*6.3.2. Urban sprawl suitability in the ecological scenario*

This scenario was protected in all important natural lands and high capable lands for agricul‐ tural usage strictly. In this extent, the LUC map of 2015 and LUA maps were re-standardized and the lowest suitability degree was assigned to agriculture after the bulrush (wetlands) areas in the LUC map. In the LUA map, the first, second, and third zones were extracted from the result map, because these lands are available for agriculture.

Medium suitable lands and constrained areas covered 41% and 36%, respectively. High suitable lands were located in the north and east sides of the city mainly (**Figure 8**).

**Figure 8.** Distribution of the urban sprawl suitability under the ecological scenario.

### *6.3.3. Urban sprawl suitability in the sustainable scenario*

*6.3.1. Urban sprawl suitability in the economic scenario*

220 Sustainable Urbanization

continuous in the future like in the last 13 years.

Restrictive areas only covered 12% of the total area (**Figure 7**).

**Figure 7.** Distribution of the urban sprawl suitability under the economic scenario.

result map, because these lands are available for agriculture.

This scenario was protected in all important natural lands and high capable lands for agricul‐ tural usage strictly. In this extent, the LUC map of 2015 and LUA maps were re-standardized and the lowest suitability degree was assigned to agriculture after the bulrush (wetlands) areas in the LUC map. In the LUA map, the first, second, and third zones were extracted from the

*6.3.2. Urban sprawl suitability in the ecological scenario*

Restrictive areas were defined as historical protection areas, current built-up areas, water surfaces (lake and rivers), and security zones (military security areas). There was no limitation on LUC and LUA or wetland usage in the area. In this scenario, urban change was presumed

Suitability degrees were classified into five categories and constrained areas. In the economic scenario, particularly, medium and high suitability regions covered 35% and 32%, respectively.

> This scenario is a mixture of the economic and ecological scenarios. Restrictive areas were less than the ecological scenario, because only the ecological scenario is not applicable and sustainable for a fast developing city like Van City. However, natural lands and coastal regions that have a good recreational ability were ignored in the economic scenario. Additionally, most of the agricultural areas were suitable for urban growth under the economic point of view because of construction expenses (less filing process and infrastructure necessity). Therefore, we have to both protect important areas for high-quality life in the future and answer the future urban built-up demand. Therefore, the sustainable scenario was considered in both variables.

> Medium and high suitable areas covered 43% and 28% of the total area, respectively, in the sustainable scenario. Restrictive areas covered 19%. Agricultural areas were protected partly according to the suitability degree in the LUA map. Only the first zone was extracted from the result map, and the fuzzy suitability map of the LUA was defined based on LUA stages orderly in a negative way. Urban sprawl was planned on less productive agricultural areas without ignoring the urban sprawl on agricultural areas (**Figure 9**).

**Figure 9.** Distribution of the urban sprawl suitability under the sustainable scenario.
