Urban Regions : Ecology and Planning Beyond the City

Built areas 181

Mt.-

mt.

Mt. Sea Lake

None

High

Med.

Mt.-

sea

Riv..-

riv.

Wet.-

wet.

Lake-

bay

Two sides

Physiographic constraint on spread of metropolitan area

Susceptibility to “natural” disaster affecting major

portion of metro area

One side

Volcano

High

Med.

High

Med.

Earthquake

Flood

High

Med.

Fire

Low

All four disasters

Cai*

Teh? Bei?

MosLon*

Seo?* *

Ban*

• 
  

Mex*

Kua+

Bam?+

Sam?•

Chi+

Nai?+

Ber+Buc+

Phi+

Rom?+

San?

Sto?+

Sdt+

Sap+

Nan?•

Cut•

Ula?•

Teg?• Kag?•

Por?• Eas?•

Ott•

Edm•

Atl•Erz?•

Abe?•

Bar+ Bra?+

Iqu•

Rah?•

Can•

Figure 7.9Estimated susceptibility of a metropolitan area to ‘‘natural” disasters

relative to the presence of physiographic features constraining the spread of a

metro area. Rough susceptibility estimates are based on a known 200 yr history for

thecity or being located in a known longer-term disaster zone. ‘‘Natural” disasters

or catastrophes have significant property damage over a major portion of the metro

area, a pattern often due in part to inappropriate preceding human activities.

Hurricane/cyclone, tsunami, and avalanche/mudslide may occur, but apparently are

not frequent major problems in the 38 urban regions selected. Hills are not

considered to be a major constraint on urban expansion. Mt. = mountain range; riv.

= large river; wet. = major wetland; bay = coastal saltwater bay. See Figure 7.2

caption.

As just indicated, major built lobes around a metro area pose diverse impor-
tant problems for natural systems in the region. Major greenspace wedges (e.g.,
Stockholm, Copenhagen) projecting into a metro area, on the other hand, offer
more benefits than shortcomings. The wedges are subject to degradation, some-
times intense, by being squeezed between built areas usually with high pop-
ulation densities. However, green wedges, like a high density of small parks,
provide nearby access to greenspace for people. Unlike small parks though,