European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research -
COST Action C11


Working Group 1A -Ecological Issues

Working Groups

1A - Ecological Issues

1B- Human Issues

2 - Policies

Working Group 1A - Comparison of Case Studies


May 01- notes - minutes

Oct 01

June 02

Oct 02

June 03 notes

Other papers relating to people/ ecology interface





Belgium - benefits for people

Sheffield to do




Ceské Budejovice

Comparison of case studies in relation to biodiversity

UK - benefits of nature

Click button to return to:
click here to email your responses and questions to Stephan

Sept 2003 Agenda

MESSAGE from Chaiman

A message before the meeting in Warsaw in relation to the work programme of WG1A Ecology.


As you know, a small meeting of Bernard, Anne-Carole, Bettina, and myself with Ilias Samaras and Jacques Laravoire was held in Brussels in June. During the meeting, the progress of the action was reviewed and particularly the implications of the financial situation for the next meetings were discussed.


During the meeting, an outline structure for the final report was agreed and later sent to all of us by Bernard. Following from this, the report would have two major parts. Part A would present the main findings of the action, while Part B would present the more specific findings of the working groups. I would prefer to call this Part B as I feel that this is more than just an appendix. But we can discuss this during the Warsaw meeting.


Part A would synthesise in chapter 3.1 "ecology and urban planning" the results from our working group to make recommendations how ecology should be considered in urban planning. What can we conclude from our work?


Part B1 (Annex 1) would contain our case studies, but I think it would be also possible to conclude this annex with the comparison by themes (biodiversity, climate, etc.). Does this make sense?


The main tasks now will be:

1. To bring these case studies to a standard so that they can be published in Part B of the final report. This should be completed latest until the Rome meeting. All of us (thank you for submitting the case studies!) have already put a lot of effort into this but I feel we should even put some more effort into bringing them to a good standard. There are two options: either slight (language) editing &endash; in this case it would be indeed better to call the collection of papers annex 1 &endash; or more serious editing to improve contents. Personally, I am in favour of the latter option but this needs to be decided by all of us.


There could be two ways to review the case studies, and I think both are necessary:

- That everybody reads the case study of somebody else to make suggestions how to finalise it,

- Additionally, those who compare the case studies on a certain theme e.g. climate or biodiversity, look at the relevant section in each of the case studies to make suggestions how this part should be improved: what information is missing, etc.


The case studies ought to be finalised until the next meeting in Rome in February 2004. Finalised means that we really do not need to touch them again afterwards.


2. To complete the comparison. This needs to go more or less in parallel with finalising the case studies, i.e. a draft of each comparison should also be available at the Rome meeting. This draft needs to be a readable paper not just some keywords and more questions.



3. To write chapter 3.1 for Part A of the final report: this can probably only be finished after the Rome meeting, but the first draft already needs to be circulated for discussion before the Rome meeting. I suggest that one or two of us start writing this chapter; to be decided in Warsaw.


In order to have a useful meeting in Warsaw: Can you please

a) Have a think on how to best proceed with and conclude our work until the last meeting in Oslo 2004 with regards to the suggestions made above?

b) Have a look at the material produced so far in our working group, and how this would fit into the final report.

c) Have a look at the material on comaparisons sent around so far. For instance, Inkeri sent questions to working group members in relation to the comparison of biodiversity. Can you please check the questions concerning you? Can you answer the questions? Please look also at the other papers produced by Eva, Ewa and myself. Can you provide more input from your case study into these papers?

d) Please go through the theme which you agreed to compare between the case studies. What are the main findings, what is missing? Can you produce a list of questions to other working group members for further information/ clarifications?

e) Please let me know what should be put on the agenda (see below). As usual, we will only have a limited amount of time during the meeting. How should this time be best used? This is the third last meeting.



Let me know whether you think this makes sense. I really look forward to see you in Warsaw. Those of you who will not be able to come: please send me your suggestions in advance of the meeting.


Best wishes




Friday, 12 September 2003


10.00 &endash; 13.00 Working Group Meetings (1st session, Ursynow Campus)


1. Review of progress so far: what has been achieved, what is missing? What has been achieved since the last large meeting?

2. Discussion on proposal for the final report: structure, content; format. Where are we with our contribution to the report? Outline of the work programme until the end of C11.

3. Remaining time: working on case studies/ thematic comparison. What are the main findings?



Saturday, 13 September 2003


9.00- 10.30 Working Groups meetings (2nd session, Ursynow Campus)

1. Continue discussion on case studies and comparison.




Sunday, 14 September 2003


9.00 -10.30 Working groups meetings (3rd session, Ursynow Campus)

1. Continue discussion on case studies from previous session. Summary of results of the discussion.

2. Work programme until the next meeting; clarification of tasks of each WG member

3. Results to be reported to the management committee

Any other business


Working Group 1A: Ecological Issues

Notes on June 2003 Brussels meeting

As you know, the Warsaw meeting originally planned for early July has been delayed until

September 12-14. Yet, to keep things going, a one-day meeting has been arranged to take place

in Brussels on June 13. Bernard, Bettina, Gunilla and myself as working group leaders as well as

Barbara and Lucia as the organisers of the next meeting will participate in this meeting, Illias

Samaras and Jacques Laravoire will represent the EC.

The major purpose of this meeting will be to assess where we are currently and outline future



I will report on the work of our WG1A and would be very happy to receive your suggestions for

this purpose. Relevant items on the agenda are:


1. Report from the three working groups:

- analytical materials;

- first step of synthesis;

- first step to turn to "recommendations and design"


2. Strategy for publications and dissemination:

- in each working group

- for the Action as a whole


3. Agendas for the next two meetings (Warsaw, Rome)





1. Report from the three working groups:

Analytical materials:

1. Draft case studies "light" from the places visited include some material relevant for our

working group.

2. Advanced drafts of case studies on: "How should urban ecology inform greenstructure

planning?" are available for Helsinki, Oslo, Utrecht, Munich, Warsaw, C. Budéjovice,



We have produced quite a significant volume of work, and this is likely to be the main result of

our working group. Yet, so far we have mainly collected the case studies but they need a review

before this part can be published, whatsoever the format of publication will be.


If you agree: How should we organise this? I think it would be a good thing if we could prepare

until the Warsaw meeting a combined "final" report of the papers accessible to all participants of




First step of synthesis:

First drafts of thematic comparisons of case studies have been produced for:

- Greenstructure patterns

- Natural resources and greenstructure

- Biodiversity

- Climate (a 2 pager to be asent to you next week)



- Water an greenstructure

- Pests and greenstructure

- Greenstructure information

- Goals set out for greenstructure planning & management


How can we take this forward? I think all of us who have tried to prepare these comparisons

have realised that this is a quite difficult task due to the differences between the case studies.

However, I still believe it is necessary trying. Can we prepare short papers on each of the

themes for discussion at the Warsaw meeting to see what we can contribute:

o To discuss the current state of greenstructure pattern and functions in the case study areas,

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


First steps to turn to recommendations/ design

Requires discussion in Brussels and at the next meeting in Warsaw. Suggestions would be

particularly helpful for the discussion in Brussels.


2. Strategy for publications and dissemination:

- in each working group

- for the Action as a whole


So far, we have collected the working papers above. I think if these are reviewed as suggested

we can publish them as part of an overall report of COST C11 by the European Commission.


In addition it may be possible to publish the papers in a journal. I believe it is worthwhile trying

(e.g. for submission as a special issue to Urban Forestry and Urban Greening) but requires a

serious review of the papers. So, this is quite a bit of work. What do you think?



3. Agendas for the next two meetings (Warsaw, Rome)




- Finalise case studies

- Discuss comparison of case studies

- Discuss dissemination

- Agree on future work programme of WG1A

Milan Minutes
Oct 2002

COST C11 Working Group 1A 'Ecology '

Draft minutes of the sixth meeting - Milan (Germany), 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.


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:


  • To discuss the current state of greenstructure pattern and functions,
  • To highlight the commonalities as well as the differences between the case study areas,
  • To identify the deficits (e.g. in knowledge)/ problems, both common and specific
  • To make recommendations for greenstructure planning and management



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.



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.


June 2002

Working Group 1A

COST C11, Munich, June 6-9, 2002. -- Working group 1A : Ecology and Environmental Performance of Urban Greenstructures

1) Expected participants:

o Stephan PAULEIT, Germany, chairman of the working group

o Anne BEER, United Kingdom

o Peter SCHILDWACHT, The Netherlands

o Sybrand TJALLINGII, The Netherlands

o Ulrik REEH, Denmark (or his substitute Suzanne GULDAGER)

o Ewa KALISZUK, Poland

o Eva ERHART, Austria

o Signe NYHUUS, Norway

o Olli MAIJALA, Finland (or his substitute InkeriVAHA-PIIKKIO)

o Irena HANOUSKOVÁ, Czeck Republic (new))

Carlo BLASI, Italy (new)

Nicoletta GALLINA ( Italy)

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 chairman (S.Pauleit)

o Case studies: State of the art

o Presentation and discussion of individual case studies

- Anne Beer/ Anna Jorgensen: Stocksbridge/ Sheffield, United Kingdom

- Peter Schildwacht/ Anne Beer: Utrecht, Overvecht District, The Netherlands

- Ulrik Reeh: Ringkøbing, Denmark

- Stephan Pauleit; München, Germany


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 case studies


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 case studies

o Future meetings

o Proposals for invitation of experts

o Proposals for STSM


COST C11, Munich, June 06-09, 2002

30 Oct 01

A proposal for the working programme of WG 1A in Breda

Stephan Pauleit

Stephan would be happy to receive your comments and ideas/ suggestions. As the Breda meeting is coming soon, it would be good to receive them as soon as possible. The attached proposal for the Agenda of the next meeting is partly connected to the proposed working programme. Please have a good look at both documents.


What is particularly required from Working group members:

1. General comment on the proposed working programme: does this make sense, what is missing, what should be done differently, or should it be completely different?

2. How could it be put into practice? My paper makes some suggestions but these are still quite vague. What should be done during the next working group meetings, what should be homework, what would be the timetable until the end of WG1A?

3. What could be your contribution for the next meetings and overall?

We collected the statements from WG1A members during the last meeting but what would it mean put into concrete terms? I have specified at the end of the paper from which material I could draw but, probably, the working programme needs to be clearer to say exactly what the contribution for each of us would be? However, it would be helpful to get now more precise suggestions as a basis for the discussion in Breda.

4. Ewa stressed that we need to develop a common format for the preparation of our individual case studies. Any suggestions are welcome.


I also attach a letter from Ewa with her suggestions for the work programme, based on a close look at the aims defined in the Memorandum of Understanding. I hope that these comments have been picked up in my proposal but perhaps I am wrong and have overlooked important issues?


Please reply as soon as possible, as I will be already on another meeting of the COST Action E12 in Wageningen from November 11-14.

email your responses to Stephan



Working Group 1A



from Stephan Pauleit

COST C11 - Aims and objectives - Working Group 1A:
Ecology aims to improve the knowledge base and tools urban greenstructure planning.  The objectives are:

•      Analysis:

       To characterise and compare the greenstructure and its environmental/ ecological performance across European cities and towns:

-      what is greenstructure, what are the common features in European cities and towns and how does it differ in main European regions (see Fig. 2)

-      what are the common environmental/ ecological challenges, strength and deficits of greenstructure in European cities and towns, what are the specific

challenges in different climatic regions (see. Fig. 2)?

       'A framework for comparative research, a common language for analysing planning issues concerning greenstructures in different urban settings needs to be developed' (MoU)

•      Methods:

       To compare methodologies for greenstructure analysis and assessment of their environmental/ ecological performance. 

-      How can greenstructures be identified, what are the criteria?

-      What are criteria and methods to assess the quality and functioning of greenstructure?

-      Do common approaches exist, how and why do the approaches differ? What are the advantages and shortcomings of methods used? 

       This section comprises discussion of green space typologies and geographic information systems as elements of methods, and could include evaluation methods such as cost-benefit analysis.

•      Solutions:

       To discuss approaches for environmental/ ecological planning of greenstructures in European cities and towns. 

-      How are decisions about greenstructure made, how are environmental/ ecological goals and targets for greenstructure balanced against other goals?

-      Which approaches to planning of greenstructures do exist, and how successful are these to improve environmental conditions/ ecological problems. 

How successful were greenstructures to resist urban pressure?  How resilient are urban greenstructures?

-      What failed and what are the reasons for this failure?

-      Where are these approaches applied, e.g. booming cities with high pressure on land, post-industrial landscapes with high amount of derelict land, etc.?


Fig. 1: Themes for potential work programme of WG 1A (ADD)

Working methods:

The aims and objectives of WG 1A are very broad and it would be unrealistic to try to cover these comprehensively within the constraints of the COST action C11.  However, the members of working group 1A represent a wide expertise in all of the fields mentioned above and can draw on results from their research projects directly relevant to the Working Group.  The participants and their case studies represent different regional settings in Europe (Figure 2).

The urban areas visited during COST Action C11 will provide for additional case studies or give further insight into case studies.  They are cross cutting as all working groups (WG 1A/B, 2, later 3) will get involved.

Experts can be invited to inform WG 1A on issues of particular relevance which we cannot cover with our own studies or document additional case studies/ research projects.

Material and methods:

•      Case studies:

a)    Research projects: contributions from studies of working group members (see contributions suggested by WG members during the joint WG1 meeting in Marseilles)

b)    Urban areas visited during the Action: to be characterised in the same format:

-      Urban characteristics: size, population, development trends and pressures

-      Urban greenstructure: resource, change, main challenges

-      Environmental/ecological functions of the urban greenstructure

-      Ecological/ environmental concepts for greenstructure planning

•      Experts: to be invited to our working group meetings, for instance an expert on climate planning (e.g. I. Eliasson, Sweden).

•      Meetings of working group: some suggestions:

1.    During the last meeting, it was suggested that the working groups are joined by local experts to discuss with them greenstructure issues, in our case 'environment/ecology'.  Can we do this already for the Breda meeting?  I think this would be a good idea but suggestions are required beforehand what to ask the experts.  A common format would be necessary if we want to compare the results from all host cities.  To list key issues and questions should not be too difficult to achieve, and Figure 1 could provide the broad framework.  What do you think of this and if yes, who would like to take this forward?

2.    The invited experts, e. g. Patrick Grahn, would give a short presentation, and this will be documented.

3.    Ewa suggested that we should try to do something creative on our own during the working group meetings.  What could this be?  For instance dedicate each working group meeting to one of the themes indicated in Figure 1, bring material from our case studies along with us and compare them?  For example:

•      Inventory of greenstructure, how was this done in the different places, what are benefits, what the shortcomings. How does the greenstructure compare in different places, what

are the similarities and differences?

•      Environmental functions and ecology of greenstructure: Ewa mentioned that she is working on a bioclimatic typology.  I have worked on this question in Munich, others probably in their places.   We could bring this material to one meeting and discuss it with an invited climate expert.  He could comment on this and I think, this could become quite interesting. 

What do you think? If yes: could we already start during our Breda meeting?  What would be a good topic to start with, and how could be structure this?  Please comment and make suggestions.



The results from Working Group 1 A could be working papers and could be put on our website.

The document would be based on the case studies.  Summary chapters would compare and discuss the different approaches:

-      comparison of greenstructure resources, functions/ performance and challenges

-      comparison of methods and tools

-      discussion of concepts for environmental/ ecological greenstructrure planning


Further means of publication could follow but need more discussion.


NB: Lines were drawn quite tentatively to roughly delineate regions with common climatic conditions. 

Stephan Pauleit - Munich, material for contribution

a)    The two research studies 'Landscape ecological framework programme' and 'Assessing the environmental performance of urban morphology types' could serve to:

•      characterise the greenstructure resource of Munich and its challenges

•      present an methodological approach to assess greenstructure and its environmental/ecological functions:

-      habitat mapping & urban morphology types, urban green space typology, characteristics of urban green space and structure

-      use of a geographic information system (not very advanced) to analyse the greenstructure

-      assessment of climatic and hydrological functions of greenstructure and biodiversity

•      concepts for environmental/ ecological greenstructure planning

b)    Greenstructure planning for a strongly growing urban region: including material from a study into the potential for a Biosphere reserve in the North of Munich.  We will visit this area during the meeting in Munich

c)    Greenstructure planning for compact cities: based on case studies of the conversion of the former airport in Riem into a new neighbourhood and the convernsion of rail yard areas along the main railway line into new neighbourhoods: What are the environmental/ ecological goals for greenstructure planning, how has/ will these be implemented?


Click here for Notes on joint working group held in Marseille in May

Biodiversity and Planning in Finland


Draft paper for comment




Urban biodiversity and urban planning


1 The state of Finnish urban greeneries


In the following I´m considering Urban Biodiversity & their environmental services on ordinary urban greeneries.


The unordinary, unusual greeneries are omitted :

conservation areas (national and EU-policies)

+ true traditional rural (agricultural + forestry) landscapes (policies)

+ unplanned expanding halfrural extensively built fringe outside (strong need for solid policy instead of mixed campaigns)


Ordinary urban greeneries are dealt as:


Urban nature as nature-nature (species, areas, ecosystems, with functional services):

Scientific urban ecology: Quite high but variable biodiversity (BD)!

No biotope classification for cultural or urban biotopes!


Urban nature as common good = common plannable good= area, resource

a potential target for planning and environmental policies:

BD- policy goal, now absent in Finland: Largest and Best Possible Green Structure with sustainable BD - in contrast to urbanisation and

densification trends !                     



The status of urban greeneries in Nordic cities and towns


A strongly simplified glimpse on regional land use structures in Nordic countries: Some urban regions, mostly cities and towns in the middle of

agricultural or forestry landscapes. Generally relatively short urbanisation history with the largest park type variation in cities. In spite of dense city

centres and dense housing areas, relatively low average population density in cities. Generally Nordic cities and towns appear as green: exess to

parks, recreative forests (note!), shores and half-cultural biotopes. The majority open and public so far. Conservation areas are famous but less,

more fragmented and more deteriorated than in rural municipalities. Variation in town histories, natural settings and planning histories makes

comparable classification difficult. Largely a municipal issue, in spite of privatasion and segregation trends in services. Municipal expenses in

annual budjets to greeneries, in infrastructure and management, vary (twofold): DK + SWE the highest, NOR and FIN the lowest.




2 Planning systems in the Society: democratic (?) social agreements for some time.


Land use planning has tradionally been used in Finland to start construction or to settle infrastructure/estate interests.


The Finnish land use planning is shortly described in the following at system level and function in (national)/regional/municipal local plans: 





The governmental goals for land use (2000) define ecologically sustainable development as sustainable use of energy and materials, tolerable

pollution and preserving biodiversity- ? Biodiversity is seen as recreational, tourist and shoreline issues in regional planning.

Urban densification is needed for housing policy especially in the Capital Region.

 &endash; The rhetoric EIA does not find any environmental/political hotspots .





Traditionally The Plans for Nature Conservation and Recreation, but now:  If any, the urbanisation goals follow regional economic, infrastructure and

housing policies (ERD). Biodiversity is seen as late national conservation areas, in the Capital Region rural elk trails and present public rural

recreation areas in the fringe(!). 




Municipal General and Local Plans:


Utmost importance locally! No Green Structure Plans! Depending on the growth and politics: Mainly for housing, estate business uses or traffic

planning (Helsinki 1994-2000). Urban greeneries one of the least issues. Minimal national conservation + planned greeneries, standard

recreative parks (average total costs less than 0,3 % Municipal Annual Budjets).  Institutionalised reprecentative democracy somewhat in a

crisis with passive voters- local participatory campaigns.   




Environmental planning history of urban greeneries in Finland, with case Helsinki


Relation to greeneries/ unbuilt areas varies in history of urban planning:

only 4 medieval, 8 other old towns, late urbanisation in three phases.


Case Helsinki :

1525-1809 Centuries of half-rural urban life with open military views, pastures and dumps &endash; upper class manor gardens and parks spred

inventions to the rural villages among free peasants

1809&endash;1920 growth, national policy built administrative monuments -

park sceneries for bourgeoise to show out and to educate the working class,

strong start of waste policy, water purification and suidage infrastructure for health reasons 

(Z. Topelius and the nightingale)

1920-1960 strong growth (except on wartimes), Public Parks and forests to heal the industrial poor and sick, and to gain forestry inputs,&endash;

1960- 1985 green wedges (unplanned) for recreation and sports of the growing modern urban population &endash; start of recreation forestry, instead of

logging &endash; introduction of holistic networks for recreative, aesthetic and ecological functions, including biotopes and species &endash;

1989-1999 for Sustainable Development gained rhetorics &endash; (Rio agreement (SD) 91 and BD-convention - ?) Mixed planning policies, continuous

fragmentation on greeneries for housing and traffic, in spite of better knowledge on costs on nature.

1999- strong growth, hard densification and segregation with last forests and shoreline turned to reds, built up parks and alleys, private harbours

and architectural waterchannels on present wetlands

- or for new views on greenstructure with multipurpose greeneries, including biodiversity?? and regional planning to spread the housing

pressures in a better way?



3 Problems at present in Helsinki, Finland, and solutions in Europe:


Biodiversity is an omitted issue, in information and values &endash; as controversial to building!

Urban BD and greeneries are important as they are the living environment of the majority of human population


Links to greeneries :

Traditionally a weak intresse in urban development in Finland: no special plans. Exceptional problems in urban implementation because of avoided

costly public parkland.


Occasional local bad traditions?:

Urban greeneries in Helsinki traditionally either temporarily unbuilt sites or mostly deliberately unplanned raw browns for future expansion in Master

plans (in 1950-1980). Only one Master plan (in 1974) of Central park with (halfly unimplemented) goal of unbuiltness for recreation and nature

values. On last decade Sustainable Development &endash;rhetorics appear in plans with small conservation areas, at least in cases with local

environmental building disputes (in 1980-2001). In local plans, during the last decade mostly for housing purposes on present greens, the most

frequent park area or recreative greenery is outside the planning area &endash; "green nimby-planning?" 


Legislation changes (Act on Land Use Planning and Building in1998) and administrative, too, gave more power to the municipalities. A cultural

change happened. The status of urban greeneries planning in growing regions was worsened: Freer choise for more plastic multipurpose building

masses and straight forward planning for strategic and economic purposes. Past agreements were left aside, omitting qualities and resources, like

the difficult biodiversity.

Research projects

EU: Greenscom & Urge

and FIBRE consortia :Urban BD in Urban Planning & ECOPLAN



Points out: The State of  Urban biodiversity (BD) in urban land use planning.



Urban Sustainable Development and ecology need URBAN BIODIVERSITY for the good quality of environment for humans and nature.











Urban BD-policy needed for the Europe


- for the urban population (good environment for the majority)

- for the urban nature (the only unique environments: species, biotopes and ecosystems. Sustainable Development!)

- for the international and national conservation policies as a complement  

Relates to international BD-convention and national policies (conservation and land use):

post modernised biodiversity policies of the ordinary environments (agricultural landcapes, forests and urbans etc) are needed, as the conservation

strategies on nature protection networks are not enough to preserve the present BD  (eg Finland and Germany). Second order urban conservation

strategies? Small patches, endangered species in small populations under hard pressures ? Habitat loss, fragmentation and change &endash; by certain

human actions. 



Urban BD-typology and valuation


- for European cultural biotopes (e.g. CORINE: urbans!, boreals?, others?) need basic scientific ecological research and meta-classification &endash; in

close contact to urban BD-policies! Unnamed-unexists! Development, trends, thresholds, populations? Local fauna and flora is in connection to

regional environmental histories and local cultural history!

- Science needed: Land Use-classifications are not Land Cover-classifications! Ecological sites are other than social valuation-sites!

National GIS &endash; databases are gererally too coarsely scaled: do not locate or identify small urban structures. Delicate cultural thresholds: neither do

landscape architects in Finland &endash; co-operation with ecologists and education needed. But how?


Urban BD- Valuation in various decisions: land use, un-construction, management

- Multivaluation (aesthetics+functionalistics+biodiversity = balls+flowers+bicycles) methodologically problematic, but necessary! To which

questions do they suit? How?

- Multitaxon assessments- as well as BD-indexes, sensible indicators (of threshold factors/ biotope) have to be developed: to each question in

case or general approaches?



Densification costs to open discussion


- Worsening environment: pollution, BD-loss, loss of recreation opportunities (hits variably to different social groups). Left to Non governmental

organisations in Finland!

-  Why planners and decision makers try to hide the costs &endash; instead of open discussion on goals and assessments?



Planning questions opened and revisited


- Regional and national solutions apparent but omitted to local overdensification ideas (Helsinki), seriously threatening urban greenstructures.

European lobby-network  in EC?? 

- Goals and targets revisited: local possibilities described &endash; new planning methods needed!

- Green planning revisited: Local nature based multigoal approaches instead of design oriented standard solutions! Urban nature site? Forest?

Park? Patch planning? Commersal solutions against BD, if not developped! Green ecological management needed: how?


Values, attitudes and power,


Variation in attitudes/actions to urban nature? Social research project (R. Haverinen):

Citizens                      Politicians                      LandUse-Planners                      Environmental Administration

+++/++                      +/?--                      ?/+---                                     ?/+-



- Clear attitude diffrerences between politicians, planners and NGO´s make political decisions difficult: Instead of hidden effects, openness is

needed, as possible policies differ! 



Multigoaled management


- Sustainable management starts from (good traditions and) ecological management planning : BD- education is needed!

- Open goal setting and decisions for management, instead of occasional campaigns, solitary cases and managemental accidents leading

continiously to unsustainable development.

- Privatisation is a risk for BD: makes all agreements more vague and difficult.

Commersal greenery-firms market standard unecological parks without BD!

Liberalisation leaves all interesses to private citizens and NGO´s!

- Unsustainable traditions (logging forestry, standard parks) have to be evaluated and discussed.  Education and  co-operation needed in the

no-mans-field of urban Greeneries!

- Continuous expert recommendations and very accurate (research based!) urban BD-databases needed  for species, biotopes and

ecosystems, managemental warnings and recommended procedures- by species/ population/ individual, biotope/patch/  , or threshold factors. 

How to implement in praxis? Too costly and against the trend?



Anna Jorgensen

Anna's bibliography on Benefits of nature has been added to Biobliography page

see also link from that page to Paper on Benefits of Nature in Housing areas


Click here to see the basic information on Warsaw

email ideas and comments

Working Group 1A - Comparison of Case Studies


May 01- notes - minutes

Oct 01

June 02

Oct 02

June 03 notes

Other papers relating to people/ ecology interface





Belgium - benefits for people

Sheffield to do




Ceské Budejovice

Comparison of case studies in relation to biodiversity

UK - benefits of nature

Click button to return to:

Research Questions identified in the original Proposal

Topics identified during preliminary discussions (brainstorm) by the research group at its first meeting

Methodological concerns

Members suggestions for Case Studies







All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2001

Up dated 21 July 2003




Return to top of page




Return to top of page Return to top of page

3 Oct 2003