|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working groups - preliminary identification of scope and Research Questions Click here for Minutes of Working Group 1a and 1b Click here for minutes of Working Group 2 The Working Groups Working Group 1: from Kristina Björnberg Jan 01 Based on the
Terms of References for C11, decisions taken by the
MG and discussions on
the website I suggest the following conclusions
regarding WG Working
Group 1: Qualities of Greenstructures or Tools and
concepts for the assessment and planning of the
urban greenstructure Key words:
qualities, performance, typology, assessment,
tools, concepts, green structure
planning Main
goals: - to improve
the knowledge base for urban greenstructure
planning - to improve
the tools for urban greenstructure
planning - to assess the
performances of urban green structures within the
city and the city
region - defining the
knowledge gaps and needs for further cooperation
and research within the
field Relations
between the working groups: WG 1 will work
with basic knowledge, classification,
systematization, functions,
concepts, values, spatial dimensions, assessments,
critieria, mapping, tools
etc. to be used in urban greenstructure
planning/plans. WG1 will deal with
the sectorial planning/plans for the green
structures considering the
multifunctional aspects and the crossing
of interdisciplinary
boundaries. WG 1 will not
work with planning, design and management but after
2 years of work give an
input for the work of WG3 that will take care of
these issues. 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. Working
methods: Case Studies on
existing greenstructure planning/plans
representing interesting
cases in different regions. Seminars and
bibliographies to exchange knowledge of the state
of art (including
ongoing research). Workshop for
conclusions to fulfil the goals. Definitions
: Greenstructure:
An including 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 greenspaces2).
This will ensure that the perspective of
urban transformation/replanning
of urban areas/the action of
structuring/the planning
concept will be included. 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. Functions and
values change with different scales (as well as
with time). Although the
scope of C11 is focusing on the greenstructures
there will most probably be a
lack of information on qualities related to this
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 bottten-up perspective to get
the users own opinions on
their environment and places. Categories: The broad
categories (proposed by Stephan) are appropriate as
a start and could be
further subdivided and detailed later. The
interaction between the built parts and
the greenstructure should be appropriate taken into
account for each
category. As a basis for
the WG 1 work the national/regional/lokal
background factors should be
clarified including relevant cultural, historical
and social factors;
topographical, geographical, climatical etc factors
and also the current issues
and conflicts. (2Urban site requirement2 as stated
by Stephan). WG 1
A Environment/Ecology - - - WG 1
B Human
Issues (* strong
connections between 1A and 1B) Urban
character and aestetic performance - urban
identity, -
cultural -
historical -
aestetic - design
elements - - Social
performance - everydag life
for groups with different lifestyles and needs
(children, youth,
immigrants,unemployed, elderly people, handicapped,
etc) regarding access,
qualities, obstacles, threats etc - environmental
psychology (coherence, legibility, identity
etc) - physical
health (recreation, sports etc) - social
(meeting place, activities, integration
etc) - education,
experience of fauna and flora, water and waste
cycles, etc * - mobility
(cycle tracks, green ways etc) * - climat
(protection for wind and sun, air quality)
* - participation
(in management, maintenance, planning, design)-task
of WG2? - - Economy - real estate
prices - Meeting in
Marseilles 19 -22.05.01. MC and WG meeting.
WG2. Based on the
Terms of References for C11, decisions taken by the
MG and discussions on the website, I have following
proposal of the agenda for the Working Group (WG) 2
meeting: 1.
Introduction Presentation of
the members of the working group 2 Summing up last
meeting in Sheffield 2. What is
the headline of the WG 2 "Policy Instruments",
"Public Policies" or "Policy and Implementation"?
Related to article 3. 3. What
should be the main goals for the working group 2
? 4.
Clarifying Case studies Tools or
criterias for selection of case studies. ("Light case
studies", comparative studies, case studies from
"Greenscome" ? Every members
of the group put forward a proposal of a case study
they find of current
interest to bring into the group and is relevant
for the main purpose.) 5. Working
method. In what way are
we going to work within the group? sharing of
work, working together/comparative studies,
etc. 6. Progress
of work of WG 2. 7. Any other
business Background
for discussion. Item 2:
During the
process from Sheffield WG 2 is called both "Policy
instruments" and "Public policies". Kristina
Bjˆrnberg, who is the leader of WG1, has just
suggested "Relations between the working groups":
"WG2 will work with Policy and implementation, i.e.
how the qualities of the green structures (...) are
integrated/could/should be integrated in the urban
land use planning and design processes." In
connection with this I will suggest we add "Policy
and Implementation" as a proposal for a good
headline for the WG 2. Item
3: Key words:
Planning practice, guidelines, legislation,
equality, organisation, participating and
communication, co-ordinating, etc. Main
approaches: - To improve
and develop instruments for implementation to
achieve better qualities/greenstructure and more
efficient land use in built - up areas - Critical
factors for implementation of densification
strategies - Public or
private ownership of important part of the
greenstructure? - Co-ordination
of actors (property owners, licencees, public
sector etc) within an developed area - Which
qualities/areas are most exposed during the
planning process and implementation of the land use
plans? - Distribution
of values and costs related to implementation of an
approved detailed plan Other
approaches from the group? The discussion
from the different approaches should lead to goals
for the WG 2. Item
4. Case
study - In connection
with the city where the meeting is arranged. A
light document for each meeting - Deep or light
study brought into the groups ;- compare
"Greenscome" Other proposals
based on experiences from their own
country? Criteria:
- Experiences
from projects which is carried out - On going
projects - Typology of
the cases? -
brownfields? - Infill and
densification in existing residential
areas? - Co-ordination
processes -Other
criteria? Working
Groups agreed in December 2000 More
information will be added from the Official Minutes
- being prepared by Bernard Duhem and available
January. However these diagrams prepared by Stephan
Pauleit illustrate our discussions and are to act
as memory joggers in preliminary discussions - they
are NOTmeant to be a FINAL document click
here to email your ideas - comments - reactions
about any of the three working
groups Stephan Pauleit
- D Working
Groups Following from
this, I can imagine two main working areas/ groups
for COST C11: • WG 1:
Tools and concepts for the assessment and planning
of the urban greenstructure. Goal: To
Improve the knowledge base and tools for urban
greenstructure planning; assessment of the
performance of urban greenstructure within the city
and the city region. - What are
appropriate tools to assess the status and the
performance of open spaces for greenstructure
planning? - What is the
status of urban greenstructure in European cities
and towns? - Comparison of
different greenstructure concepts and
types - Performance
of greenstructure regarding environment,
biodiversity, social environment,
economy. • WG 2:
Planning and management concepts and tools:
Goal: To
Improve planning and management of urban
greenstructure: - effectivenes
of existing instruments for greenstructure
planning, e.g. green belts on the level of city
regions, landscape planning instruments, landscape
ecology - innovative
instruments for urban greenstructure planning: e.g.
environmental standards and targets for
greenstructure, urban community forests, Biosphere
Reserves, participatory planning approaches,
communication - urban
greenstructure management Lucia WORKING
GROUPS 1. I think that
the topic written by Stephan: "The functions of
urban open spaces" could go together with the
classification I have spoken about before. I agree
indeed on the requirements/performances approach,
and above all on the importance of its role in
defining, in an appropriate way, the decision
making process about choices, and the design
process about solutions. I think the topic of the
systematization/classification of the various
aspects (uses, morphology, features etc.) involved
in the performance assessment could be object of
one of the Working groups, as I have already
mentioned before, having the aim of matching offer
and demand, in different situations, and of giving
guide lines for implementation. This would also
face the problem of listing and organizing (through
matrixes) different types of greenspaces forming a
greenstructure. It could be
called: "Which urban open spaces for which uses:
how to plan and to design the
greenstructure" 2. I agree with
Bjorn on the necessity to integrate "green" issues
in a more global situation, and, in particular, to
analyse its possibility of performing many
functions as a greenstructure. I think, indeed,
that a very important topic lays in the research
about an integrated planning and design approach,
that considers together the greenstructure and its
related uses, and the urban mobility, and in
particular the non motorized modes. This approach
needs to put together different disciplines,
different knowledges and know-hows that must find a
common language and shared values to be
reached. In the current
urban structure, open spaces take the shape of an
"archipelago"; it is then necessary to build the
"bridges" connecting the "islands", with the aim to
create a network of greenspaces of different type,
under the quantitative, qualitative and functional
point of view, that form a system. This could
match, in general if not always, the network that
is possible to individuate for pedestrian mobility
and rest, and for the cyclist mobility. It seems a very
interesting topic for a Working group; it could be
called: "An integrated planning and design for
greenstructure, imtermediate spaces use and
mobility aimed at a more sustainable urban form
". 3. In the overall
need of control of the urban phenomena, it becomes
relevant to consider the public open spaces; these
present in themselves all the characteristics of
complexity of the city on its whole, and actually
they seem to be the place in which all the
inefficiencies and contradictions appear
evident. In an
integrated and holistic approach to the upgrading
of the urban space, that is aimed at the
re-organization and at the re-balancing of the
involved components, and at the achievement of an
adequate level of performance quality, it seems
fundamental the consideration of the natural
component, and the assessment of rules and of
functions that it can assume, and the definition of
the performance characteristics that, time by time,
are requested to it. Thence, in
urban zones, criteria for the use of green elements
refer, by now, also to energy and to life quality
issues. Therefore
another topic, that I think very important, deals
with the role that the urban greenstructure can
play as control element of comfort, seen under its
many aspects: thermal, acoustic, visual, above all
as it concerns pollution. Comfort has to
be meant as physical wellbeing in relation with the
climatic factors (sun, wind, humidity and light)
and meso-climatic conditions, due to the elements
that constitute the urban environment and to the
factors that can prove the senses (buildings,
green, water, type of mobility, of spaces, and of
uses, related consequences etc.); but also as
wellbeing in relation to the psychological aspects,
and as commodity, in moving and in resting for the
various possible uses of the urban spaces. The
parameters inherent comfort are connected to
subjective evaluations and to cultural
expectations, so they are more difficult to be
investigated and defined. The selection
of species or of the kind of coverings in urban
settlements occurs also on the basis of
considerations under the hygrothermic point of view
(more or less transpirant species selection, or
with evergreen or deciduous leaves, foliage
density,….) and it is useful for fighting
overheating phenomena (heat island), air
stagnation, strong wind exposure (Venturi's
effect), water stagnation with humidity increase,
and so on. With reference
to the mobility, green (mainly, trees and shrubs)
is an element that can be used for mitigating air
and acoustic pollution effects. Within the built
areas, great urban parks are able to perform a
concrete activity of air purification, while green
elements along avenues and streets are not always
able to guarantee the requested action ( dusts and
noise abatement). This topic too
can become object of a Working Group; it could be
called: "The green structure as control element of
the urban mesoclimate". Klaus
Wagner Tasks of C11
and contribution of BAWI Tasks and
possible contributions resp. in my point of
view: · better
understanding of the role played by planning,
design and management in the interactions of green
and built-up areas, pay attention to the
multifunctional aspect of green areas, also
agricultural areas ! Evaluation of the different
functions/benefits to show the importance of green
areas · Mapping
of green areas and the valuation of the
benefits · Rouse
awareness of the different benefits of greenspace,
especially in the urban fringe where planning
possibilities are still given and errors have to be
avoided. Remark:
Vegetable growing (especially under glass),
greenhouse areas to complete in Anne Beers
beautiful picture about City´s Greenspace ?
they appear more like industrial zones but are
looking green on the maps!! Project Natural
Resources As I presented
in the last meeting we want to valuate different
functions of agricultural areras in a compatible
system with forestry and water management. The
following functions of agro-functional units
(average size 500 ha) will be evaluated in the
reference-area of Marchfeld: ·
Production (productivity of soil) ·
Protection of resources (risk of soil erosion and
leaking nitrate due to soil and crops) · Hazard
control (Buffer effects of agricultural areas due
to quantity and kind of environmental disturbing
facilities) · Function
of biotope (Diversity of agricultural land use and
biodiversity of the agricultural
landscape) · Function
of recreation (site, suitability and
amenity) ·
Structural function (Space structure, The reference
area has been chosen because of the complex
conflict situation (daily commuting distance to
Vienna and suburb structure with high activity in
settlement, flat landscape with only few landscape
elements, intensive arable land, vineyards,
vegetable cropping, low share of forests, high
rates of nitrate in the groundwater, production of
oil with many pumping stations, intensive
exploitation of gravel). Now we have a
first draft of the valuation map for the seven
communities in the testing region and we can
differentiate several patterns of the 6 functions
and we have to make interpretations. E.G. · Regions
with relatively high values in most of the
functions (we can say the situation there is
relatively good, no priority to make some
changes) · regions
with a high value in production but all the other
functions have low values (do we need the other
functions ?, if yes there is something to
do) · regions
with low values in production but higher values in
the other functions (the agricultural areas are
important, although the production value is low,
the giving up of agriculture there should be
avoided) These are some
examples of interpretation of the results, another
important phase of the project will be the tuning
of the functions with the other sectors, this will
be made in the next year. Working
Groups
- agreed in Dec2000 Existing
Case studies: Stephan Pauleit
- D Perhaps, this
can be done most effectively by means of an
interpretation of existing case studies. For
Germany, the following case studies may be
relevant: •
Assessment of greenstructure status and
performance: Munich/ Leipzig; land cover
surveys • Planning
concepts and instruments: e.g. - IBA Emscher
as a an approach to the ecological renewal of an
old industrialised city region - Biosphere
Reserve Concept - Munich and
Leipzig; various urban development projects:
integration of urban greenstructure, use of
compensation rules - standards and
targets for greenstructure planning: Munich /
Leipzig What can be
learnt from case studies about: • the
interaction process between urban development and
greenstructure •
contribution of greenstructure to quality of life,
biodiversity, other aspects of sustainable
development. What is the environmental, nature
conservation and landscape character, social, and
economic performance of overall greenstructure and
the different types of open spaces? • How
vulnerable are different types of open space to
urban development: e.g. private green spaces in
housing schemes, public housing, industry/
commerce, wastelands, agriculture, private/ public
sports (e.g. gold courses) • What is
the speed and extent of change in European cities
and towns: in cities, on the urban fringe, in the
city region • Which
instruments were successful for greenstructure
planning. . Which planning concepts and goals could
be implemented, which ones not and why
not?
All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2001 |
Meetings Background Meetings Background |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
