|
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
Comparison
of the case studies - Natural resources and greenstructure -
Theme 5 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
5: Natural resources and greenstructure (with a focus on
forestry and farming and with special reference to the flows
of organic matter) &endash; Draft
2 Eva Erhart, Ludwig Boltzmann-Institute for Biological
Agriculture and Applied Ecology, Vienna The area covered by greenspace in the cities included in
the present COST action ranges from 26 % in Utrecht to two
thirds in Oslo, but the differences are partly due to the
respective definition of greenspace. Harmonise! (Comment
from Inkeri Vähä-Piikkiö, Helsinki,
Finland) Table 1: Percentage of forests and of agricultural land
of the city greenspace and the city area, respectively 1) Greenspace includes urban parks, graveyards and nature
protection areas. Agricultural land: roads, yards, gardens,
some woods and natural meadows within agricultural area
included. 2) City statistics ignore the fact that greenspaces exist
within land uses such as housing areas, which is considered
in the survey of greenspace resource in the city. Data from Munich city statistics
(www.muenchen.de/statamt/document/jahreszahlen/jahreszahlen_2003/00/005.pdf)
and from a survey of greenspace resource in the city for the
purpose of ecological planning (LÖK 1983, Duhme and
Pauleit, 1992), respectively. 3) built-up area includes parks, cemeteries etc. Data sources: Helsinki: The basic register Primas in Helsinki City,
aggregation of primary uses of real estates in 1. 1. 2002,
and Public Works department of the City of Helsinki, green
area register. Munich: Data from Munich city statistics
(www.muenchen.de/statamt/document/jahreszahlen/jahreszahlen_2003/00/005.pdf)
and from a survey of greenspace resource in the city for the
purpose of ecological planning (LÖK 1983, Duhme and
Pauleit, 1992), respectively. Oslo: Nyhuus S. (2002): Case study Oslo &endash; Draft 1.
Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11 Green
Structure and Urban Planning. Utrecht: Tjallingii S. (2003): Green structure and urban
ecology of Utrecht. Paper for working group 1A Ecology of
COST C11 Green Structure and Urban Planning. Vienna: Statist. Jahrbuch d. Stadt Wien, 2001 Warsaw: Kaliszuk E. (2002): Case study Warsaw &endash;
Draft 1. Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11
Green Structure and Urban Planning. Whereas in Helsinki the greenspace is dominated by
forests (50 %), woodland makes up smaller percentages in the
other cities (from 37 % in Vienna to 8 % in Utrecht).
Calculated as percentage of the city surface, forests occupy
between 2 % and 20 % (Table 1). Regarding agricultural land, Warsaw is particularly rich:
30 % of the total city area are agricultural land, compared
with 13 % of the city surface in Vienna and 2 % in Oslo.
Oslo and Helsinki are coastal towns with shallow soils,
surrounded by the sea and boreal forests, apart from all
others which are inland cities on thicker riverine beds,
originally surrounded by agricultural regions in the
past. In order to harmonize this table and to be really sure
about the comparability of the figures, I would need a city
area statistic table like the following Table stating the
percentage of greenspace in each city and stating which
kinds of landuse are considered as greenspace. From the case cities Ceské
Budejovice, Helsinki, Herning, Munich, Oslo and
Utrecht. Table example: Land use in Vienna (Statist. Jahrbuch d.
Stadt Wien, 2001) Land use Area (ha) (%) Built-up area 13,607.3 32.8 Traffic area 5,691.0 13.7 Water surface 1,932.5 4.7 Green space 20,264.2 48.8 woods 7457,06 arable land 5218,31 meadows 2293,97 allotment gardens 1274,88 parks 1084,67 horticultural area 871,29 vineyards 751,06 sports fields 615,66 cemeteries 533,51 outdoor swimming pools 140,93 zoo 11,89 campsites 11,25 Total 41,495.2 100.0 (Comment by Eva Erhart) Forests, as a part of the nature in the case cities,
belong to two distinct biogeographical zones: boreal in Oslo
and Helsinki, and temperate in all others. Woodlands as part
of the city greenspace are usually used for recreation
purposes. The use of woodland for picking of berries and
mushrooms has mostly lost its importance in our effluent
society. In the Nordic countries like Finland and Norway an
"everyman´s right" exists, that safeguards the
possibility for everyone to go into the uninhabited terrain
(mainly forests and watersheds outside farmland) everywhere,
regardless of the ownership, for recreation and to pick
berries and mushrooms. In Finland, this is also popular even
in the urban areas, and means that compared to agricultural
areas, the public green space is much more commonly used and
signified with meanings by local inhabitants. The case cities have different instruments to protect
greenspaces and especially forests and trees. In Herning, certain natural habitats are protected
according to the Danish Nature Protection Act. These are
registered and maintained as areas of special environmental
value (Guldager et al., 2003). In Munich, greenspaces in the city are protected by a
variety of designations, including nature reserves
(Naturschutzgebiete), protected landscape areas
(Landschaftsschutzgebiete), protected landscape elements
(geschützter Landschaftsteil) or natural monuments
(Naturdenkmale). Woodlands can be protected for their
special functions to improve the environment and for
recreation (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.). 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 80 cm circumference. In Vienna, a total of approx. 14,000 ha of greenspace is
under some kind of legal protection. Vienna`s nature
conservation law provides several categories with varying
degrees of protection: National parks, wilderness areas,
nature reserves, protected landscapes, protected landscape
sectors, area for ecological development and natural
monument. Vienna`s tree preservation law protects trees with
a trunk circumference of more than 40 cm, with the exception
of trees in forests, tree nurseries, allotment gardens, in
agricultural areas and fruit trees. Felling of protected
trees requires the permission of the authorities. Trees in
forests are subject to the forestry law. About 340 solitary
trees are protected as natural monuments (www.wien.gv.at/
ma22/geschgeb.htm; MA22, 1999). The Capital City of Warsaw Development Plan (Uchwa_a Nr.
XXXVIII/492/2001 and Krajobraz Warszawski on the New
Spatial Policy) lists 108 objects (parks, gardens, and
valuable waste areas (mostly natural lakes and their
vicinities) and 27 allotment gardens with protection against
any kind of inappropriate investment and changing their size
and status. Separate rules of development and management are
written for legally protected areas, Nature Reserves
(eleven), historic parks and gardens, flood plain areas
within flood embenkments. Each of them has legally binding
acts, which are basis for elaborating the protection plan.
The Nature Protection Act of 1991 refers to nature reserves,
the Culture Heritage Protection Act for historic parks and
gardens and Water Law Act of 2001 for the Vistula flood
plain areas within flood embankments (Kaliszuk, 2002). List please, which cities have tree protection
legislation! Would it be useful to explain too, how much of the
forested terrain is under nature protection or any other
kind of legal protection, such as a tree protection order in
the cases , as we have different instruments? (Comment from
Inkeri Vähä-Piikkiö, Helsinki, Finland) In Warsaw, forested ridges have been managed? into parks
or recreational areas but some are still abandoned as
wastelands in Warsaw. - ? (What is ment? Abandoned by public
planning or public management? Used without any public
control? Or what?. (Comment from Inkeri
Vähä-Piikkiö, Helsinki, Finland). Ewa, I took that passage from the case study Warsaw.
Maybe I did not understand fully. Could you please explain
and answer Inkeri`s questions? In Vienna, the Wienerwald forest, which makes up nearly
half of the total forest area in Vienna, is maintained by
the municipal forestry department. Management has been
modernised from commercial forestry to recreation and nature
protection and other ecologisation themes. Commercial/other exploitation in other cities? Should the use of forestry management instruments be
dealt too, as they can have the same effect on tree cutting
etc? Urban forestry has seen many phases in the cases,
reclecting also land ownership, lifestyle changes, public
economies and professionalism: In Helsinki average annual
forestry income from tree cutting (for excample in 2001)
from about 3500 hectars of recreational forests is 180.000
euro, that is 13%/23% of the total forestry managemental
costs, which are turning ever costlier and larger scaled
(annual average total forest management costs 1 370 000 euro
including also participatory planning costs/836 000 euro
excluding them). A public discussion is going on the forest
planning principles of recreational forests in the fringe:
Recreationers and nature protectioners accuse PWD of
Helsinki City on using commercial forestry goals and hard
methods on recreational forests in surrounding
municipalities, harder than accepted in recreational forests
within city borders, harmfull for old forest biodiversity
(e.g. for capercaillie, lynx and salmonid fishes) and
recreation activities . (Comment from Inkeri
Vähä-Piikkiö, Helsinki, Finland). Maybe the others could provide similar examples for
forest management for their case cities? In Munich, Utrecht and Vienna, where significant parts of
the greenspace are made up by agricultural land, this
farmland is mostly under intensive use and therefore its
ecological condition as well as its recreational value is
rather poor. 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
(Pauleit and Oppermann, 2002). In Utrecht, the future of the
50 ha 'Green Heart' is not yet decided. Different approaches
are used in order to maintain the green structure as
preferred by the landscape consumers: in the Noorderpark
area farmers, who fulfil landscape maintenance tasks, are
paid; in the Ameliesweerd area, the municipality owns the
land and leases it out to local farmers (Tjallingii,
2002). First steps toward the implementation of ecological goals
in agriculture were taken in Vienna by programmes
establishing windbreak hedges, increasing the amounts of
organically-grown food in the City`s institutions and
granting farmers subsidies for converting farmland into
nature conservation areas. In Herning, the municipality today owns most of the
former agricultural land around the urban development and
manages it as nature reserve or as grassland (Guldager et
al., 2003). In all of the case studies, agricultural land is the
primary land resource for city expansion. In Helsinki urbanisation diminished agricultural land
gradually along centuries from maximum in the 1850´s
(about 30% of the land area) to year 2000 (about 4% LA),
within present city borders. The remaining agricultural land
consists of three special educational farms. In Oslo, a lot of agricultural land was lost for city
development after WWII. Some of the suburban areas
(Groruddalen, Boler) were built on some of the best
agricultural land in the country. In Vienna, agriculture has lost more than a quarter of
its area in favour of other land uses since the 1950s.
However, only one third of that area was built up, the other
two thirds were changed into forests and parks. In Utrecht, the traditional dairy farming on the borders
of the city is disappearing, and farmers wishing to expand
and industrialize their farms are moving out of the city, a
trend which results in several zones in the western and
eastern fringe area that are not yet urban and no more
rural. Flows of organic matter: Organic waste represents not only a problem to society,
but also a resource in terms of nutrients, energy, and
organic material. In the management of the urban green
structure and in urban agriculture, there is a demand for
soil amelioration products and fertilizers. In many cases,
organic waste products (e. g. compost) can fulfil these
demands and in this way reduce the mining of scarce
resources like phosphorus, lime and sphagnum, as well as the
energy-intensive production of nitrogen fertilizer. In Ceske Budejovice significant flows of biomass come
from the management of the public parks (grass, leaves,
weeds, branches and shrubs). The biomass might be
accumulated at a dumping ground and used for efficient dump
recultivation or it could be widespread and utilized by
small users in suburban areas, gardens, etc. (Hanouskova et
al., 2002). In Herning, organic wastes from agriculture are currently
the main input into biogas production. Organic wastes from
households are incinerated, only a small fraction goes into
biogas production. The sludge from water purifying plants is
deposited. The organic material from private gardens as well
as from public green areas goes into composting. From the
compost output, approx. 20 % are used in public green areas,
the rest is used in private gardens (Guldager et al.,
2003). In Helsinki, the separate collection of biowaste has been
in practice since 1993, comprising about 50,000 households
in the Helsinki metropolitan area (which has around 1,2
million inhabitants in 2002) (http://www.ytv.fi/english/waste/index.html;
http://www.ytv.fi/english/waste/engesite.pdf). In 2002, the annually grown total recievance of
centralized biowaste for composting was 38,500 t,
resulting in 47,000 tons of compost The composting plant in
Espoo is using the tunnelling-windrow composting method
(http://www.ytv.fi/english/waste/engesite.pdf
). In spite of real estate level and local waste and sorting
services, there is an overproduction of private gardening
organic waste, which creates a threat towards biodiversity
as dumping is common in public green areas, destroying
swamps and lush and herb forests especially. The organic
waste from environmental and green management in Helsinki
City Public works department is mainly composted on regional
recycling sites, partially jointly with the inhabitants,
too, and end product mulch is used on park construction and
horticultural sites (p. 11 in
http://www.hkr.hel.fi/muut/ymprap/HKRenvuk.pdf). The Viikki
wastewater purification plant gathers regionally sewage from
over one million inhabitants and most of the suitable
industry too, so the sludge contains too much detrimental
constituents. The end product, a composted and mixed mulch,
is since 1998 used commercially for landscaping etc.
(http://www.helsinginvesi.fi/index.asp?id=275
&language=2). In Munich, separately collected organic household wastes
are collected by the municipal department for waste
management and are transported to composting facilities
outside the city (Landeshauptstadt München, 2002). In Oslo, separate collection and composting of organic
household wastes was in the planning phase in 1994 (Rogalski
and Charlton, 1995). In 1998, a composting plant with a
capacity of 4000 t with covered and ventilated windrows was
working north-east of the city. In the vicinity of Oslo,
another large (10000 t) windrow composting plant was in
operation (Barth and Kroeger, 1998). In Vienna, the organic fraction of household waste is
collected separately since 1988 and transformed in an open
windrow composting process under permanent quality control
into a compost, which conforms to high standards. The
largest part of the compost is used in agriculture on the
municipal agricultural estates. Vienna`s municipal estates,
the remnants of the former imperial estates include approx.
850 ha of agricultural land. This special model for biowaste
treatment and use made it possible that a part of the
estates could change over to organic farming
(www.bestpractices.org). The organic material from public
green areas is either used for mulching directly on site or
composted and the compost is again used in parks etc..
Sewage sludge is incinerated in Vienna, its application on
agricultural land is not allowed (Erhart et al., 2003). Could you please give me some more details for the case
cities Ceské Budejovice, Munich, Utrecht, and Warsaw?
Susanne, could you please check if my interpretation of
your waste flowchart for Herning is correct? In Vienna and Herning, investigations were conducted to
what extent the urban green structure can contribute in a
sustainable way to the handling of organic waste produced in
the municipality. For Vienna`s agriculture, the amounts of nitrogen,
phosphate and potassium, which are presently supplied by
mineral fertilizers and which could be substituted by
compost were calculated on the basis of nutrient balances.
The calculations showed, that approximately one quarter of
the mineral N-, P- and K-fertilizers used presently in
Vienna could be substituted by compost. For that, 18,000 t
compost would be needed, an amount that is available in
Vienna. In addition, the currently produced amount of
certified compost (according to Council Regulation EEC No.
2092/91 on organic agriculture) would be sufficient to
support the conversion of 1500 ha of stockless arable farms
to organic farming (Erhart et al., 2003; Hartl and Erhart,
2003). For Herning, the analysis showed that, compared to the
minimum estimation for the amount of applied nutrients, the
potential for the urban green structure to contribute to
handling of organic waste in non-agricultural fractions by
replacing purchased fertilizer and sphagnum is small. It
amounts to 5 % in terms of N, 2 % in terms of P, and 0.2 %
in terms of sphagnum/organic matter. Compared to the maximum
estimation, the available area in the urban green structure
just suffices in terms of legal application of organic waste
products. The conclusion was that the ongoing consumption of
manufactured fertiliser and sphagnum in parks and gardens
was unnecessary and should be replaced by the use of compost
based on garden and park waste (Guldager et al., 2003). In Helsinki, there is a small amount of fields (appr. 4 %
of the total land area) as a part of the greenspace, 40 % of
the fields area are municipal fields. These were used for
recycling of nutrients in early 1980´s and in 90`s, but
that is neither recommended nor needed
(Vähä-Piikkiö 1998). Inkeri, could you please explain why that is neither
recommended nor needed? References: Barth J., Kroeger B. (1998): Bioabfallkompostierung und
Vermarktung in anderen Ländern Europas. pp. 77-100 in:
KGVOE and Oesterreichisches Normungsinstitut (Hrsg.):
Kompostgütesicherung in Österreich. Tagungsband
der 2. Fachtagung, 7.-8. 5. 1998, Wien. Duhme, F., Pauleit, S., 1992. Naturschutzprogramm
für München. Landschaftsökologisches
Rahmenkonzept. Geographische Rundschau, 44 (10): 554-561 (in
German). Erhart E., Forster A., Hartl W. (2001): Agriculture in
Vienna - nutrient balances. Paper presented at NJF (Nordic
Association of Agricultural Scientists) Seminar No. 327
„Urban areas - rural areas and recycling - the organic
way forward?", August 20-21, 2001, Copenhagen. Guldager S., Reeh U., Bergen Jensen M. (2003): Case study
Municipality of Herning, Denmark. Paper for working group 1A
Ecology of COST C11 Green Structure and Urban Planning. Hanouskova I., Boha J., Gottlieb M., Keclik R., Lep_ova
A., Bo_ena_era (2002): Case study Ceské Budejovice
&endash; Draft 1. Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST
C11 Green Structure and Urban Planning. Irena, could you please correct the missing letters? My
computer does not show them. Hartl W., Erhart E. (2001): Improving the nutrient
balance of Vienna`s agriculture through compost use - a
scenario. Paper presented at NJF (Nordic Association of
Agricultural Scientists) Seminar No. 327 „Urban areas -
rural areas and recycling - the organic way forward?",
August 20-21, 2001, Copenhagen. http://www.helsinginvesi.fi/index.asp?id=275&language=2 http://www.hkr.hel.fi/viher/kuvat/LuonHKIuk.pdf http://www.muenchen.de/statamt/document/jahreszahlen/jahreszahlen_2003/00/005.pdf
http://www.wien.gv.at/
ma22/geschgeb.htm http://www.ytv.fi/english/waste/engesite.pdf http://www.ytv.fi/english/waste/index.html Kaliszuk E. (2002): Case study Warsaw &endash; Draft 1.
Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11 Green
Structure and Urban Planning. Krajobraz Warszawski on the New Spatial Policy (2001)
Urban Planning - Architectural Magazine, The Department of
Spatial and Architectural of Warsaw City Hall, No.52a,
Warsaw. Landeshauptstadt München, Abfallwirtschaftsbetrieb
München (ed., 2002): Jahresbericht 2001. 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) MA22 (ed.; 1999): Wiener Umweltbericht 1998/99.
Perspektiven 5a/1999. Nyhuus S. (2002): Case study Oslo &endash; Draft 1. Paper
for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11 Green Structure and
Urban Planning. Pauleit S., Oppermann B. (2002): Greenstructure in a
booming city region: assessment of the resource, ist main
challenges and the planning response &endash; the case of
Munich. Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11 Green
Structure and Urban Planning. Rogalski W., Charlton J. (1995, Eds.): Status and trends
for biological treatment of organic waste in Europe.
ISWA-Austria, Vienna. Informations for Norway from Tore
Diesen. Statist. Jahrbuch d. Stadt Wien, 2001 The basic register Primas in Helsinki City, aggregation
of primary uses of real estates in 1. 1. 2002, and Public
Works department of the City of Helsinki, green area
register. Tjallingii S. (2003): Green structure and urban ecology
of Utrecht. Paper for working group 1A Ecology of COST C11
Green Structure and Urban Planning. Vähä-Piikkiö, I. (ed.; 1998):
Environmental statistics of Helsinki. Statistics from City
of Helsinki Urban Facts. 1998: 1, 181 pp. Helsinki. Appendices
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