|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COST-C11 Greenstructures and Urban Planning
COST-C11 Greenstructures and Urban Planning 6th Management Committee Meeting Location: Vigevano/ Milan, Politechnico di Milano and Municipality of Vigevano ITALY Date: 5-8 October 2002
(Note: The names in bold are official nomminated MC participants)
1. Welcome of the participants Welcomed addressed by the Chairman of the Action Mr. Bernard Duhem and the local host Maurizio Meriggi.
2. Adoption of the Agenda The Agenda presented by the Chairman and the host was approved.
3. Approval of the minutes The minutes of the 5th MC meeting in Freising/Munich (DE) were approved.
The Scientific Officer asked from the WG leaders to send the minutes of their working group's each time to Brussels in order to be included in the minutes of the MC meeting in order to be distributed among all the members of the Action. It is a good tool to avoid scientific overlapping between working group's tasks and priorities.
4. Report of the chairman - The structure in three working groups will not be changed, at least until the meeting in Rome; - Each work group will turn its point of view, in 2003, towards the three topics that were planned for the second phase: guidelines, design, case studies comparisons; - Results of the Working groups should be elaborated in 2003 and a plenary session has to be planned in Rome to present and discuss these results.
5. Report from the Secretariat
The SO announced the letter addressed from Gosta Diehl (the COST-CSO chairman) on the transition budget period between FP5 and FP6 and the matters arising from that, like the postponing the meetings of the first six months of 2003. After extensive discussion the MC decided to reschedule the meetings dates.
The SO also informed the MC members on the current arrangements of the host of the Scientific Secretariat from the Commission to the European Sciences Foundation as a separate Unit within the existing Institution.
The SO informed the MC about the administrative procedure to be taken in order to get the approval of the Technical Extension of the Action. He stated also that the Action has to think, since it is proper time, about the final deliverables (Publications, Final Report, State of the Art, etc) and that this transition period of the first half of 2003 is a good opportunity to finalise any written material. [NOTE by the Scientific Officer: While the minutes were finalising the CSO on its 152nd Session approved the extension of the Action for seven (7) months meaning that the end date of the Action is now 14/12/2004.]
6. Report by the Working Groups
Presence: S. Pauleit, A. Beer, I. Hanouskova, S. Guldager, S. Tjallingii, P.M. Schildwacht, S. Nyhuus, E. Kaliszuk, E. Erhart, O. Maijala - Main work on case studies. Already done: Helsinki, Oslo, Munich, Warsaw, Vienna, Budojovice. To come before the end of 2002: Utecht, Herning, Sheffield. - 8 themes for each study: greenstructure pattern, biodiversity, climate, water, natural resources, management and pests, information, goals and means for planning and management. - Since Christmas, comparison will be started in order to find what is missing in each of those case studies. - Complements since February 2003 and discussion of a global product in Warsaw.
Presence: G. Lindholm, B. Duhem, K. Lapintie, G. Scudo, L. Martincigh, K. Zaleskis, J. M. Halleux, P. Hanocq, A. Stahle. - This WG is not working with case studies but with thematic approaches: 7 "boxes" which are being filled with diverses presentations, not as states of art but as a contribution of the WG. 8 papers are already done, 6 or 7 more expected (20th of January).
Presence: B. Opperman, U. Ellefsen, B. Szulczewska, M. Eronen, E. Lungren, K. Attwell, M. Van den Top, A. Van Herzele, A.C Werquin, G. Meriggi, J. Martinez Chapa, S. Tiedtke.
- The first work ( already done) is the planning systems in countries : Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, UK, Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Finland) The second one is case studies: the MC meeting places + some cases brought from Greenscom. A deep analysis of these cases will be done through interviews since spring 2003 (questionnaire at Christmas) and the studies should be ready for summer.
7. Publications and dissemination of the results - Anne Beer is ready to improve the english of the papers; - Each working group will publish its own work and results; - The light case studies (cities visited in each MC meeting: Sheffield, Marseille, Breda, Munich, Milan, Warsaw, Rome, Oslo), should be published too (additional note from the chairman: and this publication should be introduced by a survey of the action and its main global results). - a "market place" will be opened on the website, in order to elaborate ideas and task forces for specific publications (including articles).
8. Next Meetings
Due to the incertainties in the administration readiness of COST in 2003, it is decided, for the next two meetings, to keep two dates opened: - Warsaw: 3 to 6 July and if impossible 4 to 7 September 2003. - Rome: second fortnight of October and if Warsaw is postponed, first fortnight of December 2003, (due to the large interest of this city, an extra day could be planned, for example by leaving the sunday free). - Oslo: last meeting before the final conference: May 2004.
No other point being raised, B. Duhem closed the MC Meeting and in the name of all participants, thanked the Italian delegate Maurizio Meriggi for the quality of organization of the event and for the kindness of their welcome./.
Attachment 1
COST C11 Working Group 1A 'Ecology' Draft minutes of the sixth meeting Milan (Italy), October 7-8, 2002 ----------------------
Monday, October 7: 10.30-11.30: Session 1 at Milan Polytechnic University Tuesday, October 8: 9.30-11.30: Session 2 at Teatro Cagnotti, Vigevano
1. Welcome of delegates Participants: E. Erhart (Austria), I. Hanouskova (Czech Republic), S. Guldager (Denmark); S. Pauleit (Germany, chairman), S. Tjallingii (The Netherlands), O. Maijala (Finland), P. Schildwacht (The Netherlands), S. Nyhuus (Norway), E. Kaliszuk (Poland), A. Beer (United Kingdom) Apologies: U. Reeh (Denmark)
2. Approval of the minutes from the last meeting: The minutes were approved without changes and the agenda for the meeting in Milano adopted.
3. Report of the chairman (S.Pauleit) Since the last meeting in Munich, SP had received further case studies. Five case studies were sent to SP in electronic format and where put on the web by Anne Beer. The coy of a further case study was brought by O. Maijala directly to the meeting. The case studies are: C. Budejovice, Helsinki, Munich, Oslo, Vienna, and Warsaw. Many thanks to all contributors for the hard work in writing these case studies and particularly to Anne Beer for placing the case studies on the web. Actions: Sybrand Tjallingii/ Peter Schildwacht, Susanne Guldager, and Anne Beer confirmed to deliver case studies on Utrecht, Herning and Sheffield before December 20. This date was agreed as the very last deadline for submitting case studies. All documents to to be sent to SP and Anee Beer as word files (doc/ rtf) and figures to be included in the file.
4. Case studies: The working group meeting was entirely dedicated to discuss the analysis of case studies and publication strategy. It was agreed to split the task among working group members to compare case studies. Content: The following themes were identified as being of particular interest (Fig. 1): Theme 1: Greenstructure pattern: Can greenstructure patterns be distinguished? What are the elements of the greenstructure of the case study areas? How has the greenstructure been shaped by natural and cultural factors, and urban development? How does it relate to urban density? Theme 2: Biodiversity and greenstructure: and How does the greenstructure influence biodiversity? And how may the greenstructure create better conditions for biodiversity? The effect of fragmentation on biodiversity and planning to reverse these effects are a special issue here. Theme 3: Climate and greenstructure: How does the greenstructure influence urban climate? And how may the greenstructure create better conditions for urban climate. Theme 4: Water and greenstructure: How does the greenstructure influence hydrology (surface and groundwater)? And how may the greenstructure create better conditions for urban watersystems? Theme 5: Natural resources, and greenstructure: This theme focuses on forestry and farming with special reference to the flow of organic matter. Which natural resources does the greenstructure offer and how are these used? How does greenstructure influence the flow of organic matter? How could the use of natural resources create better conditions for greenstructure development ? Theme 6: Pests and greenstructure: How does the greenstructure relate to the occurrence of pests? And how may greenstructure management and maintenance contribute to health? Theme 7: Greenstructure information: What is currently recorded on greenstructure and what should be recorded for greenstructure planning and management? How is this information used in evaluation studies and how are these assessments used in planning practice? Theme 8: How are goals set out for greenstructure planning & management, and which means (planning instruments) are chosen to realise these goals? How effective are these means to realise the goals ? The work will be based on the results from the case studies but new/ additional information may be required to complete this task. Reference should also be given to the current state of knowledge from literature where appropriate/ possible. The main objectives of the comparison will be: o To discuss the current state of greenstructure pattern and functions, o To highlight the commonalities as well as the differences between the case study areas, o To identify the deficits (e.g. in knowledge)/ problems, both common and specific o To make recommendations for greenstructure planning and management
Output: It is envisaged that the case studies and the results from the comparison will be prepared as a report to be made available on the web as well as a paper copy. The report can be printed as a separate document of Working Group 1A or as part of a report of the whole COST Action C11 by the EU publication system. The potential to submit case studies and/or the synthesis to a scientific journal was equally considered but depends on the quality of the papers. Timetable: The working group agreed on the following deadlines: December 20: final deadline for submission of case studies (existing and/ or revised) December 20: circulate first draft of comparative analysis February 1: submit comparative analysis February 28: circulate draft joint paper of comparative analysis and put on web March 31: complete draft report of WG1A on case studies. July 3-6: present and discuss results on next COST C11 meeting (to all working groups) and identify cross cutting themes of special interest for further in detail analysis to be offered on the 'market place' of COST C11. Actions to be taken: - All to prepare/ finalise draft case studies by December 20 - All to prepare comparative analysis, first draft to be circulated to all group members by December 20, submit by Feb. 1* to SP/ Anne Beer: Theme 1 (Greenstructure pattern): SP/ Ewa Kaliszuk/ Susanne Guldager Theme 2 (Biodiversity): Olli Maijala Theme 3 (Climate): SP/ Ewa Kaliszuk Theme 4 (Natural resources): Eva Erhardt Theme 5 (Water): Sybrand Tjallingii Theme 6 (Management and pests): Irena Hanouskova Theme 7 (Information): Signe Nyhuus Theme 8 (Goals and means): Olli Maijala/ Sybrand Tjallingii N.B.: Listed are the names of the leaders but input is needed from all when first drafts are circulated. This may be particularly required for bigger work packages such as biodiversity and goals - SP/ Anne Beer to prepare a draft paper on the comparison by Feb 28. - SP/ Anne Beer to lead preparation of draft final report by March 31 (further input required from all group members e.g. to writ introduction, review he comparative paper and finalise case studies) 5. Future meetings: The next meeting is planned for Warsaw in early July. Actions to be taken: - All to identify themes of particular interest to be offered on the 'market place'
6. AOB: There was no other business. Stephan Pauleit / Manchester, October 21, 2002.
Attachment 2 Working group 1B Gunilla Lindholm, Landscape Architect, DrAgr 2002-10-14 Department of Landscape Planning Alnarp Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences gunilla.lindholm@lpal.slu.se Minutes from COST Action C11, WG 1B "Human issues", the meeting in Milan, October 6-8, 2002
WG session 1, 7 October "Urban Planning for a Quality Dense Green Structure - Stockholm Sociotop Map and Park Programme", lecture by landscape architect Alexander Ståhle The lecture outlined the role of green structure in the Stockholm situation, in urban planning and in the park programme, were the "sociotop map" has been functioning as a key - both concerning the acceptance of "green issues" in the municipal planning procedures and concerning the dialogue between developers interests and common interests on a site and district level.
A written summary of the lecture is available for the "state-of-art"-report.
"Outlining the diversity of human aspects on green structure and urban planning" Referring to the list of topics (the coloured boxes) produced for the Munich meeting, we recalled the connections between WG-members and topics, and summarised what material has been produced, and what is still left to be done: - Lucia (pedestrians); - Bernard (learnings from new towns experience); - Karsten (culture and ideas in connection with green structure) - Kimmo (traces to logic and philosophy); - Gunilla ("public green" - a sustainable concept?) - Philippe (learnings from urban renewal) The group expressed a positive view to a proposal to present some material at latest the 20 of January, 2003. Each of us has here a possibility to publish texts, which for one reason or another do not fit any existing scientific journal - such as compilation of knowledge, broad or narrow in subject, or as a description of development.
WG session 2, 8 October Discussion of written contributions In this session three contributions were discussed, the paper "Thermal comfort" by Giovanni Scudo, the summary of A. Ståhle´s lecture and a preliminary paper "A pedestrian green structure" by Gunilla Lindholm. Some common problems or issues for further elaboration in this WG could be identified in the discussion, such as:
Some time was set for the discussion on the future for the WG:s. We agreed on continuing in the same group for the rest of the COST Action (at least until the meeting in Rome), but from the next meeting and onwards change perspective from "basic research and knowledge on human issues concerning green structure and urban planning" to "the use of knowledge on human issues concerning green structure in urban planning, design and management". For this purpose, between February and June, each WG member should read all the papers, so far produced, in relation to "the sorting boxes" and write out of them his personal synthesis. Those should be discussed in Warsaw.
Minutes taken by Bernard Duhem and Gunilla Lindholm
Attachment 3 Working Group 2
Cost C 11 Working Group 2 "Public Policies and Policy Instruments" Minutes of the sixth Meeting at Milan October 5-8, 2002
Session 1 at Politechnico Milan: Monday, 7.10.2002 Session 2 at the municipality of Vigevano: Tuesday, 8.10.2002
Participants Karen Attwell, Marleen van den Top, Jorge Chapa, Unn Ellefsen, Matti Eronen, Ann van Herzele, Elizabeth Lungren (substitute for Björn Malbert), Maurizio Meriggi, Bettina Oppermann, Barbara Szulczewska, Simone Tiedtke, Ann Caroll Werquin
Minutes taken by Bettina Oppermann
A Outline of the Minutes 1 Questions arising from the case study of the "Parco di Ticino" 2 To get the model of "policy arrangements" work for our analysis by filling the model with information of the case studies 3 Practical steps, commitments, time table
B Attachments Questionaire and first Example of Marleen (Utrecht case)
1 Questions arising from the case study of the "Parco di Ticino" and the regional level of the analysis
In Munich we started to focus on the problems of urban planning and regional development, because it is very obvious that the green structure planning processes cannot be stopped at narrow municipal borders. These can be more or less tight because of historical reasons (was the city able to incoporate its neighbours?) and because of the ongoing trend of the separation of city functions and the possibilities of mobility today. Now at Milan we learned that the ability to provide good living conditions depends very much on natural reasons (resources of the groundwater) and some modern cities until today benefit from the ecological functions of the big rivers transporting sewage and waste. Of cause it is not longer an appropriate strategy and the use of the ecosystem must be revised. The commuting zone for example covers sometimes even more space than the region of the core city and also recreation capacities are used and must be maintained in the region. The needed sites of infrastructure for example airports, waste treatment facilities etc. can be only provided on a regional level. In this way conflicts between the targets of maintanance of natural and protected areas on the one side and the needed big infrastructure sites harden very quickly. At the example of Milan it is also very clear to be seen that former siting processes were not planned with modern standards. The site of the airport of Malpensa grew from an industrial site to an airport, the new runaway generated a conflict with the local people. The Parco Ticino was created by a strong coalition of the citizens and municipalities in the 70ies (referendum). The town of Pavese is incorporated in the Parc. It is a hudge challenge today to maintain the rich life of nature and at the same time to develop the needs of the cities and the region. To liquidate the institution of the parc is only one sign of the strong actual debate. At the Po-river similar issues arise in the debate of today. Some questions following the line of the policy arrangement model were put forward for Maurizio to describe the case of the Milan Ticino Parc: ß Policy discourses: Are cultural issues a part of the debate? How are the local and the regional discourse linked together? Are the agricultural functions in the parc perceived as contribution to the green structure? What should be preserved, nature, historical sites, industrial and agricultural functions of the landscape…? ß Policy coalitions: Who are the main institutional and private actors in the case? Does the state play an important role in the game? What role take the citizens and the stake holder groups today? How were coalitions built up and did they exist over many years or do they break when new challenges of modern live arise? Are the actions to hold the institutional status of the Parc coordinated in any form? ß Power and resources: Is ownership and property an important resource in the game? Is a concept of the green structure, the beauty of the landscape, historical uses and the wildness of the river a driving force for conservation and maintenance? ß Rules of the game: Do you have a restrictive law, if a municipality wants to develop new industrial sites in the parc? Are the landowners committed to the parc concept, for example by allowing people to bike on their grounds….
2 To get the model of "policy arrangements" work for our analysis
The working group 2 has now the experience of some case studies showing how European municipalities search for strategies to plan, build up and maintain their green structures from the city centre to the regional sites and areas for leisure time and recreation. These are ß Sheffield (Carolyn), ß Marseille (Ann Caroll), ß Munich / Freising / Isar (Bettina), ß Milan / Ticino (Maurizio) and ß future case studies from the cities we will visit (Warshaw, Rome, Oslo ….
From the Greenscom project and other experiences more case studies can be aquired: ß Utrecht / Leidsche Rijn (Marleen), see the attachment ß Aahus ( Karen), ß Antwerpen Nord (Ann) and ß Helsinki (Matti).
The model can be seen as a tool for our work in the group and for the comparison of the different case studies. Those who have started to work on the case study and tried to fill the model with information tell us that some "thinking steps" have to be made before the model can be applied: They start to describe the policy discourses in a time line that evolves since a longer period of time. Only with this historic description they can show how some ideas get stronger by the time or loose their instrumental power (evolution of the topic). Though many discourses run parallel, it is useful to pick out only one discourse or a bundle of linked issues. What is the main discourse in the country or city and can we identify similarities or differences from town to town and between the countries? Give a general frame and focus on special problems of modern city living (trends and challenges we have to deal with)! Only if it is possible to focus on a special plan or project, the actors can be identified. For us that means, that we have to be more precise, specific and concrete. The case study is a two part analysis: It is focused on the greenstructure policy in general and on a special planning case. To define the strengths and weaknesses of the actors and the success or failure of green structure policy the distribution of power and resources has to be decribed by defining more key questions. Resources can be financial, instrumental, laws and properties etc. It is also important to have a close eye on the fact that plans can be very ambitious but the actions to implement them are not taken by the local governments or other actors. Actions need resources, and the implementation of plans and programs has to be supported by money, commitment etc. Shared actions need cooperation. These questions are linked very closely to the description of the rules of the game. Here many of us put forward legal and formal laws but also informal rules and activities of the municipalities, regions or states.
3 Practical steps, commitments, time table
A Mini-questionaire will be send to everybody in the group by the 4th of November. With the help of the example given by Marleen, we can manage a quick approach to the model with the information of the case studies. This questionnaire should be returned to Bettina until the 20.12.2002. She will compile the decriptions and send them back to everybody. Everybody should give also a short explanation what he or she means by "discourse". We can extract the leading questions of each element of the model and draw some first conclusions of the overview of these answers. Marleen has agreed to do this for the group. Unn agreed to revise the country related law systems that regulate the green policies. And Barbara will think how the local level can be highlighted in this sceme, because the local formal level of political decision making seems to be of great importance (Some material should be provided in the questionnaire by everybody under the title "formal rules of the game"). Maurizio has taken the responsibility of a concept to visually present the case studies, provide maps in a special scale etc. Bettina and Simone will contribute a list of relevant English literature that is useful for our work, this can be added by everybody in the group. As we do not know now when we will meet again, Bettina is responsible to fix a timetable for our work in the beginning of the year. Until now we agreed to generate the leading questions of the model out of our experience by working out the case studies (early spring). The case studies should be finished in the beginning of the summer, so that we can discuss them in the next meeting in Warshaw. In Rome the three working groups have to integrate the work and step forward to present guidelines etc. Perhaps it is possible that this meeting wcould be facilitated. For our group that means that not only the presentation of the outcome but also first suggestions for recommendations should be given. Everybody could check, if the chapter that explains the model is available to her or him. If not we will send a copy or put it on the website, if the authors give us their o.k.
Return to
|
Meetings Background Meetings Background |
Web space designed for the COST11 C11 Action by Map21 Ltd