European green urban areas: A landscape characterization ......Green urban areas • Patches of green cover •integrated into the built-matrix of the urban region. • Geographically

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

Introduction

• Increase of global population living un urban areas. In Europe 83% by 2050. (EC 2010)

• 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 2010 and

Forman 2008)

• The Implementation/ improvement/ preservation of GUA: a major issue with different rates of success depending on the country or city. (Baycan-Levent et al. 2009)

• Every city can be considered an “individual” with its own history, population, location, culture, climate and economical structure. (Wittig et al. 2008)

12/10/2011 2 European green urban areas

Introduction II • At a regional level: similarities can be

observed, due to cultural and geographical proximities. (Jordan 2005)

– 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“


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

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)


Table 1. Types of green infrastructure (after Forman 2008)

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

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 2008; Rowntree 2008; Baycan-Levent et al. 2009 )

• 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. 2009; Forman 2008; Rowntree 2008; Sandström et al. 2006 )

• 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 2004). • Origin of the “city parks” in UK.

• Further dispersal of the idea across Europe and the American continent.

• After the 19th century: recognized as one of the most important elements of urban planning, molded by concepts of aesthetics and architecture (Hough 2004).


Methods

• Based on the analysis of land use maps from cities listed on the “GMES Urban Atlas” database (European Environmental Agency

2010).

– 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 2005).


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)

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 5. These are the base for the creation of the city profiles and the indicator.

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


0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Montpellier

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%

Distance from center (km)

Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Montpellier

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 2006).

• 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.


Results

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

SE S C W N

Average amount of green area (ha) AMOUNT AND NUMBER OF GUA

- Southern region: contradictory with the statement of Baycan-Levent et al, (2009). That recognizes the southern European cities as the leaders in the availability of green areas. (Inclusion of forests?)

-In accordance with Fuller and Gaston (2009), that predict an increase of the proportion of green areas with the latitude, as an increase from east to west.

-Leontidou (1990) regarding the “planning culture” of the regions to the north and the spontaneity and individual reclamation of space for living to the south.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SE S C W N

Average number of green areas


0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

SE S C W N

Average edge length (m)

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

2000).

-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.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SE S C W N

Average edge density in the urban region (m/ha)


Results

GREEN AREA PER CAPITA

- Follows the predictions of Fuller and Gaston (2009), resembling a gradient that increases to the north or to the west. But not in accordance with the value of 1.94m2 (Nilsson and Randrup (1997).

-Decrease in population density to the north (Kasanko 2006).

-World Health Organization: a minimum of 9m2

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

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

SE S C W N

Average patch density (patches/km2)


Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SE S C W N

Average green area per capita (m2)

City profiles - Southeastern

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%


Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Sofia


0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Sofia

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%


Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Barcelona

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Barcelona

City profiles - Southern


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%


Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Prague

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Prague

City profiles - Central


City profiles - Western

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%


Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Brussels

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Brussels


0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00 NumP

GApC

%CTL

PD ED

CA

TE

Copenhagen

City profiles - Northern

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

%


Proportion of green urban areas in the gradient - Copenhagen


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.

2,6 3,6 6,3 7,2 8,3 9,0

11,5 12,1 12,6 12,9 14,2 15,3 20,2 20,6 21,1 21,4 22,6 24,6 25,1 25,6 26,5

31,4 33,2 34,1 36,3 37,7

45,6 46,0 47,4

65,0

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

Indicator of availability and quality of green urban areas


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 (1990) is validated.

8

16

29 31

34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SE S N C W

Val

ue

Region

Regional Indicator of availability and quality of green urban areas


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 (2009).

• 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.


Thank you for your attention!


References • Aben, R., de Wit, S., 1999. The enclosed garden: history and development of the hortus conclusus and its reintroduction into the present-day urban landscape. 010

Publishers. Rotterdam • Baycan-Levent, T., et al., 2009. A multi-criteria evaluation of green spaces in European cities. European urban and regional studies. 16, 193-213 • Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics. 29, 293-301. • European Commission, 2010. World and European sustainable cities – insights from EU research. Directorate-general for research, socio economic sciences and

humanities. Brussels. • Forman, R., 2008. 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, 733-740. • Forman, R., Godron, M., 1986, Landscape ecology. John Wiley. New York. • Fuller, R., Gaston, K., 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology letters. 5, 352-355. • Gaiarola, S., Noresah, M.S., 2010. Emerging trend of urban Green Space research and the implications for safeguarding biodiversity: a viewpoint. Nature and Science.

8(7), 43-49. • Hall, T., 2006. Urban Geography. 3rd edition. Routledge contemporary human geography series. New York. • Helzer, C., Jelinski, D., 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter –area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological applications. 9(4), 1448-1458. • Hough, M., 2004. Cities and natural processes: A basis for sustainability, Second ed. Routledge. London • Jordan, P., 2005. Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien. Europa Regional. 13 (4), 162-173 • Kasanko, M., et al, 2006. Are European Cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 15 European urban areas. Landscape and urban planning. 77, 111-130. • Leontidou, L., 1990. The Mediterranean city in transition: social change and urban development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. • Nilsson, K., Randrup, T., 1997. Urban and peri-urban forestry. Forest and tree resources. Proceedings of the XI world forestry congress. 1, 97-110 • Rowntree, R., 2008. 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., 2006. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and urban planning. 77, 39-53. • Wittig, R., et al., 2008. 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. 2008. Patch Analyst 3.12 for ArcView. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario

http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/patch/index.html • European Environmental agency, 2010. GMES Urban Atlas. Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry. Copenhagen. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/data/urban-atlas • Eurostats, 2011. European Union, 1995-2011. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ • Urban Audit, 2010. http://www.urbanaudit.org/index.aspx


Documents

European green urban areas: A landscape characterization ......Green urban areas • Patches of green cover •integrated into the built-matrix of the urban region. • Geographically