Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Muhammad Salem

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1. Peri-urban areas in relation to the whole region.

Table 1 Peri-urban areas in relation to the whole region.

Related Figures (12)

Figure 1. The spatial distribution of the peri-urban areas within the Greater Cairo boundary. ——es The initial delineation of the PUAs of GC, spearheaded by the World Bank in collab- oration with David Sims in 2008 [44,45], identified two governorates, namely, Qalyoubia and Giza, as integral components of this spatial entity [45]. Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of the PUAs within the GC boundary.
Figure 1. The spatial distribution of the peri-urban areas within the Greater Cairo boundary. ——es The initial delineation of the PUAs of GC, spearheaded by the World Bank in collab- oration with David Sims in 2008 [44,45], identified two governorates, namely, Qalyoubia and Giza, as integral components of this spatial entity [45]. Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of the PUAs within the GC boundary.
Source: United States Geological Survey [48]; * from the Ministry of Housing in Egypt. Table 2. Data collection.
Source: United States Geological Survey [48]; * from the Ministry of Housing in Egypt. Table 2. Data collection.
Figure 2. The sequence of steps followed in the investigation. Detailed descriptions of the used landscape metrics are presented in Table 3. Figure 2 resents the sequence of steps followed in the investigation.
Figure 2. The sequence of steps followed in the investigation. Detailed descriptions of the used landscape metrics are presented in Table 3. Figure 2 resents the sequence of steps followed in the investigation.
Table 3. Detailed descriptions of the used landscape metrics.
Table 3. Detailed descriptions of the used landscape metrics.
Figure 3. The land use/cover changes in 2001, 2011, and 2021.
Figure 3. The land use/cover changes in 2001, 2011, and 2021.
* Percentage represents the proportion of land category in relation to the total area of land use/cover. Table 4. Land use/cover (LUC) changes from 2001-2021.
* Percentage represents the proportion of land category in relation to the total area of land use/cover. Table 4. Land use/cover (LUC) changes from 2001-2021.
Figure 4. Urban expansion patterns in the study area from 2001-2021.
Figure 4. Urban expansion patterns in the study area from 2001-2021.
Figure 5. Distribution of landscape expansion patterns from 2001-2021.
Figure 5. Distribution of landscape expansion patterns from 2001-2021.
Figure 6. Edge expansion pattern in an existing settlement in the peri-urban areas of Greater Cairo.
Figure 6. Edge expansion pattern in an existing settlement in the peri-urban areas of Greater Cairo.
a a The current patterns of urban expansion manifest as dispersed, smaller pockets en- croaching upon arable land, resulting in its fragmentation and rendering the remaining cultivated areas susceptible to future urban encroachment [21]. According to the per- spectives presented by Abd El-kawy et al. [47], this form of urban expansion is notably inefficient in its utilization of cultivated land due to low urban expansion densities in these regions, consequently contributing to an escalation in arable land consumption. Figure 7 illustrates the different spatial types of landscape expansion in the PUAs of GC and their impacts on agricultural land. Urban expansion observed in the PUAs of GC is primarily characterized as polycentric, signifying the outward expansion of existing towns and villages into neighboring agri- cultural zones. This mode of urbanization aligns with the traits of informal development commonly observed in developing countries [26,59]. Similar observations were made by Sumbo et al. [63] for the PUAs in Kumasi, Ghana; by Atta-ur-Rahman et al. [64] for the PUAs in Peshawar, Pakistan; and by Song et al. [65] for the PUAs in Beijing, China, revealing comparable outcomes.
a a The current patterns of urban expansion manifest as dispersed, smaller pockets en- croaching upon arable land, resulting in its fragmentation and rendering the remaining cultivated areas susceptible to future urban encroachment [21]. According to the per- spectives presented by Abd El-kawy et al. [47], this form of urban expansion is notably inefficient in its utilization of cultivated land due to low urban expansion densities in these regions, consequently contributing to an escalation in arable land consumption. Figure 7 illustrates the different spatial types of landscape expansion in the PUAs of GC and their impacts on agricultural land. Urban expansion observed in the PUAs of GC is primarily characterized as polycentric, signifying the outward expansion of existing towns and villages into neighboring agri- cultural zones. This mode of urbanization aligns with the traits of informal development commonly observed in developing countries [26,59]. Similar observations were made by Sumbo et al. [63] for the PUAs in Kumasi, Ghana; by Atta-ur-Rahman et al. [64] for the PUAs in Peshawar, Pakistan; and by Song et al. [65] for the PUAs in Beijing, China, revealing comparable outcomes.
The analysis of landscape metrics demonstrated significant alterations in the PUAs spatial configurations, particularly in terms of fragmentation. As depicted in Figure 8, the PLAND indicated a remarkable expansion in urban land, rising from 16.10% in 2001 to 24.36% in 2011 and further increasing to 41.20% in 2021. Concurrently, the FDI exhibited an increasing trend, suggesting heightened complexity and fragmentation in the urban land- scape, with values climbing from 1.31 in 2001 to 1.56 in 2021. The MPS values demonstrate notable decreases, indicating a trend toward smaller urban patches, with average sizes shrinking from 5.5 in 2001 to 2.1 in 2021. Moreover, the LPI witnessed a decline, reflecting the reduced dominance of the largest urban patch over time, dropping from 20.25 in 2001 to 1.42 in 2021. Collectively, these metrics suggest a dynamic transformation in the urban spatial structure, indicated by significant fragmentation, increased complexity, and a more distributed pattern of urban land across the landscape. Figure 8 shows the changes in the landscape metrics throughout the study period. Figure 8. The alterations in the landscape metrics from 2001 to 2021.
The analysis of landscape metrics demonstrated significant alterations in the PUAs spatial configurations, particularly in terms of fragmentation. As depicted in Figure 8, the PLAND indicated a remarkable expansion in urban land, rising from 16.10% in 2001 to 24.36% in 2011 and further increasing to 41.20% in 2021. Concurrently, the FDI exhibited an increasing trend, suggesting heightened complexity and fragmentation in the urban land- scape, with values climbing from 1.31 in 2001 to 1.56 in 2021. The MPS values demonstrate notable decreases, indicating a trend toward smaller urban patches, with average sizes shrinking from 5.5 in 2001 to 2.1 in 2021. Moreover, the LPI witnessed a decline, reflecting the reduced dominance of the largest urban patch over time, dropping from 20.25 in 2001 to 1.42 in 2021. Collectively, these metrics suggest a dynamic transformation in the urban spatial structure, indicated by significant fragmentation, increased complexity, and a more distributed pattern of urban land across the landscape. Figure 8 shows the changes in the landscape metrics throughout the study period. Figure 8. The alterations in the landscape metrics from 2001 to 2021.
Related topics:
GeographyUrban Sprawlurban expansion
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved