|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes from the WG 1a and 1b Joint meeting in Marseilles, 21-22 May, 2001 Working Group 1A -
Message Board 21-22 May - notes Participants: 1A Ecological Issues: Stephan Pauleit, chairman, Germany; Ulrik Reeh, Denmark; Peter Schildwacht, The Netherlands; Ewa Kaliszuk, Poland; Sybrand Tjallingi, The Netherlands; Olli Majala, Finland 1B Human Issues: Kristina Björnberg, chairman, Sweden; Anne Beer, United Kingdom; Bernard Duhem, France; Kimmo Lapintie, Finland; Karsten Jorgensen, Norway; Philippe Hanocq, Belgium; Lucia Martincigh, Italie; Klaus Wagner, Austria; Kestutis Zaleckis, Lithuania; Gunilla Lindholm, Sweden; Jean-Marie Halleux, Belgium; Giovanni Scudo, Italy; Carmen Aalbers, The Netherlands
Meeting Agenda
1. Welcome to participants 2. Selection of chairman and secretary 3. Presentation of participants, interests and contributions 4. Overview of the COST C11 Terms of Reference regarding WG 1 5. Preparations of WG 1 terms of references 6. Preparations of Outline Work Programme 7. Preparations of Deliveries and Final reports 8. Cooperation with other COST Actions and WGs 9. Any other business 10. Date of next meeting
1. Welcome to participants All members and especially the newcomers were welcomed to this first meeting of the WGs that will be a joint meeting of the two groups in order to build bridges between the two perspectives on greenstructure.
2. Selection of chairman and secretary Kristina Björnberg will be the chairman of the meeting 21 May 17.30am-7pm and Stephan Pauleit will chair the meeting 22 May 9.00-11am. The secretariat will be shared between the two chairmen.
3. Presentation of participants, their main interests and possible contributions to the WG1 work The participants made a short presentation on their background and main research interests. Extra time was devoted for the presentations by the new members. For a review of the background of the participants &endash;we refer to our web site. If some of you have not yet sent your CV to Anne Beer for inclusion on the web site -please do so!
The possible contributions by the participants to the WG1 work were presented partly at the meeting and partly in writing. Examples of case studies of relevance were noted. A summary is given below:
1A Ecological and environmental issues:
Stephan Pauleit Will act as a bridge between 1A and 1 B by conceptualising the green structure. · Analytical frameworks and tools for assessing the performance of green structures · Impacts of urbanisation on greenstructure, from inner city densification to urban sprawl · ecological/ environmental goals and targets for greenstructure planning · Case studies in Munich plus other case studies from Germany on the environmental performance and ecology of urban greenstructure
Ulrik Reeh Methods for local recycling of material and waste and regeneration of nutrients. Case studies on the topic.
Peter Schildwacht How to accommodate the needs of the inhabitants in the green structure planning in cities. · How to create more ecological values in the inner city? · How to deal with the urban fringe situation?
Ewa Kaliszuk · Concept, methods for indication of town natural system, TNS, ecological infrastructure · Assessments methods of the functioning/performance of the urban landscape &endash;GIS · Case study in urban landscape planning in Poland (methods, tools, state of the art as well as tendency)
Sybrand Tjallingi Will act as a bridge between ecology and design. · Will contribute with a general understanding and case study experiences about the role of water (rainwater retention, peak storage)/ management of flows/ in relation to green structures. · Contribution at the level of concepts about working with knowledge in design and planning of green structures.
Olli Majala Will act as a bridge between urban planning and enhanced urban biodiversity
Main contributions: · Ongoing (2000-2002) research project "Urban Biodiversity: A Multi-taxon Model in Multiple Scale for Urban planning" (its results and case studies of Helsinki containing the whole city area and a city district of Lauttasaari Island) · Results include: better data on urban nature provided by biologist-ecologist in the group (especially urban birds and biotopes), spatial valuation model for urban biodiversity, good connections to urban bird and biotope mapping in Europe, bridge to urban planning · Connections to the Greenscom-project including case studies in Helsinki (strategic structural planning approach in Helsinki and Haaga district as well as 1 management case · Connection to other projects in FIBRE (Finnish Biodiversity Programme)
1B Human Issues: Anne Beer Act as a bridge between 1A and 1B. What are the users needs? How can we bring nature into the urban areas? The roles of ecological corridors?
Main issues: Investigations into the role of greenstructure in enabling the enhancement of the quality of life in the regeneration of Social Housing. Schemes &endash;with particular reference to users attitudes to naturalistic landscapes &endash;designed to support biodiversity- in close proximity to dwellings.
Case studies: · high rise, high density &endash;1960´s - Overvecht (NL) · Low rise, low density &endash; 1950´s &endash; Stocksbridge (UK) · Low rise, medium density &endash; 1970´s &endash;Warrington New Town (UK)
Kimmo Lapintie The cultural mediation of planning and greenstructure ( green as symbolic and professionally constructed) as well as different communicated tools and governance forms related to it. The projects operating at the moment are "Greenscom" (communicating Urban Growth and Green), case studies included; "Ecological Networks" and "The City and Planning Professions" (concentrating on the "Communicating Turn"). Has also led an interdisciplinary project "Ecopolis" on ecological planning.
Karsten Jorgensen Main research interest: history of garden art, including the history of greenstructure development and the ideas and philosophies behind different types of landscapes. Main occupation: teaching landscape architecture, including tuition of MSc and PhD-theses, some of these may be of relevance to the C11-theme (STSM?) Representing research environment where more research of relevance for the C11-theme is taking place, e.g. the "Green Poster" &endash;experiences (A.K. Halvorsen Thorén/S.Nyhuus &endash;possible experts?)
Philippe Hanocq Main topics: Best practices to integrate green structures in local development schemes or projects. Practical concept and design of green structures inside existing urban areas as well as new development areas. Relationships between green structures and mobility, particularly design and implementation of green structures to improve non motorised mobility (walking, biking, horsing). Design of such "linear green structures" in order to give them several roles: Functional (linked with mobility), aesthetic, ecological, leisure, social, … Social demands regarding the use of green in urban areas as well as technical and political answers for implementation.
Lucia Martincigh The knowledge gained in the COST C6 Action in the field of urban quality for pedestrians have showed the importance, among the others, of comfort and aesthetics performances. In deepening them, the definition of the role that urban greenstructure can play has come up as a main issue. The EC funded research PROMPT and a national funded research on "Environmental Islands", actually running, confirms it.
The focus has to be, on one side, on the needs of the dwellers in performing their activities in the outdoor spaces, on the other one, on the propositions of the different types of green spaces that form a greenstructure, able to enhance the various spaces that shape the pedestrian networks (streets, squares, gardens, parks and so on.)
Peoples physical and psychological requirements are studied in literature and checked in the field by various inquiries; the perceptive aspect has a peculiar importance.
My contribution can come from these researches: methodologies and assessments in case studies, some findings on problems and families of solutions. My interest is in defining specific quality indicators, indications on methodologies for the planning process, guidelines and tools to be used in the design and implementation process of green structures in urban areas.
Klaus Wagner Case study: · Multifunctional evaluation approach of Agricultural and Forest areas (Result of an Interreg II C project, ending 09/2001, A, BRD, GR, Hungary). Functions: productions, resource protection, object protection, habitat effects, recreation effects, space structure effects. · current (recent) research results of green structure &endash;urban planning in Austria
Kestutis Zaleckis · The theoretical findings about the role and functions of green structure which are essential for creation of preferred urban environment. · The methodological issues for determination of the green areas what could be important for assurance at comprehension, legibility, mysteriousness and other qualities of preferred urban environment. · The small case study as an illustration of possibility to use the research findings and the methodological issues in practise.
Gunilla Lindholm Add questions and research findings from a broad scope of reference studies and use tools from action theory as a method to understand our work.
It is good to start with a very including ambition. We don´t have to narrow the scope but to widen it still, by adding perspectives and findings. I think what we can bring back home is not the solutions, how to do, but new material to put in old dialogs.
Jean-Marie Halleux My objective: To improve my knowledge on how Green Structures can contribute to the quality of life within the city. The final aim is to produce knowledge on how to have a better control on the urban sprawl.
My contribution: As I produce research on the field of residential mobility and housing property market, I can analyse how the greenstructure improves the quality of life by measuring it to the impact on the house prices. This can be done in relation to the typology issue (glossary of the green structure and the impact of each type of greenstructure).
Giovanni Scudo Main interests: Evaluate the microclimate and thermal/light comfort. Performances of green urban structures (squares, courts and streets) in different urban development (from historical to contemporary). Elaborate knowledge and tools to integrate the design of urban street structures into conventional small scale urban design (new and retrofit) with particular interest to Mediterranean context. Case studies: Two case studies in Milano area being developed within EU financed research, and started January 2001.
Carmen Aalbers · Present concept of "Sustainable Livelihood" first used at Rio Conference on Sustainable Development. The concept illustrates position of an individual actor in the development process; his/her social network, physical assets in relation to land use decisions. · Method of "self evaluation" &endash;developed by French team &endash;that enables to reveal human issues: what wishes, norms and values do residents or other persons have in relation to the natural environment. Depending of the interest of the WG!
4. Overview of the COST C11 Terms of Reference regarding WG 1 The chairman reminded about the main objective of C11 "to reach a better understanding of the role played by planning, design and management in the interaction between green and built&endash;up areas, improving the way green areas contribute to the quality of life of urban citizens, to the quality of habitats as a basis for biodiversity and to other aspects of sustainable urban development." While the main objective of C11 as a whole focuses on planning, design and management, WG 1A and B focus on the contribution of greenstructure to improve the quality of life of urban citizens and the urban environment.
The main goals/objectives of WG 1 were discussed and approved with some amendments: - to improve the knowledge base for urban greenstructure planning and design - to improve the tools for urban greenstructure planning and design - to assess the performances of urban green structures within the city and the city region - to increase the number of relevant case studies - to define the knowledge gaps and needs for further cooperation and research within the field
The relations between the working groups were discussed and approved with some amendments: WG 1 will work for two years ending up with a contribution to planning, design and management giving indications for the work of WG3 (and WG4) that will deal with Planning and Design.
WG 1 will work with basic knowledge, classification, systematization, functions, concepts, values, spatial dimensions, assessments, criteria, mapping, tools etc. to be used in urban greenstructure planning/plans.
WG1 will deal with the sectoral planning/plans for the green structures considering the multifunctional aspects and the crossing of interdisciplinary boundaries.
WG 2 will work with Policy and Implementation, i.e how the qualities of the green structures (sometimes presented in a green structure plan) are integrated/could/should be integrated in the urban land use planning and design processes.
5. Preparations of WG 1 terms of references (definitions, issues, methods of working, tasks) 6. Preparations of Outline Work Programme 7. Preparations of Deliveries and Final reports
It was agreed that point 5,6, and 7 should be discussed together. However, due to shortage of time, the discussion mainly focused on working methods especially concerning the use of case studies. The points 5,6 and 7 thus need to be further discussed at the next meeting.
Working methods: Some conclusions regarding Case Studies:
One case study should be compiled for each country on existing greenstructure planning/plans/concepts representing a relevant case in the country. Examination of all the case studies should be made using a common framework and focusing on differences and similarities between the countries.
Case studies on the visited cities and towns of COST C11 meetings should be objects of deep reflection by the members from their different perspectives. It is an advantage to work with the same case studies to get interaction between the participants.
Case studies can be of various kinds. The cases for the WG work should be chosen to show where research has played a role. Alternatively should the cases show how research/knowledge could have been used/should be used in practice. A central question is thus :What is the research contribution? The case studies should show what is existing knowledge as well as knowledge gaps. Case studies can show good and bad practices.
Case studies about the users and their needs are of special interest for WG 1B, e.g what kind of green structure is used/needed for different kinds of residents. This is a question about distance, quality and the needs of people. However, it was noted that not only different needs but also conceptual contradictions are of importance.
It is important that the ambition is not too high. One way is to use already existing case studies, e.g documentation of studies by members of WG and other studies.
Short Time Scientific Missions, STSM, can be used when there is a need to set up new case studies
Invited Experts: Experts could be invited for a deep presentation and discussion on specific topics of the Working Groups (e.g. each meetings could focus on one or two particular themes). The use and demand for the green structure based on qualities, distance and accessibility, planning concepts and knowledge gaps was agreed upon as a prioritised theme.
Workshops: The first workshop proposed and agreed upon will be a joint one (ecology as well as human issues combined) on residential areas from the 60´s. How to enhance the qualities of the" social housing areas" is a similar problem for all countries. The Marseille and Breda cases should be included. Papers should be produced in advance focusing on differences and cultural understanding.
State-of-the-art report: To be discussed further.
Definitions : Greenstructure: It was agreed that an inclusive definition should be used. Greenstructure should thus being defined as all urban land and water; public or private, planned or unplanned, used or not-used, etc; that are not covered with buildings or sealed (in accordance with Anne´s figure 2A city´s greenspaces on the website). This will ensure that the perspective of urban transformation/replanning of urban areas/the action of structuring/the planning concept will be included. In other words: both the physical structure on the ground as well as the intentional/planned structure.
Greenstructure should also include (at least for the WG 1B on Human issues) urban open spaces in the form of stone spaces, i.e squares and streets.
Greenstructure should further be defined as the spatial structure/system/pattern consisting of the green areas/green spaces/unbuild -unsealed areas. It was agreed that C11 emphasizes on greenstructure and not on green spaces.
However functions and values change with different scales (as well as with time). There will most probably be a lack of information on qualities related to the greenstructure scale. Knowledge about both green spaces/areas and greenstructures will thus have to be dealt with while exchanging knowledge between the scales. WG1 will involve both a top-down approach looking at the greenstructure from a conceptual point of view and a bottom-up perspective to get the users own opinions on their environment and places.
8. Cooperation with other COST Actions and WGs Stephan Pauleit is a member of Urban Forestry E12, Ulrik Reeh of Urban Infrastructure C8, Lucia Martincigh and Philippe Hanocq of Pedestrians C6.
There is a need of close cooperation between 1A and 1B. But there is also a need to deepen the knowledge base within certain fields. The two groups may during the next meeting have separate sessions for presentations and discussions on specific issues and join for a short common session.
9. Any other business To get the two groups more even it would be preferred that some members joined the 1A group instead. Smaller ad hoc groups could also be set up for interaction between the visited cities and the WG members.
10. Date of next meeting The WG will meet in Breda. More time need to be set aside for the WG meeting that time.
All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2001 |
Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
