Geocarto International

ISSN: 1010-6049 (Print) 1752-0762 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgei20

Modelling land use/cover change to assess future

urban sprawl in Romania

Ines Grigorescu, Gheorghe Kucsicsa, Elena-Ana Popovici, Bianca Mitrică,

Irena Mocanu & Monica Dumitraşcu

To cite this article: Ines Grigorescu, Gheorghe Kucsicsa, Elena-Ana Popovici, Bianca
Mitrică, Irena Mocanu & Monica Dumitraşcu (2021) Modelling land use/cover change
to assess future urban sprawl in Romania, Geocarto International, 36:7, 721-739, DOI:
10.1080/10106049.2019.1624981

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1624981

Published online: 11 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 587

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgei20
GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL
2021, VOL. 36, NO. 7, 721–739
https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1624981

Modelling land use/cover change to assess future

urban sprawl in Romania
Ines Grigorescu, Gheorghe Kucsicsa, Elena-Ana Popovici, Bianca Mitric
a ,
Irena Mocanu and Monica Dumitraşcu
Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The current paper aims at assessing future urban sprawl in Received 12 July 2018
Romania based on predicted land use/cover change (2007–2050) Accepted 25 May 2019
simulated using CLUE-S model (the Conversion of Land Use and
KEYWORDS
its Effects at Small regional extent) and CORINE Land Cover (CLC)
Urban sprawl; prediction;
database. Given the regional particularities of land use/cover CLUE-S model; CLC
change, the CLUE-S model was applied for each Development database; development
Region of Romania (NUTS 2 level). The authors analysed various region; Romania
biophysical and socio-economic explanatory variables associated
with the current patterns of urban expansion and assessed future
urban sprawl based on historical built-up expansion. The model
shows increasing built-up areas mainly in relation to the decreas-
ing in agricultural lands, especially inside and outside the cities
limits, with significant differences at the regional level. The results
provide support for the decision-makers and local communities in
promoting less consumption of land resource and the protection
of the environment.

1. Introduction
Urban sprawl is one of the most important types of land use changes currently affecting
Europe (Patacchini and Zenou 2009) bringing in population deconcentration and major
spatial transformations related to land use/land cover patterns (Bicık and Jelecek, 2009).
Over the last decades, Europe witnessed a continuous urban expansion, generally beyond
population growth, which resulted in a massive urban footprint leading to the fragmenta-
tion of rural space, the decline of ecosystem services and an increase of the demand for
transport and energy (EEA 2011). As a result, more than a quarter of the European
Union’s territory is covered by urban territory, which is more likely to expand due to the
rapid, visible and conflicting changes in land use which are transforming the landscapes
of cities and of the space around them (EEA 2006). In 2014, some 41.6% of the EU-28
population lived in cities and 31.0% in towns and suburbs, with considerable spatial
differences in terms of size and distribution of the urban development phenomenon
(Eurostat 2016). By 2020, is estimated that about 80% of Europeans will be living in urban
areas, expansion often taking place in a scattered way in the countryside under the form
of urban sprawl (EEA 2011). In order to understand the role of cities as engines of

CONTACT Gheorghe Kucsicsa mondy_ghe@yahoo.com

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
722 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

growth it is crucial to recognize and asses the changes related to urban development
(Patacchini and Zenou 2009). The urban development model of van den Berg et al.
(1982) explains the four main stages urban regions undergo (urbanization, suburbaniza-
tion, desurbanization, and reurbanization) based on population shifts between the core
city and its suburbs (or ring). During the last decades, the first two stages had largely
characterized the urban development in Europe through different processes of change in
the rural countryside around the main cities, which led to changing of lifestyle,
functioning and morphology (Antrop 2004). Hence, urban sprawl refers to the extent
of urbanization, mainly driven by population growth and large-scale migration, which
controls the changes in land use patterns (Sudhira et al. 2004). Usually defined as the
spreading of a city and its suburbs over the rural land located at the fringe (Patacchini
and Zenou 2009) or over the edge of an urban area or along the highways (Sudhira et al.
2004), urban sprawl has been described as a low-density expansion of cities, mainly into
the surrounding agricultural areas (EEA 2006).
Generally, the compact urban areas have increasingly been replaced by different
physical patterns characterized by diffusive, scattered, leapfrog, linear or clustered growth
(Allen and Lu 2003; Cheng and Masser 2003; Wilson et al. 2003; Berling-Woff and Wu
2004), with a general tendency for discontinuity (EEA 2006). In terms of spatial patterns,
urban sprawl consumes more of the land resources than compact development does
(Barnes et al. 2001) with consequences which may involve social changes (e.g. life quality
and lifestyle, segregation), environmental impacts (e.g. surface sealing, emissions,
ecosystems fragmentation), and economic changes (e.g. distribution of production, land
prices) (Patacchini and Zenou, 2009), in many cases restricting the accessibility to natural
resources (e.g. agricultural lands, timberland) (Barnes et al., 2001).
Urban sprawl has been intensely discussed in the scientific literature, mainly referring
to the developed countries such as USA (Torrens and Alberti 2000; Allen and Lu 2003;
Berling-Woff and Wu 2004), but also the developing countries such as China (Cheng and
Masser 2003; Yue et al. 2013; Shu et al. 2014), India (Sudhira et al. 2004; Jat et al. 2008;
Rahman et al. 2011), Nepal (Duwal 2013), Iran (Shahraki et al. 2011; Arsanjani et al.
2013) etc. In Europe, only recently, the issue of excessive urban conversion of natural
land has been addressed (e.g. EEA 2004, 2006) in terms of analysing the phenomenon
and its consequences (Romano and Zullo 2013). Yet, in the context of the radical political
and socio-economic transformations of the post-communist period, the scientific literature
had already tackled issues related to the new features and dimensions of the urban
growth, mainly focusing on the relationships with the different explanatory driving factors
such as natural, demographic, economic and political. In particular, in the Central and
South-East European post-communist countries, suburbanization has been described
as the leading process of urban growth, as highlighted by studies carried out in several
metropolitan regions: Budapest (Kok and Kovacs 1999; So os and Ignits 2003), Prague
(Sykora and Ourednıcek 2007; Bicık and Jelecek 2009; Spackova and Ourednıcek 2012),
Warsaw (Deg orska 2004; Lisowski 2004; Deg orska 2012) or Sofia (Hirt 2007; Stanilov and
Hirt 2014).
In spatial analyses, the impervious or the built-up areas are generally considered as key
parameters in quantifying urban growth (Torrens and Alberti 2000; Barnes et al. 2001;
Epstein et al. 2002; Sudhira et al. 2004; Rahman et al. 2011; Shahraki et al. 2011). In order
to asses and understand the spatial dimension of urban sprawl, land use/cover change
analyses (LUCC) are already receiving considerable attention for identifying and comput-
ing its extension and pattern (Arsanjani et al. 2013; Sudhira et al. 2004). Over the last
decades, land use change models provided a variety of examples at different spatial scales
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 723

(Verburg et al. 2004; Xu et al. 2013). As a result, urban modelling has been carried out
using different methodologies and tools applied at different spatial scales such as: logistic
regression (Cheng and Masser 2003; Allen and Lu 2003; Overmars and Verburg 2005;
Abebe 2013; Duwal 2013; Shu et al. 2014), multi-criteria analysis (Torrens, 2008;
Arsanjani et al., 2013), urban sprawl indices (Sudhira et al. 2004; Oueslati et al. 2015) etc.
In Romania, over the last decades, urban development (urbanization and suburbaniza-
tion) have significantly affected the landscape. The existing literature tried to explain the
relationships between urban development and the main explanatory driving factors (e.g.
political, economic, demographic and natural) at different spatial scales (Popovici et al.
2013; Corodescu and Cımpianu 2014; Grigorescu et al. 2015a; Grigorescu and Kucsicsa
2017; Kucsicsa and Grigorescu 2018). Several studies have addressed urban development-
related aspects at national level (e.g. Nicolae 2002; Suditu et al. 2010; Ioj
a et al. 2011;
Ianoş et al. 2012; Petris, or 2012; Mitric
a et al. 2006; Gr
adinaru et al. 2015; Dumitrache
et al. 2016). The regional approaches, generally targeting metropolitan (e.g. Bucharest,
Constanīa, Ias, i, Suceava, Bras, ov, Cluj-Napoca) or other urban (Targovis, te, Sinaia) areas,
have addressed a variety of topics: land cover/land use change, spatial transformations
and conflicts (Simion 2010; P
atroescu et al. 2011; Ioj
a et al. 2011; Ioj
a et al. 2014;
Grigorescu et al. 2012, 2015a), counter-urbanization process and rural-urban fringe
patterns (Ianoş et al. 2010; Guran-Nica et al. 2011; Guran-Nica and Sofer 2012; Vl
adeanu
and Petrea 2013), residential development (Niculiţ
a et al. 2011; Grigorescu et al. 2012;
Grigorescu et al. 2015b; Pocol and Jitea 2013), suburbanization and metropolization
processes (Erdeli and Simion 2006; Dumitrache et al. 2016; Guran-Nica et al. 2016),
causes and consequences of sprawl (Iaīu et al. 2011; Sarbu 2012; Cocheci 2014; Iaīu and
Eva 2016) or different socio-demographic processes (Sarbu 2012; Istrate 2015; Cocheci
and Mitrea 2016). Despite that, modelling the spatially complex processes of urban
sprawl and future trend simulations at national or regional scale in Romania using
CLUE-S model have not been carried out so far. For that reason, the use of CLUE-S
model had enabled the authors to achieve satisfactory responses to few essential questions,
necessary in understanding the sprawling process and its future trends: (1) which are the
biophysical and socio-economic driving factors better explaining built-up area dynamics
in Romania; (2) which areas are to be subject to future built-up areas expansion (urban
sprawl); (3) which land use/cover categories will be mainly affected by the sprawling pro-
cess. Hence, the resulted findings will become essential for quantifying and planning spa-
tial and temporal urban growth at the national level, but also at regional and local levels.

2. Study area
Romania is a medium-sized European state with a surface of 238,391 km2 and a popula-
tion of 20,121,641 inhabitants, laying in the South-Eastern part of Central Europe
(Population and Housing Census; INS 2011; Niculescu 2016) (Figure 1). The varied land-
forms, the moderate temperate-continental climate, the diversity of soil resources and the
socio-economic conditions favour the great variety of land use/cover categories, with
major regional differences. Although the largest extent of the territory is covered by agri-
cultural (61.2%) and forests (28.5%), the built-up areas (3.1%) (Romanian Statistical
Yearbook; INS 2012) hosts the largest share of the population. In the transition to an
urbanized society, some regions in Romania (e.g. Ilfov County) are known at European
level for the high shares of urban population growth (Eurostat 2016), also triggering spa-
tial transformations inside and outside cities.
724 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Figure 1. The Development Regions and the major landform units of Romania. Built-up areas in 2012 (CLC database).

In order to understand the spatial differences of urban sprawl and capture the spatial
disparities induced by the selected natural and socio-economic variables, the current
research was carried out at the level of Romania’s eight Development Regions – NUTS 2
(North-West, Centre, North-East, South-East, South-Muntenia, Bucharest-Ilfov, South-
West Oltenia and West). These regions were established in 1998 as territorial-statistical
entities without legal personality for Eurostat estimations and for the absorption of
European Structural Funds (S
ageat
a and Popescu, 2016).
The inter-regional disparities are visible from one development region to other in rela-
tion to the variety and dynamics of the main land use/cover categories and socio-eco-
nomic processes. Thus, the built-up areas, considered as growth nuclei for future sprawl,
prevail in the Bucharest-Ilfov, South-Muntenia, North-West and Centre Development
Regions where some of the biggest cities of Romania are located (e.g. Bucharest, Ploies, ti,
Cluj-Napoca, Oradea, Bras, ov, Sibiu, Targu Mures, ). In spite of that, areas with natural
restrictions for urban sprawl are predominantly located in the South-East Development
Region, mainly due to the presence of the second largest delta in Europe (Danube Delta)
(Figure 1).

3. Future urban sprawl modelling

Future urban sprawl was assessed based on predicted land use/cover dynamics in
Romania (2007–2050) using CLUE-s model. The simulation relied on the three CLC
Datasets (available at the European Union, Copernicus Land Monitoring Service). For this
reason, CLC 1990, 2000 and 2006 Datasets were used to assess the past changes.
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 725

Figure 2. Overview of the modelling procedure.

Therewith, CLC 2006 was used to prepare the dependent variables (land use/cover catego-
ries) and to derive two explanatory factors (settlements density, distance to settlements)
and CLC 2012 considered as reference map in order to evaluate the spatial accuracy of
the simulation.
Because of the large simulated areas and the different scale/resolutions of the employed
data, a resolution of 500
500 m cell size was chosen for the modelling. The flowchart in
Figure 2 describes synthetically the modelling procedure used to analyse urban sprawl in
the present study.
The CLUE-S model was specifically developed for the spatially explicit simulation of
land use/cover change and it relies on the empirical analysis of location suitability, com-
bined with the dynamic simulation of competition between, and interaction of the spatial
and temporal dynamics of land-use systems (Verburg et al. 1999, 2002). The model
includes a non-spatial and spatial module which combines statistical analyses and decision
rules that determine the sequence of land use/cover types (Schaldach and Priess 2008).
The non-spatial module calculates the demands for land use/cover based on the analyses
of the explanatory factors. The spatial module translates these demands into land use/
cover changes according to the probabilities and rules of different land use/cover types
using a raster-based system (Verburg et al. 2002). For the land use/cover change alloca-
tion procedure, four inputs are required (Verburg et al. 2004): land use/cover type specific
conversion setting; spatial policies and restrictions; land use/cover requirements (demand);
and location characteristics.
The land use/cover specific conversion settings for specific land use/cover types deter-
mine the temporal dynamics of the simulations (Verburg and Overmars, 2009).
Therefore, two parameters were established to characterize the individual land use/cover
types: the conversion elasticity, which is related to the reversibility (0 ¼ easy conver-
sion … .1 ¼ irreversible change) and conversion matrix, which is related to the allowable
changes. Both parameters were configured based on the past changes and the authors
understanding of the land use/cover system in the study area. As for the conversion elasti-
city, the following values were established: built-up areas ¼ 1.0; arable lands ¼ 0.3; per-
manent crops ¼ 0.6; pastures ¼ 0.2; scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation association ¼
0.6; forests ¼ 0.7; open spaces with little or no vegetation ¼ 0.9; heterogeneous agricul-
tural areas ¼ 0.4; natural grasslands ¼ 0.3; agricultural complex cultivation patterns ¼
0.5. According to the second parameter, all land use types could be converted into any
land use category (value 1), except for built-up areas which could not be converted into
other categories (value 0). Moreover, scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation association and
forests were not allowed to be changed to built-up areas and permanent crops.
726 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Figure 3. Expected annual rate of built-up areas expansion (ha) until 2050 according to the historical annual trend in
the 1990–2000 period (a) and 2000–2006 period (b).

Spatial policies (e.g. environmental policies, territorial planning) have little limited land
use/cover dynamics in Romania. As a result, the spatial policies were not included in this
study as restricted variables in land use/cover prediction.
The land use/cover demand data was based on the historical linear trend, calculated
according to the CLC Datasets. Because of the political and socio-economic changes that
took place after 1990 in Romania and their relevance for the resulted spatial transforma-
tions in land use/cover pattern, two scenarios were designed and included into the CLUE-
S model (Figure 3): S1 – based on the extrapolated linear trend of change occurred
between 1990 and 2000 period and S2 – assuming that land use/cover will change based
on the extrapolated linear trend of change in the 2000–2006 interval.
For the location characteristics, logistic regression (stepwise method) was used in order
to determine the location suitability of each analysed land use/cover types (Verburg et al.
2002). The results were tested using ROC (Relative Operating Characteristics), a measure
of the goodness of fit of the logistic regression model (Pontius and Schneider 2001). A
completely random model gives a ROC value of 0.5, while a perfect fit results in a ROC
value of 1.0. Before developing the logistic regression models, explanatory variables were
normalized into the range 0 … 1 by Min–Max linear transformation, to achieve similar
data range. Furthermore, in order to reduce the effects of multicollinearity, Pearson corre-
lations among each pair of independent variables were examined. In case of strong corre-
lations (min. ± 0.7), the better predictor variable (in univariate trials) was retained.
According to CLC dataset, ten land use/cover categories (dependent variables) were
simulated: built-up areas, arable lands, permanent crops, pastures, scrub and/or herbaceous
vegetation association, forests, open spaces with little or no vegetation, heterogeneous agri-
cultural areas, natural grasslands and agricultural complex cultivation patterns. Hence, a
binary raster with the “presence” and “absence” of each category was created. To explain
the spatial patterns of land use/cover change, several driving factors related to biophysical
and socio-economic features were included in the model. Among these, built-up areas
expansion was related to 13 explanatory factors selected based on the expert judgement of
the authors (the good knowledge of the urban sprawl phenomenon and of the environ-
mental conditions and the understanding of the intra-/inter-regional disparities), on the
scientific results provided by previous studies, as well as on the data availability. The data
were adapted to spatially explicit layers of continuous data, in accordance with the geo-
processing procedures described in Table 1.
The corresponding coefficients of the best-fitted predictor sets were subsequently used
to calculate probability map for each land use/cover category. The allocation of the pixels
within the model are then calculated, based on these probability maps, the decision rules
and the actual land use map (here 2006), conducted by an iterative procedure (Verburg
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 727

Table 1. The independent variables included in the logistic regression model.

Variables Derived by Data preparation procedure
Elevation Digital Elevation Model (DEM–30m) Merging datasets into elevation
raster (in m)
Slope declivity Digital Elevation Model (DEM–30m) Calculating slope raster layer ( )
Horizontal relief fragmentation EU-Hydro River Network, accessed in Calculating line density (km/km2)
07.04.2017 (20 m resolution)
Population density population census (2006) Calculating population density
(inh/km2)
Population growth population census (1992, 2006) Calculating population growth,
1992–2006 (&)
Employees population census (2006) Number of employees
Unemployment rate population census (2006) Calculating unemployment rate (%)
Employment in tertiary sector population census (2006) Number of employees in the
tertiary sector
Built/non agricultural ratio population census (2006) Calculating ration between built-up
and non agricultural land (%)
Settlements density CLC datasets 2006 Generating and calculating point
(accessed 16.03.2017) density (no/km2)
Secondary roads density (communal, OpenStreetMap (accessed 23.08.2017) Calculating line density (km/km2)
forestry and agricultural roads
Distance to nearest main roads OpenStreetMap (accessed 23.08.2017) Calculating Euclidean distance to
(motorway, European, national nearest main roads
and county roads)
Distance to settlements CLC datasets 2006 Calculating Euclidean distance to
(accessed 16.03.2017) nearest settlements
Distance to nearest main towns National Institute of Statistics Calculating Euclidean distance to
(county-seat) nearest main towns
Available at LAU (Local Administrative Units — the low-level administrative divisions in Romania).


CLC minimum mapping unit ¼ 25 ha.
Due to the large study area and the chosen resolutions of the simulation, the distance was calculated using a
buffer ring equal to 1 km.

et al. 2002). Finally, the modelling was carried out with the Dyna-CLUE (v 2.0) modelling
framework (Verburg and Overmars 2009). In order to evaluate the spatial goodness-of-fit
of the simulation, across-classification map was created by overlaying the predicted (2012)
and the real data (CLC 2012). As such, the accuracy was assessed using the results of con-
fusion matrix, a common method applied to validate the simulation land use/cover data
(Verburg et al. 2002; Ahmed et al. 2013). Depending on this, different statistical measures
of accuracy were calculated: Overall Accuracy, Producer’s Accuracy, User’s Accuracy and
Kappa index (Cohen 1960).

4. Results
4.1. The explanatory factors of the built-up areas
The regression results suggest that the spatial relations between the explanatory factors
and built-up areas pattern vary in relation to the biophysical potential and the socio-eco-
nomic specifics of each development region. Setting the stepwise regression, the best pre-
dictor sets have resulted. These attained good statistical accuracy, the resulted AUC values
between 0.76 and 0.86 indicate a prediction ability of 86.0% and 82.0%, respectively.
Overall, the b coefficients indicate that the biophysical variables, accessibility and prox-
imity to the main towns and settlements have the most important contribution to explain-
ing the current spatial pattern of built-up areas (Figure 4). Among this, the horizontal
relief fragmentation is the predictor with the most important contribution to built-up
areas expansion, indicating that built-up areas occur where the relief fragmentation values
728 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Figure 4. The graphical representation of the b values of the most important factors determined by logistic regression.

increase. The model also demonstrates that built-up areas occurrence is mainly driven by
the proximity of the main towns and settlements. The negative b values indicate that with
the decrease of distance to the main settlements, the built-up areas occurrence increases.
Furthermore, negative regression coefficients for the distance to the main roads also
indicate the importance of the accessibility to built-up areas expansion. The influence of
altitude and slope declivity is not so evident. However, the negative values of b indicate
that the occurrence of built-up areas increases when the altitudes and mainly slope
values decrease.
The model does not demonstrate a significant relationship between the built-up areas
occurrence and the demographic explanatory factors. Still, among these, population growth
and employees were identified as the most significant. Generally, built-up areas tend to
develop in regions where population grows and the number of employees increases.
Spatially, the output probability map predicted using the output regression coefficients
(Figure 5) displays a visible difference in the suitability of built-up areas expansion. It is
easy to understand that built-up areas tend to occur near the main towns of Romania,
with numerous important nuclei identified in the Bucharest-Ilfov (around Bucharest city),
South-Muntenia (around Ploies, ti and Pites, ti towns), North-East (around Ias, i, Suceava
and Bac
au towns), North-West (around Oradea, Baia Mare and Cluj-Napoca towns) and
West (around Timis, oara and Deva towns) Development Regions. The lowest probability
of built-up areas occurrence remains in the mountains areas and Danube Delta due to the
extension of forestland and wetlands, low accessibility and settlements seclusion.
Furthermore, extended areas in the plain regions have low probability values due to their
main rural and agricultural character.

4.2. The predicted built-up areas in the 2007–2050 period

Based on the past land use/cover dynamics in the study area, two future built-up areas
expansion scenarios have been determined. The results of the confusion matrix (User’s
Accuracy ¼ 75.2% and Producer’s Accuracy ¼ 81.4% according to S1; User’s Accuracy ¼
76.1% and Producer’s Accuracy ¼ 83.4% to S2 scenario) obtained for built-up areas, indi-
cating a substantial spatial accuracy between the simulated built-up areas occurrence in
2012 and the real data (CLC 2012). More than that, Overall Accuracy ¼ 85.7% and
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 729

Figure 5. The probability of built-up occurrence, based on the logit model.

Figure 6. The predicted built-up areas expansion in the 2007–2050 period (a) and the regional differences (b).

Kappa ¼ 0.8 for S1 and Overall Accuracy ¼ 86.1% and Kappa ¼ 0.82 for S2 indicate that
the model capture the trends in all simulated land use/cover categories.
Overall, the results show significant differences according to the scenario used
(Figure 6). As a consequence, the built-up expansion is 8% higher under the conditions
of S2 (þ158,421 ha) as compared to S1 (þ146,049 ha). The highest growth under S1 is
expected to occur in the North-West (11.4%), Bucharest-Ilfov (11.1%) and South-West
Oltenia (10.9%), while Centre and South-East Development Regions will register the low-
est growth (7.4% and 8.9%, respectively). Under S2, significant changes are expected to
730 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Figure 7. The main land use/cover transitions to built-up areas predicted during the 2007-2050 period under S1
(a) and S2 (b).

occur mainly in the South-West Oltenia (12.9%), North-West (12.8%), Centre (11.7%)
and Bucharest-Ilfov (11.5%), while the lowest in the South-East Development Region
(8.8%). Relative to the overall development region surface, the highest built-up area
expansion is estimated to be reordered in the Bucharest-Ilfov (1.75% under S1, 1.85%
under S2), North-East (1.05% under S1, 0.85% under S2), while the lowest in the Centre
(0.4% under S1, 0.6% under S2) and West (0.5% under S1, 0.55% under S2)
Development Regions.
In terms of the predicted transition of different land use/cover categories, under both
scenarios resulted that arable lands, pastures, permanent crops and agricultural complex
cultivation patterns are more likely to be “consumed” by future built-up areas expansion
(Figure 7).

5. Discussions
After the fall of communism, urban growth has been one of the most important phenom-
ena related to land use/cover change in Romania, the biophysical and socio-economic dif-
ferences triggering significant the intra- and inter-regional disparities. This process is
increasingly higher after 2000, especially in the areas surrounding towns/cities where sub-
urbanization processes are more rapid (Figure 8).
According to the CLC database (Figure 9), the built-up areas increased with 0.8% dur-
ing the 1990–2000 period and with 1.0% during the 2000–2006 period, with an annual
rate of 1,600 ha over the 1990–2006 interval. In terms of land use/cover transition, built-
up areas increase mainly in relation to arable lands (35.0%), agricultural complex cultiva-
tion patterns (31.1%), and pastures losses (13.0% of the total changes related to built-up
areas expansion). Regionally, the highest increases between 1990 and 2006 were registered
in the North-West (6,100 ha) and South-West Oltenia (3,250 ha) Development Regions,
while the smallest in the Central Development Region (2,100 ha). However, compared to
the existing built-up areas in 1990, the highest extension shares were registered in the
Bucharest-Ilfov (8.3%) and North-West (3.1%) Development Regions, while the lowest, in
the North-East (0.9%) and South-Muntenia (1.1%) Development Regions. In this context,
growth was mainly concentrated in and around large cities (e.g. Bucharest, Ias, i,
Constanīa, Cluj-Napoca, Bras, ov) where urbanization/suburbanization processes were
more evident (Grigorescu and Kucsicsa 2017).
These urban growth-related processes and their dynamics have been carried out using
different methodologies and tools applied at different spatial scales. Hence, the methods
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 731

Figure 8. Urban sprawl processes in the surroundings of two of the most important cities in Romania: Ias, i (left,
photo: I. Grigorescu) and Cluj-Napoca (right, photo: G. Kucsicsa).

Figure 9. Built-up areas dynamics during the 1990–2006 period (a) and distribution in the Development Regions of
Romania (b) according to the CLC database.

used to better explain urban development-related processes involved: change detection

analyses based on cartographic sources and satellite imagery (Grigorescu and Kucsicsa
2017), satellite imagery (Şandric et al. 2007; Huzui et al. 2013; Mihai et al. 2015;
Grigorescu et al. 2015a) or using topographic maps and CLC database (Simion 2010;
P
atroescu et al. 2011; Petris, or 2012; Grigorescu et al., 2015a); multi-criteria analysis (Ioj
a
et al. 2014).
National-level studies on future urban growth and sprawl predictions are missing.
Simultaneously, few regional-level studies have been applied to model built-up areas
expansion using different methods, e.g. GIS-Geographically Weighted Regression tool
(Corodescu and Cımpianu 2014), calculating Land Suitability Index (Gavrilidis 2017) or
using logistic regression (Kucsicsa and Grigorescu 2018). Even so, these studies only
reflect the urban expansion probability in relation to the explanatory factors, without
anticipating the spatial and temporal changes in the pattern of the built-up areas. That
being so, in the current study is predicted future urban sprawl implementing the CLUE-S
model for regional simulations. Because the modelling was based on the historical built-
up areas expansion rate of two periods, noteworthy differences between the scenarios
were noticed. Subsequently, significant higher growth has been predicted for S2, as com-
pared to S1, in relation to an improvement of the socio-economic context after 2000: the
development of the tertiary sector, foreign investments, the improvement of transport and
sanitary infrastructure, the availability and use of structural funds etc. Overall, the resulted
732 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Figure 10. Predicted urban growth (2050) in the some of the foremost cities in Romania.

Figure 11. Urban sprawl processes in the surroundings of Bucharest (photo: I. Grigorescu).

maps indicate that future urban sprawl is mostly expected close to the main cities
(Figure 10), were the urban growth tendency has already been detected (S, andric et al.
2007; Corodescu and Cımpianu 2014; Ioj
a et al. 2014; Grigorescu et al. 2015a; Mihai et al.
2015; Kucsicsa and Grigorescu 2018). Here, urban growth mainly occurs at the expense of
lands that were previously used as agricultural, abandoned or undeveloped (Gr
adinaru
et al. 2015). Under the current land regulations, arable lands become pastures/grasslands
(Figure 11), which become easily converted to built-up areas which are then included into
the sprawling process.
Insignificant urban growth is mainly expected in the Development Regions with
extended rural areas and large hilly/mountain units and wetlands (e.g. Danube Delta)
where the natural and socio-economic conditions have limited built-up areas expansion in
the last decades: relief altitude (Centre Development Region); flash-floods and soil erosion
in North-East Development Region (B
alteanu et al. 2016b), extreme weather phenomena
(e.g. drought, heavy rainfall) in South-West Oltenia Development Region (Dumitras, cu
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 733

et al., 2018); industrial decline of some one-industry or mining towns (North-West,

Centre and West Development Regions) (Dumitrescu 2008), predominant agriculture-
based economy, poor accessibility to transport infrastructure and services, high unemploy-
ment rates, poverty, population aging in South-East, South-Muntenia and South-West
Oltenia Development Regions (Mocanu et al. 2011) etc.
In relation to the particular natural and socio-economic features, significant
intra-regional differences are noticed at the level of each Development Region under both
scenarios. Hence, Bucharest-Ilfov Development Region is likely to have the highest urban
growth potential among all Development Regions under both scenarios. This is explained
by the region’s economic development with the highest contribution to the national GDP
and the highest concentration of foreign investments (B
alteanu et al. 2016a). However,
the economic disparities between the Capital-city and Ilfov County are visible in the
intra-regional disparities; Bucharest is expected to register the highest built-up areas
expansion in Romania. Also, suburbanisation-related processes, mainly residential and
commercial development (Grigorescu and Kucsicsa 2017; Kucsicsa and Grigorescu 2018),
explain the high growth probability in the LAU- located in the inner suburbs of
Bucharest. North-West Development Region is also among the regions with significant
potential growth, especially in the towns of Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Baia Mare and Satu
Mare where the greatest part of industry and services are located and in some LAU
located in their metropolitan areas, under suburbanization processes. The sustained eco-
nomic revival after the EU accession period (Popescu et al. 2016) explains the urban
growth dynamics under the two scenarios in South-West Oltenia Development Region
where some industrial towns maintained their economic profile from the communist
period (e.g. Craiova, R^amnicu V^alcea, T^argu Jiu, Filias, i, Slatina). In the West Development
Region, urban sprawl is expected to increase significantly under S2. Most targeted are
the towns of Arad and Timis, oara, where the foremost regional cluster of the footwear
industry in the country is located (B
alteanu et al., 2016a), as well as in the towns of Deva,
Hunedoara, and Simeria which are striving to develop a metropolitan area.
Although expecting the lowest growth under S1, in the Centre Development Region the
predicted increase under S2 is assumed to be registered in relation to the important indus-
trial companies, suburbanisation processes, foreign investments and the tourism, mainly
in the towns of Sibiu, Bras, ov, Medias, , Sighis, oara. An overall negative growth process is
expected in the South-East Development Region under both scenarios. Yet, locally, some
elevated growth rates are expected. For example Constanīa due to its port-related
functions (the main gateway of international maritime traffic in Romania) and Br
aila and
Galaīi supported by the national-level industrial plants and location along the Danube
River (Galaīi is the biggest fluvial-maritime harbour in Romania). The North-East
and South-Muntenia Development Regions are generally likely to have the lowest growth
values. Isolated, in relation to the large human and land resources and the industrial
development of some towns (e.g. Ias, i, Suceava, Piatra-Neamī) urban expansion
might occur.
Limitations of the results. In the present study, some of the most common drivers
of urban growth cited in the literature were used to simulate future urban growth
in Romania. Nonetheless, given the unavailability of some spatial data, several relevant
factors related to built-up expansion were not included in the analysis. Because of
that, the Nagelkerke R2 obtained by the regression models (0.16–0.42) indicate that the
explanatory factors included in the simulation together explain only 16–42% of the
current built-up areas patterns. This suggests that several other explanatory factors, which
were not analysed in the present study, might also have a significant contribution to the
734 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

built-up pattern (e.g. local/regional economic development, land prices, income).

Furthermore, the scenarios regarding demographic tendency and economic development
in the area must be also integrated in order to allow a better and realistic modelling.
In addition, the accuracy and the different scales of the data used in the model, as well
as the difficulty to take into account the unexpected political and institutional measures
with influence on the dynamics of the built-up area (e.g. Land Laws, Spatial Planning,
Land Management) are also limiting factors. Under these circumstances, we assume
that the results generally show the tendency in urban growth and its regional dimension,
ergo being expected that built-up areas to affect more or less other areas indicated by the
predicted maps.

6. Conclusions
The current research has tried to predict land use/cover categories dynamics in Romania
applying CLUE-S model at the regional level. In view of that, an important step was
to identify and explain the complex spatial, structural and functional future urban sprawl
trends (2007–2050) based on past built-up areas dynamics of two periods: 1990–2000,
which marked the fall of the communist regime and 2000–2006, which followed the
pre-accession to the European Union. Overall, predicted maps indicate significant inter-
and intra-regional differences of urban growth phenomena in relation to the particular
natural and socio-economic features of each Development Region. Higher growth is
expected under S2, as compared to S1, in relation to the complexity of spatial changes,
agricultural land abandonment, economic restructuring, urbanization/suburbanization
processes and availability of land resources. In terms of the consumed land use resources,
urban growth is more likely to occur at the expense of arable lands, pastures, permanent
crops and agricultural complex cultivation patterns. Three Development Regions anticipate
notable urban expansion under both scenarios: Bucharest-Ilfov, North-West and South-
West. Locally, urban growth is more likely to occur in and around the main cities where
the highest built-up areas potential is mainly expected (e.g. Bucharest, Ias, i, Constanīa,
Cluj-Napoca, Bras, ov). On the other hand, natural and socio-economic limitations might
explain the large share of LAU with insignificant built-up areas expansion.
As shown by the current study, an important role in the spatial dynamics of urban
growth is played by the numerous explanatory factors and the interaction between them.
For this reason, the present spatial modelling can provide important statistics on the
detection, measurement and quantification of the sprawling process in terms of spatial
extension and patterns. All these aspects might be of help in assisting planners in consid-
ering alternative development strategies to address urban growth at different temporal
scales) and local decision-makers and communities in promoting less consumption of
land resources. Some of the measures should target reducing of land abandonment and
supporting the sustainable management of agricultural lands – the main to be consumed
by urban sprawl, as indicated by the application results. Urban sprawl also involves com-
muting and infrastructure development generally associated with negative environmental
effects. Consequently, the spatial results might also be useful for the sustainable planning
of transportation, promotion of responsible travel behaviours, adopting green travel
modes and limiting the environmental impacts of road traffic.
For future research applications, the predicted maps might provide support to assess
future growth and to develop sustainable planning scenarios. By extension, the present
study can also provide the starting point for new scenario analysis where independent
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 735

variables can be continuously adjusted and updated in response to the socio-economic

needs and changes of a region.

Acknowledgements
The current research was carried out under the project: “Geographical study of the man-environment
relationships in the Romanian Plain” made under the research plan of the Institute of Geography,
Romanian Academy.
The authors would like to thank the IVM Institute for Environmental Studies (http://www.ivm.vu.nl/
en/Organisation/departments/spatial-analysis-decision-support/Clue) for its support for the full CLUE soft
version and the European Environment Agency (Copernicus Land Monitoring Service) for the provision
of CLC database (https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/view) and of EU-Hydro
River Network database (https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/satellite-derived-products/eu-hydro).
Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors and available from https://www.openstreetmap.org.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Bianca Mitric
a http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7282-1885

References
Abebe GA. 2013. Quantifying urban growth pattern in developing countries using remote sensing and
spatial metrics: A case study in Kampala, Uganda [Ph.D. Thesis]. The Netherlands: ITC Enschede.
Retrieved from https://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2013/msc/upm/abebe.pdf, 108 pp.
Ahmed B, Ahmed R, Zhu X. 2013. Evaluation of model validation techniques in land cover dynamics.
SPRS Int J Geo-Inform. 2(3):577–597.
Allen J, Lu K. 2003. Modeling and prediction of future urban growth in the Charleston region of South
Carolina: a GIS-based integrated approach. Conserv Ecol. 8(2) https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/
iss2/art2/inline.html.
Antrop M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan. 67(1–4):
9–26.
Arsanjani JJ, Helbich M, Kainz W, Boloorani AD. 2013. Integration of logistic regression, Markov chain
and cellular automata models to simulate urban expansion. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform. 21:
265–275.
Barnes KB, Morgan JM, III, Roberge MC, Lowe S. 2001. Sprawl development: its patterns, consequences,
and measurement. Towson: Towson University; p. 1–24.
B
alteanu D, Mitric
a B, Mocanu I, Sima M, Popescu C. 2016. Caracterizarea geografic
a a regiunilor de dez-
voltare. In: B
alteanu D, Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima M, editors. Romania. Natur
a s, i
Societate. Romania: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 621–652 (in Romanian).
B
alteanu D, Sima M, Jurchescu M, Chendes, V, Micu M, Sandu M. 2016. Hazardele naturale s, i tehnolo-
gice. In: B
alteanu D, Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima M, editors. Romania. Natur
a s, i
Societate. Romania: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 563–592 (in Romanian).
Berling-Woff S, Wu J. 2004. Modeling urban landscape dynamics: a case study in Phoenix, USA. Urban
Ecosyst. 7(3):215–240.
Bicık I, Jelecek L. 2009. Land use and landscape changes in Czechia during the period of transition

1990–2007. Geografie – Sbornik CGS. 114(4):263–281.
Cheng J, Masser I. 2003. Urban growth pattern modeling: a case study of Wuhan city, PR China. Landsc
Urban Plan. 62(4):199–217.
Cocheci M. 2014. Environmental impact assessment of urban sprawl in the Bras, ov Metropolitan Area.
Urban Arhitect Constr. 5(2):21–37.
736 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Cocheci V, Mitrea A. 2016. Youthification in the Metropolitan Area of Cluj, Urbanism. Arhitectur
a.
Construcţii. 9(2):121–130.
Cohen J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scale. Educ Psychol Measur. 20(1):37–46.
Corodescu E, C^ımpianu C. 2014. Assessing the spatial differences among some urban expansion driving
forces in constanta metropolitan area (Romania), Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii "Al. I. Cuza.
Geography Series. LX(2):77–95.
Degorska B. 2004. Spatial conflicts between the shaping of open spaces and the socio-economic develop-
ment in the metropolitan area of Warsaw. In: Kovacs, AD, editors, New aspects of regional transform-
ation and the urban-rural relationship. Pecs, Hungary: Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. http://discussionpapers.rkk.hu/index.php/DP/article/viewFile/2221/4137.
Degorska B. 2012. Spatial growth of urbanised land within the Warsaw Metropolitan Area in the first
decade of the 21st century. Geogr Pol. 85(3):77–95.
Dumitrache L, Zamfir D, Nae M, Simion G, Stoica V. 2016. The urban nexus: Contradictions and
dilemmas of (Post) communist (Sub) urbanization in Romania. Hum Geograph. 10(1):39–58.
Dumitraşcu M, Mocanu I, Mitric
a B, Dragot
a CS, Grigorescu I, Dumitric
a C. 2018. The assessment of socio-
economic vulnerability to drought in Southern Romania (Oltenia Plain). Int J Disaster Risk. 27:142–154.
Dumitrescu (Mitric
a) B. 2008. Oraşele monoindustriale din Rom^ania, ^ıntre industrializare forţata şi declin
economic, Edit. Universitara, Bucureşti; 301 pp. (in Romanian).
Duwal S. 2013. Modeling urban growth in Kathmandu Valley [Ph.D. Thesis]. The Netherlands: University
of Twente, Enschede; p. 89, Retrieved from https://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2013/msc/upm/duwal.pdf.
EEA. 2004. Corine land cover 2000: Mapping a decade of change. European Environmental Agency,
Brochure no 4/2004 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/brochure_2006_0306_103624.
EEA. 2006. Urban sprawl in Europe, The ignored challenge. European Environmental Agency, no. 10/
2006, Directorate General Joint Research Centre, Copenhagen.
EEA. 2011. Analysing and managing urban sprawl, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, 22
https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/analysing-and-managing-urban-growth.
# European Union, Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, 2017. CORINE Land Cover, European
Environment Agency (EEA).
# European Union, Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, 2017. EU-Hydro River Network, European
Environment Agency (EEA).
Epstein J, Payne K, Kramer E. 2002. Techniques for mapping suburban sprawl. Photogramm Eng Remote
Sensing. 68(9):913–918.
Erdeli G, Simion G. 2006. Local decentralization and extended suburbanization: a geographical approach
of the metropolisation process in Romania. Buletinul Societ
aţii de Geografie din Rom^ania, XII (XXCII),
p. 107–120.
Eurostat. 2016. Urban Europe — statistics on cities, towns and suburbs — patterns of urban and city
developments, Cat. No: KS-01-16-691-EN-N http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/
Urban_Europe_%E2%80%94_statistics_on_cities,_towns_and_suburbs.
Gavrilidis AA. 2017. Roiecīia expansiunii s, i dinamicii urbane asupra peisajului. Studiu de caz: Municipiul
Ploies, ti, Editura Etnologic
a, Bucures, ti; p. 127 (in Romanian).
Gr
adinaru S, Ioj
a CI, Onose A, Gavrilidis AA, P
atru-Stupariu I, Kienast F, Hersperger A. 2015. Land
abandonment as a precursor of built-up development at the sprawling periphery of former socialist
cities. Ecol Indic. 57:305–313.
Grigorescu I, Mitric
a B, Mocanu I, Ticana N. 2012. Urban sprawl and residential development in the
Romanian metropolitan areas. Rom J Geograph. 56(1):43–59.
Grigorescu I, Kucsicsa G, Mitric
a B. 2015a. Assessing spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in
the Bucharest Metropolitan area over the last century. In: Bicik I, Himiyama Y, Feranec J, Kupkova L,
editors. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the world. Prague: Faculty of Science, Charles
University in Prague, vol. X; p. 19–27.
Grigorescu I, Mitric
a B, Mocanu I. 2015b. Assessing urban sprawl-related housing dynamics in the
Romanian Metropolitan Areas. Stud Obsz Wiej. 38:145–164.
Grigorescu, Kucsicsa G. 2017. Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in the Romanian Plain over
the last century. Revue Roumaine de Geographie/Rom J Gepgraph. 61(2):109–123.
Guran-Nica L, Sofer M. 2012. Migration dynamics in Romania and the counter-urbanisation process:
a case study of Bucharest’s rural-urban fringe. In: Hedberg C, do Carmo RM, editors. Translocal
ruralism: mobility and connectivity in European rural space, vol. 103; p. 87–102.
Guran-Nica L, Sofer M, Bistriceanu-Pantelimon C. 2016. From urbanization to metropolization: a case
study of Romania. Proc Econ Bus Admin. 3(1):106–113.
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 737

Guran-Nica L, Sofer M, Ştefan N. 2011. New rural-urban relationships in Romania. Issues at the Rural-
Urban Fringe of Bucharest. Stud Univer Babes-Bolyai, Geograph. 1:127–140.
Hirt S. 2007. Suburbanizing Sofia: characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geograph.
28(8):755–780.
Huzui E, Abdelkader A, Patru-Stupariu I. 2013. Analysing urban dynamics using multi-temporal satellite
images in the case of a mountain area, Sinaia (Romania). Int J Digital Earth. 6(6):563–579.
Ianoş I, Cercleux AL, Pintilii RD. 2010. Remarks on identity building of rural and urban communities in
the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Analele Universit
aţii Din Oradea – Seria Geografie. XX(2):173–183.
Ianoş I, Peptenatu D, Dr
aghici C, Pintilii RD. 2012. Management elements of the emergent metropolitan
areas in a transition country. Romania, as case-study. J Urban Regional Anal. IV(2):149–172.
Iaīu C, Munteanu A, Boghinciuc M, Cernescu R, Ib
anescu B. 2011. The effects of transportation system
on the urban sprawl process for the city of Ias, i. Romania, Urban Transport XVII: Urban Transport and
the Environment in the 21st Century. 116:291–302.
Iaīu C, Eva M. 2016. Spatial profile of the evolution of urban sprawl pressure on the surroundings of
Romanian cities (2000-2013). Carpath J Earth Environ Sci. 11(1):79–88.
INS. 2011. Recens
amantul Populaţiei şi Locuinţelor (Population and Housing Census). Bucureşti: INS.
INS. 2012. Anuarul Statistic al Romaniei (Romanian Statistical Yearbook). Bucureşti: INS.
Ioj
a C, Onose D, Nit
a M, Van
au G, P
atroescu M ,Gavrilidis A, Saghin I, Zarea R. 2011. The conversion
of agricultural lands into built surfaces in Romania. Recent researches in Urban Sustainability and
Green Development, USCUDAR Proceedings; Prague, Czech Republic: WSEAS Press. p. 115–120.
Ioj
a CI, Niţ
a MR, Van
au GO, Onose DA, Gavrilidis AA. 2014. Using multi-criteria analysis for the identi-
fication of spatial land-use conflicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol Indic. 42:112–121.
Istrate MI. 2015. Urban sprawl and demographic dynamics in Suceava Metropolitan Area. J Community
Posit Pract. 15(2):43–55.
Jat MK, Garg PK, Khare D. 2008. Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and
GIS techniques. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform. 10(1):26–43.
Kok H, Kovacs Z. 1999. The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. Neth J
Housing Built Environ. 14(2):119–141.
Kucsicsa G, Grigorescu I. 2018. Urban growth related to distance explanatory factors in Bucharest
Metropolitan Area. Spatial and temporal assessment using logistic regression. J Urban Plann Develop,
ASCE Library. 144(1). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29UP.1943-5444.0000415.
Lisowski A. 2004. Social aspects of the suburbanisation stage in the agglomeration of Warsaw. Dela. 21:
531–541.
Mihai B, Nistor C, Simion G. 2015. Post-socialist urban growth of Bucharest, Romania-a change detection
analysis on LANDSAT imagery (1984-2010). Acta Geographica Slovenica. 55(2):225–234.
Mitric
a B, Grigorescu I, Urucu V. 2006. Urban development and the metropolitan areas. In: B
alteanu D,
Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima, M, editors. Romania. Natur
a s, i Societate. Romania: The
Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 250–291 (in Romanian).
Mocanu I, Dumitrascu M, Dumitrescu B, Popovici A. 2011. The drinking water infrastructure in the olte-
nia plain over the last decade. Territorial characteristics and quantitative aspects of production and
consumption. Forum Geograph. 10(2):364–371.
Nicolae I. 2002. Suburbanismul, ca fenomen geografic ın Romania, Edit. Meronia, Bucureşti p. 397 p
(in Romanian).
Niculescu G. 2016. Unit
aīile de relief. In: B
alteanu D, Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima M, editors.
Romania. Natur
a s, i Societate. Romania: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 67–101.
Niculiţ
a L, Ioj
a C, Tudor A, Pavelescu G, Ioj
a A. 2011. Evaluation of environmental impact caused by
new residential areas in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Proc USCUDAR. 35:130–135.
Oueslati W, Alvanides S, Garrod G. 2015. Determinants of urban sprawl in European cities. Urban Stud.
52(9):1594–1614.
Overmars KP, Verburg PH. 2005. Analysis of land use drivers at the watershed and household level: link-
ing two paradigms at the Philippine forest fringe. Int J Geograph Inform Sci. 19(2):125–152.
Patacchini E, Zenou Y. 2009. Urban sprawl in Europe. In: Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs;
p. 125–149.
P
atroescu M, Van
au G, Niţ
a M, Ioj
a C, Ioj
a A. 2011. Land use change in the Bucharest metropolitan area
and its impacts on the quality of the environment in residential developments. Forum Geograph. X(1):
177–186.
Petrişor AI. 2012. Land cover and land use analysis of urban growth in Romania. Human Geographies – J
Stud Res Human Geograph. 6(1):47–51.
738 I. GRIGORESCU ET AL.

Pocol CB, Jitea IM. 2013. The residential function of the countryside and the development of the peri-urban
area of Cluj Napoca City. Bull Univ Agricult Sci Vet Med Cluj-Napoca, Horticulture. 70(2):368–373.
Pontius RG, Jr, Schneider LC. 2001. Land-cover change model validation by an ROC method for the
Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 85(1–3):239–248.
Popescu C, Mitric
a B, Mocanu I. 2016. Dezvoltarea regional
a pre- s, i postaderare la Uniurea European
a.
In: B
alteanu D, Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima M, editors. Romania. Natur
a s, i Societate.
Romania: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 613–620.
Popovici EA, B
alteanu D, Kucsicsa G. 2013. Assessment of changes in land-use and land-cover pattern in
Romania using Corine Land Cover Database. Carpathian J Earth Environ Sci. 8(4):195–208.
Rahman A, Aggarwal SP, Netzband M, Fazal S. 2011. Monitoring urban sprawl using remote sensing and
GIS techniques of a fast growing urban centre, India. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens.
4(1):56–64.
Romano B, Zullo F. 2013. Models of urban land use in Europe: assessment tools and criticalities. Int J
Agric Environ Inform Syst. 4(3):80–97.
S
ageat
a R, Popescu C. 2016. Regiunile de dezvoltare s, i politica de dezvoltare regional
a, In: B
alteanu D,
Dumitraşcu M, Geacu S, Mitric
a B, Sima M, editors. Romania. Natur
a s, i Societate. The Romania:
Publishing House of the Romanian Academy; p. 604–608 (in Romanian).
S, andric I, Mihai B, Savulescu I, Suditu B, Chitu Z. 2007. Change detection analysis for urban develop-
ment in Bucharest-Romania, using high resolution satellite imagery, 2007 Urban Remote Sensing Joint
Event IEEE; p. 1–8. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4234447
S^arbu C. 2012. Urban expansion – Urban shrinking considerations on Bras, ov agglomeration urban
dynamics. Hum Geograph J Stud Res Hum Geograph. 6(1):53–58.
Schaldach R, Priess JA. 2008. Integrated models of the land system: a review of modelling approaches on
the regional to global scale. Living Rev Landscape Res. 2(1):1863–7329.
Shahraki SZ, Sauri D, Serra P, Modugno S, Seifolddini F, Pourahmad A. 2011. Urban sprawl pattern and
land-use change detection in Yazd, Iran. Habitat Int. 35(4):521–528.
Shu B, Zhang H, Li Y, Qu Y, Chen L. 2014. Spatiotemporal variation analysis of driving forces of urban
land spatial expansion using logistic regression: a case study of port towns in Taicang City, China.
Habitat Int. 43:181–190.
Simion G. 2010. The spatial changes of land use in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area 1970s–2000s.
Human Geograph. 4(2):115–123.
So os G, Ignits G. 2003. Suburbanization and its consequences in the Budapest metropolitan area. In:
3rd EuroConference "The European City in Transition, The City and the Region", Bauhaus-
Universit€at Weimar, Germany, Supported by the European Commission https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/11871881.pdf.
Spackova P, Ourednıcek M. 2012. Spinning the web: new social contacts of Prague’s suburbanites. Cities.
29(5):341–349.
Stanilov K, Hirt S. 2014. Sprawling Sofia. Postsocialist suburban growth in the Bulgarian capital. In:
Stanilov K, Sykora L, editors. Confronting suburbanization: urban decentralization in postsocialist
Central and Eastern Europe. John Wiley and Sons; p. 163–191.
Sudhira HS, Ramachandra TV, Jagadish KS. 2004. Urban sprawl: metrics, dynamics and modelling using
GIS. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinformat. 5(1):29–39.
Suditu B, Ginavar A, Muic
a A, Iord
achescu C, V^ardol A, Ghinea B. 2010. Urban sprawl characteristics
and typologies in Romania. J Stud Res Human Geograph. 4(2):79–87.
Sykora L, Ourednicek M. 2007. Sprawling post-communist metropolis: commercial and residential subur-
banisation in Prague and Brno, the Czech Republic. In: Razin E, Dijst M, Vazquez C, editors.
Employment deconcentration in European metropolitan areas. Netherlands: Springer. Vol. 91,
p. 209–233.
Torrens PM. 2008. A toolkit for measuring sprawl. Appl Spatial Anal Policy. 1(1):5–36.
Torrens PM, Alberti M. 2000. Measuring Sprawl. Working Paper No. 27, Centre for Advanced Spatial
Analysis, University College London, London. http://www.casa.ac.uk/working_papers/.
Van den Berg L, Drewett R, Klaasen LH, Rossi A, Vijverberg CH. 1982. Urban Europe: a study of growth
and decline. Oxford: Pergamon Press; p. 184.
Verburg PH, de Koning G, Kok K, Veldkamp A, Bouma JA. 1999. Spatial explicit allocation proced-
ure for modelling the pattern of land use change based upon actual land use. Ecol Model. 116(1):
45–61.
Verburg PH, Soepboer W, Veldkamp A, Limpiada R, Espaldon V, Mastura SS. 2002. Modeling the spatial
dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ Manag. 30(3):391–405.
 GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 739

Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A. 2004. Land use change modelling: current practice and
research priorities. GeoJournal. 61(4):309–324.
Verburg PH, Overmars KP. 2009. Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling:
exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecol.
24(9):1167–1181.
Vl
adeanu MG, Petrea CG. 2013. Dynamics of the functional profile of the urban-rural interface of
Targovişte. Urban Arhitect Construcţ. 4:25–38.
Xu L, Li Z, Song H, Yin H. 2013. Land-use planning for urban sprawl based on the clue-s model: a case
study of Guangzhou, China. Entropy. 15(12):3490–3506.
Yue W, Liu Y, Fan P. 2013. Measuring urban sprawl and its drivers in large Chinese cities: the case of
Hangzhou. Land Use Policy. 31:358–370.
Wilson EH, Hurd JD, Civco DL, Prisloe MP, Arnold C. 2003. Development of a geospatial model to
quantify, describe and map urban growth. Remote Sens Environ. 86(3):275–285. http://hot.openstreet-
map.org/ Accessed 23.08.2017.