European green urban areas: A landscape characterization and their regional differences

Transcription

1 European green urban areas: A landscape characterization and their regional differences Fidel Londoño Stipanovic M.Sc. Thesis Environmental Management Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel Background: : Plan des Berliner Tiergartens aus dem Jahre 1833

2 Introduction Increase of global population living un urban areas. In Europe 83% by. (EC ) This concentration of population increases the demand for resources and changes the land use patterns. Drives the implementation of sustainability policies. Varying highly in between countries. (Gairarola and Noresah and Forman 8) The Implementation/ improvement/ preservation of GUA: a major issue with different rates of success depending on the country or city. (Baycan-Levent et al. 9) Every city can be considered an individual with its own history, population, location, culture, climate and economical structure. (Wittig et al. 8) 2

3 Introduction II At a regional level: similarities can be observed, due to cultural and geographical proximities. (Jordan ) Western, Eastern, Central, Southern, Northern, Mediterranean, Continental, Atlantic, Scandinavian, Baltic Therefore, Can the European cities be differentiated or grouped according to the Green Urban Areas? Create a methodology that allows the comparison between cities. Determine if there are differences in between the regions of Europe according to the GUA. Create an indicator that evaluates the cities according to the GUA. European regions as proposed by the Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen 3

4 Green infrastructure Values / Services: Educational Enhance the movement and quality of air Illustrate the local succession processes Serve as limit to urbanization Protect special habitats Provide grounds for social integration Facilitate dispersal of species Provide food for humans and wildlife Provide quiet spaces for rare species Provide recreational spaces Provide resting place for migrating birds Serve as spaces with inspirational / spiritual value Provide therapeutic spaces Serve as visual barriers Reduce flood hazard Regulate temperature Retain storm water and intercept rainfall Support Biodiversity Table 1. Types of green infrastructure (after Forman 8) Botanical Gardens Lakes, reservoirs and Wetlands Brownfields Natural and semi-natural areas Cemeteries Old quarries Coastlines Parks Community gardens Pipeline corridors Cultural sites Plant nursery areas Empty lots Power-line corridors Golf Courses Railways and associated land Grasslands / Meadows Reserves Green roofs River corridors, floodplains and deltas Green wedges Roadsides Greenbelts School yards Greenways Sidewalks Hedgerows Steep slopes Household gardens Zoological gardens THREATS: Reduction in situ. Reduction in number. Artificial design. Exclusion from planning process. the green city and the omission of ecologic efficiency elements in planning (amount, type, size, distribution and ability to provide ecosystem services) 4

5 Green urban areas Patches of green cover integrated into the built-matrix of the urban region. Geographically limited by any official boundary of the city and are directly or indirectly available to the citizen (Forman 8; Rowntree 8; Baycan-Levent et al. 9 ) Part of the city identity. Tiergarten, Central Park, Hyde Park Enhance attractiveness for living, working, investment and tourism. Provide basic ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999; Baycan-Levent et al. 9; Forman 8; Rowntree 8; Sandström et al. 6 ) Origins: the gardens developed by Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian civilizations. Greeks and Romans: into European context Middle ages: enclosed and Peasant gardens, with horticultural and leisure purposes (Aben 1999). Early modern times: shift into scientific purposes -Botanical gardens-. Industrial revolution: places for recreation available to the increasing population (Hough 4). Origin of the city parks in UK. Further dispersal of the idea across Europe and the American continent. After the 19 th century: recognized as one of the most important elements of urban planning, molded by concepts of aesthetics and architecture (Hough 4).

6 Methods Based on the analysis of land use maps from cities listed on the GMES Urban Atlas database (European Environmental Agency ). Land use classes according to the CORINE LC Uses the regional differentiation of Europe to divide the cities into groups with similar traits: Northern, Eastern, Southeastern, Southern, Central, and Western (Jordan ). Studied cities per region Northern Southeastern Southern Central Western Copenhagen (DK) Bucharest (RO) Barcelona (ES) Budapest(HU) Amsterdam (NL) Jonkoping (SE) Larisa (GR) Lisboa (PT) Prague (CZ) Brussels (BE) Malmö (SE) Nicosia (CY) Florence (IT) Köln (DE) Nantes (FR) Tampere (FI) Varna (BG) Montpellier (FR) Vienna (AT) Liverpool (UK) Aarhus (DK) Thessaloniki (GR) Sevilla (ES) Vilnius (LT) Leicester (UK) Helsinki (FI) Sofia (BG) Valletta (MT) Warsaw (PL) Bordeaux (FR) 6

7 Methods - The metrics Variables in the radar charts Abbreviation Name Description %CTL Percentage of the class in the total landscape Percentage of Green Urban areas in the urban region CA Class Area sum of areas of all patches belonging to a given class (ha) ED Edge density Amount of edge relative to the landscape area= TE/TLA (m/ha) GApC Green urban area per capita m2/resident NumP Number of patches Number of Patches for each land use class PD Patch density Patches / km2 TE Total edge Perimeter of patches (meters) 1. Standardization of the data into new land use classes: o Agricultural Semi-natural and Wetlands, o Industrial, Public and Commercial areas o Residential Areas o Forests o Green urban areas o Roads and Railways o Water bodies 2. Calculation of metrics (at the class level) with Patch analyst. 3. Values not expressing variation were discarded. 4. Results given per city and region. These are the base for the creation of the city profiles and the indicator. 7

8 % Methods City profiles Land use maps Radar charts: graphic expression of the metrics that facilitate the identification of similar traits. Urban-rural gradient of green urban areas Montpellier 1, NumP TE, GApC,, CA %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Montpellier Distance from center (km) 8

9 Methods - Indicator From the necessity for a methodology that values the green areas by its characteristics and solves the problem of the greener city (Hall 6). Basis: the metrics, that give a reference to the quantity and quality of the GUA. Replicable procedure, includes the description of a trend, provides integrative information and opens the possibility to give diagnostics about the GUA. 9

10 Results AMOUNT AND NUMBER OF GUA - Southern region: contradictory with the statement of Baycan-Levent et al, (9). That recognizes the southern European cities as the leaders in the availability of green areas. (Inclusion of forests?) -In accordance with Fuller and Gaston (9), that predict an increase of the proportion of green areas with the latitude, as an increase from east to west. -Leontidou (199) regarding the planning culture of the regions to the north and the spontaneity and individual reclamation of space for living to the south Average amount of green area (ha) SE S C W N Average number of green areas SE S C W N

11 Results EDGE METRICS -Highest values in C, N and W. -Indicates the presence of elongated shapes working as corridors, and improve the fluxes of energy and mater (Savard et al ). -Higher permeability that implies a major contact with the surrounding urban elements. (Helzer and Jelinski 1999). -Indication of the probability of encountering green space in the urban areas Average edge density in the urban region (m/ha) SE S C W N Average edge length (m) SE S C W N 11

12 Results GREEN AREA PER CAPITA - Follows the predictions of Fuller and Gaston (9), resembling a gradient that increases to the north or to the west. But not in accordance with the value of 1.94m 2 (Nilsson and Randrup (1997). -Decrease in population density to the north (Kasanko 6). -World Health Organization: a minimum of 9m 2 PATCH DENSITY -Measure of spatial heterogeneity and it gives an idea of the distance between patches and the accumulation of those belonging to the same class in a landscape (Forman and Godron 1981). -Chances of encountering green urban areas increase in the Western region ,9,8,7,6,,4,3,2,1, Average green area per capita (m 2 ) SE S C W N Average patch density (patches/km 2 ) SE S C W N 12

13 % City profiles - Southeastern Sofia NumP 1, TE, GApC,, CA %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Sofia Distance from center (km) 13

14 % City profiles - Southern TE Barcelona NumP 1,,, GApC, CA %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Barcelona Distance from center (km) 14

15 % City profiles - Central Prague NumP 1, TE, GApC,, CA %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Prague Distance from center (km) 1

16 % City profiles - Western TE Brussels NumP 1,,, GApC CA, %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Brussels Distance from center (km) 16

17 % City profiles - Northern TE Copenhagen NumP 1,,, GApC, CA %CTL ED PD Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Copenhagen Distance from center (km) 17

18 Indicator - Cities Related to areas in the radar charts. Increased area => higher value Cities with results different from the expectations for the region. Aarhus (-), Lisbon(+) and Barcelona(+). Liverpool(*), Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Prague have the best ecological performance according to the amount, characteristics and distribution of green areas. Indicator of availability and quality of green urban areas 7, 6, 6,, 4, 3,,,, 2,6 3,6 31,4 33,2 34,1 36,3 37,7,2,6 21,1 21,4 22,6 24,6 2,1 2,6 26, 6,3 7,2 8,3 9, 11, 12,1 12,6 12,9 14,2 1,3 4,6 46, 47,4 18

19 Value Indicator - Regions South and southeastern values still present the poorest performance. The regional differentiation is occurring but not in the expected pattern. Northern, Central and Western regions of Europe could be considered as single unit. The thesis of a Mediterranean region differing from the Eastern and Northern ones proposed by Leontidou (199) is validated. Regional Indicator of availability and quality of green urban areas SE S N C W 12//11 European Region green urban areas 19

20 Conclusions A regional differentiation of the cities according to landscape characteristics of the GUA can be done. S and SE regions of Europe show the poorest performance. This contradicts the statements of Baycan-Levent et al (9). The use of the metrics is valid for the identification of individual characteristics. For a regional overview, the city profiles and the indicator are necessary to agglomerate and compare the information. The individual analysis of the metrics shows no predominance of any of the regions, but when grouped in the indicator, 3 different groups can be observed: S; SE; and N-C-W. The methodological problem: the comparison with other studies is obstructed by the variability in the approaches. The city selection must be done according to groups that represent similar attributes. The urban-rural gradients have proven to be a very interesting and alternative way of interpreting the differences between regions and cities. A better distribution of GUA can be explained by a constant values in the gradient. The N, W and C regions present either increased amounts of green areas and even values along the urban region. This analysis provided to be a practical way of evaluating the green infrastructure in urban areas.

21 Thank you for your attention! 21

22 References Aben, R., de Wit, S., The enclosed garden: history and development of the hortus conclusus and its reintroduction into the present-day urban landscape. Publishers. Rotterdam Baycan-Levent, T., et al., 9. A multi-criteria evaluation of green spaces in European cities. European urban and regional studies. 16, Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics. 29, European Commission,. World and European sustainable cities insights from EU research. Directorate-general for research, socio economic sciences and humanities. Brussels. Forman, R., 8. Urban regions: Ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University press. UK Forman, R., Godron, M., 1981, Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Biosciences. 31, Forman, R., Godron, M., 1986, Landscape ecology. John Wiley. New York. Fuller, R., Gaston, K., 9. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology letters., Gaiarola, S., Noresah, M.S.,. Emerging trend of urban Green Space research and the implications for safeguarding biodiversity: a viewpoint. Nature and Science. 8(7), Hall, T., 6. Urban Geography. 3 rd edition. Routledge contemporary human geography series. New York. Helzer, C., Jelinski, D., The relative importance of patch area and perimeter area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological applications. 9(4), Hough, M., 4. Cities and natural processes: A basis for sustainability, Second ed. Routledge. London Jordan, P.,. Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien. Europa Regional. 13 (4), Kasanko, M., et al, 6. Are European Cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 1 European urban areas. Landscape and urban planning. 77, Leontidou, L., 199. The Mediterranean city in transition: social change and urban development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., Urban and peri-urban forestry. Forest and tree resources. Proceedings of the XI world forestry congress. 1, 97-1 Rowntree, R., 8. Toward ecosystem management: shifts in the core and the context of urban forest ecology in: Marzluff, J.M., et al. (Eds), Urban Ecology: An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York. Sandström, U., et al., 6. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and urban planning. 77, Wittig, R., et al., 8. What should an ideal city look like from an ecological view? Ecological demands on the future city ecology in: Marzluff, J.M., et al. (Eds.), Urban Ecology: An international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York. Online resources: Rempel, R. 8. Patch Analyst 3.12 for ArcView. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario European Environmental agency,. GMES Urban Atlas. Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry. Copenhagen. Eurostats, 11. European Union, Urban Audit,. 22