|
Working Group 1A - Comparison of Case Studies |
|||||||
|
Other papers relating to people/ ecology interface |
|||||||
|
Sheffield to do |
|||||||
Click here to return to THe Progress Report 2002
Theme 3:
Climate and greenstructure Theme 4:
Water and greenstructure Theme 6:
Pests and greenstructure Theme 7:
Greenstructure information Theme 8:
Goals and meansfor greenstructure planning &
management Theme
2: Comparison of the case studies - Biodiversity
theme Introduction The
working group decided to analyse the case studies by
comparing the cases thematically. Among the themes
identified as being of particular interest was biodiversity.
This paper presents the first draft of this specific
thematic analysis. Aim and
method of comparison The
overall aim of the comparison is to study the relationship
between greenstructure and biodiversity illuminated by the
case study cities and regions: what is the role of
greenstructures in preserving and enhancing urban
biodiversity, and what are the ways to improve the
performance of greenstructures in this relation.
Substantially the thematic comparison can be roughly divided
in two different kind of basic approaches, one focusing on
"what is" -question, i.e. natural scientific or data-based
approach, and the other focusing on "how dealt
with"-question, i.e. social scientific or policy approach.
The
natural scientific or data-based approach includes not only
various case specific BD-data but also combining valuations
of different BD-indicators or -themes. The social scientific
approach studies how BD questions (like arguments,
principles or rules) have been combined (or prioritised) to
other green benefits (or uses or values) in greenstructure
planning or in integrated land use planning (like in
Finland). And lastly how biodiversity policies are developed
in greenstructure planning or in integrated land use
planning (goals, tools, means and effectivity). Note
that biodiversity is the key question in the arguments,
principles, rules, uses, values, prioritation, goals, tools,
means and effectivity ! The
framework for the comparison is as follows: 1
Natural science or data based approaches How the
local BD is defined or described at present ? BD as
ecosystems, species/biotopes or genetics: Taxa,
biotopes, indicators or indexes (answering to questions like
what and where) Biodiversity
linked ecosystem services: like primary production,
decomposition and other material circulations, energy flux
(answering to questions like how and why) MultiBD:
multitaxonic approaches, else? 2 Social
scientific or policy approaches A What
are the knowledge and policy -levels of dealt BD-questions?:
Latent
background information, (What and where) and (How and why)
or
Nature protection (at international, national, regional
levels) or
Zoning BD or One (BD-layer) of multilayers in a plan,
or
similar (BD-zoning?) in municipal strategic (BD-)goals
or
BD-zoning in sectoral management strategies -
Including combination or prioritation of biodiversity among
other green benefits in green planning: BD (multi), climate,
soil, landscape?, esthetics, natural resources?, water,
management (multi), "pests", other environmental policy
themes like CO_, global warming (multi), protection (multi)
or
Contextualised BD-policy-questions (environmentalised and
discussed in green planning) -
Including valuation and planning goals for the ordinary
urban nature. Anything else? or
Effective BD-policies developed (for green planning, land
use planning, municipal strategies, env. management, any
other municipal activity connected to green
planning?) B Who
and How sets the goals for municipal BD? What are
they? What
kind of tools and means are used for BD-goals in green
planning? and How
effective are they?: In
National/local natural protection measures (including
monitoring) In Land
use planning at national/regional/landscape?/municipal local
levels In green
planning In
(environmental) management In
public or policymakers environmental
argumentation In other
municipal context connected to green planning? Results,
As the
case material seldom refers to (social scientific) research
results on biodiversity questions or green planning
research, they must be rare, are they? 1
Natural science or data based approaches Overall
generalisations of natural scientific BD-aspects in the
cases can be found in table 1. See
Table 1. Biodiversity. Natural scientific or data based
approaches in the cases.
Which is based on the frame listed below: Natural
science or data based approaches: How the
local BD is defined or described at present ? BD as
ecosystems, species/biotopes or genetics: Species/biotopes/indicators Ecosystem
services Multi
BD Something
is known on what and where in urban biodiversity but why is
not used effectively? Biodiversity
descriptions and the listed BD data have given information
on the biodiversity information levels available in the
cities: All cases had some land cover or landscape level map
over the whole area. Warsaw, Vienna and Munich had also a
vegetation based biotope map, some only one made for
national nature protection inventories. As land use, land
cover and vegetation are separate fenomena, the approaches
give quite different scales and background materials for
goals concerning biodiversity factors! A temptating but more
detailed study of the BD-material and master planning
documents would have been needed to judge the status and
connection of the approaches. Species
inventories, even repeated for monitoring purposes, were
most common on vascular plants and breeding birds, often
also other taxa like insects (including which groups?). Some
basic common indicators are needed for comparison like
species numbers of vascular plant flora per square km: And
knowledge to recognise biogeographic basic rules across
zones and regions (see WORLDMAP and Atlas Florae Europaeae
in Williams,P, Humphries, C. and Araujo, M 1998: ECNC). Why
have the laborous and costly vegetation inventories been
implemented and then left without any feasible connection to
green planning, as in Warsaw ! Most of the cities seemed to
have amasingly deep connection to plant sociologists and
taxonomic scentists to know about the distributional history
of their local flora, though terminology (flora without
cultivars, indigenous= native+ immemorial immigrants,
subspecies excluded) and definitions were vague. The
urbanisation history and effect can be seen in the figures.
The pest (= aggressive casual immigrant species) question
should deal these as it´s background data! The widest
range of taxa were in Vienna and Helsinki, but was this only
for scientific research or national protection measures?
Suprisingly, no case used any biodiversity indexes as
indicators, though they are a standard in sciences.
(Bioindicators are more to do with pollution effects - a
different theme.) No case mentioned anything on ecosystem or
individual level biodiversity approaches, species indicators
neither. Very little is known of the value of biodiversity
as ecosystem services as our present "ecological" approaches
seem to measure only a minority of the themes, rising more
of the landscape and engineering tradition than biodiversity
in sensu stricto: Circulations have gained attention in
Vienna by Eva Eckhardt but are seen as sectoral or
agricultural waste solutions… Is
national nature protection the only reason for gathering the
costly biodiversity data? There
was not enough information how the biodiversity data was
linked to green planning other than national nature
protection measures. How biodiversity data was used in
planning: directly as a background material, in goal setting
as a resourse or restriction zoning, or in the cases hidden
principles, rules and strategies. Biodiversity
of different taxa were separate information, they did not
seem to get combined together or priorised neither for
protection or green planning goals. Warsaw and Helsinki
seemed to have the very only multitaxonic approaches, but
what was the gain in planning, protection, monitoring or
strategies? Also their importance for managemental goal
setting was not clear: E.g. what happens to biodiversity in
biomass management and what kind of goals might there be
(Budejovice)! In Helsinki the constant need for detailed
applied biodiversity information is greatest in green
management, forming a programme of BD-research needs. Only
Helsinki offered information on the effectivity of the
nature protection areas for BD protection. 2
Social scientific or policy approaches: See
Table 2 . Biodiversity. Social scientific or policy approach
in the cases. Social
scientific or policy approaches: What are
the knowledge and policy -levels of dealt BD-questions?:
Latent
background information (What and where) and (How and why)
or
Nature protection (at international, national, regional
levels) or
Zoning or One of multilayers in a plan / municipal strategic
BD-goals / sectoral management or
Contextualised BD-policy-questions (environmentalised and
discussed) or
Effective BD-policies developed (for green planning, land
use planning, municipal strategies, env. management, any
other municipal activity?) Who,
What and How sets the goals for municipal BD? What
kind of tools and means are used? and How
effective are they?: (National/local
natural protection measures (including
monitoring)/) land use
planning at nat./reg./landscape?/mun.local levels green
planning ((environmental)
management) (public
or policymakers environmental argumentation) We all
seem to have good information and databases of latent
background information on biodiversity in our cases, mostly
used for national nature protection or common EU- NATURA- or
other international statused areas. It was not clear,
wheather separate GIS- databases or sources of biodiversity
information exist for research, protection and green
planning- elsewhere than in Helsinki? Mostly green and
master planning used also landscape-analysis sources there
too. NOTE:
Hopefully no bad mistakes are made in the interpretation, as
the planning systems, tools and traditions vary across the
cases, as there was not time enough to check the facts in
the good compendium of EU EC spatial planning systems and
policies in Regional studies 28 in 1997. Zoning-
our very only tool in planning? Zoning,
either in hierarchical planning with local administration
under a metropole centre government was common in Warsaw,
Vienna and Budejovice, or straight in green and master
planning in others. How the different layers of themes were
priorised, was unclear: Some more information is needed to
understand wheather biodiversity actually even exists and if
in which form, in the basic data of a green plan or master
plan? How, with which rules or principles, are the different
ecological themes combined in the layers - or priorised?
There is a potential conflict with the different green
benefits: Who wins and were, with what principles?
How the
effectivity of zonation is seen, as Ewa and Irena like we
from Helsinki, tend to see it as a rather weak tool? Does
it´s effectivity depend on goals: What is possible and
effective ? What are the ecological zones: which goals do
they serve and how are they implemented? Budejovice
and Warsaw told well about their green planning: How is
biodiversity included in the detailes, in the zones,
descriptions? Something to the general direction perhaps,
but there might be rules and traditions that are against or
neutral for the BD-goal…Is diagnostive environmental
strategy used only for protection? Is BD
planned outside protection areas? It was
difficult to get information on the effectivity of the tools
(Munich, Warsaw and Helsinki best) and goal setting
processes in green planning (Warsaw best, Budejovice for
green planning in general). Seldom there was a hint of
biodiversity factors dealt in the plan. Vienna and Oslo
named widely their other toolbox, but their importance for
biodiversity or green planning was not assessed. We seem
to have gained many new strategic documents at many levels
&endash; Are they political rhetorics or do they work, are
the hard planning decisions and management practices turning
to more ecological, also serving biodiversity? All kinds of
private certificates and managemental deals are made: How
are the goals there -qualities as well? Protection
was also a managment needy sector, as many referred on
protection based biodiversity management, as in
Vienna. Discussion
and remarks The
policy-comparison has concentrated on the green planning (or
land use planning) instruments, combining the relationship
of biodiversity and green structure. (This is needed if the
working group intends to conclude in something like
proposals. ) The intention was to describe how biodiversity
is planned in green planning in the cases: Which themes,
goals or areas are chosen during the planning process? How
is biodiversity priorised or combined with other planning
themes (among green planning issues and the "hard values" of
land use planning)? What are the concious (biodiversity
related) goals (themes, uses, values or definitions) in
decision making in the process, in the frames of
legislation, planning instruments, stated political
pressures and planners imagination ? Do we
understand the green planning processes, the power and
possibilities in them? Even though we have all promoted
transparency in the case descriptions, in lack of planning
research results, the cases have variably described how the
green structure plan in reality emerges and is implemented
in the planning process (Warsaw, Munich and Budejovice
beeing the best and explained the problems there too). In an
exaggerated Munich case the green planning looks like a
GIS-automate that gives birth, in a mist, to a "best" or
"only" plan, including zoning, restrictions, uses and goals
of all kinds. Some deeper looks are also needed, as in Oslo
everything is still explaned away or unopened Is there
a real value conflict between different goals, between
different green benefits as well? And if,
how should these be dealt with in green planning? This
remark needs to be considered in the green benefits
summarising working group, as its is hidden in the present
themes. Referring to Munich, the many more or less
ecological themes in green planning may be very
contradictory, like biodiversity and global warming related
CO_- themes in Helsinki: How are the green benefits or other
themes really combined and priorised in green planning in
the cases? In spite
of Stephan Pauleits framing questions the cases present
their properties rather unevenly, as expected, answering
mostly to questions like what and where, instead of how and
why. So far the cases on Sheffield and Utrecht and some
earlier delivered case material are still missing from the
COST C 11 WG1A webpages, as well as many figures and tables.
Although some complementary questions were delivered in Jan
2003, no answers have been gained so far (23.1.2003).
As all
questions cannot be solved by email, there should be more
time and possibilities for discussions in the WG1A process
to avoid misunderstandings and to enhance common learning
from the analytic keypoints in each comparison. In
Warsaw, Munich and Budejovice there seemed to be a wholistic
planning tool like UNS, LÖK or USES to aply green
structures to land use planning: How were the biodiversity
issues included, is unclear. Are they still working or did
they belong to past wholistic planning ideologies and
societal consensuses? The
plans are full of societal policies, all valuating: It would
be interesting to know, is the thematic valuation in balance
so to say, or is some green value more etabled or repressed
in the policy than e.g. biodiversity? What is the value of
green planning in urban planning and policy? Can you
still help us and the WG2: What was
left out was how the plans choose their areas and uses or
green structures in the cases? What are
your green planning traditions? What are the planning system
related kanonised themes (locally decided other parts?) ?
And what was the fate in your case when integrated to the
other Master plan arguments and goals? We wish
to get the idea, how conciously biodiversity has been an
element/argument in green planning? And what new elements
are there? Or To
what extent green structure or other green strategis
approach has been used in biodiversity policy as a
tool? SUPER
simplification: A strong
instrument and strong antipower but weak green planning
(green themes)- weak implementation (Helsinki) Weak
instrument and strong variating power but weak green
planning (weak themes) &endash; weak implementation
(Warsaw) Strong
instrument, strong variating power, strong green planning
(variating themes) &endash; mixed implementation
(Munchen)(Wien)(Oslo) Recommendation:
Munich experience: strong tool, better practices, be wide
and Weak
legislation- what to do? Weak
knowledge, weak will, weak planning system … How to
find allies, actors, intresses for green benefits and
BD? References
missing Jan
2003
first draft Inkeri
Vähä-Piikkiö and Olli Maijala / draft 1,
Working
Group 1A -
Comparison of Case Studies Other papers
relating to people/ ecology interface Sheffield to
do
Click button to return to:
updated Juky 2003