|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Working Group 1A Working
Groups Working
Group 1B -
HUMAN ISSUES - MENU OF INFORMATION AND PAPERS
PRESENTED TO WORKING GROUP Other papers
available Milan Oct
02 Munich June 02
Minutes Psychological
factors Working
Group 1A -
Human issues COST C11
Seventh meeting in Warsaw September
11-14, 2003 Working group
1B: human issues Agenda Friday,
September 12 10.30-13.00 :
session 1 Saturday,
September 13 9.00-10.30:
session 2 Sunday,
September 14 9.00-10.30:
session 3 Notes: The following
is quoted from the Milan minutes: … 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: ·
professionally defined quality - on what basis?
· different
scale - different qualities · expert
preferences vs. public preferences · physical vs.
psychological comfort and preference ·
developing/restoring - different set of values and
use of green structure? · the gap
between research and practise Plans for
tomorrow - discussion about the WG 1b:s future
work 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. …
Even if I am
not in Warsaw, I will administrate your
contributions until the meeting, so please send
them as mail attachments AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Then
I will have a chance to make a preliminary order of
the available and new papers before sending the
bunch to Bernard! I know it will be hard for most
of us to find the time for both writing a paper and
make a "planning implementation" of the WG1b work
until now, but please try to make at least the last
one! These comments will make the group take the
step from theory to practise, which was our
intention at the last meeting. I suggest you
offer half a day this week &endash; it does not
take you more time make the "personal synthesis"
AND to either choose a text you already have or
write a more or less readable synopsis for a coming
paper! Looking forward
to your answers at latest FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER
5:TH.
Email to GL Minutes from
COST Action C11, WG 1b "human issues", the meeting
in Milan, October 6-8, 2002 WG 1B 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. See menu above
for paper "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: Plans for
tomorrow - discussion about the WG 1b:s future
work 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 June
2002 Working group
1B: Human issues 1. Expected
participants: o Gunilla
LINDHOLM, Sweden, chairwoman of the working
group o Kristina
BJORNBERG, Sweden, Klaus WAGNER,
Austria o Phillippe
HANOCQ, Belgium o Jean-Marie
HALLEUX, Belgium o Kimmo
LAPINTIE, Finland o Bernard
DUHEM, France o Lucia
MARTINCIGH, Italy o Giovanni
SCUDO, Italy o Kestutis
ZALECKIS, Lithuania o Carmen
AALBERS, The Netherlands o Karsten
JORGENSEN, Norway o Carolyn
HARRISON, United Kingdom 2.)
Agenda. Friday,
June 7 9.30-11.30:
Session 1 at Munich Technical University at
Weihenstephan, Freising o Welcome of
delegates o Adoption of
agenda o Approval of
the minutes from the last meeting o Report of the
chairwoman (G. Lindholm) o Case studies:
State of the art o Presentation
and discussion of individual sub-studies Saturday,
June 8 9.00-12.00:
Session 2 at Planning Department, City of
Munich o Presentation
and discussion of individual case studies,
continued o
Discussion: - Comparison of
the results -
Methods - Further
information required to complete
sub-studies - Work program:
conclusions Sunday,
June 9 9.00-11.00:
Session 3 at Munich Technical University at
Weihenstephan, Freising o Work program
for the year coming: state of art and sub-
studies o Future
meetings o Proposals for
invitation of experts o Proposals for
STSM o
AOB Nov
2001 4th meeting
of the COST-Action C11, Urban
Planning and Green Structures 17.-20.11.2001,
Breda NL Working
Group 1B, Human issues Session
19.11.2001, 15:00: Gunilla
Lindholm acts as chairperson of the working group
1B because Kristina Björnberg could not take
part of the meeting (approved by the Management
Committee). The first part of the meeting is held
together with working group 1A. After welcomig
the participants, Gunilla Lindholm presents the
Agenda: 1.
Presentations of experts 1. Bernard
Duhem gives information about the topic distance
&emdash; proximity &emdash; users in the case of
Marseille (location of the COST C11 group in May
2001). The paper &emdash; worked out from Ann Carol
Werquin is already on the web site of C11. The
paper puts together the results of a survey and
infos from the municipality and researchers and
different inquiries. Some topics of interest: the
commuting between the grey city and the green city
is an traditional system , half of the people leave
the city for recreation ( although from 1990 to
2000 the money spent for green plants etc.
increased for 90%). The distance for leisure
commuting increases more than the distance for
commuting for work or commerce. Most visited are
wild natural places and commercial areas. Less
visited are classical parks, an exception are the
beaches (Brado) with ~100.000 people on shiny days.
The trend show a demand for specialised types of
green areas, many people live now in periurban,
quiet areas and looking for "crowded" leisure
locations. The trends should always seen with
respect to an economic point of view. 2.
Patrik Grahn (department of landscape planning of
the Agricultuiral University of Lund?) gives a
report about his long term study about evaluations
of the quality of parks in an interdisciplinary
work with landscape architects, environmental
psychologists, physicians and therapists. A paper
for the web page will be worked out. One of the new
major diseases in Sweden is the burn out syndrome,
too much stress. Therefore at first has to be the
definition of health and the question, what makes
the people feel good to aim at a "sustainable
society". Horticultural therapies have to get a new
role in Kindergartens and schools. Not really the
distance but the time to reach green areas is an
important factor of the use of green places. Today
6 minutes walk are accepted (average) to use a
green space e.g. after work. In the 50's this
indicator was 15 minutes. There has to be made a
difference between the age groups. As a compromise
a distance of ~300 meters could work as an index.
One interesting result of the studies was that
people with own yards use public green spaces
significantly more often than the others. People
use green spaces because of the feeling of fresh
air, smelling soil… , because of walking and
moving around, detecting animals etc.. Women are
not using green spaces in most cases because of a
lack of the feeling of safety (especially younger
and elder women) or they do'nt want to meet people
they don't want to talk to. Men don't use green
spaces because of noise and too many &emdash; or
too few people, safety is not first rated. A
comparison of three cities (Lund, Vasteras and
Uppsala) says that people use more green spaces the
more they are supplied with green spaces and that
it differs between the cities, which size of parks
is preferred. Since ever garden and green was
connected with a good feeling and stone and grey
canyons (like inner city streets) with a bad
mood…. 8 basic characteristics of green
spaces: ·
Wild ·
Lush ·
Serene ·
Specious ·
Common ·
Imagination ·
Festive · Essence
(culture) Only a few
parks can provide all the 8 characteristics and
theses are the most attractive parks for visitors
and are showing the most activities. The value of
the park differs also with the supply of parks and
the number activities is dependent on the size,
also the shape of the park effects the activities.
He distance to the next park effects the number of
visits (300m &emdash; 2,7 visits / week). People
with own yards visit the parks 4times often than
others. The state of health is significant if
people have access to green spaces. This can
especially be observed on children Kindergartens of
different designs of open or green spaces or on the
convalescence of ill people in hospitals with
different qualities of green spaces. 1. Kestutis
Zaleckis reported about qualities of preferred
urban environments (a summary will be worked out
for the web page). The objective of the study was
to create a model of environments which takes into
consideration all the human needs (individual,
social and environmental). Especially the new
results of environmental psychologists are very
important (people need to have access to a
preferred environment otherwise they loose
motivation and the stress grows). The mental map
which is drawn from the individuals weights more
than the material environment. The conceptual
perception should therefore be an important
indicators for the development of green spaces.
Following the theories of Cole (?) and Jung the
cultural background has a big influence on this
perception which is a developing process. In the
case of the Lithuanian city Kaunas it has been
tried to find out the preferred environment. The
first step was to determinate the common image of
Kaunas and the results show that the city is not
seen as a unit, the image is fragmented. For all of
the ~500.000 inhabitants there exists only one
centre and the spatial characteristics of the
districts around it are quite similar (landmarks,
natural boundaries). The structures of a city
should be legible, not too divers and not too
monotone for not producing visual stress and the
green structure plays a significant role as
boundaries for separation, belts, forming districts
and as the background for landmarks. 2.
Discussion: G. Lindholm:
does the preferred image of a city reconcile with
the theories? K. Zaleckis:
the biggest influence is that of the cultural
background and there is a strong opposition between
urban environment and the wild nature outside the
city. P. Grahn: the
cultural images differs very much also between the
cities in Sweden. The cognition of the people
differs also very much due to the energy or mood of
them. When you are tired or on low energy, you have
less cognition and "only" perception on the
emotional level (seen at studies in
hospitals…. ) K. Jorgensen:
The planners cannot only pay attention to the
preferred image of the environment, there are many
other things to take into
consideration… L. Martincigh:
it is necessary for the experts also to know what
the people need and they have to check what the
people like to find the guiding lines for the
design of green structures. K. Zaleckis: it
should be checked and it could be checked with this
method. P. Grahn: The
image differs also if the visitor is familiar with
an environment or not. The first image is very
important. K. Lapintie:
Ther is also a big difference between the cultures.
In Scandinavia wild nature means security and they
want to live as direct to the nature as possible,
e.g. in Africa this would mean unsafety and direct
the opposite. P. Grahn: We
have three levels of perception and reaction in our
brain, we get ~11.000.000 bits/second and only ~11
of them are going to the neocortex and trigger
conscious reactions. The rest is filtered and
triggers instincts… Vähä-Piikiö:
The image is also under transition, the perceptions
may change and old cultural heritage can play a
role. K. Zaleckis:
the plicies don't refer to old cultural heritage
and mental images are only one part of the
policy. St. Pauleit: is
it possible to use this method of K.Lynch on the
level of a whole city, it was developed for smaller
districts… K. Zaleckis: it
is the first time that it is used on this level and
with a kind of generalisation it seems
appropriate P.Grahn: there
are a lot of hierarchies in a city and many studies
have shown that Lynch was right with his method.
The principles can be found on a small level
(garden) and work also on a higher level, also on a
national level. Ph. Hanocq:
architects are not always looking for a consense,
conflicts maybe programmed. K. Zaleckis:
this is an individual process of the planning
methods and different kind of
interpretation. 2. Working
group 1B session, 20.11.2001 Participants:
Gunilla Linmdholm (chair), Kestutis Zaleckis,
Patrik Grahn, Karsten Jorgensen, Jean Marie
Halleux, Bernard Duhem, Maurizio Meriggi, Kimmo
Lapintie, Lucia Martincigh, Philippe Hanocq, Klaus
Wagner (minutes) G.Lindholm: at
first we take a look to the notes of Marseille
&emdash; approval. Kristina
Björnberg and me have made a proposal of a
work programme and tried to categorize some tasks
which should be relatred to the report of the whole
COST action: · Case
studies · State of the
art ·
Workshop · Expert
presentations B. Duhem: on
the web site is already material for the progress
report which ahs to be worked out for each year of
the COST action. The report for 2001 could have the
following topics: · General
report ·
Glossary · Visits,
cases · Planning
systems · Distance and
uses · Social
districts K. Lapintie: a
scientific background is needed e.g. for the topic
distance and uses L. Martincigh:
we have to make relations between users and
meanings and qualities , needs and
reality B. Duhem: we
have to be aware that our overall topic is green
structures, the topic social housing relates more
to green areas P.Grahn: one
main topic should be the access to green areas
which is very important especially for children and
elder people and the status of health depends on
it. L. Martincigh:
The motion green structure is a synonym for green
system and we have to go deeper in the kind of
green spaces also social structures play a role,
different values, different qualities. The glossary
should be the base, different approaches have to be
merged, also access, quality, uses have to be
defined. K. Zaleckis: if
we concentrate on structures we also have to look
at the different types of areas, the capacities and
the difference in ecological and human
structures. K. Lapintie: we
have different traditions in research and different
meanings of expressions. It is important to connect
things in planning which are connected in the real
life. E.g. green areas and green services (schools,
Kindergartens), we should use a functional and
integrated approach. G. Scudo: one
main problem is the difference between research and
the practise. There is much research done (e.g. how
to move on the street in Naples, shadow…) but
planners do not use the reports and we have to join
them. The green structures mean a lot for the urban
environment, visual, acustic and thermal issues and
the vitality of a place. B. Duhem: maybe
we could limit the topics if we gather the
knowledge which is already done but not used by the
planners P. Grahn: the
main problem is: what happens at the doorstep. If
the green structure begins there, the whole green
structure is used, otherwise not. In inner cities
is the access the important thing (traffic
solutions). Ph. Hanocq: We
shold also focus on the maintenance of the green
structures and the economic constraints of the
cities. G. Scudo: there
are models where people take care of themselves of
the green areas or children take care of the green
areas of schools. JM. Halleux:
green structured can also be "bad "points of a city
if they are not cared about K. Jorgensen:
The chapter bibliography on the web page should not
be too broad there should be a filter, e.g.: what
is the existing knowldge which is not used but do
we know what is used and what not… this will
be difficult to answer. G. Lindholm: we
are not expecting a real answer but we could give a
direction to keep us upstream P.Grahn: the
planners know a lot of these studies but have often
too less money. The politicians are interested in
the money output… economic aspects (e.g. less
health costs..) K.Jorgensen: we
should make a list of themes to focus
on. G. Lindholm: We
have to deal with: systems, structures, connection,
spaces, places and we have to identify: users and
use, qualities, ideas and images and culture,
methods and measurements and we have to decide who
is doing what, we should take the case studies as a
base. What will be done: JM Halleux:
valuing the green from different point of
views L. Martincigh:
what is possible to find in Rome, users…;
green spaces and the comfort in the city G. Scudo:
design in the evaluation process, thermal and
lightning aspects P. Grahn: paper
see above G. Lindholm:
contribution to the topic ideas, images, cultural
background Ph. Hanocq:
integration of landscape planning in the physical
planning, green systems in old induxtrial
regions K. Wagner:
evaluation of agricultural areas in a
multifunctional approach, in connection with the
experience of the cities visited in the C11
action. K. Jorgensen:
ideas, images, historical aspects with a focus on
Oslo AC. Werquin,
paper see above K. Lapintie:
communication in planning, cultural understanding,
results of greenscom project G. Lindholm:
next meeting will be in June 2002. the
contributions should be sent to me until February
15th, we will see if a special work group meeting
is necessary after that date &emdash; session
closed 20.11.2001, 11:30 Message from
Gunilla Chair of Nov.
meeting november
18-19-20th, 2001 Working group
1B: human issues Agenda Monday,
november 19th
14.30-16.30 :
session 1( joined with WG1A) · welcome
of delegates ·
selection of secretariat · approval
of the minutes of the last meeting theme: the use
and demand for green structure · lessons
from the case of Marseille
- summary by Ann
Caroll Werquin, France, WG2 · "Green
spaces: distances, qualities and uses"
- survey by Patrik Grahn, Sweden,
expert ·
"Qualities of preferred urban
environments"
- study by Kestutis Zaleckis,
Lithuania, WG1 ·
discussion 17.00-18.00:
WG1B, session 1 continuing work program
for the years coming (2001-2003) · case
studies ·
state-of-the-art report Tuesday,
november 20th
9.00-11.00:
session 2 work program
for the years coming: continuing ·
workshops · expert
presentations ·
preparation of outline work program (including need
for other experts or members and cooperation
with other COST
Actions or WGs) · any
other business from Kristina
and gunilla Work Program
for the years coming (2001-mid 2003) § case
studies One case study
should be compiled for each country on existing
greenstructure planning/ plans/concepts. It can be
existing case studies, new
case studies (STSM?) and/or case studies of
the visited cities. The case study
can focus on human issues related to -the inner
city/dense areas/densification issues -social housing
areas from the 60´s - urban
fringe The case
studies should be compiled using a commun
framework: -trends
and driving forces in the country and their impact
on greenstructures & human issues - the case and
its relevans for WG 1B - issues/
problems - knowledge,
tools, methods, competence, working procedure,
communication, .. - results
regarding the enhancement of the quality of life of
urban citizens - what is the
research contribution? how has research been used/
could have been used - conclusions:
main lessons learnt, knowledge gaps, failures
and success Examination of
case studies: - common
framework - focusing on
differences and similarities between the
countries: -
STSM? Timeschedule Definition of
deliverable Allocation of
tasks §
state-of-the-art report Proposed
contribution per country: - research
environments on human issues and green structures
(knowledge, tools, assessment) - ongoing
research programmes - main
publications -
contacts Timeschedule Definition of
deliverable Allocation of
tasks §
workshops The first
workshop agreed upon will be on residential areas
from the 60´s. How to enhance the qualities of
"The social housing areas". Papers
should be produced in advance focusing on
differences and cultural understanding. Subjects and
goals Timeschedule Definition of
deliverable Allocation of
tasks Workshops on
other subjects §
expert presentations Invited experts
or WG members could be asked to make deep
presentations and discussion on specific topics.
The meeting in Breda will focus on
the use and demand for the green structure based on
qualities, distance and accessibility. Proposed themes
for coming meetings: - urban
character and aestetic performance - economy (real
estate prices) - every day
life for children and youth -
mobility -
climate - §
preparation of outline workprogram Time
schedule Definition of
deliveries Allocation of
tasks Notes by
Stephan Click here for
Notes
on joint working
group
held in Marseille in May Paper for Breda
meeting
Working
Group 1B -
Message Board Munich Munich June 02
Minutes Milan Oct
02 PAPERS -
drafts Working
Groups
- agreed in Dec2000
All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2002
|
Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background Meetings Background | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
