the Municipality of Rome have a border on the sea, coastal areas have suffered the impact of the urbanization, particularly in the municipality. Over the last decade there has been an accelerated soil sealing of coastal areas with percentages of artificial covering (soil sealing) reaching over 60 percent. This is a problem facing not only Rome but the entire nation. The share of land with artificial covering in Italy is estimated at 7.3 percent of total land whereas the EU average is just 4.3 percent. In 2011, 20,300 square kilometers were covered by inhabited areas and over 17,500 square kilometers by towns. This was an increase of nearly 1,200 square kilometers (+7.1 percent) since 2001.

However, the scope of territorial expansion is not proportional to the population growth. Between 2001 and 2009, new housing licenses in Rome increased by 6.7 percent while the population increased by only 5.3 percent. This is a sure indication that growth in Rome resembles sprawl. Indeed, it appears that Italian cities are characterized by a decreasing gradient in the density of occupation (sprawl) as proven by an analysis undertaken by ISTAT of the 13 largest municipalities in Italy (Rome and Turin, Milan, Genoa, Venice, Bologna, Florence, Ancona, Naples, Bari, Reggio Calabria, Palermo and Cagliari). The study observed a gradual loss of population in metropolitan centers. In the period between 1951 – 2010, the total resident population in large cities compared to the total area, had decreased from 70.3 to 56 percent.


24

Figure 1.3: Development of the settlement network of Rome (1961 -2005) Source Province of Rome – Piano Territoriale Provinciale Generale


25

Comparison between the basic indicators of urban growth in Sofia, Rome and Belgrade

Table 1.1 summarizes population growth data of the three cities. The overall growth of the two South East European capitals after 1990 is pronounced, whereas the overall growth of the population of Rome is modest. However, the three cities have parallel trends with regard to the balance between central and suburban growth.

Table 1.1: Comparison between the basic indicators of urban growth in Sofia, Rome and Belgrade

Types of districts 19911, 19922

2001, 20023

2011 Change

1992- 2011

Sofia

Central districts 116,524 94,651 100,786 -13.5%

Intermediate districts 454,425 468,174 512,772 12.8%

Peripheral districts 399,651 386,989 420,826 5.3%

Suburban districts 219,535 221,028 257,207 17.2%

TOTAL 1,190,135 1,170,842 1,291,591 8.5%

Southern suburban districts 106,780 123,972 156,606 46.7%

Northern suburban districts 112,755 97,056 100,601 -10.8%

Belgrade

Central communes 181,951 156,434 143,905 -20.91%

Intermediate communes 450,627 449,394 474,955 5.40%

Intermediate/suburban 597,360 629,128 681,135 14.02%

Suburban communes 101,371 114,161 127,726 26.00%

Rural communes 220,842 227,007 231,719 4.93%

TOTAL 1 552 151 1 576 124 1 659 440 6.91%

Rome

Central/Centro Storico 130,296 122,619 128,454 -1.41%

Intermediate communes 730,375 675,707 644,068 -11.82%

Intermediate/suburban 1,615,746 1,609,014 1,625,777 0.62%

Suburban communes 367,188 393,920 477,835 30.13%

TOTAL 2 843 605 2 801 260 2 876 134 1.14%

Notes: 1 1991 for Belgrade and Rome, 21992 for Sofia, 32002 for Belgrade.


26

Table 1.1 summarizes population growth data of the three cities. The overall growth of the two South East European capitals after 1990 is pronounced, whereas the overall growth of the population of Rome is modest. However, the three cities have parallel trends with regard to the balance between central and suburban growth. The population of the suburban areas is growing quickly: for most suburban areas of the three cities, the growth in the last two decades is between 20 and 30-35 percent, with the highest growth (46.7 percent) taking place in the southern suburban districts of Sofia. As the population in the suburban areas has grown, the population of the central areas has dropped – in Sofia and Belgrade by 7.6 to 29.3 percent in varying districts and by 11.8 percent in Rome’s wider central area (the intermediate communes). Population growth in the suburbs paired with population decline in the central areas is a key indication of suburbanization. Of course, growth is not uniform across all peri-urban areas. In Sofia in particular, a disparity among southern and northern suburbs exists. In contrast to the extreme growth in the southern zone, the northern suburban zone is, as a whole, experiencing negative growth: the variation oscillates between +20 and –46 percent in different districts. Because of the divergent trends in Sofia’s southern and northern suburban zones, we have classified them as two different zones in Figure 1.4, Table 1.2, and throughout the rest of the paper.

In Rome, population growth was 1.43 percent while that of urban area is 6.80 percent between the years 1991-2001. In Sofia, population growth is forecasted to increase 18-20 percent by 2025, while the Grand Master Plan accommodates for 31.5 percent urban area growth for the same period(?). While residential density in Sofia has traditionally been 50-60 inhabitants/ha since before World War II up until the 60s and 70s, gross density in the urban area (excluding parks) has decreased to 43 inhabitants/ha according to data from 2001. The Grand Master Plan projects continued decrease to 39 - 40 inhabitants/ha. Of the three cities studied here, Belgrade has the smallest urban area. With a population of 1,576,000 residents in 2001, the total area of the city in the same year was 20,727 ha. This makes a gross density of 76 dwelling inhabitants/ha, which is 3.5 times higher than the density of occupation in Rome. This explains why the Master Plan of Belgrade projects the most significant spatial expansion of all three cities - almost 46 percent. Whatever the reasoning behind the provisions of the plan, the planned trajectory is of an urban structure that "spills over," more akin to sprawl than compact growth.

Conclusion concerning suburbanization in Sofia, Belgarde and Rome

According to the indices presented above, all three cities are suburbanizing because;

1) The percentage of the expansion of the urban territory exceeds the percentage of population growth in each case.

2) Central areas of each city are suffering a loss of population, while the number of residents in peripheral locations is growing.


27

1.2.2.Demographictrends incentralandperipheralareasResearch question: - If the population of peripheral (or suburban) territories is

growing, is it correlated with positive or negative population growth in the central territories?

Sofia The study will adhere to the following classification of districts, as broken

down in Figure 1.4: 1) Central districts (city centre) – Sredets, Vazrazhdane, Oborishte 2) Intermediate or semi-central districts – developed during the first half of XX

century – Krasno selo, Serdika, Poduyane, Slatina, Izgrev, Lozenets, Triaditsa, Krasna polyana, Ilinden

3) Peripheral districts – developed during the second half of XX century, mainly socialist housing estates (prefab housing) – Nadezhda, Iskar, Mladost, Studentski, Lyulin

The suburban districts are classified in two groups: 4) The very attractive southern suburban districts – located at the foot of

Vitosha mountain – Vitosha, Bankya, Ovcha kupel, Pancharevo 5) The less attractive norther suburban districts – located in the plains to the

north of the city – Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar, Vrabnitsa

Figure 1.4: Map of the districts of the Municipality of Sofia by types


28

The diverse districts that comprise Sofia Municipality exhibit demographic trends with considerable disparities. These differences are distinctly indicative of a process of suburbanization. See Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Trends of demographic development of the districts of Sofia in the period 1985- 2011

1985 1992 2001 2011

Central districts 147828 116524 94651 100786

Srtedets 54464 41104 31108 32423

Vazrazhdane 47399 40365 34742 37303 Oborishte 45965 35055 28801 31060

Intermediate districts 502311 454425 468174 512772

Krasno selo 81576 77138 72302 83552

Serdika 51646 45259 45711 46949 Poduyane 57153 52809 75004 76672

Slatina 56846 56599 58281 66702

Izgrev 35552 30515 28639 30896

Lozenets 48840 38315 44679 53080

Triaditsa 69902 60568 55530 63451

Krasna polyana 61106 58120 54363 58234

Ilinden 39690 35102 33665 33236

Peripheral districts 362615 399651 386989 420826

Nadezhda 73891 70837 67847 67905

Iskar 48004 64670 64171 63248

Mladost 96773 102088 95505 102899

Studentski 37747 47849 50368 71961

Lyulin 106200 114207 109098 114813

Southern suburban districts 90937 106780 123972 156606

Vitosha 41445 38484 42953 61467

Ovcha kupel 17608 37012 47380 54417 Bankya 8299 8228 9297 12136

Pancharevo 23585 23056 24342 28586

Northern suburban districts 98028 112755 97056 100601

Vrabnitsa 22612 39768 47260 47969 Novi Iskar 31765 29265 26544 28991

Kremikovtsi 43651 43722 23252 23641

Prepared by the authors based on NSI 2012, Census 2011, Sofia (capital)


29

Figure 1.5: Changes in the number of the residents in the central and suburban districts of Sofia


Figures 1.5 and 1.6 illustrate the processes of change in absolute terms, i.e., by number of residents. The number of residents is greatest in semi-central and peripheral districts. More importantly, we see a decrease of population in central districts from 147,828 to 100,786, while the population of suburban district A is grows consistently from 67,352 to 128,020.

Figure 1.6: Share of demographic growth by district in Sofia


30

Table 1.3 and Figure 1.7 illustrate the same processes but in relative terms, as a percentage of total population growth by individual district. The population of central districts has decreased by 32 percent, while the population of the southern suburban districts has increased by 72 percent. Conversely, the population in northern suburban districts experienced only nominal gains. Therefore, the processes of intra-city migration during the last two decades has been directed primarily to the southern suburban districts – along the foothills of Vitosha mountain in the south of the city, rather than to suburban districts in the plains to the north.

Table 1.3: Changes and percentage of change in the number of the population in the different typs of districts of Sofia in the period

1985-2011

1985 1992 2001 2011 Change 1985 - 2011

Central districts 147,828 116,524 94,651 100,786 -31.8%

Semi-central districts 502,311 454,425 468,174 512,772 2.1%

Pripheral districts 362,615 399,651 386,989 420,826 16.1%

Southern suburban 90,937 106,780 123,972 156,606 72.2%

Northern suburban 98,028 112,755 97,056 100,601 2.6%


Figure 1.7: Percentage of change in the number of the population in the different typs of districts of Sofia in the period

1985-2011


31

Belgrade Belgrade metropolitan region is comprised of 17 communes/municipalities.

Ten of these are urban (Voždovac, Vračar, Zvezdara, Zemun, Novi Beograd, Palilula, Rakovica, Savski Venac, Stari Grad, and Čukarica) and the other seven, suburban (Barajevo, Grocka, Lazarevac, Mladenovac, Obrenovac, Sopot, and Surčin). According to the Regional Spatial Plan of Administrative Territory of the City of Belgrade (2011), there are 3 parts of the City of Belgrade according to urbanization level: continuous urban territory (including 6 communes: Stari Grad, Vračar, Zvezdara, Savski Venac, Rakovica, and Novi Beograd, a total area of 126 km2); inner urban territory of the city with peripheral belt of several individual settlements (including 4 communes: Voždovac, Čukarica, Palilula, and Zemun, a total area of 904 km2); and the suburban belt (including 7 communes: Surčin, Grocka, Mladenovac, Sopot, Barajevo, Lazarevac, and Obrenovac, with a total area of 2,196 km2).

Figure 1.8: City of Belgrade communes by the Charter of the City of Belgrade in 2010


32

Table 1.4: Territorial encompass and the number of urban and other settlements within communes of the City of Belgrade

City of Belgrade

communes (17 in total)

Type of commune

(urban/ suburban)

Area (km2) (year 2001)

Area (km2) (year 2011)

Num-ber of settle-ments

Urban settle-ments

Other settle-ments Total

Urban

Total Urba

n

Barajevo suburban 213 - 213.12 - 13 - 13

Voždovac urban 149 32 148.64 32.42 5 3 2

Vračar urban 3 3 2.92 2.92 1 1 -

Grocka suburban 289 - 289.23 - 15 1 14

Zvezdara urban 32 32 31.65 31.65 1 1 -

Zemun urban 439 100 149.72 99.92 2 1 1

Lazarevac suburban 384 - 383.51 - 34 3 31

Mladenovac suburban 339 - 339.00 - 22 1 21

Novi Beograd urban 41 41 40.74 40.74 1 1 -

Obrenovac suburban 410 - 409.95 29 1 28

Palilula urban 447 45 446.61 45.36 8 3 5

Rakovica urban 30 30 30.36 30.36 1 1 -

Savski Venac urban 14 14 14.00 14 1 1 -

Sopot suburba

n 271 -

270.75 - 17 1 16

Stari Grad urban 7 7 6.98 6.98 1 1 -

Surčin* suburban N/A N/A 289.00 7 2 5

Čukarica urban 156 56 156.50 55.6 8 5 3

Total-City of Belgrade (the City region) 3222.4 360.00 3222.68 359.95 166 27 139

Islands 5.41

Sava and Danube 22.25

* Commune of Surčin was a part of the commune of Zemun until 2004


33

Table 1.5: Total number of the population of the municipalities (communes) and changes in the number of residents in 2002 and 2011

City of Belgrade

communes

Category of commune

Population 2002

Population 2011

Change Percent

of change

Vračar urban 58386 56333 -2053 -3.52%

Zvezdara urban 132621 151808 19187 14.47%

Novi Beograd

urban 217773 214506 -3267 -1.50%

Rakovica urban 99000 108641 9641 9.74%

Savski Venac

urban 42505 39122 -3383 -7.96%

Stari Grad urban 55543 48450 -7093 -12.77%

605828 618860 13032 2.15%

Voždovac urban+suburban 151768 158213 6445 4.25%

Zemun urban+suburban 152831 168170 15339 10.04%

Palilula urban+suburban 155902 173521 17619 11.30%

Čukarica urban+suburban 168508 181231 12723 7.55%

629009 681135 52126 8.29%

Barajevo suburban 24641 27110 2469 10.02%

Grocka suburban 75466 83907 8441 11.19%

Lazarevac suburban 58511 58622 111 0.19%

Mladenovac

suburban 52490 53096 606 1.15%

Obrenovac suburban 70975 72524 1549 2.18%

Sopot suburban 20390 20367 -23 -0.11%

Surčin suburban 38814 43819 5005 12.89%

341287 359445 18158 5.32%

Total

1576124.00 165944083316.0

05.29%


34

Figure 1.9: Communes of the City of Belgrade by the level of urbanisation

Over the last ten years, some of the core urban municipalities have experienced a decrease in population, despite total population growth of the City of Belgrade. These are the communes Stari Grad, Savski Venac, Vračar, and Novi Beograd. As made evident in Table 1.5, the urban periphery is marked by the starkest population growth. The populations of the most remote suburbs (Mladenovac, Sopot, Lazarevac and Obrenovac) have not experienced any substantial change.

However, The population of all suburban territories around Belgrade has grown. What is more, this growth has occured at the expense of central areas. Among urban municipalities, Novi Beograd, Vračar and Savski Venac have lost 1.5, 3.5 and 8 percent of their population respectively. Stari Grad has been the most affected, with a loss of 12.8 percent.


35

Figure 1.10: Changes in the number of the residents between 2002 and 2011 by districts

Rome The study undertaken by ISTAT (mentioned in the previous section) not only

observed a loss of population in the metropolitan centers of the 13 largest Italian municipalities since 1951 – it confirmed the tendency of intra-urban migration to benefit neighboring peripheral municipalities at the expense of the center. The Province of Rome is an excellent example of this type of growth in peripheral and suburban locations.

The analysis of the Province of Rome found at least 8 peripheral or suburban areas which experienced substantial increases to their population between 1991 and 2001 (shown on Figure 1.11):

• the area along the sea coast in the north-west (Santa Marinella, Cerveteri, Ladispoli, Fiumicino) - an increase of 32%;


36

• the area along the sea coast in the south (Ardea, Anzio and Nettuno) - increase of 18.5%;

• the area of the lakes in the north – north west (Bracciano, Trevignano, Campagnano, Formello) an increase of 30%;

• the Sabina countryside in north area of the Province – an increase of 18% of population;

• the area of "countries" closer to Rome (Monterotondo, Fonte Nuova, Sant'Angelo Romano and Mentana) – an increase of 8% of population,

• the area outside Rome (Guidonia, Montecelio, Tivoli) – an increase of 8% of population;

• the area of the Castelli Romani in the south-east – an increase of 8.6 % of population;

• the area of Pomezia in the South – an increase of 17.2% of population.

Table 1.6. - Variation of population in the metropolitan area of Rome in historical series and in the forecast scenario.

Uraban and metropolitan regions

Variation in absolute value

Percentage variation

1991-2001

2001-2010

2010-2020

1991-2001

2001-2010

2010-2020

Center -54,444 22,721 27,134 -11.7% 5.5% 6.3%

Semi-central -49,543 -32,386 -38,682 -6.2% -4.3% -5.4%

Periphery -21,716 -47,475 -57,513 -2.3% -5.2% -6.6%

Outer periphery 98,270 73,790 77,425 16.0% 10.3% 9.8%

Metropolitan area 100,302 244,274 281,704 14.7% 31.3% 27.5%

Suburban area 10,102 30,680 38,430 4.8% 13.8% 15.2%

Metropolitan periphery -173 605 2,387 -0.6% 2.1% 8.3%

Border Communes -244 -166 423 -3.8% -2.7% 7.1%

Other (special functions) 6,503 11,338 14,657 57.8% 63.8% 50.4%

Not localized 40,563 48,446

TOTAL 89,057 343,944 394,411 2.4% 8.9% 9.4%

Source: CRESME’s processing on data provided by ISTAT, Anagrafe Comune di Roma and DEMO/SI

Data supplied by the Statistics Office of Rome about residents moving patterns in Rome’s 19 municipalities is indicative of sprawl because the balance between


37

moving-in and moving-out is negative for the inner Municipalities. Municipio 1, the historical city – has the worst negative balance (–8660), while the peripheral municipalities have positive balances. Municipios 13 and 8 have the highest positive balances (+14204 and +13560).

The main driver of the increase in peripheral populations of Roma Comune is the cost of housing. Young families and even retired people looking to optimize housing costs move to the periphery and other more affordable Comuni surrounding Rome and located within the Metropolitan area.

Table 1.7 –Balance of internal flows per Municipality (2002-2008).

Municipality Amount Municipality Amount

8 14204 2 -1806

13 13560 3 -2158

12 4347 11 -2999

10 3934 17 -3022

4 2985 7 -3703

19 1595 9 -3943

20 1574 5 -5005

18 -732 6 -5502

16 -1486 1 -8660

15 -1787

Source: Processing of Statistics Office of Municipality of Rome data

Metropolitan Rome is characterized by strong international (legal and illegal) immigration. During the years 2002 – 2008, foreigners accounted for 11.5 % of displacement in Rome. This trend has intensified over recent years, accompanied bya decrease in Italian population. Between 2002 and 2003, Italian population decreased by 10,000. Over the next five years, the number of displaced reached 108,000 units. The official survey of international immigrants within the metropolitan area goes from the 131,000 in 2001 to 442,000 persons in 2010.

Most immigrants, who come to Rome, come in search for livelihood. They seek out housing in the lowest range of market cost, which is typically found in the peripheral zones and surrounding Comuni. The new areas being built in surrounding Comuni are built in response to this consistently rising demand for housing for families cannot afford to live in the city. All the trends indicating population flows from already built to external areas result in dwindling densities across the board (e.g. one large apartment is occupied by only one person or a couple). This fact must be considered as among the top causes of urban sprawl.


38

It is relevant to note that the peripheral Comuni are ill prepared to manage the intensive soil demand and transformation. Obsolete and inefficient master plans, lack of professionalism among public officers, poor design, lack of adequate infrastructure (parking, facilities) and insufficient quality of building construction are several negative aspects characterising the urbanization and consequent soil sealing, driven by constant and growing demand for affordable housing.

Figure 1.11 - The eight dynamic areas of the Province of Rome


39

1.3.Preferences of the population – marketdemand as a major determinant of urbandevelopment

Research question: - What residential preferences have been formed during the course of historical development in the cities Sofia, Rome and Belgrade and under what circumstances, particularly with regard to settlers in the suburban territories.

1.3.1.Historicaldevelopment in Sofia,BelgradeandRomeandthe formationofaspecifictypeofmarketdemandIn a market society, it is ultimately those who settle in the urban fringe who are

the major driver of suburbanization. Thus, in post-socialist society, it is important to understand the nature of the drivers behind the decisions of individuals. Investigating the factors, which encourage residents to favor sprawling forms, can shed some light on market supply and demand.

Although the forms of market driven urban expansion demonstrate impressive variety, modern theory of urban planning identifies two prevailing types, as has already been emphasized in the introducing paragraphs of Section 2. We adhere to this typology as we term “type 1” the form of suburbanization typical in highly developed capitalist countries –so called "Western" suburbanization, characterized by neighborhoods that accommodate middle and upper class residents (Fielding 1989; Fishman 1987), which offer a high standard of living and ample, lush landscaping. The second is termed “type 2” suburbanization, generated by "rural-to-urban" migration. These migrants are, above all, comprised of poor rural strata, who are seeking improved chances of livelihood in big cities (Korcelli, 1990). Such a pattern is typical of the developing world today, but could also be observed in western countries during the post-war period.

Despite that the two outlined forms of suburbanization are mostly typical of market societies; similar processes were observable in Eastern Europe during the socialist period, but with very different causes and driving forces. First of all, the drivers of "Western" type 1 suburbanization did not exist in socialist countries because of a lack of wealthy strata to express motivations and preferences for this type of housing. However, trends of "rural-to-urban" migration were similar to those in the western countries in the post-war period. However, in Eastern and Southeastern Europe they were even more intense. With this in mind, several significant conclusions about the drivers behind suburbanization can be made.


40

- First, in a market society, residents’ preferences and motivations are one of the primary factors for the patterns and trends of urban development. - Second, historical experiences and traditions developed over the course of generations and different stages of development compose residential preferences and motivations and thereby, the patterns of urban sprawl. - Third, the question of whether suburban development is of type 1 (as in developed capitalist countries) or type 2 (induced by "rural-to-urban" migration) should be answered by studying the preferences and motivations of residents, who settle in suburban areas.

The goal of the research in this part of the study is to identify the connection between the nature of the analized processes, the motives of those who settle on the urban fringe, to investigate in more details the reasons for their preferences and, thus, to understand the market trends of demand and supply and the resulting market play, which serves as the engine of the realization of the processes of suburbanization and sprawl.

Although the forms of urban expansion, growth or sprawl demonstrate impressive variety, according to the prevailing urban theory there are of two main types - first, typical of highly developed capitalist countries, and the second - a typical especially for the developing world. Typical of the first (so called “Western”) kind of urban form are neighborhoods that offer a high level of urban environment, high standard of living and urbanization. There settled mainly representatives of the middle class, but also are available ones for people of the richer and richest strata (Fielding 1989; Fishman 1987). In contrast to this pattern in developing countries are mainly observed forms of urbanization due to migration of the population “from the village to the city”. These are, above all, poor rural strata seeking better livelihoods (Korcelli, 1990).

Despite that the forms of urban sprawl listed here are mostly typical of market societies in times of socialism similar processes were also observed, but their underlying causes working in a very different way First, the suburbanisation of the “Western” type (as described above) is generally not observed in socialist countries. Meanwhile, migrations “from the village to the city” were similar to Western countries, but they were even more intense. As a result several significant conclusions can be made, which are crucial for the analysis of preferences and motives of people in various forms of urbanization in the suburban areas.

First, in a market society, residents’ preferences and motivations are a major factor for the patterns and trends of urban development.

Second, historical experience and the traditions developed in different stages of development of any society are crucial to the formation of its residents’ preferences and motivations and hence, to the patterns of urban sprawl.

Third, study of preferences and motivations of people have to answer whether the suburbanisation of suburban areas is of type 1 (that of the developed capitalist countries) or type 2 (induced migration “from the village to the city”).


41

Generally: Type 1 new settelers in suburban areas are people with higher social status, with higher income and probably with higher education. Their main motive is to obtain a higher standard of living in an environment closer to nature at a lower density and a higher level of greening and landscaping. In type 2 settlers in suburban areas are people from other, mainly rural areas or smaller cities and towns of the country. The main reason for settlement in this case is usually seeking better jobs and better pay. In a wider context this second type of development of suburbs is generated by any immigration of larger numbers of people, who look for jobs in the big cities.

These are immigration processes not only form the villages surrounding the city or from the province, but also international immigration or immigration of people in result of major calamities or wars, etc. What is common between all such cases is that the immigrants are people in poor situation or with lower social status, in need of job. The urban forms usually produced by this type are relatively compact high-density suburbs, close to the urban core (because the new settlers rely mainly on mass transport services).

Sofia The residential preferences and motives that drive suburban development in

Sofia can be best understood when viewed in context of the city’s historical development. The particular residential preferences which have been influential in the processes of growth of large Bulgarian cities and particularly Sofia, became especially evident during the preparation of the first general comprehensive plan – the Muesmann plan – mentioned in section 2.1. In this process, two divergent planning approaches emerged. One was held by the German architects led by Adolf Muesmann and the other by Bulgarian representatives involved in the planning process (the management of Sofia Municipality, the Chief Architect and other municipal officials, the architectural profession, the city’s intellectual community). The approaches clashed especially when it came to the issue of suburban development. The position of Bulgarian professionals and public was shaped by the experience of urban development in the capital. From 1880 (the year after Sofia became the capital) to 1934 (the beginning of the development "Muesmann" plan), Sofia had grown from 20,856 to 287,095 inhabitants (NSI, 2009) and the urban area expanded from 3 square kilometers to 60 square kilometers. The population mushroomed almost 20 times over the course of 50 years (Lampe, 1984 pointed at Sofia as the fastest growing Balkan capital). The cost of infrastructure to support such rapid urban expansion was a worry for the young municipality.

Given that in this period the capital had become the industrial center of the country in which 50% of the industrial (manufacturing) workforce was concentrated, population growth of that time was fuelled not by type 1, intra-urban migration, but type 2, rural to urban migration. Meanwhile a large number of refugees from the Balkan wars settled in Sofia. Like the immigrants from rural areas, war refugees settled in the capital city mainly in pursuit of livelihood, again reinforcing the typical "rural-to-urban" migration form. Thus the new suburbs were shabby and unattractive to the middle and upper classes of society and Sofia’s wealthy residents preferred to avoid living in the periphery. This explains why setting a limit to city


42

expansion was an important objective of the plan at the start of the drafting of the General Plan Sofia Metropolitan Municipality. The reasoning behind this was that urban boundaries were already too spread out and inability of the Municipality to pay for and provide infrastructure in newly urbanized areas.

However, Adolf Musman had a very different view of growth in suburban areas. He Adolf Muesmann had a very different concept for growth in suburban areas. He was fully committed to the ideal of a family house with a garden, an idea established in Germany that reflected traditional national values of that time. Accordingly, Muesmann planned for the development of single family housing in large undeveloped territories in the city periphery. Such a view was not popular with the public and city officials. Due to pressure from the Sofia Municipality, Muesmann had to revise his views on a number of occasions (Hirt 2007b), but still the projected territorial expansion remained so large that it could not be realized.

A second period of urban development in Sofia which considerably shaped residential attitudes towards suburban development is the era of socialism. During this period, socialist industrialization garnered some of the highest rates of population growth and urbanization in peripheral areas. As we described in section 2.1., the Sofia General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) is associated with a paradox: the compact version of Neikov which was passed and the expansionary concept of Siromahov – which was actually implemented in the decades that followed. One major reason behind the switch from compact development to urban expansion is the immense growth experienced over four decades (from 1946 to 1985), when the city's population grew 2.3 times (by 670,000 inhabitants) and reached 1.2 million. Accommodation of this growth would have been difficult to achieve within the boundaries of the city of 1961 and the main resources to accommodate the expansion were the lands on the urban periphery. The urbanization of that period was based on a system of prefab panel construction. Sofia’s "socialist suburbs" – several gigantic, peripherally located residential complexes which, of course, were radically different from the suburbs, provisionally identified above as "type 1" or "type 2". In capitalist countries similar housing types can be found looking at the French and Italian peripheral housing estates, although there are differences in the quality of housing, landscaping and maintenance of open spaces in the Bulgarian case. The point here however, is how these peripheral developments affected residential preferences and motivations. The end result of these developments has been a discouragement of residents to live here – despite the desire to settle near the capital city, because these prefab socialist housing complexes are associated with low quality construction and lifestyle. In a socialist society there is no upper-middle class or large enough wealthy strata to implement the model of luxury suburbs ("type 1" of developed Western countries). Thus, new residents had no other choice but to settle in the socialist suburbs. This aspect has had a strong impact on Bulgarian urban populations, in effect reinforcing the appeal of the city center and residents preference to live in central areas.


43

Belgrade In the first phase of urbanisation, the concentration of population in Belgrade

was the result of the concentration of socio-geographic and economic functions in the city.In consequent phases of urbanisation, the decentralisation of work places introduced development of new centres which became work-residency suburban areas and secondary poles of daily commuting.

The socialist regime of the former Yugoslavia (centralized power at the state level) had to find creative ways to cope with large number of new urban dwellers, while having limited resources to accommodate residents’ housing needs in the capital city Belgrade. The population influx created intense pressures on Belgrade’s housing stock, which was partly developed by means of state companies or state organs that were entitled to develop flats for their employees. While this effort resulted in the creation of model settlements on vast vacant sites, e.g. Novi Beograd (New Belgrade), it did not fully meet the overall high demand for housing. The rest of the incoming population to the city, such as commuting industrial labour force, had to seek accommodation in the former agricultural communities around Belgrade which often turned into “dormitories”. This created urban disproportions wherein different groups of immigrants ended up on different ends of the spectrum of inequality. While certain categories of immigrants, namely those who were accommodated in the state-owned flats, had been effectively integrated into city life, other categories were forced to build (often illegally) homes on their own, in remote parts of the city periphery. State policy thus resulted in the development of the two peripheries – a relatively well-serviced, organised periphery, and an autonomous, “wild” periphery with suburban composition of privately built, privately owned houses, but largely devoid of infrastructure.

In the more recent past, i.e. during the 1990s, a considerable wave of more than 200,000 immigrating refugees from the Yugoslav wars looked for permanent residency in Belgrade (Živanović, 2008). Most refugees settled in the urban fringe, i.e. in suburban municipalities because of the lower price of land. Typically, the immigration of refugees is very similar to the rural-to-urban migration because the new suburban settlers are looking for livelihood and for inexpensive land and affordable housing. In both casesthe price, not the housing quality,is the primary consideration.When observing the share of immigrants/refugees in the total population of central and peripheral parts of the City of Belgrade, there are noticeable differences. For example, older communes of the city centre (Stari grad, Vračar) have proportionally much less immigrant/refugee population in comparison to some other urban communes (e.g. Novi Beograd, Zemun). Similarly, certain suburban communes (e.g. Barajevo, Grocka) have an even larger proportion of immigrants (especially refugees).This can be partly ascribed to the property prices which are considerably lower in the periphery than in central parts of Belgrade. The housing deficit in Belgrade, which is compounded bythe need to accommodate a growing population, has caused significant residential pressure on suburbs and greenfields of the City of Belgrade (e.g. Zemun corridor, belt of motorways to Surčin, Batajnica and Novi Sad; Ibar direction; Avala direction; Zrenjanin direction, etc.).


44

To summarize, the growth of the population in Belgrade during the socialist period was extraordinary. The city grew by more than a million. On one hand, this was a result of a process typical of all countries of the Eastern block – the policy of socialist industrialization attracted massive flows from rural areas constituting type 2, or “rural-to-urban” migration. This fueled the socialist type of urbanization in large housing estates with, mainly, prefab apartment blocks. On the other hand, however, those housing estates were dissimilar to the prefab housing estates in most socialist countries, mainly because of the different nature of Yugoslavian socialism. These estates were well-serviced, with better housing and more amenities. Along with these typical “socialist” suburbs, “wild” suburbs in the urban fringe emerged, comprising mainly self-help private housing that, in fact, was of an even worse quality. During the last couple of decades these type of suburbs grew further due to continuing flows of refugees and internally displaced people. This had its influence on the residential preferences of the local inhabitants. Very much like in Sofia, the preference for single-family housing was diminished, as the better housing in Belgrade was in multi-family apartment blocks.

Rome Rome, like many big Italian cities, was recipient of large masses of rural

migrants in the first half of the XX century. The exodus to the city from the countryside was a result of the processes of industrialization and associated economic development.

In the period between the two World Wars, Fascist authorities devised a series of measures to contain the exodus from the countryside. Legge Urbanistica Nazionale of 1942 introduced a new type of plan - Piano Regolatore Generale. This was the basis for the founding of new towns, along with measures rehabilitating large rural regions in order to promote agricultural activities.

The reconstruction following World War II had a major impact on the suburban development of the large cities. In the decade 1945-1955, Italy took action in the old and established city centers, in accordance with the Marshall Plan (1947), using the new planning regulation Piano di Ricostruzione (Legislative Decree 154/45 and National Legislation 1402/51) in the place of Piano Regolatore Generale. New immigrant flows came from villages and small towns of central and southern Italy, where the war had largely destroyed the remaining rural economies. Thus more and more new suburbs emerged on the urban fringe of Rome, like many other big cities.

Therefore, until the 1960s, all historical circumstances in Italy provided for conditions favoring suburban development, with the exception of urban policy during the fascist period. This is typical for a society in a period of economic development – referred throughout this paper as type 2, or “rural-to-urban” development. In Italy, the characteristic features for this type to emerge were in place: the “village-to-town” migration, the residents of lower social layers, coming to the big city in search of employment, etc.

During this period,new suburbs often developed before municipal approval or the drafting of urban plans. These suburbs, the only accessible form of housing for many of the urban immigrants, were "spontaneous" settlements, resembling barracks


45

or slums on the urban fringe. Subdividing and construction in these suburbs was usually done without following any planning regulations. Self-help housing was built by the owners of small plots often working only during the week ends. Planning was often completely ignored and the lack of planning or regulation by Municipalities demonstrated their weakness. These informal settlements were legalized only after many years. In the Lazio Region, for example, the first was done in 1980.

The process of suburbanization continued to increase because as urban development continued outwards, the metropolitan area boundary became hard to define. Gradually, however, the nature of the processes changed. Whereas the first generation of suburbanization was expressed as geometric growth of the urban core, eventually the whole territory of the metropolitan region was considered for potential development. To meet the ever greater needs of a growing urban population, lands once far removed from the metropolitan centre were urbanized. At the core of this transformation, one may find substantial changes in lifestyles and technological processes that are traditionally associated with dispersed settlements. And while with the rise of the automobile ownership the problem of greater distances, associated with suburbanization, became insignificant, other problems such as traffic and air pollution would arise.

In summary, there is clear evidence that the processes of suburbanization in Italy had been strong form the first decades of the XX century. Over the course of decades, these processes have changed radically. Up until the 1960s, type 2 suburbanization caused by “village-to-town” migration was strong. From the 1970’s and onward, migration increasingly resembles type 1 “from centre to the fringe,” ostensibly this reflects the diminishing capacity of residents to come to terms with the high costs of living in the city center.

1.3.2.AnalysisofcurrentresidentialpreferencesandmotivesofinSofia,BelgradeandRomeResearch questions: - What are the motives and preferences driving settlers

into suburban territories? Are new residents looking for improved means of living or more attractive living conditions? Are new residents relocating from the central areas of the city or are they immigrants from other settlements?

What are the specific motives driving companies to choose peri-urban areas?

Sofia The goal of this section will be to examine the contemporary preferences and

motivations of the residents of the capital, which are the driving force behind Sofia’s suburban development trends in recent decades. Now that more than a quarter of a century has passed since the political changes of the late 1980s and the early 1990s, which marked the start of the transition from socialism, Bulgarian society can be defined as a democratic, market-led one. In a market society, type 1 (Western-style) andtype 2 ("rural-to-urban") forms of subrbanization prevail.Thus, our main goal at this point is to determine whether Sofia’s suburban trends should be defined more as


46

type 1, type 2 or third individual type. According to Hirt, 2007, for this purpose it is necessary to examine three main characteristics of suburbanization (Hirt 2007a, p 757): "(1) demographic (i.e., who settled in the urban periphery), (2) functional (i.e., what are the economic links between the center and periphery – which parts of the city do the residents of peripheral areas live and/or work in) and (3) motivational (i.e., where do the residents of peripheral areas come from and why they settled in peri-urban locations).

In studies of cities with similar socio-economic conditions – i.e., places which have undergone the transition from socialism to a market economy, researchers most frequently observed features of suburbanisation type 1 (Sýkora, 1994, Kok and Kovács 1999, Brade et al. 2001). In post-socialist countries, there are a number of characteristics which are contingent on specific geographical historical factors as well as the distinctive legacy of socialism: the existing housing stock, rapid economic processes, specific demographic trends and migration between urban, rural and mountain regions (Nuissl and Rink, 2005; Blinnikov et al., 2006). In accordance with the objectives and scope of this analysis for suburbanization in Sofia, special attention should be given to the work by Dr. Sonia Hirt (Hirt 2006, 2007a and 2007b). As the result of her analysis of Sofia’s southern suburbs, Hirt reached the following conclusions:

First, (1) demographic characteristics confirm the assumption that suburbanisation is predominantly of a "western" type (type 1). The average income of new settlers in the suburbs was significantly higher than the average in the city or those suburban areas. In the survey, 40 percent of participating new settlers had a monthly income above 2000 lev, which is about four times the national average (in 2006). Moreover, new settlers were generally highly educated with 56 percent being university graduates versus 36 percent for longtime residents.

Second, (2) in terms of functional characteristics (economic relationship between peripheral regions and the city center – i.e. in what parts of the city do suburban residents work), the survey found that less than one-tenth of the new suburban settlers worked in the same or adjacent peripheral region, and nearly nine-tenths commuted to other parts of Sofia – mostly in well-paid and prestigious positions which are concentrated in central areas.

Third, (3) regarding reasons for relocation to particular suburban areas – Hirt found that 68 percent of new settlers came from inner-city areas rather than rural areas thus their motivations conform to suburbanization of a "western" type – whereby the suburbs are an escape from the city center for residents who are in search of better housing and landscaping.

Based on these observations, the study (Hirt 2007a, p. 775) concludes that the dominant process of suburbanisation in the picturesque southern outskirts is of a Western type (type 1), based on the demographic profiles, preferences and motives of new settlers in the southern periphery. These are primarily high-income, well-educated residents who are leaving Sofia with the aim of escaping the disadvantages of dense urban environments. The study found no evidence of “type 2” suburbanization, as only a very small percentage of new suburban residents settled in the southern periphery for access to employment, livelihood, etc.


47

The research made for the present study – including an analysis of the latest information and data from the National Statistical Institute (NSI) surveys, interviews conducted with ten leading real estate agencies, a survey of suburbanites’ attitudes, as well as data obtained from the Agriculture Department and Agency confirm the conclusions reached by Hirt. However, some of the conclusions are being re-defined and characteristics are developing in their own right. In other words, characteristics of Bulgarian sprawl are unique and can be seen as a deviation of the traditional "Western model" (type 1) in a number of ways.

First, (1) demographic characteristics of new settlers gathered from poll data by real estate agents suggest significantly higher levels of social mix and a lower level of social segregation than the "Western" model. This can be attributed to several factors. For example, real estate brokers attribute less importance to high social status. Only just under half (45.5%) of new settlers are classified as high-income. About one third (36.4%) of respondents believe that the typical buyers in suburban areas are intellectuals, and slightly more than one-sixth (18.2%), place local residents in the buyer’s group. It is significant to note that nearly four-fifths of the brokers placed low income people on second and third place amongst buyers (similar to the study, described later in this section, about preferences and motives for suburbanization processes around Riga). A likely cause for this result is the inclusion of the northern suburbs into the area of study. Property prices in the northern regions are typically half of what they are in the southern suburbs, where Hirt’s research was focused.

Second, (2) the functional characteristics: Again, the data provided by the Metropolitan Municipality shows trends which differ from the traditional Western model. Namely, there is an unusually high level of integration between residential, service and industrial functions when compared to traditional forms of sprawl, albeit on a limited scale. According to the data, 13.7% of new building permits in suburban areas are for public-service buildings and 4.4% for industrial. According to the Agriculture Department, however, in the southern suburban areas, 19.5% of the land use changes are for production and storage purposes. Another 21.9% is earmarked for business purposes - administration, commerce and services, and housing occupies only 58.6 percent of the land. In the northern suburban areas, 51.2% of land use changes are earmarked for production and storage needs, 36.1% - for administrative, sales and service outlets and only 12.7 percent - for residential buildings.

Third, (3) the reasons for settling: all brokers (just like all studies referred to in this section) agree on the advantages of suburban areas - better environmental conditions, cleanliness and proximity to nature as opposed to the high pollution and noise in urban areas of the compact city. The "No Neighbors" factor is an advantage of suburban living that is also often quoted, but is ranked second, third or fourth in importance. The drawbacks of living in suburban areas can too be seen as a consensus. The most significant disadvantages are “the underdeveloped road


48

network, transport and infrastructure.” A second drawback that has been identified by brokers is "the low level of overall security and anti- burglar measures."

A fourth distinguishing characteristic of the Bulgarian model is the preference for denser housing typologies. Data from Sofia municipality shows that new multi-family buildings comprise 28.5% of the total number of new residential buildings in the Vitosha district. According to data from NSI, the average number of units in multi-family building in suburban areas built in the period 2001-2011 is 13.3. Therefore, apartment units in multi-housing buildings comprise 83.8 percent of the total number of new homes. Furthermore, the study for the new General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) has found that about 76 percent of new housing apartment units are built within the compact city and most of the buyers are people with higher living standard – i.e., with incomes 25 to 50 percent higher than the average. These facts support the conclusion that Sofia’s affluent buyers seek housing not only in the suburban but also in central and semi-central areas of the city (often called "wide center"). We observe that whereas the living standard of most new residents in suburban areas is higher than the average, there is no indication that all or most of the better off home buyers prefer peri-urban locations.

Finally, we observe that processes of suburbanization in Sofia are much slower than similar trends in Prague or Riga, for example. The rates of new construction in the central and intermediate regions over the last decade have been 2 times higher than those in suburban (Table 1.3). Therefore, based on all outlined findings, we conclude that the preferences of both regular (mass) customers and affluent buyers in Sofia are consistently focused on central areas or, at least, demand for suburban properties does not surpass central areas.

To summarize, the answer to the above research question is that suburban land in Sofia is sought primarily for housing. According to the statistical analysis of the Metropolitan Municipality, residential buildings in suburban areas account for 82% of all new buildings (as per issued building permits). In Vitosha district, this share is 84%, Pancharevo - 86.5% and Bankia district - 92.2%. The lowest proportion of housing as a share of newly developed lands (66.20%) is in Kremikovtsi. Furthermore, our analysis of the protocols of the Regional Directorate of Agriculture shows that one-fifth of land-use status changed in attractive suburban areas (the southern suburban zone) was designated for commercial retail and service functions. Another fifth was designated for production, storage and infrastructure needs. Hence, three fifths of the newly urbanized land remained for housing.

The above facts confirm that the drivers behind suburban development in southern areas are akin to type 1 suburbanisation (the Western model). However, this is not necessarily relevant to the resulting urban form. Rather, the resulting form of suburbanization exhibits significant local and regional peculiarities (south-east Europen features) – that are characterized by substantially higher levels of integration of non-residential functions, significantly lower levels of social segregation and development that is typically a mix of single family and multi-family buildings, where the latter type prevails.


49

Homes in these areas are bought not only by the affluent but also by a wide range of middle class buyers. We further observe that some more affluent buyers prefer the Vitosha “collar” because, though prices in the southern suburbs are high, prices in the city center (downtown) are even higher. Inevitably, some affluent suburban enclaves are established in the process as well. Conversely – areas to the north of the city are characterized by much lower prices and should therefore be attractive to “rural-to-urban” immigrants. The current statistics do not however explicitly confirm such a trend. In turn, these areas have been more and more attractive for non-residential purposes. The growth of services (commercial and public), however, is directly correlated to the level of residential development. In other words, the more new homes constructed, the higher the percentage of various public service facilities. This relationship has been confirmed by data from the National Statistical Institute (NSI) as well as the Metropolitan Municipality. The primary buyer of land and buildings for commercial use is the business sector and, respectively, the greater the available clientele the greater are the business interests. Another reason is related to convenient transport access, especially for large stores and centers that rely on customers from many parts of the city and not only on local people for business. There are large numbers of industrial developments in the northern territories, where more than half of the lands with changed land-use status are earmarked for production, storage and infrastructure purposes. This is most likely due to a) the established functional structure of the city from the "Neykov" plan, b) the lowest price of land near the capital, and c) issues related to the transport access - roads of lower, high and the highest class, railway lines and international airport. Naturally, industrial lands to the north of Sofia are purchased and developed by a whole range of actors and businesses - from small time investors to large national and multinational companies.

Belgrade

The Belgrade City region belongs to a very small group of Serbian regions which are experiencing a steady increase in housing construction (Municipalities and Regions of Serbia - 2011, SORS), as a result of population dynamics in the country. Current urban development in Belgrade is fuelled by a process of strong population growth in the peripheral urban territories. According to the data about Belgrade from the 2002 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia (Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia-SORS) the total population of the communes of Zvezdara and Rakovica and the urban parts of Zemun, Surčin, Čukarica, Voždovac, Grocka and Palilula has grown by more than 80,000 people. Simultaneously the population of central districts Stari Grad, Savski Venac and Vračar has dropped by approximately 13,000 residents. Nevertheless, these three communes hold a larger share of single households - over 30 percent, respectively, and those households are comprised largely of senior citizens. The City of Belgrade on average had the largest share of 2 people households. In this line, there is a correlation here between household size and distance from the city center – households with 5 and more people are particularly common in suburban communes, where households of 5 or more make up 15 percent or more of total households.


50

Table 1.8: Average real estates prices in EUR/m2 in the City of Belgrade communes in the period 2008-2012

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Barajevo 351.96 481.94 422.46 484.85 497.99 Voždovac 1,421.24 1,471.50 1,498.47 1,309.37 1,287.25 Vračar 1,938.08 2,026.38 1,922.19 1,814.25 1,687.50 Grocka 530.98 625.67 785.61 839.55 858.08 Zvezdara 1,387.55 1,472.69 1,485.44 1,412.43 1,349.48 Zemun 1,289.54 1,305.05 1,308.29 1,251.22 1,193.69 Lazarevac 590.68 635.35 643.81 698.13 650.71 Mladenovac 586.12 562.04 614.72 626.66 647.00 Novi Beograd 1,712.28 1,707.55 1,586.57 1,449.42 1,443.49 Obrenovac 579.96 622.90 706.78 670.92 687.62 Palilula 1,199.03 1,236.23 1,220.80 1,158.10 1,126.34 Rakovica 1,198.09 1,273.63 1,200.36 1,131.61 1,059.19 Savski Venac 1,859.35 1,963.99 1,737.72 1,746.49 1,712.47 Sopot 391.72 424.69 493.04 359.49 533.72 Stari grad 2,062.69 2,140.36 2,004.23 1,834.70 1,801.97 Surčin 505.65 654.91 839.36 758.67 624.52 Čukarica 1,264.47 1,340.01 1,280.65 1,.286.38 1,164.62 City of Belgrade

1,387.17 1,399.23 1,364.66 1,287.12 1,267.21

Source: Nacionalna korporacija za osiguranje stambenih kredita: http://www.mkosk.rs/srlat/content/indeks-cena-nepokretnosti-nacionalne-

korporacije-za-osiguranje-stambenih-kredita [7.11.2012]

0,00

500,00

1.000,00

1.500,00

2.000,00

2.500,00

Belgr

ade

regi

on

Baraj

evo

Gro

cka

Zvezd

ara

Zemun

Laza

reva

c

Mla

deno

vac

Novi B

eogra

d

Obr

enova

c

Palilu

la

Rakov

ica

Savsk

i Ven

acSop

ot

Stari

grad

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Figure 1.12: Average real estates prices in EUR/m2 in the

City of Belgrade communes in the period 2008-2012


51

Residential densities

Density of population in the City of Belgrade varies from around 75 people/km2 (in Sopot) to more than 19,000 people/km2 (in Vračar) (2011 Census). These rates and their changes through time are consistent with the observations made about the traditions of typical European densities, historically established preferences for compact urban forms and recent the trends of population growth in peripheral urban locations at the expense of population in central territories.

Table 1.9: Density of population in the City of Belgrade communes in the period 2002-2011

City of Belgrade 2002 2011 Change

Total-City of Belgrade 489.07 514.93 +

Stari Grad 7957.45 6941.26 – – –

Savski Venac 3036.07 2794.43 – –

Vračar 19995.21 19292.12 –

Novi Beograd 5345.43 5265.24 –

Zvezdara 4190.24 4796.46 + +

Rakovica 3260.87 3578.43 +

Zemun 1280.02 1123.23 –

Čukarica 1076.73 1158.03 +

Voždovac 1021.04 1064.40 +

Grocka 260.92 290.10 +

Palilula 349.08 388.53 +

Barajevo 115.62 127.21 +

Lazarevac 152.57 152.86 +/–

Mladenovac 154.84 156.63 +/–

Obrenovac 173.13 176.91 +/–

Sopot 75.31 75.22 +/–

Surčin N/A 151.62 N/A

Suburbanization of industries and jobs

According to the Regional Spatial Plan of the Administrative Area of Belgrade-Changes and Amendments (2011), industrial activity in City of Belgrade has been primarily located in a number of production zones, among


52

which the distinctive ones are: Gornji Zemun, belt of motorways and Pančevački rit, mining-energy sub-sector in Lazarevac, electric energy complex in Obrenovac, and several industry zones in Mladenovac.

A demand for commercial spaces is still concentrated in the central urban municipalities. For example, urban communes of the city core, i.e. Stari Grad, Savski Venac, Vračar, and Palilula comprise around 32% of total commercial space in the city, which represents a relative decline in their primacy as traditional centers of commerce. Of all communes, Novi Beograd has the largest share (27%, or 650,000 m2) of commercial spaces. On the other hand, the 7 suburban communes only have a share of 9% (or 240,000 m2) of total commercial spaces of the City of Belgrade.

A general observation of the City of Belgrade is that it is still a relatively closed system whose spatial organisation and expansion are rather influenced by residential movements than by daily commuting. Places of work are still concentrated primarily in the central parts of the City (10 urban communes/municipalities).

Rome As explained in section 3.2.1, the processes of suburbanization in Italy and in

Rome, in particular, were of the type identified in this study as type 2 (rural-to-urban) in the first half of the XX century and until the 1960s. However, although these processes persisted and even accelerated after the 1970s, the nature of migration has changed. Namely, two of the primary forces driving the contemporary processes of suburbanization in Rome resemble those of type 1 suburbanization:

1) Only a part of the new suburban settlers are “rural-to-urban” immigrants. While many new suburban settlers still come from villages and small towns in the province, today international migration is a much stronger trend. This trend is still comprised of immigrants looking for better job opportunities, albeit they are coming from more far away. The key factor in this respect is that most of the new suburban settlers have moved from the central areas of Rome.

2) The new suburbs are not compact urban settlements like some type 1 suburbs. The new suburbs are mainly low density discontinuous sleave-like developments along highways and roads of the transportation network around Rome.

The above conclusions are supported by the following observations:

First of all, intra-city migration is currently the leading trend of suburbanization. This is obvious when rates of population growth in central districts are compared to those of the territories outside the GRA (Grande Raccordo Anulare). The ISTAT data (processed by CRESME) in Table 1.10 displayed this trend clearly. Table 6 presents an extraction of Table 1.10 with sums added for the types of districts. The central area has lost about 183 thousand residents in the period 1991-2010, while the population of the metropolitan districts (the peripheral districts of Comune di Roma) has increased by 557.4 thousand residents.


53

Another conclusion that can be made from the data analysis is that in addition to “centre-to-periphery” migration, suburbanization in Rome is also fueled by large-scale international immigration to the capital city. International immigration to the Italian capital is extremely high – in the period 2001 to 2010 some 311,000 immigrants settled in Rome. This should be regarded as “international” scale “village-to-town” migration, since new residents are similarly motivated by improved job opportunities near the capital city. Accordingly, this international flow of immigration fuels suburbanization, because immigrants typically look for housing accommodation in the lowest range of market cost and, therefore, increase housing demand in the peripheral zone and surrounding Comuni. This type of suburbanization (type 2) is too changing, as the suburbs where the immigrants settle are no longer the “traditional” “type 2” suburbs – characterized by high-density, low-quality housing for poor people. Rather, these are areas of family houses grouped along a road network, since their residents rely on automobiles to go the city to work.

Table 1.10: Change in the number of the population in the districts of Rome 1991 - 2010

Districts 1991 -2000 2001 - 2010 1991 - 2010

URBAN COMMUNES ‐182 843

Central -54,444 22,721 ‐31,723

Semi-central -49,543 -32,386 ‐81,929

Peripheral -21,716 -47,475 ‐69,191

SUBURBAN/METROPOLITAN 557,418

Outer periphery 98,270 73,790 172,060

Metropolitan area 100,302 244,274 344,576

Outer metropolitan area 10,102 30,680 40,782

METROPOLITAN PERIPHERY 22

Metropolitan periphery -173 605 432

Border Communes -244 -166 ‐410

Source: CRESME’s processing on data provided by ISTAT, Anagrafe Comune di Roma and DEMO/SI

The associated suburbanisation of jobs and services is also a factor that can potentially have an effect on the current processes of growth in Rome’s periphery. Studies in this area indicate that some industries and services are unlikely to move to the urban fringe. According to research carried out by SCENARI IMMOBILIARI and SORGENTE GROUP, the market for non-residential real estate in Rome is 10.5 million square meters of private tertiary and offices, in addition to approximately 2.8 million square meters of public offices (Scenari Immobiliari, 2012). Often, the demand for non-residential real estate is concentrated in the area towards the inner


54

city or to areas easily accessible with public transportation. According to a study of the Camera di Commercio Roma (2012), offices for national and local public authorities are predominantly located in Rome’s inner city. As these serve to represent authorities, they are typically found in prestigious locations and would hardly move towards the suburban areas (although some such changes are planned in the new Piano Regolatore di Roma, 2008). Conversely, small private enterprises, whose numbers have increased in the last period, have a tendency to move to peripheral areas, in part perhaps because they often are family-run. However, suitable locations are lacking. Public and private enterprises, also international ones, are mainly in the inner city and in the EUR neighborhood in the suburban area of the road Via Tiburtina.

A third study which is relevant, undertaken by the Province of Rome in 2010, concerns public and commercial infrastructure, services and utilities. The study highlighted how an increasing demographic polycentricity contrasts the increasing level of dependency of smaller municipalities on a predominantly centralized system of services. Presently, the growing demand for services in smaller municipalities is not satisfied by the supply, and certainly is not proportional to registered urban development. Rather, urban development of these areas has a residential character (defined dormitory areas) due to continued centralization of business activities. This illustrates a functional, economic and occupational dependency (i.e. employment opportunities) of the Comuni comprising the Province of Rome on the Comune of Rome. The situation is further exacerbated by the central location of other vital services, such as universities, trade fairs and congress sites. Ninety percent of public universities are found on the soil of the Comune of Rome and private ones are located exclusively in the Comune of Rome, as with trade fairs and congresses sites.

Every day from 15% to 30% of the population of the Province of Rome commutes towards the Comune of Rome for reasons of work or study (in many cases this percentage exceeds 30%). At present, the road network and transportation infrastructure is too weak to satisfy these demands.

Eventually, one more factor should be considered with respect to the conditions for the specific form of suburbanisation observed in Rome. This factor is the increasing number of dwellings available in the peripheral districts of the Comune of Rome. Since the 1971 census, the housing stock in Rome has continually increased, although the growth rate has slowed over time. According to the final figures of the 2001 census, houses in the City of Rome numbered 1,717,662, equal to 6.3% of the entire national housing stock. In this same year (2001), total housing floor area was found to be 34 square meters of housing surface per resident. In 2007, 17,165 new dwellings were constructed in Rome and listed in the Real Estate Register, some 9% less than the previous year.

With respect to territory, new housing units in Rome are built mainly inside the city borders, but the greatest part of new dwellings is outside the urban belt highway (G.R.A.) accounting for about 70% of new houses in 2007. This construction definitely exploits the vast expanse of city territories in Rome, but also the preferences of the residents for suburban living.


55

Finally, with respect to the issue of urban sprawl in Rome, the subject of this research, and with regard to all factors outlined up to this point, two macro-phenomena are observed in the settlement system in the Province of Rome:

• the City of Rome is characterized by loss of population, and by economic growth that attracts families;

• Municipalities on the periphery of Comune di Roma have positive and increasing residential rates, but weaker economic growth.

The main reasons for the observed “centre-to-periphery” migration are considered to be:

• the increasing price of housing in major centers, and cheaper options in the smaller, nearby municipalities;

• the increased availability of new buildings in the municipalities near Rome; • the availability of diverse settlements (near the sea, on the hills, in small

centers, 'the outskirts of Rome', etc.) and preferred types of housing (detached houses, terraced houses, or intensive developments, etc.) in the municipalities near Rome. Therefore the flows from the central districts to the suburbs are fueled also by the demand for lifestyle concepts such as 'green', seaside, country side, etc.

A final consideration for understanding the type and the nature of suburbanization in Rome is the study of the motives and residential preferences held by new settlers, for it is actually these preferences which generate and foster the processes fueling suburbanization and sprawl.

Contemporary suburbanization in Rome is a result of both 1) intra-city migration to the suburbs and 2) immigration from provincial areas as well as from other countries (i.e. very strong international immigration) comprised of people in search of work. Though the second type of migration is motivated by employment opportunities, the decision to settle in the suburbs is always at least partly motivated by the pursuit of better living conditions and higher standard of living. The price of housing per unit in suburban locations may be lower than in the inner city, but a small house in the suburbs can be more expensive to buy or to rent than a small apartment closer to the city centre.

People immigrate to or reside nearer to the city in order to have a wider choice and better access to jobs. However, there is also a widespread preference to live away from the city centre, away from industries, noise and stress and even from many social services and activities deemed too intense. This preference (not just urban planning and zoning) is, no doubt, one of the main reasons for the mono-functional “spontaneous” development of the suburbs. Respectively, it is also the reason why many suburban settlements have poor access to industries and services and limited social infrastructure.

Technical infrastructure and road networks are indeed insufficient in the urban fringe. New settlers are typically well aware that by choosing to live in the suburbs, they will have to rely only on automobiles for transportation (and they, apparently, already have the respective minimum living standard). What is more, due to the popular perception that infrastructure is an obligation of the local authorities, the


56

municipality is now considered responsible for the development of necessary road and utility networks.

The main conclusion is that suburban development in the periphery of the city of Rome is comprised of a mixture of suburbanization caused by migration of type 1 and type 2. Suburbanization is obviously generated both by immigration of people looking for jobs to make a living and by intra-city, or “centre-to-periphery,” migration. However, because of historically shaped traditions and residential preferences and associated current market trends, this mixture of type 1 and type 2 has resulted in urban forms that are typical of urban sprawl – scattered, leap-frog, low density mono-functional housing areas (dormitory zones), which are resource intensive and impose car-dependant life-styles.


57

1.4.Availability of lands for urbanization insuburbanareasofSofia,BelgradeandRome

1.4.1.Geographical,historicalandotherlocalfactorsgoverning the availability and accessibility of landforexpansionofurbanstructures

Sofia

Sofia occupies a significant part of the Sofia valley at the northern foot of the Vitosha mountain. These geographical features demarcate the limits for expansion of the city. The mountain foothills mark the south and west of the capital (Vitosha, Lyulin, Lozen Mountain). These areas are considered particularly attractive by most people and, mainly, by those who aspire to move to suburban areas. These territories, however, are also inherently limited by the mountains, especially, the Vitosha Nature Park. The north of the city which is in the Sofia valley attracts much less interest in housing development. Furthermore, the valley is an important area of agricultural production, which sustains city residents. Despite the not so favorable soil and climatic conditions (which define the lower yields per hectare), agriculture is an important sector of the regional economy mainly because of its proximity to such a major consumer center as the capital city (as emphasized by the Development Strategy of Sofia District). Although average crop yields per hectare are only 55% - 65% of the national average, this region has one of the highest shares of utilized agricultural lands in Bulgaria (Development Strategy of Sofia Distric - p.31).

Historically, there have been numerous anthropogenic factors that have stymied opportunities for utilization of the northern territories for residential purposes. The development of large scale industrial zones, namely Kremikovtzi and Elin Pelin, in the northern territory have had adverse effects on the environment (Development Strategy of Sofia District - State of the Environment) and on living conditions in nearby areas. This remains the case even after significant environmental improvements following the closure of the steel plants in Kremikovtzi – the largest metallurgical complex in the Balkans. On the other hand, areas in northwest, northeast and southeast are very well-connected as a result of the development of transport links along the European Transport Corridors (ETC) 4 ETC 8 and 10. Meanwhile, poor railway infrastructure currently impedes access to and from the northern areas of the municipality.

Belgrade Belgrade’s historical urban core lies at the confluence of the rivers Sava and

Danube. Due to its position, Belgrade was called “the gate” of the Balkans. Belgrade lies in the Danube valley, which connects the Western and Central European countries with the countries of South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Because of its


58

position on the Danube river, Belgrade became a very important river port connecting the Black Sea with the Rhine-Main-Danube canal (the North Sea - Atlantic - Black Sea). Since the 19th century, the city has been expanding to the south and east. After World War II, New Belgrade was built on the left bank of the Sava river. Today, the city lies at the crossroads of Eastern and Western Europe (the European Transport Corridor X and the European Transport Corridor VII - Danube) which leads through the Morava-Vardar valley and Nišava-Marica valley to the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor and to the Middle East.

In the following section we will provide an overview of the historical context of construction land development as it relates to urban development in Serbia. The historical development of legal construction in Serbia spans from the ancient and medieval times, the 19th and early 20th century capitalism to the socialist and post-socialist periods. The essence of European acquis communautaire is the implementation of the principle of legality (principe de legalite), concept of legal state (rechtsstaat) and rule of law within two legal systems - European continental law and the Anglo-Saxon common law. Both systems have adopted numerous institutes of Roman private law, with amendments and addendums, particularly regarding real property law. Post-socialist countries, including Serbia, have created a new framework for regulating a myriad of different interests in construction land development. There is a discrepancy between legal and real property elements in urban development, especially in the less well defined post-socialist system. In the process of regulating construction land, one notices a constant conflict between regulations and the situation on the ground, between private and public property and divergent interests, between economic interests and social requirements, characterized by strong battles (with shares, finance and capital, especially in the real estate market), followed by conflicts in the political/government arena.

The development of construction land in Serbia is determined by the framework and influence of three different historical contexts, in which different political and socio-economic systems dominated (Zeković et al., 2016). Contemplatively, the first context was formed in the mid-19th century until World War II. This context incorporated an economic order based on capitalism and the development of civil society, in an undeveloped agricultural country. The second context begins in the aftermath of World War II and lasts until the year 2000. This period is characterized by an authenthic development of a socialist system, in three phases: a) Phase of administrative-centralist system and post-war restoration (1946-1950), b) Phase of the authentic socialist system of self-management (1950-1990), with a stage of associated labor and consensus economics (1974 -1990), c) Phase of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the collapse of the socialist system (1990-2000). The third context (after the democratic changes in 2000) includes the post-socialist transition of society and economy within the neoliberal capitalist system of neoliberal discourse.

The first context - Development of construction land from mid-19th century to WW II

On the territory of Serbia, there were three parallel, reciprocally different systems of legal real estate categorization: 1) system of land registry books, 2)


59

system of title deeds, and 3) cadastre of property - cadastre of land. The land registry books were introduced in 1844, with the registration of property in books of legatees, i.e. land books. Land registry books were established in 1855 on the territory of Serbia, which was under Austro-Hungarian rule. The title deed system functioned in the part of Serbia under Turkish governance until 1912, where land registry books were not introduced. The cadastre of land ownership was introduced in 1929 in Yugoslavia. Before that point, it existed on the territory of Austro-Hungarian governance. The construction law in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was passed in 1931 and it included the regulation of cities, regulatory rules, technical regulations, construction development, land subdivision, land management, etc.

The second context - an authentic development of a socialist system

In the phase of administrative-socialist system and post-war restoration (1946-1950)

In 1947, an ordinance was passed regarding the registration of state-owned real estate property rights, in accordance with the communist paradigm. The Federal People’s Reupblic of Yugslavia (FRPY) socialist system was based on state ownership. The government passed laws by which the transfer of private and other forms of property to state ownership was carried out (on agricultural reform, confiscation, nationalization, expropriation, etc.). Domination of state ownership implied insufficient care for cadastre and land registry books. Instead, courts were responsible for the keep of land registry books, which represented a legal record of real estate based on the land cadastre as a factual record.

The phase of authentic socialist system of self-management was constituted between the years 1950-1990 and its pillar was the ‘exotic’ social ownership, a unique form of ownership in the world. The 1963 Constitution of FPRY introduced socialist self-management in all ‘socio-political communities’ as a unique model of decision-making in society, in economy, and in the political system, until its collapse in 1990. Reforms from the period 1964-1967 introduced measures to reduce the role of the state in economy; foreign investments were facilitated, and conditions for developing market socialism were created. In 1958, FPRY adopted the Law on nationalization of rentals and construction land, nationalizing built and non-built construction land in urban areas and urban settlements. Construction land was passed into state property, and later this land became social collective property. The owners of construction land became its users. This stopped legal transfers and the real estate market. Socially directed housing construction was intensified. Le Corbusier’s concept of urban development according to the Athens Charter (1933) was applied in that period in Yugoslavia, as it was compatible with the socialist system and urban planning. This initiated the construction of New Belgrade, i.e. a large settlement of prefab multi-family housing blocks, well-serviced and with many amenities (Zeković et al., 2016). In 1965 the Law of Transfer Land and Buildings was adopted, which forbid the disposal of socially-owned construction land.

Phase of associated labour and consensus economics (1974-1990)

During the period of self-management socialism and workers' self-managed socialist economy, a special concept of associated labor, consensus economics, self-management arrangements and social agreements dominated, as they were


60

introduced in the 1974 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s (SFRY) Constitution. The Constitution introduced social planning of socio-political communities that were obligated to determine the policy, guidelines and measures for realizing these plans. By the end of 1980s social planning disappeared, spatial development was directed to municipalities, while urban and spatial planning lost their significance. This marked the beginning of Yugoslavia's disintegration and the constitution of future independent states. In accordance with the Law, construction land was given by public competition to state and social enterprises for use. Fees for using and developing construction land were introduced. The cadastre of real estate was introduced in 1983, as a unique, factual and legal record of real estate according to a cadastral parcel.

The break-up of the Yugoslav federation (SFRY) and the collapse of the socialist system (1990-2000) was a consequence of the complex circumstances that culminated in political and armed conflict in 1990s (with the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999). The break-up of the country was brought about by the absence of economic and social reforms, coupled by the incompetence of political elites to transform the robust and inadequate system. The collapse of the SFRY led to the formation of new states, among which was FRY, i.e. the Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro. Serbia was faced with economic destruction, inner rifts, international isolation and war devastation while lacking a clear strategic policy. In 1995 and 1996, Serbia passed a 'set of building laws'. Construction land could be public, private or state-owned, with the right of use or long-term lease. These laws were made as precondition for attracting foreign investors, i.e. neo-liberal capitalism.

The third context: Post-socialist transitional context (from 2000 until today)

Following the democratic changes in 2000, a new institutional framework was created based on a capitalist system (of the neoliberal discourse) in the post-socialist transitional development environment. Since 2003, legislation regarding construction land has merged with spatial-urban planning legislation and developed within a post-socialist context. Under the motto of codification, a mechanical unification of legal matters of urban and spatial planning, construction land and building structures merged into one law (with 25 by-laws). This was carried out with the Law of Planning and Construction in 2003. A radical alteration of the system of land disposal by municipalities and towns was implemented - private property of other lands for construction was allowed, by-passing the then valid Constitution of 1990. The Constitution of 2006 prescribed that construction land could be in private hands, and facilitated this transfer. The law allowed the sale and transfer of rights of access of unbuilt land. The right to long-term lease of state-owned land for 99 years was introduced instead of the permanent right to land access.

The new Law of Planning and Construction was passed in 2009, with amendments and addendums (2010-2014). According to the Law, all forms of property are allowed on construction land, which is on the market (construction land in public property as well). The government plays an important role in adopting frequent amendments and addendums to laws, with aspirations to create urban planning and other legislation that will allocate subsidies to investors in the field of construction land, assure a fast and efficient approach to development of cheap and


61

attractive locations, as well as expeditious issuance of building permits. The regulation of construction land has undergone the biggest change, and practice has shown that the greatest challenges are indeed in this area. The Law, for the privatization of construction land, which is not sui generis, regulates the conversion of access rights to nationalized built land into property rights, without or with a fee. For the first time after 1958, the law allowed urban construction land to come under private ownership. Natural and legal persons founded by the state, region or municipality are allowed to convert access rights to urban construction land into public property rights, without a fee. It is possible to convert access rights into the right of private property for the category of previous proprietors, their legal heirs and persons having gained rights from them under prescribed conditions. Persons who have the right of lease on other state-owned construction land are allowed to remain leasees. It is also established that companies on state-owned construction land that hold access rights, and which hold this status due to privatization of enterprises or bankruptcy, can convert their access right into right of property by paying the market value of the land minus the costs of acquisition, where the Serbian government prescribes the fee based on the conversion. Problems in the implementation of these laws indicate that the right conditions for the codification of these three legal matters have yet to be met. . The laws pertaining to the taxed conversion of construction land have been contested by a decision of the Constitutional Court and repealed (2013). The right of property on publicly-owned construction land belongs to Serbia, the province or local unit of self-government. With the introduction of the real estate cadastre (in 1992 and 2009), land registry books and other systems of recording property have become invalid. By adopting the amendments and addendums of the Law of Planning and Construction (2014), the controversial provisions regarding the conversion of access rights to construction land into the right of property were excluded, with a fee, and for this, the adoption of a special law is predicted. The Law of converting land-use rights into rights of property of construction land with a fee was established in 2015.

Rome Over the years, urban expansion in Rome has been driven not only by

population trends, on the basis of population growth and migration, but also by the housing policies (at the central and local level) implemented since the World War period to date.

Indeed, though the first Piano Regolatore di Roma of 1873 included the realization of new neighborhoods within the Aurelian Walls, a set of rules of public and / or popular housing occurred in Italy in the fascism era. This was done with the intention at first to isolate symbolically the Capitoline monuments, realizing neighborhoods in areas adjacent to the historic center and other peripheral geographies, all the while fairly connected to the city center. This was done then to encourage house acquisition by a wider range of the population. “Overall, from 1964 to today, thanks to the house laws and the urban standards Decree, the City of Rome has built on public initiative about 7,000 ha of surface with less than 700,000 rooms


62

and areas for public facilities amounting to a little less than 2,900 ha.” (Caudo, 2005).

This led to a constant urban expansion from the core to the periphery, spilling outside of the compact city by incorporating agricultural and swamp lands, with residential and commercial structures increasing on the whole. The urban pattern in Rome, however, is quite fragmented, especially in suburban areas: artificial surfaces coexist with areas covered by vegetation and bare soil, which occupy considerable areas discontinuously.

Di Somma (2011) estimates that continuous residential areas cover about 20.78% of the municipal territory, both within the historic center as well as some areas outside the Aurelian Walls. Discontinuous residential areas cover about 54.60% of the municipality of Rome and include the residential areas of the suburbs developed over the last sixty years. The latter category includes some historical neighborhoods outside of the Aurelian Walls, realized both spontaneously and through public initiatives and also including the so-called "new suburban neighborhoods." These new neighborhoods are characterized as neighborhoods that are like a small city within the city itself. “Arising in disused areas or in agricultural lands that have recently become building areas, they are identifiable by some consistent morphological features: residential areas of a medium or high level, independent from the center of Rome, built according to modern and innovative criteria and accommodating between 30,000 and 70,000 units. The core of these small towns is always a big shopping center with supermarket and shops (between 80 and 200), which meet any and every type of need and service. A significant space is devoted to urban green areas and recreation centers for children. Parking lots are another relevant characteristic, located both close to the shopping center and in special facilities, mostly underground.” (Di Somma, 2011).

1.4.2. Legislation and national / regional systemplanning and regulation of land supply / access tolandresourcesResearch questions: - How does the national system of planning and

management of urban development (legislation, regulations, national and regional strategies) treat the issue of urban expansion? What are the procedures for the conversion of rural into urban land?

Sofia The first step in the process of urbanization is the conversion of unurbanized

land (mostly agricultural and only in some cases – forest land) into urbanized land. One indicator of this is soil sealing. In Bulgaria, the national average of land affected by soil sealing represents about 5% of the total area (over 560,000 ha) and 1.8% of that land is agricultural, forest and protected areas. This trend is comparable to the EU average, with the Bulgarian rate being a little slower. Simultaneously however, the Bulgarian population is decreasing (Figure 1.13). In the Sofia region


63

however, the percentage is well above the average. (National Report on the state of the environment in Bulgaria in 2009).

Figure 1.13: Deegree of soil sealing compared to the change of population in Bulgaria

Source: Soil analyses from National Environmental Strategy Project 2009-2011

There is a downward trend in the total area of agricultural lands in Bulgaria, whereas other land-use types are increasing, particularly urban and forest. During the period 2000-2009, agricultural areas decreased by 6.5% (http://eea.government.bg/cms/bg/soer-bg-2009/2economy/4agriculture). According to national survey BANSIC 2011 (Bulgarian poll monitoring agricultural and economic situation) conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, agricultural areas in 2011 were 49.4%, which compared to the previous year, is a decrease of 0.1% equal to 5,319 ha.

Figure 1.14: Lands with changed use in the period 2001- 2007


64

Urbanized lands (with changed status) (hа). Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2011

The procedures for converting agricultural into urban land are guided by a number of national and local regulations in Bulgaria - laws, ordinances, standards, etc., which over the years have been updated and changed to varying degrees. Our preliminary review found that due to the continuous harmonization of legislation in the country, the list of documents required for these procedures is lengthy, but the influence of some is nominal and can be ignored.

The documents that have a key role defining the processes of urban growth are as follows: Spatial Planning Act (SPA) – March 2001, last amended October 2012; Ordinance № 7 - Rules and regulations for the development of the different

types of areas and development zones - December 2003., last amended in 2008.;

Rules for Implementation of the Protection of Agricultural Land Act - September 1996., Last amended in May 2012.;

Tariff of Taxes Due for Conversion of Agricultural Lands – May 2002, last amended 2008;

Spatial Planning and Development of Sofia Municipality Act (SPDASM) - January 2007, last amended October 2012;

Spatial Planning Act (SPA) is the single most important legal document governing the planning processes in Bulgaria. It stipulates the hierarchical relationships between the concepts of spatial development and development plans. Each urban plan must comply with the provisions of the concepts of spatial development and spatial plans of superior hierarchy, if any, and present a particular development plan.

The purpose (the function, land use, destination) of lands (territories, as termed in SPA) is determined by the concepts of spatial development, regional development schemes and general urban development plans. The types of lands, as distinguished by their predominant function (or destination) are: urban areas, agricultural areas, forest areas, protected areas and damaged areas for recovery. According to paragraph 1 in Article 106 of SPA, the specific boundaries of these areas are determined by the General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of respective municipality. Accordingly, under Article 59 of SPA, buildings outside of urbanized areas are permitted only in accordance with the GUDP and local zoning regulations. However in settlements and territories for which GUDP is not yet developed and approved, SPA allows building outside of the urban area boundary under a plan that covers only part of a neighborhood (Art. 59 and Art. 106).

The main sub-law ordinance linked to the Spatial Development Act (SPA) is Ordinance № 7 - Rules and regulations for the development of the different types of areas and development zones.


65

The ordinance elaborates on the framework for spatial planning, which corresponds to SPA and mostly refers to it. As in the Spatial PlanningAct, Ordinance № 7 states that all rules and regulations shall be governed by principals of the effective use of territories and maintaining the natural balance.

Under Ordinance 7, the change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shall be established by order of the Act for Protection of Agricultural Lands and under provisions included in the development plan. Without such change, the only projects that can be developed are the ones allowed under the provisions for agricultural land use.

Since, as mentioned before, there are no Master Urban Plans in existence for most of the country, the conversion is based on fragmented Detailed Urban Plans (DUP), with no reference to a general planning vision like the one presented by a Master Plan. The absence of Master Urban Plans, particularly covering all suburban territories, is seen as a major factor contributing towards urban expansion and sprawl in Bulgaria.

The law with the greatest impact on the process of change of use of agricultural land and regulation of urban growth and sprawl is the Protection of Agricultural Land Act (PALA). This law defines agricultural lands as a major national asset and changes to their use (agricultural land-use) "is allowed only in exceptional circumstances, proven needs and under the terms and conditions set by this law." Contrary to the intentions of the Act, practice indicates that such “exceptional circumstances” seem to be quite regular and frequently, changes are applied to lands for which the procedure should not be permitted at all. Under the existing legislative provisions for agricultural lands, developments whose functions are not permitted are permitted only after a change of land use is stipulated by law, followed accordingly by a mandatory amendment of the Detailed Urban Plans. In other words, development that does not comply with the adopted plan is not possible. If a new development does not fit the plan that is in force, then the plan should be changed, under the condition that the change is permitted by the Spatial Planning Act.

PALA provides for annulment and modification of decisions on approval of a site and change of use, also in the case of delayed action beyond the statutory deadlines by stakeholders. Any person or organization can move to motion for revocation or to amend a decision pertaining to land use. Penalties for both physical and legal entities are stipulated in the administrative and penal provisions of the Law on protection of agricultural land. However, fines imposed vary widely and this creates problems since both PALA and its implementation rules do not tie the size of penalties with the degree of illegality of actions. These conditions permit fraudulent actions by owners/investors or officials.

Paragraph (§) 2 of the Supplementary Provisions of PALA allows the “legalization” of construction on agricultural land without its change of land-use status, albeit in violation of Art. 53a of the Spatial Development Act. Details of the terms, conditions, responsibilities, rights and obligations of participants in the procedures governing the conversion of agricultural land are described in the Rules for Implementation of the Protection of Agricultural Land Act (RIPALA). The Rules


66

for implementation, like other regulations, state that "the conversion of agricultural land be allowed in exceptional circumstances, proven need and the terms and conditions set out in these Rules. Explicitly, “construction of facilities un-related to the agricultural use of land is not permitted, without changing the destination of land (the allowed land-use)”. These rules do not conflict with PALA, but they also do not resolve the controversy of certain legal provisions associated with the conversion of agricultural lands and their development.

The determination of fees to be paid for change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and the criteria for their formation is governed by the Tariff of Fees Payable upon Change of Use of Agricultural Land. The Tariff was adopted at the end of May 2002, with the last amendment added in November 2008. The Tariff is under further development to be in compliance with the major changes made to the Spatial Development Act in October 2012.

The fee for the change of use of agricultural land is determined by a formula whose coefficients depend on:

Category of agricultural land, as stated in the Act of Categorization. Size of the land; Land location – settlements in Bulgaria are categorized according to the Law

of Administrative and Territorial Division of the Republic of Bulgaria. There are eight categories from I-st to VIII-th

Type of project being built; Level of irrigation.

There are certain conflicting elements in the Tariff that can be pointed out:

One area with significant impact and a particular cause of conflict in the Tariff is the coefficients for golf fields. Following the changes made in 2008, golf fields were removed from the general group of tourism and sport facilities and allocated into the group of activities with reduced charges (almost 11 times). This group is comprised of lands under state and municipal public property, which are designated for health-care, science, education and culture, energy and transport, projects for the preservation and restoration of the environment, facilities of defense and national security and other strategic for developments. The incongruous move of golf courses into this category occurred under very strong investor pressure and creates conditions for the destruction of large agricultural areas as a result of substandard fees applied for conversion of the agricultural land.

Belgrade

Substantive and procedural aspects of utilization of agricultural and forest lands, respective conversion into urban (construction) land and zoning have been defined by a number of national and local legal acts (laws, legal decisions, ordnances, regulations, etc.), which have been passed and subsequently modified in recent periods, viz.:


67

The Planning and Construction Act (2003; 2009; 2010; 2011-2015; in the sequel: PCA);

The Act on Agricultural Land (2006; 2009 and 2015; in the sequel: AAL);

The Forestry Act (2010; 2012 and 2015, in the sequel: FA);

The Act on National Land Cadastre (2009; and 2010; in the sequel: ANLC);

General Regulation on the Parceling-out and Construction of Land Lots (2011);

Ordnance on the Conversion of Land-lease to Land-property (2010 and 2011);

Legal Decision on the Land Zoning in the Belgrade City Area (2009; 2010; 2011; and 2015);

The Law on converting the land-use right into the right on property of construction land (2015).

Legal regulatory framework defining the conversion of agricultural and forestry lands into urban and construction land: general aspects

The status and planned use of urban and construction land (UCL) has been set forth by the Planning and Construction Act (PCA, 2009, amended in 2009, 2010, and 2011-2015). The general intention is to use UCL for construction and other related purposes in a legal, regular and rational way, in accordance with the “planning destinations” defined by respective urban planning documents. The PCA stipulates that proper compensation ought to be paid for this conversion by the owner of the property lot, and should be fulfilled prior to the issue of the planning use permit (with respective exceptions). Recent legal changes (in 2011) introduced a new instrument, i.e., redistribution of urban land (urbana komasacija), which applies to the conversion of construction land into public property and/or for public purposes, with a view to define a more rational utilization of small and fragmented urban plots. It should be mentioned that the penalty provisions (fines) of the PCA for the breach of more or less all cases, e.g., illegal construction, improper issuing of construction permit, etc. have been set at a relatively low level.

National and local regulations on zoning and land use densities

The PCA stipulates for a number of development planning instruments that apply to zoning, viz.: parceling out of land, the so-called “compact land tracts” (posebne prostorne celine) and zones; predominant use of land within the zoning schemes and compact land tracts; obligatory detailed zoning regulation. Detailed regulation plans are stipulated for all settlements, or their respective parts, depicting in detail: type of predominant “objects”; categories not allowed; rules for parceling out; allowed maximum construction/occupancy index; major/predominant use of urban land, applying to single land plots or to compact planned areas; etc.

For example, for respective types of zones the maximum construction index and rate of occupancy are: for central urban and business zones – 4.0 and 80%, for general and housing uses in high-density areas – 2.5 and 60%, for mixed uses in medium density settlements – 1.7 and 60%, for family-house zones and areas in low density settlements – 1.0 and 40%, etc.


68

The current system and practice of managing urban land in Serbia have not been harmonized with the main avenues of transitional reform and change. The urban land market is undeveloped, and therefore the basic regulatory mechanisms and institutions, as well as more up-to-date ways of financing urban land development are not established yet. In the conditions of an undeveloped market, the mechanism of urban land rent is incomplete and distorted, and it does not contribute to a rational use of urban land. In essence, the basic approach is still predominantly administrative. The above has a number of negative consequences, also applying to zoning regulations and land use.

The utilization of agricultural land and its conversion

The basic legal act in the sphere of agriculture (in the sequel: AAL, 2006; 2009 and 2015) stipulates the rigorous protection of arable land for agricultural and related purposes only. Its conversion to other purposes is allowed only conditionally, upon the fulfillment of a number of preconditions, also formulated and defined in law. This applies to the most productive class categories of agricultural land, i.e., I to IV. Non-agricultural utilization is allowed for land of inferior quality only, for some specific purposes, viz.: artificial (cultivated) meadows and pastures; new and/ameliorated forests; exploitation of mineral resources and related solid waste landfills; and in other cases of general public interest. For all listed cases, special permits are necessitated, issued by the responsible sector ministry. In all cases of conversion of agricultural land to other permitted purposes apart from these, the appropriate compensation is levied, following pertinent procedure, at the level of 50% of the market value of arable land in question, or, in the case of artificial (cultivated) meadows and pastures, and forests, at the level of 20% of market value of urban construction land. In sum, there has been intention to follow appropriate EU legislation in this sphere (e.g., 2004/35/ЕC Soil Framework Directive, COM 179/2002, etc.). Since more than 50.9% of urban land in the City of Belgrade is under public ownership (state and municipal), the issues of privatisation and restitution are of critical importance for all urban processes. The restitution of formerly nationalized agricultural land, launched at the end of 1980s, has now been almost completed. According to more recent sources (Serbian investment climate, WB, 2004), approximately 85-90% of total agricultural land in Serbia is now privately owned, the rest being owned either by the state sector or agricultural cooperatives.

During the period of transition there was a problem stemming from the legal opportunity to convert publicly-owned agricultural land to other property statuses and regimes. This was applied particularly to the most attractive sites in peri-urban areas of the broader Belgrade area. Although the law stipulated for a conversion at market prices, in practice it facilitated the very cheap sale of former agricultural land under public (state) property to private actors, and, secondly, to its subsequent and almost immediate conversion to non-agricultural purposes, mostly to expensive housing and business zones/complexes, etc. Only in 2009 (and 2015) AAL introduced some provisions to prevent the selling of publicly-owned agricultural


69

land. In the meantime, some 27 sites of former agricultural lands (out of a total of some 50 peri-urban areas) deteriorated, often paralleled by illegal construction on the newly converted sites. The scope of this negative trend is tremendous, indicated by the fact that some 20,000 hectares of former agricultural land have been converted to non-agricultural purposes. This has been a consequence of the interplay between an ill-equipped urban planning system and the impact of market forces in the Belgrade area. This was compounded by the shockwave of war refugees from the former Yugoslav republics and internally displaced people from Kosovo and Metohija that came to Belgrade in the 1990s. Most of them settled in suburban areas where land was available.

Clauses related to privatization of urban land were incorporated in the 2009 Planning and Construction Act. That is to say, a legal act, which is not sui generis for regulating property matters, defines the legal basis for ownership transformation. A key problem is that the PCA did not define regulatory rules, market mechanisms, institutions and instruments for conducting land policies (particularly for land valuation), and administering land transactions. In Serbia there is still no systematic data on the estimated value of state-owned land assets, which raises the related question of ascribing the market value of public land. In view of the fact that the value of construction land considerably exceeds the value of privatized enterprises in Serbia, it is clear that PCA of 2009 established the legal basis for a “back door”, i.e., non-formalized privatization of construction land. The land is subjected to blatant “profiteering”, which brings the greatest benefits to the most privileged “users” of plots who acquired the right of use either by buying them at bargain prices from the former owners or in the process of privatization of state-owned enterprises. Forest land in Serbia, like in most countries, is safeguarded and much more rarely converted into urban. The Forestry Act of 2010, 2012 and 2015 allows conversion in the cases of: general public interest; natural disasters; redistribution of land (komasacija and arondacija); renewable energy; etc. The financial compensation for the conversion of forest land may in some cases reaches a value 10 times larger than its current market value.

National, regional and local planning and land use policy

The Spatial Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2009-2013-2020 (2009) found that in the period 1993-2010, some 53,700 ha of agricultural land was converted to other uses and mostly to urban/construction land. Contrary to the planned increase of forest land to almost 30% of total surface area, its share in 2010 was almost the same as in 1993, i.e., 25.5%.

In 2005, the total area of urban/construction land reached 695,415 hа, i.e., ca. 9% of the total surface area. Its biggest share has been recorded in the broader Belgrade area (NUTS 2), i.e., 38.4%. The total surface area of urban construction land in Serbia is 194,441 hа, inhabited by 4.22 million people, with average density of 21.7 inhabitants/ha. Out of total of 1994,441 ha of public (state) land in Serbia, the City of Belgrade occupies 63,005 ha. The surface of total land in private ownership in City of Belgrade is 1,972.95 km2 or 61.2% (RGZ, 2013).


70

The Plan of 2010 predicts a further decrease of agricultural land in this period, for another 1,179,300 ha, i.e., for 23.3%, as compared to 2010. In the same period, the surface area of forest lands would increase for 928,500 ha (41.2%). The biggest increase in percentage goes to urban/construction land, i.e., 250,800 ha, which is 56.7% as compared to 2010 (Table 1.12).

Table 1.11: Planned land use in the Spatial Plan of Serbia (1996) and its realization

Total surface area

77,474 km2

Year Agricultural land Forest lands Other uses

(km2) % (km2) % (km2) %

Planned

1993

2010

51,452

48,350

66.4

62.4

19,838

23,094

25.6

29.8

6,184

6,030

8,0

7.8

Realized 2010 50,915 65.7 19,781 25.5 6,778 8.8

Planned balance sheet

1993/ 2010

- 3,102 - 4.0 3,256 4.2 - 154 -0.2

Realized balance sheet

1993/ 2010

- 537 - 0.7 -57 -0.1 594 0.8

Source: The Spatial Plan of Republic Serbia (1996), The Spatial plan of the Republic Serbia (2010), and data of Statistical Bureau of the Republic

of Serbia, Municipalities and Regions in Serbia 2010 (2011).

Table 1.12: Planned land uses in the MUP of 2010.

Total surface area

77,474 km2

Year Agricultural land Forest lands Other uses

(km2) % (km2) % (km2) %

Planed uses 2010 50,530 62.4 22.524 29.1 4,420 5.7

2020 38,737 50.0 31,809 41.0 6,928 9.0

Planned change

2010/ 2010

-11,793

-23.3 9,285 41,2 2,508 -56.7

The National Strategy of Sustainable Development of the Republic of Serbia (2008), too, observed that the share of agricultural land has been continually decreasing for a long period.In the period 1990-2006, the share of agricultural land decreased by 10.6%, аlong-side a continuous decrease of the share of arable land in total agricultural land (for 10% in the same period)

Data on urban land in the City of Belgrade (Table 1.13 by the Republic Statistical Bureau) are different from those provided by the Republic Land Cadastre.


71

According to the Republic Land Cadastre (2013), the total surface area of urban/construction land in the City of Belgrade is 111,260.72 ha (1,112.6 km2), out of which 46,919.9 ha is in the area of 10 urban municipalities, and 64,340.84 is in the seven suburban municipalities (Table 1.13, and Figure 1.15).

Table 1.13: Total costruction land in the City of Belgrade, 2012.

Urban Municipalities ha

Suburban Municipalities ha

Voždovac 8359.01 Barajevo 6933.53

Vračar 748.64 Grocka 9078.88

Zvezdara 3107.18 Lazarevac 5513.69

Zemun 7259.16 Mladenovac 10260.92

Novi Bgd. 3198.85 Obrenovac 15932.94

Palilula 9191.49 Sopot 11555.26

Rakovica 1963.37 Surčin 5065.62

Savski venac 1408.91

Stari grad 537.98

Čukarica 11145.23

total 46919.9 total 64340.84

Total urban and suburban 111260.7

0

20004000

6000

800010000

12000

1400016000

18000

Voždov

ac

Zvezd

ara

Zemun

Novi Bgd.

Palilul

a

Rakovic

a

Savsk

i vena

c

Stari g

rad

Barajevo

Grock

a

Laza

reva

c

Mlad

enov

ac

Obren

ovac

Sopot

Series1

Series2

Figure 1.15: Total construction land and urban construction land in the City of Belgrade (in ha), 2012.

Series 1: Total construction land (total, all uses) Series 2: Urban construction land (urban construction land)


72

The above findings contradict supplemented data. For example, in the Table 1.4, it has been indicated that the size of construction land for the City of Belgrade was 360 km2 in 2001, and less than that in 2011, that is, 359,95 km2. This process is paralleled by an increase of Belgrade population in the same period (Table 1.5). According to the data provided by the Republic Statistical Bureau, the size of construction land in Belgrade was some three times less than that indicated by the Republic Bureau of Geodesy/Republic Land Cadastre (2013).

Rome Italy / Lazio region/ Rome

As pointed out in section 2, the share of land with artificial covering in Italy is estimated at 7.3% of the total, compared with 4.3% EU average. The soil consumption in the regions of the largest cities had reached levels ranging from 9% to 14 % share of the total area. According to the survey of FAI (Fondo Ambiente Italiano) and WWF, soil consumption has reached a speed of 9 hectares per day. What role has urban planning played in this process? In practice, the urban master and detailed plans accompanied this approach: the soil market value increases only if estate planning regulations provide the building destination. This relationship has been in place since the 1980s and early 1990s.

The first thing that a planning system will have to do is to identify ways to detect the problem and to measure it. For this purpose the National Observatory on Soil Consumption (Centro di Ricerca sui Consumi di Suolo – CRCS, http://www.consumosuolo.org) was enabled in 2008 by INU (Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica), Legambiente and the Department of Architecture and Planning at the Politecnico of Milan, with the main objective to collect and elaborate data on the urbanization process and soil consumption in Italy, according to reliable and shared methods of analysis and evaluation. CRCS identified a methodology for the quantitative definition of soil consumption at the local level (Provincia). The annual research results of the activities of the National Observatory are presented in an Annual Report.

The First Report of 2009 highlights the lack of a national program for monitoring land consumption and the need for a shared method with which to carry it forward. The Italian Regions which, to date, have maps of land use at similar times and have been realized with the same comparable methodology are very few, such as: Lombardy, Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Sardinia.

The first CRCS results have shown that the Molise, Puglia and Basilicata Regions, though maintaining a strong rural character, are nonetheless experiencing accelerated growth of urbanized area. Most changes take place on agricultural soils and, to a lesser extent, at the expense of uncultivated land or forestry (similar to the observations in the rest of Europe).


73

Figure 1.16: Emilia Romagna Region: the soil consumption from 1949 and 2008.

Figure 1:17: Lazio Region: the soil consumption from 1949 and 2008

Image produced by Bernardino Romano - FAI album


74

Figure 1.18: The city of Bari - soil consumption in 1949 and 2008. Image produced by Bernardino Romano - FAI album

The Italian political and administrative government is organised on four levels: national, regional, provincial and municipal.

Italian Urban Planning legislation is relatively old, with its beginnings in 1942. Initially, coordination planning was a state practice, but state competences on coordination planning were transferred to Regions in the 1980s. Environmental protection and landscape planning (to be exercised by Regions under National supervision) remained under the authority of the State. In the last 15 years several Regions began to transfer coordination planning to Provinces.

Regional level - Each Region has its own regional laws that define the institutional and legal urban framework: it means that for each Region there exists a planning system consisting of a corpus of laws not only focused on landscape and cities management but for specific development and/or protection purposes. Regional plans are approved by the Regions themselves: the regional assembly, the


75

regional President and the regional government, with administrative competencies. The first urban planning for the Region of Lazio was done in 1980, followed by a series of revisions / amendments with specific objectives.

Provincial level - The General Territorial Provincial Plan (PTPG - Piano Territoriale Provinciale Generale) is a supra-municipal plan (piano sovracomunale) that defines the guidelines and the requirements that are applied to work and production areas, urban and rural settlements, landscapes and equipment for recreation, services and social facilities and the network of communications and transport. The General Provincial Territorial Plans are adopted by the Provincial Council and approved by the Region.

Municipal level – The General Municipal Plan (PRG) governs land-use at the general level and defines land-use for the municipal area as a whole. Municipal plans are adopted by the Municipal Council and approved by the respective Region. It is useful to specify that in accordance with regional laws on spatial planning, different institutional and technical bodies that are relevant to the Municipal General Plan are involved in the planning processes. In addition to this, many regional laws foresee an institutional and participative process of planning among citizens that can make formal observations on plan decisions and propose limitations and changes after the plans have been adopted by public administrations. The implementation of the PRG takes place through a series of Detailed Plans (Piani Particolareggiati) defined for single areas (zones) of the municipality.

The Italian planning system is structured in five tiers (levels): National level: Strategic National Framework, Regional Operative

Programme, General Transportation Plan, Hydraulic Basin Plan –National Rivers, System

Regional level: Regional Territorial Plan, Regional Natural Park Plan, Regional Landscape Plan, Regional Transport Plan, Hydraulic Basin Plan

Provincial level: Provincial Territorial Plan Municipal level: General Municipal Plan (PRG) Municipal level- detailed plans: Detailed Executive Plan, Low Cost Public

Housing Plan, Industrial Areas Executive Plan, Urban Transportation Plan, Detailed Site Plan, Urban Rehabilitation Plan, Complex Programmes – Integrated Programmes of Intervention

Some authors are critical (may be too critical) of the Italian planning system.

Gastone Ave (1996) claims that the system is not efficient mainly because it is too complex and the rights of the land-owners are too well protected, to the point that they foil plans. The poor efficiency is also the result of too many laws in force in the area of urban development. Some of these laws are very old and were adopted in social situations quite different from todays. The Legge Urbanistica Nazionale, which was adopted in the fascist period (1942), is one example. Another is the Law of Compulsory Purchases that dates from 1865. With the many advancements in civil rights since then, this law results in too much power for landowners, who frequently block the implementation plans when they perceive a disadvantage for their properties. The complexity of the legal system results in complexity in


76

planning, i.e. too many types of plans developed in the second half of the XX century in the area of urban development. The great many laws and plans also result in gaps in the planning system.

Soil protection is an integral part of spatial policy and planning. Although this issue has been recognized as an urgent priority at the international level, there are still no dedicated regulations, such as physical local strategic planning tools, governing this area in Italy. Generally speaking, urban master plans require a general description of geological and environmental conditions of a territory but do not limit building regulations along hydro-geological lines. It ought to be noted that this varies from region to region, as regions are entitled by the national constitution to rule territory according to specific regional acts.

Under the "Sixth Environmental Action Programme", the European Commission adopted a "Soil Thematic Strategy" in 2006, which aims to establish a framework of rules to prevent soil deterioration and to preserve the ecological, economic, social and cultural value of soils. The key element of the strategy is the proposal of a “Soil Framework Directive", under examination, which will allow Member States to adopt appropriate measures to individual local conditions.

As mentioned before, despite the amendment of Title V of the Constitution (2001), which stipulates that the territorial government is regulated in concurrence between State and Regions, the Italian legislative framework does not provide for specific measures on the soil consumption issue. In the Italian rules, soils are not considered a limited natural resource and therefore subject to a specific regulation that provides for their conservation and protection. There are regulations for protections to meet specific needs, such as those related to the hydro-geological preservation or safeguarding protected areas, but there is no a discipline that seeks to enhance the soils altogether.

The few examples of Italian laws enacted in the last years that take into account regulation of soil sealing in the context of urban growth and transformation come from the following Regions, although the actual effects seem limited (Di Fabbio et al, 2007):

- Emilia-Romagna: Regional Law 20/2000, - Umbria: Regional Law 1/2004, - Tuscany: Regional Law 1/2005.

Last but not least, the building process in Italy is radically disengaged from the urban planning regulations because of, in large part, an exception allowed by Local Authority to PRG (Piano Regolatore Generale) in force which takes as reference landscape planning currently being rewritten, not yet adapted to the requirements and objectives established by the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape (Legislative Decree no. n. 42/2004). Needless to say, soil consumption is one of the components of urban planning management that continues to have as reference the National Planning Law of 1942, now largely outdated and unworkable both from the point of view of time and from that of the legal framework of reference (Fondo Ambiente Italiano, 2012).

The current Government (2012) is moving in the defense of the landscape direction. On September 14,2012, the Italian Government adopted the draft law


77

aimed at "developing the rural areas and the containment of soil consumption". It mainly involved (specific details are missing because this is currently in discussion in the Italian Government): establishing at the national level, the maximum extension of rural land for

conversion in building land (those soils whose land-use can be adapted by planning regulations). The aim is to ensure balanced development of spatial planning and balanced distribution between the area subject to rural use and building areas. The Regions, in turn, establish it at a regional level and distribute it among Municipalities;

establishing a National Committee for monitoring the rural land consumption in Italy and the use transformation of rural land;

introducing the prohibition of changing land-use of rural land that used National or European funding for at least five years;

promoting the rural housing recovery to facilitate preservation, renovation and restoration of existing buildings, rather than the building and construction activity of new urban areas;

introducing a Registry in the Ministry of Agriculture in which concerned Municipalities, where the planning regulations do not include the increase in building area or an increase below the threshold, can be listed;

abrogating the rule allowing building contributions to be partially removed from their ordinary purpose - which is to contribute to the costs of the primary and secondary urbanization works - and are addressed to running costs by the local authority.

TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

“For land use we mean the change in coating of permeable soil for the construction of buildings, construction of buildings, roads and other usesroads and other uses. The land use is a measure of progressive cementation and sealing due to the expansion of urban areas at the expense of agricultural and natural lands”.

Source: VI Italian Report on Urban Environmental Quality (ISPRA, ARPA, APPA)

TURaS Urban Sprawl

“The land consumption must be considered as a dynamic process that alters the soil

nature, from natural conditions to artificial conditions. The soil sealingsoil sealing is considered

the last stage.It affects land usesland uses that involve the loss of natural characters, producing an artificial

surface.”

Fonte: European Environment Agency(EEA); 2004

LAND CONSUMPTION

DATA MODELS

How many things would change with INSPIRE…

Figure 1.19


78

Some final considerations have been presented for further discussion and research. They may be summarised in the above slide which has been presented and discussed in Rome on the 14th of March 2012, “INSPIRE: prepararsi all’atterraggio,” a National Workshop where the Ministry of Environment was actively present (SEE: http://www.isprambiente.it/it/archivio/eventi/anno-2012/5759-inspire). The programme details and presentations are available at (http://www.amfm.it/eventi/2012/INSPIRE/ WS_2012-03-14.php).

The slide demonstrates that there are two different visions according to the two definitions of Soil Consumption. The one from EEA outlines that soil sealing is the final phase of a process which has to be monitored carefully from its inception and throughout execution. On the other hand, the Italian definition, which is held by the legal entities managing the environment, defines soil consumption as the result of a process which entails the building of man-crafted objects on a soil previously considered permeable. The difference is substantial considering the speed of the building process, the inertia of public administration, the tendencies toward illegal building and the aggression on protected areas. The two (EEA and Italian) definitions also deeply influence the data models, required by INSPIRE Directive, to be used in SDIs for monitoring and comparing data. This issue should enter the TURAS project and following works.

1.4.3.Provisionsmadeingeneral/masterplansandaccesstolandresourcesResearch questions: - How do the general/ master urban plans of the cities of

Sofia, Rome and Belgrade treat the issue of urban growth? Do they plan for expansion? Are there efficient measures to protect rural and green land on the urban fringe and in the suburbs? What interests are being encouraged in local market players (residents, owners, developers) with regard to urban expansion?

Sofia Urban development and planning of Sofia and the problems of urban expansion

Urban development and growth of the urban area in Sofia is directly dependent on population dynamics in the city. The city has existed for about twenty three centuries, but it experienced the most rapid population growth after it was declared the capital of Bulgaria in 1879. In the period between 1879 and 1985, the number of inhabitants grew from 20,000 to 1,202,000. By 2001, when the new General Urban Development Plan was being prepared, the capital's population decreased to 1,172,000 and then again started to rise. According to the National Statistics Institute (NSI - http://censusresults.nsi.bg/Census /) since the last census in February 2011 there are in total 1,291,591 residents of the municipality. Of these, 1,204,685 live in Sofia.

The province of Sofia covers an area of 1,348.9 km2 in western Bulgaria, relatively close to the border with Serbia. It falls within the South-West Planning


79

Region under the common classification of territorial units for statistical purposes. It is the smallest in territory but the most populated in the country. The region of Sofia city has only one municipality - Sofia, which is subdivided into 24 districts. The municipality includes the city of Sofia and three other towns - Bankia, Buhovo, Novi Iskar and 34 villages.

Objectives of the General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of Sofia in terms the peripheral and suburban areas

The preparation of the General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of Sofia started in 1998 and was completed in 2003. The plan was only adopted in 2007.

Figure 1.20: GUDP of Sofia and Sofia Municipality 2007 Source : http://www.sofproect.com/Default.aspx


80

Literally in just months after being passed, an amendment of the plan was undertaken and adopted in 2009. The specific objectives of the plan for these areas are defined as:

• Achieving competitiveness, adaptability and integration of peripheral residential areas;

• Decentralization of inhabitation to achieve a balance in the urbanization and utilization of reserves in the territories outside the compact city and the nearby suburban areas;

• Absorption of attractive habitation areas currently lacking infrastructure and removed far from modern city activities;

For GUDP the development of suburban areas is a priority, "expressed in a public initiative to organize the owners, generate Detailed Urban Plans for development zones on the whole and build basic infrastructure. The plan states that "the use of new land for housing is made with the leading motive of "activating the metropolitan area and opening new prestige markets” and to "unburden the compact city". However GUDP-2009 concludes that "the city needs new residential areas outside the compact city in order to relieve pressure from excessive investment driven development and provide new markets for single family habitation”. Also in an update of GUDP in 2009 report states that "there is a growing trend towards concentration in the compact city (the highest in the last 86 years!), contrary to the predictions in the GUDP -2003". This observation is contrary to research detecting population growth in some of the suburbs at the expense of the central core. Both initial and updated plans are aimed at accelerating the development of suburban areas whereby existing conditions in southern territories be used more effectively and special measures are directed at the northern areas, to overcome their existing environmental problems as well as problems with transport accessibility. The northern suburban areas are seen as a major resource for future development of long-term inhabitation.

Specific guidelines from GUDP regarding the peripheral and suburban areas

According to the GUDP, agricultural areas in peripheral and suburban areas will be utilized for the needs of habitation as well as for service and manufacturing activities. Since habitation is a major aspect of the plan, respectively, its development in the peripheral and suburban areas is in direct proportion to its overall levels of development in the city and municipality. GUDP reported that "despite apparent market expansion, new construction reached an average of 1,700 residential units per year, more than twice less than the estimate of 3,700 residential units per year. However, the population underwent unexpectedly high growth. Although this is a subject of socio-economic forecast, we will highlight one of the main reasons for this unwanted process - the absence of a competitive environment in small and medium-sized cities and rural areas (labor market, prices of labor services)."


81

Figure 1.21: Scheme of the long-tern development of Sofia Municipality (after 2020)

Source : GUDP of Sofia and Sofia Municipality, http://www.sofproect.com/Default.aspx

Based on more realistic estimates, the amended plan provides a more moderate pace of residential construction despite the very high rates of migration to the capital. Given the obvious attraction of the central city the estimates of GUDP for peripheral areas are:

- Southwest macrostructure - about 30,000 units and Southeast - about 26,000 units,

- Northwest - 11500 units for timely implementation of prescribed measures (preparation of detailed urban plans and development of infrastructure)

- Northern and Northeastern macrostructures - a total of 11,000 new homes.

GUDP-2009 envisages around 80,000 homes to be built for the planning period in total. Such estimates, in fact, can be considered a maximum, and even over optimistic, when data from National Statistics Institute is taken into account (NSI 2010, NSI 2012- Census 2011). However, if we assume that this forecast is realistic,


82

and we also assume that by 2030 the average rate of new construction will be 50% higher than the average for the period 2000-2011 and that the proportion of dwellings built in suburban areas will grow even further by 50%, we may calculate that the rates of construction in suburban areas will increase between 2 and 2.5 times. Under the current density of suburban development for the projected number of households by the end of 2030 (from 78 to 80,000), the land required will be from 1,100 to 1,400 ha.

GUDP-2009 projects reduction of the agricultural lands from current 52,898 ha down to 36,000, or almost 17 thousand hectares, which equals one third (more precisely 31.94%). This decrease in agricultural land is offset by an increase of forest and green areas (+8,170 ha) and urban areas (+8,580 ha). Along with the increase in urbanized areas (and within them) there is a reduction of manufacturing and public service sites. Sites for housing are increased (+1,900 ha) and those of mixed use (+4,920 ha), as well. Within the mixed use sites, sites for residential and service uses will develop predominantly. So, ultimately, habitation is the urban function with the biggest increase in the GUDP, including zones for mixed-use (residential and service) developments.

The territorial aspect of increase in residential areas was mainly in the southern suburban areas and, above all, in the Vitosha Collar and surrounding areas. We have to note that in 2001, under the previous master plan, vast agricultural territories fell within the construction limits of Sofia, but they belonged to local residents and in practice their actual land-use was not changed – they were still used for agriculture. Large areas within these territories were assigned for green lands. Under the new conditions, however, private lands could not be used for green areas, unless the private owners were properly compensated. Thus virtually all agricultural territories south of the Southern Arc of the Ring road had to be re-assigned for housing, including the lands that were formerly designated as green space. In effect, GUDP-2009 has allocated 3-4 times more new residential lots in suburban areas than the 1,100 to 1,400 hectares actually needed. This finding is supported by data on changes of land-use, i.e., agricultural land converted to urban use. Data show that in the period from 2004 to 2012, less than 500 hectares were changed from agricultural to residential, industrial or utilities. We reckon, however, that the excessive territories allocated for urbanization could be used rationally and in accordance with the principles of urban sustainability and resilience, if a system of structural and administrative rules and positive and negative economic levers and incentives is in place.

Measures and mechanisms for implementation / realization of the provisions in the GUDP-2009 of Sofia regarding peripheral and suburban areas

It can be said that the GUDP of Sofia is a precedent - it creates important preconditions that determine a different way of functioning of the urban system as compared to the majority of territories and cities of Bulgaria. The different functioning of the system is particularly important in peripheral and suburban areas. The new feature refers to the restriction of development rights for large agricultural lands mainly in Sofa valley – the territories to the north of the city. Zoning


83

regulations imposed by the GUDP restrict the owners’ rights to develop their land, as well as the rights to change the land-use status from agricultural to residential, industrial and service functions. These lands constitute 35,624.60 ha out of a total of 36,000.20 ha agricultural lands. This means that 99%, practically all terrains in the GUDP -2007 (2003) and GUDP -2009, with preserved agricultural designation are protected against change of use. However, as noted above, the GUDP total area of agricultural lands is drastically reduced.

Another measure of Sofia’s GUDP to regulate the process of conversion of agricultural lands is the definition of the so called “long term perspective” areas. These are territories forecasted for urbanization after the current planning horizon of 20-25 years. These sites have a special status because their agricultural use from 2020 to 2025 cannot be changed, but the plan envisages that a substantial part of them will be urbanized afterwards. Novelty is the mechanism of Article 15 of the Spatial Planning and Building Act for Sofia Municipality, which establishes a framework for public-private partnerships. Through Article 15, the GUDP establishes a minimum scope of territory for privately initiated Detailed Urban Plans (DUP)

The analysis of the implementation and realization of the GUDP is necessary to examine how these mechanisms work in accord with other regulations, rules, financial, tax and market leverages and fees. Market processes play a major role in the implementation of urban plans and therefore it is important to explore the planning and market mechanisms, which determine the behavior of market participants. A key consideration defining interests of market participants is the relationship between the cost of agricultural land and urban land. In Bulgaria, the price of agricultural land varies within the range of €1,500-2,000 per hectare, respectively: € 0.15-0.20 / square meter. In the rural areas of Sofia Municipality market value of the agricultural land range from € 0.05-1.00 / sq.m depending on its proximity to the city, credit rating, irrigation. Urban land prices are from € 30-40 / sq.m, to € 250 / sq.m, that is, the value of urban land is 50-60 to 400-500 times higher than the value of agricultural land. The difference between the lowest and the highest price is mainly due to the quality of the property for the realization of residential, industrial or services and is associated with its location, and the cost of changing its land-use status. The first factor - the quality of the property for residential purposes is determined by 1) the access to the city (proximity and existing road infrastructure) and 2) the quality of the immediate surrounding - exposure, view, landscaping, technical infrastructure. This factor is generally included in the price of land even if the property still has agricultural status. The second factor - the cost of conversion of the property are: 1) financial (state and municipal taxes, preparation of DUP), 2) time and effort lost to procedural issues and coordination and 3) cost of the risk of investing money, time and effort.

In this way the main cash outlay to acquire agricultural land and converting it into urban property are as follows - cost of agricultural land, the cost of preparing of DUP, all state and municipal fees for land-use change. In general, the role of state and local taxes in these procedures is to ensure not only its fiscal purpose, but also to


84

affect the behaviour of the market players; therefore fees and taxes are tools for market regulation.

Figure 1.22: Map of tarrif zones of the Municipaity of Sofia Source – map provided by the Municipality of Sofia

The fee with the greatest weight in the procedure of conversion of agricultural land is the one defined in the Tariff of the fees payable upon change of use of agricultural land, Decree № 112 of 31.05.2002, SG. No 56/ 7.07 2002. (Amended 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008). Under this tariff fee, change of use of land from agricultural to residential, industrial or utilities ranges from € 0.2 to € 2.5 per square metre depending on the quality/fertility rating of the earth. As emphasized in section 4.2, “legislation and national/regional system planning and regulation of land supply/access to land resources”, if the new type of use is meant for socially significant goals (health, education, science, culture, environment protection, transport, infrastructure, etc.), the fee is 11 times lower. This of course also includes golf courses.


85

Obviously, the primary purpose of tariffs is to determine the value of land according to its "lost" agricultural properties - this is why the quality/fertility rating is a key factor determining the fee (although a factor related to the public interest and social policy is also included). Even more compelling evidence is the fact that fees are paid to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The comparison between market price of land and fee amount shows that agricultural resources are fully compensated. However, for the full value of an intended development project to be achieved, it is necessary to invest in other costly resources - mainly providing access, electricity, water, sewage, etc.. i.e., the provision of road and technical infrastructure is the investment with highest value. Infrastructure is, in principle, provided by the municipality and in many countries, various fees are paid (e.g., "impact fees") and / or taxes ("improvement" due to the increase in market value) and the like. In Sofia, the fee payable for the issuance of a building permit plays similar role. This fee is 3 to 14 lev per sq.m. (€ 1.5 to € 7) and is separate from the fee for project approval, which is only 0.10 lev for residential buildings and 0.20 lev per square meter for production and service (resp. = € 0.05 and € 0.1 per square metre).1 The exact amount is determined by the area in which the property is located. For central parts of the city, building permits are 14 lev (€ 7), for the southern suburban areas, the fee is 10 lev (€ 5) and for the northern territories – 6 lv. (€ 3). Clearly, the charges are based on the expected market value of housing and not on the cost to build necessary infrastructure. As a result of this discrepancy, road and technical infrastructure that inevitably have to be built to serve suburban areas sooner or later, will be financed by all residents - taxpayers of the Municipality, instead of at the expense of the new settlers. This creates an incentive for developers to build in the southern suburban areas where selling prices are almost the same as the prices in the intermediate ("semi-central") regions, but the fees are lower. As a result, the municipality inevitably takes on the commitment to build the expensive infrastructure that will eventually service these newly urbanized areas.

Belgrade

Master Urban Plan of Belgrade 2003, amended 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2014

The size of Belgrade’s administrative territory in 2016 was 3,224 km2, with 1,572,000 inhabitants, 567,826 employees (2015) in 73,940 SMEs (out of totally 201,000 SMEs in Serbia). The number of illegal buildings was 400,000 in the same year. The territory covered by the Master Urban Plan of Belgrade (in the sequel: MUP) of 2003 with a few changes (the last one in 2014) amounts to 77,600 ha, where 84% is urban construction land (state owned) and only 1% construction land is under social ownership.

1 For easier comparison in this paragraph, values are calculated per square metre of

land, not per square metre of built area


86

The main aim of MUP was transformation of the urban planning system in accord with socio-economic, political, institutional and organizational changes, which were market-led by the neo-liberal discourse. The strategic aim in the sphere of urban land management is establishment of a new governance model, based on market principles and on correcting their imperfections, by means of embedded general public interests. Some goals of MUP related to urban expansion and urban renewal have contradicted each other. For example, urban renewal was strongly stipulated, in parallel to ca. 50% increase of built urban land which was predicted at same time. MUP aimed to promote the existing advantages and competitiveness of the city to attract foreign investments. MUP foresees large structural transformation of river waterfronts, with an important market dimension. The application of conventional instruments in land-use policy (development fees, taxes) illustrates a weak connection with market. Direct impact of market and investor interests is, for example, the urban rezoning of the Port Belgrade proposed by MUP Amendment (2006), and “Belgrade Waterfront” project (2014). In the competition for European cities and regions of the future, organised by the Financial Times in 2006, Belgrade was announced as the “City of future of the South Europe”.

Specific strategic aims referring to the development of suburban areas were defined as: 1) denationalization of both the ownership and management of urban (construction) land, correction of marketization, mainly in social respects and 2) de-metropolization – putting into effect more dynamic development of other parts of Serbia other than the Belgrade metropolitan area, and thereby lessening its population and economic burden. The importance of the following aims should be emphasized: 1) urban reconstruction, 2) registration of illegal construction, 3) completion of built residential areas in terms of their function, 4) provision of new areas for housing, 5) enabling distribution of the planned activities and jobs in suburbs, etc.

The MUP of Belgrade planned substantial changes in the structuring and zoning of the territory of the city. Basic data and indicators are presented in Table 1.14. In the time period 2001-2021 the biggest decrease is in agricultural land, from a share of 51.1% to 27.8%, mostly for industrial parks along key transport routes, followed by the increase of green surfaces of various kinds. Consequently, a sharp increase of total green surfaces is predicted. In absolute terms, the largest changes occur in economic zones (3,155 ha), transport zones (2,269 ha), housing zones (1,888 ha) and commercial zones and centres (1,336 ha). In terms of spatial distribution and organization, four broad areas were defined by the MUP, out of total of 77,602 ha, viz.: 1) Central zone (3,706 ha); 2) Intermediate zone (8,532 ha); 3) Outer zone (21,962 ha); and 4) Fringe zone (43,902 ha).

MUP prescribes the main development directions until 2021 for suburban areas along “Ibarska magistrala”, highways to Niš and Zagreb, in direction to: Zemun, Batajnica, Avala, Pančevo, Smederevo, and Zrenjanin.


87

Figure 1.23: Master Urban Plan of Belgrade 2003, amendments 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2014

Source: http://www.urbel.com/default.aspx?ID=uzb_GeneralniPlanovi&LN

Regarding the large-scale illegal housing construction, Belgrade MUP has identified the spontaneously developed settlements and areas in the category “housing and housing tissue”, as well as “economic activity and economic zones”. MUP envisages further sprawl and enlargement of existing as well as the creation of new economic zones: along highways (between airport and Bežanija, Upper Zemun and Batajnica, highway to Niš, bypass highway), along Pančevo road, Ibar road and Smederevo road. Among the priority suburban areas for rehabilitation of spontaneously formed tissues, MUP designated settlements Altina, Padina, Mirijevo, Jajinci, and others. In suburban areas, MUP envisages an increase of surfaces occupied by transportation infrastructure by 39% (from the existing 2,319.7ha to 3,216.65ha). MUP has not proposed substantial improvement of access to suburbs by public transportation. Due to the global economic and financial crisis, the implementation rate of strategic directions and projects defined by MUP has been slowed down.


88

Table 1.14: Existing and planned urban land uses according to the MUP (in ha)

Current land-use (2001)

Planned increase

(UMP 2003)

2001-2021

Total

(UMP 2003)

Planned increase

(AUMP, 2006/2)

2001-2021

Total (AUMP 2006/2)

Housing 12,571.65 1,570.25 14,141.90 318.10 14,460

Economic zones

1,595.22 1,929.35 3,524.57 1,226.43 4,751

Commercial zones and centres

667.98 1,147.60 1,815.58 188.42 2,004

Public services and centres

1,123.10 275.04 1,398 47.86 1,446

Sports and leisure zones

685.87 502.01 1,187.88 -90.88 1,097

Green areas 11,365.27 9,044.64 20,409.91 -357.91 20,052

Agricultural zones

39,657.32 -15,904.12 23,753 -2,173.20 21,580

Water surfaces

4,071.05 101.16 4,172.21 4,172

Cemeteries 344.69 144.51 489.20 489

Transport zones

4,424.15 1503.56 5,927.71 765.29 6,693

Public amenities and utilities

345.30 436.40 781.70 76.30 858

Undeveloped land

750.39 -750.39 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 77,602.00 77,602.00 77,602.00

The provisions of the MUP (2003) were precisely formulated in Amendments (2006, 2009, 2014), especially on strategic urban development and planned land use. MUP foresees measures for halting semi-legal and illegal upgrade and construction of illegal buildings. The implementation of MUP is based on its more detailed elaboration via detailed regulation plans. This process is initiated by the responsible organization (Belgrade land development public agency), covering 80% of total construction plans. Only one detailed plan has been adopted for remediation of illegal construction (for the settlement of Jajinci), and another one is under


89

deliberation (for the Smederevski road), otherwise designated as priority areas for remediation of suburban areas. The process of further sprawl has been directed more by “spontaneous market mechanisms” – than by planning measures.

The policy of urban/construction land is laid out specifically in the regulations set forth in the City’s Decision on Construction/Urban Land (2015), Decision on Criteria and Standards for Determining the Fees for Land Development (2015) and City’s Decision on Determination of Zones in the Territory of Belgrade City (2015), with 9 zones. In 2015, the development fees for construction land for commercial buildings (236.6 €/ m2) is up to 37.5 times higher per m2 in zone I (CBD) in relation to the price per m2 for housing in the peripheral zone of Belgrade (6.3 € in zone VIII). From that year, there was no land development fees charged for the development of economic/industrial zones. Initial value of land development fees is determined by the purpose of the object (public services, housing, commercial-manufacturing, business-service and business-commercial) and the zone (the above-mentioned central, intermediate, outer and fringe zones - ca. eight zones and zone of specific purpose) – see Figures 1.24, 1.25 and 1.26. New land development fees range from 1:25 for commercial structures to 1:30 for housing and public services (in 2015).

Built/developed state-owned construction land is subject to lease for a period up to 5 years. The period is estimated based on the purpose, area and market value of land. The leasing procedure is conducted at a public auction for facilities up to 10,000m2 of gross construction area, where the minimum amount of lease and the lessee’s obligations are determined in the announcement for an open tender. The lease agreement for construction land in public ownership can be concluded for up to 99 years. The law provides the conversion of leased land into property right. The mechanisms for the determination of market values of sites through existing administrative methods derived from regulations are insufficient. For example, there is not a single square meter of land open for construction along Belgrade’s highways and other development corridors currently. Construction land is being sold at prices ranging from 50-1500 EUR/m2. This situation could have a discouraging effect on potential investors.

Another strategic document dealt with the issue of diminishing agricultural land in the broader Belgrade area. It has been found that out of 223,128 ha of total agricultural land, 43,354 ha (19.43%) were still publicly owned (in year 2006). The ownership status of only about 1000 ha of arable land is being disputed still. The data from the two sources on the agricultural land in the area of the City of Belgrade differs. According to the data provided by official statistical service of Serbia (RZS, 2012), the size of agricultural land in the City of Belgrade in 2011 was 212,000 ha (or 215,414 ha, according to the Opštine i regioni u Republici Srbiji, 2012), and 130,000 ha, according to the Agricultural Census (2012). According to the Republic Bureau of Geodesy (2013), the size of total agricultural land in the area of the City of Belgrade was 136,214.07 ha, that is 79,200 ha less than the figure from the former source. This indicates a dramatic decrease in the size of agricultural land, as well as intensive urban sprawl.


90

Figure 1.24: Zones in City of Belgrade – (I-VIII and zone of the specific purpose)

http://www.beoland.com/images/zemljiste/propisi/Odluka_o_odredjivanju_zona_dec_2015.pdf

The Strategy developed two alternative scenarios, the former focusing on the expected further decrease of total agricultural land, to the interval from ca 215,742 ha to 220,000 ha in 2015. The second alternative was elaborated based on the assumption that the size of agricultural land until 2015 will match the so-called “technological potential”, market at ca 222,308 ha. This would however imply the implementation of a number of policy measures, with a view to prevent the further decrease of agricultural lands, covering all relevant aspects, viz.: concept of privatization of large agricultural estates; rational utilization of publicly owned land; improving market mechanism and instruments for agricultural land; etc.


91

Figure 1.25: Belgrade’s zones ranked by the degree of

attractiveness – current status

Figure 1.26: Area of Belgrade ranked by accessibility to

public transport Source: Strategija razvoja trgovine u Beogradu do 2015, Ekonomski fakultet, 2008

Rome

Most of the 121 Municipalities (Comuni) in the metropolitan area of Rome (which is mainly overlapping the area of the Province of Rome) have a PRG. Only 5 of them have the so-called Piano di Fabbricazione (determined by national law of 1942 for smaller municipalities) and 1 small municipality, located in the East, still has no urban plan.

Many of the aforementioned Planning Regulations are quite old and have adopted 1st and/or 2nd revisions/amendments (“variante”). Figures 1.27 and 1.28 respectively represent the Urban Planning Regulations actually in force and the ages of those plans on the metropolitan area of Rome. Around 70 percent of the 121 municipalities included in the metropolitan area of Rome have an approved PRG. Another 24 percent have an old planning instrument in force but have an adopted new PRG or general revision / amendment (“variante”) which are necessary for approval. The remaining 6 percent have either no instrument or another type of instrument. Around 20 percent of urban planning instruments date back to the 70's, 29 percent to the 80's, 34 percent to the 90’s and 17percent originated after 2000. All this is mainly due to the processes of adoption and approval of plans that are rather long in Italy. Just consider the City of Rome, where a PRG is in force, whose development began in 1999, was adopted in 2003 and only definitively approved in 2008 (after more than 40 years of the previous PRG of 1962).


92

Figure 1.27: Municipaities in the Province of Rome with PRG, 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, Piano di Fabbricazione and no adopted plan

Figure 1.28: Municipalities in the Province of Rome by the ages of their Urban Planning Regulations

(http://capitalemetropolitana.provincia.roma.it) – section “territorial data”


93

The consequence of Urban Plans from previous generations has been the occurance of "spontaneous" residential expansions that emerged around existing built areas and along the main roads. In reaction to this, new Urban Plans tend to begin with harmonizing and regulating these different urban settlements, which have often encroached into the agricultural zone.

In Rome, unlike other European cities, a clear boundary between the urban and the rural areas, what is often referred to as a greenbelt, is missing. These areas which demarcate city limits are defined in the Municipal Urban Plan (Piano Regolatore Generale) at the expense of other various types of green areas. Another document named the “Piano certezze,” which was approved in 1984, definitively establishes areas allocated for urban development and areas to be preserved for rural and green uses. However, the aforesaid Plan has actually failed to keep these zones pristine for rural use.

Figure 1.29: Consumed (converted) areas in the period 1984-2000

Map provided by the City of Rome

The problem of increasing urbanization of rural land and soil consumption was not prevalent in the plans of the 70s - 80s. Indeed, newer plans pay greater attention to environmental and natural threats and thus identify the special "value" of rural areas and highlight the need to contain urban settlements and restore existing built areas.

According to a study carried out by Province of Rome Authority (“Provincia di Roma PTPG - Rapporto Territorio: Capitolo 10”, 2010), an analysis of different PRG, or similar documents, showed a predominance of residential areas, amounting to an average of 70 sqm/inhabitant. Much smaller areas are allocated for productive activities (about 27 sqm/inhabitant), for general services (2 sqm/inhabitant) and for public and strategic facilities (less than 9 sqm/inhabitant) – Table 1.15.


94

Figure 1.30: Piano Regolatore Generale di Roma

Source - http://www.urbanistica.comune.roma.it

Table 1.15: Balance (in percentage) of the differen types of territories (land-uses) in PRG - the City of Rome and the metropolitan area of Rome

Residen-tial areas

(%)

Areas for productive activities

(%)

Areas for tertiary activities

(%)

Areas for community services (%)

Areas for cultural

activities, leisure, tourism,

sports (%)

Rural areas (%)

City of Rome 27.69 3.20 4.24 11.41 0.81 52.65

Metropolitan area of Rome

37.91 7.46 2.44 11.52 0.81 39.86

However, it can be said that these data do not correspond to the actual situation. It is useful to mention that in Italy:


95

- When newer amendments (“variante”) are adopted to supplement older urban planning instruments, they are often only partial and have the effect of distorting the nature of the original planning approach.

- There is a lack of continuous monitoring of the application and status of planning, action programs and their implementation, particularly with regard to soil consumption.

In this context, it is clear that the Municipal Plans (most of the Master Plans of the Province of Rome are older than 20 years) failed to give sufficient functional responses to the process of redistribution of building land and consequent demand thereof. In particular, the Piano Regolatore Generale (PRG) of Rome has not yet succeeded in achieving its objectives in relation to the New Centralities and the protection of rural land (Agro Romano), shown by the existence of a not very sustainable city from the point of view of mobility and soil consumption. The problem is now clear and the expansion of the infrastructure network as well as the consumption of new land is being addressed, with a view towards restoration projects.

1.4.4.Resultsofthe interactionbetweenmarketandurban planning and current trends in marketprocessesinSofia,RomeandBelgraderegardingthedevelopmentofperipheraland suburbanareasandurbansprawlResearch questions: - What is the response of the markets to the planning

system and the master plan? What are the market trends in the peripheral and suburban territories and how do they relate to the plans, the planning policy, legislation and regulations?

Charles Schultze in The Public Use of the Private Interest (1977) says that “there exists no such animal as a ‘natural’ laissez-faire system sprung solely from private arrangements” with the result that “the free enterprise system, therefore, carries the label ‘made by government.’” In this line, the main question in this section is: how do markets respond to urban planning policy, as it is implemented in the three capital cities with regard to urban expansion? That is – does city planning affect the market system in a way that in practice stimulates compact or sprawled development?

Sofia Sofia's current development - compact development or sprawl

A popular fact is that the 1990s’ were a “dark age” for planning in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. At this time, planning was perceived as a form of communist control and was dismissed in urban development –relegated only to piecemeal changes in obsolete plans still in force. It can be said, however, that since the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century, regional and urban planning in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, experienced a revival. Along


96

with this, the development of Bulgarian cities went through a period of "explosion-like," market-led boom. This boom, brought about by the opening of the property market in Bulgaria, had two main focal points. The first was areas for recreation and tourism and the second was Sofia. Like the capitals of other post-socialist countries, the metropolitan area attracted significant interest from a number of local and international investors, companies and thousands of individual buyers. The pace of investment activity in the areas for recreation and tourism (in particular, areas along the Black Sea), Sofia-city and the rest of the rest of the country are shown in Table 1.16 and Figure 1.31.

Table 1.16: Newly built units per 1000 people, per region, per year

Year

Inhabited areas

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Average for Black Sea region

1.97 1.25 2.07 3.52 6.72 7.03 8.46 9.19

Region Sofia-capital

0.53 1.05 1.35 1.46 1.64 1.29 2.77 3.01

Average for rest of the country

0.59 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.52 0.76 1.17 1.36

Data from NSI - 2009, (http://www.nsi.bg/Population/Population.htm )

Figure 1.31: Newly built units per 1000 residents, per type of region, per year

During the first decade of the transition, rates of new construction in Sofia dropped 11 times. Then between the years 2003-2009, construction rates boomed, increasing from 5 to 12 times. In particular, between 2005 and 2008, the rates of


97

construction in Sofia were between 2 and 3 times that of other regions. Along the Black Sea coast, this figure was between 6.7 and 13 times higher the national averages. The construction boom in Sofia inevitably changed the structure of the urban structure. This is illustrated in Table 1.17 and Figure 1.32, which show the dynamics of the housing stock in the city. It is the result of the relationship between three factors – 1) preferences of residents (determining demand) and 2) capacity of the territory and 3) planning (defining supply in urban development).

Table 1.17: Number of housing units per type of districts in respective periods

Types of districts

before 1950

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1990-1999

Central districts 17774 9127 5898 3828 2370

Inermadiate districts 14685 15549 45791 43972 24323

Peripheral districts 1694 2486 17441 62423 12107

Southern suburban 2891 3832 9518 10989 13111

Northern suburban 2507 4271 6030 7399 6005

Calcilations by the authors based on NSI 2012 - Cencus 2011- Population and housing stock, Volume 3, Book 23

Figure 1.32: Number of housing units by periods of construction

Observations concerning the market trends of urban development:

1. The preferences of residents for central and intermediate (semi-central) areas are dominant. Although the capacity of the central regions was exhausted by 1960, interest in this area fuels continued development, which increased during the period of transition to market-led development beginning in 2000. Demand for housing in


98

the intermediate (semi-central) areas has been a major motivating factor behind the increasing share of urban housing in this region, from 35.8% in the 1980s to 44.1% over the last decade of market operation.

2. Peripheral regions have a significantly reduced share of housing in the urban structure – from 37.8% to 23.0%. This is mainly due to the ability of central planning during the socialist period to generate high rates of development in the periphery despite lower demand (compared to demand in other urban areas).

3. During the period of free market development, development rates in suburban areas changed substantially. The rates of development in the southern suburban areas show the greatest increase i.e. - in the districts Vitosha, Ovcha kupel and Bankya. Starting from 9.9%, their share increased by 11% and reached 21% of the total urban development. This confirms the conclusions reached in Section 3 regarding growing preferences of Sofia’s residents towards the Vitosha collar, as well as the findings in section 4.3. on the guidelines set out in the GUDP of Sofia Municipality. In contrast to the increasing rates in the southern region, the territories north of Sofia attract fewer housing developments and their share decreased from 12.7% in the 1980s to 5.3% after 2000. This appears to be due to lack of market demand, but also because the measures proposed in GUDP are insufficient and, above all, lagging implementation of these measures.

Market indicators - prices and sales volumes

Price of land

Primarily, land in the periphery and in near-urban areas is sold in Sofia. Average market prices for sales demonstrate very clearly the established preferences. As shown in Table 1.18, the average land prices in the southern areas are between 6 and 13 times higher than those in the north.

Table 1.18: Mean market prices of land in suburban areas by year

Districts 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

Novi Iskar 20 EUR 21 EUR 22 EUR 29 EUR 24 EUR

Kremikovtsi 31 EUR 32 EUR 35 EUR 41 EUR 32 EUR

Pancherevo 93 EUR 96 EUR 104 EUR 126 EUR 110 EUR

Vitosha 174 EUR 168 EUR 189 EUR 256 EUR 205 EUR

Ovcha Kupel 167 EUR 189 EUR 215 EUR 276 EUR 233 EUR

Boyana 218 EUR 223 EUR 247 EUR 314 EUR 261 EUR

Source: Address Real Estate Agency

Figure 1.33 illustrates the dynamics of land prices by region between 1992 and 2012. Figure 1.34 shows the territorial distribution of prices and once again demonstrates a high demand for land in the southern areas, mainly in Vitosha collar.


99

Figure 1.33: Mean market prices of land in suburban areas by year

Figure 1.34: Land price levels in the suburban districts of Sofia

Source: Address Real Estate Agengy


100

The planning system can influence the price of land directly and indirectly. Indirect influence is generated through creating better conditions for realizing the assigned land use. Direct influence is exercised by regulating the productivity of land as a resource to ensure the final product - in this case, residential property (but also other functions - manufacturing or service facilities). A major factor in this respect is the index of intensity (floor-space index, FSI). If there is demand for single housing on land in a certain area, the higher FSI would have a neutral or possibly negative impact on demand and, consequently, the price of land. However, if a particular area is in demand for multi-family buildings or mixed use, the higher density allowed will increase the price of land, because it would increase its productivity.

Another way in which the planning system can affect the supply of land (on the land market) is by facilitating or hindering the conversion of the land. Difficult procedures impose higher cost of invested time and increase the value of the risk of changing the status of land, which can significantly increase the cost of urban land. But if the procedures actually lead to better management of land resources, higher land prices may translate into higher quality of the resource and facilitate effective long-term development. When compared with the procedures in countries like Britain and Germany, Bulgarian procedures are relatively liberal and short.

Housing prices

While the demand for urban land is a derivative of the demand for the final product (residential, industrial, service facilities) and therefore land prices correspond to the final demand indirectly (an important factor in this respect is land’s productivity), the prices reflect market demand directly.

As shown in Table 1.19 and in Figure 1.35, the highest prices mark the most attractive areas of the city - the inner parts of Lozenets, Triaditsa and semi-central - Izgrev. In peripheral and suburban areas, only in Vitosha Collar prices are catching up with those in semi-central areas. This is yet another testament to the changing preferences of citizens and the developing trend of increased demand for property in the southern suburban areas.

In regard to the role of planning in the development of the market, it should be noted that housing prices (and land prices) show that in the first half of the 1990s demand for properties in the south and, mainly, within the Vitosha collar was relatively high. Apparently such a demand already existed in the 1980s, but the planning system at that time did not allow higher rates of construction. In a free market, the direct impact of planning on housing prices is again connected to the ratio of density/intensity (coefficient of intensity of construction). It is a well-known fact that a liberal system of planning allowing high coefficients of intensity of construction raises the cost of land, while simultaneously lowering the price of the final product – housing.


101

Table 1.19: Mean market prices of dwellings in suburban areas by year

Districts June 1995

June 2000

June 2005

June 2010

Central territoriesCentral districts 507 291 712 951

Lozenets -inner 541 363 784 1054

Triaditsa -inner 471 333 782 1129

Intermediate districts

Izgrev 481 303 749 1039

Krasna polyana 312 207 525 726

Krasno selo 433 274 598 841

Serdika -inner 395 192 514 714

Poduyane 267 168 453 656

Ilinden 315 196 521 745

Slatina 395 244 592 855

Lozenets -outer 521 308 655 786

Triaditsa -outer 418 289 618 871

Peripheral districtsMladost 336 213 556 757

Nadezhda 322 172 464 619

Lyulin 298 164 466 630

Iskar 264 172 463 621

Studentski 346 239 519 731

Serdika -outer 194 148 386 574

Southern sub-urban districtsVitosha 398 271 681 803

Ovcha kupel 283 183 467 675

Northern sub-urban districts Kremikovtsi 331 169 194 372

Vrabnitsa 206 138 427 554

Source: www.imot.bg (accessed 09/2012)


102

Figure 1.35: Mean market prices of housing by regions 2010. Source: www.imot.bg (accessed 09/2012)

Obviously, in Table 1.19 and in Figure 1.35 the highest prices mark the most attractive areas of the city - the inner parts of Lozenets, Triaditsa and semi-central - Izgrev. In peripheral and suburban areas, only in Vitosha Collar prices are catching up with those in semi-central areas. This is yet another testament to the changing preferences of the citizens and the developing trend of increased demand for prperties in the southern suburban areas.

As regards to the role of planning in the development of the market, it should be noted that housing prices (and land prices) show that in the first half of the 1990s demand for properties in the south and, mainly, within the Vitosha collar was relatively high. Apparently such a demand already existed in the 80s, but the planning system at that time did not allow higher rates of construction. In a free


103

market, the direct impact of planning on housing prices is again connected with the ratio of density/intensity (Coefficient of intensity of construction). It is a well known fact that a liberal system of planning allowing high coefficients of intensity of construction raises the cost of land, while simultaneously lowering the price of the final product – housing.

Sales volume

Analysis of the data on real estate purchases and sales in Sofia demonstrates the intensity of real estate market dynamics during the transitional period. Due to its characteristics, this market was severely restricted during socialism, and the market processes were powerful soon after the start of the transition. In only two decades, the property market in Sofia has experienced two periods of construction boom (1992-1995 and 2003-2006) and two periods of stagnation (1996-2001) and since 2008.

Our study shows that prices alone are not a sufficient indicator of market processes. The number of sales, too, is an important indicator of market trends. The comparison between the fluctuation of prices and sales gives a much more complete picture. It is evident from the comparison between Figure 1.36 and data in Table 1.20 that, while in 2002-2006 the positive market trends are reflected in the upward curves of prices and sales, prices continued to rise between the years 2007-2008, although the number of sales decreased. In the period 2008-2011 – just the opposite - prices fell sharply by 40%, while the total number of transactions (sales) in the 14 surveyed areas decreased by only 2%.

The final analysis of volume of property transactions in the period 2002-2011 leads to significant conclusions. The dynamics confirm the positive development of the property market over the period, as well as the activation of processes in semi-central areas (in central ones also, but to a lesser degree, due to their limited capacity).

Trends in suburban areas are of particular importance in this study. The dynamics of volume of transactions illustrates the differences between the northern and southern suburban regions more strongly than any other indicator. In 2002, the number of transactions in the southern territories was 2 percent. This should be compared to the total number of transactions in the 14 study areas, especially in view that only nine years later, the share of the number of transactions in the southern territories is almost 50 percent. Although the number of transactions in south suburban areas was reduced in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the number in 2011 still remains higher than the period before 2008. Contrary to these developments, trends in the northern regions are quite negative - with the sole exception of 2007, the number of sales there is below or around 1%.


104

Table 1.20: Number of sales and purchases in some districts of Sofia 2002-2011

Year Districts

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Central districts

Sredets 12 5 5 12 15 19 8 65 34 63

Oborishte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 3

Vazrazhdane 0 6 1 0 1 6 15 7 4 0

Intermediate

Lozenetz 778 990 798 893 838 784 661 594 599 576

Krasno selo 526 556 595 572 591 617 602 556 598 514

Slatina 82 113 78 92 107 122 98 179 79 78

Ilinden 81 116 101 112 94 62 99 58 73 62

Serdika 48 73 47 62 77 57 61 35 41 34

Triaditsa 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4

Southern suburban

Bankya 351 434 506 473 371 488 447 277 235 218

Ovcha kupel 266 340 318 363 571 675 689 1093 634 489

Vitosha 19 15 8 16 23 16 32 673 698 628

Northern suburban

Pancharevo 6 4 3 4 3 7 4 5 6 2

Kremikovtsi 12 25 29 25 17 74 21 27 18 6

Calculated based on data provided by the Registry Agency

Figure 1.36: Number of sales and purchases in some districts of Sofia 2002-2011

Trends in suburban areas are of particular importance in this study. The dynamics of volume of transactions illustrates the differences between the northern


105

and southern suburban regions more strongly than any other indicator. In 2002, the number of transactions in the southern territories was 2 percent. This should be compared to the total number of transactions in the 14 study areas, especially in view that only nine years later, the share of the number of transactions in the southern territories is almost 50 percent. Although the number of transactions in south suburban areas was reduced in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the number in 2011 still remains higher than the period before 2008. Contrary to these developments, trends in the northern regions are quite negative - with the sole exception of 2007, the number of sales there is below or around 1%.

Belgrade Former socialist countries had a very specific experience in the area of

planning and market interactions, especially in the process of suburbanisation. The Yugoslavian political system was proclaimed “market socialism” and thus, the market has been present in a more or less significant form in the urban development of Belgrade. This is true even in the period of the so-called “societal agreements”, although in the form of “black”-illegal or “gray” market.

Despite that the communist/socialist regime of the former Yugoslavia was more open and flexible than some others; central planning in Belgrade exercised considerable powers. However, it still failed to regulate urban growth efficiently. The accelerated population influx created intense pressures on Belgrade’s housing stock, which was partly developed by means of state companies or state organs that were entitled to develop flats for their employees (average 10,000 flats/per year). While this effort resulted in the creation of model settlements on vast vacant peri-urban sites, e.g. Novi Beograd, it solved the housing problem only partially. The rest of the incoming population to the city, such as members of the commuting industrial labour force, had to seek accommodation in the rural communities in the lands surrounding Belgrade. Therefore, planning policy resulted in the development of two separate peripheries and two types of suburbs – a relatively well-serviced one, characterized by organised housing estates and associated services, and an autonomous, often illegally developed, “wild” periphery, comprised of self-built private houses, largely devoid of infrastructure.

Typical of the Serbian and South-east European urban tradition, Belgrade is a rather compact city. However, contemporary processes of accelerated conversion of rural into urban land are being observed - mainly on the urban fringe. According to the sources of Corine Land Cover, agricultural land comprises 58.18% of total surface area in Serbia. Forest lands occupy 11.82%, the so-called “artificial area” (including also urban areas) comprises 3.4% of the total. In the time period 1990-2006, urban/construction land increased by 11,502 ha (at annual average of 719 ha). This increase was a result of the conversion of predominantly agricultural land (89.3% in the period 1990-2000 and 74.4% in 2000-2006), forest land (9.2% in the first period and 24.7% in the second), and


106

to a lesser extent - wetland and natural grasslands. The average annual reclaiming over the whole period (1990-2006) was 351 ha, out of which 127 ha was for industrial and commercial uses, 2 ha for transport infrastructure, and 239 ha for construction sites and waste deposit sites (Source: CORINE LAND COVER, EEA, Luxembourg, Evrogeomatika, 2007).

Among all relevant legislative acts, regulations and planning documents, probably those dealing with the issues of privatization had greatest impact on urban development and, especially, the development of peri-urban territories around Serbian towns and cities - Belgrade, in particular. Unfortunately, this impact can be assessed as negative in many aspects. The Planning and Construction Act of 2009 might have made things even worse, with stipulations providing for conversion of lease hold on urban (construction) land into property right – without applying a proper apparatus of market prices and other market instruments.

Except for national legislation and regulations, the Belgrade Master Urban Plan is, in fact, accelerating the trends of suburban development. Locations planned for new housing are in the compact urban tissue and peri-urban areas. According to MUP, the urban changes should be directed to “reduction in residential and commercial suburbanization”.

The plan seeks to “unburden” the city by providing land for housing in peripheral locations. For this reason, MUP envisages a reduction of existing agricultural land by 18,007 ha (from 51.1% of its current share to 27.8% of its future share). Generally, half of this area goes for greened open space and the rest should be converted into industrial, housing and transport zones and areas. Concerning the supply of land for housing in the period 2001-2021, an increase of 1,888 ha has been planned, i.e., from 12,571.6 ha to 14,460 ha, which is an increase of some 15%, thereby increasing its share of the total urban land area in the Belgrade metropolitan area from 16.2% to 18.64% (see Table 1.13). Depending on the value of floor space index (FSI) to be applied, the MUP would allow for some 200,000 to 400,000 new housing units. In the period 2011-2021, according to the MUP, total population is expected to increase from 1,350,000 to 1,397,000.

Analysis and assessment of the current housing market trends in Belgrade

It is expected that in a market system, supply should match demand both in quantitative and in qualitative terms. In the former socialist system, the so-called “societal (social) directed housing construction” was made possible upon, first, almost non-exhaustible quantities of disposable lands in the urban outskirts, mostly of agricultural use, second, relatively low costs of their conversion to various urban uses, and third, dominant social (collective) ownership of urban land. Under such circumstances, in the area of the City of Belgrade on average 10,000 housing units were built annually until towards the end of 1980s (for example, 9,879 housing units were built in 1989). During the period of transition,


107

average annual construction drastically fell to 2,500 to 3,000 (in the time period 2000-2005) and 4,000-6,000 (in the time period 2005-2011) housing units. However, average number of constructed dwellings should have been significantly larger, i.e. 16,690 units per year, if data from two consecutive population censuses (2002 and 2011) is applied. This discrepancy may well be ascribed to large-scale illegal construction of residential buildings (ca. 400,000 units in the City of Belgrade Area). The trends of housing prices in the municipalities of Belgrade in the period 2008-2012 (Table 1.21 and Figure 1.37) are indicative with regard to the current process of suburbanization. It was observed in section 2.2 that the central territories of the city are losing population, while the number of residents in the peripheral communes is increasing.

Table 1.21: Mean housing prices in the communes of Belgrade by years in EUR/ m2

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

City of Belgrade 1387.17 1399.23 1364.66 1287.12 1267.21

Central urban communes

Stari grad 2062.69 2140.36 2004.23 1834.70 1801.97

Savski Venac 1859.35 1963.99 1737.72 1746.49 1712.47

Vračar 1938.08 2026.38 1922.19 1814.25 1687.50

Novi Beograd 1712.28 1707.55 1586.57 1449.42 1443.49

Peripheral urban communes

Voždovac 1421.24 1471.50 1498.47 1309.37 1287.25

Zvezdara 1387.55 1472.69 1485.44 1412.43 1349.48

Zemun 1289.54 1305.05 1308.29 1251.22 1193.69

Rakovica 1198.09 1273.63 1200.36 1131.61 1059.19

Palilula 1199.03 1236.23 1220.80 1158.10 1126.34

Čukarica 1264.47 1340.01 1280.65 1286.38 1164.62

Suburban communes

Surčin 505.65 654.91 839.36 758.67 624.52

Grocka 530.98 625.67 785.61 839.55 858.08

Mladenovac 586.12 562.04 614.72 626.66 647.00

Sopot 391.72 424.69 493.04 359.49 533.72

Barajevo 351.96 481.94 422.46 484.85 497.99

Lazarevac 590.68 635.35 643.81 698.13 650.71


108

Obrenovac 579.96 622.90 706.78 670.92 687.62

Nevertheless, the central territories are still the most expensive, as indicated by Figure 1.38. This is typical even in sprawling cities across the globe because of the possibilities for alternative use that keep price levels high in central locations. But the trends of suburbanization in Belgrade are strong enough to undermine price levels of properties in the central communes. What is more – suburban price levels did not fall during the period of the economic crisis and in this way have become relatively more expensive.

Figure 1.37: Mean housing prices in the communes of Belgrade by years in EUR/ m2

Source – data from table 1.21

During the 1960s, illegal construction occurred in peripheral urban areas. This was due to rapid urbanisation, high housing demand and the inability of the socialist model to provide residential space. Since the 1980s, single-family housing has developed in the suburban areas of the BMA, usually characterized by poor or nonexistent public infrastructure. The lack of real policy of construction land and urban development additionally contributed to this situation, as a parallel model of housing provision. The process of privatisation of state and socially owned dwellings (1990-1995), which began in 1990 and continues until today, has been coupled with a massive and intensifying phenomenon of illegal building. In the 1990s, the key driving force was the accommodation of a large number of immigrants who came from Croatia, Bosnia& Herzegovina and Kosovo& Metohija to the BMA.


109

Q3 2007 Q3 2008

Q3 2012

Source: http://imovina.net/statistics/

Figure 1.38: Territorial distribution of housing prices in Belgrade (up to zones, Q3 2007 – Q3 2008 - Q3 2012)

According to Harvey (2005), the main characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation are: privatisation of the state and social fund, creation of new urban face and identity, real estate bubble, deindustrialisation, intensive change of urban core, suburban industrialisation, and the rise of socio-spatial inequalities as the consequence of post-fordism. Since the 1990s, the new political contextual framework (a neoliberal market concept) supported the transformation of housing policy in Serbia. In this transformation we identified four main directions: a) mass privatisation of social housing in 1990-1996, b) mass and intensive illegal construction (especially in Belgrade), c) intensifying market housing construction, and d) initiating solidarity housing construction to a smaller extent (after 2000).


110

These processes initiated ‘frantic-growth’ in the City of Belgrade, with very high land conversion rates and population densities in some illegal settlements (Zeković et al., 2016). Manzotti (2009) indicates that Belgrade is a city almost half built in an “informal way”, or illegally. At the heart of this phenomenon that never seems to slow down, despite the authorities' efforts to thwart it, lie real estate speculation and a systemic incapacity of planning to respond to the very real need for housing.

Figure 1.39 - Illegal and informal settlements in MUP Belgrade (red zones)

Source: UN-HABITAT, 2006

In Serbia, the “real-estate bubble growth” manifested itself via additional increases in illegal construction, now totaling some 1.6 million illegal buildings (34.8% of their total number). In the City of Belgrade there are around 400,000 of illegal buildings (Ministry of civil engineering, 2016, http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/310503/Cije-ce-se-kuce-rusiti-na-Tari-i-Zlatiboru). According to UNECE (2009), in the broader Belgrade area, these settlements represent the key form of urban sprawl, covering 22% of the land for construction and taking up to 40% of residential areas (Figure 1.39). The majority of informal residents live in compact housing, scattered over 34 zones and in 18 low density informal settlements in surrounding areas. This development was generated by the


111

decisions of numerous decentralised agents who solved their housing problems by decentralised actions which were of market type.

In the period 1990-2015 four laws were passed legalizing massive illegal buildings. However, these failed to regulate sprawl. The average time needed for issuing a permit has been around 130 days in 2009, but from 2015 it decreased to 30 days. Apart from the current crisis, unresolved property issues have been the key reason for prolonging pertinent procedures, and especially those which had to do with the – otherwise legally provided – opportunity to convert the right of leasehold on urban land into property right.

Measuring the sustainability of urban land-use and urban sprawl in the Belgrade metropolitan area

Some indicators for measuring sustainability in land use and urban sprawl in the Belgrade metropolitan area are presented in Table 1.22. In 2011, urban land consumption in the Belgrade metropolitan area was 670 m2 per person. This is an extremely high value, higher than in all other European cities (compare with Bertaud, 2012). It is an indication of excessive urban sprawl (Zeković et al., 2015) which makes Belgrade the “leader” in inefficient land-use and urban sprawl. Uncontrolled urban expansion with massive illegal construction is an indicator of “unhealthy” housing policy, urban governance, land policy and planning instruments in the post-socialist era.

Table 1.22: Indicators of sustainability of urban land use and urban sprawl in the Belgrade metropolitan area - NUTS2 (Zeković et al., 2015)

Indicators 1991 2011

Urban density (people per ha of urban area) 42.9 14.9

Urban land consumption p.c. (m2) 233.0 670.47

U-Index (Human Use Index)2 as % of human land use - 68.78

Residential floor space m2/p.c. 18.9 28.0

Agriculture land p.c. (m2) 1,431 821-1,271

Urban sprawl (change in urban area vs. change in population; index 2011/1990)

- 0.378

2 Human land uses have significant effects on environment (ecosystems,

biodiversity, habitat, air and water quality, etc.). Urban sprawl can be measured by the so-called U-Index (Human Use Index). The U-Index is a measure of the total area that is covered by either urban or agricultural lands or the percentage of human land use in an area, including agriculture, urban and suburban development. The larger values indicate main disturbance of natural land area, while lower values show less deviation of natural land cover.


112

U-Index indicates some disturbance of natural land area in BMA. The greatest areas of urbanization in the Belgrade region occur in the central urban area of BMA. The urban sprawl index in BMA is 0.378 > 0 when the growth of the build-up area is greater than the growth of population, i.e. the density of the metropolitan area has decreased.

Rome As explained in section 4, there are still no dedicated regulations, such as

physical, strategic or local planning tools, seeking to address the issue of extensive soil consumption. Laws enacted in the last years that seek to control the processes of soil sealing have been adopted only in Emilia-Romagna (Regional Law 20/2000), Umbria (Regional Law 1/2004) and Tuscany (Regional Law 1/2005). Lazio is not among those regions, so these issues are not being treated seriously in Rome. It can be stated that regional and local legislation, regulations and planning in Lazio Region and the Municipality of Rome have not addressed the problems of urban sprawl so far.

According to Corine Land Cover data, nearly 90% of the land use changes that occurred in Italy between 1990 and 2000 were due to loss of agricultural areas, forests and semi-natural environments for artificial areas. More than 80,000 ha of Italian territory were "artificialized" by the new residential, industrial and commercial developments, as well services, extractive areas, roads, railways, etc (Maricchiolo et al, 2005).

Although residential areas underwent the greatest expansion (more than 500 square kilometers of land per year are consumed on average), industrial, commercial and infrastructural areas had a greater percentage of increase (10.7%). Soil sealing is largely attributable to Italian spatial planning strategies that have not taken into account the irreversible loss of soil, the environmental consquences, the valuable resources sacrificed and a lack of tools to be able to measure it. According to the Legambiente annual report "Ambiente Italia 2011" (http://www.edizioniambiente.it/eda/catalogo/libri/571) released by the Istituto di Ricerche Ambiente Italia (http://www.ambienteitalia.it)the estimated data are as follows:

urbanized areas = 2.350.000 ha = 7.6% National territory (= 415 sqm per inhabitant)

Urbanization increases mainly at the expense of agricultural areas, which decreased by more than 140,000 hectares in 10 years in Italy. The conversion of non-irrigated crops into urban land (sparse and discontinuous buildings) occurred for more than 17,000 hectares, and from rural areas with complex farming systems more than 16,500 hectares were lost. More than 15,000 of non-irrigated crops were transformed into industrial or commercial areas. The phenomenon of urbanization is most evident in the North, where almost half of the areas that have become artificial have left agriculture and growth of natural areas larger in the South, with 70,000 hectares of ex-farmland now used differently and 40,000 hectares of new natural or semi-natural areas.


113

In recent years, the area of the city of Rome has experienced a massive expansion of building. One study on soils transformation into urban uses in Rome from 1993 and 2008 reveals that in 15 years, artificial areas increased by 12% (4,800 hectares, almost three times the "historical" city included within the Aurelian Walls). During the same period, the population increased by 30,887 inhabitants, with an average of 150 square meters of soil transformed for each new inhabitant. The transformation particularly affected rural soils (Rome is the largest rural area in Europe) but also major portions of natural areas. A total of 4,384 hectares of agricultural land was pushed out, 13% of the total and 416 ha of forest land. Currently, according to planning regulations and programs in force in Rome, a further consumption of 9,700 acres (*0.4047= ~4000 ha) is expected. This expansion will affect mostly agricultural areas and will eclipse the transformation which occured between 1993 and 2008.

Last but not least to denounce the continuing critical situation in the City of Rome were some environmental groups. In recent months, the City of Rome Authority launched a call to identify some areas for social housing development. The current prediction is 135 areas expected in 1,900 hectares, with 20 million cubic meters. Numbers of the real housing needs, which had been estimated in 27,500 housing now become more than 60,000 (Republica, July 05 2012).

The following analysis is based on data of housing purchase and sale transactions, collected and processed by Italian Territory Agency - Agenzia del Territorio. The statistical enquiry considered by the Real Estate Observatory is the Normalised Number of Transactions (NTN). The second one –also elaborated by the Real Estate Observatory- is the IMI, an indicator of Real Estate Market Intensity representing the ratio between the NTN and the Real Estate Stock. The comparison among nine main cities (Turin, Milan, Genoa, Bologna, Rome, Florence, Naples) showed that in 2010 the Rome area ranked second for completed transactions (51,484), only after Milan. For the Real Estate Intensity Indicator, the Rome area ranked second (2,4%) also after Milan while in 2006 it ranked fifth and in 2008 fourth. Between 2004 and 2010, there was a decrease in annual purchase and sale transactions in all the areas. However, in 2010, they increased again with an average growth of 6,9%. The best results were in Milan (+6,7%) and Rome (+12,7%).

Considering the geographical distribution, the Real Estate Market Observatory has focused on the shift towards neighborhoods in the last years. The main reasons for this shift are:

• The increasing housing prices in main cities

• The greater availability of dwellings in neighborhood areas

In 2007 17,165 new dwellings were built in Rome and listed in the Real Estate Register, some 9% less than the previous year. In Italy, only in Milan there has been a growth in the number of new dwellings (19,289). Nevertheless, there is an opposite trend because in Rome, dwellings are mostly built inside the city borders while in Milan, they are developed outside them. This mostly occurs due to the huge


114

extent of city territories in Rome as well as the importance of some relevant cities in the Milan province. The greatest number of new dwellings in Rome is built outside the urban belt highway (G.R.A.) accounting for about 70% of new houses in 2007.

Exceptionally in Rome since 2010 there has been an increase both in city and neighborhood areas even if in 2008 a relevant decrease was registered. The fall started in 2006 while in neighborhood areas it started in 2007 compared to the previous year.

In 2010, excluding Bologna, there was an increase in the turnover of purchase and sale transactions. The building sector and urban processes deeply influence real estate market trends.

Property prices in Rome

Data3 in this paragraph are based on information provided by the Observatory for the Real Estate Market (OREM) of Agenzia del Territorio and recorded prices refer to OREM areas on which the Observatory made a precise segmentation. For better data processing, the city of Rome has been divided into 23 macro areas which share similar characteristics with regard to density, social and economic situation, etc., which aggregate a number of OREM areas (in total 308).

The highest market price is recorded in Rome. In fact, in Rome the houses for residential use have an average value of € 3,307 / sqm.

The prices differ widely: the average value ranges from € 10,750 / sqm for an apartment in Piazza Navona to € 2,050 / sqm. for an apartment in the east suburban area of the City. The average value of the hinterland ranges less: from € 1,000 / sqm. in Canterano (East interland of Rome) to € 3,200 / sqm for a valuable house in Grottaferrata (South – East interland of Rome, in so called Castelli Romani area).

Territorial centrality hasn’t been the only parameter considered. Three other important factors have been taken into account: proximity and access to services, housing quality and socio-environmental context.

In Rome there are many central areas whose housing quality is increased by their historical-artistic heritage and desirable social contexts. Nonetheless, there are many poor-quality areas. Moreover, even some central areas are degraded while some of them are undergoing huge restorations.

As for provincial neighborhoods, the main factor raising market prices is the distance to Rome. It is followed by the distance to coastline where the demand is not only supported by residents but also by people who want to buy a summer residence for holidays.

3 Claudi Baffioni and colleagues from Comune di Roma have contributed

substantially to data collection and analysis in this section.


115

Table 1.23: Mean prices of housing in OREM macroareas in the period 2005- 2011

URBAN MACROAREAS 2005

€/sqm 2008

€/sqm 2010

€/sqm 2011

€/sqm

Historic center 5,366 6,922 6,467 6,796

Appia Tuscolana (semi-central) 3,164 4,287 3,989 4,012

Aurelia Gianicolense (semi-central) 3,193 4,231 4,042 4,090

Ostiense Navigatori (semi-central) 2,753 3,679 3,426 3,439

Parioli Flaminio (semi-central) 5,215 6,418 6,196 6,215

Prati Trionfale (semi-central) 4,130 5,487 5,372 5,347

Salaria Trieste Nomentano (semi-central) 4,038 5,361 5,114 5,130

Tiburtina Prenestina (semi-central) 2,531 3,579 3,360 3,370

Appia Tuscolana 2,774 3,584 3,341 3,373

Aurelia 2,567 3,441 3,169 3,187

Cassia Flaminia 3,445 4,537 4,438 4,464

Cintura Eur 2,230 3,346 3,325 3,341

Eur Laurentina 3,057 4,189 3,941 3,972

Portuense 2,625 3,526 3,214 3,234

Salaria 2,665 3,778 3,543 3,559

Tiburtina Prenestina 2,340 3,111 2,845 2,887

Outside the ring road - east 1,876 2,697 2,507 2,509

Outside the ring road - north 2,058 2,758 2,523 2,554

Outside the ring road - north west 2,058 3,002 2,933 2,907

Outside the ring road - west 1,336 2,800 2,575 2,604

Outside the ring road - south 1,855 2,597 2,495 2,548

Outside the ring road - south west 2,243 3,147 2,921 2948

OSTIA LITTORAL 2,247 3,320 3,004 3,021

TOTAL/AVERAGE CITY of ROME 2,888 3,883 3,634 3,673


116

Table 1.24: Average price for housing market (values at constant prices in 2010)

Group Denomination

AVERAGE PRICE Variation

2006 2008 2011 2006-2008

2008-2011

2006-2011

1 Central 5,145 5,696 5,347 10.7% -6.1% 3.9%

2 Semi-central 3,461 3,856 3,537 11.4% -8.3% 2.2%

3 Peripheral 2,865 3,208 2,871 12.0%-10.5% 0.2%

4 Outer periphery 2,477 2,799 2,522 13.0% -9.9% 1.8%

5 Metropolitan area 1,801 2,084 1,959 15.7% -6.0% 8.8%

6 Suburban area 1,081 1,240 1,187 14.8% -4.3% 9.8%

7 Metropolitan periphery 790 883 865 11.9% -2.1% 9.6%

8 Border Communes 780 897 886 15.0% -1.2% 13.7%

TOTAL 2,260 2,546 2,353 12.7% -7.6% 4.1%

Source: CRESME’s processing on data provided by Agenzia del Territorio.

Table 1.24 is derived from a study conducted by the well-known expert institution (CRESME) of housing market. The study confirms that the cost per sq/mt in the external periphery is less than half of the cost in inner city center and 2/3 of the price of sq/mt in the near inner city zones (near-centre zones). The cost of sq/mt of housing becomes extremely low in the marginal Comuni (in the extreme periphery of metropolitan area) and in some areas of the periphery of Roma Comune. It is wise to note the decrease of market value of sq/mt of housing between 2008 and 2011. In the center the value collapsed more than -6% as well as in all zones of the metropolitan area Only the marginal Comuni resisted having a percent decrease of about -1%. It is possible to deduce that since 2008, the inhabitants looking for substantial savings in housing costs were moving to other Comuni and to commute to Rome for working.

Real Eastate Transactions

In 2010, 51.484 residential real estate transactions in the Province of Rome were registered. Of these, 33,168 transactions (equal to 64% of the provincial housing market) were registered in Rome.

Observations about real estate market trend in Rome – Years 2005-2008-2010-2011

As for year 2005 ( II quarter) the broadest market in terms of number of standardized transactions (NST) , by analysing macro areas, is OUTSIDE OF GRA


117

(RING ROAD OF ROME) EAST macro area (5.151,48), then Tiburtina Prenestina area (4.284,09) where new housing settlements are growing and Aurelia macro area (3.280,86). Vice versa, OUTSIDE OF GRA (RING ROAD OF ROME ) WEST (442) and SEMI-CENTRAL PARIOLI-FLAMINIO (544) are the macro areas with less market volume, the first one scarcely built-up, while the second one includes not very extended OREM areas (Observatory of Real Estate Market) with not very intensive housing typology .

As for year 2008 (I quarter) DON BOSCO 1 (1,077 NST – macro: APPIA TUSCOLANA), LUNGHEZZA DI CASTEL VERDE A (649 NST –- 12 -macro: OUTSIDEW GRA EAST), OSTIA LEVANTE (591 NST – macro: OSTIA LITTORAL) and MONTESACRO A (590 NST –macro: SALARIA) are areas with higher handling of houses. These areas have two opposite situation in terms of variation of number of standardized transactions (NST), while DON BOSCO 1 (-6.22%), LUNGHEZZA DI CASTEL VERDE A (-22.53%) and OSTIA LEVANTE (-47.95%) areas reflect market negative trend, MONTESACRO A (62.10%) area shows an important increase that could result from buy-sell transactions related to real estate securitizations.

As for year 2012 (II quarter) the majority of real estate buy-sell transactions (>1000 NST) are registered in outside GRA East macro areas (1,856 NST), Tiburtina -Prenestina (1,523 NST), Aurelia (1,254 NST) and Salaria (1,033 NST). Only one of the four areas (Outside GRA East) shows a little downturn of transactions compared with the second semester of 2009 of -6.0%, the other areas show a positive trend with increases from +3.9% (Salaria) to +11.1% (Tiburtina Prenestina). The highest increases, more than 20% of real estate changes compared to the second semester 2009, are the Cintura Eur macro area (+80.3%), Outside GRA West (+42.0%) and Portuense (+24.7%). Outside GRA East macro area, with an increase of nearly 2% (compared to the first semester 2010) of sales quota based on the Municipality, accounts for in this semester 11.63% of roman market, followed by Tiburtina Prenestina macro area with 9.54% of roman transactions. The smallest part of the roman market belongs to Outside GRA South macro area, which takes up only 0.79 % of NST.

As for year 2011 (I quarter) the majority of real estate buy-sell transactions are registered in Outside GRA East macro areas (1,655 NST), Tiburtina Prenestina (1,532 NST), Aurelia(1,197 NST) e Salaria (1,133 NST). Nevertheless, these four areas report worse losses in Salaria (-7.4%) and Aurelia (-6.4%) areas, lighter ones in Outside GRA East (-3.5%) and Tiburtina Prenestina (-2%) areas. There are on the contrary increases by over 10%, compared to the first semester 2010 in Outside GRA South West macro area (16.5%) and Semi-central Tiburtina Prenestina (108%). The biggest part of roman market belongs to Outside GRA East and Tiburtina Prenestina macro areas that together represent nearly 20% of the entire municipal NST quota, (respectively 10% and 9,2%). 14 of the 23 macro areas of Rome, regarding the previous period, which count for nearly 70% of municipal housing stock, have a decreasing variation, among which Ostia Littoral. Historic Center, Outside GRA North West, Eur- Laurentina and they also have a considerable flexion which goes from 0.8% to 16.5%. Outside GRA South West area (16.5%) and Semi-


118

central Tiburtina Prenestina area (10.8%) growths are remarkable. The highest market price is registered in Historic Center (6,796 €/sqm) which shows a differential equal to 1.90 times the municipal average.

There are then Semi-central Parioli–Flaminio macro areas with 6,215 €/sqm, Semi-central Prati-Trionfale with 5,397 €/sqm and Semi-central Salaria-Trieste-Nomentano with 5,130 €/sqm which represent the most prestigious areas of the city. As for the municipality, macro areas with lowest average market price are registered in some areas outside of GRA, particularly in East area with 2,509 €/sqm, South area with 2,548 €/sqm and North area with 2,554 €/sqm.


119

1.5.Conclusionsontheroleofurbanplanninginregulating theprocessesofurbangrowth inSofia,BelgradeandRomeandguidelines fordevelopingspecificrulesandregulations

Research goal: - To summarize the findings of the analysis with respect to the main issues of sustainable and resilient development of suburban territoties of Sofia, Rome and Belgrade. To identify the main changes needed in the regulatory framework of the processes in suburban territories and to formulate the main requirements for such changes.

1.5.1.SofiaThis last part of the analysis aims to summarise the research undertaken so far

and to formulate directions for preparation of specific regulations (rules and standards) concerning the peripheral and suburban territories of Sofia. Therefore, firstly the concrete goals of the current authority should be identified. These goals, however, should be relevant to:

The objectives of the Master Urban Plan, updated according to the perspective of the current leadership of Metropolitan Municipality of Sofia and the Directorate of Architecture and Urban Planning

The directions towards sustainable and resilient urban development, as adopted by the EC and the specialized institutions of EU, mainly the EEA

A) Summary of the objectives of GUDP with regard to peripheral and suburban territories and the update of these objectives accordint to the current leadership

In the text of GUDP, the objectives of the plan with regard to peripheral and suburban territories are formulated as:

Achievement of competitiveness, adaptivity and integrity (whatever the latter means)

Decentralization of the dwelling function (housing), Providing conditions for accessible (affordable) single-family housing; Absorbssion of territories attractive for the dwelling function (housing), Activating suburban areas and stimulating prestigious housing markets.

Those objectives should be assessed as somewhat confusing. Above all it lacks a coherent tree of goals, sub-goals, relavant measures/ activities and tools of


120

implementation. Second, the formulated system of objectives apparently disregards the isuues of urban sustainability and resilienc. For this reason tiers are confusing and some objectives are conflicting (affordable single-family housing versus prestigious housing markets).

However, with regard to suburban territories the GUDP is working towards the following objectives:

- Concerning the southern suburban areas the goal of the GUDP is to stimulate two types of housing:

• Development of affordable single-family housing

• Development of the so-called high-level housing.

Logically, this goal can be achieved through measures like relevant zoning (low-rise housing with low density and a lot of green spaces), preservation of the green areas (called in the GUDP green wedges), protection of the environment and improving the access (transportation).

- Concerning the northern suburban areas the goals of the GUDP are:

• To stimulate moderate development of the dwelling function (housing)

• To reserve territories for eventual future urban development.

Measures for achievement of these goals are: zoning with predominant prohibitive regimes (rural land prohibited for development/ construction), protection and restoration of the environment, sound and accelerated improvement of the access (transportation).

As a specific measure concerning housing in suburban territories the GUDP plans for the development of 75-80,000 dwellings. 56,000 of these housing units are to be built in the southern districts and 22-23,000 in the northern districts. An approach that is “popular” in many cities all over Europe and the world (Krisjane and Berzins, 2012, Stanilov and Sykora, 2013, Bertaud, 2010) is observed in Sofia too – most often planning simply follows the market by providing what market players wish.

B) Update of the objectives of planning according to the current leadership

As of today the leadership of the Municipality of Sofia puts a much stronger stress on the development of the northern districts, since the southern territories are now considered to suffer from overdevelopment. It is the perception of the Municipality that the improved acces do the Vithosha collar, in result od the reconstruction of the Southern Arch of the ring road of Sofia and the delay in the development of the road network in the north have contributed to a critical misbalance between thes two main suburban areas. Therefore, now the development of the northern districts is major priority, but thus far correcting this misbalance is only an intention of the municipal authorities and now actions are taken in this direction.

C) General approaches for urbanization of suburban territories

As it has been outlined several times through the statement – the population growth will inevitably result in urban expansion (at least this is the “European


121

tradition”). So the goal of planning is to regulate the expansion and it faces, generally, two alternative approaches:

The first approach is the one usually adopted. Planning starts with forcasting the future number of residents, then, on this basis the number of housing units needed is calculated and, respectively, the area needed for future housing. Finally the plan identifies the concrete territories for new housing. There is a major problem with this approach concerning its coordination and “collaboration” with the market. Planners usually try to establish some level of coordination with the market by forecasting market trends. But this is a mammoth task which is hardly ever properly realized and, then, after “forecasting” market trends the plan leaves no space for the market to operate “freely”.

The second approach would allocate for housing new areas (or rural/ other lands that are allowed to be converted for housing) territories in scale much larger than the needs in order to allow for the market to choose which territories would be, eventually, developed. After providing “freedom” for the market, planning would steer market development through what is called “market instruments”. This second approach should be considered as more efficient, since it provides for better coherence between planning and the market, provided that threats must be eliminated like those of sprawling development – i.e., “leap-froging” “scattered” suburban forms, overconsumption of land resources, loss of green spaces, overdevelopment of infrastructure, car dependence, etc. Willingly or not, the GUDP of Sofia has actually adopted the second approach. Therefore, it is of critical importance (in such cases) that relevant market istruments, i.e., regulations should be adopted, so that the quoted threds are eliminated. The regulations should achieve this goal not by combatting the market, but by cooperating with it.

D) Directions for preparation of Specific Regulations and Standards for the suburban areas of Sofia

Based on the above conclusions the Specific Regulations and Standards for the suburban areas of Sofia

1) ought to stimulate/ encourage The efficient use of suburban land resources, which means:

o Densities higher than the “traditional” in each respective suburban zone, o Development of activities/ properties providing for high added value

(revenue to the local community and the municipality) at low environmental costs

Compact urban forms, Trnasport networks that should be efficiently used (highly loaded)

advantageous for mass transport and less advantegous for individual transport (private cars)

Strict preservation of public green spaces and all potential opportunities – that is, sopen spaces

Preservation and stimulating the enhancement of greenery in private plots


122

2) ought to limit or discourage (where appropriate – limit/ discourage to the maximum possible)

„Leap-frogging” or „scattered” and low-density urban forms Urbanization of small parts of territories in disregard of the impact on larger

territory Development that consumes land, other environmental or public resources

without paying adequate compensation Development of infrastructure networks at the expense of all residents of the

city, particularly when these networks serve a small or limited number of users

Development of activities/ properties to the detriment of the environment

The Specific Regulations and Standards for the suburban areas of Sofia proposed in relation to this WP5 research should be directly related and should seek to gain impact on the following regulations currently in force:

Specific Regulations and Standards for Planning and Development, enforced by the Master Urban Plan of Sofia

Ordinance for determining the size of local taxes Ordinance for determining and administering local fees and the prices of

services provided by the Municipaity of Sofia Ordinance for development, maintenance and preservation of the green

system of Sofia Minicipality Ordinance for development of the elements of the technical infrastructure on

the territory of Sofia Minicipality Ordinance for the conditions and the order of delivering data and providing

inquiries about the provisions of the Master Urban Planof Sofia and Sofia Municipality

Ordinance for public discussions (public hearings, public participation)

1.5.2.BelgradeUrban/construction land policy in all parts of Serbia suffers from number of

insufficiencies, legal, procedural and substantive. System and practices are inferior to better standards, albeit in recent years a strong effort has been demonstrated to introduce better practices, in accord with EU norms and standards. The current system and practice of managing urban land in Serbia have not been harmonized with the main courses of transitional reform and change. A great number of basic, conceptual problems have not been solved yet, considering the fact that their predictable institutionalization would affect the realization of sustainable spatial and urban development and land use policy. The urban land market is undeveloped, and therefore the basic regulatory mechanisms and institutions, as well as more up-to-date ways of financing urban land development have not been established yet. Essentially, basic approach is still predominantly administrative. That has a number of negative consequences, also applying to zoning regulations, traditional economic


123

tools of urban land policy (development fee, land-use fee, local utilities taxes) which have proved as particularly vulnerable and with the helplessness effect on limiting urban sprawl. Zeković (2009) indicated the following characteristics of the current situation:

Weaknesses of the current information system: Registration of all properties in the National Land Cadastre is still in progress (approximately 80% of real estate is registered, in Belgrade around 60%), which results in lack of adequate statistic data and indicators, poor coordination between land register data in courts and the cadastre and also the data of the government tax authorities.

Inefficient use of urban land. In the field of urban land, by rule, there are no economic laws – the current instruments of land and fiscal policy have been established so they would not permit redemption and capitalization of social investments, not even in a longterm economic period. The invested financial means into urban land are highly inefficient since they are not returned into the reproduction of new locations, due to the absence of a land market and adequate urban land management mechanisms. The negative effect is also the administrative way of determining the user of land by decision of a competent agency of the local authorities. In land distribution investors/users do not pay the economic value of land in relation to the advantages of location, but they pay only the costs of equipping land i.e, rent determined in an administrative way. A significant effect of the current land system is still the political dimension in land management system even in the period of transition, as well as the social dimension in land management (e.g., longterm hold of land by a firm that is on the verge of bankruptcy, so the lay-off of workers is postponed). Around 20% of court cases are about land, property and real estate (Serbia investment climate assessment, 2004).

Belgrade’s land policy has not been substantially transformed in the transition period. It is managed via zoning of construction land and determining initial amounts for compensation and lease by employing criteria and standards. These criteria and standards are established in an inconsistent way and do not correspond with actual real estate value at the Belgrade’s market. Zoning systems and differentiation for certain purposes are not based on relevant market factors, monitoring of transactions and prices of land and real estate, planned solutions, standards, information systems, and relevant modern fiscal, economic and market instruments and institutional arrangements.

Limited construction and investment. This is mostly a result of the uncertainty of the future process of privatization of urban land, possible increase of costs for the investors after purchasing land even though they paid earlier the land development fee; uncertainty concerning the fee for urban land use – e.g., increase of market value of the tax base; land trade is possible only if there is an object on that land, which makes it impossible to determine the price of land); and uncertainty in the stability of the land management system due to frequent changes of decision.

Decrease in local land revenue, deficiency of locations and other problems – are the consequence of reduced fiscal effects due to a less efficient use of urban land i.e, dependency of fiscal revenues on market values of real estate (as a tax base). As the main negative effects of the current urban land system in town and spatial planning, apart from the aforementioned, are problems with deficiency of


124

urban land of different levels of development, at acceptable prices according to the purchasing power of households, high costs of urban land development, inefficient public programs for urban land development, entrepreneurs’unwillingness to follow unrealistic plans and programs for land development (which consequently leads to numerous cases of unlawful building, urbanistic chaos, substandard settlements, and lower quality of living in towns). The state and local community lose enormous potential tax revenues in land transactions, as well as for the fact that an urban rent has not been determined yet.

In Serbian cities and towns there is a lack of locations with regulated and furnished infrastructure that are suitable for commercial and industrial purposes: Investors are mostly offered undeveloped sites, thus encouraging the development of "greenfield", and neglecting the use of "brownfield" sites. The slow process of land procurement and obtaining building permits is one of the key obstacles to investing. The bottleneck usually occurs already in the process of finding available locations and long non-transparent and sometimes risky procedures regarding the possible emergance of former owners and their heirs (due to unfinished restitution process). The above stated factors make it difficult for investors to reliably assess the prospects and effects of investing in already developed land in Serbian cities. In terms of providing attractive and convenient business locations in cities, Serbia is exposed to strong regional competition from the surrounding countries in transition, especially in the "greenfield" category investments, which have a key role in the growth of national economy and the restoration of a part of the territorial asset. The interests of investors were not targeted to larger use of brown-field locations in urban tissue, mainly due to the lower land prices and arrangement in the peripheral, still undeveloped (green-field) areas on the urban fringe. As long as investors find more appropriate to further invest in the existing green-fiels in the peripheral zones (mainly for considerably lower costs), they would restrain themselves from redirecting the key course of investing into brown-fields. The implementation of MUP directly rests on the land development fees and on land price. Thus peripheral urban and suburban areas along Pan-European corridor X attracted a new housing and developments.

The enacted legislation itself presents problems as well. The Planning and Construction Act (2009, with amendments from 2010-2015) and the Ordnance on conversion of right of use into right of ownership (2010) enable the holders of privatized land to convert their rights of use into the right of ownership. This legislative solution would be economically acceptable if the Government had not adopted the aforementioned decree which includes the overall cost of capital and property under expenses of acquiring the rights of use. This practically implies that the buyer of former social and/or state enterprise whose land was cheaper during the privatization process than the price of the company itself will be given that land as a gift. This legislation made it possible to donate land to privatized companies, thus closing the circle of corruption and malpractices that accompanied the privatization process.

The lack of appropriate policies and instruments influenced the process of the suburbanization in the City of Belgrade which continued incessantly in the years after the promulgation of MUP, 2003/2009 (as well as escalation of urban


125

sprawl from 1970s till 1990s in accord to MUP, 1972 and 1986). By the end of 1990s the spontaneous suburbanization had ended. But, during that time, due to large refugee inflow, sprawl has continued trough massive construction of illegal buildings in a new speculative way, sometime with support of local governments (e.g. in municipality Zemun in Belgrade, see Zeković, et al., 2016).

The politics play the main role in the land policy situation. There seems to exist a lack of political will, as the main reason for the delay in the privatization of urban land. The system “defect” in the rules and regulations regarding construction land management has in fact “caught on” very well on the fertile ground of privatization of locationally attractive enterprises, complexes, and zones. Typically, applied profit evaluations of privatised entities, according to provisions of the corresponding law and regulations on evaluation, did not incorporate the value expression for construction land (since the subjects of sale usually were the beneficiaries of public land with the “right of use”). The main motive for privatization were the convenient locations of businesses that were to be privatized, with the open intention to subsequently change the basic purpose of the land and use it in commercial and residential purposes. In the process of privatization of enterprises and rights over the developed state-owned construction land, which are acquired by purchasing buildings, there is a number of uncertainties and contradictions. In the process of auctioning (or tender), potential buyers can make a bargain to inexpensively obtain attractive and good locations by purchasing for example unsuccessful companies or companies with derelict facilities, which – through subsequent investment programs – they can rebuild, modernize, and eventually sell or change their purpose after the expiration of the sales contract – which also applies to the case of the Port of Belgrade, pointed to above. Consequently, there is an apparent need to introduce a new evaluation approach, i.e., estimates of the effects of urban land policy in the cities and the impact of laws which regulate these fields. This can be measured and/or controlled by introducing more complex and/or sophisticated approaches, for example, RIA/Regulatory Impact Assessment, TIA/Territorial Impact Assessment, etc. This would predictably influence the political elites of Serbia, in the sphere of urban/construction land management, with a view to stop, or even to redirect, now mostly uncontrolled process of urban sprawl, non-rational use of land, and so forth.

The adaptation of the traditional urban policies and introduction of more innovative and flexible urban land policy tools. Traditional planning tools and tools of urban land are: zoning/land regulations, urban growth boundaries, infrastructure investments, green belts, as well as development fees, property taxes, land tenure, expropriation, etc. Suggested guidelines for the introduction of more innovative and flexible urban land tools, and their harmonization with the urban regulations, are: 1) Urban rezoning, 2) Tradable development rights, trading density for benefits - density bonus policy (Purchase of Development Rights, or Transfer of Development Rights), 3) Infrastructure finance, 4) Regulatory arangements of the Public-Private-Partnership. PPP includes different types of legal acts/tools - community development agreements, community benefits agreements, planning agreements, negotiation, covenants, easements – as types of servitudes, models of the B.O.T., R.O.T, B.T.O, the concessions of public goods; 5) Introduction of the


126

financial instruments (municipal bonds, governmental bonds, financial derivatives - CDS, etc.), 6) Reinvestment, 6) Land value capture tax as a funding source for urban investment, as well as potential introduction of the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), etc.

Dramatic decrease of the size of agricultural land in the Belgrade City and intensive urban sprawl. To assess the scope of urban sprawl in the City of Belgrade, one should take into account circumstances of unreliability and controversial data. In 2011 total agricultural land in the City of Belgrade was: 212,000-215,000 ha (statistics) or 130,000 ha (Agricultural Census, 2012) or 136,214.07 ha (Republic Bureau of Geodesy, 2013), that is 79,200-85,000 ha less. Also, all data indicate on intensive sprawl. Massive illegal construction is the dominant form of urban sprawl (Zeković et al., 2015) in Belgrade and Serbia.

MUP has not identified suburbanisation and sprawl as specific issues and has not explicitly stipulated any respective measures. Widespread of illegal housing development in suburbs has been studied by the plan and measures had been outlined. The policy of MUP concerning suburbs comprised (1) better control of this process (sprawl), (2) better equipment of peri-urban zones with technical infrastructure and public services, (3) better control of environmental development, (4) better control of illegal construction in MUP, (5) legalization of illegal construction, and (6) conversion of land ownership and leasehold, as well as conversion of rural to urban.

MUP zoning is not the basis for determination of development fees or any fiscal instruments although the zoning was the main instrument of the master plan to regulate the development of suburban areas, but, in case of Belgrade with insufficient success. Implementation of MUP is made by elaboration of planning documentation (Detailed Regulation Plans/DRPs). Approximately 1/4 of DRPs will be finished till 2017, while elaboration of 1/4 of DRPs for suburban and peripheral areas can be expected till 2025-2030. Urban zoning is not correlated to zoning for determining land development fee and property tax. Low development fees along road corridors and in suburbs directly support urban sprawl and limits financing the new infrastructure. These tools can help in the current inconsistencies between key objectives, measures, planning solutions, urban land policy and its instruments in limitation of urban sprawl in Belgrade.

The analysis of impact of the legislative framework on urban sprawl suggests that laws and regulations on the national, metropolitan and local level have strong influence on the territorialisation of urban expansion in Serbia and Belgrade and sprawl-induced consequences.

We have concluded that legal framework stimulates the in-efficient and in-effective usage of land resources in the Belgrade area. In Serbia, the legislation of spatial development, land use and settlements regulation does not directly address urban spraw. Urban sprawl has characterized spontaneous urban expansion followed de facto by ex-post massive legalization or passing of legislation. Planning apparatus was based on Planning and Construction Act with poor regulation of buildings illegality, methods of conversion of land-use rights into property rights/ownership (privatization) and conversions of lease into property rights, loss of agricultural land, land consumption, while the key role has a huge ordnances (in this Act).


127

It is clear that the Italian urban planning legislation is obsolete, complex and confused in its application, thereby producing slowness and uncertainty regarding the item and implementation timing. This led to an inevitable building speculation often uncontrolled. In Italy the idea of last years is the Testo Unico (One Text) for Urban Planning to unify and order the different regional and local laws, clarifying the role of the different institutions, decentralizing responsibilities, simplifying procedures by identifying certain rules and durable procedures to overcome extraordinary policies on housing emergency, but still nothing came of it.

The Italian Government is now aware that the national urban planning, over the years, has been deaf to the new European reforms that being taken to manage the territory with the aim of sustainable development of cities, with the exception of some of the Local realities (most advanced Italian regions). Spatial planning so far has not effectively addressed issues relating to environmental sustainability, livability in cities and the containment soil consumption.

1.5.3.RomeOnly in May 2016, the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved the "Draft

Framework Law concerning valorisation of agricultural areas and the containment of soil consumption" and now it is under discussion in the Italian Senate. However, even in this case the process is dragging over the years, if we think that the related Decree Law has been adopted on September 2012 and approved last December 2013. But it is the first real important rule to that effect! The law aims to promote the agricultural activities, to oppose the illegal development and limit the soil consumption, through specific actions such as demolition, reconstruction and densification of existing settlements enabling recovery, regeneration and urban renewal procedures in a consistent framework for the sustainable mobility of people and goods. No more increasing of soil sealing, but measures addressed on the existing city by the recovery of disused areas and underutilized building heritage to meet the demand of house and services, always ensuring the accessibility of areas and facilitating the concentration on major public transport infrastructures and close to the interchange nodes.

A transformation of the existing city, therefore, for containment of soil consumption! The urban planning, which until now mainly dealt with planning and design in terms of urban growth, now wants to become a tool to improve the quality of life and well-being of citizens, in a logic of sustainable balance of green areas, gardens and agricultural land to be protected and enhanced, with the clear aim on containment of soil consumption and reuse of the built territory.

The Draft Law, just approved, with the demolition and reconstruction of disused and / or underutilized areas aims to reach the soil consumption "zero" in 2050, that is eliminating the overbuilding to the detriment of green and agricultuiral


128

areas in the application of Community policies. However, there are still some critical issues, which presumably will be discussed in the Italian Senate, among them:

- the definitions of "soil consumption", "natural and semi-natural agricultural area" and "urbanized area";

- the principles and criteria on which to characterize the "regeneration of degraded urban areas" (Art. 5), as well as tools and / or parameters / indicators for its application;

- the transitional rule of law enforcement, where the implementing urban plans for which interested stakeholders even just have submitted a request before the entry into force of the law are preserved (art. 11).

Solving these issues will be the key, given the impact they have on the effectiveness of the objective to be achieved. Just as it is understandable that Local Administrations will have a key role in the applicability of the law and in the updating its local regulations.

In particular Rome Municipality, in the regulations for the territory management, should or could focus on the implementation of "green gradient in the city, in its suburbs and its buildings", to achieve the goal expected by the Law on the containment of soil consumption. To operate a transition from the re-built towards the "re-built green"! And if Rome Capitale government already updated the value of the usable square meters of greenery to 13.78 per inhabitant (State of Environment of Roma Capitale, December 2012), compared to what defined by the Ministerial Decree n. 1444/1968 of 9 sqm / Inhabitants, to focus on this indicator and increase it further (eg. increase up to 100%) could become the winning move! Its application should not just addressed to the open or free areas but also to buildings, including the "green" as a structural component of the buildings, both in new construction, in the reconstruction process after the demolition, and in older, in the regeneration and restructuring process.

Building Regulations of Rome should ensure that each new building should have at least one green the green roof or external wall and the this rule should always be applied in new buildings as well as for renovation of old buildings when the roof is retorted through increasing the building volume. This kind of actions should be successfull to achieve a sustainable city!


129

Listofreferences:

Bertaud, A., (2004) The spatial organization of cities: deliberate outcome or unforeseen consequence? Working Paper 2004–01. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.

Bertaud, A. (2012). Government intervention and urban land markets: the case of China, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 29(4), 335-346, 2012.

Brueckner J.K. (2000) Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review 23 (2): 160-171.

Chin, N., (2002) Unearthing the roots of urban sprawl: a critical analysis of form, function and methodology. Paper 47, London, UCL.

Couch, C., Leontidou, L., Arnstberg, K.O., (2007) Introduction: Definitions, Theories and Methods of Comparative Analysis. In: Couch, C., Leontidou, L., Petschel-Held, G., (eds) Urban sprawl in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Chin, N., (2002) Unearthing the roots of urban sprawl: a critical analysis of form, function and methodology. Paper 47, London, UCL.

Daskalova, D., & Slaev, A.D., (2015) Diversity in the suburbs: Socio-spatial segregation and mix in post-socialist Sofia. Habitat International 50, 42-50.

Di Somma, A. (2011). Lo sviluppo del tessuto urbano del Comune di Roma dal dopoguerra a oggi. In XV National Conference ASITA, Reggia di Colorno (Parma), November 15-18 2011. p. 939-948. ISBN: 9788890313264.

Di Fabbio, A., Di Leginio, M., Giordano, F., Guerrieri, L., Leoni, I., Munafò, M., Viti, S. (2007) Impermeabilizzazione e consumo dei suoli nelle aree urbane, Ecologia Urbana, XIX (2).

European Environment Agency (2006) UrbanSprawl in Europe – The Ignored Challenge.European Environment Agency Report 10. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Environment Agency, (EEA) (2013) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-map (accessed 20 February 2013).

ETCTE (European Topic Centre on Terrestrial Environment) (2013) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-morphological-zones-1990-umz90-f1v0/umz-methodology/umz-methodology, (accessed 20 February 2013).

EUROSTAT, (2014) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 9 July 2014).

Ewing R., Pendall, R., and Chen, D. (2002) Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America, 2002.

Fee, K., & Hartley, D. (2011) Urban Growth and Decline - The Role of Population Density at the City Core. Cleveland: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-27.cfm (accessed 30.07.2014).


130

Fondo Ambient Italiano (2012) TERRA RUBATA. Viaggio nell’Italia che scompare. Rome: FAI and WWF Dossier, Downloaded from www.fondoambiente.it/upload/oggetti/ConsumoSuolo_Dossier_finale-1.pdf

Galster, G., Henson, R., Ratcliffe, M.R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., Freihage, J., (2001) Wrestling Sprawl on the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate 12(4).

General Regulation on the Parceling-out and Construction of Land Lots (2011).

Fishman, R., (1987) Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books.

Jackson, K., (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jansons, I. (2011). Suburban Sprawl in Riga Region: the Rise and Fall of ‘American Dream’. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University. Vol. 3.

Harvey D., A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.

Hess, G., Daley, S., Dennis, B., Robert McGuinn, Vanessa Morin, Wade Shelton, Sharon Lubkin, Kevin Potter, Rick Savage, Chris Snow, and Beth Wrege. 2001. Just What Is Sprawl, Anyway? Carolina Planning Journal 26(2): 11-26.

Hirt, S. (2006). Post-Socialist Urban Forms: Notes From Sofia. Urban Geography, 2006, 27, 5: 464–488.

Hirt, S. (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia. Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography. 28(8): 755 – 780.

Hirt S. and Kovachev A. (2006). The Changing Spatial Structure of Post-socialist Sofia, in: Tsenkova, S. and Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.), The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and Policy, Heidelberg–New York: Springer & Physica-Verlag: 113–130.

Hirt, S. and Stanilov, K. (2007) The Post-socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Dordrecht: Springer.

INSPIRE (2012) http://www.isprambiente.it/it/archivio/eventi/anno-2012/5759-inspire.

ISTAT (2011) Statistiche demografiche ISTAT, Demo.istat.it. (retrieved 30 January 2011)

Knaap, G., (1998) The Determinants of Residential Property Values: Implications for Metropolitan Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 12(3), 267-282.

Knaap GJ, Hopkins LD and Donaghy KP (1998) Do Plans Matter? A Game-Theoretic Model for Examining the Logic and Effects of Land Use Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18: 25-34.

Korcelli, P., 1990, Migration and residential mobility in the Warsaw region. In J.van Weesep and P. Korcelli, editors, Residential Mobility from Poland to the Netherlands. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Utrecht KNAG, 46–58.


131

Kovachev, A., 2003a, Urban planning, (in Bulgarian: Gradoustroystvo), Part I, Pensoft, Sofia.

Kovachev, A., 2003a, Urban planning, (in Bulgarian: Gradoustroystvo), Part II, Pensoft, Sofia.

Kovachev, A., 2005, The Green System of Sofia, Urban planning aspects, (in Bulgarian: Zelenata sistema na Sofia, Urbanistichni aspekti) Pensoft, Sofia.

Krisjane, Z. and M. Berzins (2012) Post-socialist Urban Trends: New Patterns and Motivations for Migration in the Suburban Areas of Riga, Latvia. Urban Studies. 49(2): 289-306.

Laidley Т. (2015) Measuring Sprawl: A New Index, Recent Trends, and Future Research. Urban Affairs Review 01/2015; DOI:10.1177/1078087414568812.

Legal Decision on the Land Zoning in the Belgrade City Area, The (2009; 2010; and 2015).

Leontidou, L., (1990) The Mediterranean city in transition – social change and urban development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leontidou, L., Afouxenidis, A., Kourliouros, E., Marmaras, E., (2007) Infrastructure-related urban sprawl: mega-events and hybrid peri-urban landscapes in Southern Europe. In: Couch, C., Leontidou, L., Petschel-Held, G., (eds) Urban Sprawl in Europe: Landscapes, Land-use Change and Policy. Oxford: Blackwell, 69-101.

Lupi, T., and Musterd, S. (2006) The Suburban ‘Community Question’. Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 4: 801–817.

Manzotti, L., (2009) Belgrade's urban wilderness, Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso, , http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Serbia/Belgrade-s-urbanwilderness-46186>.

Maricchiolo, C., Sambucini, V., Pugliese, A., Munafò, M., Cecchi, G., Rusco, E., (2005) La realizzazione in Italia del progetto europeo Corine Land Cover 2000, Apat, Rapporti 61/2005, Roma.

Master Urban Plan of Belgrade 2021 (2009), City Official Gazette, No. 27/2003, 63/2009 70/2014, Belgrade.

Müller H., Wehrmann B., Čolić R., Fürst A., Begović B., Jochheim-Wirtz C., Božić B., Ferenčak M., Zeković S., Strengthening of Local Land Management in Serbia. Module 1: Urban Land Management (Ed. Harald Müller), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, GIZ Office, AMBERO Consulting Representative Office Belgrade, and Republic of Serbia Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, 2015.

Munafo, M., Norero, C., Sabbi, A., Salvati, L., (2010) Soil Sealing in the Growing City: A Survey in Rome, Italy. Scottish Geographical Journal 126(3),153-161.

National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2015) Spatial Planning Act (Zakon za ustroystvo na Teritoriyata).

National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (1999, 2004, 2008, 2011, 2013) Regional Development Act (Zakon za regionalnoto razvitie).


132

National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (1996, 2001, 2006, 2009, 2013) Agricultural Land Preservation Act (Zakon za opzvane na zemedelskite zemi).

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2006, 2009, 2105) The Act on Agricultural Lands, Sl. glasnik RS, no.62/2006, 41/2009, 112/2015

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2009; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2014; 2015) The Planning and Construction Act.

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2010, 2012, 2015) The Forestry Act , Sl. glasnik RS, no. 30/2010, 93/2012 i 89/2015

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2009) The Planning and Construction Act [Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji] Službeni Glasnik RS, 72/2009.

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2009, 2010) The Act on National Land Cadastre (2009; and 2010; in the sequel: ANLC);

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2013) The Act on Special Conditions for Registration of Property Rights on the Buildings Constructed without Building Permits [Zakon o posebnim uslovima za upis prava svojine na objektima izgrađenim bez građevinske dozvole], Službeni Glasnik RS, No. 25/2013.

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2015) The Legalisation Act [Zakon o ozakonjenju], Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, no. 95/2013, 96/2015.

National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia (2015) The Law on converting the land-use right into right on property of construction land with feeSl. glasnik RS, No. 64/2015

National Housing Conference “Towards a new national housing policy for Serbia”, Belgrade, 6-7 July 2006, UN HABITAT, 2006.

Nedovic Budic, Z. (2001) Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Eastern and Central European Context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67 (1):38-52

Nedović-Budić, Z. & Cavrić, B. (2006) Waves of planning: Framework for studying the evolution of planning systems and empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro. Planning Perspectives 21(4), 393–425.

Nedović-Budić, Z., Zeković, S., Vujošević, M., (2012) Land Privatization and Management in Serbia – Policy in Limbo. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 29(4), 306-317.

Nivola, P., (1998) Fat city – Understanding American Urban Form from a Transatlantic Perspective. Brookings Review, Fall 1998, 17-19.

NSI (Nacionalen statisticheski institut) (2012) Census 2011- Population and Housing Fund, Volume 3, Book 23 Sofia (Capital). Sofia: National Statistical Institute.

NSI (Nacionalen statisticheski institut) (2013) Key Macroeconomic Indicators 2011. Sofia: National Statistical Institute.

Ordnance on the Conversion of Land-lease to Land-property (2010, 2011)


133

Pichler-Milanovic, N. (2008). European Urban Sprawl. 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008.

Regional Spatial Plan of Administrative Area of the City of Belgrade (Regionalni prostorni plan administrativnog područja grada Beograda) Službeni list Grada Beograda, 10/04, 38/11.

REPUBBLICA (2012) Housing sociale è allarme cemento”. July 05 2012

RGZ (Republički geodetski zavod/Republic Geodesy Authority) (2015) Katastar nepokretnosti, available from http://katastar.rgz.gov.rs/KnWebPublic/.

Roma Capitale (2004) Annuario Statistico 2004, Comune di Roma, U.O. Statistica e Censimento.

Roma Capitale (2012) Annuario Statistico 2012, Comune di Roma, U.O. Statistica e Censimento.

RZS (Republički zavod za statistiku /Republic Bureau of Statistics) (2012) Saopštenje ZP21 SRB019 ZP21 310114, No. 19 - LXIV, Beograd,.

Salvati L. (2014). ‘The “Sprawl Divide”: Comparing Models of Urban Dispersion in Mono-centric and Poly-centric Mediterranean Cities’, European Urban and Regional Studies, Available at http://eur.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/08/0969776413512843 [accessed June 02, 2015]: 1-17.

Salvati, L., Sateriano, A., Bajocco, S., (2012) To grow or to sprawl? Land Cover Relationships in a Mediterranean City Region and implications for land use management. Cities (2012) doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.01.007.

Scenari Immobiliari (2012) Roma 2020. Economia, Società, Territorio E Mercati Immobiliari. Downloaded from http://www.scenari-immobiliari.it/enpublic/download_free_list.aspx?IdArt=626

Slaev, A.D. (2012) Market Theory of Urbanis, Part 1: Economics of Urban Development (in Bulgarian). Varna: Publishing House of Varna Free University.

Slaev, A.D. (2016a) Types of planning and property rights. Planning Theory 15(1): 23-41.

Slaev, A.D. (2016b) Property rights and methods of nomocratic planning. Planning Theory 15(3): 274-293.

Slaev, A., Anderson, R.J. and Hirt, S. 2012, (eds): Planning and Markets in Conditions of Systematic Transformation: Finding a Balance - Theme Issue of Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Volume 29, No 4,

Slaev, A.D. and Kovachev, A., (2014) Specific Issues of Urban Sprawl in Bulgaria. European Spatial Research & Policy 21(2), 155-169.

Slaev, A.D. and Nikiforov, I., (2013) Factors of Urban Sprawl in Bulgaria. SPATIUM International Review 29, 22-29

Smith D.A. (2009) Polycentric Cities and Sustainable Development. Regional Science http://www.slideshare.net/DuncanSmith/polycentric-cities-and-sustainable-development Accessed 04.09.2009.


134

Sofia Metropolitan Municipality, (2003) General Urban Development Plan of Metropolitan.

Sofia Metropolitan Municipality, (2009) Amendment of the General Urban Development Plan of Metropolitan.

Soil Framework Directive, 2004/35/ЕC, COM 179/2002.

Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia, 1996.

Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia, 2010.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2011) Municipalities and Regions in Serbia 2010 [Opštine i regioni u Srbiji].

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2012) 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Belgrade.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2012) Statistical yearbook of Serbia, 2011.

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, (2012) Agricultural census in Republic Serbia Popis poljoprivrede u Republici Srbiji 2011. Belgrade: SORS.

UNECE (2009) Self-made cities, New York and Geneve: UNECE. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/publications/oes/SelfMadeCities.pdf

Tammaru, T. (2005) Suburbanisation, employment change, and commuting in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Environment and Planning. A 37(9): 1669 – 1687.

Tombolini, I., Zambon, I., Ipplito, A., Grigoriadis, S., Serra, P., Salvati, L., (2013) Revisiting “Southern”Sprawl: Urban Growth, Socio-Spatial Structure And the Influence of Local Economic Contexts. Economies 3, 237-257. doi:10.3390/economies3040237.

Tsenkova, S. (2012) Urban planning and informal cities in Southeast Europe. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 29(4): 292-305.

World Health Organization (2015) World Population Prospects - The 2015 Revision. New York

Wu, J.; Jenerette, G.D.; Buyantuyev, A.; Redman, C.L. (2011) Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: The case of the two fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States. Ecolpgical Complexity (8) 1–8.

Zeković, S., Vujošević, M., Bolay, J.C., Cvetinović, M., Zivanović Miljković, J., and Maričić, T., (2015) Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl: The example of Belgrade. Spatium 33: 69-75.

Zeković S., ‘Reform framework for urban land management in Serbia in the period of transition’, in C. Ardil (Ed.), International Conference on Urban, Regional Planning and Transportation, URPT’09, WASET, Vol. 54, Paris, 2009, pp. 460-467.

Zeković S., Vujošević M, Maričić T., Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land market in a post-socialist society: the case of Belgrade, Habitat International, Vol. 48, 2015, pp. 65-78.


135

Zeković S., Vujošević M, Bolay J.C., Cvetinović M., Miljković-Živanović J., Maričić T., Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl: example of Belgrade, Spatium, No. 33, 2015, pp. 69-75.

Zeković S., Maričić T., Cvetinović M., Transformation of housing policy in post-socialist city: the example of Belgrade, Studies in Housing Law: Volume One, Eleven-Boom Uitgevers Den Haag, The Nederlands, 2016.

Zitti, M., Ferrara, C., Perini, L., Carlucci, M., Salvati, L., (2015) Long-Term Urban Growth and Land Use Efficiency in Southern Europe: Implications for Sustainable Land Management, Sustainability 7, 3359-3385. doi:10.3390/su7033359.

Živanović, Z., Značaj Beograda u regionalnom razvoju Srbije, Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Geografski fakultet, 2008.


136


137

22.. PPOOLLIICCYY RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS::

RREEGGUULLAATTIIOONNSS AAIIMMEEDD AATT PPRROOMMOOTTIINNGG

SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE AANNDD RREESSIILLIIEENNTT

UURRBBAANN GGRROOWWTTHH

2.1. Proposal for measures and rules aimed to regulate the processes of uncontrolled expansion and urban sprawl in suburban

areas of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality

Aleksandar D. Slaev and Atanas Kovachev

2.2. Preparation of planning and development regulations concerning peripheral territories of the city of Rome



138


139

2.1.ProposalformeasuresandrulesaimedtoregulatetheprocessesofuncontrolledexpansionandurbansprawlinsuburbanareasofSofiaMetropolitanMunicipality


2.1.1.IntroductionThe goal of this paper is to develop a system of practical tools which can help

regulate urban form and expansion/development in the city of Sofia. The work builds on the results of TURAS WP5 research on social, economic, and ecological trends in the outskirts of the capital city and explores the untapped capacity for development that has been identified during the course of study.

This paper consists of two parts. The first begins with a summary of findings regarding existing trends of suburbanization. Based on these findings, the paper formulates objectives that aim to guide sustainable and resilient development in Sofia’s suburban areas. To implement the stated objectives, measures and instruments are proposed to supplement or to modify existing ordinances and regulations issued by the Sofia Municipal Council. The second part analyses the current system of funding urban development and develops a set of key measures to achieve the defined goals. These propose the zoning of municipal suburban areas to establish local tax levels and fees, which could optimize suburban development and limit dispersed (sprawl-shaped) urban expansion in the capital city

2.1.2. Objectives and measures for optimization ofthe urbanization processes in suburban areas ofSofiaMetropolitanMunicipalityandlimitingsprawl‐shapedurbanexpansionKey findings from the analysis of contemporary trends in suburbanization in

Sofia regarding key issues of urban growth and expansion:


140

Sofia is growing and this growth is an important positive factor for the development of the region and for the country.

Due to historically formed local traditions and residential preferences, around 75 % of the new development is accommodated within the compact city.

Despite the trend of compact, central development over the last couple of decades, Sofia is suburbanizing and expanding. An unfavorable effect of this expansion is the loss of farmland and green space, particularly, the diminished green urban boundary that linked the urban park system to the Vitosha mountain national park (to the south).

The processes observed in northern suburban areas can be assessed as sprawl-like, though they are growing at a slower rate. Dispersed or “leap-frog” developments, mainly for industrial or tertiary uses, are observed in a number of locations. These have so far consumed only a relatively small area. Yet, the appearance of these dispersed and discontinuous developments frustrates the overall efficient and sustainable use of the greater area.

The sprawl in the outskirts of Sofia can be identified as sprawl of a “Western-type,” with regard to its driving forces and general characteristics. Nevertheless, sprawl surrounding the capital city exhibits its own specific features, which diverge from the “classical” forms. Bulgarian sprawl (at least so far) is characterised by relatively higher densities, a higher mix of uses and social mix and lower levels of social segregation.

The Municipality of Sofia has not seriously addressed issues related to urban sprawl. So far, the only document to define policy objectives concerning suburban territories is the new General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) (2003, 2007, 2009). This plan aims to advance both an efficient use of land and the “unburdening” the central areas. However, the measures which are laid out to advance these goals are contradictory to one another. The plan reserves development in areas where it was meant to be encouraged and allowed high immediate rates of development in areas where it was meant to be restricted.

There are several other municipal ordinances which have considerable impact on the development of suburban areas, in addition to the GUDP. First, fees relating to building permits in suburban areas are 2 to 3 times lower than fees in central and semi-central areas, thus directing development to suburban locations. Second, regulations concerning infrastructure generally imply that the Municipality of Sofia is responsible for the development of infrastructure. However, due to acute shortages in the municipal budget, recent provisions have created more space for private initiative, if private investors assume responsibility of financing the development of infrastructure. In effect these provisions limit sprawl, and ultimately improve urban resilience, in two ways. First, the municipality has greater revenues to develop infrastructure and improve environment in central city areas. Second, limited funding for suburban infrastructure actually promotes compact suburban development patterns.

With regard to the last two observations, serious suburban development problems arise/result:

- inefficient consumption of land (dispersed, “leap-frog” patterns)


141

- loss of large green areas and insufficient green space in the southern suburban districts

- lagging socio-economic development of the northern districts

I. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES:

1. Rebalance development between the centre (compact city) and periphery (settlements and peri-urban areas):

1.1. To abandon the policy aimed to relieve the city centre from continued development. The development of surrounding areas should not rival development in the city centre, rather, peripheral development should complement the competitiveness of the centre and to the city as a whole.

1.2. Heightened promotion of the polycentric vision, restricting dispersed urban development.

1.3. To stimulate polycentric and compact urban structure through the regulatory measures, tools and rules developed and proposed by TURAS,

2. Balance development between/in southern and northern suburban areas

2.1. To limit development of/in southern suburban areas due to inefficient urban development trends, restricted access to Vitosha National Park and excessive emigration from the city centre to the southern periphery.

2.2. Regulating chaotic (spontaneous), dispersed, and scattered peripheral development while stimulating prudent, polycentric development of a compact type through the establishment of secondary centres (2 or 3) in the northern territory.

These two policies are to be implemented through eight specific objectives.

II. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Concerning the compact city - this area does not fall under the auspices of

TURAS Work Package 5.

Concerning the southern areas

1. The restriction of excessive opportunities for dispersed development characterized by single-family housing and the promotion of compact housing forms.

2. Applying the “consumer pays” principle to the development of so-called "high-category" housing areas to ensure that "high-category" residents pay the full price for all natural and infrastructural resources used, as well as an adequate contribution to overall municipal development..

3. Preservation of what remains of green areas and ensuring accelerated qualitative and quantitative development of all other green areas (in any kind or any form of ownership). Guarantee of public access and effective public use.


142

Concerning the northern areas

4. Develop transportation infrastructure, especially the development of mass transit (rail and bus).

5. Incorporate a flexible approach towards the development of all types of infrastructure, especially the road network, railroad lines should be a key priority.

6. Creation of opportunities for housing development, which foster relatively compact forms and higher densities. These ought to be subject to two principles: 1) consumer pays for all resources used (natural, infrastructure), 2) owners of higher class (luxury) housing pay increased property taxes and local charges.

7. Improve ecological conditions – restrict air pollution (any kind, but first of all – industrial pollution) and facilitate attractive landscaping.

8. Stimulate new, clean industries through/by imposing restrictions on damaging environmental activity while incentivizing services/service industries and structured development (territorial and by economic sectors) .

III. MEASURES III.1. MEASURES FOR THE SOUTHERN TERRITORIES

MEASURE 1. Regulating opportunities for occurrence of low-density/ dispersed development, characterized by single-family housing, while stimulating more compact and dense housing forms.

Rationale:

This measure is indispensable as it serves to advance a number of key objectives which are essential for sustainable and resilient urban development. This vision can guide the Sofia Municipality towards the implementation of sounder social, housing and environmental policies, limiting expansive development, especially:

neutralization of excessive consumption of land limiting the negative environmental impacts and development-related

threats to the Vitosha Nature Park preservation of the remnants of the green wedges between the city and the

mounting, ensuring better access to the mountain and the nature park preservation of natural resources and the microclimate strengthening the policy which aims to foster development in the city’s

northern periphery / Strengthening policy to make north more desirable and stimulating development in the north by restricting development in the south

In addition to this, two interrelated concepts which impact development in the city’s south must be addressed:

- To date, Sofia Municipality has viewed the southern areas as an important reserve for urban housing functions


143

- In the GUDP,southern regions are described as significant yet unutilized areas allocated for housing, whose re-assignment/redesignation to green areas, is practically impossible.

Therefore the application of a policy restricting the development to the south thorugh direct provisions is neither desirable nor is it possible to enforce. Instead, the goal must be implemented through appropriate tools creating incentives rather than bans.

Instruments for the implementation of the measure:

Instruments for the implementation of Measure 1 will be discussed together with the instruments for Measure 2 due to their interdependence.

MEASURE 2. To apply the “consumer pays” principle to so-called "high-category" housing developments, ensuring "high-category" residents are paying the full price for natural and infrastructural resources as well as making an adequate contribution to the overall development of the municipality (“greater than the average” contribution of the wealthy strata and territories).

Rationale:

This principle marries the achievement of social justice with urban sustainability. It ensures that wealthier (suburban) residents bear the true financial burden of suburban development - namely for the vast land and natural resources (including loss of biodiversity) consumed and infrastructure required. The latter argument is based on the premise that residents of suburban areas generally consume significant land and infrastructure resources for which they do not always pay the full price (this will be dealt with in greater detail in the proposed zoning section).

Instruments for the implementation of the measure: Issue higher fees for construction permits in newly-urbanized properties (i.e.,

properties with a land-use status that has been changed within the last 10 years - such as from agricultural or forestry to buildable land). Fees and taxes are to be determined as per item 2 of the proposed zoning of suburban areas.

Issue higher fees for certificates under Art. 177 of the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) (certificates for permission of use of completed buildings) for newly-urbanized properties (i.e., properties with a changed land-use status in the past 10 years - such as from agricultural or forestry purposes to buildable). As above, the amount of local fees and taxes is to be determined according to item 2 of the proposed zoning of the surrounding raeas municipality

Increase the tax rate on newly urbanized property in the regions Bankia, Vitosha, Palm Sunday, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar, Vitosha and Pancherevo for the first 10 years from the issuance of a permit under paragraph 2 of the same proposal.

The core of these charges must reflect the actual cost of infrastructure in new areas and the cost of maintaining the ecological balanceplus an added tax for construction in southern regions, particularly for "high-category" housing. For housing forms with higher densities the charge to be partially reduced.


144

MEASURE 3. Protection of what remains of the green urban boundary/edges, protection of remaining flora in addition to rapid qualitative and quantitative improvement of the state of natural (and built?) environment, provision of comprehensive public access and use.

Rationale:

The most unfortunate result of rapid urbanization in the southern residential areas of Sofia Municipality has been the severe depletion of the vast, green urban boundary, colloquially the “green sleeves” of the Vitosha collar. It is imperative to adopt urgent measures, including "non-traditional" approaches to housing development, to save what is left of this green network by any means necessary. In this way, maximum possible recovery of the “green sleeves” can be achieved, whether in the form of a network of connected, compact areas or larger strips.

Instruments for the implementation of the measure:

First, designate areas in the former “green sleeves” whose conservation and restoration represents a significant public interest. This can be led by the development and gradual implementation of plans for street regulation (PSR) under Article 110 of the SPA in designated areas. Street regulation will have the following priorities:

maximum preservation of remaining green areas (re)designation of lands to (protected) green system creation of a public space network for pedestrian and bicycle

transport/pathways, facilitating access to and from the city and the mountain. These should be narrow in profile but sufficiently large to ensure mass usage and allotting for large plants (trees and bushes)

Second, develop a programme that sets policy and mechanisms up to take the following actions:

development, maintenance and preservation of the green system with funding from the municipal budget

development of public-private partnerships to manage the green system supplement the Ordinance for Construction, Maintenance and Preservation

of the Green System of Sofia Municipality with measures to encourage private owners to build and maintain maximum landscaping in their property and to ensure maximum visual and functional contact

Third, propose changes to the Ordinance for Construction, Maintenance and Preservation of the green system of Sofia Municipality (proposed additions in bold and italics):

Art. 7. The chief architect of Sofia Municipality (SM), through departments under his/her control in SM to:

1. assigns step by step plan-programs and programmes for targeted action to enforce the provisions of the (GUDP);


145

2. assigns specialized studies on specific problems affecting elements of the green system (proposal), including studies to identify areas of the green system which are of particular public interest and establishment of measures to preserve, develop and maintain them;

3. ………………………………

Art. 14. Newly developed municipal green areas are delivered with warranty, during which the Contractor must correct the omissions and restore the lost vegetation. The warranty period is equal to the warranty service included in the contract for the site, but not – less than 2 years. Proposal: To ensure the presence of warranty services included in the contract for the completion of works, the Contractor must make a deposit to Sofia Municipality. The deposit shall be based upon the judgment of the Commission upon expiration of the warranty period.

Art. 24.(1) All investment projects, except for single-family and villa buildings and buildings Sixth category (proposal – omit " except for single-family and villa buildings and buildings Sixth category” - ), must include "landscape design and site improvement" (under Ordinance № 4 for the scope and content of investment projects), or shall undertake activities to restore and improve the site for transport and infrastructural projects in accordance with Art. 68 of the Spatial Development Act.

(2) …………………………………………..

Art. 26.(1) If approving the part "landscape design and site improvement " for investment projects whererestorative greening is necessary, municipal specialists prescribe size, species composition and location.

(2) The warranty period for greening is at least two growing seasons.

(3) Proposal: For the guarantee of contractual support for completion of the projects/works, the contractor must make a deposit into account of the Sofia Municipality. The deposit shall be based on the decision of the Commission upon expiration of the warranty period

Proposal: Art. 30 to change as follows:

Art. 30. (1) No projects are commissioned without the implementation of “landscape design and site improvement” . (proposal) In Art. 168, paragraph 6 of the SPA, the Metropolitan Municipality can refuse to commission a project/can refuse issuance of a certificate for commissioned work (under Article 177 of SPA) when persons do not fully implement/complete Landscape


146

design and site improvement" or the provisions concerning compensatory planting.

(2) When approved construction projects are commissioned in phases, the requirement under par. 1 applies upon completion of the final phase for each individual phase.

(3) When implementing all new projects for all types of works and projects for the reconstruction of street spaces there must be provision for street trees and locations for planting them.

( 4) When certificates are issued under Article 177 of the SPA, investors must guarantee to maintain vegetation as per part Landscape design and site improvement" and provisions concerning compensatory planting, as referred to in paragraph 3 of this section. In the contract for warranty support, there must be a requirement for a deposit to Sofia Municipality on the part of the investor. The deposit shall be released based on the decision of the Commission upon end/expiry of the warranty period.

III.2. MEASURES FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORIES

Key features of peri-urban spatial policy affecting the Municipality’s northern territories

Spatial policy in the northern peri-urban areas of the Municipality, guided by the GUDP, is subject to the principles of resilient and sustainable urban development and incorporate three very important features. They are the result of planning objectives aimed at building a more competitive urban structure that would attract more people and diverse economic activities. Simultaneously, these planning policies ought to regulate undesirable growth in the city, facilitate the efficient use of land resources and ecological improvement of the environment. The three features are:

Development of transportation networks in the northern areas is of top priority. Given the ambition to limit sprawl-like development, the form of public transportation should foster compact growth (i.e. public transportation, rail)

The development of infrastructure is the prime factor for stimulating socio-economic and urban development of northern territories, but it must optimize municipal funding.

While the development of the secondary and tertiary sectors in this area is predicted, beneficial and necessary, these activities must not worsen environmental conditions and instead aim to improve the ecological and aaesthetic qualities of the environment.


147

MEASURE 4. –Prioritizing the development of mass transit (rail and bus)

Rationale:

Comprehensive transportation networks are essential to the attainment of the main objectives of the GUDP , but the following should also be considered:

Comprehensive transportation networks support mobility at both citywide (municipal) and local scale. However, not all transportation is created equal. Transportation networks which prioritize the development of roads ultimately contribute (and are a component of) sprawling, suburban landscapes. In this case, the private automobile is the favoured mode of transit, oft producing automobile traffic, air and noise pollution. Automobiles have also been criticized for their propensity to consume a disproportionate amount of infrastructure and land resources – sometimes 30 to 90 times more than public transportation (Laconte, 2005, 2012). In practice, costly road networks serve individualized forms of transportation, while public transportation networks are ill developed and provide only very limited access.

In particular, the development of rail is cheaper than the development and maintenance of a road system. In order to sustainably foster mobility in the northern regions, the development of public transportation infrastructure should be a top priority. This includes providing both public and private bus lines and networks as well as rail.

The development of rail should thus be a priority, especially since a well-developed rail network could mak the north a node of the three trans-European corridors ( №, 4, 8 and 10). Accelerated development of rail infrastructure through EU funding can radically transform the northern peri-urban areas from a barrier (due to the absence of multilevel junctions/facilities) to a gateway (connected to high efficiency rail passenger transport, as in many other Western European cities e.g., Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and others).

In general, the development of railway connections in northern areas is supposed to be one of the main priorities of the GUDP. On the ground however, this has not been the case, as none of the milestones which are considered important for the development of the railway network (intermodal terminal near Station Poduyane and modernization of the railway line along Botevgrad - Vidin) are being met. Thus, the GUDP needs to more seriously address development of passenger transport in this direction. needs updating.

Proposed instruments for the implementation of the measure: Development of infrastructure in the northern Sofia Municipality for mass

passenger transport through public-private partnerships Planning and phased development of a network of intermodal railway

passenger stations, intercity buses, subway, tram and cycling junctions with resources from the municipal and national budget as well as EU Operational Programmes, especially the Transport Operational Programme.

Development of railway infrastructure primarily through funding under the Operational and other European programmes.


148

Promotion of private initiative in passenger transportation in northern regions by shortening time traveled and lowering the cost of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Annex № 12 of the Ordinance on local charges in Sofia (local taxes are almost irrelevant because they do not concern the activities of carriers)

MEASURE 5. Flexible approaches to the development of the road network and the various types of technical infrastructure.

Rationale:

Avery important objective of urban policy in the northern parts of the Municipality is to strike a balance between the provision of infrastructure required for the operation of vital functions, assigned to these territories on the one hand and competent resource management which would mitigate the negative effects of urban sprawl, on the other. Thus, the Municipality ought to direct urban development that as of a polycentric urban structure to the north, allowing for a compact (compact nodes?) type of development, while simultaneously preserving agricultural lands and green space.

Moreover, a difference must be made between primary infrastructure that serves the regional level (?) and one that serves the local level. As has been indicated already, the construction of local infrastructure generally stimulates urban sprawl.

Ultimately, there is the question at whose expense local infrastructure should be funded. The present policy proposal supports the position (explained in more detail in the second part) that it must not be at the expense of the municipality. This is unsurprising, as the Municipality is apparently perpetually lacking resources. If infrastructural development is to be (in part?) funded by the municipality, it translates as funding from tax revenues, which is ultimately, an expense borne by all Sofia taxpayers. The problem of insuficcient funds, however is not a justifiable one, as in many cases, well-off suburban residents are permitted to use land and infrastructure resources - without paying the full price.

Proposed instruments for the implementation of the measure: To develop the primary suburban road network, the Municipality can rely

solely on centralized funding - primarily from Operational Programmes. There are two options for funding and developing the secondary (local) road

infrastructure at the expense of investors and immediate users: The cost of infrastructure is included, at least in part, in the cost of building permits Provide investors with the opportunity to build their own infrastructural network in phases

Despite that these measures may seem controversial at first glance they are in fact already being partially implemented by the Sofia Municipality. Relevant provisions exist in ordinances and regulations for local taxes, for the development of infrastructure and others. In this paper they will be justified in detail and


149

developed in order to determine the tax and municipal fees in Part II - Proposed Zoning of Surrounding Areas of Sofia Concrete proposals for changes will be made in respective ordinances and regulations.

MEASURE 6. Balanced promotion of housing alternatives (habitation)

Rationale:

In accordance with the GUDP, Sofia Municipality considers that northern areas should serve as a major resource for development over the next two decades and should attract a large share of future housing development. This is consistent with the concept of resilient and sustainable development of the city, as long as the newly formed residential structures are compact and grouped into a rational system of secondary centres, rather than fragmented and dispersed settlements. Therefore, the proposed measures aim to stimulate this specific type housing construction, with three particular cases in mind:

Developments within existing urban areas; - in this case, the measures aim to create positive incentives for construction

Development occurring outside of Sofia’s development boundaries but in areas that are already equipped with the basic types of infrastructure (roads and water & sewer); in this case, owners / entrepreneurs enter into an agreement in which to undertake expenditures

Developments outside of municipal development boundaries, in areas lacking basic types of infrastructure (roads and water & sewer); in this case construction owners/entrepreneurs operate without contracts with owners and entrepreneurs to finance it

Proposed instruments for the implementation of the measure: Reduced fees for building permits and certificates of Art. 177 of the Spatial

Development Act (certificate of occupancy) in urban areas of the northern regions of Sofia Municipality.

A small increase in fees for building permits and certificates for use of/construction in areas outside of development boundaries, in areas already equipped with basic types of infrastructure

A significant increase in building permit fees and certifications for use of/construction in areas outside of municipal development boundaries, which are not equipped with the main types of infrastructure

MEASURE 7. Improving ecological conditions – eliminating industrial pollution and fostering landscape improvement

Rationale:

As a significant number of Sofia's manufacturing facilities are located in the northern part of the city, northern areas are characterised by higher levels of air, water and soil pollution. Given that transportation and industry (especially manufacturing) are the main sources of air pollution in the municipality, pollution in these areas can be attributed primarily to industrial practice.


150

Improved environmental policy over the past 10-15 years such as the implementation of programmes for management of air quality in Sofia, have led to a marked improvement of key environmental indicators. In northern areas, the switch by industry (from coal?) to natural gas and, especially, the closure of the metallurgical plant Kremikovci, have had a huge positive effect on air quality. Despite these favourable results the environmental situation is far from satisfactory in some basic parameters (PM10 and NO2 / NOx).

Therefore, it is imperative to recognize that the subsequent Programmes for reductions in the levels of particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for 2010-2014 have not resulted in/contributed to substantive action, specifically in the field of industrial development. Accordingly, measures to boost environmental performance of industrial activities in the northern areas of Sofia Municipality are necessary. In addition, it should be emphasized that poorly planned industrial activities degrade whatever aaesthetic appeal the environment may have.

Proposed instruments for the implementation of the measure:

Because of the close relationship between Measure 7 (Improving ecological conditions) and Measure 8 (Stimulating new structure of local industry), instruments for these two measures will be examined together.

MEASURE 8. Encourage a new structure of local industries –with development of the tertiary sector and restructuring (spatial and economic) of the secondary sector as top priorities for the local economy.

Rationale:

Measures 7 and 8 are directly related to a third of the/the third of (five?) important elements that have been singled out for the effective/lucrative (?) spatial development of the northern regions of Sofia. In particular, these measures (?) reiterate the twofold impact of industry upon these territories. On the one hand, manufacturing is the primary culprit behind pollution in this area. For example, the closing of the powerful metallurgical facility Kremikovsti has had a positive effect on the environmental quality of the entire region. On the other hand, industry is the/a major driving force behind economic prosperity/development in the city and particularly of the northern regions. The long-established, industrial profile of the north of Sofia supports the regions’ undeniable competitive advantage in this sector, as demonstrated by the fact that more than half (almost 60 per cent) of new production facilities are being built in this region (including many small and medium-size enterprises) (including many small and medium-size enterprises).

Thus, the development of industry in the Northern Territory has a binary effect. It is useful insofar as it creates jobs / revenue yet it is harmful insofar as most production activities pollute the environment on some level. Ultimately, a balance between the advantages of industrial production and industrial pollution must be achieved. This can be achieved in the following way: if a process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) deems industrial activity as excessively polluting, then this activity ultimately asphyxiates/impedes production as well as other types of


151

future development of the area. Thus, this activity should be restricted. When the EIA is positive, appropriate measures should be twofold:

Promote/stimulate industrial activities that benefit the local economy Restrict industries,(even conditionally "clean" industries) that may pollute

the environment, rendering it unattractive for habitation, recreation and other functions.

In this case, "dirty" industries and service sector activities need especially to be distinguished from “clean” ones. In addition to this, commercial logistical activity has the propensity to increase traffic, increase air pollution and contribute to a crowded and noisy environment that diminishes attractiveness for housing/living development. Other activities associated with the services sector (administrative functions, retail, shopping centres and specialized outlets, tourism and hospitality, etc.) have a different effect. Namely, these activities can draw economic activity and potential residents to the area.

The end result (what exactly?) depends to a large extent on the effective integration and coordination of activities, which can be challenging under conditions of private initiative. Given that private initiative is often encouraged for industrial development, integration and coordination may indeed prove difficult. Several steps are suggested (to supplement the zoning provisions of GUDP?) below. These are intended to helpalign the interests of originators, property ownersand other occupants and users of the area along with the public interest.

Proposed instruments for the implementation of the measure:

Tools that correspond to Measure 7 and Measure 8 can/should be integrated into the administrative procedures of Sofia Municipality in the following way (?)

First, providing professional, impartial and objective evaluations of the environmental impact assessment (EIA)

Second, incentivised implementation of zoning regulations and GUDP fulfilment based on the list of conforming and non-conforming uses, as intended for the territory

Lower fees for activities which comply with GUDP perscriptions/rules and thereby incentivise (…) and enhance the territorial structure.

Higher fees for other (non-approved) proposed activities

PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

In Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar and Pancherevo:

The fee for the issue of a building permit (under Article 64 of the Ordinance for Determination and Administration of Local Taxes and Prices of Services) for territories designated for industrial and mixed-use functions (shall be set at 4 lev per square meter built area. A fee of 1 lev per square meter built area shall be administered under these conditions for certification under Art. 177, par. 3 of SPA.

When the designation of a property in these areas is changed to a function incompatible/other than planned, the fee for the issuance of a building permit


152

shall become 16 lev per square meter built area, and the fee for issuing certificates under Art. 177, para. 3 LSP - 8 lev per square meter built area.

In the districts of Bankia, Vitosha and Ovcha kupel

The cost of building permits for industrial and mixed use designated areas (under Article 64 of the Ordinance for Determination and Administration of Local Taxes and Prices of Services) shall be 10 lev per square meter built area. For the issue of certification under Art. 177, par. 3 of SPA, the cost shall be 6 lev per square meter built area.

When the designation of a property in these areas is changed to an incompatible function, the fee for the issuance of a building permit shall become 27 lev per square meter built area, and the fee for issuing certificates under Art. 177, para. 3 LSP - 18 lev per square meter built area.

Third, instruments guaranteeing the interests of neighbouring landowners and other residents of the area.

It should be emphasized that the interests of neighbouring landowners and other residents of the area conform to spatial planning policy which aims to markedly improve ecological conditions. There is no better way to protect the quality of the environment from than by empowering those who are directly affected to influence urban processes. Thus increasing/improving the opportunities for public participation would be an effective tool for garnering/the implementation of/sound environmental policy.

Articles 127 and 128 of the SPA (as amended on 17.10.2012) deal with (national) procedures that dictate the announcement of development plans, public participation in proceedings and the acceptance of…/on the national level. However, these two articles typically fail to to guarantee the rights of affected populations and other interested groups. In 2007, the Sofia Municipality adopted an Ordinance on the Manner of Conducting Public Hearings. However, this ordinance only addresses unspecified discussions on the adoption of the General Urban Development Plan. Also missing are relevant rules on the announcement of EIA reports (although such reports for many large urban and regional sites indeed are announced). Very well stipulated are the rights and obligations of the municipal administration and of experts from interested parties, which the mayor or chief architect determines on behalf of the public. Professional organizations, environmental NGOs and other non-governmental bodies are not provided with any relevant powers. On the procedure and rules of public hearings, the ordinance is in need of revision in order to ensure the interests of all parties affected by urban development.


153

2.1.3. Proposal for the zoning of SofiaMunicipalitysuburban territory. Determination of taxation andmunicipal fees as tools for optimizing urbanizationprocesses and limiting sprawl‐shaped urbanexpansion in suburban areas of the metropolitanmunicipality

I. GENERAL STATEMENT AND PRINCIPLES The purpose of proposed zoning is to enable Sofia municipality to better

regulate spatial development through the determination of certain taxes and fees. The application of appropriate fees and taxes will limit processes of urban sprawl and help achieve high urban sustainability and flexibility.

While the overarching / (?) spatial development guidelines are formulated by the General Urban Development Plan (GUDP), the specifics / on the ground implementation is evaluated and clarified by the Sofia Municipality in the process of managing city development. The task of the present analysis is to facilitate the successful implementation of the GUDP with a focus on the regulation of processes of sprawl. The goal is not to reassess, redefine or specify the direction of development but rather to review the choice of instruments (used by the municipality) for the implementation of GUDP goals/guidelines and relevant spatial policies.

Generally, there are two types of tools for implementation: administrative instruments which define admissible and inadmissible

actions, allowing or prohibiting certain activities accordingly fiscal (or market) instruments that do not prohibit any activity but create

positive and negative economic incentives

Administrative instrument/regulations are definitely the tool that is more widely used in planning practice. This is indeed a bit strange, as fiscal/market instruments are more efficient. Therefore, local urban socio-economic and spatial development policy makers should use financial tools much more extensively to achieve their goals.

While fiscal instruments are common in the practice of local authorities, they are not used for the realisation urban and spatial plans. The reasoning seems to be as follows: first, local governments frequently utilise taxes and charges because they are a primary source of funding for local activities (other sources are the central budget and international programmes). Second, city councils regard taxes as a tool for achieving social goals, such as social fairness, justice and equity. The third is perhaps the most logical why administrative tools are preferred in planning practice, namely –that taxes and fees are collected in order to compensate for the provision of


154

municipal services and to raise funding for activities that are important and needed by the local residents.

However, not every problem can be solved through market instruments because in some situations they prove to be too costly to implement. In such cases, administrative tools are used. Another reason behind the wide use of administrative measures, especially by planners, is that they are generally easy to develop and implement (than ..). Finally, the adoption and imposition of administrative measures typically faces less resistance and are thus oft preferred to the market mechanisms.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GENERAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SPATIAL PLANNING POLICY AND THE BUDGET OF SOFIA MUNICIPALITY One of the major critiques of planning in Bulgarian cities, and generally – a

weakness of urban planning worldwide – is the failure of planners to effectively/adquately correlate plans with the structure of finances available in local government. The municipal budget ought to be recognized as the main tool for the structuring of municipal plans, as the budget is crucial for the realisation of the development plan in three ways: First, the expenditure side of the budget directly and fully determines the

performance of one of the most important components of the plan - namely, infrastructure.

Second, the implementation of the infrastructure, in turn, is critical for directing private investments.

Third, local taxes and fees, are important components of the revenue side of the budget, which act as effective positive or negative incentives to regulate the behaviour of all decentralised entities – individuals, households, firms, clubs, and communities.

Next, we will look at the budget for Sofia Municipality in 2013.The earnings from 2013 will be compared with those in the report from 2012. The main question then is how the balance between revenue and capital items of expenditure helps or hinders the realization of of sustainable and resilient urban development and urbanization processes in the surrounding areas of Sofia as set forth by the GUDP

In general, social, economic and urban practices that are reflective of the natural elements of the social system are the most effective. In the field of sustainable urban planning this means the tools must realistically reflect the actual social, economic and market costs and conditions. In this regard, the function of taxes as quasi-market instruments is fundamental (i.e., taxes administered for transactions and services), since this function cannot be performed by the market mechanism. Most importantly, the taxed amount must correlate with the actual value of public needs. Users of infrastructure, for example, are numerous, and each one uses a very small part of the service whose aggregate value would be much too high


155

for the individual/one sole user. Therefore, rather than selling individual parts of infrastructure/service to each user, service providers (such as private contractors) depend on the municipality to collect individual contributions in the form of tax. Therefore, the determining factor of the tax is the value of the service, which is funded by the tax. If this principle is violated, the sense and the viability of the service will be distorted as well. Another good example of this principle is (the cost of) infrastructure that is used in the case of an emergency. In the event of environmental disaster, local communities can raise funds through taxes, garnering the resources necessary to neutralise an imminent or immediate threat e.g., pollution. Relying on public funds collected for other purposes is not a sustainable solution. Thus, the development of taxes which are reflexive of service values ought to be a top priority for sustainable urban development.

This principle does not need to be in conflict with the achievement of social goals/objectives through the redistribution of taxes, as needed/on behalf of the public. For example, through tax increases among the more affluent members of society, which lessen the burden on disadvantaged individuals and the lower social strata, higher participation of disadvantaged groups may be achieved. Alternatively, local communities may increase the size of their tax, thereby putting pressure on profitable industries and activities to absorb a larger share of the financial burden for environmental services. This promotes not only sustainable urban development but also – social sustainability.

Based upon these principles, the balance between local taxes and the purposes for which they are collected/designated will be assessed. In the following paragraphs, the links between instruments (taxes and fees) and aspects of urban sustainability will be addressed. The first step is to determine whether there is a correlation between budgetary revenues and expenditures, specifically in the development of the street / road and technical infrastructure. Parallel with this, we will propose concrete measures for changes in the administrative and market led tax system.

The analysis of the balance between revenue and expenditure in the budget for 2013 indicates that Sofia Municipality generally follows the above principles. However, significant deficiencies emerge when it comes to urban sustainability. When considering budget expenditures in 2013, we see that the maintenance of the municipal council and administration is 58 million lev; expenditures on education, health, security, social welfare, culture, sports and economy is 391 million levs, or 449 million in total. Expenses for transportation, technical and environmental infrastructure amounts to 264.6 million lev.In addition to this, 59.2 million leva are reserved for factory waste, installations, depots and associated road networks; 15.4 million leva - are dedicated to other environmental measures; 100 million leva for sanitation.

The weight that transportation networks and infrastructure have on the municipal budget is tremendous. Their cost is even greater if you add funds from Operational Programmes, which take costs for streets, roads and facilities, communications, water and sewerage and environmental infrastructure to 614.7 million levs (in which 100 million for sanitation are not included), compared


156

tothe454 million for remaining municipal functions (education, health, safety, welfare, culture, sports, economy and subsistence). In total, the national budget directed to/available for municipal activities amounts to 888.4 million levs and that of complementary (?) Operational Programmeat 280.6 million levs.

On the other side of the budget are the revenues. For the purposes of this analysis, these are divided into three conditional subgroups. First, there are the taxes that have a direct effect on the development of infrastructure and urban areas. These are taxes on vehicles, on inherited property, on property acquired through market transactions, and fees for technical services (typically fees for the issue of building permits). Aggregate revenues from these taxes totalled 215.1 million leva in 2012, with an increase of 21.8 million levs in 2013. It is therefore evident that this amount is not entirely sufficient to meet planned expenses for roads, technical, environmental infrastructure and transport connections, which was set at 264.6 million levs. Thus nearly 180 million Levs are required from Operational Programmes to fulfill this budget deficit.

The second group of revenues required for funding urban development is comprised of taxes in the field of sanitation, such as the waste tax. Given that these revenues totalled 157.5 million Levs in 2012 and were planned at 183.6 million in 2013, it seems that they are sufficient - given that the cost of sanitation was pledged at 100.3 million Levs. However, we should also take into account investments for waste treatment, which total 168.7 million Levs. In this sum, 74.6 million are derived from the municipal budget and 94.1 million from Operational Programmes. Thus, it is evident that the revenues from local taxes are insufficient as well.

The third group includes revenues from all other taxes, duties and activities which are designated for administration, maintenance, education, health, security, social welfare, culture, sports and support for local businesses. While individual income taxes, travel and patent taxes are directly related to respective economic activities, the remaining revenues in this category i.e., the main social costs - for education, health, social care and culture – are not directly connected to/recipient of any specific taxes. Therefore, they can be covered mainly by revenues from municipal property, by concessions, by financial operations and asset sales as well as revenues from the national budget. But this groups planned expenditures for 2013 amounted to 454 million Levs (including 5.2 million Levs from/benefiting from Operational Programmes) and thus cannot be fully covered by the expenditures (?) that were set to be 435.8 million Levs in 2013 and 404.5 million Levs in 2012. In this situation, it would be reasonable to seek revenues from the property taxes obtained/accumulated in the first group (partly at the expense of more affluent citizens), as the funding of social costs (such as education and healthcare) coheres to the principles of social policy.

The main conclusion from this analysis of the Metropolitan budget is that there are reasons to propose certain increases in municipal taxes for the first group (as concluded above). Undoubtedly, raising taxes is not a good policy and even less in times of economic stagnation. But a clear distinction should be made between taxes imposed on property and taxes that are imposed on economic activities such as tourism and patents. Raising the latter inevitably constricts local economic


157

development, hampering business activities. The former are different because property taxes are levied on already accumulated wealth. If the revenue from property taxes, fees associated with technical services and the tax on household waste were used effectively by the development of infrastructure, the performance of the local economy would improve making Sofia a more attractive place to do business and to live.

To conclude, the two key objectives (?) are: first, the optimization of the system of tax distribution, and second, achieving more efficient use of tax revenues to improve the competitiveness, sustainability and resilience of the city. With this in mind, the amount and structure of the tax burden are reviewed in the following section. The discussion will attend especially to planned zoning as one of the key factors determining local charges and taxes in Sofia.

III. FACTORS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TAXES AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF SOFIA Many of the above principles are set out in the Spatial Development Act (SPA),

in other legal acts and in a number of ordinances of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality (NOAMTTSUPSO, NIETIGSTSO, NIPOZSSO etc.). But, in fact,, the system of legal and administrative instruments, rules and regulations needs substantial improvement so that these principles can be applied effectively.

In the Ordinance for Establishing and Administering Local Taxes and Prices of Services presented by Metropolitan Municipality (NOAMTCUPSO - in Bulgarian: Naredba za opredelyane i administrirane na mestni taksi i ceni na uslugi, Predostavyani ot Stolichna obshtina) in accordance with the Act on Local Taxes and Fees, the following principles are established to determine local fees:

Art. 5. (1) Local fees are determined according to the following principles:

1. Recover the full cost of providing a service to the municipality;

2. Create the conditions for the expansion of services and increase their quality;

3. Achieve greater fairness in the determination and payment thereof; (2) .................

Based on this legislation, Metropolitan Municipality clarifies individual elements of total costs in Article 6:

Art. 6. Costs owed (?) to the municipality for providing a service include:

1. Direct and indirect labor costs (wage payments, health care, pension and social security contributions);


158

2. Materials, overhead, consulting and other costs (supply of materials and services, insurance, allowances, rent);

3. Costs for Management and Control;

4. Costs related to collecting the fees and other (eg investment related to the formation of the levy).

Proposed amendment: investment costs to be separated as an individual item:

5. Investment costs related to or arising from provision of a service.

Factors determining local taxes and charges, subject to the present proposal for zoning:

The amount of local taxes and fees should be determined by

1. Full costs of direct and service provision of relevant activities.

2. All inextricably linked and resulting expenses

3. Positive and negative incentives associated with the implementation of the General Spatial Plan (General Development Plan/GDP ?)

4. Positive and negative incentives arising from municipal policies to accelerate economic development of the city in different regions and zones

5. Incentives stemming from municipal social policy and the principles of social justice and expediency

6. Incentives related to municipal environmental policy

In more detail: 1. Full costs of direct provision of relevant activities and service provision.

These expenses include: 1.1. direct and indirect costs of labour 1.2. material, overhead, consulting and other expenses 1.3. costs of management and control and costs of tax collection

Rationale:

The current ordinance adequately formulates the nature of the costs involved in the provision of direct services/providing a direct service

Proposed amendment:

No additional suggestions.

2. All inextricably linked and resulting expenses:

2.1. Construction and maintenance of road infrastructure (street / road network, incl. side walk pavement, parking lots, street lighting systems and stormwater, etc.)

2.2. Construction and maintenance of technical and environmental infrastructure (the sewerage network as well as water treatment plants and equipment, air, water and soil monitoring mechanisms - it must be taken


159

into account that certain types of technical infrastructure are paid for by concessionaires)

2.3. Construction and maintenance of green infrastructure (landscaping for streets, pedestrian areas and zones)

2.4. Construction and maintenance of social infrastructure (municipal public facilities - kindergartens, schools, cultural centres and community centres)

Rationale:

The indispensable nature of the services listed above prompts further examination at both their theoretical and practical provision. A good way to get an idea of the expenses incurred is to review the procedure for issuing residential building permits, as it is an example of a service that requires substantial additional costs. The provision of roads and sewage treatment are among the first infrastructural services which generate additional costs, followed by a number of other inextricably connected activities - landscaping, public works, schools etc. If, for example, a thousand new housing units are built in an already urbanized area, then most of the inextricably connected services would in effect be efficiently loaded onto existing infrastructure (roads, public works, high tech, schools). If, however, those housing units are built in a suburban area, all such elements of the built environment must be newly developed. As it is "traditionally" regarded, all new development is the responsibility of the municipality. What this perception fails to take into account is that the municipality is burdened with a serious commitment to invest in all kinds of new infrastructure and to develop associated social services for newly urbanized territories when new residents move to a suburban area. So far as the municipality is concerned, the provision of infrastructure and services is much more cost-effective in already urbanized areas. The development of new suburban areas therefore benefits new settlers at the expense of the city budget – i.e. at the expense of taxpayers. This system is even more ineffective at taking into account the higher incomes of new (suburban) settlers. Indeed, many - if not most - are wealthy, while the majority of tax paying citizens lives below the national average (in Bulgaria). Thus, while well-off residents and families move to the suburbs where land is artificially cheap, they load the generally less well-off populace with infrastructural investments because they must be covered by the municipal budget rather than the wealthy citizens themselves.

Often when considering the costs of infrastructure, the costs of ecological and social infrastructure are overlooked. Typically, they are overshadowed by the value of the road network and that of technical infrastructure. The analysis of the municipal budget of Metropolitan Municipality found that ecological and social amenities/roads and technical infrastructure (?) amounted to nearly 323 million Levs. In the likely event that additional public works, landscaping of public spaces and environmental and social infrastructure are required, then the municipal commitment will prove to be in excess.

The fee for issuing a building permit should strive to reflect municipal commitments more accurately. This is because it is detrimental to taxpayers to separate the cost to build up an area from the cost of urban infrastructure, servicing that area. When the total built-up area (TBA) is used alone to determine fees,


160

infrastructural funding for that area/building occurs at the expense of the general taxpayer. A more reasonable approach would be to correlate the value of infrastructural (?) investments to new construction.

It must be noted however that the relationship between infrastructural investments and TBA permits cannot be calculated precisely. Indeed, a territory can be served by many, various types of infrastructure – roads, pipelines and public works of different hierarchies, power facilities of varying capacities, and social amenities of a diverse scope. Thus, real costs can be based on the average performance of a large number of different projects. Depending on the number of diverse and difficult to predict factors/circumstances, certain types of infrastructure can be financed by private investors.

In fact, private investment in infrastructure should be given more serious attention. Private investments can be lucrative for the smooth operation of urban areas and the implementation of municipal policies/projects. Private investors can help considerably in the realisation of municipal commitments. In certain cases, the municipality may enlist/appoint private investors to develop/execute/render specific elements of infrastructure at their own expense. As stated earlier, such agreements constitute a form of concession. In the context of peri-urban Sofia, this would mean shifting the responsibility for construction of local infrastructure to private developers from the municipality and ultimately transfer the financial burden of infrastructural development from taxpayers to stakeholders (entrepreneurs, investors and buyers).

The legal framework of Sofia municipality in fact already already has such provisions, particularly Article 15 of Sofia Municipality Spatial Planning and Development Act (Zakon za ustroystvoto i zastroyavaneto na Stolichna obshtina, ZUZSO), articles 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Ordinance for the Construction of the Elements of the Technical Infrastructure and Guarantees under Construction on the Territory of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality (Naredba za izgrazhdaneto na elementite na tehnicheskata infrastruktura i garanciite pri stroitelstvoto im na teritoriata na Stolichna obshtina, NIETIGSTSO).

According to Article 15 of ZUZSO “Long term spatial planning and development of terrains before 2020 is allowed based upon the approval of the Sofia City Council, provided that investment incentives are in accordance with the provisions of the General Spatial Plan and … Projected investments should include funds for the construction of necessary facilities of technical infrastructure.”

According to Article 6 of NIETIGSTSO “(1)Financing for construction of municipal technical infrastructure - roads, street lighting, water supply and sanitation is guaranteed/obtained from the budget of Sofia Municipality, by its extra budgetary sources or resources provided by the operating companies, as long as other special law prescribes otherwise.

(2) As an exception, construction of infrastructural projects/ elements on municipal property can be financed and carried out by individuals and legal entities


161

on their behalf, as awarded by the municipality, under simultaneous presence of the following conditions: ……………………….

(3) Award of contract under par. 2 is ordered by the Mayor of Sofia Municipality. Contractor agrees to implement design and construction on behalf and at the expense of the Metropolitan Municipality within the period specified in the contract before all competent authorities and institutions in connection with the preparation, approval and obtaining of construction papers of the construction site, as well as commissioning.

(4) In the case of par. 2 building permits are issued under the name of the Metropolitan Municipality, and they indicate the developer of the contract order.

(5) In the case ofcontract under par. 2, the person making the assessment of conformity and the person exercising construction supervision shall be signed on behalf of the Metropolitan Municipality, by andat the expense of the contractor.

According to Article 7 of the same ordinance “(1) Under art. 6, par. 2, contractors of procurement contracts are required to build facilities in compliance with all regulations for construction and public works. If they cause damage to third parties in carrying out design and construction works, the sole responsibility lays with the contractor and / or consultant who carried out an assessment of conformity and / or supervision during construction. …”

In summary, the effective tools of spatial policy for the development and

utilization of new suburban areas in relation to public works and associated investments, especially for the construction of roads, technical, ecological, social and green infrastructure are:

Rules governing the cases in which to involve private investment in public infrastructure. Identify attractive and transparent rules for negotiating concessions and public-private partnerships which can be beneficial, especially rules stimulating private investment and limiting municipal investments in suburban areas.

Local taxes that are directed towards the development of new suburban areas. It should be noted that the cost of minimum infrastructure required to support the main types of urban services to newly developed areas account for 35 to 50 lev per square meter area of the new buildings with intensity coefficient (TBA) = 1.00. We have to emphasise that the aggregated cost for the issuance of a building permit and for commissioning of buildings is only 11-12 levs per square meter area on average. This is clearly a huge burden on the municipality, especially when compared with new building construction in fully equipped and already developed areas.in which the municipality does not need to provide practically any funding for new infrastructure. Of course, it must be taken into account that the construction of infrastructure in newly developed areas is realized in several stages and usually over the course of several decades. Furthermore, the value of infrastructural construction increases over time. Even when private investment is dedicated towards/available for the first phase (road and technical infrastructure, public works and landscaping of the street network), infrastructure implemented in the second phase (environmental, social as well as other public works of public spaces) remains a liability for the municipality. If this principle is to be applied to construction in


162

unused / pristine / unpopulated suburban areas - fees for permits and commissioning must incorporate the sum of the second phase to offset the costs necessary to service the area and should thus amount to at least 38-45 lev per square meter. If any part of the infrastructure is already in place or will be built at the expense of a private investor (under Articles 6 and 7 of NIETIGSTSO), those fees can be reduced. On the other hand, this proposal should comply with the established public policy of reduced fees for the issuance of a building permit and for permission to/of use. Therefore an appropriate option for proper distribution of the total/whole/entire/real financial burden can be realized by increasing property tax and garbage collection fee for the first 10 or 15 years of operation of a property, as fees only partially cover the cost of infrastructure.

Proposed amendments:

First, in Article 6 of the Regulation regarding Establishment of the Elements of the Technical Infrastructure and Guarantees for Construction on the Territory of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality the following addition to paragraph 1 are proposed (proposed additions are marked in bold and italics)

Art. 6. (1) The construction of municipal technical infrastructure - roads, street lighting, water supply and sanitation will be financed by Sofia Municipality. This will be sourced from its budget, extra-budgetary sources or resources provided by the operating companies insofar as special law provides otherwise, as well as individuals and legal entities on their behalf, subject to paragraph 2. In areas outside the construction limits of the city and outside urban areas, financing of technical infrastructure is provided at the expense of the individuals and legal entities, unless there is an express/critical decision by the Municipal Council for funding from the budget of Sofia Municipality.

Second, in the text of paragraph 2 of Article 6 words "exception" to be deleted

(2) By exception Construction of infrastructure on municipal property can be financed and carried out by individuals and legal entities at their expense, as contracts are awarded under the simultaneous presence of the following conditions by the municipality:

Third, to establish fees in the districts of Bankia, Vitosha, Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar, Ovcha kupel and Pancherevo under par. 7 of Article 64 of the Ordinance on the Determination and Administration of Local Taxes and Prices of Services Provided by the Municipality as well as par. 9 and 10 of Article 64 of the same regulations on the issuance of certificates under Art. 177, par. 3 from SPA (i.e. permission of use) according to Table 2.1.

Table 2.1


163

Districts Types of territories Buil-ding

permit fee

Fee for certify-icate as per art. 177, of

SPA

Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar and Pancherevo

Within construction boundaries of Sofia and within boundaries of urbanized areas 4,00 1,00

Outside urbanized areas where the property is adjacent to a street/road with permanent cover or a contract under Art. 6, paragraph 2 for providing of road infrastructure to the property is signed

8,00 4,00

Outside urbanized areas where the property is not adjacent to a street/road with permanent cover and no contract under Art. 6, paragraph 2 for providing of road infrastructure to the property is signed

16,00 8,00

Bankia, Vitosha Ovcha kupel

Within construction boundaries of Sofia and within boundaries of urbanized areas 10,00 6,00


18,00 12,00


27,00 18,00

Note: "outside urbanized areas" includes all lands allocated for agricultural use or forestry. Areas which have been allocated as urban by GUDP and were not changed from agriculture or forestry in urban use are considered non-urbanized.

Fourth the amount of property tax in the districts of Bankia, Vitosha, Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar, Ovcha kupel and Pancherevo shall be established according to Table 2.2.


164

Table 2.2

Districts Types of territories Property fees for first 10 years

Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar and Pancherevo

Within construction boundaries of Sofia and within boundaries of urbanized areas 0,185%


0,25%


0,35%


Within construction boundaries of Sofia and within boundaries of urbanized areas

0,30%

Outside the boundaries of urbanized areas 0,45%

3. Incentives relating to the implementation of General Urban Development

Plan

3.1. Incentives relating to established by ZUZSO and GUDP zoning

Rationale:

Rules and regulations under Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Law on Planning and Construction of the Sofia Municipality act as tools for implementing the GUDP. They actually represent administrative levers and, as such, do not shape the interests of participants in the urban development of the city. Administrative rules often discourage participants from adhereing to them /prompt participants to circumvent them, because in doing so they can receive greater benefits.

Despite the above shortcomings of administrative rules, it is not appropriate to change them in this case, as they are set by law and are generally consistent with the established administrative and legal framework.


165

3.2. Incentives related to the interests of the occupants of adjacent properties, properties in the same area and the public interest

Rationale:

Visibility of the urban planning and taking into account the interests of the owners of neighbouring properties, those who live nearby, and public interest are critical to sustainable urban development. In practice, these issues are resolved in accordance with Articles 127 and 128 of the Law on Spatial Planning and with regards to Sofia’s peri-urban areas - through the Ordinance on the Terms and Procedure for Public Hearings (NRNPOS- Naredba za reda I nachina na provezhdane na obshtestvenite obsuzhdania). It should be noted however, that the lack of tradition in public discussion and advocacy on behalf of the public and third party interests in the development of Bulgarian cities is a major cause lack of public participation in urban development. In the past couple of years, Articles 127 and 128 of the Territory in 2012 have undergone substantial revisions.

Proposal:

The Ordinance for the Terms and Procedures of/in Municipal Public Hearings in 2007 is inadequate for upholding the democratic principles of urban development and needs serious revision.

4. Positive and negative incentives arising from the environmental policy of

the municipality

These incentives aim to reduce pollution, increase conservation of natural heritage and biodiversity, and promote sustainable waste treatment.

Rationale:

Under Articles 18 and 26 of the Ordinance on Local Taxes (NOAMTTSUPSO), the tax on household waste should cover not only the cost of collection, but also treatment. Analysis of the balance between revenue and expenditure in the municipal budget found that the revenues from taxes cover the cost of waste collection but only a fraction of the cost oftreatment. On the other hand, Article 18 does not prescribe a different plan to manage waste treatment in urban areas of Sofia, especially, newly developed ones. As a result, the considerably higher cost of solid waste collection in suburban areas is not taken into account.

Proposed amendment:

The amount of tax on household waste should be increased twice the city average for newly urbanized areas in Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar and Pancherevo and three areas for Bankia, Vitosha and Ovcha kupel.


166

Table 2.3

Districts Types of territories Waste collection fees for first 10

years

Vrubnitsa, Kremikovtsi, Novi Iskar и Pancherevo

Within construction limits of Sofia and within limits of urbanized areas

(1,6%0)

outside urbanized areas where the property has adjacent street / road with permanent asphalt cover or a signed contract under Art. 6, paragraph 2 for providing of road infrastructure to the property

double the rate charged in urbanized

territories (3,2%0)


Within territories of construction limits of Sofia and within limits of urbanized areas

(1,6%0)

Outside the limits of urbanized areas

triple the rate charged in urbanized

territories (4,8%0)

5. Positive and negative incentives arising from the municipal social policy

and the principles of social justice and expediency

Rationale:

Social justice is a major priority of the ideology of sustainable and resilient urban development. Given the need for infrastructure development in the northern territories and the importance of communications for urban sustainability, it is the necessary more affluent residents to assume a greater burden of taxes and local fees. Revenue from tax on vehicles can and should constitute a major item in the funds for the development of road infrastructure. Currently taxpayers, who do not own cars, pay for the construction of roads on an equal footing with those who have. This problem stands more acute by recognizing that cars with more power use more space on the street. It should be noted that Bulgarian legislation and administrative acts of the Sofia Municipality currently apply a clear approach in the same direction. This is evident in the provision of Article 55 of the Ordinance on local taxes and fees (NOAMTCUPSO):


167

Art. 55. (1) For cars Municipal Council determine the amount of tax by the Ordinance under Art. 1, par. 2 according to the power of engines, adjusted by a factor depending on the year manufacturing as follows:

1. up to 37 kW including – 0.43 lvs. per 1 kW;

2. above 37 kW до 55 kW including - от 0,50 lvs. per 1 kW;

3. above 55 kW до 74 kW в including - от 0,68 lvs. per 1 kW;


6. above 110 kW - от 1,54 lvs. per 1 kW.

Proposed amendments:

First - a proposal is made to amend Article 55 of the Regulation for determining and administering local taxes and prices of services provided by the Municipality:

1. up to 37 kW including – 0.43 lvs. per 1 kW;


3. above 55 kW до 74 kW в including - от 0,68 lvs. per 1 kW;


5. above 94 kW до 110 kW including - от 1,54 lvs. per 1 kW

6. above 110 kW - от 1,90 lvs. per 1 kW.

Second – concerning the allocation of areas for "high-category" occupation. Feesfor building permits and certificates of art. 177 of the SPA (for permission of use), the property tax and garbage fee in these areas should be determined by the coefficient 1.30 (i.e., an additional increase by 30 percent in those zones)


168


169

2.2.Preparation of planning and developmentregulationsconcerningperipheral territoriesofthecityofRome


2.2.1.IntroductionThis paper states the viewpoint of the team of Sapienza University of Rome, as

a partner of the TURAS project, in the continuous effort of project partnership, basing on the studies carried for WP5 and following constantly the Italian situation concerning the soil consumption.

The technical issue with political aspects As observed by research conducted for Work Package 5, for constitutional

mandate the management of the territory in the Republic of Italy is delegated to the (21) Regions. It does mean that each region is in the capacity to issue acts and regulations about the "sprawl problem". Moreover since each city (especially big cities such as Rome) designs independently and manages its master plan, cities/municipalities are in charge of how to deal with sprawl, which some time is also illegal – so called ‘spontaneous sprawl’. The ‘spontaneous sprawl’ problem is particularlu acute in metropolitan areas especially in central and southern Italy. Many aspects are involved: adequate resources and systems for monitoring, adequate legislation, clear interpretation of rules, on time intervention, etc.

The issue is even more complicate since the principal revenue of municipalities is coming from building taxation and it is obvious that if buildings are not catalogued and censed they do not produce the expected revenue but they use services and networks and they have impact on the remaining part of the settlement. Illegal buildings and illegal parts and addendum of already existent buildings have been always a plague for the majority of largest Italian metropolitan areas. There is also the issue of small municipalities surrounding the big ones: they also are sensitive to the uncontrolled development and misuse of the territory. It is not rare to see that what often is not allowed in big cities is allowed just across the border in the surrounding villages and small towns which extremely profit of being in the metropolitan area.


170

The only foreseen solution is to have strictest control of land consumption. But of course this is not easy to achieve for many reasons. The dramatic situation has been under the attention of the Monti government and the Letta government. Currently, there is a legal act pending for discussion in the Parliament about the soil consumption. It is expected that the discussion for approving this act will have not an easy process. In Italy as in many liberal countries every time that the land property right is touched by any act things become very difficult! This has to be clearly considered.

The tough present economic situation and the financial problems of municipalities is gasoline on the fire.

What TURAS might do in this regard Influencing the issue of soil consumption in Italy faces major difficulties. What

TURAS may do is to recall the attention and put one more authoritative voice in the discussion of the hot issue. Nevertheless, there is something that the scientific and professional community may do. First of all, this community should support EC in proposing a SOIL CONSUMPTION DIRECTIVE or regulations in order to use European leverage for influencing on member states. The directive should be directly related to economic issues such as already the agricultural production directives are.

As an example: if the level (the share) of soil used/consumed by a nation is changing but this is not relevant to the change in the GDP per capita indicator, then the rate of soil consumption is hard to justify. Indeed, to say this in an international context of institutional representatives is very difficult. Nevertheless, TURAS should aim to this kind of conclusions.

2.2.2.ProposedmeasuresTo ensure sustainable development in suburban areas of the Metropolitan area

of Rome, Sapienza proposes some measures that the Rome municipality could include in the regulations for the territory management.

At the present time, the main goal of the Municipality should be to create awareness and produce effective legislation about:

"green gradient in the suburbs and its buildings".

A policy is needed to operate a transition from the built towards the green.

The purpose must be to safeguard the existent green and increase it at the adequate scale this means supporting and developing the so-called “Green Infrastructure” for the city of Rome. This is achieved through two main actions: 1. increasing the amount of green areas through the preservation and rehabilitation

of the already existing. Green areas should be considered the agricultural areas and the unbuilt ones.

2. integrating the green within new buildings.


171

Increasing the amount of green areas Since more than 8,000 Italian Local Authorities refer to the very old Urban

Planning legislation in Italy (from 1942), as well as to urban standards defined by the Ministerial Decree no. 1444 of 19684, it is reasonable to assume that some parameters must be revised and updated in the light of the current issues and needs.

Especially if we think that so far the Italian rules provide for the standard of

“9 square meters of green per inhabitant (ex D.M. 1444/1968)”,

that currently seems rather obsolete and outdated if we consider that this standard has been defined when the Italian soil sealing did not reach values as high as nowadays! In fact, following the table that shows this parameter in relation with the total surface of the territory, as well as the urbanised surface, and with the population, calculated both for the Metropolitan area of Rome and for the City of Rome (see T5.2 Sapienza document, delivered past December 2012):

Table 2.4

TERRITORY Total Surface [sq.m]

Urbanised Land

Surface [sq.m]

Population Green (D.M.

1444/1968) [sq.m]

Green / total

surface [%]

Green / urbanised

surface [%]

Metropolitan Area of Rome

5,352,570,000 659,170,000 4,233,653 38,102,877 0.712 5.780

City of Rome 1,285,000,000 397,330,000 2,792,508 25,132,572 1.956 6.325

PROPOSAL

The territory of Rome needs additional parks to provide recreation and open space to as many residents as possible. But it is challenging to provide land also in already developed places (urbanised land) where it is needed most, even though the total surface required for new parks is not high. Local governments should provide additional parks in the areas least served by them, and municipalities in particular should look on redevelopment as an opportunity to provide additional park space even in the context of moderate increases in residential density.

Recommendations: the Hall of Rome should make significant, criteria-based investments in parks and open space - providing more parks in developed areas,

4 http://wiki.professionearchitetto.it/w/Decreto_Ministeriale_1444/1968


172

preserving the territory’s most important natural areas, and providing functional connections between parks and preserves by using the green infrastructure network as a design concept.

Proposed Action: the urban standard referred to “green” defined by the Ministerial Decree no. 1444/1968 should be updated:

from 9 sq.m/inhabitant to be changed to 13 sq.m/inhabitant

In this way, by 2040, the “green” could record the following increase:

- Metropolitan Area of Rome [sq..m]: 38,102,877 (2013)

over 55,000,000 (by 2040)

- City of Rome [sq.m]: 25,132,572 (2013)

over 36,000,000 (by 2040)

Specific actions: The plan focuses on five implementation areas for expanding and improving parks and open space:

1. Coordinate Open Space Investment to Create a Connected Territorial Green Infrastructure Network

2. Invest in the Establishment of New Parks in Developed Areas

3. Harmonize Actions by State and Local Government with Natural Resource Protection

4. Increase Funding to Achieve the Level of Park Provision and Land Conservation

5. Treat Management Needs as an Important Part of Landscape Preservation

Expected Benefits: By increasing our parks, open spaces, and other natural areas - including water trails, forest preserves, and conservation lands - our territory will protect environmental quality, improve public health, enhance property values, strengthen the economy, and improve residents’ overall quality of life.

Preserving and connecting our parks, open spaces, and other large natural areas will not only improve our recreation options, it will also improve the overall health and biodiversity of our territory’s ecosystems.

In short, parks and open space have measurable positive impacts on health and well-being!

Integrating the green within new buildings It is now widely recognized as the answer to sustainable urbanization and to the

needed control of the soil consumption is the design and planning of the "green infrastructure".


173

The concept of green infrastructure is not only linked to environmental and landscape themes through, for example, the increasing the amount of green areas addressed at the mitigate flooding and habitat protection, but has now assumed different applications characters for bringing benefits to climate comfort of cities.

The inclusion of “green” as a structural component of the buildings, of new construction, but also older, is the solution.

Moreover, since the most of the population lives in the cities, a large portion of our territory is urbanised, this phenomenon is responsible for about 75% of CO2 emissions. Reducing CO2 emissions is just a small part of being a sustainable city. More importantly, it is also about expanding our economy, limiting soil sealing and, ultimately, improving the quality of life of roman residents.

PROPOSAL

It is estimated that about the 40% of territory CO2 emissions come from buildings. Solutions that improve the quality of life for the citizens who live and work in the buildings as well as the overall impression of the city with innovative renovation projects.

Make use of innovative, low-impact techniques such as green roofs5 and green walls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Recommendations: the municipality of Rome should have a policy for “green buildings”, through the applications of green roofs and/or green walls in buildings.

The new municipal policy should make the green and the vegetation as the main subjects to mandatory planning, this means that the green concept should be extended: from the mere provision of available green space per inhabitant to the compulsory presence and application of green for all buildings both new construction that also include their restructuring.

To achieve this ambitious goal, the city should decide to use almost all surfaces, including those of buildings, and use it for new installations of green roof and green walls.

Proposed Action: Building Regulations of Rome should ensure that

each new building should have at least the green roof or one green external wall.

This rule should always be

applied in new buildings as well as for renovation of old buildings when the roof is retorted through increasing the building volume.

The rule might establish some achievable targets in the coming years, such as:

- installing a “green” (vegetated) roof or wall for at least 50% of the building area (by 2025).

5 Resources and information on green roofs can be found at www.earthpledge.org/GreenRoof.html.


174

- reaching the installation of a “green” (vegetated) roof or wall up to 100% of the building area (by 2040).

Specific actions: The plan should act by three implementation steps for enhancing “green buildings”:

1. Coordinate “green buildings” Investment to contribute to the City Green Infrastructure Network

2. Invest in the Establishment of “green buildings” in Developed and Urbanised Areas

3. Increase Funding to Achieve the Level of “green buildings” expected by 2040.

Expected Benefits for quality of inhabitants life: By increasing the “green buildings” number the following beneficial returns are expected: - Absorbing 50-80% of the rainfall that hit the building, sewages and rain fall

canals should work better;

- Providing a cooling effect and isolation of the building, energy balance may be highly ameliorated;

- Helping to make the city greener, reducing the urban heat island effect, in contrasting with the highest temperatures in the city, it is making urban environment mo liveable with all consequences;

- Contributing to change visual perspectives and aaesthetics, it should be expected to foster consistent positive effects on quality of life;

- Posing a protective filter to UV rays, the life of the protective membranes and paintings of buildings should be substantially increased.

2.2.3.ConclusiveconsiderationsSapienza partner proposes that these measures once approved by consortium

should be presented to Rome municipality for serious consideration. The initiatives that to this regard the Comune di Roma partner would like to take seem to be relevant.

Sapienza thinks that it can be a task of Comune di Roma partner, so it is still available to support all actions that it will put in place.

To confirm the potential of the proposals is to emphasize how they are absolutely compliant with the “Protocollo della Qualità urbana di Roma Capitale”6 (Protocol of the Urban Quality of Rome), which recognizes as:

6 adopted in the Piano Strategico di Sviluppo 2010-2020 which established priorities for the sustainable development of the city. (http://www.comune.roma.it/PCR/resources/cms/documents/Protocollo_Qualita_urbana_Roma_Capitale_2012.pdf)


175

in urban changes the concept of quantitative growth has become obsolete compared to new growth models based on the quality. The growth word is no longer to indicate expansive factors, but of urban renewal: of things and the patterns of life.


176

ListofReferences- Green Infrastructure Strategy, Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2007, Cambridge,

UK. http://www.cambridgeshirehorizons.co.uk/our_challenge/GIS.aspx

- Green Communities Criteria, USA, 2011. http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities/criteria

- GO TO 2040, Comprehensive Regional Plan, CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING, Chicago Illinois, 2010. www.cmap.illinois.gov

- Copenhagen: Solution for Sustainable Cities, City Hall, City of Copenhagen, October 2012. http://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/CityCouncil/CityAdministrations/~/media/BCE2735426AA4ADE967AAB2BD478D2CB.ashx

- http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/tags/green-building-act/

- Protocollo della Qualità urbana di Roma Capitale, City Hall, City of Rome, March 2012.


177

33.. PPOOLLIICCYY RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS::

FFIISSCCAALL ZZOONNIINNGG TTOOOOLLSS

PPRROOMMOOTTIINNGG SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE UURRBBAANN GGRROOWWTTHH

AANNDD RREEGGUULLAATTIINNGG UURRBBAANN SSPPRRAAWWLL

3.1. Fiscal Zoning Tools for Balancing Urban Expansion

Atanas Kovachev and Aleksandar D. Slaev

3.2. Local Charges and Taxes as a form of Payments for Ecosystem Services


3.3. Cost evaluation of suburban infrastructure development

Yordan Lybenov

3.4. Fiscal zoning tools for regulation of suburban development



178


179

3.1.Fiscal Zoning Tools for Balancing UrbanExpansion


Because cities are drivers of social and economic progress, their growth is a major positive trend in these processes. This generally means that successful cities need to expand, but sprawl, which is defined as excessive expansion (Brueckner, 2000) causes various negative effects with regard to urban and environmental sustainability. One of the most efficient methods, if not (as we claim) the most efficient method to establish a proper balance between urban growth and urban sprawl is to implement a relevant system of fiscal zoning tools. A key characteristic and a major advantage of such a system is that it creates appropriate incentives for all participants in urban development and players in the property market to consume natural resources and amenities, public goods and services adequately. In fact, the present proposal for employment of fiscal zoning tools is based on the perception that excessive expansion (sprawl) is caused by the availability of under-priced resources in suburban areas. Obviously, excessive expansion means excessive consumption of resources and resources are consumed excessively when they are under-priced.

Clearly, new suburban settlers are attracted to suburban areas by natural amenities: greenery, open spaces, water bodies and amenities such as clean air and beautiful landscapes. All these are public resources and public resources, as a rule, are under-priced. Furthermore, infrastructure and, primarily, road networks are essential for the provision of access to suburban natural amenities; however, infrastructure too is a public good. The development of suburban public infrastructure is funded by all taxpayers- residents of the city, but it is used exclusively by suburban settlers and the latter are, generally, better off families and individuals.

Therefore, the main objective of this proposal is to develop a framework for establishment of an efficient and fair system of local fiscal tools, adaptable to different administrative and socio-economic contexts, which could serve as guidelines to interested cities/municipalities how to employ fiscal zoning to achieve the goals of urban development and more particularly sustainable development of suburban areas. The guidelines should help the municipal administrations develop and implement their own systems of local taxes and fees based on the assessment of the values of public goods and services that suburban settlers use/consume – goods that are available either unpriced or underpriced. Our research is based on the understanding that in suburban areas there are two kinds of such goods:


180

infrastructure networks and natural amenities.

Threfore, we should first assess the value of infrastructure and natural amenities consumed or used by suburbanites, define how the payments for each type of these public goods should me collected and determine the levels of the charges and taxes. Before outlining the phases and the steps of the methodology we propose, we emphasize that we regard the establishment of fees and taxes as an activity, which is an essential and indispensable part of the planning process. Thus our methodology should be considered in close connection with the elaboration and implementation of a master plan of a city. More than that – we believe that the system of local fees and taxes should be a major component of the preparation of a master plan.

Framework for preparation of a system of fiscalzoningtoolsThe framewoprk of our proposal for development and introduction of system of

fiscal zoning tools comprises three phases: first, assessment of the value of suburban infrastructure, second, assessment of the used or consumed value of natural resources and amenitie and, third the development of the system of fiscal tools.

The first phase – assessment of the value of suburban infrastructure - is a clear and relatively easier task. The value of infrastructure is assessed on the basis of the city master plan by estimating the costs land acquisition, construction and maintenance. Two types of infrastructure are identified:

technical, also known as primary, - including roads and other technical networks (water supply, sewerage and other public utilities), as well as landscaping along the road and technical networks,

social infrastructure, also known as secondary – including schools and kindergartens, public cultural and sports facilities, public administrative buildings and the like. The guidelines suggest that the calculations of the price of infrastructure should be done by zones. In each zones the number of residents should be forecasted for the period of the action of the master plan and thus the level of the fees should be based on the forecasted investment costs, whereas the level of the taxes should be based on the maintenance costs.

The second phase is the assessment of the value of suburban natural amenities that are consumed by suburban settlers. This assessment is based on the approaches evaluating the ecosystem payments that in principle are extremely difficult. Many such assessments have been done in the past couple of decades, but all in the field of theory undertaken by scientists, whereas this study is aimed to propose methods applicable in the current planning practice to be executed by planners at the local administrations. Therefore, we focus on the issues of practicability, that is, we step on to principles: first, we utilize as much as possible evalutaions realized by the market mechanism and, second, for those services that the market mechanism is unable to evaluate, we employ an iterative approach. The employment of the


181

iterative approach in this case means that we do not expact high precision of the evaluation, but we rely on numerous repeatable cycles of evaluation. This approach is explained in detail in section “Fiscal zoning tools for regulation of suburban development”. Thus, for the purpose of this research we consider three main groups of ecosystem services comprising six sub-groups:

1. Provisioning services 2. Regulating and habitat services

2.1. Pollution regulating services 2.2. Habitat, biodiversity and erosion regulating services

3. Cultural services. 3.1. Aesthetic information 3.2. Recreational services 3.3. Inspirational, spiritual and cognitive services

The third phase of the framework is the elaboration of the system of fiscal zoning tools based on the results of the assesments carried out in the first two phases. The basis of our proposal for fiscal zoning is the understanding that planning in general and especially planning in suburban areas should be based on fair, economically efficient and environmentally sustainable distribution of property rights.

Zoning as any form of regulation, inevitably constitutes a restriction of property rights. More precisely, there are always parties that benefit from zoning and parties who suffer losses. But both the acquisition of property rights and their restraint have their financial projections. For example, in determining eligible functions in a given area or restricting the height of buildings in that area, an owner loses the right to use their property for specific functions (which are prohibited by the plan) or to build above a certain height. The loss can be assessed in money terms. However, the owner is willing to comply with such restrictions and suffer losses, because she/he gains the certainty that the neighbouring properties will not be used for purposes that pollute the environment or could be built up to a height that prevents sunlight.

Two options are possible:

First option: all parties that have to comply with given zoning regulations gain or lose equal benefits and rights. This refers to the above example – all owners of neighbouring properties with the same urban function equally suffer from the same land use restrictions and limits of height of construction and equally gain benefits from these regulations.

Second option: one party gains or loses significantly more than the others. For example, if a property is assigned a specific urban function or a specific maximum allowed building height, which are different form the function or the height of the neighboring property/properties, then obviously the gains and the losses are different. In this case, the application of local taxes is imperative, since it is the proper and the most efficient way to pay a fair price for the acquired resources and to compensate for asymmetric losses in property rights.


182

These problems are of particular importance in suburban areas. Settlers in these areas acquire greater rights to use public resources than other city residents. Suburban residents thus use or consume excessively resources of the two groups outlined in the first part of this section. Infrastructure networks in peri-urban terrtories are longer and serve smaller numbers of residents. The benefits of natural enviromnet are many times greater in suburban areas than in the inner city: clean air, open spaces, lush greenery, water bodies and beautiful landscapes – all these amenities are available to suburban residents for free. Apparently, fiscal zoning is the proper instrument for those who consume suburban amenities to compensate those who are unable to enjoy such public resources.


183

3.2. Local Charges and Taxes as Payments forEcosystemServices


In this part of the policy recommendations we develop a practical methodology that can be used by local authorities to assess the value of ecosystem services of lands in peripheral and susburban locations for the purpose of establishment of a system of local fees and taxes.

We proceed as follows: we first define the taxonomy of the ecosystem services that we will use to determine the levels of charges and taxes. The taxonomy is important because there are a variety of ecosystem services and their values are assessed by various methods. We examine widely accepted classifications and thus we define a classification to suite the purpose of our study. Then we explore methods used by researchers for the assessment of the value of ecosystem services and we test those approaches in the conditions of Sofia. We test the Market Price Method to estimate the value of provisioning services and the Cost-Based Method to estimate the value of the habitat services. We then briefly analyse the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods. We finally develop our methodology intended to serve as a tool for assessment the value of ecosystems based on two requirements – relevance to the structure of biomes in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality and practicability, i.e., suitability to the planning practice.

3.2.1.ClassificationsofecosystemservicesMaes et al. (2013) outline three international systems of classification of

ecosystem services: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). The MA classification, which is the first large scale ecosystem assessment, identifies four groups of ecosystem services:

1. Provisioning services 2. Regulating services 3. Cultural services. 4. Supporting services

TEEB identifies 22 ecosystem services grouped in 4 main categories: 1. Provisioning services 2. Regulating services 3. Habitat services 4. Cultural and amenity services


184

A major difference between the first two classifications is that TEEB consider the supporting services as a subset of ecological processes. DeGroot at al. note that according to TEEB habitat services “a separate category to highlight the importance of ecosystems to provide habitat for migratory species (e.g. as nurseries) and gene-pool “protectors” (e.g. natural habitats allowing natural selection processes to maintain the vitality of the gene pool). The availability of these services is directly dependent on the status of the habitat (habitat requirements) providing the service.”

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is developed for the needs of the European Environment Agency. It is explained in Table 3.1.

We base our taxonomy on the widely accepted classifications of ecosystem services outlined above (Maes et al., 2013). Bellow we also examine a classification by DeGroot et al. (2012). We explore in some detail how these classifications can be implemented in routine planning practice. We find that such a task is far beyond the potential of the planning practice, because its implementation requires scientific expertise and a sophisticated apparatus of research and availability of specialized data. In contrast, our proposal must provide a methodology that would be employed by planners in their routine work. It is essential for such a methodology to propose approaches, tools and procedures that require an appropriate level of expertise and utilize sources of information relevant to the planning practice. As stressed in the previous section, we aim to avoid the difficulties of measuring the values of ecosystem services by employing an iterative approach instead of the sophisticated methods used by scientists. To this end our goal is to identify groups of the ecosystem services that are of similar nature and distinguish the groups of services whose value is determined at the market place.

Table 3.1 - Definitions of service themes and classes used in CICES v4.321(Continued on the next page)

Provisio-ning services

Includes all material and biota-dependent energy outputs from ecosystems; they are tangible things that can be exchanged or traded, as well as consumed or used directly by people in manufacture. Within the provisioning service section, three major divisions of services are recognised: - Nutrition includes all ecosystem outputs that are used directly or

indirectly as foodstuffs (including potable water) - Materials (biotic) that are used directly or employed in the

manufacture of goods - Energy (biomass) which refer to biotic renewable energy sources

and mechanical energy provided by animals Provisioning of water is either attributed to nutrition (drinking) or materials (industrial etc.). It is considered as ecosystem service because its amount and quality is at least partly steered by ecosystem functioning. For this reason seawater is not included. The provisioning services groups are further divided in classes and class types.


185

Source: Maes et al. (2013), pp. 34-35

Table 3.1 (Continued): Definitions of service themes and classes used in CICES v4.321

Regula-ting and mainte-nance services

Includes all the ways in which ecosystems control or modify biotic or abiotic parameters that define the environment of people, i.e. all aspects of the 'ambient' environment. These are ecosystem outputs that are not consumed but affect the performance of individuals, communities and populations and their activities. Within the regulating and maintenance section, three major service divisions are recognised: - Mediation of waste, toxics and other nuisances: the services biota

or ecosystems provide to detoxify or simply dilute substances mainly as a result of human action

- Mediation of flows (air, liquid, solid masses): this covers services such as regulation and maintenance of land and snow masses, flood and storm protection

- Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions: this recognises that ecosystems provide for sustainable living conditions, including soil formation, climate regulation, pest and disease control, pollination and the nursery functions that habitats have in the support of provisioning services.

All the regulation and maintenance divisions are further divided into service groups, classes and class types. The hierarchical classification allows these to be distinguished by type of process and media

Cultural services

Includes all non-material ecosystem outputs that have symbolic, cultural or intellectual significance. Within the cultural service section, two major divisions of services are recognised: - Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems, and

land-/seascapes - Spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with biota, ecosystems,

and land-/seascapes The two cultural divisions can be broken down further into groups, classes and class types. The hierarchical classification allows these to be distinguished using criteria such as whether it involves physical or intellectual activity.

Source: Maes et al. (2013), pp. 34-35

We start by a “simplified” classification and we consider the ecosystem services in suburban areas in three categories:

1. Provisioning services – providing food, water, raw materials, genetic resources, medicinal resources and ornamental resources


186

2. Regulating and habitat services – regulating air quality, climate and water control, water purification and waste treatment, disturbance moderation, erosion prevention, nutrient cycling, pollination, biological control, nursery service and genetic diversity

3. Cultural services – providing aesthetic information, recreation, and inspiration, spiritual experience and cognitive development

Because our goal is to we utilize as much as possible evalutaions realized by the market mechanism, we consider the types of ecosystem services in each category with regard to whether they are priced by the market. Therefore, we examine the three categories in six groups. The provisioning services form category 1, which we consider in one group. As we show further in this section, the ecosystem services from this group are priced by the market. We consider the regulating and habitat services are in two sub-groups: services regulating the pollution of air, soils and waters (group 2) and services regulating biodiversity, habitats and erosion (group 3). The services from groups 2 and 3 are priced by the market only partly. The cultural services are also considered in two groups: aesthetic information and inspirational/spiritual/cognitive (group 4), recreational (group 5).

Group 1 1. Provisioning services

2. Regulating and habitat services Group 2 2.1. Pollution regulating services Group 3 2.2. Habitat, biodiversity and erosion regulating services

3. Cultural services. Group 4 3.1. Recreational services Group 5 3.2. Aesthetic Inspirational, spiritual and cognitive services

Next we examine the values of the ecosystem services in each type of biome by applying the evaluation of DeGroot et al. (2012) to the areas that we study. Six biomes prevail in Sofia’s suburban areas:

Agricultural lands (arable fields) Grasslands Woodlands Forests Wetlands Water bodies (fresh water)

The total area of Forests and Woodlands in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality is 48,400 ha, and the total area of Agricultural lands and Grasslands is 36,000 ha. Water bodies (lakes and rivers) are 3,066 ha and areas that have properties and have functions similar to Wetlands (adjacent and around water bodies) are classified as park zones. Table 3.2 is adapted from DeGroot et al. (2012) for the six biomes of Sofia Municipality.


187

Table 3.2 - Summary of monetary values for each service per biome (Int.$/ha/year, 2007 price levels)

Inland

wetlandsFresh water

Temperate forest

Wood-lands

Grass lands

Provisioning services 1,659 1,914 671 253 1,305

1 Food 614 106 299 52 1,192

2 Water 408 1,808 191 60

3 Raw materials 425 181 170 53

4 Genetic resources

5 Medicinal resources 99 1

6 Ornamental resources 114 32

Regulating services 17,364 187 491 51 159

7 Air quality regulation

8 Climate regulation 488 152 7 40

9 Disturbance moderation 2,986

10 Water flows regulation 5,606

11 Waste treatment 3,015 187 7 75

12 Erosion prevention 2,607 5 13 44

13 Nutrient cycling 1,713 93

14 Pollination 31

15 Biological control 948 235

Habitat services 2,455 0 862 1,277 1,214

16 Nursery service 1,287 1,273

17 Genetic diversity 1,168 862 3 1,214

Cultural services 4,203 2,166 990 7 193

18 Aesthetic information 1,292 167

19 Recreation 2,211 2,166 989 7 26

20 Inspiration 700

21 Spiritual experience

22 Cognitive development 1

Total economic value 25,682 4,267 3,013 1,588 2,871

Table adapted from DeGroot et al. (2012), p. 53.


188

In the literature the methods for assessment of the money value of ecosystem services are considered in three classes:

based on assessment of the Revealed Willingness to Pay (WTP) – measuring more or less the actual market price of the ecosystem services: 1) Market Price Method, 2) Productivity Method, 3) Hedonic Pricing Method and 4) Travel Cost Method

based on assessment of the Imputed Willingness to Pay – measuring the market price of the ecosystem services by circumstantial evidence: 5) Cost-Based Methods (Damage Cost Avoided, Replacement Cost, and Substituted Cost Method)

based on assessment of the Expressed Willingness to Pay – measuring the market price of the ecosystem services by surveys: 6) Contingent Valuation Method and 7) Contingent Choice Method

3.2.2. Application of the Market Price Method toestimatethevalueofprovisioningservicesoflandsinSofia’ssuburbanareasA key consideration in the case of Sofia is that in Bulgaria, like in most East

and Southeast European countries there is a traditional fee that, actually, is meant to pay for the provisioning services – the fee for conversion of agricultural (or forest) land into urbanized (construction) land. Table 3.3 gives an idea of this fee, how it is established and what fiscal burden is created by this fee.

The fee on conversion of agricultural land into urban (building) land is collected by the Ministry of Agriculture and its purpose is to compensate for the loss of rural land. Hence, this fee is relevant to the purpose of our research and, therefore, the goal of our study in this case is to assess whether the level of the fee is sufficient to pay for the loss.

In theory, four methods are applicable to assess the money value of provisioning services: the Market Price Method, Productivity Method, Hedonic Pricing Method and Travel Cost Method. The first method (Market Price Method) requires information to be available in order to draw the demand and supply curves of an agricultural product – that is, as a minimum – about the sold quantities of this product at various selling prices. The second method requires data about the sales and more information about technology and values of the factors of production. This method is partly included in the Market Price Method. The first two methods are particularly suitable for the assessment of the provisional services, because their products are produced for and traded on the markets. The third method - Hedonic Pricing Method requires mainly land market information about respective types of land and locations and full specification of all factors that may influence the price of land in these locations. Besides, this method requires particularly high professional (research) expertise. This method will be discussed in more detail in the section on the assessment of cultural services. Based on the outlined considerations we have chosen to calculate the value of the provisional services by the Market Price Method.


189

Table 3.3 - Fee for conversion of agricultural land (change of land-use)

Fee = ABC x K(size) x K(category) x K(irrig)

Average Bonity Class (ABC) - LAND quality- agricultural productivity

from 0 to 100: 0-10→=5 (lowest); 90-100→=95(highest)

K(size)=2 to 5 (higher fees per unit for larger plots);

=2 for plots<0.1 ha; =5 for plots>1 ha

K(category) combines two factors – whether the location is in high or poor demand and whether the destination is private or public

- K(category) = 13 (=1.2 for public uses) for locations in high demand (e.g. large cities and resorts)

- K(category) = 6 (=0.50 for public uses)for locations in poor demand

K(irrig) - 1.2 for irrigated land; = 1 for not irrigated land

€/ha

Minimal fee for plots for private use in small settlements 640

Minimal fee for plots for private use in large cities and Sofia 1,400

Minimal fee for plots for public purposes in large cities and Sofia 173

Maximal fee for plots for public purposes in large cities and Sofia 25,333

Reported average fee per hectare for lands converted to housing (private) in Sofia 2004-2012 7,946

Reported average fee per hectare for lands converted to industrial use (private) in Sofia 2004-2012 11,996

Reported average fee per hectare for all lands converted in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality 2004-2012 10,755

Because this fee is already in place and is meant to provide payments for the loss of rural land, therefore serving to pay for provisioning ecosystem services, our goal is to assess whether the level of the fee for conversion of non-urban land into urban is sufficient to pay for the loss of such services. Respectively, in this part of the document we aim to estimate the value of the services provided by Sofia’s arable fields to compare it to the level of the fee. We observe in Table 3.2 that the provisioning services by grasslands are twice higher than the services by forests and 5 times higher than services by woodlands. Studies have shown that the ecosystem services by arable fields are generally higher than services by grasslands (http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/561). Therefore, the ecosystem services (ESS) provided by arable fields are expected to be highest among the outlined biomes and if we conclude that the fee for conversion is high enough to compensate for the loss of arable fields, then we have grounds to say that this fee pays back also for the loss of grasslands, woodlands and forests. It should be


190

stressed that in Bulgaria, like in all other parts of Europe, converting forest land to building land is many times more difficult and more expensive.

We estimate the value of the production of crops in the rural territories of Sofia Municipality when marginal quantities of agricultural land are converted. With the conversion, this value is lost, therefore, the owners of converted land should pay the lost value to the community. The value is different for different crops, so we assess the weighted average. Currently largest areas of agricultural land are allocated for production of wheat (6459 ha) and other cereal (2455 ha), then for sunflower (3827 ha), maze (2535 ha) and other crops (about 100 ha).

Data needed for this exercise: two pairs of actual price levels and respective quantities of sales for each product (one of these pairs of figures must describe the current market situation at the moment of analysis), data about the variable costs for the production of these quantities of sales.

To illustrate the methodology of application of the Market Price Method, below we calculate the value of the provisioning services for wheat. In the same way we calculate the value for other crops and, finally, the weighted average.

Step 1: Estimating the change in yearly consumer surplus

The productivity of land in Sofia plain is 3.650 tons of wheat from hectare (ОД „Земеделие” на Област София, 2013 - Доклад за дейността на ОД „Земеделие” София град за 2012 година). The wholesale price of wheat is €153.39 per ton. Thus the value of the yearly production from a hectare of wheat is €560. This is calculated for other crops as well and then the weighted average is €572.20 from hectare. When the rate of use of agricultural land in Sofia Municipality is taken into account, the total value of the agricultural production from 51,588 ha (the unused agricultural lands are also included) is €8,795,000. The General Urban Development Plan of Sofia has predicted (and allowed) the conversion of 15,476 ha of agricultural land for other uses. This is a total decrease of 29.9%. Because of the existing low level of use (high share of unused agricultural lands), our assessment is that a 29.9% decrease in the total quantities of land will result in 15% drop in total agricultural production. However, by analyzing the observed market trends we predict that the 15% drop in production would cause an 8.66 % increase in the selling prices. If all cultivated lands were used to produce wheat, the total production would be 56,101 tons. If then the total cultivated lands decreased by 15%, the total production would be 47,685 tons. In result the price would change by 8.66%, i.e. from 559.93 to 608.42. Thus the loss in the consumer surplus will be (see Figure 3.1):

(56,101 – 47,685) x (608.42 – 559.93)/2 = €2,516,292

Step 2: Estimating the change in yearly producer surplus

The change in the producer surplus is determined by the change in his / her profit, i.e. total revenues minus total costs. The easiest way to calculate the profit is by the rate of profit, which, we adopt, in the case of Sofia region is 27.43% if


191

subsidies are included (http://agroplovdiv.bg). In the current situation, i.e. agricultural lands are 51,588 ha, the total profit is

(56,101 x 551.75) x (1 - 27.43%) = €6,154,211, where €551.75 is the current weighted average price of crops produced from a hectare in Sofia plain in a year.

If agricultural lands decreased to 36,112 ha the total profit would be

(47,658 x 599.53) x (1 - 27.43%) = €5,684,091, where €599.53 is the weighted average price of crops produced from a hectare (the price is 8.66% increase due to reduced production).

Hence the loss in producer surplus is €470,120

Step 3: Estimating the total economic loss per year due to reduction of agricultural lands and the loss per hectare

The total economic loss due to reduction of agricultural lands by 15,476 ha in Sofia Municipality is €2,516,292 + €470,120 = €2,986,412 each year.

This means that the conversion of one hectare incurs a yearly loss of €2,986,412 / 15,476 = €193 – i.e. this is the loss in value per year due to the reduction in the provisioning ecosystem services.

Recommended change in the system of local fees and taxes

As emphasized in the first paragraphs, the goal of this research is to propose a practical methodology to determine the levels of the local taxes and fees, based on the understanding that the system of local fees and taxes should be used to collect proper payments from those who consume suburban natural amenities or the ecosystem services provided by suburban biomes (classes of habitat).

Concerning provisioning services, we have also emphasized that the fee for conversion of rural or forest into building (urban) land is relevant, because the purpose of this fee is to compensate for the loss of services of land in its present use that will be lost due to conversion. One issue in this case is that the imposed payment is a single (one-time) fee, not a regular (yearly) tax. Obviously, this is because the fee, in the case of Bulgaria, is collected by the agricultural ministry, and the agricultural administration will no longer be able to collect payments. The division between revenues to different ministries may seem to foster bureaucracy, but it actually reflects the essence of the alternative uses of land. Therefore, an important question is, if the fee is associated with the value of services that will no longer be realized, how many yearly services should be taken into account? To get an idea of the possible options we have considered the NPVs (net present values) of the regular (yearly) losses in 20-year and in 50-year terms in case of interest rate of 1.00% and 2.50%

Table 3.4 - Net Present Value of regular future payments

Interest rate 20-year term 50-year term

1.00 % 18.21 38.92

2.50 % 15.89 28.72


192

Thus in the case of 1.00% interest rate the fee should amount to 193 x 18.21 = €3514 per hectare, if 20-year term of compensation is adopted. Or the fee should be €7511.56 to compensate for the NPV of the losses over a 50-year period. Furthermore, we must note that our calculations have not accounted for the bonity of land. The fee should be increased at least a couple of times for lands of higher bonity and should be substantially reduced for lands with low bonity. But ultimately, insofar as these fees are smaller than the fees imposed in the suburban areas of Sofia municipality, our conclusion is that the current level of the fees for conversion of rural or forest into building (urban) land in Bulgaria and in Sofia in particular is proper and we propose no changes in this regard.

3.2.3.ApplicationofaCost‐BasedMethodtoestimatethe value of the habitat services of lands in Sofia’ssuburbanareasIn this section we employ Cost-Based Method to estimate the value of some of

the regulating services of land in Sofia’s suburban areas – air quality regulation, climate regulation and water control, water purification and waste treatment.

There is no direct way to measure ecosystem regulating services. All available methods are oblique and circumstantial; they measure only some aspects or components of these services and use imperfect techniques. The choice of the method of evaluation depends on the traditional social and administrative structure and relations in each country and city, as well as the available ecological and associated economic data. In the case of Sofia we use data concerning the city’s expenditure for air cleaning and water purification

The method we employ is the Cost-Based Method. Our approach is based on the fact that Municipality of Sofia has invested in ecological facilities and has financed other measures to avoid air, water or soil pollution above certain levels. If higher levels occur, the air, the waters and/or the soils will not provide essential ecosystem services. Thus for these services to be provided, the city incurs costs and we use these costs to estimate the value of respective regulating ecosystem services.

In our study we have examined the Sofia Municipality expenditure reports over a 10-year period. We have analyzed the reports to outline all expenses/items associated with the provision of clean air, water and soils that is relating to the eco-system services: air quality regulation, climate regulation and water control, water purification and waste treatment. Such measures are the purification of drinking water and waste water, air purification, greening and control of pollution, improvement of relevant infrastructure. Furthermore, we have classified the items with regard to the area that they are serving – the compact city or the suburban areas. For many item this was not possible, but we have included in our study only items, for which the distinction is clear. For instance, a sewage treatment plant would serve both residents of the compact city and suburban residents. However, it is easy to


193

define the areas in the compact city and the suburban areas the plant serves; then it is possible to allocate the costs of treatment accordingly. Table 3.5 presents the results about the expenditure per that we could associate with respective city and suburban areas.

In Table 3.5 the costs of water purification are allocated between the compact city and the suburbs by the factor of the population, but also in accord with the length of the water supply system. The reason is because the water supply network is characterized by substantial losses – in the studied period they vary from 19 to 68 % with average of 48.8 %. Therefore, 48.8 % of the purification costs go with water losses proportional to the length of the network. Similarly, the maintenance of the sewage network is proportional to the length of the sewer mains. Even so, according to the concession contract, the costs of water and sewage treatment, as well as the costs of the maintenance of the networks are private costs incurred by the concessioner “Sofiyska Voda” PLC (Sofia Water). Thus these costs should not influence the level of the local fees and taxes.

In contrast, the costs of the activities aimed to provide for clean air and the waste treatment are incurred by the Municipality, so they are naturally and formally public costs and should influence the local fiscal instruments. The costs of solid waste transport are a substantial component of the costs of waste treatment. An important, but problematic issue is the distinction between the investment costs and the operating (maintenance and production) costs. The distinction in the terms is clear – investment cost in this case are costs of plants, facilities and any relevant asset, whereas the operating costs are the costs of the purification, maintenance and routine management. The problem comes because in several subsequent (and not always subsequent) years. The change of a city council often changes the investment policy. Irregular investments, abrupt policy shifts and demographic and administrative changes make it particularly difficult to properly identify the levels of investment. Nevertheless, this is important for this research, because the fees should correspond to single-act costs, i.e. investment costs, whereas taxes should cover primarily operating costs. At this point it is particularly difficult to estimate the actual investment cost for purification of air and waters per housing unit, though it is obvious that such correspondence exists. Still, based on our detailed analysis of each item of the costs we conclude that at the mean rate of investment in Sofia in the studied period, 4.8 years on average provide for the plants, machinery and other equipment needed for a residential area to function. Industrial facilities, however, require higher investment – i.e. 6.4 years.

Finally, the calculation explained above lead to the conclusion that each new dwelling in suburban areas incurs expenses of air and water quality regulation, purification and waste treatment that should be covered by relevant fees and taxes. For residential properties in suburban areas the fee should be 7.28 x 4.8 = €34.96 per sq. m and for industrial properties - 7.28 x 6.4 = €46.61 per sq. m. For residential properties the tax should be €11.22 per sq. m. Note that the fees and taxes for air and water quality regulation, purification and waste treatment are based on the destination land-use, not on the initial (before property development).


194

Table 3.5 - Costs of air and water quality regulation, purification and waste treatment in €

IN THE COMPACT CITY

IN SUBURBAN AREAS

TOTAL

housing units built 2001 to 2010

68,720 24,574 93,294

Total floor space [sq.m] 5,154,000 2,162,480 7,316,480

Water purification and water control

invest-ent costs

operating costs

invest-ent costs

operating costs

Total

per year

supply and water purification (private

service provider)

8,594,890 6,223,886 14,818,775

sewage maintenance and waste water treatment

(private serv.)

11,906,066 7,453,391 19,359,458

total 20,500,956 13,677,277 34,178,233

per housing unit 298.33 556.58

per sq.m 3.98 6.32

Air quality regulationand waste treatment

invest-ent costs

operating costs

invest-ent costs

operating costs

Total

per year

air qaulity provision (geeening, purification,

control, etc.)

10,787,940 6,897,208 17,685,148

waste transport and treatment

1,441,209 1,056,887 3,362,821 3,747,143 9,608,060

investment in solid waste treatment (plants,

instalations)

30,781,477 20,520,985 51,302,461

investment in a system for waste management

10,191,766 5,487,874 15,679,640

total 22,420,915 31,838,363 15,747,902 24,268,128 94,275,308

per housing unit 326.26 463.31 640.85 987.57

per sq.m 4.35 6.18 7.28 11.22


195

3.2.4. Methodological arguments for assessment ofthe value of ecosystem services of lands in Sofia’ssuburbanareas

We acknowledge that many components of the examined methods of assessment lead to findings and conclusions that on many occasions may be ambiguous and in some cases – problematic. This is because of several reasons. First of all, ecosystem data is highly specific and is often unavailable, second, different components and aspects of ecosystems are interrelated and usually it is particularly difficult to identify among numerous links the essential ones, i.e., on many occasions important factors are missed, whereas factors of lesser importance are given higher weights. That is why the assessment of the value of ecosystem services would be a major problem for the planning practice. Furthermore, a drawback of all examined or mentioned methods for assessing ecosystem services is that they do not make a clear differentiation between resources and their attributes that are privately owned and those that are public ownership. This drawback, which is essential for the purpose of this study, is illustrated by the examples analysed in subsections 2.2. and 2.3.

All these issues are traditional and, virtually, inevitable when the factors for the evaluation of ecosystem services are determined through analyses. The lack of sufficient data and mainly the need for the analysts to determine the scope of analysed factors leads to subjectivity, even if this is done by experts and scientists. Therefore employing values that have been determined by the market is, in principle, more objective, more accurate and generally much easier. The latter factor is particularly important for routine practices.

We suggest that the assessment of the values of ecosystem services should be carried out iteratively, that is, by numerous cycles of implementation and monitoring. In fact, this is the way that the assessment of any goods is usually dons. Not only for public lands, but also for privately owned resources the owner rarely knows the value of the ecosystem services of land in advance, i.e., before any market interactions. Thus, even for marketed goods the price is established iteratively in result of numerous transactions. We therefore propose an approach based on gradual adjustment and improvement of the local fees and taxes. Of course the levels of the fees and taxes should initially be determined analytically, but the experts at local governments should be aware that the analyses and the initially calculated values would hardly ever be perfect, because it is not possible to develop a perfect technique of analysis. Instead, we emphasise the mechanism of gradual improvement of the system of charges and taxes.

Therefore, an essential component of this mechanism is the system of indicators, employed in the process of the implementation of the master plan. As a rule, any indicators that have been defined in the process of the elaboration of the plan can be used for monitoring. The point is that there should be established target


196

indicators for each 5-year (or 4-year, or less) period of the implementation of the plan. At the end of each period the fees and the taxes should be updated – reduced or increased with regard to the realisation of the goals of the master plan. Thus the level of the fees and taxes can be adjusted at the proper rate and the fiscal tools can be used as dynamic instruments for the realisation of the plan and to regulate the balance between urban growth and sprawl.

Table 3.6 lists the groups of ecosystem services by classes and groups according to whether their values are captured by the price mechanism. When a value is captured by the price mechanism then it is reflected by the market price. A key issue in this regard is whether a natural resource and its ecosystem services can be used privately, i.e. if they are quantifiable and marketable (Krautkraemer, 1998, 2005). Such are all provisioning services and all cultural services, though with different implications and to different extents. In contrast, the value of regulating and habitat services is rarely captured by the market and again to different extents – Table 3.6. Besides, it depends on which service has the highest net present value (NPV). This is best understood when the price of land is considered. For instance, for arable land or for land containing raw materials (e.g., mineral resources) the value of the ecosystem service is fully transferred into the market price of land, because for such land the provisioning services generally determine its best use, rent-earning capacity and its market price. Similarly, the value of aesthetic information may be the factor of greatest importance to determine the price of land, but this depends on the land use. Whereas the value of provisioning services is, as a rule, high enough to determine the land use, this is less likely for cultural services. Thus for arable land the aesthetic information has little importance, but it may be the key factor to determine land prices in residential territories or in areas for tourism. This is true also for the value of habitat services. Furthermore, changes in habitat and purification and pollution regulating services in a piece of land normally have major impact on land prices, but this often concerns much more the neighbours and the community than the owner of this piece of land.

Finally, we should distinguish between two different bases for determining the value of ecosystem services that the market may or may not account. The first basis to determine the value of the service is the cost of its provision. The price mechanism always accounts for privately provided services and usually, though not always, accounts for the value of publicly provided services. The second basis to determine the value of ecosystem services is the cost of reproduction plus the cost of provision. Whether the market will account for the cost of reproduction depends on the economic organization of society, i.e, this issue is beyond the capacities of the market. At least the cost of reproduction should be taken into account for all ecosystem services that cannot be assessed by the price mechanism.

Yet as we have stressed – any calculation of values that does not utilize information form market signals is to some extent wrong and misleading. Nevertheless, this should not be a problem – planners should be aware that the best and in fact the only way of determining the proper value of an ecosystem service and establishing relevant forms of payments/compensations for this value is the iterative


197

approach – through consequent trials, empirical identifications of errors and relevant corrections.

Table 3.6 - Assessment of the imapct of changes in the values of ecosystem services (ES) on land values

Class of eco-system services

Provision of specific eco-

system services

Source for

deter-mining the ES value

Impact on

market value

Impact of the changes

Other factors for the market price

on the private owner

on the commu-

nity

Provi-sioning services

1. Food, water, raw materials, genetic, medicinal and ornamental resources

Market price

High High impact

Medium, indirect

Distance, provision of infrastr.

Regula-ting & habitat services

2. Purification and pollution regulating services

Analy-tical

Me-dium* to high

Me-dium* to high

Very high, direct

Distance*, provision of infrastr.*

3. Erosion regulating services

Analy-tical

Me-dium*

Medium, to high

Medium, to high


4. Habitat and biodiversity services

Analy-tical

Low* Low* Low, direct


Cultu-ral services

5. Aesthetic information

Market price

High High impact

High, direct

Distance, provision of infrastr.

6. Recreational services

Market price

High High High direct

Provision of infrastr.

7. Inspirational, spiritual and cognitive services

Market price

Me-dium*

Medium, to high

Medium, indirect

Provision of infrastr.

Table prepared by the authors Note: *depends on the land use


198


199

3.3.CostAssessmentofSuburbanInfrastructureDevelopment

Yordan Lyubenov The availability of developed infrastructure in suburban areas is a

major factor for urban sprawl and changes on the urban fringe. However, alternatively the lack of infrastructure hampers the development of cities. Therefore the proper assessment of the existing infrastructure and the future needs is of key importance to provide suburban sustainability and to to regulate suburbanization. The preparation of guidelines for assessment of infrastructure in suburban areas seeks to establish the proper balance between growth and expansion. Establishing a system of payments (taxes and fees) assists developing relevant polices for payment of suburban infrastructural networks by their direct users. Local people should be able to evaluate future scenarios of development and assume responsibility of suburbanization trends and their social and economic results. Suburban areas and infrastructure expansion which are usually linked with suburbanization should be subject of continuous monitoring.

This TURAS solution is embodied in a well-balanced and optimal development of infrastructure networks in cities. Regulating the forms of funding of infrastructure in suburban areas should contribute for reducing levels of the suburbanization and all types of development and changes on the urban fringe. The aim is enhancing the efficiency of infrastructure that ought to guarantee all needs of local communities and simultaneously it will protect suburban environment and natural resources threatened by the process. To solve this issue we analyse the cost of the development of suburban infrastructure and we try to identify all main types of costs and the necessary financial resources which are needed for the development of road networks and all types of its technical infrastructure in suburban areas. The solution is based on the analysis of the cost of infrastructure (communications, technical and social, including landscaping) the needs of funds for the implementation of the master plan of a city. The master plan is the main document that will be the base on which infrastructure development should be paid according to its technical characteristics and equipment, geographical location, local natural resources, land prices, sprawl consequences. When all costs are estimated then the value of infrastructure should be translated into the system of development fees and property taxes. Thus the local authority will be able to fix a proper cost of infrastructure which should be paid by its consumers – the residents of suburban territories. Development of a system of regulations and fees and taxes aims to promote the


200

principle "consumer pays" - i.e., financing the development of suburban infrastructure by its users.

3.3.1.ValueofthetechnicalinfrastructureTo determine the value of the technical infrastructure we need to calculate the

single costs per kilometer of building road infrastructure (1.1), external water-main and sewerage (1.2), landscaping and public works (1.3), social infrastructure (1.4). For these calculations we use single prices of the Reference Manual for the Construction Prices in Bulgaria. To determine the surfaces of land necessary for housing and surfaces for their technical maintenance we refer to the existing regulations and primarily to the Rules and Regulations for Planning of Settlements in Bulgaria.

Value of the road infrastructure We calculate the cost of road infrastructure by determining the construction

cost of roads servicing an urbanized area or under Appendix №1 to Ordinance №2 of 29.06.2004 for Planning and Design of the Transportation and Communication Systems in Urban Areas that are IV-th and V-th class streets with a total width of 7.00 m (Table. 3.7). The cost of servicing streets includes sidewalks with minimum width of 1.00 m on both sides. In Table 3.8 we also give reference values for street lighting, providing for 25 street lighting poles per kilometre.

Table 3.7: Calculation of construction cost of IV- th (V-th) class streets with 2 lanes x 3.50 and a total width of 7.00 m (Continued on the next page)

Cipher Type of work Single mea-sure

Quan-tity

Single price

Price per km

I. EARTHWORKS

01.309 Trench with an excavator with limited width of streets

m3 3200 1,89 6 048,00

01.081 Load of earth soils on a truck

m3 3200 4,90 15 680,00

TOTAL EARTHWORKS 21 728,00

II. ROAD WORKS

26.041 Supply and laying of base wedged crushed stone (crushed stone surface)

m3 2800 23,16 64 848,00

26.081 Sealing with bitumen 1.5-2 l / m2 and stone fractions

m2 7000 3,34 23 380,00

26.091 Supply and laying of asphalt concrete - a non solid mixture for a substrate

t 672 144,31 96 976,32


201

Table 3.7 (Continued): Calculation for construction of IV- th (V-th) class streets with 2 lanes x 3.50 and a total width of 7.00 m

Cipher Identification of the type

of work

Single mea-sure

Quan-tity

Single price

Price per km

II. ROAD WORKS (Continued)

26.096 Supply and laying of asphalt concrete - dense mixture for a top layer

t 672 156.97 105 483.84

26.131 Supply and laying of concrete guide stripes 15/20 (hidden curbs)

m 2000 15.53 31 060.00

26.192 Continuous narrow and wide lines without pearls for road markings

m2 300 5.56 1 668.00

26.013 Supply and laying of draining sand layer with 10 cm tight thickness

m2 2000 1.91 3 820.00

26.421 Pavement of concrete slabs m2 2000 39.09 78 180.00

TOTAL ROAD WORKS: 405 416.16

Total earth and road works 427 144.16

Unexpected expenses 20 % 512 572.99

Profit 10 %

563 830,29

TOTAL (price with 20% VAT) 676 596.35

Note: The types of works are in accordance with the Reference Manual for the prices in construction (issue number 2 from 2015.)

Table 3.8: Calculation of construction cost of street lighting of IV-th and V-th class streets with 2 lanes x 3.50 m

Reference Identification Route (km)

Price

Public Procurement Register in Bulgaria

(PPR)

“Execution of detailed design for the project: “Providing of street lighting on the road to the depot “Sadinata”

1850 244 830.22

Total cost of street lighting per km (25 pcs.) - 132 340.66

Note: Values determined in accordance with published procurements in official website of the Public Procurement Agency in Bulgaria: http://rop3-app1.aop.bg:7778/portal/page?_pageid=93,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.


202

Table 3.9: Calculation of construction cost of III-th class streets with 4 lanes х 3.50 and total width of 14.00 m

Cipher Identification of the type of work

Sin-gle

mea-sure

Quantity

Single price

Price per km

I. EARTHWORKS

01.309 Trench with an excavator with limited width of streets

m3 6000 1.89 11 340,00

01.081 Load of earth soils on a truck m3 6000 4.90 29 400,00

TOTAL EARTHWORKS: 40 740.00

II. ROAD WORKS

26.041 Supply and laying of base wedged crushed stone (crushed stone surface)

m3 5600 23.16 129 696,00

26.081 Sealing with bitumen 1.5-2 l / m2 and stone fractions

m2 14000 3.34 46 760,00

26.091 Supply and laying of asphalt concrete - a non solid mixture for a substrate

t 1344 144.3 193 952,64

26.096 Supply and laying of asphalt concrete - dense mixture for a top layer

t 1344 156.9 210 967,68

26.131 Supply and laying of concrete guide stripes 15/20 (hidden curbs)

m 2000 15.53 31 060,00

26.192 Continuous narrow and wide lines without pearls for road markings

м2 600 5.56 3 336,00

26.013 Supply and laying of draining sandy layer with 10 cm tight thickness of the sand layer

м2 2000 1.91 3 820,00

26.421 Pavement of concrete slabs м2 2000 39.09 78 180,00

TOTAL ROAD WORKS: 697 772.32

Total earth and road works 738 512.32


Profit 10 % 974 836.26

TOTAL (price with 20% VAT) 1 169 803.5

Note: The types of works are in accordance with the Reference Manual for the prices in construction (issue number 2 from 2015)


203

Table 3.10. Determination of the average price on the streets of sq. m of living space in new residential model urban areas

Population of the model urban area (people) 10 000

Average area per inhabitant of the area of the model urban area

(sq. m / person)

25

Number of households / housing with an average 4 members in a household

(pcs.) 2 500

Assumed net residential area in the urban area (sq. m) 250 000

Average street area per inhabitant at the the average 3 number of floors

(sq. m) 5.60

Average area of IV-th and V-th street class in the model urban area

(sq. m) 56 000

Average price for the construction of IV-th and V-th street class in the model urban area

(BGN) 96.66

Average cost of street lighting of IV-th and V-th street class in the model urban area

(BGN) 18.90

Average area of III-rd street class in the model urban area whoch are 20% of IV-th and V-th street class

(sq. m) 11 200

Average price for the construction of III-th street class in the model urban area

(BGN) 83.56

Average price on the streets for sq.m of living space (BGN) 29.63

The value of the streets is calculated for new urban residential (model) areas in the periphery of Sofia. For these calculations we assume a residential (model) area of 10 000 people (according to Art. 18 of the Rules and Regulations for Planning of Settlements (RRPS) (row 1 of Table 3.10). The average surface per capita is 25 sq. m (row 2 of Table 3.10 and under Art. 19 of RRPS). The average number of households or housing is 500 at an average of 4 members in a household/a dwelling (row 3 of Table 3.10). At an average of 10 000 people living in the model urban area and 25 sq.m drop in per capita average net residential area of model urban areas is 250 000 sq. m (row 4 of Table 3.10). The average street surface per resident in the area is 5.60 sq. m (according to Art. 25 of RRPS - row 5 of Table 3.10 or at the 10 000 persons in a residential group the area of streets in model urban areas is 56 000 sq. m (row 6 of Table 3.10).

According to Art. 25 of RRPS the designated index for street surface per resident is 5.60 square meters referring to "residential streets and alleys" in urban areas – for streets of IV-th and V-th class with a total width of 7.00 m. The resulting


204

price per kilometre for these street classes is 676 596.35 BGN/km (as Calculation №1), i.e., street width of 7.00 m and a length of 1000.00 m the price per sq. m for IV-th and the V-th street classes is 96.66 BGN. Given the specificity of the study, which is engaged in calculating the cost of infrastructure in peripheral / suburban areas of Sofia, additional inbound infrastructure of higher class streets is provided, i.e. streets of III-rd class with a total width of 14.00 meters. This infrastructure was assumed only 20% of the total for the urban area. This prediction is tentative and is applied to determine the quantity and value of the streets connecting the urban area with the city. Thus, at a price of 1 169 803.51 BGN/ km (according to Calculation №2) in width 14.00 m and a length of 1000.00 m or 14 000.00 sq. m price of III-rd class street per sq. m is 83.56 BGN. The required street lighting for the urban area (which includes IV-th and the V-th sreet classes) is also calculated as its price is determined on the basis of studies of contracts awarded by Sofia Municipality (Table 3.8). The lightings are 25 pcs. per km with price 132 340.66 BGN (according to Table 3.9), at 7000.00 sq. m of IV-th and the V-th street classes price of street lighting per sq. m is 18.90 BGN. Total price of the street lighting of IV-th and the V-th street classes in the model urban area is 115.56 BGN/ km. For a total 56 000 sq. m streets in the model urban area at a price of 115.56 BGN/km a global amount for the construction of IV and V-th street classes with lightings is 6 471 360.00 BGN. About 20% of the streets IV-th and the V-th class are scheduled for III-rd class or 11 200,00 sq.m so the total price is 935 872.00 BGN. Therefore, for all types of streets and lighting in the urban area financial resources amounting to 7 407 232.00 BGN are needed. Thus 29.63 BGN for the construction of streets and lighting per 1 square meter of built residential area is the relevant level of the fee, assuming average net residential area of 250 000.00 sq. m in the model urban area.

Value of external water-main and sewerage

The average price of external water supply networks is calculated for two types of water pipes. One is for direct supply of the buildings through a water main diversion of 75 mm diameter, while others are related to the total water supply network of the model urban area and all necessary connections with other relevant facilities for citywide service - respectively their diameter is 250 mm. This higher level of the water supply network is provided with a length of half of the rest of the system from a lower level which services the buildings. The sewerage system is planned in the same way as for service of individual buildings pipes with size 160 mm in diameter are laid. The pipes which connect to intercity main sewage collector and treatment facilities are with diameter of 400 mm. The length of the route of these bigger pipes is reduced twice compared with the total sewerage network connecting the sets of buildings. In the overall average price of the networks of water-main and sewerage are provided the highest percentage of unforeseen expenditures - 50%. This is necessary because the price of these systems will depend on many unknown factors such as terrain conditions, the necessity of building special facilities and others.


205

Table 3.11: Calculation of construction cost of external water supply and sewerage (Continued on the next page)



Mea-sure

Quan-tity

Single price

Price per km

I. Water-main

23.032 Trench with excavator with a width of 1.20 m on dumper

m3 3000 1.55 4 650,00

23.081 Laying on a sand pad. rammed into pipelines

m3 300 19.56 5 868,00

23.110

Installation and connection of plumbing polyethylene pipes PN16 with size of 75 mm in diameter in the trench on a butt welding. incl. the weld (without the pipe)

m 1000 3.48 3 480,00

none PVC pipe without a socket with size of 75 mm in diameter /1.8

m 1000 2.30 2 300,00

23.140

Installation and connection of the fittings for polyethylene pipes with size of 75 mm in diameter on a butt welding

pcs. 10 20.08 200,80

23.119

Installation and connection of plumbing polyethylene pipes PN16 with size of 250 mm in diameter in the trench on a butt welding. incl. the weld (without the pipe)

m 500 15.71 7 855,00

none Polyethylene pipe PE HD-100-PN16 – with size of 280 mm in diameter

m 500 97.00 48 500,00

23.149

Installation and connection of the fittings for polyethylene pipes with size of 250 mm in diameter on a butt welding

pcs. 5 94.53 472,65

23.084 Backfilling of narrow trenches with sand. incl. tamping

m3 3000 18.88 56 640,00

TOTAL FOR WATER-MAIN 129 966.45


206

Table 3.11(Continued): Calculation of construction cost of external water supply and sewerage


Mea-sure

Quan-tity

Single price

Price per km

II. SEWERAGE

23.032 Trench with excavator with a width of 1.20 m on dumper

m3 3600 1.55 5 580.00

23.081 Laying on a sand pad. rammed into pipelines

m3 360 19.56 7 041.60

23.573 Supply and laying of PVC pipe with size of 160 mm in diameter for external sewage

m 1000 11.83 11 830.00

23.593

Supply and installation of PVC strips from size of 160 mm in diameter to size of 125 mm in diameter to the mounted sewer pipes

pcs. 10 16.06 160.60

23.651

Supply and installation of street manholes of prefabricated elements with depth of 2 meters and iron cover

pcs. 4 802.2 3 208.68

23.577 Supply and laying of PVC pipe with size of 400 mm in diameter for external sewage

m 500 18.88 9 440.00

23.593

Supply and installation of PVC strips from size of 400 mm in diameter to size of 160 mm in diameter to the mounted sewer pipes

pcs. 5 16.06 80.30

23.084 Backfilling of narrow trenches with sand. incl. tamping

m3 3240 18.88 61 171.20

TOTAL FOR SEWERAGE 98 512.38

Total for external water supply and sewerage 228 478.83


Profit 10 % 376 990.07




207

The average price of external water supply and sewerage is calculated on the basis of already adopted parameters (Rows 1 to 4 of Table. 3.12). The average area of the external water supply and sewerage networks by the average 3 floors of buildings is taken in the amount of 20% of the area of landscaping or 0.80 sq. m (Row 5). This makes the average area of the water-main and sewerage in the model urban area in total 8000.00 sq. m (Row 6). The average price per sq. m for the construction of external water-main and sewerage is 452.39 BGN (Table 3.11 and Row 7 in Table 3.12). The total cost of this infrastructure in the urban area is proportional to the ratio of the average price and the average area of water-main and sewage or 3,619,120.00 BGN. The average unit price of living space in the urban area is derived from the ratio of total price of the urban area to its size or 14.48 BGN.

Table 3.12 Determination of the average price of external water-main and sewage per sq. m of living space in a new residential area



(sq. m / person) 25

Average number of households / housing with an average 4 members in a household

(pcs.) 2 500

Average net residential area of the model urban area (sq. m) 250 000

Average area of the external water-main and sewerage by the average 3 floors of the buildings (sq. m) 0.8

Average area of the external water-main and sewerage in the model urban area (sq. m) 8000

Average price for the external water-main and sewerage in the model urban area

(BGN/sq. m)

452.39

Average price of external water-main and sewerage for sq. m of living space (BGN) 14.48

Value of landscaping and beautification of public spaces The price of events in landscaping and public works is envisaged to

include types of works related to landscaping in the model urban area, including construction of alleys. Table 3.14 defines indicative price per decare (0.1 hectare) for grassing and fertilizing, 30% of which under high vegetation and 20% occupied by alleys.


208

Table 3.13 Calculation of construction cost of landscaping and beautification of public spaces


Mea-sure

Quan-tity

Single price

Price per km

26.421 Paved with concrete tiles m2 200 39.09 7 818.00

26.504 Grassing and fertilizing with ammonium nitrate 20 kg / dca, first stage

dca 1 1 520.93 1 520.93

26.505 Grassing and fertilizing with ammonium nitrate 20 kg / dca, second stage

dca 1 730.05 730.05

26.505 Grassing and fertilizing with ammonium nitrate 20 kg / dca, third stage

dca 1 234.07 234.07

26.544 Planting with midsize conifers in holes 80/80/80 (without the young trees)

pcs. 300 24.06 7 218.00

none Midsize conifers 10-12 yearly pcs. 300 20.00 6 000.00

TOTAL 23 521.05


Profit 10 % 31 047.79



The average price for landscaping and public works in the model urban area is formed on the basis of already adopted characteristics of the model urban area (Rows 1 to 4 of Table. 3.14). The average area of landscaping and development per capita in the average number of 2 floors was adopted pursuant to Art. 25 RRPS, where "green space" is provided 4.00 sq. m per inhabitant of the model urban area (Row 5). Hence, the average area for landscaping and public works in the model urban area is 40 000 sq. m (Row 6). According to Table. 3.14 set price of 372,573.40 BGN / ha for landscaping the whole model urban area brought about by sq. m is 37.26 BGN (Row 7). The average price for landscaping and public works is calculated according to the average price for landscaping in the model urban area by sq. m (37.26 BGN - Row 7) and necessary area for landscaping of the whole model urban area (40 000 sq. m - Row 6) inversely the average net residential area of model urban areas (250 000 sq. m). Thus, the average price for landscaping and development for square metre of living area in the model urban areas is equal to 5.96 BGN.


209

Table 3.14 Determination of the average price for landscaping and beautification of public spaces per sq. m of residential

space in a new urban area for 10,000 residents

Population of the urban area (people) 10,000


(sq. m / person) 25


(pcs.) 2.500

Average net residential area of the urban area (sq. m) 250.000

Average area for landscaping and beautification per capita in the average number of 3 floors of the buildings

(sq. m) 4

Average area at landscaping and beautification in the model urban area

(sq. m) 40.000

Average price for landscaping and beautification in the model urban area

(BGN/ sq. m)

37.26

Average price for landscaping and beautification for sq. m of living space

(BGN) 5.96

3.3.2ValueofsocialinfrastructureThe social infrastructure in the urban area should include kindergartens (2

kindergartens with 4 groups of 25 children each), a school (for 225 pupils) and sports facilities (5 facilities in the model urban area on average). In Table 3.15 data from the official website at the Public Procurement Agency for commissioned orders by Sofia Municipality for the construction of the kindergartens, schools and sport facilities are used. The prices of individual objects are interpolated to produce an average price for object.

The average cost of social infrastructure for the entire model urban area is formed on the basis of calculations and contracts awarded by Sofia Municipality (Table. 3.16) for 2 kindergartens, 1 school and 5 sports facilities on the totalling 6,388,932.60 BGN (Row 5 from Table 3.16). Relative to the number of households the required value with which each household must be loaded is 2555.57 BGN (Row 6) and the average price for social infrastructure sq. m living area is 25.56 BGN.


210

Table 3.15: Calculation of construction cost of social infrastructure

Identification Num-ber of groups

Price

I. KINDERGARTENS „Construction and equipment of of a kindergarten for two garden and one nursery groups - new building of Central Kindergarten №16 - affiliate in Regulated Land Property (RLP) V-335, 339 district, "Gardova glava" locality, Settlement formation - Vitosha Region, Sofia."

3 973 5000

„Construction and equipment of of a kindergarten in Regulated Land Property (RLP) III – „for children”, 147 district, „Nadezhda – 1 part”, Sofia.”

8 3 500 000

“Construction and equipment of of a kindergarten for six garden groups in Regulated Land Property (RLP) for "Kindergarten", 39 district, "Vitosha VETS - Simenonovo" on the territory of Lozenets Region.”

6 2 150 000

„Construction, equipment and furnishing of a kindergarten for 75 children в in Regulated Land Property (RLP) - І, 42 district, - Central Kindergarten №76, Voluyak village.”

3 1 248 823

"Construction of a kindergarten in Regulated Land Property (RLP) III-766,767, 55 district, German village, Pancharevo Region, Sofia Municipality."

5 1 866 669

"Construction of a kindergarten in Kremikovtsi district, Kremikovtsi Region." 5 1 655 444

"Construction of a new kindergarten in Seslavtsi district, Kremikovtsi Region." 2 833 333

"Construction of an experimental two-storey building for a kindergarten for two groups /50 children/ in Regulated Land Property (RLP) VI , 38 district, Kazichene village, Pancharevo Region.”

2 750 000

AVERAGE PRICE FOR KINDERGARTEN

(two kindergartens with 4 groups with 25 children)3 053 592


Price

II. SCHOOLS "Construction of a new building on 84-th School "Vasil Levski" in Regulated Land Property (RLP) II-766,767, 55a district, German village, Pancharevo Region, Sofia Municipality "

225 2 841 667

AVERAGE PRICE FOR SCHOOL (one with an average of 225 pupils)

2 841 667


211

Table 3.15 (Continued): Calculation of construction cost of social infrastructure


Price

III. SPORTS FACILITIES "Construction and reconstruction of sports facilities for sports purposes on the territory of Triaditsa Region " 7 480 000

"Construction and reconstruction of sports facilities - playgrounds on the territory of Mladost Region" 3 666 666

"Construction and reconstruction of sports playgrounds on the territory of Nadezhda Region” 5 334 353

AVERAGE PRICE FOR SPORTS FACILITIES (average of 5 in an area)

493 673

TOTAL 4 862 136

Unexpected expenses 10 % 5 348 350

TOTAL (price with 20% VAT) 6 418 020

Note: The values of the objects of the social infrastructure are averaged according to published procurement in the official website of the Public Procurement Agency: rop3-app1.aop.bg:7778/portal/page?_pageid=93,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Table 3.16 Determination of the the average price of social infrastructure per sq. m of living space in a new residential urban area



(sq. m / person)

25


(pcs.) 2 500

Average net residential area of the model urban area

(sq. m) 250 000

Average price for social infrastructure in the model urban area (2 kindergartens, 1 school and 5 sports facilities)

(BGN) 6 388 933

Average price for social infrastructure of housing / household

(BGN) 2556

Average price for social infrastructure for sq.m of living space

(BGN) 25.56


212

3.3.3.TotalvalueofinfrastructureThe value of infrastructure includes the examined different types of

infrastructure - road infrastructure (3.1.1), external water-main and sewerage (3.1.2), landscaping and public works (3.1.3) and social infrastructure (3. 1.4) The overall average price for a square meter residential area of model urban area amounts to 75.63 BGN.

Table 3.17 Calculation of the total value of the infrastructure per sq. m of living space in the model urban area

Identification of the type of infrastructure

Average price per sq. m residential area of the model

urban area

Road infrastructure 29.63

External water-main and sewerage 14.48

Landscaping and public works 5.96

Social Infrastructure 25.56

TOTAL PRICE 75.63


213

3.4.Fiscalzoningtoolsforregulationofsuburbandevelopment


The goal of this part of the policy recommendations is to propose practical methods how the approaches developed in the previous parts might be coordinated to elaborate a system of fees and taxes intended to steer urban growth. More specifically, the aim of this system is to regulate the form and the intensity of urban growth in conditions of market development. That means that the decentralized agents – participants in market processes – have substantial property rights to exercise initiative and manage and develop their properties according to their interests and intentions. The purpose of the system of local charges and taxes under free market conditions is to create incentives for the decentralized agents to follow the objectives defined by urban plans and thus to direct suburban development to areas that correspond to plans, to achieve the desired rate of growth and the planned urban densities. Furthermore, the collected revenue through the system of taxes and fees should provide funding needed for the development of transport and technical infrastructure (road and utility networks) and social infrastructure (the necessary public buildings and other amenities – e.g., the system of green areas, sports facilities and playgrounds). Therefore, the determination of the local taxes and fees should be based on the value of planned suburban infrastructure and the used or consumed natural amenities.

3.4.1.LayerStructureoftheSystemofFiscalZoningGeographically, the application of the system of local fees and taxes that we

propose is defined by two basic factors: the characteristics of the existing ecosystem (i.e. the type/sub-type of

biome) and the destination land use (function).

Therefore in one sentence, the essence of the proposed methodology can be summarised as follows: 1) preparation of a map that combines the existing geographical allocation of the main types of biomes and planned zones and areas that influence the development of biomes and 2) definition of the levels of taxes and fees in each zone and each area. Respectively, the implementation of the proposed approach should start with drawing the first layer of the map,


214

1) Drawing layer “A” of the map of the planned suburban region, which defines zones and areas of all main types and sub-types of biomes according to their ecosystem features and impact.

More precisely, layer “A” will define all non-urbanized areas with specific zones and sub-zones according to the existing land use at the moment of the preparation of the plan according to their ecosystem services. With regard to our case-study, for instance, such a map of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality should cover all territories outside the construction boundaries of Sofia city according to the existing ecosystem services:

o Agricultural territories according to the ten levels of bonity – from i) 0-10% and ii) 10-20% … to x) 90-100%.

o Forests, woodlands and grasslands: a) for timber production and with environmental functions, b) with protection functions (for water protection, for erosion control and reclamation), c) for recreational purposes, d) protected forest areas and d) grasslands, meadows and pastures

o Wetlands: a) of national and local significance, b) rivers, c) lakes and reservoirs, d) swamps and marshes, e) newly formed water bodies and swamps

o Areas in contact and near wetlands: a) areas in direct contact and b) areas in close proximity to wetlands (100 m to the nearest point of the plot)

o Zones of Nature 2000 – a) areas under the Habitats Directive and b) areas under the Birds Directive

o Areas of high aesthetic value

2) Drawing layer “B” of the map of the planned suburban region defining the

planned land-use zones – imported from the master plan. With regard to our case-study the GUDP of Sofia Metropolitan Municipality (General Urban Development Plan) in the suburban region delineates:

o housing areas: areas for predominantly low-rise housing, areas for low-rise housing in natural environment, areas for low-rise housing with specific requirements, areas for low-rise housing with limited parameters, areas for medium-rise housing, areas for predominantly high-rise housing, and areas for housing estates, and villa areas

o Service and mixed-use centres and areas: three types of service areas (one for services only and two types for services and greenery) and three types of mixed-use areas

o Areas for manufacture – areas for extraction of raw materials, one type only for manufacturing activities, one mixed type, and two other types

o Areas and bases for infrastructure and communal industries and services – eight types

o Green areas – six types o Areas for sports and leisure&respite – three types o Rivers and water bodies o Forest areas – six types


215

o Protected of natural areas – natural reserves, natural parks, and protected areas and natural land-marks

It should be stressed that, for the sake of applicability of the system of local charges and taxes, the number of zones of both the biomes and the zones defined by the master plan should be minimized. A large number of overlapping zones would be a major difficulty for the implementation of the system of tariffs. Therefore zones with similar ecological impacts should be combined.

3) Drawing layer “C” with the existing levels of the conversion fee (fee due upon conversion of agricultural land, forests, woodlands, grasslands and virgin lands to urban use/construction land).

In Sofia Municipality (as in all Bulgarian municipalities), a charge that should be considered a form of payment for ecosystem services is the conversion fee applicable when agricultural and natural lands are converted ot urban use). Reasonably, this fee is determined by several factors, discussed in some detail in section 3.2.2. To give an ides of the levels and the areas of application of the fee in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality the reported average imposed fee in cases of conversion of agricultural land by suburban districts (northern and southern) are shown in Table 3.18. In Bulgaria the conversion fees are collected by the Regional Directorates of Agriculture, which are divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Foods.

Table 3.18: Existing (reported) levels of conversion fees in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality (2004-2012)

€/sq. m rural land in the southern areas

rural land in the northern areas

forests and woodlands

Conversion fee 1,48 1,48 7,30

Two other charges are relevant to the process of urbanisation and urban development: the construction permit fee (development fee) and the fee for the issue of the permission of use (issue of certificate under art. 177 of the SPA) – see Table 3.19. Both fees are defined by the Ordinance for Determination and Administration of Local Taxes and Prices of Services. Currently, this ordinance sets a requirement (article 5) that fees must cover all (“the full”) expenses of the municipality (labour, material, overheads, fee collection, management and control as well as the expansion/development of the system of fees). However, there is no analysis and virtually no direct connection drawn between the construction permit fee and the fee for the issue of the permission of use and the associated costs, no such analysis has been carried out, so it is not clear what expenses these two fees cover.


216

Table 3.19: Existing (normative) levels of development fees and fees for issue of certificate under art. 177 of the SPA

in central city areas

in inter-mediate

city areas

in southern suburban

areas

in northern suburban

areas

Development fee [€ per sq. m]

7.14

3.06-6.12

1,53-2.55

1,53-5.10

Fee for issue of certificate under art. 177 [€ per project)

Up to 1000 sq.m

255.10 255.10 255.10 255.10

1000-5000 sq.m

382.65 382.65 382.65 382.65

4) Drawing layer “D” determining the planned local fees and charges The system of local fees and charges that we propose should not be an entirely

new structure, but it should build on the existing system, In the case of Sofia our proposal is make no changes in the structure of fees and charges, but only in the ways that fees and charges are determined and, respectively, in their levels: These are the conversion fee (FCONV) and the development fee (FD), the latter comprising three components - FD1, FD2, and FD3. The proposed levels of the conversion fee (FCONV) for Sofia’s suburban areas are shown in Table 3.20.

Conversion Fee (FCONV)

Table 3.20: Recommended mean levels of local fees for conversion of land (FCONV) in suburban areas as payments for ecosystem services

€/m2 Grass- and rural lands

Wet-lands

Lands close to water bodies

Forests and woodlands

X (min) to I (max)

adja-cent

within 100 m

produc-tive

recrea-tional

reserves & reserving

Provisioning ecosystem services

0,38 - 3,80 6,40 4,20 2,60 7,80 2,60 not applicable

Regulating 1 (habitat+ biodiversity)

2,10* - 2,10* 14,00 6,00 3,90 13,00 8,00 not applicable

Fee Total 2,48* - 5,90* 20,40 10,20 6,50 20,80 10,60 not appl.


217

Note: When land included in an area under Natura 2000 is subject of conversion, 8.80 €/sq.m shall be added to the estimate of Regulating services 1 (habitat + biodiversity). Such areas in Sofia Metropolitan Municipality are only agricultural lands.

Development fee (FD1) Ecosystem services component (FD1)

Table 3.21: Recommended levels of local development fees (FD1) and taxes in SMM as payments for ecosystem services

€/m2 Grasslands and rural

lands

Wet-lands

Lands close

to water bodies


X (min) to I (max)

adja-cent

within 80-150 m

produc-tive

recrea-tional

reserves & reserving

Regulating 2 (purification +waste treatment)

2,50 13,60 7,00 4,55 9,00 3,70 not applicable

Cultural services- aesthetic information

0,00/3,00 5,40 8,33 5,40 4,17 8,33 not applicable

Fee Total 2,50 19,00 15,33 9,95 13,17 12,03 not appl.

Note: – The Cultural services- aesthetic information component for agricultural land is 0.00 or 3.00 €/sq.m depending on whether or not the land is with high aesthetic value.

Infrastructure provision component (FD2)

For Technical infrastructure 1 (road and utility networks1) – 11.00 €/sq.m.of TFS

For Technical infrastructure 2 (utility networks2+landscaping) – 5.00 €/sq.m.of TFS

For Social infrastructure (public buildings and facilities) – 12.00 €/sq.m.of TFS

(TFS – Total floor space of the building)

Relevance to planning goals component (FD3)


218

The fee for the relevance of the land use of the obtained development permit to the planned land use (in the master plan) should be determined by the master plan. We envisage four levels:

Relevant to the master plan – 0.00 €/sq.m.of TFS Compatible with the plan – 2.00 €/sq.m.of TFS Not relevant to the plan – 5.00 €/sq.m.of TFS Highly irrelevant/conflicting – 15.00 €/sq.m.of TFS

Taxes Establishing direct connections not only between the purpose of public

spending and respective sources (i.e., fees that are meant to cover specific expenses should be collected from those who use or consume the benefits), but also between the pace of spending and the amounts collected annually is essential for this proposal. Generally, this means that investments and capital spending should be covered by charges, such as those discussed above, whereas taxes should be collected to pay for maintenance and amortization. Thus for the purpose of steering suburban development we define two components of the local tax to cover the costs relating to the consumption and use of suburban natural amenities and infrastructure: component ТD1 – taxes meant to cover the ecosystem services, and component ТD2 – meant to cover the provision infrastructure. The latter comprises ТD2a – amortization component and ТD2b – maintenance component. The proposed tax rates are shown in Table 3.22 and the lines below.

ТD1 – ecosystem service component

Table 3.22: Proposed levels of the local tax component for ecosystem service payments (TD1) in the suburban areas of Sofia

Metropolitan Municipality

€/m2 Grasslands and rural

lands

Wet-lands

Lands close to water bodies


X (min) to

I (max)

adja-cent

within 80-150

m

produc-tive

recrea-tional

reservs & reser-

ving

tax 0,08 0,63 0,51 0,33 0,44 0,40 not appl.

ТD2 – infrastructure provision component

ТD2 = ТD2a + ТD2b ТD2a – amortization component – 1.00 €/sq.m.of TFS ТD2b – maintenance component – 1.38 €/sq.m.of TFS


219

3.4.1.MonitoringandDynamicManagementThe Monitoring and Dynamic Management feature is an important

characteristic of the present policy proposal. This feature is of critical importance for a plan should not be a static statement of “ultimate” goals, but rather a dynamic and powerful tool of continuous governance. To this end a plan should provide for easy and effective procedures of purposeful changes in goals and planning solutions. When we allow for corrections in the course of implementation of a plan, we realize two important advantages: planning objectives can be redefined and adjusted as well as the methods of their achievement – in this case we mean the system of fiscal tools.

Regarding the system of fiscal tools, we emphasize once again that our main goal is to make suburban settlers pay for the infrastructure and natural amenities they use or consume, because such an approach is fair, efficient and promotes sustainability. But in implementing this approach researchers face a major problem: measuring the value of ecosystem services is not only extremely difficult, but also highly problematic. The essence of our proposal is to solve this problem not by employing some particularly novel technique to properly measure the real value of natural amenities and thus to define the proper levels of taxes and fees, but to do this by dynamic management and gradual improvement of the system of fiscal tools. The key point in our proposal is that planners can hardly find information or implement innovative and effective methods to evaluate ecosystem services, whereas it is much easier, effective and efficient to gradually improve the response of the fiscal system. In this way we turn a plan into a dynamic instrument of management.

For this purpose planners first need to define clear indicators of the changes in the urban system. The goal is to choose indicators are key characteristics of the system, but indicators that can be measured by available data – e.g., urbanized land, total floor space of the new developments, density of development, density of population, ecological indicators for purity of air, soils and water and, if possible – biodiversity.

Second, planners should define the target values of these indicators. More than that - planned target values of those indicators will be needed for each five-year period. Thus a table or a matrix of target values should be prepared.

Third is the monitoring of the indicators. The procedures of monitoring should be carried each year, if this is possible, or at least at the end of each five-year period. If the results of monitoring show that all or most of the indicators at the end of the five-year period are close to the planned/targeted values, then clearly nothing should be changed in the system of local fees and charges. However, such results would be rare exceptions because a city is a complex system and it is hardly ever possible to forecast the precise values of the indicators and to perfectly program urban development. But when the reported values of the indicators deviate from the planned, then the levels of the charges and taxes should be changed. A key advantage of the proposed system of fiscal instruments is that it provides good opportunities to define adequate responses – i.e., changes in the levels of the fiscal


220

instruments, because it is much easier to assess the results on the ground than to forecast them based on theoretical assumptions. The dynamic management approach thus proves to be instrumental.

Table 3.23: Responses to deviations in the indicators’ values

Observed deviation from the planned values of indicators

Response – needed changes in the system of fiscal tools

The reported consumption of land (rates of urbanization) are higher (or lower) the planned

The conversion fee should be raised (or reduced) proportionally

The number of suburban population grows faster (or slower) than planned

The conversion fee as well as the development fee should be raised (reduced) proportionally

The reported levels of the ecological indicators are higher than the planned (indicating higher levels of pollution)

The fee for Regulating services 2 (purification + waste treatment), as a part of FD1 must be raised

The rate of dispersion of settlements in suburban areas has grown

The conversion fee must be raised

Property prices in suburban areas grow (drop)

The development fees should be raised (decreased)

The growth of industrial activities has slowed down

The conversion fee and the fee for relevance of the new developments to plans and planning goals should be reduced (i.e., lower fees for conversion and development should be stablished)

Mixed-use development in areas that do not correspond to the plan

The conversion fee should be raised, the development fee should be reduced and the fee for relevance of the new developments to the planning goals should be raised

Listofreferences

DeGroot, R., L. Brander, S. Ploeg, R. Costanza, F. Bernard, L. Braat, M. Christie, N. Crossman, A. Ghermandi, L. Hein, S. Hussain, P. Kumar, A. McVittie, R. Portela, L.C. Rodriguez, P. Brink, P. van Beukering (2012) Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem services 1: 50-61.


221

Krautkreamer JA (1998) Nonrenewable Resource Scarcity. Journal of Economic Literature 36(4): 2065-2107.

Krautkreamer JA (2005) The Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity: The State of the Debate. Discussion Paper 05–14, Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Maes, J., A. Teller, M. Erhard, C. Liquete, L. Braat, P. Berry, B. Egoh, P. Puydarrieux, C. Fiorina, F. Santos-Martín, M.L. Paracchini, H. Keune, H. Wittmer, J. Hauck, I. Fiala, P.H. Verburg, S. Condé, J.P. Schägner, J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, C. Estreguil, O. Ostermann, J.I. Barredo, H.M. Pereira, A. Stott, V. Laporte, A. Meiner, B. Olah, E. Royo Gelabert, R. Spyropoulou, J.E. Petersen, C. Maguire, N. Zal, E. Achilleos, A. Rubin, L. Ledoux, P. Murphy, M. Fritz, C. Brown, C. Raes, S. Jacobs, P. Raquez, M. Vandewalle, D. Connor, G. Bidoglio (2013) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services-An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg.


222


223

44.. WWOORRKKIINNGG PPAAPPEERRSS AANNDD

RREESSEEAARRCCHH RREEPPOORRTTSS

4.1. Demographic development of the districts of Sofia and intra-city migration trends


4.2. Study of Sofia residents’ preferences and motivations regarding peri-urban development


4.3. Survey of Bulgarian planning and regulation acts and documents concerning urban growth and sprawl

Peter Nikolov

4.4. Population and urban growth in the outskirts of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome during the 1990-2011 period: Urban growth or sprawl?

Peter Nikolov

4.5. Polycentricity as an instrument of balanced development in the general urban development plan of Sofia

Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev and Yordan Lybenov

4.6. The role of public transport for sustainable urban development

Hristo Topchiev


224


225

4.1.DemographicdevelopmentofthedistrictsofSofiaandintra‐citymigrationtrends

Research Report


The demographic development of the different types of districts of Sofia is not uniform and, in fact, considerable differences might be observed that reflect, above all, the trends of suburbanization. Again, the observation proves that the trends to suburbanization are not very strong, but are quite obvious – table 1.

In Table 1 the districts of Sofia are grouped according to the same classification that had been used already in the WP5 research:

1) Central districts (city centre) 2) Intermediate or semi-central districts that were developed in the first

half of the 20th century 3) Peripheral or socialist districts that were developed in the socialist

period and comprise mainly “panel” housing estates – estates of prefab blocks of flats

The suburban districts are classified in three groups: 4) Suburban/rural districts A – attractive districts in the foots of Vitosha

mountain 5) Suburban/rural districts B – comparatively attractive or not very

attractive 6) Suburban/rural districts C – least attractive districts in the plain to the

north of Sofia

The processes of change are illustrated by Figure 1. Apparently, the greatest number of the population lives in the intermediate (semi-central) and in the peripheral (socialist) districts. However, during the period 1985-2011 the population of the intermediate districts has increased by only 2 percent (form 502 3011 to 512 772), the population of the peripheral districts has increased by 16 percent (from 362 615 to 420 826). More importantly, the population of the central districts has dropped 147 828 to 100 786, while the population of the suburban districts A has experienced a steady growth from 67 352 to 128 020.


226

Table 1: Demographic development of the districts of Sofia in the period 1985 – 2011

1985 1992 2001 2011

Central districts 147828 116524 94651 100786

Sredets 54464 41104 31108 32423

Vazrazhdane 47399 40365 34742 37303

Oborishte 45965 35055 28801 31060

Intermediate/ hostorical districts

502311 454425 468174 512772

Krasno selo 81576 77138 72302 83552

Serdika 51646 45259 45711 46949

Poduyane 57153 52809 75004 76672

Slatina 56846 56599 58281 66702

Izgrev 35552 30515 28639 30896

Lozenets 48840 38315 44679 53080

Triaditsa 69902 60568 55530 63451

Krasna polyana 61106 58120 54363 58234

Ilinden 39690 35102 33665 33236

Peripheral/ socialist districts

362615 399651 386989 420826

Nadezhda 73891 70837 67847 67905

Iskar 48004 64670 64171 63248

Mladost 96773 102088 95505 102899

Studentski 37747 47849 50368 71961

Lyulin 106200 114207 109098 114813

Suburban/ rural A 67352 83724 99630 128020

Vitosha 41445 38484 42953 61467

Ovcha kupel 17608 37012 47380 54417

Bankya 8299 8228 9297 12136

Suburban/ rural B 23585 23056 24342 28586

Pancha revo 23585 23056 24342 28586

Suburban/ rural C 98028 112755 97056 100601

Vrabnitsa 22612 39768 47260 47969

Novi Iskar 31765 29265 26544 28991

Kremikovtsi 43651 43722 23252 23641

Source – National Statistical Institute, Census 2011, Sofia (capital)


227

Figure 1: Changes in the number of the inhabitants by type of district Source – National Statistical Institute, Census 2011, Sofia (capital)

The process of parallel decrease of the number of the population of the central districts and increase of the population of the suburban districts A is yet more obvious on the diagram on Figure 2. This process is actually intra-city migration from the central areas to the suburbs of Sofia. It is represented by the enlarging dark-purple portions of the rows (the increase of suburban population) and the diminishing blue portions – the decreasing population in the central urban territories.

Figure 2 – Shares of the population of the different types of districts in the total of the population of the Municipality of Sofia


228

Finally, important aspects of the intra-city migration processes can be identified by examining the changes in the rate of the growth of the population in each type of districts. This is displayed on Table 2 and Figure 3.

Table 2 – Percentage change in the number of the population in the different types of districts of Sofia in the period 1985-2011

1985 1992 Change 1985-1992

2001 Change 1985-2001

2011 Change 1985 - 2011

Central districts

147 828 116 524 -21,2% 94 651 -36,0% 100 786 -31,8%


502 311 454 425 -9,5% 468 174 -6,8% 512 772 2,1%

Peripheral districts

362 615 399 651 10,2% 386 989 6,7% 420 826 16,1%

Suburban A 67 352 83 724 24,3% 99 630 47,9% 128 020 90,1%

Suburban B 23 585 23 056 -2,2% 24 342 3,2% 28 586 21,2%

Suburban C 98 028 112 755 15,0% 97 056 -1,0% 100 601 2,6%

Source – National Statistical Institute, Census 2011, Sofia (capital)

The decrease in the population of the central districts by 32 percent and the simultaneous growth of the population of the suburban districts A by 90 percent can be monitored on Table 2 and Figure 3 too, but another important factor is also made evident – that the population of suburban districts C has virtually not changed (only 2.6 percent is the change in 26 years – a change that is, in fact, rather disputable). Therefore, this is evidence that the intra-migration flows from the city centre are directed to suburban districts A to the south of the city, in the foot of Vitosha mountain, and not to the northern districts of Sofia Municipality.

Figure 3 – Percentage change in the number of the population in the different types of districts of Sofia in the period 1985-2011


229

4.2.Study of Sofia residents’ preferences andmotivations regarding peri‐urbandevelopment districts of Sofia and intra‐citymigrationtrends

Working Paper


4.2.1. Classification of residents’ preferences andmotivations in various patterns of development(urbanization)ofperi‐urbanareasDefining and clarifying the many reasons and driving forces causing

urbanization processes in peri-urban areas as well as their classification are the subject of numerous researches and analysis. According to different driving forces, patterns of urban expansion, growth or sprawl, demonstrate, one can say, a huge variety, but yet, they are mostly divided into two main types - the first one - typical of highly developed capitalist states, and the second one - typical mainly of the developing world. A characteristic pattern of urbanization for the first type is suburbs offering high level of urban environment, high standard of housing and landscaping. Mainly representatives of the middle class settle there but there are also suburbs for the upper-middle class and even for the wealthiest members of society (Fielding 1989; Fishman 1987). In general, the new inhabitants of this type of suburbs come mainly from the urban core or from other urban areas.

In contrast to the above pattern, in the developing nations the prevalent process of urbanizations is rural-to-urban migration. These are mostly poorer rural residents seeking better sources of livelihood (Korcelli, 1990). Other types of peri-urban growth, (suburbanization) according to driving forces and socio-economic reasons causing them, are stepwise migration (to major urban centres– Hirt 2007а) or mass relocation of residents due to political reasons.

While the patterns of urban expansion listed so far are mostly typical of market societies, such processes were observed in socialist societies as well, although the reasons causing them work in a different way. First, the suburbanization, typical of


230

the western developed states (of the first type described above) is generally not observed in socialist states. On the other hand, in these states the urbanization of major peri-urban areas of almost all large cities as a result of rural-to-urban migration is a large-scale mass phenomenon caused by industrialization. Whereas industrialization was a powerful factor for urban sprawl in capitalist states as well, in socialist states it was more intense, first, because of the greater backwardness of rural areas and, secondly, because industrialization was the major goal of the socialist policies. Another form of urbanization and urban sprawl was the targeted mass displacement of population. This process served the same purpose for industrial development but its distinctive feature was that people were dislocated not for economic reasons but for political decisions and by administrative measures.

In summary, several major conclusions can be drawn to determine the structure of and the approach to the analysis of residents’ preferences and motivations to different patterns of peri-urbanization.

First, in a market society, residents’ preferences and motivations are a major factor in the patterns and trends of urban development. Most likely the role of this factor is even greater than centralized planning.

Second, historical experience gained and traditions developed in different stages of development of any society (socialist, less-developed and highly developed market society) is crucial to the formation of its residents’ preferences and motivations and hence, to the patterns of urban sprawl.

Third, particularly for Sofia, to the extend Bulgarian society can be considered completed the transition period (the evidence of which is the accession of Bulgaria to the European Union), the main questions to be addressed by this study of the residents’ preferences and motivations as a factor of the specific patterns of peri-urbanization are as follows:

Whether suburbanization is of (conditionally speaking) type 1 – that of the developed capitalist states

Or it is of (conditionally speaking) type 2 – that of urban processes caused by rural-to-urban migration

Generally: type 1 newcomers to peri-urban areas would be people of higher-social status, with higher income and probably – with higher education. Their main motivation would be obtaining a higher standard of living in an environment that is closer to nature, in lower density and higher level of gardening and landscaping. Type 2 suburbanites would be people of other, mainly rural areas of the municipality, district or other smaller towns and settlements of the country. Probably, most of them would be of lower social status and before dislocation their labour has not been paid high, because in this case the main reason for displacement is expected to be seeking of better job and higher pay.


231

4.2.2. TraditionsinSofiaresidents’preferencesandmotivationsregardingperi‐urbandevelopmentIn line with the findings in section 1, we will first examine historical experience

and traditions build in different stages of development of Bulgarian society. Sofia residents’ preferences and motivations in the development of peri-urban areas can be best understood if viewed within the light of their historical development. Such a review reflects the specific manner of their formation and as a result – their specific nature.

It can be said that different attitudes of Bulgarian society to the growth of the large cities and, in particular, Sofia’s, occurs in the development of the first master plan of the city – Muesmann plan. In this case, different approaches of the German architect Adolf Muesmann and his team, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the Bulgarian representatives involved to some extent with the process of planning (Metropolitan Municipality management, the Chief Architect and other municipal officials, the architectural guild, intellectual community, etc.) showed very significant differences, especially on the issue of peri-urban areas. Most plans put together and adopted prior to 1934 were also led by foreign architects, but probably because of the nature of the problems solved, it is difficult to establish a clear distinction between the views of the planners and Sofia community.

The position of Bulgarian professionals and community was highly predetermined by the experienced urbanization of the capital. As it was described and analysed in section 5.2- “Historical Development, Demographic Growth and Urbanization Process in Sofia”, development of modern urban structure of the city started during the period of liberation of Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire and the designation of the city as the capital of the Bulgarian state and continues to the present. Between 1880 (after Sofia became the capital) to 1934 (the beginning of the development of the Muesmann plan) the city grew from 20 856 to 287 095 residents (NSI, 2009), and the size of the urban area – from 3 sq. km (Hirt 2007) to about 60 sq. km (Kovachev 2005). 15-20 times growth of population and growth of territory in 50 years (Lampe, 1984, defines Sofia as the fastest growing Balkan capital) is an expansion that the city could hardly survive and which was difficult to be handled by Sofia authorities.

Given the extraordinary industrial development of Sofia during this period (the capital became the industrial centre of the country with 50% of the entire industrial workforce), it is clear that the urban growth from that time is not of type 1 but of type 2 – fuelled by rural-to-urban migration. Meanwhile thousands of refugees from the Balkan wars settled in Sofia. Therefore, there is no doubt that new suburbs are shabby and unattractive to the middle and upper classes of Sofia society. Lampe, 1984, noted that during this period the city became more and more crowded and polluted (by industrial plants). It is then no wonder that middle-class and wealthy citizens of the capital did not aspire to live in single family homes in the periphery. All this explains the reason why when the Master Plan was awarded, Metropolitan Municipality set as an important task for the plan to limit the city expansion since it


232

was perceived as already too dispersed and the municipality could not afford to provide infrastructure in newly urbanized areas.

However, Professor Adolf Muesmann’s view for peri-urban areas was very different. The starting point of his professional views was the then established in Germany idea that the best form of housing for middle class, and for large section of population adhering to traditional values, is the single-family house with a yard. Therefore, in his plan Muesmann envisaged city expansion by urbanizing new hinterland in the form of extensive territories with individual houses. Such a view, however, was not popular with the public and city authority. Under the pressure of Metropolitan Municipality, Muesmann revised his views on a number of specific solutions (Hirt 2007b), but still territorial expansion remained in such a scale that could not be realized. Probably this discrepancy, rather than the upcoming World War II, was the more important reason for the failure of the Muesmann’s plan in respect of his idea for urban periphery development.

A second important period in the history of Sofia urban development, which is directly related to the formation of its residents’ preferences and motivations to the development of peri-urban areas, refers to the socialist period. In this case as well, it would be more convenient to base the analysis on the master plans. During the socialist period, two plans of Sofia were proceeded, adopted and implemented. The first one is the plan of a team under the lead of Lyuben Tonev. As Muesmann’s plan outright opponent, L. Tonev did not foresee any major growth in the urban area. But much more significant (especially for the present study) is the second socialist plan – that of a team led by Neikov. The reason that plan is of greater importance for the analysis is that it was adopted and implemented at a time when all the essential characteristics of the socialist socio-economic and urban development were in place and operating at maximum intensity. It is about such factors as: 1) socialist industrialization and 2) urbanization based on prefabricated panel building technology. As it is well known, Neikov’s plan was chosen over the plan of Siromahov as the two plans differed primarily in their concepts about the development of Sofia. While the plan of Siromahov foresaw significant increase in the urban area, the plan of Neikov relied on compact development. Equally well known is the “paradox” that, despite the adoption of Neikov’s compact scenario, only 3-4 years later it started to be changed and actually during the next few decades the expansionary version was implemented. That very manner and pattern of Sofia’s expansion during socialism played the role of an essential prerequisite, affecting the formation of residents’ preferences and their motivations for choosing a residential area within the city.

Socialist industrialization, the first of the two key factors mentioned above, is the main reason for the city’s continuous rapid growth and in the second half of the twentieth century. For 39 years (from 1946 to 1985) its population has increased 1,3 times or by 670 000 residents to 1 200 000 people. It is clear that such an expansion could not happen within the original boundaries of the city and the main resources used were rural hinterlands. However, they were urbanized according to the second factor – urbanization based on industrial prefabricated concrete panel construction. The “Socialist suburbs” – residential complexes, emerged. They, of course, are


233

radically different from the suburbs, conditionally defined as type 1 and type 2. In capitalist states some similarities could be sought with French and Italian peripheral housing estates. The difference is in the much lower quality of Bulgarian residential buildings and in the lack of land development. What is important in this case is the manner such a development affects the residents’ preferences. The end result is that despite the desire to settle in the big city or the capital, the residents consider the prefab buildings in the socialist complexes the lowest class housing. Socialist society is largely homogenous (except for a small group of communist elite), there is no middle class and affluent citizens to realize the model of luxury suburbs (type 1 of developed Western states). Instead, newcomers or newly established households have no choice but to settle in the prefab complexes in the suburbs. The entire mechanism is a strong incentive for the majority of the residents of large cities and the capital to strengthen their idea for the central city areas as the most attractive to live in.

4.2.4. Analysis of residents’ preferences andmotivations determining the trends in thedevelopmentofcityareasandintra‐urbanmigrationHere will be examined the preferences and motivations of capital residents

based on the conclusions already made in Section 2 on traditions and preferences of Sofia inhabitants to housing and those in section 3 on objectively observed trends in demographic development (number of population) in the regions and directions of intra-urban migration. Furthermore, for the purposes of the analysis, research works in the same direction by other (Bulgarian and foreign) authors and the results of a survey specifically conducted for this paper will be used.

The main objective of the analysis of residents’ preferences and motivations is to establish the driving forces of the trends of intra-urban migration to the fringe, respectively, causing suburbanization. The above can also be formulated in terms of determining the nature of urbanization processes in the fringe (suburbanization) according to the types listed in section 1 – type 1, type 2 or a third, specific type. According to Hirt the following key characteristics of the processes should be explored for the purpose (Hirt 2007a, page 757): “(1) demographic (i.e., who moves to the urban fringe), (2) functional (i.e., how are the centre and the fringe economically linked – where do the peri-urban residents work?); and perhaps most notably, (3) locational and motivational (i.e. where did the peri-urban residents come from and why did they move?). In demographic terms, type 1 suburbanization is at least initially led by the upper- and upper-middle-income class, while in type 2 newcomers are from the poorer social class (Fishman 1987, Bromley and Bromley 1982, Stokes 1962, quoted by Hirt 2007а). With regard to the functional characteristics, type 1 suburbanization creates zones of fully residential character (“bedroom suburbs” with a few public, mostly business activities), where residents work mainly in the central area of the city. In type 2 suburbanization, economic relations are much more complex as part of new settlers still relies on income from agricultural activities, while a growing number of residents began to work in service


234

or new industrial establishments in the fringes. And finally, regarding locational characteristics, i.e. the motivations for settling in suburban areas in type 1 suburbanization, the main driving force is the preferences associated with the characteristics of living in the suburbs – an escape from the “chaos”, pollution and noise of the city centre, pursuing greener and more developed environment and peace and, in general – a higher standard and a “Western” pattern of housing environment. In contrast, in type 2 suburbanization the main motive of provincial and rural migrants is accessing job opportunities offered by the city (Jackson 1985, Vartianen 1989, quoted by Hirt 2007а).

In several other studies in a similar socio-economic situation – i.e. in the conditions of transition from socialism to a market society – the prevalent characteristics found most frequently by the researchers are those of type 1 suburbanization (Sýkora, 1994, Kok and Kovács 1999, Brade et al. 2001). Therefore, the most common findings of the authors are that these trends in post-communist states are similar to those in developed capitalists states, but are implemented with some delay due to the specifics of their socio-economic development – primarily, delay due to the socialist period. At the same time, in post-socialist states there are also a number of specific characteristics due to specific geographical and historical factors and, in this case too, mainly to the socialist legacy: the existing housing stock, rapid economic processes, specific demographic trends and migration between urban, rural and mountain regions (Nuissl and Rink, 2005; Blinnikov et al., 2006).

In accordance with the objectives and scope of this analysis, a special attention is to be paid to the research works of Hirt (2006, 2007a and 2007b), which also address Sofia and are focused on the same research tasks. Of particular interest is the comparison of these works with the results of the surveys, carried out for this report, where most of the conclusions of Hirt have been confirmed, reasons have been found to discuss some of them, but, first and foremost, here they are further refined and developed.

In her research Hirt focuses mainly on the so-called Vitosha Collar, which practically covers urban and urbanizing areas of Vitosha area. This, in fact, is the zone that has so far attracted the most significant growth of the areas, which in the herein adopted classification are defined as Suburban Districts “A” – i.e. the attractive suburban districts (Vitosha, Ovcha Kupel and Bankya Districts). For her works, the author uses data of the National Statistical Institute, Metropolitan Municipality, many in-depth interviews (30 for one of the surveys and 24 for another) with representatives of the municipal administration and prominent urbanists and a survey conducted among the residents of Vitosha Collar, assigned and performed with the aid of the Institute of Sociology with 150 completed questionnaires. As a result of the collected data and the performed analysis, Hirt came to the following conclusions (in order not to quote this analysis verbatim, here we shall mention only the essential part of the conclusions made and the supporting data and facts: First, whether the processes are to be defined as more or less intensive and extensive, available data and evidence irrevocably prove the presence of obvious trends towards suburbanization. Vitosha Collar can be defined as the fastest growing area of Sofia. Reasons for that are facts as the one that for 10 years


235

(from 1992 to 2003) its population has increased by 26% and the number of dwelling units – by 60 %

Then, when studying the three main groups of suburbanization characteristics, the author explores Vitosha Collar residents in two main groups – newcomers and long-time (local) residents. By “long-time residents” are to be understood such residents that have lived in the surveyed suburban area more than 15 years, i.e. most of them are not “local” by birth. Therefore, the findings are grouped according to these three groups of characteristics, separately for new comers and for long-time residents:

First, (1) demographic characteristics support the assumption that suburbanization is mainly of “Western” type (type1). The average income of new comers is significantly higher of the average for the city or for the respective suburban areas. 40 % of newcomers participated in the survey had monthly incomes of more than BGN 2000 which is around four times Bulgaria’s average for 2006. Yet, just 5% of the long-time residents reported such an income level. At the other extreme, only 2% of the newcomers had monthly incomes of less than BGN 250 as compared to nearly 36% of the long-time residents. Moreover, newcomers were generally highly educated as 56 % of them had higher education as compared to 36% of the long-time residents.

Second, (2) regarding the functional characteristics (economic links between the centre and the fringe) the survey found that nearly one third of the long-time residents work either in the same peri-urban area or in a nearby peri-urban area, while for the newcomers this share is less than one tenth.

Third, (3) regarding motivations for settlement and establishment in the particular suburban area or continued living in the same area, Hirt examined what proportion of the residents have moved from central parts of Sofia and the compact city in general. It was found that 68 % of the newcomers had moved from internal Sofia regions, but something more – this applies even to 34 % of the long-time residents (i.e. they had either lived in the compact city or had moved to the surveyed area before 1990). A very significant observation is that only 8 % of the new comers (and 2 % of the long-time residents) had moved to Vitosha Collar from elsewhere in the country, which is a strong argument against any hypothesis that urbanization processes may be due to rural-to-urban migration (type 2 suburbanization). Same is evidenced by the motivations for settlement or continued living in this area. They are summarized in four groups (Hirt, 2007a, page 769): а) urban escape [in search of better living conditions], b) job-related/ [livelihood], c) identity-related and d) others.

First, regarding the first group of motivations, nearly 70 % of all respondents reported that their main motivation for living on the urban fringe is their preference to better quality of life as all of them had related this to a greater or lesser degree with their desire to escape central-city life. The reasons for dissatisfaction with the central areas and the corresponding preferences to suburban ones, as stated in the survey, are, in turn, summarized in the following (sub) types:

i) environment-related (the city is seen as dirty, crowded and packed, and the urban fringe is peaceful and closer to nature),


236

ii) dwelling-related (preferences to family houses with good sunlight, open plan and custom arrangement subject to personal preferences, while the apartment buildings are defined as poorly built, noisy, nerve-wracking because of the forced contact with neighbors) and

iii) preferences to family lifestyle, suitable conditions for growing children, which is again related to the merits of single-family buildings.

The second (main) group of motivations has greatly different meanings to new comers and long-time residents. For the majority of the long-time residents the reasons are rather related to livelihood – gaining access to service sector jobs in the same peri-urban area or in a nearby peri-urban area or in the near production facility. While for the newcomers it usually refers to well-paid and prestigious jobs mostly in the central areas of Sofia.

The situation is similar with the third group of motivations– personal identification. Naturally, this consideration is of no relevance to the newcomers but for long-time residents it is the most frequently cited main reason to (continue to) live on Vitosha Collar. Half of them (49 %) reported among the main reasons for their choice their sense of local identity.

In summary, “the findings suggest that the dominant processes along Sofia’s scenic southern edge is suburbanization” (Hirt 2007a, page 775), at that of Western pattern, which in this work is conditionally referred to as type 1. This is supported primarily by the demographic profile, preferences and motivations of the new comers. “They are relatively affluent and well educated, and are leaving Sofia primarily to escape some disadvantages of urban life.” “In contrast, evidence for rural urbanization (type 2) is weak since only a small percentage of the sample’s newcomers came from elsewhere in the country and settled in Sofia’s southern outskirts for job-related reasons”/livelihood, etc.

As noted earlier in this section, the surveys performed for this work – the analysis of the latest information and data from NSI set out in section 3 and the inquiry made among ten leading real estate agencies, very much confirm the findings of Hirt. Also, some of the findings are further refined and developed or rationalized within a different context, but in general these surveys are estimated as very extensive, useful and significant.

Comparison with new data is of extreme interest and importance, because at the time of Hirt’s study the suburbanization in Sofia was in a very early stage, given the fact that it was not until 2000 that the level of Bulgaria’s GDP reached its 1989 level. Besides, by 2007 the state as a whole and Sofia in particular underwent a boom in the real estate sector and many of the processes cannot be adequately analyzed. Finally, the 2008-2009 financial and economic crisis that is still continuing, together with the enormous burden on society, significantly calms down the real estate market and appears to be a hard to swallow, but a useful corrective. So, there is no doubt that data after a decade of post-crisis development (2000-2009) and after another four years of a new crisis provide more and better information about long-term trends in urban growth.


237

The main clarifications that could be made now are related to both sides of a common conclusion based on the currently more clear development of the processes. The first side of the conclusion is that there are definitely processes of the Western type suburbanization in Sofia, at that in greater scale than those reported in the country – by professionals, by local parliament and by local government. First of all, NSI data, statistics for the last decade and, especially the 2011 census results, definitely support the findings for the presence of suburbanization processes, and it may be said, they were first identified in their initial form by Hirt. As it was established in section 3 – for 26 years the population of Sofia central areas has decreased by 47,000 people or 32% while the population of the attractive peri-urban areas (Suburban Districts “A”) has increased by 61,000 people or 90%.

And straightaway, along with the above ascertainment, we should note the related major point that gives grounds for comment and clarification – the presence of critically important specifics. In fact, Hirt also reported the presence of important specifics of the processes in the Bulgarian capital, such as: major differences from the Western pattern (type 1), for example, in terms of social “homogeneity” of the areas; the presence of other characteristics typical of the pattern based on the rural-to-urban migration (type 2); specific preferences regarding the prevailing type of housing units and density of development, etc. the author even assumed that the Western pattern of suburbanization (type 1) may not be the only one in Sofia’s peri-urban fringes and that it is even possible type 2 suburbanization to develop in the “industrial north” (Hirt 2007а, page 775).

However, the statistics for the recent years (NSI 2009, 2011) and the complementary surveys – the inquiry among real estate agencies and the new data from Metropolitan Municipality, give grounds to conclude that the local specifics are not only important details but also refer to the nature of suburbanization in Sofia peri-urban fringes. First and foremost, as evident and explicit these processes may be, they are many times weaker than the similar trends in/around Prague or Riga, for example. The preferences of mass market consumers are still towards central areas (the so-called “wide centre”) rather than the city peri-urban areas and the rate of new development in central and borderline regions for the last decade is 2 times higher compared to that in peri-urban fringes. (Table 3). The rate of suburbanization proves to be relatively low for the city in general, considering the trends in the northern “industrial” fringes. The fact is that the population in these areas is still at the level of 1985 (Table 2 and Figure 3).

In order to clarify the residents’ preferences and motivations as a driving force of urban processes, the findings from the statistics of the recent years and the inquiry among the real estate agencies will be presented in the same order as those from Hirt’s works (2007) were discussed.

First, (1) with respect to demographic characteristics of newcomers, data from the inquiry among the real estate agencies attach less importance to the high social status. Just under half (45.5 %) of the realtors classify high income as major characteristics of newcomers. About one third (36.4 %) of the respondents believe that the typical buyers of peri-urban properties are intellectuals, and slightly more than one sixth (18.2 %) put the locals in the group of buyers. A crucial result is that


238

nearly four-fifths of the realtors put on the second and third place the low-income buyers (like the mentioned below study of the preferences and motivations in suburbanization processes around Riga). Most likely, the major difference between the study of Hirt and this point is that she analysed only the settlers in Vitosha Collar, and in this survey the realtors refer to all peri-urban areas, including northern ones, where property prices are twice lower. Therefore, the quoted fact does not question the circumstance that the newcomers in Vitosha Collar are the typical of the Western type suburbanization high-income settlers. In any case, it should be borne in mind that the 2007 survey was performed by the Institute of Sociology – i.e. at high professional level and they interviewed the suburbanites in person, while in the inquiry among the agencies, it was the opinion of the realtors that was considered, which is an assessment, although professional, of third parties’ motivation.

Table 3. Housing units and percentage of the housing fund built in different types of districts during each decade after 1970

city districts 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2011

Central districts

3828 3,0% 6067 3,8% 2370 4,1% 6699 6,5%


43972 34,2% 56748 35,8% 24323 42,0% 45302 44,1%


62423 48,5% 59939 37,8% 12107 20,9% 23591 23,0%

Suburban/ rural A

5547 4,3% 15746 9,9% 9622 16,6% 21564 21,0%

Suburban/ rural B&C

12841 10,0% 20080 12,7% 9494 16,4% 5467 5,3%

TOTAL 128611 100,0% 158580 100,0% 57916 100,0% 102623 100,0%

But at the same time, we should consider other undisputed facts as, for example, house prices, which, despite the relative increase in prices of peri-urban houses, those of the housings in the central and borderline areas remained about 30-40% higher throughout the entire surveyed period. On the other hand, data from Metropolitan Municipality show that new multi-family buildings in Vitosha District in the recent years comprise 28.5 % of the total number of new residential developments, and according to NSI data, the average number of dwelling units in a multi-family building in the same area during the same period is 13.3. Consequently, dwelling units in multi-family apartment buildings comprise 83.8 of the total number of new residential developments. The last few facts support the view that not only wealthy residents buy homes in Vitosha Collar, but the majority of affluent Sofia citizens continue to seek housing both in the peri-urban and in the central and semi-central areas of the city. Still, these facts should be perceived in consistence with data from the survey of the Institute of Sociology / Hirt and, we believe, they should be understood in the sense that Sofia suburbanization pattern is, undoubtedly, a type 1 pattern and is largely similar to Western suburbanization, but, at the same


239

time, it is quite different and “faithful” to the traditions that were formed a century ago by the specific patterns of urban development.

Second, (2) regarding functional characteristics: here again data provided by Sofia Municipality speak for “aberrations” from the Western pattern. It is about the presence of some, very limited, but also very untypical of the classic forms of sprawl, integration of service and industrial functions. According to data provided by the municipality for the surveyed peri-urban areas averagely 13.7 % of the new building permits are for public-service buildings, and 4.4 % - for production facilities. Of course, it should be kept in mind that here we compare single-family with multi-family buildings with facilities such as restaurants, small stores and shopping centres and workshops and factories. However, the preliminary analysis of the data provided by the Regional Directorate of Agriculture testifies that the trends towards mixing land-uses in these territories are substantial. In suburban districts A and B 19.5 % of the former rural lands converted to urban use are allocated for manufacture – plants and factories. Another 21.9 % are allocated to commercial and service businesses– offices, retailing and all kinds of services, so that housing occupies the 58.6 % of the territories. In suburban districts C 51.2 % of the former rural lands converted to urban use are allocated for manufacture – plants and factories, 36.1 % - for commercial and service businesses and only 12.7 % - for housing. (Still it should be noted, that, for clear reasons, these trends have not affected the land-use structure of northern territories so far). The above data should be considered as serious evidence that the level of the mix of different land-uses(urban functions) is much higher than the level typical for the “classical” western type of suburbanization, which is another important local “contribution”.

Third, (3) regarding the motivations for settlement and establishment in the particular peri-urban area or continued living in the same area, the new data confirm the findings of Hirt. Literally all questioned realtors indicate at the forefront of the advantages, respectively, disadvantages of peri-urban areas, respectively, of intra-urban areas, that define the motivations of the buyers, the better ecological conditions, cleanliness and proximity to nature in urban fringes as opposed to the high pollution and noise in the urban areas of the compact city. “No Neighbours” factor is also frequently mentioned as an advantage of peri-urban habitation, but it is ranked in the second, third or fourth place. As for disadvantages of these areas, there is again unanimity between almost all responding realtors who ranked first the underdeveloped road network, transport and infrastructure. In the second place between disadvantages, measured by averaging, is the “security, safety against burglaries” factor.

Finally, the observations and conclusions made about the residents’ preferences and their motivations should be summarized and refined and the answers of the questions “Who seeks, who buys and who settles/establishes in Sofia peri-urban areas and hinterlands?”, ”For what purpose and function is the land with changed designation used?”, “How many areas are urbanized as a result of change of designation for different purposes?”, “How are the lands with changed designation developed and used (occupation density, building intensity, etc.)?”, should be made more precise.


240

Jackson, K., (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jansons, I. (2011). Suburban Sprawl in Riga Region: the Rise and Fall of ‘American Dream’. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical University. Vol. 3.

Hirt, S. (2006). Post-Socialist Urban Forms: Notes From Sofia. Urban Geography, 2006, 27, 5: 464–488.

Hirt, S. (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia. Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography. 28(8): 755 – 780.

Hirt S. and Kovachev A. (2006). The Changing Spatial Structure of Post-socialist Sofia, in: Tsenkova, S. and Nedovic-Budic, Z. (eds.), The Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and Policy, Heidelberg–New York: Springer & Physica-Verlag: 113–130.

Kok, H. and Kovács Z, 1999, The process of suburbanisation in the agglomeration of Budapest, Netherlands Journal of Housing and Built Environment 14, pp 119–141

Nuissl,H. and Rink,D., 2003. Urban sprawl and post-socialist transformation. The case of Leipzig (Germany). UFZ Centre for Environmental Research. UFZ – Bericht 4/2003

Sykora L., 1999, Changes in the internal spatial structure of post-communist Prague

Sýkora, L. and Novák, J. (2007) A city in motion: time–space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of Prague metropolitan area, Geografiska Annaler B, 89(2), pp. 147–167.

Tammaru, T., Kulu, H. and Kask, I. (2004) Urbanization, suburbanization and counter urbanization in Estonia, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45, pp. 159–176.;


241

4.3.SurveyofBulgarianplanningandregulationacts and documents concerning urbangrowthandsprawl

Research Report

Peter Nikolov

4.3.1.IntroductionUrban sprawl is widely defined as unplanned and uncontrolled urban expansion.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has described sprawl “as the physical pattern of low-density expansion of large urban areas, under market conditions, mainly into the surrounding agricultural areas” (EEA, 2006). Europe is the most urbanized continent in the world and approximately 75% of its population lives in urban areas. In the last 20 years, the built-up areas of Europe have increased by 20%, while the population increased by 6% only. Considering the fact, that urban sprawl occurs when the rate of land-use conversion exceeds the rate of population growth, the existence of urban sprawl in Europe has become evident. Of course, this applies in varying degrees to different countries.

During the period 2004-2011, and particularly before the beginning of the global economic crisis, while construction development in Bulgaria soared, the developers' interest in lands located outside the development zones of different settlements increased in parallel with the development of urban areas. The trend was stronger in larger towns, resort and holiday areas. Developers' intentions about non-urbanized territories can be divided into several mainstream groups:

The first one, using the land according to its originally designated purpose.

They are further motivated by the possibilities for obtaining subsidies from the European Union funds. The yield, technological, ecological and economic qualities of the agricultural lands are of paramount importance to them;

The second one, agricultural land use change for construction unrelated to initial land use. Mostly for housing complexes, public services and industrial


242

buildings around major settlements, important transport links and in mountain and sea resort areas;

The third one, using non-urban territories to the needs of linear infrastructure in relation to technical infrastructures, areal, ground and underground infrastructure;

The last group, i.e. group four, aims at using the land for Renewable Energy Sources (RES) industry - solar and wind farms, etc. This, in particular, requires a considerably larger area of agricultural land, as compared to the second group, but does not deal with urban sprawl. Stakeholders have particularly been attracted by the possibility for obtaining funding under EU programs under highly preferential conditions, envisaged in the RES Act, until its amendments in April 2011.

The activities of the second and the third group to varying extent contribute to creating conditions for sprawling. These activities, however, come because of various factors, terms and conditions, some of which have become the driving force behind an uncontrolled and illegal urban development (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Main drivers of current urban sprawl in Europe with focus on the regulatory framework. Source: Adopted from “The European

environment. State and outlook 2010. Land use”.


243

As Figure 1 shows, the main problem causing the increasing impact of the others is the lack of coordination between different governance levels and the poor policies for creation and enforcement of urban plans and the respective legislation.

Urban sprawl is synonymous with unplanned incremental urban development, characterised by a low-density mix of land uses on the urban fringe. The increase of urbanization, based on the agricultural land conversion and causing soil sealing, is considerably slower in Bulgaria than in rest of the Europe, yet at the same time the total number of Bulgarian population decreases faster (Fig. 2). The process of urbanization is most conspicuous in the agglomeration of the capital city of Sofia, the littoral areas and seaside resorts, and mountain settlements, where the percentage of construction is dramatically above average for the country and building activities until recently have peaked. It is expected, in the years to follow, the process to become even more salient, owing to the designed infrastructure projects pending for realization. (Source: "National report on the environment conditions in Bulgaria in 2009").

Fig. 2: Soil sealing and population growth in Bulgaria. Source: Analysis of soils under the National Strategy on Environment 2009-2018 Project,

through ExEA, CORINE Land Cover Project; NSI

In the last five years, the trend of decreasing agricultural areas on the territory of Bulgaria remained unchanged at the expense of an increase in all other types of territories, mainly urban. The areas designated for agricultural use decreased by 6.5% in 2009, and were allocated to other categories of use, different from agricultural. (Executive Agency on Environment - http://eea.government.bg/cms/bg/soer-bg 2009/2economy/4agriculture ). Driven by rapid construction development, 2005 saw the beginning of a period of significant increase in the area of rural areas with changed use in Bulgaria (Fig. 3).


244

Fig.3: Lands of changed designated purpose of use (ha.). Source: Adopted from Ministry of Agriculture and Foods

A key point in the process of urbanization is the conversion of unurbanised land (mostly agricultural, in some cases - forest) into urbanized. The possibilities for this and for regulation of the process of agricultural land use change are stipulated in the legislation at various levels of government - global (Europe), regional (state) and local.

This paper will present a brief overview and analysis of key documents from Bulgarian legislation related to the problem, considering whether they create conditions for the prevention or expanding of urban sprawl.

4.3.2. Overview of themain part of the legislationconcerning rural to urban land conversion and theresultingurbansprawlIssues regarding rural land conversion into urban areas and zones are regulated

and covered by a number of national and local normative documents in Bulgaria - laws, ordinances, regulations, etc., which have over the years been regularly updated and changed at varying degrees. A preliminary review was conducted, and it was found that due to the linkage and harmonization of legislation in the country, the number of documents having some impact on these processes is significant, but the influence of many of them is minimal and can be ignored.


245

Particular mention must be made of the following main laws and regulations, establishing the framework of urban enlargement, or sprawl:

the Spatial Planning Act – adopted March 2001, last amended in October 2012;

Ordinance № 7 (rules and regulations for different types of spatial areas and development zones) – adopted December 2003, last amended in 2008;

the Agricultural Land Protection Act – adopted April 1996, last amended in November 2012;

the Ordinance for implementing the Agricultural Land Protection Act – adopted September 1996, last amended in May 2012;

the Tariff of the Fees Payable upon Changing the Use of Agricultural Lands – adopted in May 2002, last amended in November 2008.

The Spatial Planning Act and Ordinance № 7 The basic regulatory document, framing the main problems of spatial planning

and development in Bulgaria, is the Spatial Planning Act (SPA). It was adopted at the beginning of 2001 to replace the Law on Regional and Urban Planning in force until then.

The very first Article of the SPA lays the principles of this law for ensuring a sustainable development and favourable conditions for living, work and recreation of the population. To control the unintended and not sustainable planning and construction, often leading to chaotic enlargement of urban territories, it is very important for spatial planning to cover the entire national territory. Such opportunities and ideas are provided by the SPA, but their implementation requires willingness and determination by the institutions and individuals interested in developing such spatial plans. With the recent significant changes in the Spatial Planning Act of October 2012, the provisions of the General plans of municipalities finally set the main requirements to be fulfilled for construction in non-urbanized territories 7 . The change is very substantial and positive, and indicative of the intentions of the government to reduce unplanned, poorly controlled and chaotic construction in non-urbanized areas. Due probably to the still small percentage of municipalities with existing contemporary general development plans, its date of entry into force has been postponed until 2016. And, unfortunately, considering the 12-year history of the SPA with almost 60 changes introduced, there is a possibility for this change to be delayed once again after that period of 3 years, facing the difficulties (mainly financial) of adopting new general plans for all the municipalities.

The SPA defines the main possible ways of land use, and how they are determined. Different territories can be used as urban areas, agricultural areas, forest

7 In the previous version of the SPA, in chapter Third, section X, article 59, in force from

2003 to 2012, the proviso "if" existed regarding the availability of General plans.


246

areas, protected areas, and damaged areas to recover. This is determined by concepts and patterns of spatial development, and general development plans. The Spatial Planning Act provides a hierarchical relation between the concepts of spatial development and spatial plans. Each plan shall comply with the provisions of the concepts and patterns of spatial development and spatial plans of higher degree, if any. With regard to the latter, those of lower degree consider development that is much more detailed.

According to the SPA’s requirements no change in non-urban areas is allowed unless for construction sites whose functions are compatible with the intended use of the property. In non-urbanized areas located outside of urban areas, if a potential investor wants to undertake activities incompatible with the normal use of the land according to the SPA, this is only permitted after a land use change. Moreover, obligatory part to it is the making of a detailed spatial plan.

In the previous version of the SPA, in chapter Third, section X, article 59, in force from 2003 to 2012, the proviso "if“ existed regarding the availability of General plans.

The main regulatory document related to the Spatial Development Act is Ordinance № 7, adopted in 2003. It defines the rules and regulations for different types of spatial areas and development zones.

Both the SPA and Article 1of the Ordinance stipulate that the rules and regulations regarding the territory structure, as well as the regulations on the land required for construction building purposes, shall be determined with a view to the effective use of the territories and maintaining the natural balance. The general provisions on Spatial Planning, contained in the Ordinance, do not conflict with the SPA law and mostly refer to it.

According to the requirements of Ordinance № 7, and the SPA, the change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shall be established by an order of the Rural Land Protection Act, under the provisions of the development plan. Without the change of use of that kind of land, there can only be constructed buildings/structures whose functions are compatible with the intended use of the property.

As mentioned above, most of the municipalities in Bulgaria have no current General Plans to provide clear guidelines for the development and zoning of settlements and resorts. Therefore, conversions are mostly based on partial development plans, with no relation to the entire urban system. This particular problem – the lack of General Plans – is essential for the risk of favouring urban sprawl. By permitting practically any type of development on the new urban plots, the Spatial Planning Act and its Ordinance № 7 create strong incentives for developers and owners to convert land. However, the situation is better in city regions were new general plans for the whole territory of the municipality have been adopted, but, unfortunately, this only covers a small number of the large cities in Bulgaria. Impediments of institutional, sectoral or administrative and bureaucratic nature, as well as technical and economic difficulties additionally prolong the


247

process of approval on time to the extent that upon obtaining approval, an update and amendments are already needed.

The Agricultural Land Protection Act and its regulatory documents The law, which defines in detail the procedure of rural to urban land, change in

Bulgaria, and therefore with the greatest impact on the processes of urban enlargement and sprawl is the Agricultural Land Protection Act (ALPA). The Act’s overall aim is to promote and ensure a secure land system, optimal land use and facilitate broad-based social and economic development without upsetting or threatening the ecological balance of the environment. The ALPA defines agricultural land as a major national asset and changes to its intended use "is allowed only in exceptional circumstances, proven need and the terms and conditions set by this law." (ALPA, chapter First, article 2, paragraph 3) Contrary to the intentions of the Act, the practice in Bulgaria has clearly demonstrated that a great number of procedures end with an affirmative resolution for land change. According to the provisions of the existing legislation, construction on rural (agricultural) land of buildings/structures with functions not compatible with the use of the land as such, is only possible after a change of land use under the statutory order, followed by a mandatory action for amendment of the detailed development plan for the territory.

Chapter Seven from the ALPA still provides actions and possibilities for cancellation and modification of decisions on approval of a site and land change. All the stakeholders (persons or organizations) can made the proposal for revocation or amendment of a decision on changing land use. This is feasible when no action is taken by the stakeholders within the statutory deadlines - three years for requesting a building permission and six years for the beginning of the construction, or when the land plot size exceeds the needs for which it was provided or when there is no more need the land use to be changed. In the administrative and penal provisions of the Agricultural Land Protection Act, fines are provided for individuals as well as legal entities. Fines, however, are set in a very wide range. As a serious problem in this respect, the ALPA and its implementation rules lack specific levels of penalties depending on the size of the breaches. Thus, conditions are created for tolerance of fraudulent actions by owners/investors or officials.

The major conflict with the ideas for sustainable development declared in the laws and norms here considered is to be found in § 2 of the supplementary provisions of the Agricultural Land Protection Act. Controversial as it is, the possibility of "legalizing" the already build construction on agricultural land is set as possible. This in fact may result in unplanned and uncontrolled expansion of the urbanized territories.

The details of the terms, conditions, responsibilities, rights and obligations of all the participants in the procedures for disposition of rural land are described in the Ordinance for implementing the Agricultural Land Protection Act (OIALPA). As well as the other regulatory documents, this one also stipulates as a basic rule that "the conversion of agricultural land is allowed in exceptional circumstances, proven need and with the terms and conditions set out in this regulation", and of course it


248

doesn’t allow construction of facilities not related to the use of the land, without changing its purpose.

The OIALPA regulations do not conflict with the ALPA and are even more comprehensive, but they do not remove the controversial points in the Act regarding agricultural lands conversion and their future development either.

The determination of the amount of fees to be paid for rural to urban land use change and the criteria for their formation shall be performed according to the Tariff of the Fees Payable upon Changing the Use of Agricultural Lands. It was adopted at the end of May 2002, with last amendment November 2008. After the recent major changes in the Spatial Planning Act of October 2012, the Tariff is under further development to comply with them.

In the current Tariff, the fee is determined by a formula8 whose coefficients depend on:

Category of agricultural land, specified in the Act of Categorization;

Land size;

Land location – settlements in Bulgaria are divided into eight categories under the Law on Administrative and Territorial Division of the Republic of Bulgaria;

Type of building/structure which is foreseen for construction;

Possibility for irrigation.

The main and extremely important point of conflict in the tariff is the more than ten times lower rate in the group for the category of place and the type of project when it comes to the conversion of rural land into golf courses. With amendments made in 2008, they were removed from the general row for tourism and sport facilities. With these changes golf courses were added to the section which covers projects/facilities which are public state and municipal public property; science, health, education and culture facilities; energy and transport projects; environmental protection and restoration sites, facilities of defence and national security, and others of crucial importance for the development of the country. This certainly happened under a very strong investor pressure, but created conditions for the destruction of large agricultural areas, moreover, under very low fee for changing their use.

4.3.3.ConclusionThe Agricultural Lands Protection Act and its corresponding regulations

provide the appropriate legal basis for the protection of agricultural lands, but at the same time, they have the most profound impact on the process of urban sprawl in Bulgaria. These acts introduce regulations that are supposed to limit the allocation of agricultural lands for other economic purposes and uses. Overall, as different acts

8 F = Ccal x Crl x Ccs x Cirr, where Ccal stands for the coefficient for the category of the

agricultural land; Crl stands for the coefficient for the required land; Ccs stands for the coefficient for the category of the settlement and Cirr stands for the coefficient for the possibilities for irrigation


249

and regulations concerning issues related to the conversion of agricultural areas are not in conflict, they may be said to have been harmonized.

Still, there remains the problem that after a land use change is made, the regulatory framework sets far too broad and loose parameters for development of the territory. Although the greatest problem, lack of updated General plans for most of the municipalities, creates another problematic reality – the existence of incompatible adjacent areas. This problem is due to the length of the procedure for changing the status of agricultural land. For the duration of a procedure, it is possible for several other processes with different completion times to take place, but in the absence of master plans, and planning practice only existing at a low level, there is a real danger that incompatible activities will occur on their neighbouring land. Very often, investors'/owners' individual decisions are detrimental to the future development of the territory, as well as to the urban vision and market rules, ignoring the interests of other individuals, community groups, and market participants.

Despite the fact that the percentage of agricultural and forest lands with changed use in Bulgaria remains small, as compared to the European average, it can clearly be seen that the regulatory framework does not create incentives for investors/owners of such property to develop and utilize it in accordance with a common vision for long-term effective and sustainable development. These processes ensue from and are stimulated by the prolonged absence of higher level urban planning in Bulgaria. Unfortunately, this spells doom for the development measures adopted in the national and regional development plans and strategies.

Acknowledgements This paper is part of a research work carried out by the team of Varna Free

University within the Work Package 5 of the TURAS international scientific project, supported by the Seventh Framework Programme of the EU.

ReferencesRegulatory and strategic documents:

The Spatial Planning Act – adopted March 2001, last amended in October 2012;

Ordinance № 7 (rules and regulations for different types of spatial areas and development zones) – adopted December 2003, last amended in 2008;

The Agricultural Land Protection Act – adopted April 1996, last amended in November 2012;

The Ordinance for implementing the Agricultural Land Protection Act – adopted September 1996, last amended in May 2012;

The Tariff of the Fees Payable upon Changing the Use of Agricultural Lands – adopted in May 2002, last amended in November 2008;


250

The National action program for sustainable land management and combat against desertification in Bulgaria;

The National action program for the environment and health 2008-2013.

Books:

Prokop G., Jobstmann H., Schönbauer A., Environment Agency Austria. (2011) Final Report.

Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU – 27

European Environmental Agency. (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored challenge.

European Environmental Agency. (2010) The European Environment. State and Outlook 2010. Land use.

Internet sources:

http://www.mzh.government.bg/MZH/bg/Documents/AgrarenDoklad.aspx?Page=1

http://www.nsi.bg/index.php

http://eea.government.bg/cms/bg/soer-bg-2009/2economy/4agriculture

Summary

In the last 20 years, the built-up areas of Europe have increased by 20%, while the population increased by 6% only. Given the fact that urban sprawl occurs when the rate of land-use conversion exceeds the rate of population growth, we can now talk about the existence of urban sprawl in Europe. In Bulgaria, during the period 2004-2012, the developers' interest in agricultural and forestlands located outside the development zones of different settlements increased in parallel with the construction development of urban areas, mainly around larger towns, resort and holiday areas. The low price of agricultural lands can be seen as one of the main reasons in this regard. The issues of the utilization of agricultural lands, their conversion into urban (construction) lands, and zoning have been defined by a number of national and local legal acts, which were passed and subsequently renewed/modified in a more recent period. The main act regulating the spatial planning and construction on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is The Spatial Planning Act. The Agricultural Lands Protection Act and its corresponding regulations provide an appropriate legal basis for the protection of agricultural lands and their yield. Overall, as different acts and regulations concerning issues related to the conversion of agricultural, forest, and protected areas are not in conflict, they may be said to have been harmonized. There are, however, some points that leave possibilities for uncontrolled urban growth.


251

4.4.Populationandurbangrowth intheotscirtsofSofia,BelgradeandRomeduringthe1990‐2011period:Urbangrowthorsprawl?

Working Paper

Peter Nikolov

4.4.1.IntroductionNowadays, more than one-half of the world population lives in urban areas.

Globally population of the major cities, agglomerations and especially their capitals is constantly growing, and this process occurs at different rates in different parts of the world (United Nations, 2015). Urban population growth leads to an urban increase and a spatial restructuring of the urban areas, showing as a change in the environment, living conditions, infrastructure, distribution of the social - utilities and the functional zoning.

Europe is not an exception to these common global trends moreover historically it has always been a highly urbanized continent. The ever-increasing per capita consumption of urban land is putting a high development pressures for urbanization of the suburban areas. At the same time over the last two decades, in the majority of countries in Europe and especially in the European Union (EU) members, there is a clear trend for very low or even negative natural population growth (EUROSTAT, 2014). Based on this observation, one can assume that the growth of urban areas in Europe is slower than in other regions of the world. However, this is not the case, and data from the European Environment Agency report (2006) indicate more than a double difference in urban (78%) and population (33%) growth in Europe for the 1950-1990 period. Which clearly indicates that urban growth and its consequences suburbanization and urban sprawl are common problem in the urban development across Europe. During the last twenty years this trend has remained and the ratio between urban and population growth creates a lasting trend of deconcentration and urban sprawl.

The term urban sprawl first appeared as a description of a negative urban growth trend in 1955, in an article in The Times, but practically this phenomenon has been a feature of cities life since decades and even centuries. In 20th century, urban sprawl is mostly known as an American phenomenon, characterized with the very fast and low-intensive expansion of the American cities. In contrast, the European city traditionally evolved much more compact, densely populated around its historical core. Moreover, especially in the former socialist countries, during


252

most of the last century, urban planning in the form of general development plans, zoning etc., directed growth in certain forms and limited the possibilities for Sprawl. Compared to the American cities, cities in Europe still remain compact but comparing the European cities from the late 50s of the 20th century with today’s definitely is visible a tendency for more dispersed development (EEA 2006).

Despite the common European trend towards very low or even negative population growth, cities and centres of economic activity are steadily increasing population, and this is mostly due to population migration from other regions, and often from other countries and continents. There are several main reasons for the growing of the peripheral and suburban areas and a manifestation of the suburbanization phenomenon. Among are the limited spatial possibilities of central urban areas to shelter the growing population, the higher prices in the sale and rental of real estate in central zones and the search for higher living standards in rare built-up areas close to nature. Its intensity differs across Europe, and according to many researchers (Ravbar, 1997; Timár and Váradi, 2001; Brown and Schafft, 2002; Tammaru et al., 2004; Sýkora and Novák, 2007), particularly suburbanisation in central and Eastern Europe (CEE) from the end of the 20th century and the beginning of 21st century was one of the most visible processes of socio-spatial restructuring.

Urban growth and its consequences - suburbanisation and urban sprawl, are substantial phenomenon across Europe and are subject of research by many authors, analysing the phenomena in general or in a particular location. Urban sprawl is driven by various factors (EEA (2006), ESPON (2010), Leontidou, Galster et al, Malpezzi, Torrens and Alberti, Ewing et al, Brueckner, Christiansen et al etc.) – macro and micro economic, societal, transportation, regulatory framework and political factors, and it may be difficult to determine what factor has the greatest influence. Furthermore, driving forces behind urban sprawl vary between cities, regions and countries in Europe.

The current paper will analyse one of the best-known measures and indicators (Galster et al., 2001, Ewing et al 2001) for presence of urban sprawl – residential density in the suburban areas. The low level of density is a part of the societal factors, favouring inefficient suburban growth and its relationship with the population and urbanization rate in the suburban regions of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. Many authors share the idea that one of the indicators for the presence of urban sprawl is when the growth rate of the suburban area exceeds the rate of suburban population growth.

In this document, we study demographic and urban changes in the suburban districts of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, during the 1991-2011 period, in search for an answer of the main research question:

Do the population and urban growth trends in the suburbs of the case-study cities bring any evidence for the presence of urban sprawl?


253

4.4.2.Scopeandcontentsoftheresearch

Spatial and temporal coverage This study is part of the tasks that Work Package 5 (WP5) works out within the

TURAS research project. The project is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme. Case-study cities for the current research, as well as a whole for the WP5, are three capital cities - Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. The study focuses on the demographic and urbanization processes that took place in their peripheral areas during the period 1990-2011 and their relation to the presence of urban sprawl in the case-study cities.

The first year from the chosen time-scope is related to the drastic socio-economic and political changes that begun in Eastern Europe from the end of 1989. The time-scope also coincides with the cycles of the official censuses in the cities under review.

Specifics in the historical development and administrative structure of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. Because, for the needs of the current study will be used data based on

administrative units and the historical development of Sofia and Belgrade significantly effects their spatial characteristics, briefly will be presented the historic-economical and administrative features of their development.

In historical, political and socio – economic aspects the development of the former socialist countries after the WWII differs substantially from that of the capitalist countries. This inevitably leads to differences in the nature of the urbanization processes in their cities. Pichler - Milanovic, (2009), notes the lack of a free market and the presence of a centralized planning as the most important factors forming the characteristic structure of socialist cities in considerably different direction from Western capitalist cities. Among the most striking differences in the spatial structure of former socialist cities was the lack of suburban periphery. Instead of the dispersed suburban residential areas, typical for capitalist cities, the Eastern European cities had a clear urban boundary, marked by multi-storey intensively built residential complexes (Hirt, 2007). Beyond them could be seen rather provincial, modest villages than luxury suburbs (Haussermann, 1996, as cited in Hirt, 2007). Because of these factors during the period from 1945 to 1990, the process of suburbanisation played no significant role in the former socialist countries and cities and their growth was more compact than in the rest of Europe. As Nikiforov (2008) observes, urban planning in Eastern Europe until 1990 had a directive character. Combined with the high level of state and municipal property, the centralized government and the capabilities to concentrate easily human and material resources for the realization of major urban plans this had a great success in maintaining the compactness of the settlements. After the end of socialist era, the Eastern European cities have faced significant growth in suburban residential areas.

Socio - economic and political changes and processes in the countries of Eastern Europe in the early 90s of the twentieth century and the entry of the free market principles lead to significant concussions in the economic and demographic


254

development. With the collapse of the socialist system at the end of 1989 and the creation of new capitalist societies, countries of the Eastern bloc faced the negative effects of the loss of certain markets, an increase in interior and exterior migration and the impoverishment of significant parts of the society. Urban plans made during the previous period were no longer feasible in the new socio-economic conditions (individual interests stand in front of the public), and their adaptation and implementation according to the new circumstances was blocked by the lack of funding and the processes of privatization. Because of these and for other complex reasons, some of which specific for different countries, during the 1990-2000 period is faced a slowdown in the socio-economic development of the former socialist countries.

Sofia and Belgrade, despite having specifics in their evolution, are not an exception, and between 1990 and 2000 due to the mentioned reasons experienced a decline in population (Table 1) and economic development. Early to mid-1990s were in fact a period of dramatic economic decline and minimal public investment in Eastern Europe. As Hirt (2007) points, during the 1990s conditions of suburbanization were absent across Eastern Europe and they apply only to the relatively wealthy Central European capitals. The level of GDP across Eastern Europe did not reach its 1989 level until 2000th, and in the Balkans economic recovery did not even begin before the late 1990s. One may say that generally the historical and political factors in Sofia and Belgrade are very strong determinant for the urban development of the two cities.

Concerning Rome after the World War II, its development is relatively evenly and without the abrupt changes typical of the former socialist countries after 1989.

In terms of their administrative structure, it is difficult to identify interdependencies for the three cities, although in terms of administrative - spatial division, according to generally accepted in the Member States of the European Union unique classification of territorial units (EUROSTAT, 2015), all three capitals Sofia, Belgrade and Rome (Roma Capitale) are classified into NUTS3 territorial level. Though it should be pointed out that administratively, the municipalities of both capitals Sofia and Belgrade are separate regions, while the municipality of Rome is part of the province of Rome and the Lazio region.

Sofia-city region consists of 24 districts, divided for the needs of the study into 17 urban and 7 suburban. In the scope of Sofia-city region (identical to the Sofia Municipality) fall Sofia, another 3 towns, and 34 villages. The governance of the region is highly centralized, with very restricted powers of the mayors of different municipalities and decisions delegated by the Sofia Municipal Council.

Belgrade also represents a separate administrative area, which is divided into 17 municipalities. They cover seven cities and many other small settlements. Until the year 2010. Belgrade's municipalities are classified into two groups: 10 of them (wholly or partially within the compact city) are defined as "urban", and the remaining seven, whose centres are smaller towns, as a "suburban". After 2010, this classification is removed and all the 17 municipalities became urban, but previously called "suburban" ones have greater autonomy in the areas of urban planning, construction and utilities.


255

City of Rome, by obtaining a statute of Municipality of Rome (Roma Capitale) (Figure 3) in October 2010, gained much wider administrative and financial autonomy, while retaining its territorial scope. Besides being the capital of Italy, Rome is also the capital of the Province of Rome and the Lazio region. Since 1972. is divided into administrative areas called municipalities (municipi (sing. municipio)), created for the decentralization of urban governance. During the period between 1992 and 2013. Roma Capitale consists of 19 municipios, forming the administrative division of the city and having autonomous governance. From 03. 2013. the boundaries of Roma Capitale’s municipios have been revised and their number was reduced from 19 to 15.

4.4.3.ApproachoftheresearchAs it was stated in the introduction, the current paper studies demographic and

urban changes in the suburban districts of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, during the 1991-2011 period. To answer the main research question is important to clarify the specifics of the basic processes typical for a contemporary urban organism - urban growth, suburbanisation and urban sprawl and the factors that are known as their drivers.

Urban growth, suburbanisation and urban sprawl Urban growth. UNICEF (2012) defines urban growth as the (relative or absolute) increase in

the number of people who live in urban areas. The pace of urban growth represents a relative or an absolute increase of people living in the cities. The growth rate of the population depends on natural and mechanical population growth.

For the need of this research we examine the population growth rate in connection to the change in the urbanised areas size.

Suburbanisation

Suburbanization is one aspect of the more general process of the expansion and spatial reorganization of urbanized areas. The term ”suburban” refers to the part of a urban area that is not in the central city. That is why suburbanization can be clearly defined as a process of decentralization and growth of areas on the fringes of cities.

This process of converting a usually rural area into suburban one is described simply as a Suburbanisation. Urban planners perceive suburbanisation as a spatial transformation, while sociologists as a change in lifestyle. Combining these concepts can give a more comprehensive definition, defining the process as a continuous transformation of the rural social and physical environment into a suburban. One of the most frequently cited reasons for suburbanization is seeking a closer contact with nature - clean air, peace and quiet, etc. In fact, the main reason, especially for the former socialist countries after years of collective life, is rooted into the desire for private house with a garden, where the family would be relatively safe.

Several issues are among the main disadvantages of suburbanization: the inefficient land use, the urbanization and construction of arable agricultural lands, regional parks and gardens, the need for building expensive technical infrastructure


256

incl. roads and frequent the inability to organize an effective network of public transport.

In last years, professionals regard the process of suburbanisation rather critically, especially in its spontaneous and uncontrolled form known as urban sprawl.

Urban sprawl

Urban sprawl is a specific type of suburbanisation, but not always suburbanisation can be recognised as urban sprawl. Only the excessive territorial growth that outstrips the population growth should be termed “sprawl”. Issues concerning urban sprawl are studied in a significant amount of literature, but still it cannot be claimed that there is a uniform definition for the process. The views of researchers, politicians, society, etc. for the process vary considerably, which further hampers any attempts to limit such form of urban development.

The term "urban sprawl" is actually very comprehensive and as Galster et al (2001) have put it: „Urban sprawl is one name for many conditions“. In the literature sprawl is often defined as a model of dispersed urban development, characterized by low density. However, from all the definitions perhaps the most-simple is that of Brueckner (2000), who argues that sprawl can “refer to excessive spatial growth of cities”. Although cities must grow spatially to accommodate an expanding population, the claim is that urban sprawl characterizes with too much spatial growth and lower density. Of course, the last definition is too broad because sprawl is a phenomenon with many dimensions, drivers and consequences (Galster et al, 2001; Malpezzi, 1999; Torrens and Alberti, Ewing et al, 2001; Brueckner, 2000; Nechyba and Walsh, 2004).

As this paper examines the extent of the process into the suburban areas of the case-study cities in aspects of population and urbanization changes, as part of the socio-economic factors driving sprawl, we will focus on definitions presenting urban sprawl in relation to changes into population growth and density of urban areas.

Nechyba and Walsh (2004) systematize definition of sprawl as “tendency towards lower city densities as city footprints expand”. Patacchini and Zenou (2009) also accept the later as a standard definition describing the process.

Ewing et al (2001) summarize the most popular definitions and describe the process as an extension of the settlements in the vicinity, far exceeding population growth.

Bhatta (2010) defines sprawl as “the less compact outgrowth of a core urban area exceeding the population growth rate and having a refusal character or impact on sustainability of environment and human.”

EEA (2006) describe the phenomenon as “the physical pattern of low-density expansion of large urban areas under market conditions into the surrounding agricultural areas”.

UNICEF (2012) defined sprawl as the uncontrolled and disproportionate expansion of an urban area into the surrounding countryside, forming low-density, poorly planned patterns of development.


257

According to TOI Report (Christiansen and Loftsgarden, 2011) characteristics as low density and inefficient use of land are a common denominator for urban sprawl.

According to the definition of Jaeger and Schwick (2014) the degree of sprawl is higher when more area is built up, buildings are more dispersed in the landscape, and the utilization intensity of built-up areas is lower (i.e. the land uptake per inhabitant or job is higher).

Slaev and Nikiforov (2013) give a relevant for Bulgaria definition of urban sprawl as a market-led, unplanned process of inefficient physical expansion of urban areas into the surrounding rural or natural lands that has three main groups of characteristics:

• Low density of new developments, patchy, scattered forms, with a tendency for discontinuity,

• Poor mix of different land uses and urban activities, lack of well-defined, thriving activity centres, hubs of public services and commerce;

• Insufficiently covered by public transport services.

Couch et al (2007) drew a connection between the process and the resulting urban form, comparing sprawl to the changing form of a conical sandcastle. With time the form of the sandcastle changes and in result “the height of the peak of the centre of the cone is less, the angle of slope is reduced and the circumference is enlarged.” Thus, in result of processes of sprawl the densities in the city centre are falling, whereas the low-density peripheral areas are enlarging. Therefore, the falling overall densities are a key characteristic of sprawl. Clearly, urban sprawl is associated with a decrease in density and an increase in urban area per capita.

Selection of indicators for determining the presence of urban sprawl in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome in related to urban and population growth changes occurring there. There is a clear relationship between the population growth and density, the

urban growth and the processes of sprawl. As sprawl, urban growth and suburbanisation also usually lead to an expansive growth of the urban areas. The substantial difference is that the usualy urban growth is manifested by uniformity and simultaneousness in the territory and density increase. Urban sprawl, on the other hand, is recognised by most of the urban planners and researchers as unwanted for the usual development of the settlements phenomenon and trends towards anticipating growth of the urban areas compared to population growth rates, which leads to a low population density. Therefore, for the present research is essential to study three major indicators, related to the processes of growth and/or sprawl in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, and widely used in the literature:

- Population growth rate change, - Urbanized area rate change, and - Change in the population density rate.


258

Population growth rate

As defined by The World Bank population growth rate (PGR) is the increase in a country’s population during a period of time, usually one year, expressed as a percentage of the population at the start of that period. It reflects the number of births and deaths during a period and the number of people migrating to and from a country. Population growth in recent decades is presented as a major cause of urban sprawl in Europe and in the entire world (ESPON FOCI 2009, Glaeser et al. 2001, Glaeser 2005). The reasons for population growth and the influx to cities are directly linked to economic growth, which appeared because of industrialization and technological progress. Growing urban population puts pressure on the housing market and could lead to urban problems such as increased traffic, congestion, air and noise pollution, etc. These problems would force part of the population to leave the city and give preference to living in the suburban areas where these issues are not paramount.

Density

Density is one of the most popular sprawl measures (Galster et al., 2001, Ewing et al 2001) and some researchers claim it to be the one that best represents the phenomenon. There are various types of densities, as well as many ways and scales to measure it. Density is defined as the ratio between the amount of a certain urban activity and the area on which it exists. Urban activity can be defined as the amount of residential units, number of residents, or employees (Razin & Rosenrtaub, 2000). In terms of density, sprawl is defined as a condition in which density is relatively low or decreases during a certain period. Density in terms of sprawl represents the relationship between the number of people living in or using an area and a given land area, which gives some indication of the intensity of land use.

Urban growth changes

In terms of a place, urban growth means increased spatial scale and/or density of settlement over time. The process could occur either as natural expansion of the existing population, as a transformation of the peripheral population from rural to urban, as an incoming migration, or a combination of these. When urban growth is coupled with relatively low or decreasing densities, it could result in urban sprawl as a form of dispersed development.

In order to be studied and analysed the above indicators and their correlation in the study were collected and tabulated data about the population and urbanisation dynamics in the case-study cities. For completing the information on the demographic dynamics were used data from the official censuses carried out in the three cities during the period. The data for the area of the urbanized territories were taken from the database of the project Corine Land Cover and EEA.


259

4.4.4. Urban and population growth dinamics andcorrelationsinthesuburbanareasofSofia,BelgradeandRomeduringthe1991–2011periodThe analysis in this part of the research will focus initially on the quantitative

indicators concerning the population and artificial surfaces change in the case study cities, and based on this conclusions regarding the trends in urban growth will be made. The demographic characteristics and assessments of the demographic status of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome are based on analyses of population growth and population density. Since at this stage of the research, for 2011-th as an end year of the period, we didn’t have sufficient data for the newly urbanized territories of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, but only for population, we used the 1991-2006 as a period to study correlations between urban growth and density ratios.

Overview of the tendencies in the case-study cities According to the Corine Land Cover data-available from the European

Environment Agency and the national censuses, between 1990 and 2006, the total urbanized area in all the three agglomerations under review grew as also their population did. This surely indicates that Sofia, Belgrade and Rome are indeed growing. Although the demographic development of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, to varying degrees, shows a trend of negative natural growth.

As can be seen from tables 2, 3 and 4 from the Appendix, the growth rate of Sofia population in the suburban districts for the examined period is significantly higher than that of Belgrade and Rome.. In fact, the process began to be obvious in the first years of the new millennium when the economy and the construction sector entered a boom period. According to the available data that was analysed, processes of much higher rate in increase of the population in suburban compared to compact city areas are observed in all of the case-study capitals. The difference varies between 1.5 (for Belgrade) and 2.6 (for Sofia and Rome) times. The data themselves are certainly a strong evidence of significant suburbanisation during the twenty-year period. In addition, since all three cities recorded a negative natural and positive mechanical growth in the period considered, it can be certainly argued that the population growth is due to their mechanical growth owed to the different migration processes.

However we are searching not only to show trends of suburbanisation, but whether these are showing negative tendencies in urban growth and there is a threat for sprawled development in the case-study cities. That is why we should examine the analysed data for other two major factors related to the processes of growth and/or sprawl in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome:

- First, the changes in the density, and - Second, the growth of the urban area.


260

As we stated previously in this paper a trend typical for sprawled cities results in a decrease in density and an increase in urban area per capita. In addition, the ratio of urbanisation in the suburban areas should be exceeding the density by much. Following the data analysis, illustrated in tables 1 and 1.1, into the prepared charts is represented a correlation between change in population density and urban growth within the artificial suburban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome. After the analysed data provided from Corine Land Cover and EEA data-base and the national censuses for the period from 1991 to 2006 the urban growth rate for Sofia’s suburban territory outpaces density rate by only 1 percent, while for the same period Belgrade records a difference of 11 percents and Rome of 9 percents (Chart 1).

Considering the latest the suburban region of Sofia, as a whole, are not facing issues of urban sprawl but urban growth with suburbanization. On the contrary are Belgrade and Rome, where the urban growth ratio outpaces by much the density ratio and this should be a clear indication and warning of both cities sprawling.

Table 1: Change in the rates of population growth, urbanized areas and population density during the 1990-2001 period for

Sofia, Belgrade and Rome

Type of commune/distri

ct

Artificial area, ha

1991

Popula-tion 1991

Den-sity

2001 ppl/ha

Artificial area,

ha 2001

Popula-tion 2001

Den-sity

2001 ppl/ha

Change in

density 1991 - 2001

Change in artif.

area 1991 - 2001

Sofia

suburban 13,7167 219,535 16 13,737 221,028 16.1 0.6% 0.15% urban 13,386 970,600 72.5 13,425 949,814 70.7 -2.5% 0.3%

Belgrade

suburban 14,618 286,577 19.6 14, 351 302,473 21.1 7.6% -1.8% urban 22,714 1,265,574 55.7 24,406 1,273,651 52.2 -6.3% 7.5%

Rome

suburban 20,472 1,229,259 60 21,032 1,162,678 55.3 -7.8% 2.7% urban 16,436 1,614,346 98.2 17,203 1,410,273 82 -16.5% 4.7%


261

Table 1.1: Change in the rates of population growth, urbanized areas and population density in Sofia, Belgrade and Rome 2001-2006

Type of commune/district

Artificial area,

1991, ha

Popula-tion 1991

Den-sity

2001 pp/ha

Artificial area,

2001, ha

Popula-tion 2001

Den-sity

2001 ppl/ha

Change in

density 1991 - 2001

Change in artif.

area 1991 - 2001

Sofia

suburban 13,737 221,028 16.1 14,369 238,710 16.6 3.1% 4.6%

urban 13,426 949,814 70.7 13,594 991,606 72.9 3.1% 1.2%

Belgrade

suburban 14,351 302,473 21.1 16,224 308,825 19 -10% 13% urban 24,406 1,273,651 52.2 25,982 1,369,971 52.7 1% 6.5%

Rome

suburban 21,032 1,162,678 55.3 22,454 1,269,06

3 56.5 2.2% 6.8%

urban 17,203 1,410,273 82 17,268 1,453,99

1 84.2 2.7% 0.4%

Source: REGIONS, DISTRICTS AND MUNICIPALITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 2011, Working group of the National Statistical Institute, Sofia 2013;

http://www.beograd.rs/cms/view.php?id=201201; 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia; http://dati-censimentopopolazione.istat.it/http://www.tuttitalia.it/lazio/provincia‐di‐

roma/statistiche/censimento‐2011/ Corine Land Cover database, EEA

Chart 1: Correlation between change in density and growth in the artificial suburban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome 1990 - 2006.


262

Chart 1.1: Correlation between change in density and growth in the artificial suburban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, 1991 - 2001.

Chart 1.2: Correlation between change in density and growth in the artificial suburban areas of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, 2001 - 2006.


263

Sofia It is documented (Hirt, 2007; Hirt and Stanilov, 2009) that the suburbanisation

processes in Sofia are evident since 1989. The most intensive suburban growth, according to the current research, is seen in the area around the southern ring road. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the suburbanisation in Sofia differs substantial from the typical Western and American model as urbanized suburban areas consist mainly of several rural settlements included in the bounds of the city over time rather than former agricultural or green fields.

Although the population of Sofia municipality during the 1991-2001 sub-period slightly decreased, the southern suburban municipalities gain more than 18% new residents with almost null urban territory growth. At the same time northern suburban municipalities lost

The collapse of the socialist system at the end of 1989 and the creation of new capitalist society have led to significant changes in the demographic behaviour of the population. To these changes should refer also the intensive population movements towards the peripheral areas of Sofia from other parts of the country and from the downtown. All this defines the current demographic status, changes in the demographic and social structures of population and the labour resources in the capital. In contrast to the situation between 1991 and 2000 (From 1,190,126 people in 1992, the population of Sofia-city dropped to 1,170,842 in 2001) during the last decade in the demographic development of the city, continuing positive trends are observed.

The demographic development of the different districts of Sofia is not uniform and, in fact, considerable differences might be observed that reflect, above all, the trends of suburbanization.

Northern suburban municipalities recorded a vast negative density decline of -43% (Table 2.2) most of which was lost during the 1991-2001 sub-period. At the same time, they enlarged their artificial territory by 15% (Table 2.1). Moreover, these facts show a serious risk of unwanted sprawled development in these municipalities.

For the southern municipalities the average density ratio is 13.5% (Table 2.2), or more than four times over the average for the northern. In addition, the average growth of the artificial area is 10.5% (Table 2.1). Which tells for processes of urban growth with suburbanization in that part of the city.

Belgrade During the considered period, the population of Belgrade grew by nearly 6%

(Table 3.1), equal to slightly more than 107,000 inhabitants. Given the fact that from the 1992 Census until now the city recorded a constant negative natural growth, it can certainly be claimed that population increase in the region is entirely due to mechanical growth. A major share in it, during the nineties of the twentieth century have war refugees in the former Yugoslav republics, and later settlers from Kosovo and Metohija. Certainly part of the immigrants come from other parts of Serbia, but


264

all have one in common - the search for a better socio-economic conditions for living.

Suburban territories of Belgrade, like these in Sofia, do not develop equally. There are significant demographic and urbanization differences between them, primarily reflecting trends towards suburbanisation.

Two of the suburban municipalities (Barajevo and Grocka, Table 3) have had the greatest population growth in whole Belgrade with almost 30% increase for each of them from 1992 to 2011.

These facts lead to the assumption that there is a strong interest faced to these particular areas, so it is reasonable to suggest that right there may eventually be sought an anticipative urbanization of land, which is a precondition to speak of suburbanization with urban sprawl.

Rome For a period of twenty years between the censuses of 1981 and 2001, the

population of Rome was steadily decreasing. From 2001 to 2011 (Table 1) the CENSUS data shows a slight increase in the compact city and almost triple in the greater province of Rome. However, having regard the data from the "Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma" for migration flows it can be clearly seen that during that period the number of registered foreigners in Rome increased a lot. There was a growth from 180 233 in 2001 (66 132 living in the suburbs, equal to 36.6%) to 345 747 at the end of 2010 (149 356 living in the suburbs, equal to 36.6% 43.2%), indicating a mechanical growth because of emigration for 165 514 people. Therefore, from 18.3% population growth in suburban areas of Rome, more than one third are due to the settlement of foreign nationals. Considering these data and the data in Table 4, can be concluded that there is not enough evidence for significant processes of migration from central to suburban areas of Rome, and the growth in suburban areas is mainly due to inter-urban migration wave of immigrants

Various suburban areas of Rome as well as those of Sofia and Belgrade demographically do not grow in a uniform pattern. Among them, there are substantial differences, some of which reflect the trends towards suburbanisation.

From all the seven suburban municipalities only one (IV-Monte Sacro, Table 3) records a population decline throughout the 1991-2011 period. However, except of one (XII-EUR, Table 3) all the other six, during the 1991-2001 sub-period registered a negative population growth. According to the given data, it seems that the majority of interest is faced to four particular suburban areas - VIII, XII, XIII and XX, as they have much higher population growth (more than twice the average for all suburban in Rome). In fact in VIII-th and XX-th are observed falling densities and higher urbanisation rate. Hence, it is reasonable to suggest that right there may eventually be sought an anticipative urbanization of land, which is a precondition to speak of suburbanisation with urban sprawl.


265

4.4.5.ConclusionAll three cities object of the current research between 1991 and 2011, recorded

an overall increase of the population and the urban territory. Despite that, the demographic development of Sofia, Belgrade and Rome, to varying degrees, shows a trend of negative natural growth. This surely is an evidence that the observed overall population growth is mainly due to various types of mechanical population growth. It can be claimed that the mechanical movement of the population strongly influences on its number and structure in the case-study cities, especially given the enduring trend for negative levels of natural population growth throughout the period.

Regarding the growth of the urban area in the suburban territory of Sofia, surveyed data for the period show a rather clear trend towards suburbanisation, which could hardly be characterized as urban sprawl. If there are still doubts for the presence of patterns typical for sprawled development in some areas of Rome and Belgrade (low density, dispersed growth, insufficient functional interplay, etc.) then we are tend to accept statements described by Galster et al (2001) and other authors. According to them, urban sprawl represents a stage in constantly evolving spatial development of urban organism rather than a static condition or characteristic. In addition, this is largely confirmed by the varying, in some cases over a wide range, indicators in some regions for different time ranges of the basic research period.

An observation of particular importance for current research is that the examined artificial surface of all three cities is expanding – Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, although urbanised areas may be expanding, the negative change in the overall density of Belgrade and Rome should be regarded as an indicator against urban sprawl. The data collected and processed for this study does not indicate any significant change in density in Sofia. Thus, the changes in the overall densities in the period 1990-2006 suggest that Sofia is not sprawling (at least so far), but that it is definitely is suburbanising. Despite not having information for the urbanized area after 2006 the socio-economic changes after 2006 support an observation that trends of sprawl in Sofia are accelerating.

Acknowledgement The current study is part of the work that Work Package 5 (WP5) is involved

into during the duration of TURAS research project, funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme.

References:Arribas-Bel, D., Nijkamp, P. and Scholten, H., Multidimensional urban sprawl in

Europe: a self-organizing map approach

Bertaud, A., 2004. The Spatial Structure of Central and Eastern European Cities: More European than Socialist. In: Winds of Societal Change, International


266

Conference Proceedings, Nedovic-Budic, Z. and Tsenkova, S. (eds) Urbana, UIUC

Beck, R., Kolankiewicz, L. and Camarota, St., 2003, Outsmarting Smart Growth Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem of Sprawl, Center for Immigration Studies

Beyhan, B., Taubenböck, H., Suffa, S, Ullmann, T., Rauch, J. and Dech, St., 2012, Urban Growth and Sprawl of Mersin City, Turkey: Change Analysis Based on Earth Observation and Socio-Economic Data, MEGARON 2012

Berghauser Pont,M. and Haupt,P. The Spacemate: Density and the Typomorphology of the Urban Fabric

Bhatta, B. (2010). Analysis of Urban Growth and Sprawl from Remote Sensing Data. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 170. (ISBN: 978-3642052989).

Bolioli, Th., 2001, The Population Dynamics Behind Suburban Sprawl

Brueckner, J.K. (2000). Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies, International regional science review 23, 2: 160–171 (April 2000)

Christiansen, P. and Loftsgarden, T. (2011), Drivers behind urban sprawl in Europe, TØI Report 1136/2011, Institute of Transport Economics Oslo, ISBN Electronic: 978-82-480-1211-5

Couch, Chris, Lila Leontidou and Karl-Olov Arnstberg, 2007, in Urban sprawl in Europe, Chris Couch, Lila Leontidou and Gerhard Petschel-Held – editors, Blackwell Publishing

EEA (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 10/2006

Ewing, R. Pendall, R., Chen D., (2001), Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, Smart Growth America, www.smartgrowthamerica.org

Fina, St. and Siedentop, St. (2008), Urban sprawl in Europe – identifying the challenge, In: REAL CORP 008 Proceedings / Tagungsband, Vienna, May 19-21 2008, pp 489-501, ISBN: 978-39502139-4-2 (CD-ROM); ISBN: 978-39502139-5-9 (Print)

Galster. G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M., Wolman, H., Colman. St. and Freihage, J., 2001, Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 12, Issue 4, Fannie Mae Foundation.

Grigorescu, I., Mitrica, B., Mocanu, I and Ticana, N., 2012, Urban sprawl and residential development in the Romanian metropolitan areas

Goeler,D. and Lehmeier,H., 2012. From post-socialist transition to globalisation and europeanisation? Metropolitan developments in Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, in Collection of papers - Faculty of Geography at University of Belgrade 60, pp 33-48

Hee, Ch., Bae, Ch., Immigration and Densities: A Contribution to the Compact Cities and Sprawl Debates, Chapter 16 in Urban Sprawl in Western Europe and the USA


267

Hirt, S., (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia: characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change, Urban Geography, 28(8), pp 755–780

Hirt, S. and Stanilov, K., (2009). Twenty Years of Transition: The Evolution of Urban Planning in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 1989-2009, UN-HABITAT, 2009, accesed on http://www.unhabitat.org/

Jaeger, J A G – Schwick, C., (2014), Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: Weighted Urban Proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. In: Ecological Indicators 38 (2014) 294-308, www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Krisjane, Z. and Berzins, M., 2010. Post-socialist Urban Trends: New Patterns and Motivations for Migration in the Suburban Areas of Rıga, Latvia

Lelo, K., 2007, Suburbs and Fragmentation Patterns: The Case of Rome, EURODIV PAPER 44.2007, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei

Malpezzi, S. (1999) Estimates of the Measurement and Determinants of Urban Sprawl in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Unpublished paper. University of Wisconsin, Madison Center for Urban Land Economics Research.

Morelli, V. and Salvati, L., Ad Hoc Urban Sprawl in the Mediterranean City: Dispersing a Compact Tradition?

Nechyba, T. and Walsh, R (2004), Urban Sprawl. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 18, Number 4, Fall 2004, pp 177–200

Nikiforov, I., (2008) History of Urban Planning, (in Bulgarian: Istoria na gradoustroystvoto), Publishing House of VFU “Chernorizets Hrabar”, Varna

Novák, J. and Sýkora, L. (2007), A city in motion: Тime-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of the Prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 89: 147–168.

Nuissl,H. and Rink,D., 2003. Urban sprawl and post-socialist transformation. The case of Leipzig (Germany). UFZ Centre for Environmental Research. UFZ – Bericht 4/2003

Oueslati, W., Alvanides, S., Garrod, G., Determinants of urban sprawl in European cities

Patacchini,E., Zenou,Y., 2009. Urban Sprawl in Europe. In: Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs: 2009, pp 125-142

Pichler-Milanovich, N., 2009. Тhe process and pattern(s) of residential sprawl in post-socialist cities: a story of Leipzig-Ljubljana-Warsaw, Studia universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, sociologia, liv, 1, 2009

Ravetz,J., Fertner,C., and Sick-Nielsen,T., 2013, The Dynamics of Peri-Urbanization in Nilsson K. et al. (eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe, Chapter 2: 13-44, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

Razin, E. and Rosentraub, M., 2000. Are fragmentation and sprawl interlinked? North American Evidence. Urban affairs review, Vol. 35, No. 6, July 2000, pp 821-836


268

Slaev, A., 2012, Definitions and Factors of Urban Sprawl in Europe – Scientific Almanac of Varna Free University – Vol. 6/2012, pp 92-107

Slaev, A. and Nikiforov, I. (2013), Factors of urban sprawl in Bulgaria, SPATIUM International Review No. 29, July 2013, pp. 22-29

Tammaru, T., Kulu, H. and Kask, I., 2004. Urbanization, suburbanization and counter urbanization in Estonia, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45, pp. 159–176.

Terämä, E., 2009, Urban and Peri-urban Population Dynamics in Case Study Cities within Europe, Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 2009

Timár, J. and Váradi, D., 2001. The uneven development of suburbanisation during transition in Hungary, European Urban and Regional Studies, 8, pp. 349–360

Torrens, P.M., and Alberti, M. (2000) Measuring Sprawl. Unpublished Paper No. 27. University College, London. Center for Advanced Spatial Analysis.

United Nations (2015), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/urbanization/index.shtml, accessed 12.07.2015

Statistical Resources

Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma, dicembre 2011, U.O. Statistica e Censimento Sistema Statistico Nazionale;

EUROSTAT (2014) Population and population change statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_and_population_change_statistics, accessed 12.03.2014

EUROSTAT (2016) Glossary: Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Nomenclature_of_territorial_units_for_statistics_(NUTS), accessed 12.07.2015

ISTAT (2016) XIV Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni – 2001; http://www.istat.it/it/censimento-popolazione

Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade 2012

National Statistical Institute, 2009, Regional Statistical Office, Sofia in Figures. Sofia, Bulgaria

National Statistical Institute, 2012a. Census 2011, Sofia (Capital). Sofia, Bulgaria

National Statistical Institute, 2012b. Census 2011- Population and Housing Fund, Volume 3, Book 23 Sofia, Bulgaria

National Statistical Institute, 2013,Regions, districts and municipalities in the republic of Bulgaria 2011, Sofia, Bulgaria


269

Internet Resources

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/theme/urbanization/index.shtml;

http://www.ghs-mh.de/migration/projects/define/define.htm;

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST;

http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?contentId=NEW557138&jp_pagecode=newsview.wp&ahew=contentId:jp_pagecode;

http://www.ghs-mh.de/migration/projects/define/define.htm;

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction;

http://www.beograd.rs/cms/view.php?id=201201; http://dati-censimentopopolazione.istat.it/;

http://www.tuttitalia.it/lazio/provincia-di-roma/statistiche/censimento-2011/;

http://www.ehow.com/about_6369504_sprawl-urban-growth.html

http://www.neptis.org/publications/introduction/chapters/density-indicator-urban-form

http://www.blog.urbact.eu/2014/04/urban-sprawl-definition-and-action/

http://demographia.blogspot.com/2009/05/eu-sprawl-report-rewrite-needed.html

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/index.html

APENDIXTable 2: Demographic development of Sofia municipalities

during the 1991 – 2011 period

Municip.

Population Population change, %

1992 2001 2011 1992/2001 2001/2011 1992/2011

Suburban 219 535 221 028 257 207 0.7 16.4 17.16

Vitosha 38484 42953 61467 16.6 43.1 59.7

Ovcha kupel 37012 47380 54417 32.2 14.8 47

Bankia 8228 9297 12136 17 30.5 47.5

Pancharevo 23056 24342 28586 6.6 17.4 24


270

Vrabnitsa 39768 47260 47969 19.1 1.5 20.6

Novi Iskar 29265 26544 28991 -9.3 9.2 -0.9

Kremikovtsi 43722 23252 23641 -46.8 1.7 -45.9

Urban 970 600 949 814 1 034 384 -2.1 8.9 6.6

Sredets 41104 31108 32423 -24.3 4.2 -21

Vazrazhdane 40365 34742 37303 -13.9 7.4 -7.6

Oborishte 35055 28801 31060 -17.8 7.8 -11.4

Krasno selo 77138 72302 83552 -6.3 15.5 8.3

Serdika 45259 45711 46949 1 2.7 3.7

Poduiane 52809 75004 76672 42 2.2 45.2

Slatina 56599 58281 66702 3 14.4 17.8

Izgrev 30515 28639 30896 -6.1 7.9 1.2

Lozenets 38315 44679 53080 16.6 18.8 38.5

Triaditsa 60568 55530 63451 -8.3 14.3 4.7

Krasna poliana

58120 54363 58234 -6.5 7.1 0.2

Ilinden 35102 33665 33236 -4.1 -1.3 -5.3

Nadezhda 70837 67847 67905 -4.2 0.08 -4.1

Iskar 64670 64171 63248 -0.8 -1.4 -2.2

Mladost 102088 95505 102899 -6.4 7.7 0.8

Studentska 47849 50368 71961 5.3 42.8 50.4

Liulin 114207 109098 114813 -4.5 5.2 0.5

Source – NSI, Census, Sofia


271

Table 2.1: Artificial areas development of Sofia municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Municipality – overall area, ha

Artificial surface, ha Artificial surface change, %

1991 2001 2006 1991/2001 2001/2006 1991/2006

Suburban–

103 818 ha 13 716.68 13 737.17 14 368.93 0.15 4.6 4.75

Vitosha –

12 300 ha 2187.20 2194.27 2341.04 0.3 6.7 7

Ovcha kupel – 4276 ha

984.17 984.09 1196.64 0 21.6 21.6

Bankia –

5625 ha 958.48 969.48 1055.97 1.1 8.9 10

Pancharevo –

40 687ha 1906.71 1905.37 1975.95 0 3.6 3.6

Vrabnitsa –

4400 ha 1106.45 1132.14 1238.62 2.3 9.4 11.9

Novi Iskar –

22 000 ha 2361.08 2375.67 2550.37 0.6 7.4 8

Kremikovtsi – 25 600 ha

4212.59 4176.15 4010.34 -1.7 -3.1 -4.8

Urban –

18 667 ha 13 385.83 13 425.53 13 593.77 0.3 1.25 1.55

Sredets –

302.46 ha 302.46 302.46 302.46 0 0 0

Vazrazhdane – 316 ha

316 316 316 0 0 0

Oborishte –

307 ha 307 307 307 0 0 0

Krasno selo –

720 ha 720 720 720 0 0 0

Serdika –

1753 ha 1368.39 1368.39 1310.69 0 -4.2 -4.2

Poduiane –

1070 ha 995.63 995.63 977.11 0 -1.8 -1.8

Slatina –

1320 ha 1265.71 1265.71 1286.52 0 1.64 1.64

Izgrev –

480 ha 480 480 480 0 0 0


272

Lozenets –

924 ha 709.84 709.84 766.18 0 7.94 7.94

Triaditsa –

980 ha 760.74 760.74 780.59 0 2.6 2.6

Krasna poliana – 920 ha

665.68 676.94 675.97 1.7 -0.15 1.55

Ilinden-

331 ha 331 331 331 0 0 0

Nadezhda –

1930 ha 968.46 973.97 972.05 0.57 0.2 0.37

Iskar –

2560 ha 1420.30 1420.30 1463.86 0 3 3

Mladost –

1657 ha 1269.61 1284.88 1372.36 1.2 6.8 8.1

Studentska –

877 ha 596.76 596.76 610.18 0 2.2 2.2

Liulin –

2222 ha 908.25 915.91 921.80 0.85 0.65 1.5

Source – Corine Land Cover, Sofia

Table 2.2: Population density rate of Sofia suburban municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Sofia suburban municipalities

Density, ppl/ha 1991



Change in density

1991 - 2001

Change in density

2001 - 2006

Change in density

1991 - 2006

Vitosha 18 20 22 11% 10% 22%

Ovcha kupel 38 48 43 26% -10.5% 13%

Bankia 9 10 10 11% 0 11%

Pancharevo 12 13 13 8% 0 8%

Vrabnitsa 36 42 38 16.6% -9.5% 5.5%

Novi Iskar 12 11 11 -8.4% 0 -8.4%

Kremikovtsi 10 6 6 -40% 0 -40%


273

Table 3: Demographic development of Belgrade municipalities during the 1991 – 2011 period

Municipality


1992 2001 2011 1992/2001 2001/2011 1992/2011

Suburban 286 577 302 473 315 626 5.5 4.3 10.1

Barajevo 20846 24641 27110 18.2 10 30

Grocka 65735 75466 83907 14.8 11.2 27.6

Lazarevac 57848 58511 58622 1.1 0.2 1.3

Mladenovac 54517 52490 53096 -3.7 1.1 -2.6

Obrenovac 67654 70975 72524 4.9 6.4 7.2

Sopot 19977 20390 20367 2 -0.1 1.9

Urban 1 265 574 1 273 651 1 343 814 0.6 5.5 6.2

Voždovac 156373 151768 158213 -2.9 4.2 1.2

Vračar 67438 58386 56333 -13.4 -3.5 -16.5

Zvezdara 135694 132621 151808 -2.3 14.5 11.9

Zemun 176158 191645 168170 8.8 -12.2 -4.5

Novi Beograd 218633 217773 258325 -0.4 18.6 18.2

Palilula 150208 155902 173521 3.8 11.3 15.5

Rakovica 96300 99000 108641 2.8 9.7 12.8

Savski Venac 45961 42505 39122 -7.5 -7.9 -14.9

Stari Grad 68552 55543 48450 -19 -12.8 -29

Čukarica 150257 168508 181231 12.1 7.6 20.6

Source – Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (web) through http://www.citypopulation.de/php/serbia-gradbeograd.php,


274

Table 3.1: Artificial areas development of Belgrade municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Municipality – overall area, ha


1991 2001 2006 1991/2001 2001/2006 1991/2006

Suburban–

190 807 ha 14617.87 14351.48 16224.38 -1.8 13.05 11

Barajevo –

21 527 ha 621.22 621.40 1489.30 0.02 139.7 139.7

Grocka –

29 455 ha 3224.83 3285.47 3400.94 1.9 3.5 5.4

Lazarevac –

38 269 ha 3059.93 2801.02 3658.12 -8.4 30.6 19.5

Mladenovac –

33 345 ha 2293.55 2293.75 2381.00 0 3.8 3.8

Obrenovac –

41 111 ha 4072.26 4003.76 3900.88 -1.7 -2.5 -4.2

Sopot –

27 315 ha 1346.08 1346.08 1394.14 0 3.6 3.6

Urban –

131 800 ha 22 713.86 24 405.76 25 981.95 7.4 6.5 14.4

Voždovac –

14 743 ha 2482.02 2555.37 2989.06 3 17 20

Vračar –

249 ha 249 249 249 0 0 0

Zvezdara –

3473 ha 1735.73 1735.73 1854.16 0 6.8 6.8

Zemun –

14 892 ha 3186.02 4146.22 4235.34 30.1 2.1 32.9

Novi Beograd–

33 013 ha 4933.36 5156.80 5426.59 4.5 5.2 10

Palilula –

44 751 ha 2608.37 3042.91 3764.92 16.6 23.7 44.3

Rakovica –

3162 ha 1413.29 1413.29 1666,92 0 17.9 17.9

Savski Venac–

1457 ha 1402.61 1402.61 1401.81 0 -0.06 -0.06


275

Stari Grad –

534 ha 451.95 451.95 450.59 0 -0.3 -0.3

Čukarica –

15 723 ha 4251.51 4251.88 3852.48 0 -9.4 -9.4

Source – Corine Land Cover, Belgrade Table 3.2: Population density rate of Belgrade suburban municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Belgrade suburb.

municipalities




Change in density

1991 - 2001

Change in density

2001 - 2006

Change

in density 1991 – 2006

Barajevo 34 40 17 17.6% -57.5% -50%

Grocka 20 23 23 15% 0 15%

Lazarevac 19 21 16 10.5% -23.8% -15.8%

Mladenovac 24 23 22 -4.2% -4.4% -8.3%

Obrenovac 17 18 18 6% 0 6%

Sopot 15 15 15 0 0 0

Table 4: Demographic development of Rome municipalities during the 1991 – 2011 period

Municipal.


1992 2001 2011 1992/2001 2001/201

1 1992/201

1

Suburban 1 229 259 1 162 678 1 376 059 -5.5 18.3 11.9

IV (Monte Sacro)

215337 191283 203395 -11.2 6.3 -5.6

VIII (delle Torri)

188600 186672 243922 -1.1 30.7 29.3


276

X (Cinecittà)

183108 171269 184197 -6.5 7.5 0.6

XII (EUR) 142345 149680 175925 5.2 17.5 23.6

XIII (Ostie) 178588 173417 226084 -2.9 30.4 26.6

XIX (Monte Mario)

180444 163622 184911 -9.4 13 2.5

XX (Cassia Flaminia)

140837 126735 157625 -10 24.4 11.9

Urban 1 614 346 1 410 273 1 497 562 -12.6 6.2 -7.3

I (Centro Storico)

130296 122619 131881 -5.9 7.6 1.2

II (Parioli) 132233 110847 123094 -16.2 11 -7

III (Nomentano

-

San Lorenzo)

62238 50126 52584 -19.5 4.9 -15.5

V (Tiburtina)

183135 178739 178599 -2.5 -0.1 -2.5

VI (Prenestino)

144359 121342 122961 -16 1.3 -14.8

VII (Centocelle )

132956 117283 123402 -11.8 5.2 -7.2

IX (San Giovanni)

147645 122122 126690 -17.3 3.7 -14.2

XI (Appia Antica)

144610 129207 135420 -10.7 4.8 -6.4

XV (Arvalia Portuense)

162203 139679 152700 -13.9 9.3 -5.8

XVI (Monte Verde)

157430 134376 142983 -14.6 6.4 -9.2

XVII (Prati) 81697 64182 69615 -21.5 8.4 -14.8

XVIII (Aurelia)

135544 119751 137633 -11.7 14.9 1.5

Source – Annuario Statistico 2011, Roma, dicembre 2011, U.O. Statistica e Censimento Sistema Statistico Nazionale;

XIV Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni – 2001, http://www.comune.roma.it/wps/portal/pcr?contentId=NEW557138&jp_pagecode=newsview.wp&ahew=contentId:jp_pagecode; MunicipioXIV (Fiumicino) is missing, because from 1992 it is an

independent municipality.


277

Table 4.1: Artificial areas development of Rome municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Municipal.

– overall area, ha


1990 2000 2006 1990/2000 2000/2006 1990/2006

Suburban–

90 163 ha 20 472.34 21 031.88 22 453.64 2.7 6.7 9.7

IV (Monte Sacro) –

9781 ha 2221.07 2317.44 2495.25 1 1.8 2.8

VIII (delle Torri) –

11335 ha 2902.61 3077.03 3534.33 1.5 4 5.5

X (Cinecittà) –

3868 ha 2047.93 2167.73 2258.92 3.2 2.5 5.7

XII (EUR) –

18317 ha 3935.12 3904.71 4175.99 -0.2 1.5 1.3

XIII (Ostie) –

15064 ha 3990.09 4187.61 4287.09 1.3 0.7 2

XIX (Monte Mario) –

13128 ha 1866.49 1883.11 1961.41 0.1 0.6 0.7

XX (Cassia Flaminia) – 18670 ha

3509.03 3494.25 3740.65 -0.1 1.3 1.2

Urban –

39 076 ha 16 435.81 17 203.22 17 267.65 4.7 0.4 5

I (Centro Storico) –

1430 ha 1399.90 1403.91 1403.91 0.3 0 0.3

II (Parioli) –

1368 ha 1319.68 1322.32 1322.32 0.2 0 0.2

III (Nomentano-

San Lorenzo) –

591 ha

594.21 594.21 594.21 0 0 0

V (Tiburtina) –

4915 ha 2230.57 2421.75 2553.74 3.9 2.7 6.6

VI (Prenestino) –

626.86 628.27 573.71 0.2 -7.3 -7.1


278

791 ha

VII (Centocelle ) –

1906 ha 1176.98 1226.45 1309.05 2.5 4.2 6.7

IX (San Giovanni) –

807 ha 729.50 730.40 730.40 0.1 0 0.1

XI (Appia Antica) –

4729 ha 1693.66 1722.42 1649.66 0.6 -1.5 -0.9

XV (Arvalia Portuense) –

7087 ha 355.87 365.73 312.26 1.6 -8.9 -7.3

XVI (Monte Verde) –

7312 ha 3778.23 4106.28 4096.46 2.5 -0.1 2.4

XVII (Prati) –

1273 ha 962.33 965.44 943.81 0.2 -1.7 -1.5

XVIII (Aurelia) –6867 ha

1568.02 1716.04 1778.12 2.2 0.9 3.1

Source – Corine Land Cover, Rome

Table 4.2: Population density rate of Rome suburban municipalities during the 1991 – 2006 period

Rome suburban municipalities




Change in

density 1991 - 2001

Change in

density 2001 - 2006

Change in

density 1991 – 2006

IV (Monte Sacro) 97 88 79 -9.3% -10.3% -18.6%

VIII (delle Torri) 65 65 58 0 -10.8% -10.8%

X (Cinecittà) 89 84 79 -5.6% -6% -11.2%

XII (EUR) 36 42 39 16.7% -7.1% 8.3%

XIII (Ostie) 45 47 47 4.4% 0 4.4%

XIX (Monte Mario) 97 95 90 -2% -5.3% -7.2%

XX (Cassia Flaminia) 40 42 38 5% -9.5% -5%


279

4.5.Polycentricity as an instument of balanced development of the city and surrounding areas in the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia

Working Paper

Atanas Kovachev, Aleksandar D. Slaev and Yordan Lyubenov

4.5.1.IntroductionThis paper examines the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia and its

provision about the creation of polycentric structure of the city through establishing a system of subcentres.

4.5.2.Literaturereview Literature review includes definitions a polycentricity, criteria of polycentricity,

the impact and benefits from them. The sources which are related to the structure of Sofia and its form - a polycentric or monocentric - were studied.

In the available literature on the definition of the term polycentricity there are several concepts. For example, Davoudi (2005) defines polycentricity by describing it as ‘a centre and an organised system of concentrated subcentres’. Giffinger (2013) considers a polycentric system to be one with ‘several urban nodes (= cities) linked through functional relations’. Another concept of polycentricity (Johansson, 2002) states that ‘a central ingredient of polycentric development is the interconnected nature of towns and built-up areas where urban-rural development is not contradictory but rather complementary’.

All above mentioned ideas about the nature of polycentricity explain it as a link between different parts of the urban and non-urban fabric. The claim of Sandberg and Meijers (2006) can be given as general criteria for polycentricity, who emphasize that ‘polycentricity refers to the plurality of centres in a given area’. Another criteria is that of Giffinger (2013), according to which there should be available a ‘core city or capital cities in their administrative delimitation and


280

functional metropolitan area or daily urban system.’ Vasanen (2013) states that ‘an urban system can be described as functionally polycentric when two-way flows between a region’s core and its subcentres as well as those between the individual sub-centres exist' or, more specifically, the same author underlines 'functional connections between separate centres within the urban system’.

Polycentricity affects urban structure by creating of new urban forms outside the monocentric city to balance the increase (RePUS, 2007). In other words, polycentricity is a ‘reaction to problematical territorial trend’ (Dubois et al., 2007).

The quest of equality and reduction of the gap between centre and periphery in the process of growth of the city can be described as benefits of policentric development (Sandberg and Meijers, 2006). Another important benefit according to Aguilera and Mignot (2004) is that ‘the emergence of a subcentre would be the natural and more economical answer in terms of mobility to the non-sustainable growth of the monocentric town.’ Moreover, the polycentricity aims ‘to improve the conditions for a more efficient allocation of resources in the urban areas’ (RePUS, 2007). Smith (2009) claims that the policentricity ‘can bring commercial activities closer to residential areas and reduce travel distances.’

According to given clarified definitions, criteria, impact and benefits of urban form the polycentricity of Sofia does not correspond to a polycentric one. According to Hirt (2007a, 2007b) surrounding area is very clear cut and without a clear subcentres. Moreover, this area constitutes a ‘rural periphery of modest villages, rather than affluent suburbs’ (Hirt, 2007a).

4.5.3.Researchmethodology Research question:

Does the General Urban Development Plan of Sofia succeed in improving and balancing the development of the centre and the periphery in terms of polycentric urban structure?

The study will be conducted according to the following logical sequence:

First, the General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of Sofia will be studied in order to answer the following questions:

1) Does the GUDP envisage creation/confirmation of polycentric structure of Sofia and is it set in the GUDP?

2) What should be the polycentric structure of the city, according to the GUDP?

3) Does the GUDP give criteria for determining the polycentric structure?

4) Why does the GUDP envisage the creation of polycentric structure and what benefits does the GUPD seek to achieve of this structure?

5) What are the tools which the GUDP relies on for the implementation of a polycentric structure of Sofia?


281

Then the paper will be examined, as far as there are already initial results of the implementation of the GUDP, whether and how the GUDP works in respect to the polycentric structure of the city. The following questions will be answered:

6) Is the polycentric structure implemented in the city in accordance with the GUPD?

7) If the polycentric structure of Sofia is implemented, does it achieve the benefits sought by the GUDP and is it actually beneficial to the city?

In order to answer questions 6) and 7) the development of the suburban areas will be examined in terms of urban factors (urbanised territories, infrastructure, functional structure and construction) and demographic trends (population dynamics). The aim is to be determined whether suburban areas attract population and urban development, how the level of compactness of urban forms change and whether it is in accordance with the provided polycentric structure.

The study will use the following sources of information:

- In terms of the envisages of the GUDP, the text and graphics of the GUDP (the project and its schemes) in 2003 (in force since 2007) and its actualization in 2009 (in force since 2009) will be explored.

- In terms of the implementation of the GUDP for the analysis of demographic trends, the data will be used by National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria (NSI).

- In terms of the implementation of the GUDP for analysis of urban development (urbanised territories, infrastructure, functional structure and construction), data will be used by Sofia Municipality, Directorate ‘Architecture and Urban Planning’, Municipal Enterprise ‘Sofproekt’.

4.5.4.Researchanditsresults Analysis of the polycentric approach of GUDP/ answer questions 1) - 5)

1) Polycentric structure for the development of Sofia is set in the GUDP of the city.

2) According to the GUDP, polycentric structure of the city is the development of suburban areas through the following kinds of subcenters: ‘complex service centers and specialized service centres’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 30) (Fig. 1). Complex service centres are ‘more or less a complete set of service functions’ whereas specialized centres are ‘... addition of complex service centres ...’ in the ‘priority areas for the development of the city - science and education, health and balneology, culture, sports and entertainment, commerce and business’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 31). Complex centres have a ‘hierarchical structure and complementarity between the different levels - the general urban centre, secondary and tertiary service centres’, as the GUDP stresses ‘a major structuring element of the system is transport and communication network of the city’ in which all of these centres are located (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 30). The general city centre, which is categorized as a first level, includes ‘historic core of Sofia, containing the most representative and prestigious objects of national level’


282

(Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 30). Complex service centres, which are categorized as second level, are five in number and ‘occupy general radial transport directions, namely north-west (Slivnitsa blvd), north (Rozhen blvd), north-east (Botevgradsko Shose blvd), south (Tsarigradsko Shose blvd) and south-west (Tsar Boris III blvd) in their zones of intersection with the transport and communication ring-road’ (Fig. 2) (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 30). The GUDP also provides the establishment of another kinds of complex service centres, which are categorized as third level. They are formed ‘as a result of point and linear concentrations of public services with variable intensity around the major transportation routes and communication nodes’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 31). The lowest level are specialized centres which ‘are an addition, continuation... of complex service centres of the second and third level and have citywide, regional and national importance’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 31) (Fig. 3). Thus, the GUDP offers polycentric development in two different forms, namely transport directions (Fig. 2) and settlements (Fig. 3).

Polycentric forms which are provided through the transport directions of the main communication arteries of the city are five units, and those for development in urban areas are ten. It should be noted that the functional composition of polycentric systems which are developed along the major transport roads of the city narrows the focus on the public service. These specific polycentric forms, saturated with public service, should attract population and they are a factor in the polycentric structure of the settlements. Hence these polycentric systems are outlined in the GUDP as a separate level of polycentric development, one level lower than the general centre, and one degree higher than the polycentric structure of settlements. In fact, the so-called complex service centers second level are a transition from compact city to surrounding area. Their shape and boundaries are not established with precision and are constantly evolving in the direction of transport communications. Thus, ‘on the road’ to the surrounding areas they create linear polycentric forms which are joined with polycentric system of cities. This process finishes with the formation of specific ‘star-shaped’ form of the overall system of polycentric forms, which are developed along the transport communications and seek to connect with adjacent settlements. This is an intermediate, transitional form from monocentric to polycentric characteristic of Sofia. But even this definition is inaccurate because not all areas are linked to settlements provided for the development as polycentric forms. For example, directions IV-th and V-th (Fig. 2) are not tied to sub-centers in urban areas as opposed to directions II-nd and III-rd, which develop in the direction of settlements located north of the city. Right there is the concentration of most settlements provided in the GUDP for the creation of a system of sub-centers. On the other hand, the set of polycentric development settlements also are not entirely within the scope of the GUDP. For example, settlements 2 and 10 (Fig. 3) are not within the GUDP, but are reported as important to the overall structure of a polycentric city where they can get involved. However, these are communities outside Sofia and the legal scope of the GUDP and they are excluded from the paper.

It should also be noted that in the course of the study another five cities outside Sofia, but close to it were established (Fig. 5). These are Slivnitsa 32 km away,


283

Kostinbrod 6 km away, Svoge 46 km away, Elin Pelin 10 km away and Pernik respectively 24 km away from the ring-road of the city. These settlements are outside the administrative boundaries of the city and the GUDP but developed along the above-mentioned five major radial transport directions. Slivnitsa and Kostinbrod are in connection with the direction - north-west (I - Slivnitsa blvd), Svoge with the direction north (II - Rozhen blvd.), Elin Pelin with the direction - south (IV - Tsarigradsko Shose blvd) and Pernik with the direction - south-west (V - Tsar Boris III blvd). These settlements are not a subject of this paper, which is bound with the GUDP, which covers admninistrativnite and legal boundaries of the municipality. However, the presence of these settlements and their connection with transport directions as part of the polycentric structure of Sofia should be considered.

Another important point is that the mentioned further in Fig 1, and then in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 Kremikovtsi regional center, under the number 7, is a key industrial area of Sofia, whose development as a separate subcenter is also not considered in this paper. As part of the area Kremikovtsi territory of Dolni Bogrov, which falls within this region, was studied.

Figure 1 Polycentric structure of Sofia according to the GUDP

Source Metropolitan Municipality, 2009

According to the specificity of the polycentric structure of Sofia, introduced by the GUDP, it should be considered as a dual (in transport routes and settlements) which is developed in north. It can be said that the polycentric structure of Sofia is developed only in the northern suburban areas. The GUDP does not separate the suburban areas and treats them summarized in its envisagement. For example, generally speaking, the GUDP of 2003 supports future polycentric development as it


284

provides population growth in the so-called ‘surrounding area’ (Table 1). At the same time, the later GUDP of 2009 reduces the area of the territories for industrial activities, public services, housing, transport and engineering infrastructure at the expense of territories for mixed functions (Table 2). Therefore, according to these data, the development of the polycentric structure seeks its particular development most likely to the transport directions which are provided for the development of multifunctional zones. This is made at the expense of the polycentric structure of the settlements whose housing public services and engineering communications decrease in the GUDP.

Figure 2 Polycentric structure of transport directions


285

Fig. 3 Policentric structure of settlements (1 – Bankya; 2 –

Kostinbrod; 3 – Dobroslavtsi; 4 – Novi Iskar; 5 – Podgumer; 6 – Chepintsi; 7 – Kremikovtsi; 8 – Dolni Bogrov; 9 – Krivina;

10 – Elin Pelin) in the GUDP


286

Fig. 4 Dual hierarchical structure of polycentricity in GUDP (I

– V transport directions and 1-10 settlements)


287

Fig. 5 Settlements (Slivnitsa, Kostinbrod, Svoge, Elin Pelin and Pernik) in connection with polycentric structure of transport

directions (I – V transport directions) in the GUDP

Table 1: Population of Sofia and the surrounding areas and the envisage of the GUDP from 2003, 2006 and 2020

Territory 2003 2006 2020 according to the GUDP

from 2003

Sofia Municipality 1 208 930 1 237 891 1 300 000

Sofia city 1 127 556 1 154 010 1 150 000

Surrounding areas 81 374 83 881 150 000


288

Table 2: Development of different kinds of territories according to the GUDP from 2003 and 2009

Territory

2003Sofia

Municipality Sofia city Suburban area

ha % ha % ha %

Industrial territories

5377.6 4.0 2115.3 10.1 3262.4 2.9

Territories for public services

2830.0 2.1 1533.4 7.3 1296.6 1.1

Territories for multifunctiona

l services 3696.4 2.8 2287.3 10.9 1409.1 1.2

Transport territories

5209.3 3.9 2348.0 11.2 2861.3 2.5

Residential territories

15857.7 11.8 8155.1 38.9 7202.6 6.8

Territory

2009Sofia

Municipality Sofia city Suburban area

ha % ha % ha %

Industrial territories

4701.6 3.5 1609.0 7.7 3092.6 2.7

Territories for public services

2640.6 2.0 1503.4 7.2 1137/2 1.0

Territories for multifunctiona

l services 5073.8 3.8 3050.2 14.6 2023.6 1.8

Transport territories

5012.6 3.7 2384.7 11.4 2627.9 2.3

Residential territories

15412.4 11.5 8260.6 39.4 7151.8 6.3

Source: Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 93.

3) The GUDP does not give available criteria for polycentric structure.

However, in terms of the set hierarchical dual system for the development of polycentric forms, certain criteria can be taken into account. On the one hand, important criteria in the system of service centres, which are developed along the


289

transport communications, are input-output areas of the city with direction to suburban areas. On the other hand, criteria for development of the system of service centres in urban areas are villages and towns which are undeveloped and remote from the general centre. In this case these are located on the northern settlements.

4) The GUDP assumes that polycentric structure may ‘achieve a balance in the development of the compact city and the surrounding area’ and ‘limit compact growth in the city’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 19). Therefore the major benefit, which was mentioned above in the literature review, that polycentricity is equality and achievement of balanced development of the center and the periphery in the growth of the city, coincides with the benefit in the GUDP.

5) The tools for the implementation of the polycentric structure of Sofia according to the GUDP are basically two types. First, functional zoning should be mentioned through ‘formation of a new’ development zone ‘along the routes of the Trans-European Transport Network’ (Metropolitan Municipality, 2009, 19). This is true mainly for public service functions, which are on a higher level than others and take the main entrance and exit areas. Here, the location of the infrastructure in the polycentric structure of the city should be explained. According to the GUDP it ‘conducts’ polycentric forms from the boundary of the compact city to the surrounding areas and at the same time links them to the main city center. Thus, the functions of these polycentric systems are somewhat transport and distributing.

Secondly, it should be noted that perhaps the most important tool for the implementation of polycentric structure of the GUDP is hierarchically the lowest located forms of polycentricity, namely those provided in the settlements. There polycentric structure is realized most fully in view of existing and potential development of new, not just public service functions, but residential ones.

Thirdly, in terms of the legal norms established in some parts of the city, the GUDP provides ‘regulation of the construction in the southern territories’ and limits their development even as polycentric forms. That can be seen on Fig. 2, where new subcentres in the southern areas are not provided.

Therefore, the polycentric structure of Sofia in the GUDP uses mainly two instruments for implementation. The first is the zoning of different polycentric forms (along transport routes and settlements in the surrounding areas) connected in a hierarchical structure. The second instrument is the GUDP itself as a regulatory document, which restricts development in other parts of the city.

Analysis of the implementation of the GUDP/ answer questions 6) and 7)

The analysis of the implementation takes into account the development of the provided in the GUDP polycentric forms in the surrounding area of Sofia since 2006. In order to facilitate the localization of different suburban areas scheme with their location shown in Fig. 6 is used. Under this scheme Table 3 – Table 7 will be organized. Thus,


290

settlement №1 (Fig. 3) is located in suburban/rural A and settlements from №3 to №9 (Fig. 3) are in suburban/rural B&C.

Fig. 6 Scheme of the general centre and surrounding areas of Municipality of

Sofia


291

a) development of the infrastructure Firstly, it is important to note that the rate of development of infrastructure

in Sofia, according to the GUDP, is lower in the surrounding area (2.3%) than the general centre (11.4%) in 2009 (Table 2).

Secondly, the fulfilment of the provided for the development of the infrastructure 2.3% average for the whole surrounding areas, is not reached. By 2011 rates in the range from 1.4% to 1.95% are reported. That is a growth in the development of transport infrastructure, particularly in the areas provided with polycentric forms (suburban / rural A, B&C in Table 3).

In terms of the above data, it can be said that the development of infrastructure according to the GUDP and the population growth does not contribute actively to the implementation of the polycentric structure of Sofia, especially in northern areas.

Table 3: Share of new municipal and state roads

city districts 2006 2011 Increase (km)Increase

(%)

Suburban/rural A 358.72 363.80 5.08 1.40

Suburban/rural B&C 1035.17 1045.71 7.12 1.95

Calculations based on data from Municipality of Sofia

b) new construction and population dynamics Data for the new construction of buildings and specifically homes in two

districts (Table 4) show that the increase in the number of buildings in the period 2006-2011 in the suburban/rural A district is the largest and of the residential buildings is on third place, compared to the general centre and all surrounding areas. However, in this district the settlement provided in the GUDP as a subcentre is only one and this is Bankya. Here, something important about the data in Table 4 for suburban/rural A district, should be mentioned, namely that due to the strong urban development of Vitosha collar (falling in Vitosha district, part of the suburban/rural A district), studied in detail in the reports of Hirt (2006, 2007a, 2007b), the number of new buildings is larger. Moreover, it takes more than half share of new buildings (1576 units) and housing (8638 units) throughout suburban/rural A district, as Bankya the values are significantly lower (respectively 555 units of new buildings and 647 units of new housing). In suburban/rural districts B&C the data for growth in areas provided in the GUDP as places for subcentres (Novi Iskar, Kremikovtsi and Pancharevo Regions) with 1389 units new buildings and 1541 units new homes are separately displayed. It is important to note that the data refer to regions in which settlements provided for development in subcentres according to Fig. 1 and respectively Fig. 3 are located. The data on the population of the settlements, except Bankya, refer only to the census of 2011 (Table 5). Thus, the dynamics of the population in 2006-2011 cannot be traced. However, it is apparently that the percentage of housing, provided in these subcentres in settlements, where the highest value is approximately one quarter of the total housing of the districts (Table 5).


292

This means that the data is actually with even lower values, which could not be determined with precision.

However, it can be said that the data for new buildings provided for the subcentres are relatively high on the background of data for growth in central district (Table 4). This likely shows that buildings for public services and other functions, distinguished from residential ones, are with high growth. The case with the residential buildings is not the same. They are with among the lowest levels in the suburban areas provided for the creation of polycentric forms in the settlements compared to the higher growth of new homes in the central district. Therefore, it can be noted that the new construction of buildings helps polycentric formations in settlements but not for construction of new housing.

Table 4 Share of new construction in regions of Sofia 2006 - 2011

City districts Other

buildings

Housing2006 2011

Other buildings

Housing Other buildings

Housing

Central districts

5 788 51 788 244 3654 447 6 699


23 641 230 456 1 652 23 132 3 028 42 409


8 747 179 734 729 12 868 1 337 23 591

Suburban/ rural A districts

Vitosha Region

Bankya Region

25 271

14 307

5 443

69 008

36 238

6 779

2 942

1 892

463

12 410

6 769

540

5 393

3 468

1 018

22 751

15 407

1 187

Suburban/ rural B&C districts

Novi Iskar, Kremikovtsi and Pancharevo Regions

37 482

33 191

60 513

42 234

1 883

1 666

2 335

1 850

3 453

3 055

4 280

3 391

Calculations based on data from NSI 2012, Census 2011 - Population and

Housing Fund, Volume 3, Book 23


293

Population dynamics in regions with provided subcentres reflect the upward trend in Bankya (9.36%) compared to the central districts (3.95%) (Table 6). However, it must again be emphasized that it is only one of the subcentres of the polycentric structure of the city. Here are exported data for Vitosha district in which the strong urban development in recent years of the share of the population is more than half the entire suburban/rural district A. For the rest, the majority part of the settlements located in the suburban/rural districts B&C and provided by the GUDP for subcentres, the data show that they increased only with 3.49%, which is below the central districts. The total population in the suburban/rural districts B&C is also about 3% and the population out there in the centres is less than one-fifth (Table 7). Thus the trend of population growth is below the central districts and it is maintained throughout suburban/rural districts B&C.

Table 5 Units of housing in the regions with sub-centers provided in the GUDP in 2011

City districts

Total housing in regions with settlements provided for

subcentres in the GUDP

Housing in subcentres

provided in the GUDP

Ratio

(%)

Suburban/rural A districts

(Bankya Subcenter) 25 271 6 779 26.82

Suburban/rural B&C districts

(Krivina, Dobroslavtsi, Novi Iskar, Podgumer,

Chepintsi and Dolni Bogrov Subcenters)

60 513 14 771 24.41

Calculations based on data from NSI 2012, Census 2011 - Population and Housing Fund, Volume 3, Book 23

In terms of these data, it can be said that only one of the provided centers (Bankya, part of the suburban/rural district A) has indications of a polycentric form with concentration of population above the levels in central districts. However, in other provided in the GUDP subcentres, such concentration and consequently the development of polycentric forms are not observed.


294

Table 6 Population dynamics it the regions of Sofia for the period from 2006 to 2011

City districts 2006 2011 Increase

(number of people)

Increase

(%)

Central districts 98 718 102 786 4 068 3.95

Intermediate districts 490 473 512 772 22 299 4.34

Peripheral districts 403 907 420 826 16 919 4.02

Suburban/rural A districts

Vitosha Rigion

Bankya Region

113 825

54 061

11 000

128 020

61 467

12 136

14 195

7 406

1 136

11.08

12.04

9.36

Suburban/rural B&C districts

Novi Iskar, Kremikovtsi and Pancharevo Regions

125 292

78 386

129 187

81 218

3 895

2 832

3.01

3.49

Calculations based on data from NSI 2012, Census 2011- Population and Housing Fund, Volume 3, Book 23

Table 7 Population of regions of Sofia with subcentres in the GUDP to 2011

City districts

Total housing in regions with

subcentres according to the GUDP

Population in subcentres

according to the GUDP

Ratio

(%)

Suburban/ rural A districts

(with Bankya Subcenter) 128 020 8 299 6.48

Suburban/ rural B&C districts

(with Krivina, Dobroslavtsi, Novi Iskar, Podgumer, Chepintsi and

Dolni Bogrov Subcenters)

129 187 22 182 17.17

c) trends towards the development of sub-centers and implementation of the benefits of polycentric development

The measurement of the boundaries of urban areas in the regions with the highest concentration of settlements provided in the GUDP for the establishment of subcentres - Novi Iskar and Kremikovtsi - compared to another area in which there are provided such -Vitosha. Table 8 shows that the boundaries of Vitosha with non-urbanized areas decreased with 14.64%. The ratio between the length of the external


295

borders and the area of urban areas also decreases (Table 8). This indicates that the large number of newly constructed buildings and housing (Table 4) in recent years in the area is with high density in the use of land.

However, the issue in the other two studied regions provided with subcentres is not the same. There, the data show opposite trend, namely that the length of the boundaries between urban and non-urban areas growth with 6.82% for Novi Iskar and 13.20% for Kremikovtsi. However, in Kremikovtsi is just one of the subcentres provided in the GUDP - Dolni Bogrov. The ratio between the length of the external borders and the area of urban areas also increased (Table 8). These data indicate that the areas provided with subcentres develop with low levels of compaction of the territories.

It can be said that in all territories there are growing urban areas. However, in Vitosha reduction of the boundaries between urban and non-urban areas is a sign that the settlements develop as polycentric forms. In the other two regions, however, growth of the boundaries between urban and non-urban areas is a sign that the settlements develop despersive. Moreover, the settlements therein provided in the GUDP are five separate individual units (these are numbers 3 - Dobroslavtsi; 4 - Novi Iskar; 5 - Podgumer, 6 Chepintsi and 8 - Dolni Bogrov of Fig. 3), four of them in a region (Novi Iskar). Therefore, the provided settlements for subcentres in the polycentric structure of Sofia currently are not developing as polycentric but rather as dispersed individual forms.

Considering that there are not currently existing outstanding subcentres, it cannot be spoken about specific benefits of polycentric development in the settlements identified by the GUDP for participation in the polycentric structure of the city (Sandberg and Meijers, 2006). On the contrary, at the time the general centre excels the provided subcentres in population growth and housing. Therefore, at the moment there is not a balance between the centre and the periphery. Subcentres are still too weak to stimulate reallocation of resources in it (Aguilera and Mignot 2004; RePUS, 2007). Due to the fact that they are still not attractive enough, they do not attract people and public services outside the general centre (Smith 2009).

4.5.5.ConclusionThe polycentric structure of the Sofia provided in the GUDP currently does not

balance the development of the general centre and surrounding areas. The centre is still very strong and attractive. Neither the infrastructure nor the increase of population and housing in the surrounding area are at levels higher than those in the centre. On the contrary, they have lower values and are not conducive to creating subcentres. Settlements in which the GUDP focuses polycentric forms evolve independently as dispersed formations. There is no connection between the general centre and subcentres performed with the intermediate, transitional polycentric forms developed along the main transport routes. Supplementing the connections between the main centre and surrounding areas leads to balanced development between them, which is lacking in the implementation of the polycentric concept provided in the GUDP.


296

ReferencesAguilera An. and D. Mignot (2004) Urban Sprawl, polycentrism and commuting. A

comparison of Seven French Urban Areas. Urban Public Economics Review, 93-95.

Davoudi S. (2005) Can polycentric development enhance competitiveness and cohesion? ESPON/SPAN Seminar 22-23 February 2005. Queen’s Univ. Belfast, 5.

Dubois A., E. Gløersen, D. Stead, W. Zonneveld (2007) Polycentric Urban Development and Rural-Urban Partnership. Thematic Study of INTERREG and ESPON activities , Esch-sur-Alzette/Viborg : ESPON Coordination Unit/INTERACT Point Qualification and Transfer (http://www.interact-eu.net/913123/1068569/0/0)

Giffinger R. (2013) Polyce - Metropolisation and Polycentric Development in Central Europe. Urban Policy - Challenges, Experiences, Ideas 25-26.06.2013. Report on commission to ESPON. Warsaw.

Hirt, S. (2006) Post-socialist urban forms: notes from Sofia. Urban Geography. 27: 464–488.

Hirt S. (2007a) Suburbanizing Sofia. Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography. 28(8): 755 - 780.

Hirt, S. (2007b) The compact versus the dispersed city: history of planning ideas on Sofia's urban form. Journal of Planning History. 6(2): 138–65.

Johansson M. (2002) Polycentric Urban Structures in Sweden – Conditions and Prospects. In: C. Bengs, ed. Facing ESPON. Nordregio Report 2002: 1. 99.

Metropolitan Municipality (2009) General Urban Development Plan. Available at http://www.sofproect.com/documents.aspx

RePUS - Regional Polycentric Urban System (2007) Final report: Interreg III B strategy for a regional polycentric urban system in Central Eastern Europe Economic Integrating Zone. Available at: http://www.repus.it/repus-docs/repus_finalreport.pdf

Sandberg K. and E.J. Meijers (2006) Polycentric development: panacea for regional disparities in European countries? In: C. von Schweinichen (Ed.) Sharing responsibility for our region: Redefining the public interest for territorial development (paper presented at 10th UNECE Conference on Urban and Regional Research, Slovak Republic: Bratislava), 160-161.

Smith D.A. (2009) Polycentric Cities and Sustainable Development. Regional Science 04.09.2009. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/DuncanSmith/polycentric-cities-and-sustainable-development

Vasanen An. (2013) Evolving polycentricities. The development of urbanspatial structure in Finish urban regions. University of Turku, 13-17.


297

4.6.TheroleofpublictransportforthesustainableurbandevelopmentofSofia

Working Paper

Hristo Topchiev

4.6.1Introduction:

Background The increasingly rapid urban growth creates strong interest in studies on

various sustainable strategies in urban planning. Without complete and on time planning of urban development in the peripheral areas (suburbs) of large cities, far from the "Central Business District - the largest employment cluster" (CBD) 1 a turbulent process of urban expansion is often observed. It is known as "urban sprawl". According to many urban researchers, the "urban sprawl" is a negative process of chaotic and unsustainable urban development, which is "not just growth, but is a specific, dysfunctional, style of growth" 2. It is usually a result of the rapid economic development of a modern city, resulting in many new residents and thus the need for more urbanized land. Sofia is also struggling with this phenomenon, as the city grows intensively in the periphery. The resulting risks affect the urban sustainability of the peri-urban areas, as the urban development goes beyond the planned technical, social and transportation infrastructure. The most often noticed statements about urban sprawl can be summarized in an argument according to which "this low-density development increases automobile dependence, consumes farmland, and raises the cost of public infrastructure" 3.

According to the EEA (European Environmental Agency) report "In Europe, cities have traditionally been much more compact, developing a dense historical core, shaped before the emergence of modern transport systems. Compared to most American cities, their European counterparts still remain in many cases compact. However, European cities were more compact and less sprawled in the mid 1950s than they are today, and urban sprawl is now a common phenomenon throughout Europe. Moreover, there is no apparent slowing in these trends. The urban areas in the southern, eastern and central parts of Europe are particularly at risk." 4 The analyses of EEA give grounds to draw the conclusion that Sofia falls into the categorized zones that are under most threat of urban sprawl, as it is located in the South and Eastern part of Europe. Moreover, the Bulgarian capital is a fast growing city, whose municipality, according to the records5, doubled its inhabitants over the


298

last 50 years from nearly 0.7 million to close to 1,4 million inhabitants. The transport infrastructure and public transport system of the city didn`t develop that fast in the suburbs, the outcome of which results in huge car dependency in these areas. The emerging city of Sofia should consider sustainable urban development for the suburbs and one of the key elements for achieving urban sustainability is better accessibility to public transport.

Aim and objectives The aim of this research paper is to draw attention to one of the major topics of

discussion in today’s urban development of Sofia, namely the sustainable urban development of its periphery areas. The main research purpose is to identify what is the role of the public transport for urban sustainability and how it can help Sofia to fight the sprawl-like urban development that the city suffers in the last decades. The main objectives are:

- 1) To define sustainable urban development in the context of urban transport and its impact on urban sprawl;

- 2) To overview the criteria by which public transport can be considered sustainable;

- 3) To analyze the current state of Sofia's urban development in the periphery in the context of urban sprawl and its relation to urban transport;

- 4) To determine similar cases of sustainable practices;

- 5) To conclude how such practices can be applied to the case of Sofia;

4.6.2.Descriptionofmethodsanddata

Research Methods The main method utilized for the purpose of this research is the comparative

method. It will describe a similar phenomenon in locations with comparable features in order to draw conclusion on how certain previously applied resolutions can be tailored and further practiced with expected similar outcome.

Utilized Data This research paper is based on secondary data and it overviews the already

existing sources of researches on the same topic, reviewed from different angle. It is thus based on official data published by governments, municipalities or other official public institutions.

4.6.3.Discussions

Sustainable urban development in the context of urban sprawl and public transport The need of sustainable urban development has hardly been questioned during

the last decades, especially when it comes to fast growing or emerging cities. Most


299

authors point that sustainable urban development is a complex process of planning and city management, integrating many aspects, some of which directly related to transportation and urban mobility issues.

The general definition of sustainable development as a broad concept, having economic, environmental and social dimensions, was given by the UN in 1987. "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." 6. It contains into two key concepts - "The concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given.", and "The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs". The definition given by UN is widely open to variety of fields, and so urban researchers have to interpret it in terms of urbanism and spatial planning.

According to the John Gormley, Irish Minister for the environment, heritage and local government (2009) sustainability is about "the integration of schools, community facilities, employment, transport and amenities with the housing development process in a timely, cost-effective way." 7 Transportation issues are also strongly connected to sustainability and the need is to "minimize transport-related energy consumption".

For Lau et al., the Multiple and Intensive Land Use (MILU) of Hong Kong is a sustainable form of urban development, because of its compactness - "Hong Kong is a practical example of an alternative to urban sprawl, and suggests that MILU is a more sustainable urban form. MILU optimizes land resources in a compact urban form realized by intensification (or densification) and mixed land uses, interconnected by an efficient public transportation system".8

According to Williams9, the sustainable urban form is "characterized by compactness (in various forms), mixed uses and interconnected street layouts, supported by strong public transport networks, environmental controls and high standards of urban management"

Each author perspective varies, and so do their statements, but all have something in common - mixed land uses and well developed transportation system are considered among the main pillars for sustainable urban development. It is also clear that urban sustainability is possible not by just providing well developed urban transportation system, but also by providing eco-friendly, efficient and cost-effective forms of (public) urban transport to ease the connection between the variety of activities within the urban fabric. As a consequence to the UN definition, the sustainable urban development needs not just efficient, but sustainable transportation system. That is why providing sustainable forms of urban transport must be a goal for the development of urban sustainability. In this context the second key concept by UN definition must be considered, namely the limitations on "the environment's ability to meet present and future needs" - as one of the key factors for reaching sustainable urban transport.


300

Sustainability of the public transport Defining the need of sustainable urban transportation is an insufficient basis for

any major conclusions or recommendations. It is further important to define the sustainable forms of urban transport and what is their exact role on increasing urban sustainability.

For Elizabeth Deakin "sustainable transportation is seen as transportation that meets mobility needs while also preserving and enhancing human and ecosystem health, economic progress, and social justice now and for the future" 10. The statement of Deakin shows that transport sustainability is widely open for discussion, since it focuses on the three major topics for the urban development - the questions of social, ecological and economic progress. As a result it has to be considered that not every type of public transport, widely accepted to be sustainable for its economic and social effectiveness, is actually sustainable, since not all of them are dealing successfully with all the ecological criteria. For example a diesel powered bus is less sustainable than a bus using hybrid power engine or an electric powered tram. However, using that same bus can be far more sustainable for ecological reasons than individual transport such as car. It is highly arguable that a precise distinction between sustainable and unsustainable transport can be defined and it is noticed that if defined, such line would be constantly changing over time. That is why many researchers are looking into more general perspective, comparing private car versus public transport, and the first one is typically described to be unsustainable compared to the second. It is important conclusion that the understanding for sustainability is never fixed and is rather relative and comparative.

Sofia`s specific urban development and the urban sprawl. Sofia is administratively divided into 24 districts11. For analysis purpose this

paper will review the central area "Sredets" and the peripheral region "Vitosha". According to a report "Civil Registration and Administrative Services" of Republic of Bulgaria 5, Sredets district has official population of 65 563 people on an area of 3 sq.km.12 (21 854 people per sq.km. and 219 people per hectar). At the same time the peripheral region "Vitosha" has an area of 123sq.km.13 and official population of 45056 people5. The average density of habitation for "Vitosha" is significantly lower than the average for the central area - 367 people, but a key factor must be taken into account: 104.8 sq.km of the "Vitosha" area13 is non urbanized territory consisting of forests and agricultural land. With the above stated circumstances there are 18.2 sq.km. remaining for actively urbanized territory, i.e. the actual density is 2476 people per sq.km., or about 25 people per hectare. After having such measurements, the densities of both the areas can be calculated and further used for comparison by this feature - the periphery urban area of Vitosha is about 9 time less dense than the very central district "Sredets".

The structure of the central area of Sofia is very compact, giving advantages in terms of density and close accessibility, providing the extremely prominent mixture of different land uses. Meanwhile, the suburb district of "Vitosha" is urbanized mostly in its closest to the city areas, in the foot of mountain. The ecological


301

advantage of the area is the presence of the mountain that is easily accessible within walking distance, but the great urban disadvantage is the lack of good public transport accessibility, as well as the generally low residential built environment. The population density near the bypass road and the periphery zone is uneven, an evidence of which are the comparatively higher buildings situated closer to the city. Denser population is observed with higher proximity to the city and near the major roads, respectively caused by the convenience of transport links and facilitated transport service. Further, commonly the area is developed in very dispersal way, without figuratively pronounced center or inner main roads, forming a structure with all the symptoms familiar to urban sprawl. Thus, the very low density and the lack of main roads crossing the area are forming unsustainable urban environment, mainly due to the observed consequence of strong car dependency and low public transport accessibility.

Public transportation in Sofia`s center and periphery According to Ivan Breshkov, the public transport in Sofia is mainly provided

by tram, trolley and bus14. His research reveals a negative trend on the use of public transport after the democratic changes in Bulgaria from 1989 to 2002. According to it, the travelling by public transport for the 13 years period decreased with 44,6% on daily basis. It was suggested that the trend for using less public transport was caused by the development of private transport for urban mobility, mainly cars. It was also noted that Sofia urgently needs to develop more eco-friendly and thus sustainable public transport. His analysis doesn`t involve the new Sofia subway system, as the data was collected in 2002, when the subway system contained only 7 stops. It has been widely considered as an underdeveloped public transportation system, resulting in very limited use. Ten years later there is a new, positive trend in using more sustainable public transport in Sofia, mainly because of the development of the subway, which is much more ecological and cost-efficient. According to the official data15 published by the subway operator, Sofia Metrpoliten, the subway is using 31km long network and have 27 stops since 2012, which are serving the most intense inhabited areas of the city. The development of the subway system in Sofia is giving positive result - 330 000 people are now using it for transportation daily, instead of using car or other forms of urban transport. According to the "General plan for transport organization in Sofia"16, more than 64% of urban mobility is generated by public transport, bicycle or walk, and less than 33% - by car. The above mentioned positive statistics are not enough to conclude trends in sustainability improvement, since they are showing a general state of the city transport. It is however not specified in which areas of Sofia the urban transportation is developed well and in which it is not. By the officially published data from the "Sofia Urban Mobility Center"17 it is very easy to conclude that subway system is reaching only the existing high dense urban areas of Sofia, strengthening their sustainability by reducing car dependency.

However, in the future plans for development of the subway system, the periphery areas of Vitosha are neglected, since the urban sprawl caused less density and respectively it is considered less economically wise to invest in suburban areas.


302

Instead, the subway extension is focused on high traffic nodes such as the airport, which is being taken as the next development milestone. In addition, for the inhabitants of the periphery the situation is similar also with other forms of public transport such as bus, tram or trolley, accessibility to which is relatively poor in general at those areas of the city. To better understand and relate to the specific problems within the sustainable development of different areas of Sofia, there is a need of broader description of the current public transport state, in order to complement the raw numerical data.

The central Sofia district "Sredets" (and its immediate vicinity) is a hub of public transport links towards all points of the city. There are many stops of the subway, bus, trolley and tram within very short distance to one another, linking the center to different points of interest, making the area well integrated into the city. This fact leads to its inhabitants being less car dependent. On the other hand, the public transportation in Vitosha is considerably less developed in comparison with the central part of Sofia (and in fact most of the other districts). Sufficient public transport runs only on the main roads in the area, which are tangent to it and thus lay on the border of Vitosha area. Good access to public transport is only available at its very northwest corner, near the intersection of the Sofia`s bypass road and the boulevard “Knyaz Boris III”. It is exactly this type of public transport development and accessibility that formed the adjacent urban structure as it is. It has defined the denser population and the formation of a more pronounced secondary center, around which residential buildings with relatively substantial height can be found. The rest of the "Vitosha" area is linked to the city by poor transport connections. Only two lines of public transport (public bus) are crossing the territory. The resulting car dependency leads to ecological and economical issues. According to a survey18

conducted in 2014, 57,1% of "Vitosha" inhabitants said they travel outside their district every day mainly by car (56,6%). Another 12,5% said they travel by motorcycle which result in a total of 69,1 % of inhabitants dependent on private transportation, that is in general cost-inefficient compared to public transport and thus disrupting the sustainability of the area.

The correlation between public transport and urban sustainability - practical example Well developed public transport system has contributed to sustainable urban

development efforts in other similar to Sofia cities. Rome is an example of a similar case. It is a capital of South European country, and because of that, according to the EEA report, the city is in risk of developing urban sprawl. The new zoning of Rome19 is dividing the city into 15 districts/regions. The one of the most densely populated - the historic downtown area "Municipio I - Historical Center-Prati" (it is the official zoning of Rome that is used, converted the old 19 districts into the new system of 15) has a dense urban structure, typical for an old city center and similar to the structure of the center of Sofia. It consists of old narrow streets, many opportunities for public transport usage, great accessibility and mixed land use. As a comparison, the most dispersedly populated, peripheral and last in the list of areas


303

"Municipio XV - Cassia Flaminia", is located in the north-western corner of Rome. At first glance, it is similar to the suburban area of "Vitosha" district in Sofia, since it is mainly low density suburban residential area, but its structure is more closely associated and shaped by the transport corridors passing through it. Most urbanized areas of "Municipio XV" are organized around the two main road networks - Via Cassia and Via Flaminia Nuova. Urban structures with higher density and height are more intense near transport corridors, like the ones in Vitosha, especially along their intersections. In the periphery, the structures are mostly dispersed and loose. Another similarity between the regions is the presence of large parks, agricultural land and forests, that can be compared to the mountain next to the Bulgarian capital. Instead of having car dependency with all its negative effects on ecology and economy affecting the urban development of the area, the Roman district XV has a well developed public transport. This can be considered one of the reasons urban sprawl not to be as prominent. The public transport accessibility is much higher than in Vitosha as there are a total of 11 bus lines, 4 of which scheduled for weekdays and another 7 - for both weekdays and weekend. They are directly accessible inside the territory and not on its tangent roads. This organization is improving the flexibility of public transport, resulting in better cost-efficiency. In conclusion to the example of area XV, it can be summarized that due to the highly developed transport nodes, even though not many in count, the urban development is less dispersed. Further, it can be noted that even having relatively low density the area does not carry the negative characteristics of urban sprawl, mostly because of the sufficiently developed public transport, assisting sustainable urban development of the periphery.

4.6.4.ConclusionBased on the analysis, it can be concluded that if sufficiently developed, the

public transport can result in higher urban sustainability in the city of Sofia by reducing the negative effects of urban sprawl in the suburbs. From the example of Rome it is clear that if roads are crossing and not tangent to the urban area, there is better chance of having more efficient development and less car dependency. Such better accessibility to public transport can be used to deal with the negative signs of the unsustainable urban sprawl. Another good example is Copenhagen, where the whole urban development is shaped along the main roads coming out of the city. Their infrastructure is also widely welcoming the most sustainable urban form of transport - the bicycle, since the planning of the cycle lanes started very early in the 80s. According to research by ARUP20, the sustainability strength of Copenhagen transport system is also due to the integration of the bicycle to the public transport: "bikes were integrated into the wider transport network, so passengers could easily transfer between cycling and public transport". They also stated that "Without a decent alternative, people who can afford a car will drive it".

Fortunately, Sofia`s suburbs will be changed and will develop. The new Sofia Master plan21, is providing various tools for more sustainable development in the suburbs, by mainly intensifying the density and mix the land use of the existing built environment next to main roads. However, it mostly retains the existing road


304

network inside Vitosha district, without really improving its accessibility, which will probably keep the public transport as it is - touching the tangent of Vitosha region in the periphery without crossing it. This will create an insufficient basis for improvement of the public transport accessibility, as compared to the given practical example. Consequently the success of a sustainable urban development of the Vitosha area is questionable.

Additional to the planned tools to aid sustainability in Sofia periphery, more actions can be considered, such as flexible schedule of public transportation, as in the above given example of Rome and widening streets in the area to aid public transport inside the periphery. Such measures towards sustainability will result in less car dependency and more densely built environment that will naturally adapt to the new main street. The Copenhagen`s integration of the bicycle is also good example showing higher accessibility to public transport. Such idea can be applied in Sofia too. A great form of sustainable public transport - the subway, can be further extended in a way to come closer to the suburbs regardless the lower density of the area. Additional effects toward sustainability can be reached by providing energy efficient vehicles for public transportation. All the mentioned above tools can strengthen sustainability of the urban environment of Sofia and can lower the negative trends of the urban sprawl.

Referencelist:1. A.M. Fernández-Maldonado, A. Romein and O. Verkoren, (2009), "Polycentric

Metropolitan Form: Application of a ‘Northern’ Concept in Latin America", Metropolitan Form, p.127-45

2. R. Ewing, R Pendall, D. Chen, "Measuring Sprawl And Its Impact","Volume I", p.2

3. Y. Song and G.J. Knaap, (2004), "Measuring Urban Form. Is Portland Winning the War on Sprawl?", Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70, No. 2, p.214

4. EEA Report No 10/2006, (2006), "Urban sprawl — a European challenge", p.5

5. GRAO demographics report, (2013), "Civil Registration and Administrative Services" http://www.grao.bg

6. United Nations General Assembly, (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: "Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development", Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427, Paragraph 1

7. J. Gormley, (2009), Forewords for "Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas (Cities, Towns & Villages)"


305

8. S. Lau, J. Wang, R. Giridharan and S. Ganesan, (2008), "High-density, High-rise and Multiple and Intensive Land Use in Hong Kong: A Future City Form for the New Millennium", Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, p.162

9. K. Williams, E. Burton and M. Jenks, (2000) "Achieving Sustainable Urban Form", E & FN Spon, London, p.355

10. E. Deakin, (2003), Sustainable Development and Sustainable Transportation: Strategies for Economic Prosperity, Environmental Quality, and Equity, University of California at Berkeley, p.6

11. Official data published by the Sofia municipality, "Administrative and Territorial structure", www.sofia.bg

12. Official data published by the municipality of "Sredec" district, www.sredec-sofia.org

13. Official data published by the municipality of "Vitosha" district, www.raionvitosha.eu

14. I. Breshkov, (2002), "Status and perspectives for development of the public transport in Bulgaria", p.6

15. Official data published by the operator of the subway in Sofia, "Sofia Metropoliten", http://www.metropolitan.bg

16. Sofia Municipality, (2010), "General plan for transport organization in Sofia", Mott McDonald, p.13

17. Official data published by Sofia Urban Mobility Center, www.sofiatraffic.bg

18. Vitosha research, (2014), "Migration research for TURAS, financed by Seventh Framework Programme"

19. Official data published by the city of Rome, (2013), "Strutture territoriali", www.comune.roma.it

20. ARUP, (2003), "Copenhagen: solutions for sustainable cities", p.15

21. Sofproect, (2009), "Master Plan Of Sofia Municipality, www.sofproect.com