|
Figures
at end of paper
© S.Pauleit and
B.Oppermann
Introduction
The paper aims to
analyse the development, current state and challenges for
Munich's greenstructure from an environmental / ecological
perspective. The response of the city and city region to
address these challenges will be discussed. From this
analysis, an attempt will be made to draw some conclusions
as to the major ecological/ environmental requirements for
greenstructure planning.
The City of Munich has
approximately 1.3 Million inhabitants and covers a surface
area of 311 km2 within its administrative boundaries. The
city forms the core of a fast growing urban region of 2.4
million inhabitants, however, the commuting zone goes far
beyond (Fig. 1). In particular the northern part of the
Munich plain is characterised by strong urbanisation
developing into a regional city. Therefore, the case study
will not only look at the city itself but also at the
regional level.
The paper draws on a
variety of sources. The analysis of greenspace provision,
and its challenges will be mainly based on the results from
several scientific and planning studies for the City of
Munich, including the development of a landscape ecological
strategy (LÖK 1983, Pauleit and Duhme, 2000). Planning
documents from the city will be used to review the planning
response (Ref.). The discussions with greenspace planners
and nature conservationists from the city during a COST
meeting were a particularly valuable input in this respect.
Finally, the results from a student project will be briefly
presented to discuss possible solutions for greenstructure
planning on the regional level.
1. How have natural and
cultural features influenced the development of
greenstructure in the urban environment?"
Munich is situated in a
plain of limestone gravel of glacial origin, which provided
an almost ideal ground for urban development. Only the
floodplain of the river Isar, steep banks of glacial
terraces and the fenland areas in the northern part of the
plain posed natural constraints. However, while the Munich
plain overall appears to be quite homogeneous, it is
characterised by a fine grained pattern of different gravel
terraces (Fig 2). The natural greenstructure, therefore,
consists of different types of woodlands, heathlands and
open fenlands, the two latter being created through
extensive grazing.
However, most this
natural greenstructure is lost and fragmented due to
intensive farming, forestry and urban development. Munich
did not achieve to preserve or develop a spatial system of
greenstructures such as the 'greenfinger plan' for
Copenhagen or the greenbelt system in Cologne. The river
Isar floodplain is an exception, forming a continuous,
mostly natural greenbelt across the Munich plain. Royal
parks were created outside the city at their time but were
incorporated into the urban fabric since: Englischer Garten,
Nymphenburger Park/ Hirschgarten, and Schleißheim
Castle, to name the biggest parks. An important element of
the historical greenstructure are canals linking the parks
of Nymphenburg and Schleißheim, situated outside the
city in the northern Munich plain (Fig. 3).
Munich remained a
relatively small town until the 19th century. While the city
already had 500,000 inhabitants in the 1930s, it was only
after the World War II when the city developed from a medium
sized town into a major city of 1.3 million population (Fig.
4). Few large greenspaces were created during this period.
Therefore, the densely built inner city and surrounding
neighbourhoods are very deficient in greenspace until today.
It was only from the 1970s onwards when again new large
parks were created: Ostpark, Westpark, Olympiapark, and most
recently, a large park in the new neighbourhood
Riem.
A complete survey of
greenspace resource in the city for the purpose of
ecological planning is provided by a habitat mapping scheme
(LÖK 1983, Duhme and Pauleit, 1992). Overall, vegetated
surfaces (including farmland) cover 18,342 ha in Munich,
corresponding to 59% of the city surface. This compares to
16% of built and 19% of other sealed surfaces. It is
interesting to note that the high cover of vegetated
surfaces contrasts with the figures from city statistics
that 60% of the city are built-up. However, city statistics
ignore the fact that greenspaces exist within urban land
uses such as housing areas.
Green spaces cover 21%
of the city when intensively used farmland on the urban
fringe is excluded. However, the distribution of greenspace
in the city is very uneven (Fig. 5). City zones can be
distinguished, ranging from the densely built-up inner city
to the fringe under agricultural and forestry use. The
proportionate vegetation cover varies from:
- the inner city and
industrial areas: vegetation cover < 10%,
- the city fringe with
low density residential areas: surface sealing vegetation
cover 40 - 60%
- the farmland and
forests: vegetation cover >90%
The habitat survey
identified sites of importance for nature conservation
(SINC) within the city (LÖK 1983). In 1996, 362 sites
were recorded covering 3315 ha (Patsch and Sammiller, 1997).
This corresponds to 11 per cent of the total area of the
city. Most of these sites are natural woodlands and woody
vegetation, grasslands (including wastelands) and wetlands
but also natural areas in parks such as the northern
Englischer Garten.
In 1987, Greenspace
owned by the city covered 3192 ha, including parks,
cemeteries, avenues, allotment gardens as well as greenspace
around schools and other public buildings (Ammer and Ritter,
1990). In addition, the Bavarial state owns 728ha of parks
within the city. Thus, according to these statistics public
greenspace accounted for appr. 13% of the city surface.
However, teh habitat and morphology type survey also showed
that gardens in single-family housing areas are the single
most important greenspace resource in within the built areas
of the city. Together with multistorey housing, they account
for approximately 15% of Munich's vegetated
surfaces.
From Figure 6 the
proportionate cover of vegetated surfaces in the different
morphology types can be seen. Non-built spaces such as
public greenspaces, woodlands, farmland and wastelands rank
highest. Vegetated surfaces cover over 20% in single-family
housing areas whereas densely built-up inner blocks,
industrial areas and large roads have a cover of less than
5%. Railway areas are an interesting special case as the
average cover of vegetation is quite low, however, the
amount of pervious surfaces is quite high. The environmental
implications will be discussed below.
The survey also recorded
the percentage cover of vegetation structures: trees,
shrubs, rough grassland, lawn, and flower beds. One of the
interesting results is that trees and shrubs together cover
a larger area than buildings (17% and 16%, respectively).
Overall, trees an shrubs cover an area of 5,400 ha within
the city, while stands of rough grasslands cover over 1800
hectares.
2. What does this
greenstructure mean for biodiversity, environmental
services, and management of flows?
Biodiversity
With some 1200 species
of higher plants in an area of 311 km2 only, Munich is
surprisingly rich in wildlife, especially if compared with
areas of intensive farming in the surrounding landscape. In
the Floristic Survey of Central Europe (Fig. 7;
Schönfelder and Bresinsky, 1990), the northern Munich
plain proved to be particularly biodiverse because it
contains a rich mix of relics from natural and cultural
landscapes. The grassy heathlands and the fenlands areas are
of particular value for nature conservation and recreation.
Equally, within the city, the industrial northern part is
more biodiverse than the affluent south.
The greenspaces in urban
morphology types such as detached housing or multistorey
housing are mostly species poor due to intensive management
and use (LÖK 1990). However, trees and shrubs as well
as rough grasslands were identified as important habitat
structures within urban land uses. Their cover largely
determines the ecological value of urban greenspace. For
instance, Figure 8 shows the relationship between the
incidence of woodland bird species and the cover of trees
and shrubs. Dense old stands could be found in particular in
parks and older low density housing areas with large private
gardens. For a nature conservation strategy for the city of
Munich (Duhme and Pauleit, 1992) it was concluded that these
areas can enhance habitat connectivity between the remnants
of natural woodlands.
Pioneer vegetation was
mainly found along railway lines, on wastelands and on
unused areas within commercial and industrial developments.
A detailed analysis of the floristic similarities of the dry
meadows (Aßmann and Banse 1987) indicated that low
distance between the sites and connectivity by railway lines
very likely promotes species dispersal. The distribution of
dry grassland indicator species suggested that pioneer
vegetation on railway banks and in industrial can contribute
to their dispersal and thus increase connectivity between
remnant dry grasslands (Frank and Schrey 1986).
Environmental services
and management of flows
The environmental
services of urban greenspace were explored in a study for a
test area within the city (Pauleit and Duhme 2000). There is
a clear relation between the provision and character of
greenspace and its climatic and hydrological functions.
Figure 9 shows the how surface temperatures correlates with
greenspace provision in the inner city of Munich. Surface
temperatures are highest in the densely built-up inner city
but significantly lower in well-greened neighbourhoods. In
particular woody vegetation effectively reduces surface
temperatures. On average, surface temperatures are lowered
by 1.4°C by an 10% increase of woody vegetation
cover.
On a whole city level,
large open space corridors improve air quality by enhancing
ventilation. The river Isar floodplain and the main railway
corridor in the western part of the city are particularly
important. Rainwater infiltration and storm-water runoff
from sealed surfaces into the sewage system were computed
for each unit by means of coefficients deduced from a review
of German literature. Coefficients of the mean annual
rainwater infiltration ranged from 5 percent for built-up
and sealed surfaces to 60 percent for the coarse gravel of
railways.
Parks, wastelands, and
farmlands significantly contribute to groundwater recharge
with mean infiltration rates between 30 - 38 percent.
Railways are especially important for the overall
hydrological balance. Railways cover little more than 5
percent of the test area but contribute to 17 percent of
total annual precipitation infiltrated in the study area. On
average, a 10 percent increase of the built-up area reduced
infiltration in a land unit by 5 percent. To maintain
infiltration rates comparable to that under natural woodland
cover the amount of built-up areas should not exceed an
average of 17 percent.
The role of greenspace
for the management of water flows can be also seen from
estimates of run-off during a rainstorm event. Estimates
were based on run-off coefficients for the different surface
cover types (Pauleit and Duhme, 2000). Greenspaces such as
parks, woodlands and farmland do not generate run-off in the
test area. 80 percent of the total runoff of 720,000 m3
occurred from built-up areas where more than half of the
storm-water was converted into runoff. The mean runoff in
multi-story blocks comes close to 30 l/ m2/ hour. This mean
value indicated that almost 75 percent of the precipitation
from a rainstorm run off. Low density housing areas, on the
other hand, had mean runoff rates slightly above 10 l/ m2
/hour.
Therefore, it can be
concluded that well-greened areas have a much higher
infiltration rate and therefore a reduced runoff. These
areas reduce the water load on the sewage system. The study
also estimated the amount of areas required to infiltrate
the stormwater run-off in infiltration trenches within the
morphology units. Theoretically most of the water runoff
from buildings and impervious surfaces can be infiltrated on
the site in low-density residential areas if disconnected
from the sewage system. However, in densely built inner city
and industrial areas, a significant amount of impervious
surfaces would need to be converted into greenspace for this
purpose (Pauleit and Duhme, 2000).
3. What is presently
recorded about ecology in the case study area, by whom, and
how?
The following table aims
to summarise some of the strength and weaknesses of the
current information base on greenstructure ecology and its
environmental functions.
1) Habitat and
morphology type survey, including detailed characterisation
of greenspace by a set of attributes (LÖK
1983)
2) No general scheme for
monitoring the provision and condition of greenspace exists.
However the health status of trees is regularly assessed on
basis of a representative sampling framework including
almost 30,000 trees in the city (Ammer and Martin,
1989).
3) Bavarian habitat
survey
4) analysis of surface
temperatures in relation to greenspace provision in a study
area (Pauleit and Duhme, 2000)
5) analysis of surface
water run-off and rainwater infiltration in relation to
greenspace provision in a study area (Pauleit and Duhme,
2000)
6) e.g. the link between
greenspace provision and human health or the link between
the provision of natural greenspace and
recreation
A habitat survey was
fist undertaken in 1978 - 1981 and complemented by the
mapping of urban morphology types (LÖK 1983, Pauleit
and Duhme, 2000). Over 3,500 units were delineated and
characterised by land cover and land use attributes to
provide a full coverage of the urban area and its greenspace
resource (Fig. 13). The habitat survey was later updated. A
number of further information on vegetation, flora and fauna
exists for particular areas from special studies, research
studies, recorded by societies, etc.
Overall, the information
basis for ecological greenstructure planning overall appears
to be quite good. However, a scheme for monitoring urban
greenspace is currently lacking. Moreover, such a database
and a comprehensive assessment of the environmental
functions of the greenstructure would be required on the
level of the city region to address the challenges of urban
development. In addition to the habitat survey, there is
little information available on the environmental functions
of greenstructure for urban climate, hydrology, soil
conservation, or energy and the management of flows of
matter. In a pilot study, some of these functions were
explored for an area which covers 50km2 of the city surface
(Pauleit and Duhme, 2000). However, this study was not taken
forward to the city level. In particular, there is no
information available on the link between greenspace and air
quality, and cross-sectional issues such as the link to
human health are equally not developed at the moment.
Exploring these links could provide strong arguments for the
preservation and improvement of greenspace provision in
areas of deficiency.
The City of Munich
published an environmental atlas first in 1990, covering
various aspects of the urban environment (land use,
'ecological structures' of the city, cover of impervious
surfaces, cover of woody vegetation, assessment of tree
vitality, air quality, climate, water, soils, energy,
traffic, contaminated land, and more.). The environmental
atlas was put on the web, however, it is still not in an
interactive format. Data are also of different spatial
resolution and quality. Therefore, it is not possible at the
moment to link different topics and undertake complex
queries, for instance, to overlay information on greenspace
provision with air quality data and population
density.
Thus, with the exception
of the sites recorded in the habitat survey, there is no
information available at the moment to quantify how urban
development impacts on the greenspace resource. Moreover,
the contribution of greenspace to improve urban climates,
reduce air pollution, infiltrate rainwater or sequester
carbon dioxide on a city level needs to be assessed.
Exploring cross-sectional links with issues such as health
could provide strong arguments for the preservation and
improvement of greenspace provision in areas of
deficiency.
4. How have ecological
goals been set out to influence the planning, design and
management processes? Is there any evidence that these goals
have effectively influenced the planning processes within
the study area?
4.1 The main challenges
for Munich's greenstructure
Munich is a booming city
region. Although the population within the city has remained
almost stable over the last 30 years, there is still a
strong need for new residential floor space, mainly due to
increasing per-capita space demand. In addition there is a
need to accommodate new offices, services and commerce.
Therefore, there is a strong pressure on open space. Figure
10 highlights these development dynamics, showing where land
use has significantly changed over a period of only 10
years. The natural greenstructure was largely destroyed
during this development process. Remnants are threatened by
degradation of habitat quality, and their isolation. The
urban fringe is mostly characterised by intensive farming
and therefore, its ecological condition is quite poor. The
densely built-up inner city, and industrial areas are
characterised by greenspace deficiencies on the other hand.
Moreover, there is a continuing loss of greenspace in
residential areas due to infill densification.
Since 1892, over 180
plant species were lost, mainly due to urban development and
agricultural intensification. Biodiversity in the city is
not only threatened by the destruction of natural habitats,
and the degradation of habitat quality but also the small
size and isolation of the remnants of once large woodland,
heathland and fenland areas (Pauleit and Duhme, 1992). Over
50% of the habitats surveyed in the habitat survey were
smaller than 1ha in size, whereas only 10% where larger than
10ha. Woodland habitats are fragmented into 153 lots, 79 %
of which are smaller than 5 ha. Even if current habitats are
fully protected, further species will probably become
extinct in the near future due to the further degradation
and isolation of their habitats.
The creation of habitat
corridors has been suggested as a strategy to counter the
adverse effects of habitat isolation (e.g. Cook, 1991, Arts
et al., 1995, Barker, 1997). Yet, a review of the scientific
evidence Dawson (1994) and more recent research (Ref.)
cautions against adopting uncritically the assumption that
wildlife corridors serve as conduits along which species
migrate. Still, efforts should be made to preserve coherence
between habitats through linkage by corridors of the same
habitat type and by maintaining a high density of these
habitats. Studies conducted in Munich (Aßmann and
Banse, 1986; Frank and Schrey, 1986) indicate that a range
of species are likely to benefit from a habitat
network.
Green corridors are also
needed for ventilation and air quality. This is of
particular relevance in Munich, as there are often weather
situations when air pollutants accumulate in the city.
Corridors can enhance ventilation through country breezes
during these periods. Finally functional river corridors and
floodplains are needed for the safe management of water
flows.
However, overall, the
greated development currently takes place in the northern
Munich Plain where the landscape and ist unique natural and
cultural assets are threatened. From, Figure 11 the level of
current development becomes obvious. During the last 30
years, Munich has increased its capacity to grow by building
new infrastructures such as a new sewage treatment plant in
the north of Munich. The move of the airport from
München-Riem to its new location 35 km outside the city
centre is the biggest project in this sense, and has boosted
growth in the north east. Overnight, small farmers in the
fenlands were turned into millionaires and a farmland area
with small villages into a suburban agglomeration. While
intensive farming and urban development after WWII already
had very negative impacts on landscape quality, the current
development is further increasing the pressure on the
landscape. At the same time, there is an increasing demand
for a high quality landscape for recreation for the people
living in the north of Munich. Over 90% of recreational
trips of the people living in the Munich agglomeration are
directed towards the south whereas the northern Munich plain
is mostly considered as comparatively
unattractive.
Figure 12 highlights a
particular challenge to achieve this task: the large number
of players involved. Until now, co-ordination between the
municipalities in the north is weak. Rather, these consider
each other as competitors. Moreover, the relation between
Munich and the surrounding local authorities is
characterised by mutual mistrust. Therefore, the big
challenge of today is to co-operate with neighbouring local
authorities to find a functional compensation for not-wanted
infrastructures and development.
Therefore, three major
challenges for Munich's greenstructure, ist ecological and
environmental functions can be identified:
1. The preservation and
management of the existing greenstructure within the
city
2. The planning of
ecologically/ environmentally functional greennetworks and
reduction greenspace deficits
3. Greenstructure
planning on the regional level is likely to be the biggest
challenge of today.
4.2 Policies, planning
and protection of ecologically important
greenstructures
Greenspace
protection
Greenspaces in the city
are protected by a variety of designations, including nature
reserves (Naturschutzgebiete), protected landscape areas
(Landschaftsschutzgebiete), protected landscape elements
(geschützter Landschaftsbestandtteil) or natural
monuments (Naturdenkmale). Woodlands can be protected for
their special functions to improve the environment and for
recretation (Bannwald). Certain habitat types such as the
heathlands and fenland are also directly protected
(geschützte Lebensräume). Overall 5835 ha of
greenspace are currently designated as natural reserves or
protected landscape areas (Hutter, oral comm.). However, a
number of particularly important areas for nature
conservation have been lost to large scale (Duhme and
Pauleit, 1992). Their survival within the city limits often
was the result of specific land uses (e.g. military training
areas) or property rights. These sites are seriously
endangered as soon as they become available for development
purposes. 220 hectares of dry grasslands and oligotrophic
wastelands were destroyed between 1983 and 1988, which meant
a 20 per cent loss of this habitat type whithin a 5-year
period. Until 1996, overall 325 ha of the originally
surveyed habitats were lost (Patsch and Sammiller, 1997).
However, in addition to these more spectacular examples,
additional open space was lost or is threatened such as
farmland on the urban fringe. Farmland is mostly under
intensive use and therefore, its ecological condition is
quite poor. Intensive farming also threatens soils, surface
and groundwater quality in particular in the fenland
areas.
Public parks are owned
by the city of the Bavarian state and overall well
protected. Still, even famous parks such as the Englischer
Garten and the Hirschgarten can come under pressure.
Recently, the development of a tramway through the
Englischer Garten was intensively discussed. In both parks,
large underground water retention basins were built in the
1990s. Thus, while the great value of these parks is
recognised, they are never completely secure from
impacts.
Currently, there is a
strong tendency for on site intensification in low density
housing areas in Munich. Private gardens are either
subdivided into several plots or small houses are replaced
by blocks of flats. The coverage of built-up land can
increase from below 20 percent to more than 30-40 percent
(Wagner, 1992). Densification leads to the destruction of
vegetated surfaces and especially of trees. Munich has also
a tree preservation order (TPO) which covers most of the
built-up areas and open space Trees are protected when they
are bigger in size than 80cm circumference. However, on
average, up to one third of protected are removed
immediately or later when infill development takes place
because of the damage inflicted during the construction
process (Jocham, 1988). Environmental quality deteriorates
as a consequence. The loss of those sites decreased
rainwater infiltration and increased storm-water
runoff.
In summary, while urban
greenspaces and habitats identified in the habitat survey
are protected to a large degree, overall the greenspace
balance is negative. Both farmland on the fringe and
residential greenspace in general and trees in particular
are under pressure. Heathlands and valuable wastelands are
still lost, although the habitat survey showed their great
value for biodiversity and as informal greenspaces for
recreation. While public greenspace is overall well
protected, it appears that more efforts are required to
protect natural greenspace resource and restore its
environmental and ecological functions.
Environmental policies
for greenstructures
Ecological and
environmental goals for greenstructure planning are set out
in:
1. Formal planning
instruments: the regional landscape programme, the landscape
plan and greenstructure plans on the level of master
planning, land banking schemes
2. Informal strategies:
the urban development strategy Munich Perspectives 'Compact,
urban, green', adopting the Landscape ecological masterplan,
guidelines for ecology (Leitlinien Ökologie) and
targets for greenspace provision
3. Projects such as
creation of greenspace in new , the river Isar restoration
project, heathland restoration fenland, restoration of small
streams
City level
Munich Perspectives are
the city's urban development strategy. The strategy is
entitled Compact, Urban, Green, thusrecognising the need to
balance the preservation and development of greenstructure
with urban development. The greenstructure strategy is shown
in Fig 14a.. Ecological and environmental goals (Fig. 14b)
are based on the Landscape Ecological Masterplan study
(LÖK 1990, Fig. 15). In this programme, a habitat
linkage programme and specific programmes with quantitative
targets for habitat creation in urban zones were set out.
The programme was adopted later by the local council,
however, the proposed quantitative targets were not
included. While the Munich Perspectives adopted the goals
set out in the Landscape Ecological Master Plan, it is
interesting to note that the goals for low density housing
areas were not considered.
Moreover, the
implementation of the strategy is a great challenge.
Currently, a new informal strategy called Ecological
Guidelines (Leitlinie Ökologie) is under preparation
aiming to integrate sectoral goals for nature, soils,
hydrology, energy use, waste and noise. The guidelines are
jointly prepared by the Department of Planning and the
Department for Health and the Environment. The guidelines
will formulate both principles for ecological urban
development and provide targets, e.g. adopted from the
landscape ecological strategy. Most importantly, Leitlinien
Ökologie are conceived as a strategy to communicate
crucial ecological and environmental issues (Hutter, oral
comm.).
Local authorities in
Germany have a well-developed framework for landscape
planning but its overall position is still relatively weak
in the case of hard conflicts with other plans and projects.
Landscape plans (Landschaftsplan) and greenstructure plans
(Grünordnungsplan) define the goals for landscape and
nature conservation on the level of the whole city and the
neighbourhood, respectively. The German system of landscape
planning has been criticised particularly because of a lack
in implementation and failure to prevent the further
degradation of natural assets. The goals set out in
landscape plans are often not clearly enough defined and
therefore it is difficult to assess whether these have been
really achieved. Landscape plans were also criticised as
being top down approaches not well involving the
stakeholders such as farmers.
Land banking schemes are
now promoted to enhance implementation of the goals for
nature conservation. The scheme allows acquire land and
compensate already in advance for future development.
Therefore, compensation schemes can now be applied in a
strategic way to enhance the ecological condition and
environmental functions of larger, coherent areas. The city
of Munich is piloting this scheme in a fenland area in the
northwest to restore wetlands and small streams. The city
now intends to develop a land banking scheme for the whole
city. Yet, it remains to be seen whether this instrument is
able to safeguard and further develop the city's
greenstructure in a coherent way. In this respect, the
quality of comprehensive landscape planning will be very
important to identify compensation areas based on ecological
criteria.
Big urban dvelopment
projects are another important instrument for the
implementation of greenspace. As a rule of thumb, one third
of the overall planning area is designated as public
greenspace, one third will become residential areas and the
other third are commercial and industrial land. By means of
the social land use tax, the city claims up to one third of
the planning gain from the developer for infrastructures,
including the construction of greenspace. However, the funds
raised through this instrument do not secure the long-term
management of the greenspaces
For instance, a large
park is developed as part of the new neighbourhood in
München Riem. Environmental and ecological arguments
played an important role in this project, e.g. to improve
ventilation of the new neighbourhood and create natural
vegetation. Other big projects include the redevelopment of
large areas along the main railway corridor which have
become dysfunctional and the restoration of the river Isar
in the southern part. The project aims to improve flood
protection of the city and give the river again a more
natural appearance (Fig. 16). Currently, a town and
landscape planning competition is underway to find good
solutions for this task.
While the city also
promotes to disconnect impervious surfaces on private ground
from the sewage, Overall, large scale technical solutions
e.g. for sewage water treatment are still prioritised in
urban development projects. The potential role of greenspace
networks to manage flows is still not adequately recognised,
because these are difficult to achieve in a large city,
because of economic constraints (e.g. substitution of
drinking water by rainwater), but also because workable
concepts similar to the landscape ecological strategy are
missing.
There are no strategy
and targets to reduce the city's environmental footprint
through functional greenstructures. On the other hand, the
river Isar restoration project shows that great efforts are
made to improve the condition of this most important
greenbelt in the city. Similarly, small streams in the
fenland areas are restored in a special
programme.
In summary,
greenstructure planning issues seem to have a relatively low
priority as compared to economic and infrastructure issues.
The Munich Perspectives do not contain clear criteria for
setting priorities in the conflicts between urban
densification and greenspace protection/ development. Are
ecological programmes and plans just verbal
greening?
Development in the city
can be compared to a merry-go-round where infrastructures
move from inner city locations to the urban fringe, and thus
make place for new development in the inner city (e.g. the
redevelopment of the exhibition centre). This process
provides opportunities to create new, good quality housing
in inner city locations and to remedy deficits of greenspace
provision. In every round, however, the scale of new
infrastructure developments increases (e.g. the new airport
in the north of Munich as compared to the old one at Riem),
and these infrastructures are sited on the fringe or in the
surrounding countryside. Thus, inner city development is
connected to an overall net loss of landscape on a regional
scale.
City regional
level
On the level of the city
region, the regional plan includes a landscape programme (a
programme accompanied by a map). Most of the open spaces
around the city are designated as green belt areas (Fig.
17). However, greenbelts are mostly an instrument to control
development whereas modern farming and a variety of other
economic activities are not restricted in these green
belts.
The City of Munich is
now taking steps to co-operate with the farmers and other
land users in the greenbelt areas to shift to extensive
farming adopting ecological methods, to develop habitats
corridors as well as a network of cycle tracks and footpaths
for recreation. The city's forthcoming Ecological Guidelines
(Leitlinie Ökologie) mention the greenbelt and
restoring the fenland areas in the northwest as key
issues.
In the north Munich
plain, a heathland and a fenland society, respectively, were
founded in the 1980s by the local authorities to help
preserve these important landscapes. The Munich has just
agreed to become a member of the heathland society. The
heathland society is co-ordinating a programme for the
restoration and linkage of the remaining heathlands. For
this purpose, farmland was acquired between the remaining
heathlands (Fig. 18). The fenland society is also involved
in the restoration of the system of canals linking the
summer residences of Nymphenburg and Schleißheim. .
The heathland and the fenland society are quite successful
efforts in this respect, however, their remit is limited
and, therefore, would need backing up by a wider initiative.
However, currently, there seems to be a lack of interest and
vision of the different stakeholders in the region to engage
in a strategic approach to develop a regional
greenstructure.
How could a strategic
vision look like? Friedrich Duhme, a landscape planner and
ecologist at Munich Technical University, brought forward
the idea to adopt the concept of a Biosphere Reserve as a
guiding model for this purpose. To apply such a concept,
which has been so far only implemented in a rural context,
may seem strange at a first glance in an urban
agglomeration. However, Biosphere Reserves are a concept,
which may make it attractive also for a city region. While
the most valuable natural areas require strict protection in
Biosphere Reserves, these do not need to exceed 2-5 % of the
designated area. The remnants of natural woodlands and
fenlands and in particular of dry grasslands, which are
unique in southern Germany should easily qualify to form the
core habitats in the northern Munich Plain. Moreover, the
northern Munich plain has a rich heritage of castles and the
network of canals, and therefore is also an important
cultural landscape. Yet, Biosphere Reserves place great
emphasis on restoration and sustainable development of the
cultural landscape in the buffer and transition zones. In
this respect, the north of Munich could offer many
opportunities to develop and implement models for a suburban
landscape, including sustainable urban agriculture,
recreation, and sustainable urban extensions.
Most importantly, a
Biosphere Reserve would create a mechanism to co-ordinate
development between local authorities and place the
landscape at the centre of future development. As an example
how this could look like Fig. 19 shows the results from a
student project undertaken in 1994 where this concept was
translated into a spatial strategy.
Would the concept of a
Biosphere Reserve be acceptable for the local authorities?
At the moment, the answer seems to be no. The name Biosphere
Reserve alone already causes resistance in this growing
region. However, the concept itself seems worth further
discussion, even if taken forward under a different
name.
In summary, Munich
provides an example the challenges for greenstructure
planning in a strongly developing agglomeration. Urban
densification as well as strong growth in the city region
threaten the greenspace resource and have negative
environmental impacts. Interestingly, the overall cover of
vegetated surfaces in the city, including farmland on the
urban fringe account for 60% of the city's surface. Three
layers could be distinguished which form the greenstructure
of the city:
o The natural
greenstructure
o The historical
greenstructure, and
o The modern
greenstructure
The distribution of
greenspace within the city is closely related to the pattern
of land uses and built structure. The city is characterised
by a concentric structure with a densely built-up inner city
and surrounding extensions from the late 19th and early 20th
century which are largely deficient in greenspace. As a
result, remnants of natural greenspaces are mostly
fragmented and isolated from each other. While the river
Isar forms a continuous greenbelt from south to north across
the Munich plain, other natural greenspaces are rather
islands in a matrix of built areas or intensive farming.
Large parks can be found in a broad ring around the inner
city.
Three major challenges
were identified in this analysis from an ecological/
environmental perspective:
1. The protection and
management of existing greenspace, in particular the natural
greenspaces
2. The development of a
functional greenspace network and remedy of greenspace
deficiencies
3. Greenstructure
development in the city region
The city is aware of
these problems and responds with a mix of different
instruments and measures. However, some particular problems
could be observed:
o Knowledge base: While
a good data base exists on habitats and wildlife, a
monitoring system would be required to assess the complete
greenspace resource and its environmental functions in the
city. The role of greenspaces to improve the environment
e.g. by removing air pollutants, or reducing air
temperatures is still poorly explored and translated into
greenstructure planning. Equally, the Linkages to issues
such as health not yet established. Under climate change
scenarios, the role of greenspace to mitigate the heat
island effect, improve air quality should be addressed as a
priority.
o Greenspace protection:
although many of the habitats identified in the habitat
survey could be protected as well as pulic greenspaec, there
is still a loss of greenspace. In particular natural
greenspaces such as wastelands are still not sufficiently
recognised as a valuable asset.
o There is a clear
tension in the City's vision for a 'Compact, Urban, Green'
city between the wish to contain urban sprawl, on the one
hand, and the need to protect the greenstructure and
maintain quality of life. Plans and programmes for the
creation of functional green networks exist but their
implementation is difficult to achieve due to the pressure
on and value of open space. Moreover, greenstructure
planning issues seem to have a relatively low priority as
compared to economic and infrastructure issues. While a set
of standards exist to provide greenspace for recreation,
ecological targets suggested in a landscape ecological
strategy were only adopted in a general way. Are ecological
programmes and plans just verbal greening?
o Land banking could
prove to be an effective means, however, needs to be placed
into a landscape framework.
o Regional
greenstructure: To manage landscape in the city region will
be the biggest challenge for the city and its neighbouring
municipalities. The northern Munich plain is characterised
by a chaotic, badly co-ordinated development. As a result,
landscape quality is severely threatened. Currently, there
is a lack of interest and vision to solve these problems.
Landscape initiatives to protect and restore the heathlands
and the fenlands are quite successful, however, an
initiative of a wider remit would be required to address the
overall challenges of this area. The concept of a Biosphere
Reserve was presented here as a possible approach, which
would merit further discussion.
Finally, it needs to be
stressed that this paper concentrated on ecological and
environmental aspects of greenstructure planning. Further
dimensions such as the provision of greenspace for
recreation, management of greenspace, and planning
approaches would be equally important to address but would
have gone beyond the scope of this paper.
References:
Ahern, J., 1995.
Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and Urban
Planning 33: 131-155.
Ammer U., Martin K.,
1990. Baumvitaliätserhebung der Landeshauptstadt
München. In: LH München (Eds.) Umweltatlas
München, see
http://www.muenchen.de/referat/rgu/frames
Ammer, H., Ritter, G.,
1990. Öffentliche Grünflächen und Wald. In:
LH München (Eds.) Umweltatlas München, see
http://www.muenchen.de/referat/rgu/frames
Arts G.H.P., van Buuren
M., Jongman R.H.G., Nowicki P., Wascher D., Hoek I.H.S.
(Eds.), 1995. Ecological networks. Landschap 95 (3), Special
Issue.
Aßmann and Banse
1987
Barker G. (1997) A
Framework for the Future: Green Networks with Multiple Uses
in and around Towns and Cities. English Nature Research
Report No. 256. English Nature, Peterborough.
Cook, E.A., 1991. Urban
landscape networks, an ecological planning framework.
Landscape Research 16: 5-17.
Duhme, F., Pauleit, S.,
1992. Naturschutzprogramm für München.
Landschaftsökologisches Rahmenkonzept. Geographische
Rundschau, 44 (10): 554-561 (in German).
Frank and Schrey
1986
LH München, 1990
and later. Umweltatlas München. München,
(Environmental Atlas for the City of Munich, in German), see
http://www.muenchen.de/referat/rgu/frames
LH München, 1991a.
Statistisches Jahrbuch München 1991. Hrsg. vom
Statistischen Amt, München, 291 (Statistical Yearbook
for the City of Munich, in German)
LÖK (Lehrstuhl
für Landschaftsökologie, TU München: Duhme,
F., Pauleit, S.), Büro Aßmann & Banse,
Büro Haase & Söhmisch, 1990.
Landschaftsökologisches Rahmenkonzept Landeshauptstadt
München. Study for the Umweltschutzreferat, LH
München, 2Vols., 142 + 402 pp., Freising, unpubl.
report (Landscape Ecological Framework Programme for the
City of Munich, in German)
Nowak et al.,
2002a
Patsch J., Sammiller,
E., 1997. Schutzgebiete und geschützte Objekte. In: LH
München (Eds.) Umweltatlas München, see
http://www.muenchen.de/referat/rgu/frames
Pauleit S., Duhme F.,
2000. Assessing the Environmental Performance of Land Cover
Types for Urban Planning. Journal of Landscape and Urban
Planning 52 (1): 1-20.
Schönfelder P,
Bresinsky A (1990) Verbreitungsatlas der Farn- und
Blütenpflanzen Bayerns. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Whitford et al.
2000;
Click button to return to:
Figures for the
Munich case study, some figures are still missing, overall
there are certainly still too many figures, at least if this
is considered to be submitted to a journal. In this case,
figures would also require to be translated into black and
white.
Fig.1: Location of the
Munich city region within Bavaria and zones of
influence.
Fig. 2: Natural units in the North Munich Plain
Fig. 3: Castles linked
by canals in the North Munich Plain
Fig. 4: Phases of urban
development of the City of Munich
Fig. 5: Urban zones and
aggregated habitat types
Fig. 6: Percentage cover
of open space in urban morphology types
SEVEN
MISSING
Fig. 7: Relation between
species richness in Munich and the northern Munich plain and
habitat distribution
Fig. 8: Relation between
tree coverand quality in urban morphology types and the
incidence of woodland bird species
Fig. 9: Relation between
the cover of trees and shrubs and surface
temperatures
MISSING
Fig. 10: Urban
development dynamics in Munich
Fig. 11: Urban
development pressures in the northern Munich Plain - large
scale landscape impacts
Fig. 12: Actors in the
northern Munich Plain - landscape initiatives
Fig. 13: Urban
morphology type mapping
Fig. 14: Munich
Perspectives
MISSING
Fig. 15: Landscape
ecological strategy for the City of Munich (LÖK 1990,
Pauleit and Duhme 1992)
Fig. 17: River Isar
restoration project
MISSING
Fig. 16: Regional
greenbelts
MISSING
Fig. 17: Heathland
restoration programme
Fig. 18: Biosphere
Reserve as a concept to develop a regional
greenstructure?
Results from a student
project in 1994
|
