Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! SYNTHESIS REPORT May 2020 2 INDEX
Glossary p.5
LOS_DAMA! INTRODUCTION p.7 Introduction p.9 Methods and materials p.12
LOS_DAMA! THEORY p.15 Theoretical scheme p.16 Landscape p.19 Periurban landscapes p.23 GI meaning p.27 Peri-urban agriculture p.31 Landscape approach p.35 Governance p.39
LOS_DAMA! PILOT PROFILES p.43 Pilot profiles p.44 Munich p.48 Grenoble-Alps p.52 Vienna p.56 Salzburg p.60 Trento p.64 Region Piedmont p.68 Ljubljana Marsh p.72
LOS_DAMA! REFLECTION p.77 Lessons from transdisciplinary cooperation p.79
LOS_DAMA! BACKGROUND p.83 Literature list p.84 Appendix, photo credits, project partner contacts and imprint p.97 Appendix p.98 Pilot action plan p.98 Toolbox description p.120 Interview topics p.123 Authors p.124 Photo credits p.125 Project partner contacts p.126 Imprint p.127
3 4 GLOSSARY
PROJECT PARTNERS
MUC City of Munich (Germany)
GAM Grenoble-Alps Metropolis (France)
VIE City of Vienna (Austria)
SIR Salzburg Institute for Regional Planning and Housing (Austria)
TRENT City of Trento (Italy)
PIEM Piedmont Region (Italy)
UIRS Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenia) LOCAL PILOT PARTNERS
RMMSW Regional management Munich Southwest (Regionalmanagement München Südwest)
VDM Dachauer Moos Association (Verein Dachauer Moos)
HFV Heathland Association (Heideflächenverein Münchener Norden)
SUM Urban Region Management Vienna Lower Austria (Stadt-Umland-Management Wien/Niederosterreich)
OTHERS
AG7 Action Group 7: working group within EUSALP dedicated to ecological connectivity
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CLC Corine Land Cover
EC European Commission
EU European Union
EUSALP European strategy for Alpine region
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GI Green Infrastructure
LULC Land Use and Land Cover
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Non Governmental Association(s)
5 6 Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! INTRODUCTION
7 Figure 1. Sheep grazing to manage the heathlands in the north of Munich
8 INTRODUCTION by Martina van Lierop
LOS_DAMA! stands for Landscape and Open Partners and observers Space Development in Alpine Metropolitan The LOS_DAMA! partnership is comprised of Areas. From November 2016 to December three cities, one metropolitan and one regional 2019, this EU Interreg project developed authority to increase the impact and test the and applied approaches to better protect, various tools for green infrastructure (GI) and its enhance and develop green and open spaces governance in different pilot projects: the City of and thus improve the quality of life in peri- Munich (as lead partner), the City of Trento and urban landscapes in the Alpine Region. The the City of Vienna, Grenoble-Alps Metropolis metropolitan areas in and around the Alps face and Piedmont Region. Two planning institutes common challenges related to increasing land work in close contact with their home cities and use pressure on peri-urban land. On the fringes surrounding municipalities: Salzburg Institute of the urban centres, a wide range of demands, for Regional Planning and Housing (SIR) and such as local recreation, nature conservation, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of agriculture, settlement development and the Slovenia (UIRS). Three universities support our expansion of infrastructure, face each other. project and the local pilot activities: University of Conflicts between different users are becoming Grenoble-Alps, Technical University of Munich more frequent, while complex and fragmented and Eberhard Karls University Tübingen. landscape patterns further aggravate the situation. In addition, LOS_DAMA! includes 22 project observers, who took part in different exchange Peri-urban landscapes provide a large variety settings and ensured cooperation in a wider of functions such as water retention, food Alpine network. They are valuable partners to supply, biodiversity and contribute to improve exchange on how to enhance GI in city regions. human well-being in metropolitan regions. The implementation of the activities on the local Despite their many functions, policy makers level was supported by six associations and at all levels and citizens often overlook and local partners. Eight transnational, regional and undervalue these landscapes, in particular in knowledge institutions contribute to promote front of the spectacular background of the Alps. multilevel governance. Planners struggle to offer effective solutions for the social and ecological enhancement of peri-urban landscapes. Political commitment, Pilot projects increased cooperation within departments The main focus of the LOS_DAMA! project are of administrations and with stakeholders for seven pilot projects in peri-urban areas of in enhancing liveability and sustainability are the alpine metropolitan regions of Grenoble, needed. Moreover, the planning of a metropolitan Ljubljana, Munich, Piedmont, Salzburg, Trento region takes place in different municipalities and Vienna where innovative approaches for GI that strive to retain their autonomy. Incentives were explored. The pilot projects are situated or instruments to support or improve regional in peri-urban landscapes across the Alps. High cooperation and coordination are often weak or reaching mountains surround the valleys of non-existent, especially when it comes to green Trento and Grenoble. Salzburg and Ljubljana spaces. are part of river valleys at alpine foothills, while In 2013, the European Commission published its the regions of Munich, Vienna and Turin lie at Green Infrastructure Strategy (2013a, 2013b). a distance from the Alps on plains created by Within the LOS_DAMA! project, the aim was glaciers and rivers. The metropolitan regions to bridge the gap between the strategical EU- of Munich, Vienna and Turin each host more level and implementation on local level. Various than 1.5 million inhabitants. In comparison, the partners from the Alpine region engaged in metropolitan regions of Grenoble and Ljubljana developing multifunctional peri-urban green are smaller with more than 500.000 inhabitants networks as well as networks of actors. each. The metropolitan regions of Trento and
9 project partner and pilot project EKUT TUM
knowledge VIE partner MUC SIR
UIRS
GAM TRENT
UGA PIEM
Figure 2. Map of the location of the LOS_DAMA! pilot projects, partners and observers.
Salzburg host between 225.000 and 350.000 management measures in the Vouillants park inhabitants each. While the landscapes, and aimed to raise awareness on peri-urban population as well as planning systems differ green areas at the political and technical level. in each of the metropolitan regions, they face The City of Munich set up three different pilot common challenges regarding the pressures activities with inter-municipal associations to on peri-urban landscapes and their fragmented raise awareness for and better coordinate governance. landscape development around the city. Raising Each of the LOS_DAMA! pilots took a different awareness and changing the common perception approach to cope with these challenges. They of peri-urban open spaces was also a key included the cooperation between municipalities objective for the City of Trento, which tested to make plans and take actions in order to raise participatory methods to acquire knowledge and awareness for the cultural and natural assets of promote landscape plans. peri-urban landscapes. For example, the City of Vienna closely cooperated with the neighbouring Bridging science and practice municipality of Gerasdorf to develop a regional The Eberhard Karls University Tübingen (EKUT), park and the Urban Planning Institute of the Technical University of Munich (TUM), the Slovenia (UIRS) supported the municipalities University Grenoble Alps (UGA) and the Urban within the Ljubljana Marsh natural area for joint Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (UIRS), development of GI for recreation. The Piedmont as LOS_DAMA! knowledge partners were Region worked on a wider territorial scale to committed to build a bridge between theory and implement their green infrastructure concept into practice at transnational and local levels. The regional planning and translate it into specific aim was to close the gap between academic measures. The Salzburg Institute for Regional knowledge and the local action of politics and Planning and Housing developed an “Eco-pool” administration. to foster more effective compensation measures based on the quality of green areas. Other Part of the task was a review on the state-of- pilots successfully tested governance tools to the-art knowledge from studies and projects better develop peri-urban green infrastructure. on relevant topics for the LOS_DAMA! project. Grenoble-Alps Metropolis tested innovative Within this task, TUM’s focal point was on the
10 GI concept and its implementation in planning More information about the LOS_DAMA! project processes. UGA’s focused on stakeholder can be found in the other final publications: and government analysis, while EKUT • LOS_DAMA! Postcards addressed issues in relation to participation and perspectives on landscape. Through sharing • LOS_DAMA! Compendium knowledge, consulting and facilitating of learning • LOS_DAMA! Toolbox processes, the knowledge partners supported • LOS_DAMA! Public synthesis report the pilot partners on challenges and needs indicated by them to enhance their local know- • LOS_DAMA! Policy recommendations how and skills. To this end, also various seminars were held during the project meetings, often in cooperation with the project partners. To advance GI development and enhancement in the real-life contexts of local pilot projects, the knowledge partners provided approaches and solutions for different implementation levels; from more general strategies at the higher levels of governance to detailed plans, methods and tools at the level of local practice. The knowledge partners analysed the pilot projects and were in such way able to offer the project partners reflection on their activities and consult them on weaknesses and potentials for the pilot projects. The knowledge transfer was, however, not set up one-directional. The pilot projects also provided a chance to gain more insights into the issues related to GI implementation and the applied principles and tools in local planning practices. Moreover, the potentials and barriers of GI implementation in local planning processes were identified. The strategic approaches, methods and tools to unlock these potentials and overcome these barriers as well as the factors contributing to a successful implementation were examined. A first assessment of the pilot activities was published in the interim report. This synthesis report combines the review with the analysis of the pilot projects. Next to providing insights into the LOS_DAMA! activities, the aim of this report is to offer the learned experiences to many other cities and metropolitan areas of the Alpine region. This synthesis report consists of two parts. In the first part, the theory and the theoretical scheme on which the project is based are described. Then the individual pilot projects are introduced in the second part of the report. As a closing, a reflection on the transdisciplinary approach of the LOS_DAMA! project is given.
11 METHODS AND MATERIALS by Martina van Lierop
The pilot project profiles and the pilot project policies from national to local levels. In addition, comparisons are based on observations and the pilot activities and their aims for green active participation throughout the project, infrastructure and governance are described (see interviews with project partners, surveys, and appendix). The use of this type of documents secondary sources such as articles, papers, is quite recurrent within European projects, for reports and policy and planning documents. The instance in the URBACT projects (Brand, 2018) multiple qualitative methods were employed or the RE-SEEties project (Towards resource- to gain a richer and more comprehensive efficient local communities in South East Europe) understanding of the pilot projects, their regions through Local Strategies and Action Plan (Di Leo and activities (Groat & Wang, 2002). & Salvia, 2017). Within LOS_DAMA!, the structure of the Literature review pilot action plan built on methods used in A literature review has been conducted to the European projects GREEN SURGE establish the state-of-the-art for the main topics and GreenKeys. The pilot action plans were of the LOS_DAMA! project. The data collected considered as “living documents” to be updated for the literature review consisted of scientific during the course of the project. The pilot action literature as well as outputs from other national plans consisted of addressed in two parts the and international research projects. Key literature regional context and the local context of the pilot on green infrastructure, peri-urban landscapes, projects. The part on the regional context aimed strategic planning, landscape approaches, to provide information concerning demography, governance, collaborative and participative climate, planning system and developments on planning was collected. The review supported a larger scale level (regional and national). The knowledge transfer between the knowledge second part describes the local pilot projects in partners and the project partners (e.g. in lectures, five sections, namely: conference sessions, individual communications). • Section 1: description of the goals, The review outcomes, moreover, helped to activities and milestones regarding the local supplement and validate the project activities and pilot project; to place the pilot projects into a broader context. • Section 2: detailed description of the spatial and territorial characteristics of the pilot Surveys project area; Throughout the project, surveys were used to • Section 3: information about stakeholders, gain information about the pilot projects and collaborations and participation; activities. Within these surveys, project partners • Section 4: by reflecting on section 2 and 3, were asked to describe issues and activities the opportunities, barriers and constraints within the pilot projects. Yet, the surveys were are extracted, but also the actions are also designed to support the project partners described with planning and reflecting on their pilot project • Section 5: description of how the activities activities as well as to support knowledge and milestones will be managed, transfer between project partners. The surveys consolidated and evaluated. were developed in collaboration between the LOS_DAMA! project partners and knowledge Additional to the two main parts, a summary is partners. The two main important surveys provided to give other partners and a broader were the pilot action plans (PAP) and the tool audience an overview of the individual project. descriptions. The pilot action plans provided information The pilot action plans were comprehensive regarding the functioning of each project documents to describe the pilot context regarding partner’s institution as well as on current features of the landscapes and peri-urbanisation, landscape and GI related policies. They allowed green spaces, GI planning and landscape related comparison between pilot projects and to link
12 Figure 3. Officers of the City of Trento visiting the City of Munich pilots with identical issues for knowledge sharing institutions. A list of interview topics was sent in and transnational learning. Moreover, knowledge advance to the project partners (see appendix). transfer about present and past experiences The interviews took place between December concerning GI within and outside the LOS_ 2017 and July 2018 and were recorded and later DAMA! network was promoted. transcribed. To develop the toolbox, a survey was prepared that described the tools tested and applied in Observation and active participation the pilot projects (see appendix). As the aim Further information was gathered during the was to include as many tools as possible, the course of the project through observation tool description survey was kept simple and and active participation in the different project short. Basic questions of: what, whom, when activities. In particular, at the project meetings, and how, structured the template. Answers to information about different topics could be more detailed questions were provided with tick gathered though sessions and workshops. boxes. This approach allowed to compare the For instance, several sessions on local policy different tools easily. For comparison as well implementation and governance were held, as categorisation, the tools were visualised in which provided valuable input for policy a diagram, which was further developed for the recommendations. The project partners were toolbox in several feedback loops with the project also regularly asked to provide feedback on partners. preliminary findings, for instance, on the focus of the pilot activities, issues regarding GI Interviews implementation or stakeholder participation. For each pilot area, one to four pilot partners The interim report provided also a round of were interviewed through semi-structured feedback to deepen the mid-term findings on interviews (Kumar, 2011) in English or German. landscape issues and objectives; pilot activities The interviewed practitioners worked at the time and progress; collaborative and participatory of the study in local associations, municipal and governance; strategic and implementation regional administrations, and regional planning processes; as well as on methods and tools.
13 Figure 4. The Marchfeld Canal in peri-urban east Vienna is a popular reacreation area
14 Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! THEORY
15 LANDSCAPE PERI-URBAN
LANDSCAPE APPROACH
GREEN GOVERNANCE INFRASTRUCTURE Peri-urban agriculture Collaboration Participation Multifunctionality Cross-sectoral Connectivity Intergovernmental collaboration Green and grey integration Social cohesion Different views, common concern Multiscale (spatial and temporal) Multiscale (vertical and horizontal) ......
TOOLS
Figure 5. The theoretical scheme
16 THEORETICAL SCHEME by Martina van Lierop
This chapter introduces the theoretical scheme Landscape approaches, as defined in this with the main concepts used in the LOS_DAMA! project, aim to provide guidance on designing project and it establishes the relationships a fair overarching process of planning and between them. It thus provides a foundation governance of peri-urban landscapes to better for the entire project. The major concepts are: integrate the different perspectives from green Landscape, Landscape Approaches, Peri- infrastructure and governance. Tools are the final Urban Landscapes, Green Infrastructure, and puzzle pieces in the incremental implementation Governance. process. They are defined as activities or instruments, which support practitioners to As the title LOS_DAMA! (Landscape and Open implement the different principles on the ground. Space Development in Alpine Metropolitan Areas) already indicates, landscape and open The theoretical scheme supported a more space are the major concern of the project. This comprehensive understanding of the topics and concern is, in particular, directed to the peri-urban their linkages. In such way, the relevance of landscapes of the alpine metropolitan regions. the different topics for the local implementation Within LOS DAMA!, landscape is considered as processes was made more insightful for the a physical entity as well as a social construct project partners. Moreover, it provided a common in the sense of a territory or land with specific perspective for the (design and implementation characteristics that has been shaped by the as well as assessment of the) different pilot interaction of natural and human agency. Due projects with their characteristics, challenges to its holistic character, it is also regarded as and activities. It guided partners from generic the appropriate reference for public action while approaches to finding concrete solutions for various individual actors can relate to it. the implementation of green infrastructure implementation. Not least, the scheme assisted Green infrastructure is suggested as a promising the partners to analyse and evaluate the planning planning concept to preserve and enhance the and implementation processes as well as the assets of peri-urban landscapes by developing results of the pilot projects. It enabled to draw a coherent multifunctional green network. conclusions from the local pilot projects and to Applying green infrastructure and its principles compare the different context-dependent local in practice holds great potential to advance the activities. Moreover, the scheme supported to state of green and blue spaces in relation to transfer findings within the project as well as grey infrastructures and strengthen their position to peri-urban landscapes of other (Alpine) city in peri-urban development processes. In the regions and a broader audience. The theoretical development of GI, peri-urban agriculture should scheme also supported the set-up of the Pilot not be overlooked. Large parts of peri-urban Action Plans and the toolbox (see appendix). landscapes consist of agricultural plots, which form a backdrop for many other activities. In the following chapters, the main concepts will be further explained drawing on the state-of- One of the most critical factors for successful the-art. The descriptions will provide insights on development of green infrastructure is to the perspectives from LOS_DAMA! on the main establish modes of governance that promote concepts. collaboration between governmental actors and other different stakeholders as well as participation of non-governmental actors. Therefore, green infrastructure and governance are considered as two sides of the same coin. Linking understanding on planning of the physical landscape with understanding on the planning practice, its actors and processes (Lang, 1987) is essential.
17 Figure 6. View on the landscape of Munich North
18 2100 WORDS=13,900 CHARACTERS (WITH SPACES)
LANDSCAPE by Karsten Berr and Martina van Lierop
‘Landscape’ plays an important role in everyday Instead of aiming at any specific objective life, in politics and planning, in science and meaning of landscape, this definition leaves the research. Yet, what is ‘landscape’? Concepts meaning of landscape up to individual perception and ideas connected with landscape diverge or reception. “Landscape” is often associated between different languages, cultures and with the more “natural” looking environments. generations (Lörzing, 2001) (see Table 1). Due Yet, the definition also includes the planned and to this diversified use of language in different designed areas as well as the “everyday” or contexts, related concepts and ideas associated “ordinary” landscapes, such as many peri-urban with ‘landscape’ remain partly vague and landscapes are. These often play a far more indefinite. Whether national and intra-European, important role in the lives of the local people in everyday language use or in the language of and deserve more attention and consideration in science, from a cultural-historical perspective planning. ‘landscape’ is provided with numerous – often In European languages and cultural traditions, - unquestioned - meanings (Cosgrove, 2004; in science as well as everyday life, 'landscape' Gruenter, 1975 [1953]; Hard, 1970; Hokema, is viewed from a double perspective: as an 2013). objective fact and as a subjective construct Table 1. Landscape in the languages of the (Lörzing, 2001; Sgard, 2011). Landscape LOS_DAMA! Partner appears as "real structure" and as "objectified spirit" (Hard, 2002, p. 88), or as Seifert English Landscape (2012, p. 19) defines it; landscape stands “between physical-topographical factuality and German Landschaft cultural construction”. According to Cosgrove, French Paysage such double perspective culminates in the Italian Paesaggio summarizing definition that landscape is Slovenian Krajina "simultaneously a natural and a cultural space" (2004, p. 68). A further distinction can be made The concepts and ideas connected with between the legal-territorial-political meanings, ‘landscape’ diverge also between the respective such as region and territory (e.g. ‘regio’ or disciplines and societal subgroups (Luhmann, ‘provincia’) (Gruenter, 1975 [1953]), or the 1984), such as landscape architecture, economy, aesthetic-emotional concept of landscape as politics, nature conservation, agriculture and ‘image’ or ‘soul symbol’ (Berr & Kühne, 2020), or forestry. For example, a ‘landscape’ with the presently more established physical concept meadows and arable land is different for a of landscape as ‘earth space’ (Oppel, 1884) or landscape architect than for a farmer, a real ‘earth region’ (Leibenath & Gailing, 2012). estate agent, an entrepreneur, a conservationist or for a stroller. For the farmer, for example, This distinction is reflected in three typical these are an economic resource, for the stroller scientific approaches to landscape (Kühne et an aesthetic backdrop. These different meanings al., 2018): the essentialist, the positivist and have corresponding implications for landscape the constructivist perspective (see Table 2). planning (e.g. compare Bruns & Münderlein, Depending on which perspective is taken, 2017; Corner, 1999; Hunziker et al., 2008). this can lead in practice to corresponding attitudes and evaluations towards 'landscape'. The European Landscape Convention of the In both essentialist and positivist perspectives, Council of Europe defines landscape as “an area, ‘landscape’ is regarded as a "viewer-independent as perceived by people, whose character is the physical object" (Kühne, 2018, p. 3). In an result of the action and interaction of natural and/ essentialist perspective, landscape is considered or human factors" (Council of Europe, 2000, as an organismic entity with distinctive Article 1a). This is, as it were, the lowest common characteristics, intrinsic value and its own identity denominator of a definition of ‘landscape’. (f.e. like a ‘genius loci’) (Gailing & Leibenath,
19 2012), which is not to be found in the experience Constructivist perspectives interpret ‘landscape' of the beholder. Landscape characteristics are not as a ‘real object', but as an observer- regarded as the results of centuries of mutual dependent social construct. Accordingly, in influence between nature and regional culture a socio-constructivist view, ‘landscapes’ are (Chilla et al., 2016; Körner, 2004). Accordingly, perceived as "a way of seeing" (Cosgrove, 1984, rapid changes in peri-urban landscapes, for p. 13). This “way of seeing” can be defined as example, can be "seen as a threat to the human perceptions of the physical world, which 'balance' of 'landscape'" (Kühne et al., 2018, p. are influenced by our emotions and experiences. 8). (Kühne, 2018). How we perceive and interpret the physical world is based on previous In a positivistic view, landscape correlates with experiences, which in turn is a "result of social the notion of a kind of ‘real existing space’. This evolutionary processes of cultural norms" (ibid.). space is ‘filled’ with different physical objects or Based on these experiences, meaning and value elements (Kühne, 2018), which relate to each are giving to landscape. These meanings and other (Gailing & Leibenath, 2012) and together values are often questioned, and if necessary make up the landscape. These physical objects adapted, or rejected or rewritten, if perceptions or of ‘landscape’ can be quantified, classified, and experiences differ from previous ‘learned’ ways systematized according to their arrangement of interpretation of the landscape (Kühne, 2018). (Glasze & Mattisek, 2009). In the positivistic For instance, this means that if people are shown interpretation, landscape thus becomes a the values of peri-urban landscapes, they might measurable and assessable object. It is even start to re-evaluate this landscape and appreciate possible to include normative assessments in it more. the analysis of a landscape. A good example is an ecosystem services assessment, where not These three perspectives help to reflect on one’s only the physical structures and process are own orientation on landscapes and can support measured, but also their functions and benefits to understanding of other people’s viewpoint on people. landscape. The perspectives do not necessarily have to be antagonistic; they can also be understood as equal possible perspectives
Table 2. Overview of different basic perspectives on ‘landscape’ (Kühne et al., 2018).
Essentialism Positivism Constructivism Word origin lat. essentia (essence, lat. positivus (set, lat. construere (compose, entity) given) assembling) Landscape Landscape’ as a’ entity’ ‘Landscape’ as an object ‘Landscape’ not as a understanding in the sense of an that can be empirically physical object, but as ‘independent entity explored and generalized a social or individual by counting, measuring construction. and weighing individual phenomena. independent from independent from dependent from observers observers observers Focus Exploration of essential Objective description of ‘Landscape' as a result characteristics ('essence') ‘landscape' by means of of social negotiation of ‘landscape' in the empirical methods processes object itself Goals Formulating normative Reconstructing a Exploring processes of statements about the representation of landscape construction landscape landscape as accurate as possible
20 Figure 7. Landscape of Monte Bondone east of Trento
on landscape (Berr, 2019). The constructivist Different people experience landscape on a perspective, however, always recalls the viewer, daily basis. It is on the scale level of landscape interpretation and context dependency of such where people perceive landscape characteristics, perspectives. Nevertheless, the question remains patterns and processes as well as their role in it as to how the concept of 'landscape' can be (Crumley, 2012; Gobster et al., 2007). Through operationalized so that it serves the interests of looking, discussing, negotiating, deciding and practitioners and their cooperation with research. planning of landscapes together, all participants are united in focusing on this specific landscape. A step forward could be to consider and apply This creates understanding for and alignment ‘landscape’ as an 'integral concept' to support of the different perspectives and claims on the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research landscapes (Nassauer, 2012). Nassauer (2012) (Berr et al., 2019). The theoretical and scientific states, that ‘landscape’ can be seen as medium ambiguity, heterogeneity and openness of the to bridge the dichotomy between landscape as meaning of landscape can be, in this sense, an ‘object’ and ‘subject’. In such a way, it can “link advantage, as it allows “interpretative flexibility” creativity to analysis and scientific knowledge of (Star & Griesemer, 1989) with the potential to process with place-specific design” (Nassauer, encourage dialogues (Westerink et al., 2013). 2012, p. 228). ‘Landscape’ can thus bring different perspectives together and support collaboration between disciplines as well as between research and practice.
21 Figure 8. View on the valley of Trento North
22 PERI-URBAN LANDSCAPES by Martina van Lierop, Stephan Pauleit and Aurore Meyfroidt
Peri-urban landscapes are the areas surrounding and in between urban core areas in large urban regions (Meeus & Gulinck, 2008; Ravetz et al., 2013). Typically, these peri-urban landscapes are highly dynamic (Allen, 2003; von der Dunk et al., 2011). Agricultural and natural areas are converted into new housing areas, commercial zones and the related infrastructures of transport, energy supply, as well as recreational facilities and more (Geneletti et al., 2017). The result is a landscape characterised by an often seemingly fragmented and chaotic mix of urban and rural land uses (Antrop, 2016). Figure 9. Typical peri-urban functions in Munich Throughout Europe, peri-urban landscapes North: stadium, transfer area, waste water treatment have different appearances depending on the and recreation zone on a former waste disposal site mix, frequency and spatial arrangement of land uses (Kabisch & Haase, 2011). They can be In Europe, even regions with a stagnating or a heterogeneous arrangement of industrial, declining population encounter peri-urbanisation. commercial, agriculture and fallow lands New residential and commercial areas are built intersected by transit lines; urban sprawl of in the peri-urban area to counteract population low-density housing; an agricultural landscape shrinkage, while in and directly around the urban scattered with encroaching urban functions core next fill-in development takes place next to as garden centres, sewage works, and retail vacant plots and urban brownfields (Bauer et al., centres. At times, they can be a mix of farmland, 2013). Also other, less material factors, such as woodlands and remnants of natural areas cultural and social values and preferences play a (Gallent et al., 2006; Piorr et al., 2011; Poulot et role in peri-urbanisation. A typical phenomena is al., 2016). The spatial configuration of peri-urban the movement of the more affluent and educated landscapes is further shaped by geographical to more attractive peri-urban landscapes, conditions and policy frameworks, such as encouraging in such a way “spatial segregation mountains, seas and protected areas (Gallent et and social fragmentation (Piorr et al., 2011, p. al., 2006). 12). The main drivers of peri-urbanisation are Peri-urban landscapes are linked to the urban economic and demographic growth (Nilsson et cores through flows of people, ideas, goods, al., 2013; Piorr et al., 2011). This in turn pushes services and finances facilitated by connecting residential, commercial and infrastructure infrastructures (Charmes, 2005; Geneletti et development. Economic growth incites more al., 2017). Together they form an economically capital investment in building stock as well as integrated urban system, which coincides with an increase of consumer demands (Ravetz et the concept of Functional Urban Area. (FUA) al., 2013), and thus a modification of residential (Ravetz et al., 2013). In the PLUREL research choices. This can advance, for instance, an project (2007-2011), the urban and the peri-urban increase of per-capita demands for living area were further defined in five spatial types space and second home ownership. For these (see figure 9). Though in reality, the boundaries developments, peri-urban areas are attractive between the different types of urban and peri- urban areas are rather fuzzy (Brenner & Schmid, due to land availability, lower land prices, and 2015; Meeus & Gulinck, 2008). With a sixth better accessibility to infrastructure. Moreover, spatial type, Ravetz et al. (2013) extended the these areas often have fewer or less strict interdependency within the FUA to the rural environmental and building regulations as in the hinterland, which together form the Rural-Urban urban centres. Region (RUR).
23 a. Mono-centric settlement pattern (text book version)
Urban area City centre (continuous and over Inner urban 20,000 population) Suburban
Peri-urban area Urban fringe (discontinuous and over 40 persons/ha) Urban periphery
Rural hinterland
Build up area
Functional Urban Area
Rural-Urban-region
b. Poly-centric settlement pattern (semi-realistic version)
Multiple combinations of urban and peri-urban areas
Urban core Area with the main economic, civic and cultural functions as well as related public spaces. Inner urban area High-density built-up areas with a mix of residential, commercial and industrial land uses interspersed with some public open and green spaces.
Urban area Suburban area Contiguous low-density built-up areas with mainly residential functions interspersed with local commercial services, parks and gardens. Urban fringe A zone around the built-up area consisting of scattered low density settlements, urban concentrations around transport hubs, and large green open spaces, such as urban forests, farmland, recreational parks, golf courses and nature reserves. Urban periphery A low populated zone around the built-up area consisting mainly of agricultural land and nature reserves interspersed with smaller settlements, industrial areas and other urban land uses. Peri-urban area
Rural hinterland Rural areas surrounding the peri-urban area with a practical commuting time and with new residents from the urban area.
Figure 10. The PLUREL concept of peri-urban areas and rural-urban region based on Ravetz et al. (2013).
lead to a functional change of rural areas into The rural hinterland is dependent on the peri-urban landscapes, rather than a physical urban and peri-urban spaces for “employment, change (Ravetz et al., 2013). investment and access to services” (Ravetz The process of peri-urbanisation causes physical et al., 2013). Traditional rural landscapes and and functional change of landscapes. Urban urban-rural linkages have transformed due to expansion leads to the loss of agricultural and changes in economy, agriculture and technology. natural land as well as habitat fragmentation With these changes, also came new residents, (Piorr et al., 2011). This in turn impacts the affluent and retired, with more urban biodiversity and the ability of landscapes to lifestyles and demand for services such as hobby provide ‘ecosystem services’, such as flood farms, dog kennels and horse riding schools control, water supply, and climate regulation (Ravetz et al., 2013). Nowadays, agricultural (Piorr et al., 2011). Also cultural services, such areas in the peri-urban landscapes serve no as regional identity, are disturbed due to the longer only production purposes. They became loss of traditional landscape elements and land multifunctional places including recreation and management practices (Pauleit et al., 2010). The tourism (Davodeau, 2005; Piorr et al., 2011; mixture of functions often leads to (land use) Ravetz et al., 2013). These activities, therefore, conflicts, e.g. between recreation, agriculture
24 and nature conservation. In addition, peri-urban Peri-urban agriculture can represent a solution areas often contain “undesirable” functions, such adapted to changing economic and social as and quarries, rubbish tips, and junkyards conditions, which can address ecological and and might “invite” even illegal activities (Allen, climate issues and so significantly contributing 2003). Piorr et al. indicate, that the low density to urban sustainability (Mougeot, 2005). Farmers settlements in peri-urban landscapes promote can contribute by providing recreational uses, “longer commuting distances, increased maintain landscapes or even biodiversity, and in infrastructure costs and less viable public such way fostering a multifunctional landscape transport systems” (2011, p. 13). Therefore, (Poulot, 2013). Diversified farming in the peri- they regard peri-urban landscapes a rather urban areas is benefitting from proximity to unsustainable settlement pattern concerning markets and can satisfy a range of societal congestion, emissions and energy consumption. demands in addition to food production, e.g. recreational such as horse riding (Zasada, 2011). With the multifunctional character of peri- Peri-urban agriculture can take place at various urban landscapes, also comes a variety of scales within urban areas, from empty plots stakeholders from institutions as well as in dense urban areas to wide open peri-urban companies, associations, citizens’ initiatives and landscapes (Jackson-Smith & Sharp, 2008; individual citizens. They represent a multitude of van Tuijl et al., 2018). Such places can offer interests; often competing or conflicting (Aalbers opportunities to experiment with alternative forms & Eckerberg, 2013; Allen, 2003). Stakeholders of agriculture, such as community gardens and can have a different sectoral focus, such as community orchards, thus establishing a new agriculture, water management and recreation. relationship between farmers and urban dwellers At the same time, the dynamic character of peri- (Rolf et al., 2019). urban landscapes is reflected in the frequently changing stakeholder composition and interests Peri-urban landscapes should no longer be (Allen, 2003). Peri-urban landscapes stretch overlooked in planning to preserve open over administrative boundaries on different scale green spaces and enhance the liveability levels (Allen, 2003): from the municipalities at (Allen, 2003). To overcome the difficulties, the urban cores, to the smaller rural societies in governance approaches are required that are the peri-urban hinterland. Moreover, urban and able to overcome the divide between urban rural areas are treated differently in policies and and rural policy regimes, the strong political often have separate policy regimes (Aalbers fragmentation typical for peri-urban areas and & Eckerberg, 2013). These attributes make to involve the large range of stakeholders with it difficult working effectively on long-term their diverse interests (Aalbers & Eckerberg, sustainable planning and management of peri- 2013). Governance and decision-making should urban landscapes (Allen, 2003). play a more important role in shaping these landscapes. A lack thereof results in low quality Yet, peri-urban landscapes play a relevant and land-use development with negative impacts on strategic role in the future development of urban ecosystem services. A particular call is made for regions, in particular when urban densification comprehensive and cross-boundary land use will push green spaces and their functions into planning at a regional level in which biodiversity the peri-urban landscape (Hedblom et al., 2017). conservation is equally considered as urban Biodiversity can be high in these landscapes, development, agriculture and recreation (Aalbers and large open spaces in the peri-urban offer & Pauleit, 2013; Buyck, 2010). This, however, considerable scope for meeting recreational also requires a transdisciplinary and flexible demands of inhabitants. They can be important process that enables all stakeholders and adapts providers of regulating ecosystem services to changing values and circumstances (Hedblom (Wilhelm & Smith, 2018). In a changing climate, et al., 2017). their capacity to provide cool and clean air for adjacent built areas as well as retaining floods in restored floodplains is receiving more and more attention (La Rosa et al., 2018; Mathey et al., 2011).
25 Figure 11. Recreation area in the Ljubljana Marshland ©Jošt Gantar
26 GI MEANING by Stephan Pauleit and Martina van Lierop
Green and blue spaces are a vital component green and blue spaces for the sustainability and of urban regions. Large portions of green and resilience of urban regions and raise them to the blue spaces in peri-urban landscapes surround same level as other infrastructures. and intermingle with built up areas: parks and gardens, the green of residential areas and Green infrastructure has been introduced as commercial zones, allotments, cemeteries, a novel concept in the US in the 1990s as a playing fields, successional vegetation on derelict reaction to rampant urban sprawl (Walmsey, land, street trees and river corridors as well as 2006). It is a concept for the strategic farmland, woodlands and lakes (Cvejić et al., development of “an interconnected network of 2015; Pauleit et al., 2019; Swanwick et al., 2003). greenspace that conserves natural ecosystem These components can help in significant ways values and functions and provides associated to meet policy objectives for more sustainable, benefits to human populations.” (Benedict & liveable and climate resilient urban regions via Mahon, 2002, p. 17). GI is grounded in landscape the provision of so-called ecosystem services architecture and landscape ecology (Fletcher et (Millennium Assessment [MA], 2005). GI planning al., 2014), which might explain the conceptual can and should integrate these components breadth reaching from ecological networks to the of different origin and functions (Table 3), inclusion of cultural values (Pauleit et al., 2017). regarding the entire landscape. They can provide regulating services, such as reducing the risks of overheating of cities during summer time, Green infrastructure planning aims to contribute storm water runoff, and riverine flooding, and to multiple aims, most notably improving capturing carbon; cultural services, such as social cohesion, climate change adaptation, providing opportunities for recreation, nature and biodiversity protection and supporting a green spiritual experience; and provisioning services economy (Hansen et al., 2017) (Fig 11). Green by growing food, fibres and wood. Not least, they infrastructure is considered as a strategic enhance biodiversity in and around urban areas planning approach, i.e. one that develops a long- (Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE, 2017). term spatial vision, which is linked to “actions and Therefore, as a Green Infrastructure, green means for implementation but remains flexible and blue spaces are just as important for the over time” (Davies et al., 2015, p. 15). The functioning and quality of life of urban regions approach is guided by a set of core principles as technical and social infrastructures. In this (Hansen et al., 2016). The most important ones sense, Green Infrastructure is an important term among these are connectivity, multifunctionality, to communicate the vital functions and values of green-grey integration, social inclusion, and
Table 3. Green infrastructure components (Based on Cvejić et al. (2015) (modified)) Natural landscape Remnants of natural areas: woodlands and scrubs, natural heathlands, wetlands and bogs remnants as well as streams and lakes Cultural Extensive suburban and rural farmland, farms, and orchards, forests, including remnants landscapes of historic farming practices such as extensively managed grasslands, archaeological and historical sites. Designed green Regional, municipal and urban parks, informal recreation areas, play grounds, outdoor spaces sports facilities, village greens, commons, and institutional grounds of e.g. schools, hospitals and research institutes, cemeteries, formal, informal and private gardens, domestic and community gardens, housing green spaces and allotments. Green corridors Canals and canalised streams including their banks, rail embankments, road verges, tree rows and hedges, avenues, linear parks, green cycling routes. Reclaimed nature Fallow lands, brownfield sites, bare rock habitats, such as gravel pits and quarries. Technical green Green roofs and walls, and sustainable urban drainage systems.
27 quality improvement. Applying these principles Box 1: Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) should ensure that green and blue spaces are improved to provide biodiversity and a large range of ecosystem services with their related creating green space networks: UGI benefits for human health and well-being even in planning for connectivity involves densely built urban environments. Moreover, the creating and restoring connections socially inclusive planning and implementation to support and protect processes, of green infrastructure should meet the diverse functions and benefits that individual demands of a pluralistic society so that there is Connectivity green spaces cannot provide alone. fair access to its benefits for all. delivering and enhancing multiple functions and services: UGI planning aims at combining different functions to enhance the capacity of urban green space to deliver multiple benefits – creating synergies, while reducing conflicts and trade-offs. Multifunctionality combining green and grey infrastructure: UGI seeks the Figure 12. Green infrastructure aims to address main integration and coordination of challenges of urbanization: (illustration: courtesy R. urban green spaces with other Hansen) infrastructure, such as transport
Green-grey integration systems and utilities. collaborative and participatory planning: UGI planning aims for More recently, the concept has been strongly collaborative, socially inclusive promoted by the European Commission by processes. This means that planning highlighting green infrastructure as an important processes are open to all and element in its strategy for the protection of incorporate the knowledge and needs biodiversity (EC, 2011) and consequently
Social inclusion of diverse parties adopted a green infrastructure strategy (EC, 2013a, 2013b). Research projects such securing and enhancing the qualities as GREEN SURGE (greensurge.eu) have of green and open spaces: issues established the state of the art of green of maintenance, preservation, infrastructure in Europe’s urban areas and development and management of resulted in guidance for green infrastructure urban green spaces should be given planning and governance (Ambrose-Oji et al., greater consideration, and long-term 2017; Hansen et al., 2017). Tough there is maintenance of areas should be ample evidence on the successful application of taken into account at the planning the GI concept in practice, not many examples Quality improvement stage provide a peri-urban focus. Recognizing that in sprawling urban regions the haphazard Planning Principles (adapted from: Hansen et protection of leftover spaces will not halt the loss al. (2016) and Pauleit et al. (2019) of biodiversity and ecosystem services, green infrastructure is a planning approach that aims to combine the development of well-functioning networks of green and blue spaces with urban development (McDonald et al., 2005).
28 Still a number of barriers need to be overcome these initiatives to enhance collaborative forms for reaping the full benefits from GI. Creating of GI governance without attempting to misuse multifunctional peri-urban green infrastructures them (Buijs et al., 2019). Not least, bottom- requires governance approaches that promote up initiatives, such as community gardening, continuous cross-sectorial collaboration on and can promote social cohesion. For the planning between different levels of decision-making of green infrastructures, socially inclusive (Pauleit et al., 2017); from the urban regional approaches should be adopted, that fairly involve level to the site level, and from short-term all stakeholders in the process of GI planning interventions to long-term strategic planning. and management, including those that are hard This is particularly evident in the context of peri- to reach via formal participation, such as young urban landscapes, where probably the biggest people and immigrants. challenges lie for the development of green infrastructure due to political and institutional The GI concept is already being implemented fragmentation. in planning practice in European cities, even though the term ‘Green Infrastructure’ is rarely Strong regional planning is desirable to preserve used (Davies et al., 2015). In the GREEN and develop green and blue spaces in the peri- SURGE project, it could be shown that all the urban under strong urban pressure (Aalbers & twenty cities included in this research had some Pauleit, 2013), but this is exactly not the case kind of green space strategy in place. In these in many European countries (Tosics, 2013). strategies, key principles of GI planning such as A positive example for the strengthening of multifunctionality and connectivity are mentioned. regional coordination would be the so-called However, the breadth and depth of uptake varied territorial coherence scheme (SCoT) for urban considerably, and adoption of all four principles “agglomérations” in France, which includes was rare. Thus, there is still considerable scope transfer of land use planning powers to the for enhancement of current planning practice by regional level (Jarrige et al., 2013). Moreover, developing and implementing more rigorously the “soft” theme of “landscape” with its positive GI strategies. Integration of green and grey, connotations - “green is nice and good for as well as strengthening participation in a the people”, positioning with a “green image” more socially-inclusive planning process were - appears to hold potential for enhancing identified as particular priority areas. Interviews collaboration between policy-makers of different with practitioners also allowed to identify some municipalities, which otherwise cannot easily factors supporting or hindering implementation agree on a coordinated development, when (Davies et al., 2015). Prominent among these it comes to the “harder” issues of economic were strong political support, availability of development, planning for residential and funding, institutional structures and capacities commercial zones, and infrastructures (Jarrige (e.g. procurement regulations that force to et al., 2013). Promoting the discourse on the accept the cheapest offer in green space positive values of landscape therefore needs to management, knowledge base), responsibilities be considered as an important means to support and cooperation across scales, and existence of GI development in the peri-urban (Westerink & monitoring and evaluation schemes. Aalbers, 2013).
In addition, local initiatives at smaller scales that are centred around particular issues have shown considerable potential to establish the cooperation between stakeholders in urban regions and agree on common goals (Buijs et al., 2016; Buizer et al., 2015). The agenda of such bottom-up, “grass-roots” initiatives may diverge from that of government led planning, but new forms of “mosaic” governance may capitalize on
29 Figure 13. Agricultural activities in peri-urban Vienna
30 PERI-URBAN AGRICULTURE by Alessandro Betta
As part of green infrastructure in peri-urban area. According to Mougeot, though, the most environments, urban agriculture can support important feature of this type of agriculture is its more than the provision of food, energy or raw integration within the urban fabric and processes materials. Through the provision of direct and as well as to urban economic and ecological indirect ecosystem services, such as didactic system (2000). It is very complex to categorize and cultural services (Aerts et al., 2016), urban the different urban agriculture experiences due to agriculture can further contribute to landscape their extreme variability. A first distinction can be multifunctionality. Urban agriculture activities can made according to the location in urban or peri- be integrated within the network of semi-natural urban areas. Yet, this distinction could be further spaces of GI (Rolf et al., 2019)and represent specified according to the ownership, or to the important complementary elements to further form of conduction (see Table 4). Beside profit- support sustainable processes in peri-urban oriented farms, there are important experiences regions. Its proximity to urban areas allows urban of non-profit oriented farms focusing on aspects, agriculture to take advantage from the direct links such as social inclusion or therapeutic activities. with urban consumers, workforces, and urban by- Ecology-related cultivation aspects could also be products such as organic waste or wastewater to included in the analysis (van Veenhuizen, 2006). include them in the production cycle (Donadieu, 1998). Urban agriculture can positively affect A 2000 report estimates that 15-20% of the food city greening and regeneration through recovery produced in the world is grown in urban areas of abandoned spaces or reducing urban sprawl and that around 800 million urban dwellers are pressure on rural areas (Mougeot, 2005). At engaged in urban agriculture at various levels the same time, urban agriculture suffers from (Bakker et al., 2000). At European level, the the constraints of the highly fragmented urban role of urban agriculture as a way to tackle food territory and the accompanying spatial and policy insecurity or social exclusion issues is mostly barriers (Castillo et al., 2013; Curry et al., 2014; related with Southern European countries, Galli et al., 2010; Prové et al., 2016). To better whereas Northern countries tend to consider face barriers such as limited amount of space and access to resources, there could be chances urban agriculture as a way to preserve and to develop more innovative business and farming develop green spaces in metropolitan areas models. (Lohrberg et al., 2016). Moreover, urban farms are generally smaller and more fragmented compared to the traditional farms in rural regions The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, (Mougeot, 2005). In terms of land-use, the 2020) provides a very general definition of agricultural sector at European level plays an urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA or important role as, in spite of the progressive sometimes simply UA, urban agriculture) as a occupation of agricultural land by buildings and form of agricultural activity that occurs within infrastructures, still covers more than 40% of or very close to a city or in a metropolitan available land at EU-28 level (LUCAS report, EU
Table 4. Possible classifications for peri-urban agriculture Location Intra-urban Peri-urban Land ownership Public land Private land Commons Conduction Ownership Rent Lease Occupation Business models Profit-oriented Non-profit oriented Cultivation models Traditional Organic Permaculture
31 Commission, 2015). At national level, agriculture farmland or natural and semi-natural grassland and pastures still cover more than 50% of the (covering roughly 190,600 square kilometres) territory in Germany, France and Italy, whereas (Flury et al., 2013). Yet, there are strong in Austria and Slovenia they cover around 35% differences between countries. In the German of the territory. Statistics at national level are Alpine area, almost 50% of arable land is for useful to draw a general picture and to describe agricultural use, while in Slovenia it is less than general trends for Alpine agriculture, although it 20% (Flury et al., 2013). Though an extensive has to be said that a precise description of the and holistic study on alpine peri-urban areas phenomenon is complex and biased by the fact is lacking, some common factors steering that the amount of territory included in the Alpine the development of Alpine agriculture can be region is very different from country to country. identified: depopulation of marginal areas, which As in most European countries, the number leads to the abandonment of entire portions of of farms and farmers is constantly decreasing higher valleys or the unbalanced competition and nowadays covers just a marginal part of with more productive and cost-effective farms the overall workforce. Slovenian farms are the in European lowlands favoured by easier smallest among the Alpine countries with an topographical conditions. Alpine topography limits average of around 7 hectares in 2016. The the access to the general market (a part from general trend shows a constant reduction in the very particular and specific products) and finally number of farm holdings and a parallel constant climate change, which has a stronger effect in growth in the average amount of land owned the Alpine area compared to EU-average. In spite and cultivated by each holding. This process is of their strong rural legacy, the Alps are a highly- quite evident in Italy, where following a 650.000 developed area within Europe with an above- units decrease in the number of farm holdings average degree of prosperity and important the average dimension grew from 7,5 hectares innovation niches in research or industrial sectors in 2007 to 11 hectares in 2016. The same which, since the second world war, has seen a processes can be seen in Germany or France, progressive tertiarisation of the economy and the where the average ownership grew from 45 to reduction of primary sector workforce. 60 hectares in Germany (with a reduction of around 85.000 farms) and from 52 to 60 hectares Given the multiple benefits of urban agriculture in France (with around 55.000 farms lost) and. to ecosystem services, urban authorities It has been calculated that, between 1980 and could develop several strategies to enhance 2000, the overall number of farms in the Alpine safe and sustainable agriculture processes area decreased by more than a third to around and businesses. Strategies can range from 280.000 (Flury et al., 2013). Decrease in the establishing enabling policy frameworks to number of farms is relatively lower in Austria and more direct interventions such as changes in Slovenia with around 25.000 and 3.000 farms lost land use plans to turn expansion areas into respectively. In the Alpine region, the amount of agricultural use (de Zeeuw et al.). Removing employees in the primary sector is slightly higher planning and regulatory barriers to temporary compared to EU-average, but numbers are still use of empty spaces, enhancing the access of limited. The highest rate is in Slovenia where in farmers to vacant plots and including them in the 2018 7,20% of the workforce was employed in management of urban commons management the primary sector, down from 12,83% in 1998. schemes can contribute to improve citizens’ Italy and Austria are in line with the EU-average participation (Gretter et al., 2018). Inventory on a with 3,62% and 3,51% respectively, whereas in small-scale of available or vacant plots in urban France and Germany only 2,67% and 1,37% of and peri-urban areas is a fundamental tool to the total workforce is employed in agriculture. enhance possibilities for farmers to access land for cultivation (e.g. through leasing or exchange Farming and other agricultural activities play a schemes) (Lohrberg et al., 2016). Possible significant role in the Alpine context, not only forms of land lease include the temporal lease in terms of used land or crops produced, but of vacant land, incentives to landowners to give also as cultural practices. According to 2010 vacant land in longer-term leases for agriculture, data, around 35% of the Alpine area consists of assistance to reallocation of urban producers
32 to more productive locations within the city, or including space for individual or community gardens in new public housing projects (de Zeeuw et al.). Small-scale enterprises or clusters can be supported through economic investment or tax reduction schemes enhancing urban agriculture cycles and farming-related businesses. Municipal authorities could also improve training, education and innovation of urban farmers through easier access to financial credits, technological improvements, or educational facilities. Back in 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) issued an ‘Opinion on Agriculture in Peri-urban Areas’ that called for specific instruments to protect peri- urban farming and the establishment of specific management bodies (Reporteur Diversity Europe - GR III / Spain [Caball i Subirana], 2004). The creation of such an enabling policy environment could include the creation of an institutional hub to coordinate initiatives at multiple scales and across sectoral departments. Even though the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) does not properly take into account urban agriculture some implicit chances for urban agriculture are included within sections defining measures to support small businesses, shorten supply chains, or enhance cooperative initiatives to strengthen multi-functionality of farming activities (Curry et al., 2014).
Figure 14. Agricultural plots in the peri-urban area of Trento ©Giuseppe Gorfer ©Giuseppe Gorfer
33 Figure 15. Mapping visiting points during the research lab at the pilot site in the Ljubljana Marshland
34 LANDSCAPE APPROACH by Martina van Lierop and Karsten Berr
The challenge to reconcile the divergent urbanism’, where landscape is taken as the demands on landscapes, the trade-offs between basis for urban development (Steiner, 2008; different functions and the various stakeholders Waldheim, 2006). Also in social-cultural and on multiple scale levels can no longer be political domains, ‘landscape’ gained traction as a addressed by sectorial organised spatial planning medium for integration in concepts as ‘landscape and management (Reed et al., 2014; Sayer identity’ and ‘landscape governance’ (Arts et al., et al., 2013). Conventional, usually sectorial, 2017) approaches are inept to deal with the increasing complexity of landscape issues (Giller et al., More recently, landscape approaches have 2008). They often fail to consider other interests gained momentum in relation to development resulting in overlooked trade-offs and lack of initiatives, aiming to reconcile nature acceptance (HERCULES, 201x). conservation, agriculture, forestry, climate mitigation and adaptation together with local Landscape approaches have been widely livelihood in developing countries (Reed et al., promoted as integrative strategies enabling 2014; Sayer, 2009; Sayer et al., 2013). Several different interest groups to jointly find and international organisations have adopted organise responsible solutions across sectorial, landscape approaches as focus of their policies. disciplinary and administrative boundaries The World Wildlife Fund (Bowling, 2002) already (Arts et al., 2017; Reed et al., 2014; Sayer et in 2002 endorsed a landscape approach to reach al., 2015). They reconcile conservation with conservation goals in “multistakeholder priority- development values on a landscape level (Sayer setting processes”. The Food and Agriculture et al., 2013). The landscape level is considered Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) sees as more suitable to bring together different the integrated landscape approaches as a way interests in context-based solutions (Milder et to mainstream climate –smart agriculture (Reiche al., 2012; Sayer, 2009), as landscapes refer to et al., 2012) and the World Bank applies the an area as well as to the ecological, social and approach to its projects (Tréguer & Pehu, 2014). political processes, which shaped it (Reed et al., 2014). In Europe, landscape approaches are strongly related to integrative and holistic approaches The first steps towards ‘landscape approaches’ in spatial planning and landscape ecology were made in the 1980s with the emergence of (Sayer et al., 2013). Though the term ‘landscape integrative approaches of landscape ecology approaches’ as in the meaning above described and landscape planning (Ndubisi, 2002; Selman, have gained little attention in Europe, there is an 1993; Steiner, 2008). These approaches strived extensive body of related terms (e.g. Landscape to reconcile conservation and development Stewardship (Bieling & Plieninger, 2017); aims and improve connectivity between natural Landscape sustainability science (Wu, 2013); areas (Arts et al., 2017; Sayer et al., 2013). In Civic Ecology (Krasny et al., 2014)). Scherr et the 1990s, the sustainability concept influenced al. (2013) define ‘landscape approaches’ as the integrative ecological approaches to become an umbrella-term and listed several closely cross-sectorial, multi-stakeholder and policy- related terms, which they consider as landscape oriented (Arts et al., 2017) and to adopt the approaches, including ‘integrated landscape perspective of landscapes as social-ecological management’ and ‘green infrastructure’. systems. Within urban planning and architecture, integrative approaches have further developed Landscape approaches seem still mostly into ‘green infrastructure’ and ‘landscape associated with the ecological and objective
35 dimension of landscape (Arts et al., 2017; Yet, landscape approaches are “not reducible Sayer et al., 2013). Yet, according to Berr et al. to one or many of those principles” (Erbaugh (in press), ‘landscape approaches’ can be be & Agrawal, 2017, p. 4454). More research is understood and treated in the broadest sense needed to understand how these principles possible and include various understandings interrelate and to bring them into a coherent on, basic assumptions of, and theories or framework (Erbaugh & Agrawal, 2017). concepts about 'landscape'. Yet, in general ‘landscape approaches’ do not refer to this Though landscape approaches might in some more comprehensive meaning as described cases be seen as a panacea, Sayer (2009) above, but the narrower meaning of a strategy warns the limitations of landscape approaches to landscape management and governance. need to considered. He also describes that The definition seems to be dependent on the landscape approaches are in particular adequate disciplinary background and to the perception of for multifunctional landscapes, in which nature landscape. Yet, a clear description of ‘landscape conservation is one of multiple functions and approaches’, its definition and application are still interest (Sayer, 2009). Landscape approaches lacking (Arts et al., 2017; Reed et al., 2014; Reed should not replace more traditional approaches & Sunderland, 2015). as these still have their merit especially as restrictive policy frameworks for nature Sunderland (2014) claims that landscape conservation areas (Sayer, 2009). Moreover, approaches defy “definition and characterization”. “landscape approaches require coordinated Freeman et al. (2015) however identified three action” by multiple stakeholder from multiple distinctive definitions: landscape approaches sectors (Sayer, 2009, p. 651). To be successfully as conceptual framework, as a set of guiding implemented, a pragmatic and realistic principles, and as a process. (Reed et al., 2016) perspective on the application of the landscape describe landscape approaches as a framework approach is needed. to provide solutions to balance multiple land uses and interests on several scale levels in a given landscape. Yet, Reed and Sunderland (2015) define landscape approach as a process. Also Sayer et al. (2013, p. 8349) describe the landscape approach as a “process of decision- making in landscape contexts”, while providing a list of ten guiding principles for landscape approaches (see Table 6). These principles are determined based on the current consensus on what constitutes good practice and might not be extensive or applicable in each context (Sayer et al., 2013). They give indications as to how decision-making processes and concrete planning processes "should be designed in order to ensure a maximum degree of fairness of opportunity and procedure" (Kühne et al., 2018, p. 30). According to Sayer et al. (2015, p. 346), this set of principles is like “a menu of approaches from which practitioners may draw to solve problems on the ground”.
36 Table 6. The 10 landscape approach principles by Sayer et al. (2013) (modified). 01 Continued learning Dynamic landscape processes require continuous learning and adaptive and adaptive landscape management. management 2 Common concern Addressing stakeholders’ objectives in the landscape process through short- entry point term, easy-to-reach targets can encourage participation, trust-building and further collaboration.
3 Multiple scales Awareness on functioning of landscape processes on different scale levels allows better anticipating feedbacks and coordinating interventions.
4 Multifunctionality Trade-offs between different landscapes values, good and services need to be considered.
5 Multiple stakeholders All stakeholders and their concerns need to be recognised in an iterative process, which is clearly communicated and addresses issues of conflict, trust and power.
6 Negotiated and Transparency, understandable and logic reasoning, shared vision, and consensus transparent change on challenges, opportunities and goals support landscape processes. logic
7 Clarification of rights The rights and responsibilities of different actors need to be clear to, and accepted and responsibilities by, all stakeholders as well as supported facilitation, negotiation and a fair justice system.
8 Participatory All stakeholders should be able to generate, gather and integrate required and user-friendly information and validity of different knowledge systems need to be recognised. monitoring
9 Resilience Landscape processes require active recognition of threats and vulnerabilities as well as promotion of action to address threats.
10 Strengthened Improvement of the capacity of stakeholders to effectively participate in stakeholder capacity governance processes as well as to better deal with the complexity and dynamics of landscape issues
37 Figure 16. Landscape conference with politicians near Munich
38 GOVERNANCE by Aurore Meyfroidt and Martina van Lierop
To create multifunctional green infrastructure sustainability (Allen, 2003). Governance was in politically fragmented peri-urban landscapes used to underscore the need of vertical and requires cross-boundary land use planning horizontal coordination between actors and and strategic vision beyond administrative scales (Beaurain, 2002; Le Galès, 1995). boundaries at regional level (Aalbers & Pauleit, In the European context, governance often 2013). A particular call is made for governance refers to new modes of regulation “from modes approaches, which support participation and of government associated with a bureaucratized collaboration of various actors with diverse welfare state […] to the more entrepreneurial interests on different levels of decision-making modes of governance” (Healey, 2006, p. 302). (Aalbers & Eckerberg, 2013; Allen, 2003; Buijs Moreover, governance is considered to enable et al., 2016; Pauleit et al., 2017). Yet, what new formal and informal connections to find are governance approaches? Governance is alternative ways of cooperation (Grisel & van vaguely described; its meaning is fuzzy. Many der Waart, 2011; Young, 2006). Le Galès (1995, consider governance as a “black box concept” or 2003, 2014) summarizes these characteristics of a buzzword (Beaurain, 2002). Time and again, governance with four criteria: the term governance seems to be less used for its intrinsic content and more considered as an 1. Institutional polycentrism (institutional umbrella-term in relation to processes (Beaurain, complexity hindering the power of one and 2002; Bertrand et al., 2015; Le Galès, 2003). only actor), Schultz et al. define governance as “the 2. Blurred boundaries between public and private structures and processes by which people in actors, societies make decisions and share power, 3. Blurred boundaries between socio-economic creating the conditions for ordered rule and political stakeholders, and collective action, or institution of social coordination” (2015, p. 7369). An essential 4. A new process of public action and new component of governance is the interdependence relations to authority. between actors and their coordinated interactions In the transition from government to governance, according to rules agreed by them (Faludi, the arrangement of different state and non-state 2012) to “achieve specific social objectives” (Del actors alters (Bulkeley, 2005). Due to the effects Baggio, 2016, p. 29). According to Beaurain of globalization in the last decades, cities and (2002), governance can be seen as an city regions appear as crucial actors within this alternative to government. The difference being new polycentric governance system (Le Galès, that governance has a more holistic character 2003; Nelles, 2013). The city-regional structures and broader meaning than government (Faludi, are the renewed arenas for public action (Le 2012). Galès, 2003), where public and private actors Governance emerged as an alternative to meet. In whatever form, they can coordinate traditional top-down government forms, which activities and set common goals at the city were until then considered as the only legitimate scale through cooperation based on political will form for public action and hermetic to other and “civic capital”, e.g. relations between inter- stakeholders (Bryant, 2018). In the 1970’s, the organizational networks (Nelles, 2013). term reaches a greater audience. Traditional However, this development is often paired governments were no longer able to address with growing inequality, as resources become “governability” issues due to increased “diversity, unevenly distributed. Actors and territories within uncertainty, heterogeneity of society, and … the city region often accumulate more financial decreased possibilities for inducing long-term means and political power as their counterparts change” (Loorbach, 2010, p. 166). This shift in peri-urban and rural areas. This creates from government to governance was further territorial asymmetry (Bertrand et al., 2015), accompanied by a shift from environment where economic and subsequently also living concern to the more holistic approach of conditions in peri-urban and rural areas are
39 often worse than in urban areas. Governance at local and regional level should aim to overcome these differences and to compensate for the disadvantages of an imbalanced situation (Fricke, 2014; Obkircher, 2017). Acknowledgement of the added value of peripheral areas for the Disciplinary city region cores together with interterritorial cooperation can be mutually beneficial to all territories and actors. Landscape governance Landscape governance, with its focus on
the governance of landscape, seems to Multidisciplinary be most capable of addressing the issues related to green infrastructure implementation in peri-urban landscapes. Landscape and environmental issues have effects beyond administrative and decision-making boundaries (Meadowcroft, 2002). Mismatches between scales of ecological and social perspectives often occur (Meadowcroft, 2002). In natural Participatory sciences, scales refers to the “physical impacts” of natural processes spatially and temporally distributed, while in social sciences scales are socially constructed, such as decision-making scales (Meadowcroft, 2002; Prager et al., 2012). Landscape governance aims to link governance processes to natural-spatial conditions (Görg, 2007).
Another aim of landscape governance is to Interdisciplinary enhance vertical and horizontal collaboration between different structures of power and decision-making (Bertrand et al., 2015). Collaboration in governance means that in “the processes and structures of public policy decision-making and management, people are constructively engaged across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government and/ Transdisciplinary or the public, private and civic spheres to carry discipline integration out a public purpose that could not be otherwise non-academic participants thematic umbrellas accomplished” (Emerson et al., 2012). Within goal of research project academic knowledge LOS_DAMA!, collaborative planning has been non-academic knowledge movement towards goal defined from the perspective of governmental cooperation actors in which they involve various stakeholders in different ways in spatial development. This Figure 17. Levels of collaboration (by Tress et al., includes communication between natural and 2005) social sciences and cooperation between different sectors. The intensity of collaboration between disciplines as well as the involvement of non-academic stakeholders has been defined by Tress et al. (2005) through the principles of multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (see Fig. 17).
40 Transdisciplinary collaboration is related to participatory governance (Tress et al., 2005) and brings together researchers and non-academic participants. Landscape governance is expected Control to foster bottom-up involvement and participation of non-governmental actors (Leloup et al., 2005). Involved Such actors can have different roles and be involved in different degrees in the governance process. Tress et al. (2005) defined four levels Consultation of participation: from being informed, consulted, involved and being in control of the governance process (see Fig. 18). Informed Government structures, whether collaborative Figure 18. Levels of stakeholder participation (by or participative, fit certain social-ecological Tress et al., 2005) contexts (Bulkeley, 2005). Del Baggio (2016) points out the necessity to consider the diversity of actors and the interactions between scales to adapt governance structures accordingly. the European Commission (EC) (Grisel & van Governance is context-dependent. Local and der Waart, 2011) to scale up processes from regional knowledge needs to be considered in state power towards the international sphere. An making policies and experimenting innovations example is the mainstreaming of the ecosystem (Buijs, Mattijssen et al., 2016; Commission of services concept in European Union (EU) the European Communities, 2001). However, policies, as analysed by Schleyer et al. (2015). landscapes are complex socio-ecological The EC’s focus also included scaling down systems, which are constantly changing and so processes towards regions and civil society are their stakeholder constellations. Landscape (Termeer et al., 2010, p. 4). However, in the governance, therefore, needs to be adaptive to EU context, downscaling appears rather as a address changes and uncertainties (Westerink tool to insure implementation of EU policies by et al., 2017). Adaptive governance also needs to privileging relations with sub-regional authorities, foster flexible and learning-based collaboration including non-state ones (Faludi, 2012). across landscapes (Schultz et al., 2015). Governance appears operational and efficient A multi-level approach enables better intertwining to address hybridity and uncertainties affecting between decision-making levels, even if these territories at various scales. To qualify are partly overlapping (Görg, 2007). Multi-level governance almost in a performative way, a governance, even with policy dispersion at range of terms or goal-related objectives can be various scales, is recognized to be more efficient applied such as “polycentric, network, multilevel than a mere central government approach earth-system and adaptive governance” (Termeer (Termeer et al., 2010). Similarly, the term “mosaic et al., 2010). The Commission of the European governance” combines an attention towards the Communities (2001) also produced norms diversity of actors and scales and a focus upon affecting governance and describes principles of the spatial context with policy arrangements “good governance” as openness, participation adapted to the specificity of each type of urban (throughout the policy chain), accountability green space (Buijs, Mattijssen et al., 2016, p. 3). (responsibility of each EU institution), effectiveness (clear objectives and evaluation Construction of new interactions between actors of impacts), coherence (enhanced by political reveals also the need of scaling up initiatives leadership) (Allen, 2003). from local actors, especially citizens to regional and national levels (Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014). Governance across different scales is defined as “multi-level”. In the mid 2000’s, a focus on multi-level governance was pushed forward by
41 Figure 19. Primary school kids join to support local management of green spaces
42 Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! PILOT PROFILES
43 Figure 20. Primary school kids join to support local management of green spaces
44 PILOT PROFILES
The peri-urban landscapes of the seven Land use metropolitan regions were the focus point To define the land use for each of the the seven of the LOS_DAMA! project. The local pilot metropolitan regions, datasets from the CORINE projects provided a context for applied research. Land Cover 2018 (CLC) for the national scale Different approaches and methods to support was processed and summarized by using planning processes could been applied and ArcMap 10.6. To provide consistent information tested in the local pilot projects. Comparison regarding land cover, a radius of 30km from of the local pilot projects enabled reflection on each regional city centre has been drawn. policy and research gaps regarding landscape, This allowed to compare the land uses in the peri-urbanisation, green infrastructure and region independent from city size or functional its implementation in collaborative planning connectivity. The standardized CLC classification processes. Yet, to gain better insight in the includes different open green spaces into similarities and differences between the pilot different main categories. For example, “green projects, also the setting and context of the urban areas” are included in the main category pilot projects needed to be understood. This “urban”. As open green spaces are the focus second part of the synthesis report aims to do of the project, the classification was altered to so, by giving a brief description of the context make a distinct class for “Open green spaces of the local pilot projects. The setting of the incl. wetlands”. Therefore, the LULC-range metropolitan regions, their respective spatial 400 (“Wetlands”) was extended to include the dimensions and socio-economic dynamics are following list of LULC-classes: described as well as their planning context. In addition, the more specific context of the pilot Green urban areas (141); Sport and leisure project are summarised including the major facilities (142); Land principally occupied by cooperation partners as well as the major aims agriculture, with significant areas of natural and activities. vegetation (243); Natural grasslands (321); Moors and heathlands (322); Sclerophyllous vegetation (323); Transitional woodland-shrub (324); Beaches, dunes and sand (331); Bare rocks (332); Sparsely vegetated areas (333); Burnt areas (334); and Glaciers and perpetual snow (335).
Landscape Landscape is the ground layer for spatial developments. Relief, soil and water have determined and still determine at large the different landscape processes, structures and uses. In particular, in the alpine region, this is eminent as mountains, hills and glacier remains restrict or permit the development within the LOS_DAMA! metropolitan regions. Moreover, landscapes provide many services from food and clean air to recreation and a sense of belonging. Therefore, the pilot project profiles provide a short description of the pilot area, its location within the Alps, its geography as well as its main natural and cultural assets.
45 Regional context Peri-urban agriculture Regional context refers to demographic and This section provides an overview of the current socio-economic dynamics within the metropolitan situation of peri-urban agriculture for each pilot regions. Such dynamics are often the drivers area, both in terms of agricultural activities for spatial development, land use change and as well as their inclusion in GI and landscape peri-urbanisation. In the pilot project profiles, related policies. This is elaborated with the the main variables determining patterns and potentials and barriers of peri-urban agricultural paths of peri-urbanisation are introduced within activities in relation with other functions. In the metropolitan regions; within the urban, addition, the pilot activities are analysed for their the peri-urban and the rural hinterland. Within involvement of agricultural actors. LOS_DAMA!, we observe a high diversity of local contexts in terms of demography within Main partners within LOS_DAMA! their respective national context as well as the development of household numbers, referring to Within the implementation of pilot activities, the balance between residential production and project partners could be both initiators and/ landscape preservation. or facilitators. Their role also largely depended on the type of cooperation partners for the implementation of pilot activities. The Planning context involvement of each partner varies from project Planning system define the administrative backer (for instance SIR or PIEM where pilot structures and competences regarding planning activities are mainly driven by external experts) and, in particular, in relation to landscape to full stakeholder (VIE establishing new policies. For national, regional and local level, cooperation with a neighbouring municipality the roles, responsibilities and competences and a federal state (Bundesland) to initiate a of administration are summarised. In addition, regional park). Main cooperation partners for important policies for landscape and nature the pilot project implementation were other preservation and enhancement are mentioned. sectoral authorities, associations, experts and Within LOS_DAMA!, benchmarking of local and consultants. national planning and GI policies provide insights regarding strengths and weaknesses of the Governance current policies. An overview of both planning The pilot activities have been analysed for and GI related policies enabled to highlight policy recommendations for local level and are convergences and divergences between partners therefore not considered in the following pilot as well as common policy issues to be tackled. profiles. For information on the governance level, the grade of involvement of actors as well Potentials and barriers as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for governance in each of the pilot In this section, the potentials and barriers the projects, have a look at the LOS_DAMA! policy project partners experience, when planning recommendations. and implementing GI in local and regional planning processes, have been summarised. The identified potentials and barriers are not only Landscape approach based on the experiences of the project partners The landscape approach has been interwoven in the LOS_DAMA! pilot activities, but also their in the project. Particular relevant landscape experiences in other projects, their departments approaches are addressed in the challenges in or planning context. A preliminary analysis of the the LOS_DAMA! Compendium. The analysis of potentials and barriers have been used to link the tools in the LOS_DAMA! Toolbox provides pilot partners together, which share common an overview, how different tools can be used to issues or could support each other in giving apply a landscapr approach. Further information insights in the potentials to tackle issues. can be found in the descriptions of the pilot activities in the pilot profiles and the LOS_DAMA! compendium.
46 Pilot project’s aims and activities Pilot activities aimed to reinforce the inclusion of landscape and green infrastructure within The LOS_DAMA! project had set itself the task local and regional planning according to two of developing and testing various approaches to main approaches: implementation of green develop GI through the cooperation with various infrastructure; and landscape as a means to interest groups across municipal boundaries. reflect on regional development. Thus, pilot Therefore, the general objectives of the pilot activities developed within LOS_DAMA! are projects were linked to: either site-specific, covering a defined area of • raising awareness on the importance of peri-urban landscapes or rather methodological, green infrastructure amongst decision- covering the entire peri-urban landscapes of the makers partners, but they can also be hybrid by mixing • fostering linkages between stakeholders these two approaches. involved in green infrastructure projects For a more extensive description of the pilot aims • enhancing cooperation beyond and activities, please have a look at the LOS_ administrative boundaries and sectors DAMA! Compendium. Other objectives are more site-specific and refer to: • enhancing the role of landscape and biodiversity within current / forthcoming planning documents in a systemic way (GAM, PIEM) • reduce conflicts on uses (UIRS, GAM, SIR, VIE) • integrate up-to-date knowledge on ecosystem services and green infrastructure (PIEM, UIRS) • adopt an innovative land use approach (SIR) • focus on peri-urban agriculture as a catalyser for implementing green infrastructures (TRENT)
Table 7. Focus of the pilot activities. Project partner Pilot activity Site specific Methodology MUC Let´s do moor Landscape on the radar Be my treasure SIR Ecopool VIE Regionalpark Dreianger GAM Master Classes Exhibition on peri-urban landscape transformation Vouillants treasure hunt UIRS Green infrastructure concept at regional level Local projects (GI and leisure activities) TRENT Discourse on peri-urban areas PIEM Corona verde
47 MUNICH
Pilot partner City of Munich - Landscape Department of Urban Munich is situated 80 km north of the Alps on a Planning and Building wide gravel plain, formed by post-glacial melt Regulations (MUC) waters. The gravel plain as well as its embedded Type of Local public authority rivers run from south to north. The alpine river organisation Isar is the major river and runs right through the City of Munich. Two smaller watercourses run Main urban centre Munich in the east and the west: the Hachinger Bach Region Upper Bavaria, Bavaria and the Würm. In the south, the gravel plain Country Germany is surrounded by moraine landscapes and is characterised by forests, grasslands and pre- Population urban 1.083.611 inhabitants alpine lakes. In the north and west, the so-called centre (Eurostat, 2014) Tertiary Hills, a hilly landscape with agricultural Population 2.768.488 inhabitants fields, borders the gravel plain. Open areas with functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) arable fields dominate the north. North of the area city, depending on the groundwater level, there are dry heathlands and wetlands. Throughout the plain, former gravel ponds can be found, which together with the Isar river form important recreational areas. Major roads, railway and an international airport connect the city well to other regions. Therefore, Munich is for many visitors, in particular form the north, an entry point to the Alps.
The open and green spaces in the City of Munich and its surrounding municipalities are under pressure from urban growth, physical as well as functional. Next to more built-up areas and loss of open spaces, this leads to stronger fragmentation of green spaces and recreational infrastructure, while at the same time also the recreational pressure increases with a further diversification of users and leisure activities. The areas north of Munich are highly fragmented by Figure 21. Land use map infrastructure, residential and industrial areas and intensive agri- and horticulture. They still containing important remaining natural areas Land use (CORINE, 2018) with high biodiversity, but lack good quality open area 278 115.30 km2 spaces for recreation. The different land uses built-up area 18,6 % of the dry heathland landscape in the north of Munich, like gravel mining, military use, and agriculture 48,6 % sheep pasturing, led to a diverse landscape with forests 28,6 % patches with rare species, which are put under Open green spaces incl. 3,0 % pressure by recreation and urban expansion. wetlands The landscape of the Dachauer Marsh, north- water bodies 1,1 % west of Munich, is a former moor area with remaining patches of moor and heathland and a high biodiversity. The area is nowadays characterised by agricultural use, and a weak connectivity for recreation. The area of the south-
48 Figure 22. View on the landscape of Munich North west of Munich is characterised by settlements development at regional level. The Regional Plan along the river Würm, large forest areas, (Regionalplan) is an intermediate tool combining grasslands and agriculture. It experiences loss of spatial and land use guidelines and includes landscape identity and conflicts between nature the Landscape development concept related to conservation and recreation. nature protection, conservation and ecological development. For Bavaria, a Regional Plan is Regional context developed for each of the eighteen planning regions. The actual planning sovereignty is with Being the third largest city in Germany, Munich the municipalities, though they need to consider is expected to continue to grow and become federal and regional policies. Municipalities more international and diverse. Since 1999, develop their own land use planning scheme, the number of inhabitants increased. A growth, which contains zoning and spatial distribution which is based on migration gains and on guidelines and includes several sectoral plans birth surpluses. At the end of 2018, 28% of the for specific functions. Based on the federal city’s population consisted of foreigners from law on nature protection, the Landscape plan around 190 countries and 16% had a migration (Landschaftsplan) adds conservation measures, background (Statistisches Amt München, 2019a). long-term sustainable planning for most The future population development will be important ecological features of territory. The city influenced mainly by the expected immigration of Munich has officially set the tool as binding, to Germany as well as indirect migration from yet in general, it is not considered a binding other German cities. The current forecast tool for planning. Other sub-documents are the assumes that the population will continue to Landscape Programme (Landschaftsprogramm) rise with to 1.8 million by the end of 2030. and the Landscape Framework plan Munich is, furthermore, one of the leading tourist (Landschaftsrahmenplan). A further tool is the destinations in Europe and the city in Germany Green Ordinance (Gründordnung). All these with the highest commuter numbers. In recent planning documents are fully integrated within the years, commuter and tourism numbers have different spatial planning levels and frameworks risen steadily. About 45% of employees in Munich and are part of both the Preparatory Land Use commute from outside the city (Statistisches Amt Plan (Flächennutzungsplan), and eventually the München, 2019b). Legally Binding Land Use Plan (Bebauungsplan). Moreover, for each local building plan and Planning context construction permit, legally measures need to be defined to preserve or enhance the ecological General planning policies are structured on and landscape values of the affected area. three layers developed by different governance bodies at federal, regional, and municipal level. At national and federal state level, the main Potentials and barriers planning tool is the Federal State Development Green spaces are increasingly seen as a Programme (Landesentwicklungsprogramm) that resource for housing development, which leads coordinates sectoral plans and pre-sets spatial to their decrease due to new housing areas
49 Pilot aims and activities The aim of the three pilot projects is to preserve and enhance open and green spaces through awareness-raising, improving collaboration between actors and across municipal borders, and increasing their commitment to open and green space development. With the Regional Management Munich South West, the aim was to raise awareness for natural treasures and strengthen people’s relationship with the landscape. An informal joint walk with NGOs along the Würm river kicked off the project. In cooperation with these key actors and external experts, the public treasure hunt was Figure 23. Stream in the Dachauer Moorland developed into an online survey in which citizens could mark their favourite places. To support participation, the survey was promoted on three and urban densification. Additional recreational local markets. With the initial actors, the project pressure induces qualitative decline of existing partners discussed the results, and selected ten green spaces. Existing green spaces can be places for publication. The final treasure map secured through purchase, zoning plans or became a popular post-card sized folded booklet, designation as compensation area, yet this available online and at local public facilities. costs major planning, financial and legal efforts. Inter-municipal cooperation is key for landscape Urban pressure also leads to more conflicts development of the Dachauer Marsh. With between different functions, such as between the Dachauer Moos Association, a landscape recreation and nature conservation. Strategic conference was organized to foster cross- plans allow to better balance interests by giving sectorial exchange among local actors, directions for the future. Yet, an approved plan decision-makers, political representatives, and is not an implemented plan. Between approval researchers. Perspectives from citizens, political and implementation, there is competition within statements, scientific lectures, and an expo of the planning department as well as with other experiences with practitioners from across the departments about designation of areas and region and abroad led to new ideas for landscape plots. In the past, Munich’s relationship with development of the Dachauer Marsh. Moreover, its neighbouring municipalities was also more a lasting exchange and growing network as well competitive. There was, and in some cases as commitment of different participants across all still is, fear in the smaller municipalities to be levels and disciplines was initiated. overrun by Munich. Nowadays, Munich needs comprehensive and inter-communal collaboration In 2007, the Heathland Association released a to reach certain planning objectives, such non-binding inter-communal masterplan - the as the Green Belt. However, local planning “Landscape Strategy Munich North”. The pilot sovereignty is strong and municipalities draw aims to re-activate this plan through better their incomes from trade tax. As a results, the readability by innovative forms of visualization Green Belt is scattered with commercial and and digital media. In addition, the Heathland industrial areas. Regional coordination, on Association relaunched its website and the the other hand, is weak. Regional plans and municipalities were supported to stronger organisations are present, yet have little power. emphasize the topic of “landscape” on their In municipalities, participatory processes are websites. still met with reluctance. They are seen as complex, time-consuming or costly. As planning processes are often bound by rules and stretch over long periods, it becomes harder to achieve participatory events and keep people involved.
50 cultivate the land. The most common cultivation crops are cereals, such as wheat, vegetables, fodder crops and grasslands. Most policies do not specifically relate to agriculture or farming, but they include directions affecting agricultural areas. In the conceptual document “Perspective Munich 2030”, the City of Munich developed guidelines to steer the development of open spaces, which also included guidelines regarding agricultural development. Farmers’ and agricultural stakeholders’ interest is mainly on productive or economic development. Agricultural land is expensive and in demand for urban expansion. Since 1990, about 3% of agricultural land was converted. The economic perspective in agriculture could potentially lead to conflicts with local NGOs for nature preservation, Often the same people and groups take part in in particular in the area of Dachauer Moos. these processes. Less organised groups, such Nevertheless, farmers are interested in nature as young people and immigrants, are harder to conservation policies, as they can affect reach and involve. farming activities. The proximity of many urban The need for participation is increasingly residents leads to conflicts between recreation acknowledged and more participatory and and agriculture, but offers also new (economic) PR activities are carried out. EU-funded opportunities. Agricultural stakeholders are projects allow to experiment with new forms of developing new recreational and cultural tourism stakeholder involvement and awareness raising. activities, such as vegetable gardens and farm Raising awareness on issues and benefits shops. of open green spaces gains more attention. Within the pilot projects, agricultural stakeholders Collaboration with local associations in informal have not been involved actively in the pilot projects increasingly plays a bigger role in the actions. However, within the VDM pilot, they implementation of participatory activities, as are regarded as an important stakeholder the hurdle to collaborate is less high and less group. The activities also are not specifically rules apply. Between different departments, targeted to enhance farmers’ contribution to a collaboration is promoted through working more balanced GI development in peri-urban groups on specific topics and projects. Also landscapes. other municipal stakeholders in the region gain awareness that issues need to be tackled on a supra-local level. Attitudes towards collaboration Main partners within LOS_DAMA slowly become more positive. A stronger regional Cooperation mainly took place with inter- institution might need to be organised. An municipal associations such as the Regional independent organisation that can put topics on Management Munich South West, Dachauer the agenda through EU-funding, work on cross- Moos Association and the Heathland Association boundary issues, and provide planning services as well as their member municipalities. The in particular for the smaller municipalities. project partners further worked together with other departments of the City of Munich Peri-urban agriculture (department of urban development, conservation authority), the Bavarian Ministry and regional About half of the land in the Munich region is management. designated as agricultural land. In particular, north of Munich on the gravel plain and in the rolling hills. Most of the arable land is owned by large landowners, who often also directly
51 GRENOBLE-ALPS
Pilot partner Grenoble-Alps Metropolis Landscape - Contractualisation and Grenoble is situated in the western Alps between Environment (GAM) the mountain ranges of Vercors, Chartreuse, Type of Regional public authority and Belledonne. Through the valleys run the organisation rivers Drac and Isère. The territory goes from the river plain at 200 m above sea level to Main urban centre Grenoble rocky mountains summits. The urban areas are Region Grenoble-Alpes mainly located in the valley, but about half of the Country France population live on the foothills and for a small part within the mountains ranges of Chartreuse. Population urban 272.492 inhabitants The landscape within the peri-urban areas are centre (Eurostat, 2014) rather “ordinary”; mainly composed of agricultural Population 667.158 inhabitants lands in the valleys, and forests and meadows functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) on the foothills. Yet, due to its specific location area surrounded by mountains, the metropolis’ area is at the crossroad of biodiversity corridors with exchanges between mountains and along valleys, and hosts several biodiversity spots: • the confluence between the Drac and the Isere rivers; • the four valleys of Isère-Amont, Isère-Aval, Drac and Romanche, which form gateways to the urban region with agricultural land and settlements on foothills; • the Champagnier plateau and the Belledonne balcony, which are more remote within a pastoral framework. The biodiversity hotspots in Grenoble are also represented by the seven metropolitan parks, amongst which the Vouillants’ park. Located in the foothills of Vercors from 200 to 800m, the recreational park “Les Vouillants” is part of the Figure 24. Land use map green belt of the Grenoble-Alps Metropolis’ urban area. At the interface between the urban valley and the beginning of the Vercors Plateau, it is Land use (CORINE, 2018) also the spot for hiking, cycling, climbing, and a place for families enjoying being outdoors within area 278 115.30 km2 a natural environment. Its diverse landscapes built-up area 8,5 % are composed of forests, agricultural lands, agriculture 24,0 % pastures, open fields and rock cliffs interspersed forests 49,4 % with a path network. The area still has a rich Open green spaces incl. 17,1 % biodiversity and is a refugee spot for wildlife. The wetlands persistence of extensive agriculture preserved water bodies 0,9 % some dry meadows, which are very favourable to flora and fauna. Such dry calcareous grassland are rare, and protected by European legislation. In addition, the site hosts a lot of protected birds and bats, for example the Wood warbler. Nevertheless, “Les Vouillants” has only been recognised as a biodiversity spot by main regional planning documents
52 Figure 25. View on the landscape of Grenoble ©Thierry Chenu
The landscape of the Grenoble-Alps Metropolis is Planning context under strong pressure due to the lack of available Although the French territorial government land (alpine geography) and urban sprawl. can be characterised as centralised, since In addition, it forms a setting for leisure and 1980 decentralisation processes provide more sports for many urban residents, who often do competences to provinces (Régions) and to not realize its natural quality. At the same time, inter-municipal associations (Métropoles or urban abandonment of pastoral practices on agricultural agglomerations). The Régions provide strategic land in the mountain ranges leads to loss of guidelines through the Regional Scheme for open space due to afforestation. All these factors Ecological Coherence, which is a land use and leads to landscape banalisation with chaotic, protection scheme. These guidelines are further low quality urban development and loss of the translated into planning documents at lower morphological heritage of the settlements on the levels. Départements are responsible for rural foothills. development and biodiversity policies related to sensitive natural areas. For urbanized areas, Regional Context Métropoles hold the main planning competences. Grenoble-Alps Metropolis is the second urban They design and implement the green and area of the Auvergne Rhône-Alpes Region blue framework financed by provinces at local and gathers 49 municipalities. Grenoble itself level and integrate additional biodiversity and represents the largest urban core within the landscape guidelines within local inter-municipal Alps region. The population is around 450.000 planning documents. inhabitants stretching over 543 km². Within the Several policies address the landscape related urban functional area, there live almost 700.000 issues. The national law on protection and inhabitants. Grenoble-Alps Metropolis is known development of landscapes from 1993 proposes to be an attractive territory, especially due to its measures to better integrate urban structures into specialisation in innovation and hi-tech research the landscape; Moreover, zones for protection facilities and industry. Its population is diverse, of architectural, urban and landscape heritage with a higher level of education and the share (ZPPAUP) are defined. Within the rural areas, of people under 30 years is larger than in other the establishment of “landscape contracts” with French Metropoles. Population growth is mainly local authorities should valorise rural setting and due to the natural balance, and is expected agricultural landscape. to continue. The Metropole has grown slowly The ALUR Law from 2014 aims to bridge the gap during the last 10 years, yet much of the urban between EU and local policies and to strengthen growth takes place outside its territory in the the implementation of the European Landscape form of urban sprawl in municipalities located 20 Convention. In all local planning documents, to 30 km away. The specific topography of the the concept of landscape is introduced and Metropole with its mountains and valleys creates improvements in landscape planning and inequities in the access of the metropolitan management are now to be measured through amenities and facilities. landscape quality objectives. Nevertheless,
53 Pilot aims and activities environmental and planning policies still have to be better linked to improve their efficiency A new inter-municipal planning document related and to promote a strong model to protect and to landscape and biodiversity have been issued valorise natural areas around the city. A recent in Grenoble-Alps Metropolis. The three pilot effort to tackle the landscape banalisation is activities aim at raising awareness on these the new inter-municipal planning document, issues within urban and regional planning for which identifies seven landscape unities to be local decision-makers, practitioners and the developed within the Grenoble region. general public. Organised stakeholders like farmers and NGOs Potentials and barriers for sports and nature cooperated with a gaming company to set-up an interactive and entertaining Landscapes in the metropole region of event. Through the resulting treasure hunt “7 Grenoble-Alpes are diverse: from agricultural Snakes of La Tour Sans-Venin” people were plains to mountain forests. Yet, local policies invited to discover our peri-urban landscapes. At do not give the same value to “ordinary” as to seven locations, comedians played characters “spectacular” landscapes. “Ordinary” landscapes related to fauna, flora, history and agriculture and are, however, important recreational areas so addressed, in October 2018, more than 1.500 for the growing urban population as well as people about multifunctionality of landscapes and visitors. Grenoble promotes itself as an “active” respectful interaction with nature. city. The multitude of recreational users generates conflicts between users as well as Four master classes were organised to improve with nature conservation. Natural areas often commitment of practitioners and decisions- already have to deal with biodiversity loss due makers to topics as landscape and biodiversity to abandonment of traditional management and to provide them with methods and tools practices. In the management organisations to balance effectively different functions. The for these areas, users, citizens and NGOs are master classes addressed the following topics: not represented. Conflicts of recreation with 1) landscape as a basis for urban design, 2) nature conservation, agriculture and forestry integrating people and nature in the semi-public are therefore barely considered. “Landscape” spaces of streets, 3) creating more sustainable is seen as a medium to bring different land agriculture by embedding it into landscape, uses together and align sectorial policies, which 4) integration of wildlife in the design of road affect peri-urban landscapes. A “landscape” law infrastructures. states, that urban planning documents need to Though many areas in the metropolitan area incorporate landscape objectives. As a result, the look rural, their inhabitants live an urban lifestyle. new metropolitan urban regulation plan creates Through an exhibition, the public can learn about the opportunity to formulate guidelines on the the changes of these peri-urban areas in the protection and management of landscapes. last 50 years as well as the influences of social- Meanwhile, the regional Grenoble-Alps economic changes and political decisions on Metropolis is better in addressing issues on the their transformations. The exhibition, however, landscape scale and brings these to the attention also shows future visions on how to move of elected officials. Moreover, they play a role in towards more sustainable landscapes. promoting supra-local collaboration and support municipalities, in particular smaller ones, through advisory processes, knowledge-sharing and pooled resources. Stakeholder involvement gives the opportunity to better address different land uses, users’ needs and relationships between users. Knowledge-sharing activities aim to raise awareness on and respect for other users as well as landscape and biodiversity. They further aim to activate and involve stakeholders in the governance and management of landscapes.
54 The diversity of stakeholders is seen as a chance Grenoble-Alps Metropolis issued two official to bring in technical knowledge, expertise and binding policies; one on ‘food and agriculture’ practical experience on landscape issues. and one on ‘forest and wood industry’. These documents aim to protect and sustainably Peri-urban agriculture manage open spaces and develop local economic cycles. Within the implementation Around 25% of the Grenoble region is designated framework of the ‘politique montaigne’, Grenoble- as agricultural land, which mainly consists Alps Metropolis further aims to increase of grasslands and cereal production. Since cooperation with local farmers. They also 1990, 4% of agricultural land transformed due implement several initiatives to foster urban to urbanisation, but also by abandonment of and organic farming. Through the cooperation, pastoral practices. Many of the plots in the synergies with cultural or recreational services foothills and mountains are economically not could be developed. profitable in comparison with the intensive agriculture in the valleys. The pilot activities are not specifically targeting agricultural issues, neither have Within France, agricultural areas are managed agricultural stakeholders been directly involved. essentially through the Common Agricultural Nevertheless, issues on the farming sector are Policy (CAP) of the European Union. This addressed through the involvement of local policy directly supports the producers, while political representatives in the Masterclasses. also focusing on rural development. The implementation of the CAP was on national level supported through the 2000 law on ‘solidarity Main partners within LOS_DAMA and urban renewal’ (SRU), which has been The main collaborating partners were from other strengthened in 2003, 2010, 2014, and 2015. departments of the Grenoble Alps Metropolis, Further support comes through the ‘National law environmental NGOs, and surrounding inter- for the future of agriculture, food and forestry’, municipal authorities issued in 2015.
Figure 26. Meeting in the open air to discuss landscape issues
55 VIENNA
Landscape Pilot partner City of Vienna - The Vienna Region lies at the meeting point of Department for Urban the Alps, Pannonia and the Bohemian massif, Development and cut by the Danube River. The landscape is very Planning (VIE) diverse: the Vienna Forest marks the slope of Type of Local public authority the Alps, the Danube National Park preserves organisation the last remaining major wetlands environment in Central Europe, the Neusiedler See is the Main urban centre Vienna biggest steppe lake of Central Europe and the Vienna Region plain of the Vienna Basin and the hills in the Country Austria north are fertile agricultural land. Population urban 1.338.533 inhabitants centre (Eurostat, 2014) Functionally and physically, the core city Vienna is expanding beyond its administrative borders Population 2.405.593 inhabitants into the city region, resulting in urban sprawl functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) and a need for green space. This also accounts area for the pilot area, which is located in the fertile plain. The area is mainly characterised by agriculture. Yet, due to encroaching low-density residential housing, gravel pits and dumping sites, a patchwork landscape evolved. In particular, the building of the express way in the north of Vienna had a fragmenting impact on the landscape and further weakened recreational and habitat connectivity. The pilot area is linked to the NATURA 2000 area Bisamberg and the prospective recreation zone “Norbert-Scheed- Wald”. To preserve landscape, different parts of the area are protected by the Viennese Landscape Conservation Act as a Landscape Protection Area. Sometimes former gravel pits and dumping sites also provide opportunities, such as the Rendezvousberg. This characteristic area with its former gravel pits and dump sites Figure 27. Land use map provides visitors a panoramic view as well as habitat for rare species, such as bee-eaters. Another important habitat for animals and appreciated recreational area crossing the pilot Land use (CORINE, 2018) area is the Marchfeld Canal. This canal has 2 area 278 115.30 km been built as to provide water for farming in built-up area 21,4 % the northeast region of Vienna, yet has in the agriculture 44,7 % meantime become a popular leisure zone for forests 27,1 % bicycling and hiking. The recreational use, in Open green spaces incl. 5,5 % particular in the agricultural areas, however, wetlands frequently leads to conflicts. water bodies 1,3 % Regional context The City of Vienna is the national capital of Austria and one of Austria’s federal states (Bundesland). It is by far the largest municipality in the country by size and population and is
56 Figure 28. View on the landscape on the east of Vienna one of the fastest growing metropolises in every province has a state-wide spatial planning the German-speaking region. From 2004 to concept, separate spatial strategies for regions, 2019, the population grew from 1.610.410 as well as sectoral development strategies. The to 1.897.491 inhabitants (Stadt Wien, 2019). most important protagonists of spatial planning According to forecasts, Vienna will continue to are the municipalities and cities: they have the grow and around 2030, the city will have more autonomous competence of local planning. than 2 million citizens. For the entire Viennese The federal state of Vienna issued the Nature agglomeration, which comprises the adjoining Conservation Act (Wiener Naturschutzgesetz) to districts of Lower Austria and parts of northern protect and preserve wildlife and natural features Burgenland, the population growth predicted of landscape. Large parts of the Viennese peri- from 2008 to 2030 equalled more than 400.000 urban areas are considered as nature reserve, inhabitants. Between the peri-urban and rural biospheres or ecological development areas, part of the FUA and Vienna, there are intense or are under another form of protection. Since commuting linkages. the establishment of the Viennese Green Belt in 1905, the Viennese Wood landscape is protected Planning context with a nearly total construction under the Building Austria is a federal State of which Vienna is the Code (namely Sww category). The Forest capital city as well as one of the nine federal Development Plan (Waldentwicklungsplan-WEP) states (Bundesland). As opposed to most other sets development goals for forest areas on a ten- European countries, Austria has neither a year basis and is organized around the four main planning law at the national level nor a national ecosystem services groups, such as economic competence of urban or spatial planning. In revenue of raw wood material, soil protection, the early 70s, the Austrian Conference on environmental benefits on climate, and support to Spatial Planning (ÖROK) was established. recreational uses. This is an association of the nine states, cities, communities and the national level. The main Potentials and barriers duties of the Conference on Spatial Planning are The pressure on peri-urban landscapes by the coordination of the various spatial planning urbanisation and recreation does not stop at systems and the coordination of the Austrian administrative borders. People from neighbouring planning agenda with the European Union, states and municipalities work in the city centre. especially with its various programmes. One People living in the centre go for recreation to of the main purposes of ÖROK is to develop neighbouring areas outside the city and the and publish the “Austrian Spatial Development state. Areas on both sides of the border are Concept” every ten years. The current version connected, physically and functionally. A GI is “The Austrian Spatial Development Concept solution, therefore, also needs to be cross- 2011”. Co-operation between the provinces in boundary. However, the division of competences border regions is voluntary but customary. Nearly
57 Pilot aims and activities multifunctionality of the cultural landscape and to find solutions, which reconcile recreational and The aim of the local pilot project is the agricultural activities. The various actors were development and long-term maintenance of involved through different formats, such as a a cross-municipal regional park in an area Green Space Conference, an Ideas Workshop, characterized by various ownership patterns dialogues, and field trips. Based on input from and a high land use pressure. The local pilot experts and citizens, a landscape plan was project focuses on new ways of cooperation, defined. This plan was further worked out with based on a close contact to different actors actors in a Local Action Plan, which functions as to achieve a common vision on green spaces a guide and implementation handbook supporting but also to find efficient ways of implementing the gradual realization of the Regionalpark green planning. A Steering Group, consisting of ‘DreiAnger’ as well as inspiring and encouraging politicians, members of the administration and other people to participate in the project. The other key actors from the region accompanied Regionalpark got its name through a name the process, worked on content and could searching activity, where people could vote for function as decision-making body. Together the area’s name. Quick measures, like a new with various actors, including citizens, the main cycle path, on site helped to make the project partners developed ideas to strengthen the visible and keep people engaged in the project.
Figure 29. View on Vienna from the pilot area
58 between federal, state and local authorities in Due to its location at the fertile plan of the Vienna Austria impedes cross-boundary collaboration. Basin, around half of the region consists of Regulative tools for collaboration between states agricultural land with mainly cereals, fodder crops and municipalities in border regions do not exist. and grasslands. Agricultural land is however also Collaboration is voluntarily and dependent on the under pressure due to urban development. Since goodwill of local stakeholders. On a local scale, 1990, about 4% of the agricultural land has been a fragmented and high percentage of private converted. Most of the arable land is directly land ownership hampers GI implementation. cultivated by farmers or farming companies. Participation of local stakeholders is resource- They have a predominant interest in productive intensive, as it requires time and professional or economic development connected with crops assistance, Yet, it is sometimes also met with production and focus on business-like investment anxiety due to unfamiliarity. The pilot project, models. and in particular the EU-funding, allows to test Within the pilot project, their interests are in and implement novel methods and strategies for particular in the synchronisation of the territorial cross-boundary collaboration. The collaboration development of the area with the political works only with people willing to take a chance development needs of the peri-urban areas of and through a robust and fair process built Vienna. Further conflict with recreational needs on mutual trust. Commitment to the project is could arise, if communication and adequate extended beyond the project run-time. Expert participatory processes is not implemented. advice supports a transparent decision-making Within the development of the DreiAnger process and have discussions on a factual Regionalpark, the involvement of farmers and basis. Professional assistance helps to avoid agricultural stakeholders is therefore essential. conflicts and organise stakeholder involvement Single farmers and trade unions have been and citizen participation. Implementation of involved from the beginning of the process in the measures boosts stakeholder commitment and design phase, but also in the set-up of a long- participation. Outcomes and experiences feed term management and stewardship scheme to into new planning policies for both sides of the maintain and enhance landscape features and administrative border. recreational services in the park.
Peri-urban agriculture Main partners within LOS_DAMA! On federal level, there are two policies, The City of Vienna worked closely together with who indirectly affect agriculture. The Nature the neighbouring city-municipality Gerasdorf, the Conservation Act (Wiener Naturschutzgesetz) province of Lower Austria and the 21st and 22nd identifies areas to protect and preserve wildlife districts of Vienna. and natural features of landscapes. In most of these areas, forestry and agricultural activities are not allowed. The City of Vienna issued the non-bonding agricultural development plan “AgSTEP”, which has been developed with the Viennese Chamber of Agriculture. This plan aims to enhance agriculture within city boundaries by harmonizing different planning tools (e.g. Vienna’s Green Belt) and supporting agricultural activities. Priority areas and supporting measures are defined to foster long-term development of farming activities.
59 SALZBURG
Pilot partner Salzburger Institute for Landscape Regional Planning and Housing (SIR) Salzburg is situated directly on the northern Type of Sectoral agency edge of the Alps, in the “Salzburg Basin. The organisation landscape of the city region is quite diverse. In the south, mountains and hills reach up Main urban centre Salzburg to 2.000m, while in front of them lay former Region Salzburg peat bogs areas, such as the Leopoldskroner Country Austria Moos. In the north lay the foothills of the Alps characterised by rolling plains with a mix of Population urban 114.123 inhabitants agriculture, forests, residential and commercial (Eurostat, 2014) centre areas. The City of Salzburg as well as all Population 350.242 inhabitants important traffic lines are located at the river (Eurostat, 2014) functional urban plain of the Salzach at 400m. The mountains area area of the Mönchsberg, Nonnberg, Rainberg and the Kapuzinerberg rise like islands out of the Salzach plain. Its domes, visible from a far, form the natural backdrop of the old town centre. Further adding to this distinctive topography, are the historical fortifications and the different appearance of the mountains.
As a countermeasure to the high land use pressure and low density urban sprawl in the Salzburg region, a collaboration of the City of Salzburg and surrounding municipalities defined a green belt in the peri-urban zone. The green belt is defined as a multifunctional priority area for ecology, recreation and agriculture, although the recreational quality varies, and is in particular in urban contexts hard to achieve. To further develop this regional green belt into a green infrastructure for recreation as well as nature conservation, a steering platform for an Figure 30. Land use map ecological compensation account, the so-called “Ökopool” (Eco-pool), is being established. This regionally coordinated platform manages Land use (CORINE, 2018) financing possibilities as well as a ‘pool’ of 2 area 278 115.30 km compensation areas. As part of the pilot built-up area 7,3 % project, the aim is to identify and plan, on a agriculture 35,8 % supra-local level, suitable compensation areas forests 45,4 % key for the green belt’s interconnectivity and Open green spaces incl. 9,0 % multifunctionality. At the same time, the ambition wetlands is to improve informal inter-municipal and cross- water bodies 2,4 % sectorial cooperation on a city-regional level.
Regional context In recent years in the Salzburg region, population in the rural areas decreased, while in urban centres and their surroundings the population
60 Figure 31. View on the landscape of the city of Salzburg increased. The City of Salzburg grew from To protect Salzburg’s urban landscape between 147.947 inhabitants in 2009 (Statistik Austria, the City of Salzburg and its neighbouring 2013) to 153.173 inhabitants in 2019 (Statistik municipalities, a green belt has been established. Austria, 2018). About 96% of this growth took The green belt’s area incudes includes the place in the northern part of Salzburg, with municipalities Anif, Anthering, Bergheim, further urban sprawl as a result. Due to people’s Elixhausen, Elsbethen, Eugendorf, Grödig, preferences for single-family houses, housing Großgmain, Hallwang, Salzburg, and Wals- policies and the use of secondary residences Siezenheim. The aim of the green belt is to in alpine areas of tourism, suburbanization is prevent further development in green spaces expected to continue, while in turn increasing in the peri-urban region. For areas within the traffic and commuting. More noticeable is the green belt, intense land uses are excluded or aging of the population due to the high life made difficult to pursue. Each municipality has expectancy, the low birth rates and “retirement to implement the green belt in their local spatial migration” from the EU. Rejuvenation is plans. The application of derogation in favour of anticipated through immigration of young people measures in the public interest of a municipality from foreign countries (Landesstatistik, 2018b). had led in several cases to reductions in the Salzburg is much loved by tourists and their green belt area. Now, special compensatory numbers are steadily growing with 29.509.546 measures have been anchored as a prerequisite stays in 2018 (Landesstatistik, 2018a). for derogation cases.
Planning context Potentials and barriers As Vienna, Salzburg is one of the nine federal Land pressure is kept high in the region through states (Bundesland) of Austria (for information a propagated narrative of housing shortage and on the planning system and competencies on capital investments by property developers. Due national level see the Pilot project profile of to the high land pressure, the willingness to carry Vienna).The City Region of Salzburg is part out greening or ecological measures is low. In of the federal state of Salzburg and to a minor the urban areas, quality green spaces are few extent part of Upper Austria, which borders and often deal with high recreational pressure. on Bavaria, Germany. The main document, Though green space concepts for the City of regarding landscape policies, is the Salzburg Salzburg are available, there seems to be a lack Nature Conservation Act, which acts at the of plans on how to implement the green spaces. province level and is dedicated to the protection Also on a regional level, the implementation of biotopes and species through the identification of multifunctional GI is challenging. On the of protected areas. As in Vienna, the Federal state level of the Land of Salzburg, regional Forest Act of 1975 includes the Forest programmes, such as the Green Belt, are in Development Plan (Waldentwicklungsplan – place and can be mandatory for municipalities to WEP), which is to be developed every ten year implement in their local spatial plans. Difficulties for sustainable management of woodlands and seem to appear at the supra-local level, forests. between the municipal and regional (Land) level.
61 Pilot aims and activities SIR re-activated the „Open Space Fund“ to further develop the regional peri-urban green belt for recreation and nature conservation. This fund intends to provide financial support for regional compensation measures. The aim is to identify and plan, on a supra-local level, suitable compensation areas key for the green belt’s interconnectivity and multifunctionality. For this purpose, the “Eco-pool” is set up as a regionally coordinated inter-communal platform, which manages a “pool” of compensation areas as well as financing possibilities for their enhancement. In addition, it aims to improve informal inter- municipal and cross-sectorial cooperation on a city-regional level. To establish the “Eco-Pool”, SIR and the steering group, consisting of the main partners, collaborated with the company “Revital”. Together they carried out an extensive GIS-analysis to identify possible compensation areas. A strategic landscape plan should prevent ad-hoc compensation measures and secure green spaces on the long-term, while local action plans support the implementation of the first compensation measures. A catalogue of measures provides a basis of future negotiations with landowners. These outputs were supported through input from workshops with actors, such as landowners, farmers and local decision- makers. A wider professional public was informed about the “Eco-pool” through forum events.
Figure 32. Exkursion to the renaturation project at the flood plains of the river Salzach
62 Between municipalities, competition appears to outweigh collaboration. Derogation rules are applied to favour measures in interest of one municipality, yet might have negative effects on a larger scale. For instance, when parts of the designated green belt are built up. Municipalities surrounding the city of Salzburg increasingly have a peri-urban character, but they consider themselves more as rural communities. Sectorial approaches still prevail, as the responsibility for integrative is undefined. Chances are seen in establishing more regulation and financial incentives, such as capitalisation of green spaces through compensation schemes. For derogation cases, such compensation measures are now a prerequisite.
Peri-urban agriculture Just over a third of the Salzburg region is defined as agricultural land, which consists mainly of grassland and cultivation of fodder crops. Due to urban sprawl, the amount of agricultural land went down since 1990 with 6%. Relevant policies are mostly related with nature conservation, for instance the Land and Nature Conservation Act. Specific contracts with landowners aim to enhance sustainable management of land according with nature conservation requirements. The pilot actions are essentially devoted to the development of a land exchange scheme through an “Open Space Fund”, which seeks to better balance the deployment of compensation areas connected with building development programmes. The tool is mostly applied through a ‘top-down’ approach. Nevertheless, farmers and agricultural stakeholders are involved in the pilot project from the start, as they are key players in Salzburg’s peri-urban areas. Their involvement would allow strengthening the impact of measures.
Main partners within LOS_DAMA! In the pilot project, SIR collaborated with the Regional Association Salzburg City and its surrounding communities, the City of Salzburg, the Federal State of Salzburg and the District Authority of Salzburg.
63 TRENTO
Pilot partner City of Trento - Landscape Department for Parks The City of Trento is located at the narrow valley and Gardens (TRENT) floor of the Adige river in the southern Alps, which Type of Local public authority runs from North to South. The rivers Fersina and organisation Avisio cross the city from East to West before reaching the Adige river. The topography has a Main urban centre Trento strong influence on land uses. The valley floor Region Autonomous Province of is around 200 metres above sea level, while Trento the nearby mountains Bondone and Calisio can Country Italy reach up to 2.000 metres. The steep western mountains mainly host hamlets, grasslands and Population urban 103.721 inhabitants woodland. On the eastern slopes are on the centre (Eurostat, 2014) lower parts suburbs and vineyards, while higher Population 235.059 inhabitants woodlands dominate. The valley floor provides functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) room for housing, other built-up areas and area intensive agriculture. Along the North-South axis, the region is well connected through the Brenner motorway and railway line from Munich to to Verona. Natura2000 and local nature protection sites consists of riparian habitats along the rivers or mixed woodland on the mountain slopes. The development of the city since 1950s has been quite chaotic, and peripheral areas are now suffering a lack of services, ecological and recreational connectivity, and good quality open spaces. The heterogeneous peri-urban areas span from the valley floor to the neighbourhoods placed at the foothills. They are characterized by a complex mix of built and open spaces. Built space is made of former industrial compounds, commercial buildings, and residential units intertwined by important infrastructural axis. Open spaces consists of agricultural areas with public parks and fallow lands located in the Figure 33. Land use map in-between spaces with a lack of connections between them. Agriculture consists mainly Land use (CORINE, 2018) of highly intensive vineyard and fruit trees cultivation. Old structures can still be found in area 278 115.30 km2 the area, such as a former canal network and built-up area 4,5 % a Roman road, which now forms an important agriculture 11,8 % trekking route. forests 60,3 % Open green spaces incl. 22,7 % Regional context wetlands The province of Trento has 538.579 inhabitants water bodies 0,7 % (ISPAT, 2019) of which around 118.000 live in the municipality of Trento (Municipality of Trento, 2019). The majority lives in neighbourhoods at the Adige valley floor. Growth rates are relatively low as the natural birth/death ratio is negative (ISPAT, 2017). Yet, migration rates
64 Figure 34. View on the landscape of the Adige Valley with the City of Trento are positive as the city offers good working and coordinate land use decisions between opportunities, and attracts people from other the province and the municipalities. Regional municipalities in the province, other Italian Landscape Plans tend to preserve and enhance regions and foreigners. The population with landscape and provide guidelines for urban foreign origins decreased in recent years development and preservation of landscape with 12.843 immigrants in 2017 to 13.670 in features. For Trento, the most important territorial 2012 (Municipality of Trento, 2019). Foreign plans related to landscape are the Provincial residents form roughly 9% of the population. The Urban Plan (Piano Urbanistico Provinciale - PUP) population is growing faster in the suburbs than and the territorial plan for valley communities in the centre. A small, but growing, number of (Piano Territoriale di Comunità – PTC). people is moving to the bordering municipalities On national level, there are some important in the Adige or Valsugana valley. The overall policies. Law 15 “Legge Galasso” from 1985 population is expected to grow at low rates until introduced the landscape plan as compulsory 2030 (Municipality of Trento, 2019). The ageing planning document for regional and local population will be more of an issue. The number planning documents. The law also introduced of people older than 80 years increased with severe building limitations on areas of very more than 2.000 people in the last ten years from high landscape value. Connected with the 2004 4.938 (4,7% of the population) to 7.378 (6,5%) law on “landscape and territory” is the Code of (Municipality of Trento, 2019). During working Cultural Heritage and Landscape, which identifies hours, non-resident employees almost double landscapes with historical or cultural heritage the city’s population, as Trento holds the main value and defines preservation measures. administrative offices, seats of local institutions, a Moreover, the ratification and implementation of university with 15.000 students, and some major the “European Landscape Convention” has been industries. Tourism grows comparably slow, yet established through Law 14 of 2006. in recent years, around 250.000 tourists visit the city annually (PAT - Servizio Statistica, 2019). Potentials and barriers Planning context The economic crisis, reduced population growth and high taxes on land property and building The Italian administrative structure is composed rights reduces land pressure. Yet, the land is of four administrative levels: the State, which is fragmented with small and scattered plots. divided into 20 regions; these regions are divided Land property is divided over various land into 80 provinces, two autonomous provinces, owners with many agricultural land privately six municipal consortia, eighteen inter-municipal owned and abandoned. Few initiatives to reuse regional consortia and fourteen metropolitan abandoned plots have been implemented. The cities; the provinces are further divided into municipality aims to involve local stakeholders municipalities. National government provides and institutions, such as neighbourhood councils, guidelines for territorial development, but regional schools and universities, to collaborate on government further define planning acts, such planning and management actions for green the Regional Territorial Plans and Provincial open spaces. Integrative themes as green Territorial coordination plans. These define infrastructure, aiming at bringing issues as
65 Figure 35. Peri-urban agriculture plays a important role as GI in Trento North
Pilot aims and activities more than 50 kilometres of pathways have been mapped and described. Based on the collected Trento’s pilot activities were dedicated to data, a pathway map for citizens and tourists exploring and enhancing the ecological was made to help them to discover highlights of and social connectivity of peri-urban green the peri-urban areas. This data was also used infrastructure. As these topics are relatively for three local designs for pathways and green unknown in Trento, much focus went on the areas. Five different primary and secondary one hand to raising awareness and sharing school classes were involved in design and knowledge, and on the other hand on developing dissemination activities on peri-urban parks tools to support local administration activities. and pathways. The results include a preliminary Two extensive mappings were conducted for all design for a path renovation and a ‘discovery peri-urban areas; one on agricultural activities, game’ on ecological values to be used with other vegetable gardens, ecological elements and schools. Furthermore, provide the resulting maps unused plots, and the other on the features provided input for a database on unused plots and conditions of slow mobility networks. In the and for the development of a comprehensive mapping of the pathways, citizens and students strategy and other future projects. were actively involved. Next to the mapping, interviews with local actors were conducted to better understand the main management challenges. In total more than 4.000 plots and
66 biodiversity, agriculture and mobility together, the “urban organic district”. Yet, many still do lack, however, coordination and cooperation not recognize the potential of agricultural land within the municipality. The fragmentation to provide recreational and nature protection and complexity of the administrative structure services. hinder the set-up of integrative activities and Within the pilot project, farmers and agricultural policies. Current spatial and urban planning stakeholder were not directly involved. However, policies are often sectorial and based on other small-scale farming businesses have complex regulatory schemes, such as building been actively involved in the development of and zoning plans. Such instruments are often guidelines to strengthen urban and peri-urban inefficient in addressing multifunctionality and agriculture, while other actors were involved in rigid to change. To enhance cooperation across the management of community gardens. the administrative structure, cross-departmental working groups are established. The LOS_ DAMA! pilot partner plays an active role in Main partners within LOS_DAMA! this by collaborating with other departments The main collaborators of the City of Trento on pilot project activities. Moreover, a more were the other City Departments on planning, comprehensive planning approach is taken. economic development, and participation; local Activities are focused on different steps in the neighbourhood associations; schools; research planning process – from analysis to policy – and institutions; and neighbouring municipalities. focus on different scale levels – from city to plot level. Outcomes and experiences from these activities feed into the process for a new strategic plan on city level.
Peri-urban agriculture Locally there are laws specifying European Common Agriculture Policy measures. A provincial law from 2015 on sustainable planning of woodland and forests affects agriculture in the Trento region. Agriculture in the Trento region is mainly concentrated in the valleys with fruit cultivation and vegetable production and in the foothills vineyards. In the mountainous areas, extensive grasslands are most common. Only about 12% of the land is considered as agricultural land. Moreover, the region of Trento has the worst decline from all pilot regions with 8,5% loss since 1990. The complexity and fragmentation of agriculture in peri-urban Trento is high. Currently, the main conflicts concern soil consumption by urban development and the implementation of nature protection measures. Conflicts between different land uses could be amplified. Nevertheless, farmers are increasing interested in developing more multifunctional socially-inclusive activities to diversify traditional farming businesses. Most of the businesses are very small-scale, family-owned farms. They mainly focus on optimisation of cultivation processes and economic development. A small group of producers are working to develop
67 REGION PIEDMONT
Pilot partner Piedmont Region - Landscape Environment, Territorial The Piedmont Region is surrounded by three Government and sides; by the Cottian Alps, the Pennine Alps and Protection Directorate the Apennines. A high level of morphological (PIED) variety with mountains, extensive hill areas Type of Regional public authority and plains characterise the territory. The area organisation between the last Alpine slopes, towards the plain of Turin and the ridge of the eastern Turin Main urban centre Turin hill is crossed by a dense river network afferent Region Piedmont to the river Po and its tributaries Dora Riparia, Country Italy Chisola, Sangone Stura di Lanzo and Malone. Other peculiar landscape components are the Population urban 763.923 inhabitants morainic hill with the ancient northern terraces, centre (Eurostat, 2014) the Po hill and the San Giorgio Mountain with Population 1.781.018 inhabitants a moorland landscape. The central part of functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) the extension of the Turin Plains has a rural area character. To the north and south, the medium flat lands present an abundance of waters and springs that determine its agricultural character. Just over 57% of the region consists of rural areas with uses, such as intensive agricultural areas, rice paddies, peri-urban agriculture and vegetation typical for agricultural landscape of plains like hedges, wooded patches and rows. Natural or semi-natural ecosystems, such as woods, highland meadows, bushes and pioneer vegetation areas, as well as aquatic ecosystems, river areas, areas of fluvial vegetation and wetlands cover about 22% of the territory. The preservation of these areas and its benefits to people is one of the challenges the region faces. Due to abandonment of former extensive management practices, some of these semi- natural areas are being altered. Moreover, natural, semi-natural and agricultural lands are Figure 36. Land use map increasing lost by urbanisation, in particular by ongoing urban sprawl. Urban settlements and Land use (CORINE, 2018) infrastructure make up about 21% of the region. area 278 115.30 km2 The pilot project focuses on the area of built-up area 14,5 % the strategic project “Corona Verde”, which agriculture 52,3 % considers the sustainable development of the forests 17,2 % metropolitan area of Turin through the creation Open green spaces incl. 15,4% and management of a green infrastructure, that wetlands integrates the UNESCO World Heritage “Crown water bodies 0,6 % of Delights” and “Savoy Residences” with a green belt of parks, rivers and rural areas.
68 ©Michele D’Ottavio Figure 37. View on the landscape of the metropolitan region of Turin
Regional context six municipal consortia, eighteen inter-municipal regional consortia and fourteen metropolitan The centre of the Piedmont Region is the city cities; the provinces are further divided into of Turin with about 875.698 inhabitants in 2019 municipalities. The planning system can be (ISTAT, 2019c). The Metropolitan City of Turin characterized as unitary, but regional laws remain replaces the Province of Turin. It comprises the main source of planning regulations. the City of Turin and 315 other municipalities (Citta’ Metropolitana di Torino, 2018) and hosts National government provides guidelines for 2.259.523 inhabitants (ISTAT, 2019c). For the territorial development, but regional government third consecutive year compared to the previous further define laws and planning acts, such year, Piedmont’s population is decreasing. In the Regional Territorial Plans and Provincial comparison with 2018, the number of residents Territorial coordination plans. These define the decreased in 2019 with 9.597 (ISTAT, 2019c). structures to which local authorities prepare the The population decline is caused by a low birth land use plans and coordinate land use decisions rate, but also due to past denaturalisations, between the province and the municipalities. the female population decreased. Compared The Piedmont Region implemented two main with the year before, the number of migrants, planning tools for regional planning; the Regional both domestic and from abroad, increased in Development Plan and the Regional Landscape 2019 with 8.547 people in total (ISTAT, 2019a, Plan. The latter tends to preserve and enhance 2019b). The balance between emigration and landscape and provide planning guidelines for immigration numbers for both domestic and local and urban development and preservation of international is, however, only slightly positive, landscape features. but largely below the numbers recorded in the Nevertheless, there are some important policies first decade of the century. The Piedmontese on national level. Law 15 “Legge Galasso” population decline is intense compared with other from 1985 introduced the landscape plan as central northern regions or the rest of Italy. The compulsory planning document for regional decline was already forecasted at least twenty and local planning documents. The law also years ago. By now, the negative natural dynamic introduced severe building limitations on areas became a structural issue and Piedmont has a of very high landscape value. Connected with higher mortality rate than the national average the 2004 law on “landscape and territory” is as well as a larger share of elderly people in the the Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, Piedmont population. which identifies landscapes with historical or cultural heritage value and defines preservation Planning context measures. Moreover, the ratification and implementation of the “European Landscape The Italian administrative structure is composed Convention” has been established through Law of four administrative levels: the State, which is 14 of 2006. divided into 20 regions; these regions are divided into 80 provinces, two autonomous provinces,
69 Pilot aims and activities Potentials and barriers Corona Verde is a strategic project of Region Public policies affecting landscape should be Piedmont, concerning green infrastructure (GI) better aligned, in particular rural and urban of the metropolitan area of Turin. The GI of policies, which fall under the responsibility of Corona Verde is a system of open spaces to different departments. GI and ES are considered improve biodiversity as well as other ecological, as intergrative concept, which support an economic, social and cultural functions. The interdisciplinary approach. On a regional level, Corona Verde is building relationships within the an ES assessment and strategic GI concept city and between the city and the surrounding are being implemented. These concepts need area. The pilot activity aims at implementing to be further translated to policies on local and green infrastructures principles according supra-local level. Incorporating new concepts to a multi-scale approach, from the regional into municipal policies is often a long and political scale of the Corona verde to the basin scale process. Political will and support is essential, but of the Stura di Lanzo river and testing zones political priorities often change after elections. in the municipalities of Settimo, San Mauro Moreover, municipalities can be reluctant to Torinese and Mappano. Large-scale landscape- change policies and processes, often as they are environmental surveys were conducted for the too small to have the capacity to do so. The lack area of Corona Verde and were used to identify of capacity also hinders supra-local collaboration. the phenomena causing vulnerability. The Besides, there are no instruments or incentives outcomes helped to identify the role of the area to stimulate cooperation between municipalities. Stura di Lanzo within the overall Corona Verde The top-down approach also leaves little room for system regarding vulnerabilities. In addition, local stakeholders to bring in their wishes, needs an ecosystem services (ES) assessment was and experiences. The strong academic focus carried out with support of an ES stakeholder from the natural sciences further deepens the analysis and participatory mapping of ES. This discrepancy with practice. For local stakeholders, assessment helped to identify stakeholders, the process can quickly become too technical their interests, roles and powers, as well as to and incomprehensible, which clouds the added involve these stakeholders in the pilot activities. value of the project. Good communication and A comparison of the vulnerability study and the understanding of governance and participation ES assessment, allowed understanding how ES are called for, yet capacities and capabilities provision was reduced, and how ecosystems are often lacking. The project is made more could be restored or developed to mitigate accessible for a range of stakeholders by easy- vulnerabilities and improve resilience. Based on to-read blogs and articles on the concepts, this knowledge, general strategies and guidelines their benefits and the project’s achievements. for landscape transformations on lower scale In particular, concrete project outputs help to levels were developed. These strategies and show the benefit of EU-projects and to improve guidelines were incorporated into a plan for stakeholder collaboration. Previous successful Green and Blue Infrastructures (GBI) in which programs helped to build a strong stakeholder different types of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) network. Collaborative projects can be further were identified. promoted through financial incentives, such as funding or support for funding application. At the same time, integrative concepts can be incorporated in legislation, making it mandatory for municipalities to consider certain guidelines. Instead of making procedures more complicated, aligning contradictory policies might make it easier for municipalities to implement them.
70 Peri-urban agriculture the Torino metropolitan area. More than half of the Piedmont region consists In spite of the local partners’ commitment, the of agricultural land, though since 1990 the involvement of farmers has not been easy. amount of agricultural land decreased with 4%. The local chamber of farmers and trade union Agriculture and farm typologies are very different; “Confagricoltura” has been involved in project ranging from small-scale agro-tourism activities meetings to communicate about or give feedback to large-scale industrial crop production facilities. to ongoing pilot activities. Two individual In the upper valley of the Stura di Lanzo, the farmers have been directly involved in project farms’ structure is more fragmented with a high activities, yet very limited in scope and scale. presence of small family-owned businesses and Actors have been invited to selected parallel organic farming. In this area, there is a relatively events hosted by the Piedmont Region to share high interest in developing multifunctional and exchange proposals on agriculture, green agricultural businesses in which synergies with infrastructures, and EU policies. The Piedmont recreational or nature protection interventions Region established the Rural Development could be fostered. The lower part of the valley, Program, which defines measures to enhance closer to the Torino metropolitan area is devoted multifunctionality and coherence of rural areas. to more intensive industrial agriculture. The The Regional Planning Framework includes interest of the larger landowners is on preserving policy guidelines for forests, pastures, and and enhancing economic and productive values grasslands and the Territorial Forestry Plan aims of the land. The focus on economic revenue to sustain a balanced development of woodlands might potentially lead to more conflict with nature and pastures. conservation and restoration. Currently, there is not much conflict as local farmers take a Main partners within LOS_DAMA! neutral position with a low interest in developing Piedmont region collaborated with the ecological services. Though farmers’ interests Metropolitan City of Torino, with experts from are multi-faceted, their interests can also be ISPRA, and associations for environmental categorised as political as they want to be protection. represented in planning processes and foster the recreational potential of the peri-urban areas of
Figure 38. View on the river Po in the heart of Turin
71 LJUBLJANA MARSH
Pilot partner Urban Planning Institute Landscape of the Republic of Ljubljana is situated at the south of the Kamnik- Slovenia (UIRS) Savinja Alps, close to where the Alpine and Type of education, research and Dinaric geological structures meet. The major organisation consultancy agency part of the Ljubljana Urban Region (LUR) is located in the Ljubljana basin, which consists Main urban centre Ljubljana of several plains of gravel river deposits. The Region Ljubljana natural environment is relatively well preserved Country Slovenia and comprised of many different habitats; from karst and mountain meadows to forests and Population urban 263.199 inhabitants marshy plains. The Ljubljana Marsh Nature Park centre (Eurostat, 2014) or Ljubljansko barje stretches to the south-west Population 546.314 inhabitants of Ljubljana and is Slovenia’s largest complex functional urban (Eurostat, 2014) of marshes, wet grasslands with hedges and area forests, shrubs and watercourses. This protected area is characterised by rich biodiversity as well as cultural values; a result of cohabitation of people and nature. Most of the protected, classified animal and plant species and habitat types are vitally dependent on the preservation of the wetland character of the Ljubljansko barje ecosystem and on the maintenance of its extensive management. Over two thirds of the surface area are agricultural land, most of it taken up by meadows (46%), and fields and gardens (31%). However, transition to more intensive agriculture increasingly put a strain on preservation of the Ljubljana Marsh. The gradually expanding urban areas currently account for about 5% of the park. Settlements are mainly located on the southern edge of Ljubljansko barje, along the main roads and on the raised part in the central area. Figure 39. Land use map The Ljubljana Marsh Nature Park is an attractive setting for leisure activities for inhabitants and visitors of the nearby-located city of Ljubljana. Land use (CORINE, 2018) The spatial values of the area are a key driver, which attracts more and more visitors to some area 278 115.30 km2 places. This in turn puts additional pressure on built-up area 6,9 % nature conservation and ecological connectivity. agriculture 26,2 % Yet, recreation is unevenly distributed and forests 56,0 % many places still lack qualitative recreational Open green spaces incl. 10,7% spaces and infrastructure. The municipalities wetlands of the Ljubljana Marsh Nature Park start to water bodies 0,3 % see the development of nature-based outdoor recreational use for local inhabitants as well as for (sustainable) tourism as a potential for the area. Development of nature-based recreation as well as the Nature Park often find itself in conflict with agricultural use.
72 Figure 40. View on the landscape of the Ljubljana Marshland
Regional context development agencies stimulate inter-municipal cooperation, especially when it comes to drafting The Ljubljana Urban Region (LUR) is the most and implementing the regional development prosperous and most densely populated region programmes. At the national level, the Spatial in Slovenia with more than 25% of the Slovene Development Strategy of Slovenia (SDSS, 2004) population. From 2008 to 2019, the population in is an umbrella document, which sets up the main the region grew from 508.607 to 549.171 (SORS, objectives for spatial development, including 2019b). In the period from 2006 to 2019, the environment and landscape protection, and offers share of population in age group 0-14 increased a framework to harmonize sectoral policies, by 20,6%, in the group of 14-65 years by 3,1% plans, and strategies. Regarding landscape, and in the group of 65+ years by 30,2% (SORS, the Spatial Planning Act (ZureP-2) establishes 2019c). At the national level, the number of a framework for sustainable development and elderly people is expected to increase, while the effective use of land at the regional level. The act share of the working age population decreases. defines protected areas as well as the regional Yet, due to the concentration of employment and green system and contributes in such way to educational institutions, the population of LUR is the preservation of valuable natural as well as expected to further increase due to migration of built structures. To identify protection areas, young and educated people. On the other hand, the Landscape Plan is introduced as a specific outmigration from Ljubljana to smaller towns and part of planning documents. Municipalities villages in the LUR might also continue. Typical further elaborate the national policies into suburbanization in the nearby suburbs has, over municipal spatial plans. In the municipal spatial the past decade, given way to peri-urbanization plans, strategic objectives for municipal spatial in rural settlements. Especially rural settlements development as well as operational land use in the hilly southern and eastern part of the plans with zoning regulations are defined. Urban region experienced the fastest relative population design plans should contain an ‘urban green growth. In the nearby suburbs, however, internal system’ plan as a background study to define development and densification of settlements new development areas. could be observed. These processes further increase commuting in LUR, even though in 2016 already more than half of the employees were Potentials and barriers commuting from neighbouring as well rather The various interests in the Ljubljana Marsh distant Slovenian regions. The attractiveness Nature Park are often conflicting and actors have of LUR, and especially the city of Ljubljana, diverging perspectives. Moreover, fragmented for domestic and foreign tourists increased private landownership blocks development and significantly. The number of overnight stays of existing instruments seem ineffective. Among foreign tourists rose from 793.419 in 2010 to several actors, there seems to be planning 2.067.395 in 2018 (SORS, 2019a). fatigue as they feel everything has already been discussed and planned. Experiences Planning context of previous projects need to be considered to learn, where they have failed and to see Slovenia is a unitary country with planning how another perspective or approach might competences on two levels: the national level add value. Keeping actors interested is hard and on the level of the 212 municipalities. and fundamental differences in worldview, Even if the regional level is missing, regional entrenched standpoints and an unwillingness
73 Pilot aims and activities to hear other perspectives impede constructive dialogues between actors. Participation can Through development of a thematically focused lead to disappointment from both sides due green infrastructure plan for the Ljubljana Marsh to questionable effectiveness and limited Nature Park, UIRS explored the possibilities organisation capacity. Key actors should be for synergies between nature protection, included, but others can join the process if they recreation and leisure, local development, want or keep up to date about the project through and other land uses. The focus on leisure and accessible information. Active local organisations recreational purpose is based on initial spatial offer possibilities to link up with activities or and stakeholder analyses defining the pilot catalyse smaller projects. Local initiatives are area’s context, its spatial characteristics and often dependent on individuals and are halted development trends. At the same time, UIRS due to a lack of financing or political support. raised awareness and created shared knowledge Such initiatives might benefit from regional about the importance of nature-based outdoor development agencies, which can provide leisure activities to alleviate conflicts and create legislative and financial support. room for finding common solutions. Municipalities are often in economic competition On the inter-municipal sub-regional level, the for housing and industrial areas. Smaller project group of landscape architects developed municipalities feel at times dominated by the City in consultation with involved municipalities, and of Ljubljana and do not share the same issues local landscape experts a proposal for green (e.g. rural vs. urban). The municipalities, as infrastructure for recreation and leisure time. also other actors, lack the capacity and skills to The thematic GI proposal was designed from work on cross-sectorial or cross-border topics. three users’ perspectives: 1) living quality of This might also explain the lack of coordination the local population; 2) recreational and leisure with neighbouring municipalities. Yet, some use by visitors from the region; and 3) tourists municipalities understand that it is better to start and site-seeing visitors. For each of the three planning before issues arise and coordinate user groups, main places of interest and needs issues to address them adequately. Such were discussed and optimized. On the local municipalities can take an example role and level, UIRS conducted behaviour mapping in influence other municipalities by showing tangible two locations to gain better understanding of results. Another issue is that enforcement of the existing conflicts between high natural and plans and policies is weak. What happens on the ecological values and recreational use, and of ground might be different in reality. the functional and spatial requirements of visitors. The results were presented and discussed with Landscape and GI are seen as promising concerned actors in a joint workshop. Both pilot concepts, yet are still relatively unknown activities provided proposals to develop a more in Slovenian planning and legislation. The comprehensive network for hiking and cycling, preparation of new spatial strategies for a national to co-manage recreational areas, and to define green infrastructure as well as cooperation with additional multi-functional areas for recreational other projects on GI provided an opportunity to and leisure activities. discuss GI in a broader context and different planning levels. For GI implementation, land use plans seem to be a bottleneck, as the ideas of connectivity and multifunctionality are lost by conversion into spatial planning units. In particular, multifunctionality creates practical implications regarding financing and management responsibility for green spaces. Moreover, it requires coordinating planning and management strategies between sectorial departments, which barely work together.
74 Figure 41. Recreation at and along the water in the Ljubljana Marshland
Peri-urban agriculture area affect agriculture in a positive and negative way. More conflicts with recreational needs The number of agricultural land in the Ljubljana could arise in case of unbalanced use of the region has been stable since 1990 and landscape, as visitors are concentrated in few comprises about a quarter of the land use. Most spots across the area. of the agricultural fields are in use for cereal production or grasslands. The national Rural The pilot actions have been devoted to balance Development Programme 2014-2020 has a the interests of agriculture, nature conservation direct effect on agricultural land by promoting and recreation, for instance by developing a measures to enhance competitiveness of farming policy framework to enhance integration between and forestry sectors, promoting organic farming, different functions in the marsh area. In the and developing measures to counterbalance process, farmers and agricultural stakeholders depopulation in remote areas. The Ministry of have been considered as important actors and Agriculture, Forestry and Food issues also other were given the possibility to provide a feedback. acts affecting agriculture, such as the Agriculture However, they were not actively involved in the Act (2008), the Agricultural Land Act (2011), project activities. and the Act on Forests (1993). These are called “umbrella acts” and are followed by specific Main partners within LOS_DAMA! regulatory and planning acts. UIRS collaborated on the pilot project A large part of the Ljubljana Marsh Nature Park activities with the Ljubljana Marsh Nature is under nature protection. Due to the specificity Park Management, municipalities sharing the of the area, farmers are an important stakeholder Park area, local tourism associations, regional group as they own and manage the land. Development Agency of the Ljubljana Urban Farmers are cooperating with local authorities Region and the Ministry for Environment and in setting policy and implementation measures Spatial Planning. within the landscape development plan. Some farmers are already actively involved in nature protection and conservation measures, while others continue to put pressure on nature by moving from extensive to intensive agriculture. Keeping and enhancing the economic value of agricultural plots is of key interest for the local farmers. Strong synergies with nature protection measures could be further developed. Another chance is to expand recreational and cultural services. Currently, the presence of visitors and tourists attracted by the spatial qualities of the
75 Figure 42. Recreation lake in the Ljubljana Marshland
76 Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! REFLECTION
77 Figure 43. Questionnaire at the research lab at pilot site at the Ljubljana Marshland
78 LESSONS FROM TRANSDISCIPLINARY ACTION by Karsten Berr
The major aim of the LOS_DAMA! project practitioners and theorists on key topics proved was to preserve and enhance the natural to be the core of the problem. and cultural assets of peri-urban landscapes The challenge was in particular to work with in alpine metropolitan areas through green people of different professional and cultural infrastructure and governance. Therefore, the backgrounds in different national languages, project employed a transdisciplinary approach because technical terminology and perspectives in which practice and research cooperated on topics were at times different, especially on to enhance collaboration across sectors and broad topics such as landscape and spatial between different actors at different levels; from planning. This led to considerable friction, local to EU-level. Moreover, the international coordination complications, and loss of time. In orientation of the project allowed for exchange addition, as written documents should mediate across borders and cultures. Of great importance between theory and practice, there were different for the LOS_DAMA! project are three forms perspectives and expectations on writing of communication and cooperation: firstly the style. Many researchers are used to a specific communication of scientific and non-scientific academic writing style, which might not be easy views, perspectives, theories and intentions to understand for practitioners or researchers within transdisciplinary cooperation, secondly the from other disciplines. This sometimes required a communication and cooperation of governmental redrafting of one’s own point of view through long and non-governmental challenges, views and lectures and the learning of new theories. plans within governance strategies, and thirdly the communication across different backgrounds, Intensive cooperation between researchers cultures and languages. In LOS_DAMA!, these (knowledge partners) and practitioners (project forms of internal communication and cooperation partners) has provided better insights into between the project partners are interlinked and practitioners’ needs for relevant information core of the project. To check to what extent these on tools and strategies for developing green three forms of communication and cooperation infrastructure in peripheral areas. We learned were achieved and what could be learned for that practitioners require examples linked to future projects, the final reports of the project their planning practice to understand underlying partners were evaluated. The final reports concepts. Moreover, practitioners often take contain feedback of the project partners on the detailed experiences for granted and do not overall project process and its transdisciplinary share these with researchers, which can make and international approach. a big difference in the context of research. The exchange of views on peri-urban landscapes between all project partners allowed a change of Between practice and research perspectives. Communication and cooperation All project partners work in different planning skills between science and practice could in systems with different organizational structures many cases be improved by an interest in and workflows. The knowledge partners had each other’s work and a willingness to adjust the task to support the project partners with to each other needs. The range of governance knowledge on specific topics such as green challenges could thus be significantly extended infrastructure, collaborative planning and with regard to peri-urban landscapes in landscape approaches. However, the topics Alpine city regions. In addition, new theories and their relevance for the project partners and on landscape, planning and implementation pilot projects were not collaboratively defined processes were mediated through exchange and at the beginning of the project. Therefore, the joint work with other knowledge partners. knowledge partners faced the challenge to Based on the experiences of the project partners define priorities for the theoretical review without in their cooperation both within the overall project knowing the needs of the project partners. The and the individual pilot projects, two factors seem lack of coordination at an early stage between to be key to overcome the described difficulties
79 and challenges: openness towards other predominantly appreciated by the stakeholders, structures (for example of research institutions, who have been involved in relevant cooperation local, regional and metropolitan authorities) processes. Especially, it helped to promote as well as attitude towards finding solutions, acceptance of the pilot projects even among instead of analysing problems. These factors critical parties. In this sense, new ways of also help to develop approaches and tools for regional governance and planning culture could communication and cooperation between science be supported through participative formats. and practice, to improve knowledge transfer, and Project partners especially reached the following visibility and legitimacy of scientific knowledge. target groups through various formats such as We suggest to link knowledge about social workshops, participatory mapping, participatory integration, motivation and participation with planning, etc.: internal administrative bodies, knowledge about planning and implementation inter-municipal associations, associations, processes to maintain and improve green industry agencies, neighbouring communities, spaces in different cultural contexts. This the Ministry of Agriculture, local interest transdisciplinary cooperation will contribute to representatives, land managers, political developing approaches and tools to improve decision-makers, citizens. With LOS_DAMA!, public participation in planning, implementation project partners supported new cross-sectorial and management of green spaces - this is and participative collaboration in regional the optimistic expectation at the end of the governance and planning culture. The applied project. Furthermore, we suggest organising participation formats created mutual trust and round-table discussions on important concepts a high level of commitment on the part of many and definitions at the beginning of projects participants. In some cases, stakeholders and to create common perspectives and a better citizens were involved using informal methods, understanding of each other’s points of view. so that inter-municipal landscape associations All practical project partners agree that became strongly involved as local partners, and cooperation with local research centres and cooperation beyond the scope of the project was universities has improved and strengthened. established. Many proposals for solutions have been Many project partners confirm that LOS_DAMA! developed jointly. While there are still some has made it possible to especially reach obstacles to transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral politicians and citizens, and raise awareness on cooperation within the pilot projects, the LOS_ the values and potentials of peripheral regions DAMA! project contributed to create methods with regard to ecological and social development. and competences to overcome these obstacles. Through LOS_DAMA! they were able to develop Most project partners considered especially the a deeper form of cooperation at different following three exchange formats enriching: levels: local, cross-sectoral, inter-communal exchanges within their own administration/ and transnational. The project was a driver for institution, exchanges between partner many participants to work together on green administrations/institutions as part of the Job infrastructure topics across city boundaries and Shadowing programme, and cooperation with to continue this cooperation in the future. Without knowledge partners. In general, the cooperation LOS_DAMA!, many local pilot projects would with different partners from different areas have been less successful or not implemented (city and municipal administrations, research at all. At the local level, the results will also help institutions, national institutions, etc.) and to establish direct contacts with local farmers different countries have been regarded as very and producers in peripheral areas by using the stimulating. established network and the strategic plans currently running in the city. On the local and regional level Again, finding a common language for all For most involved partners, LOS_DAMA! stakeholders and adapting activities and offered the opportunity to start a well-planned, project objectives to the specific needs of each broad stakeholder process in the respective partner (f.e. metropolitan and municipality city region. Such participation processes were administrations, research bodies, national
80 institution) proved to be difficult. At the level of exchange. The cooperation between different local structures and governance systems, the partners from various sectors (e.g. municipalities, diversity of different types of institutions (e.g. research institutes, national institutions) and research institutions, implementing bodies, countries proved to be very stimulating for many municipalities, regional and metropolitan project partners, especially with regard to the authorities) often proved to be an obstacle. question how the subject of the project can be For example, there were different views on the discussed and dealt with beyond its national importance of agriculture as part of the green borders. infrastructure in peripheral areas. Some project partners, therefore, recommend that the flow of information should be continuous – for example, What could LOS_DAMA! partners learn from the a constant fluctuation of employees is ineffective; transdisciplinary cooperation? Some hints can be instead, it is more promising to hire committed given here: First of all, it is important as a basis employees permanently – and multi-level - such that all participants in transnational projects are as participatory mapping or outdoor walks - to open to the heterogeneity of different styles of increase the involvement of local target groups. thinking that scientific, non-scientific, practical and theoretical as well as state and non-state actors own. This requires tolerance, patience and On the Alpine /European level the willingness not to set one’s own preferences, The close cooperation with EUSALP AG 7 thinking styles, convictions, interests and motives helped to initiate the LOS_DAMA! Metropolitan in absolute terms, but to be able to relativize Alpine City Network. Twelve cities and city and adapt them in concrete cooperation. The regions across the Alps signed a joint agreement LOS_DAMA! team experienced, that participation to strengthen Green Infrastructure. The of non-state actors is more successful when Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation stakeholders are addressed on equal footing. offered the opportunity to continuously expand Furthermore, participation is more successful the network during the project implementation if actors participate, who have or can actually of LOS_DAMA! Through this city network and be assigned responsibility. It has also been the cooperation with the EUSALP AG 7, public shown that informal forms of cooperation are and regional authorities could be reached promising, in which mutual trust and personal beyond the partnership. Moreover, high political contacts can be built up. Finally, at almost all representatives could increase the visibility of levels of transdisciplinary cooperation various the project at macro-regional and EU level. exchange formats, such as job shadowing, can Involved authorities were able to open up new lead to relevant learning effects and insights into perspectives especially in the fields of policy previously unknown ways of thinking and acting. development or open space management.
Various exchange formats, such as project meetings and job shadowing, formed the platform for transnational exchange and mutual learning. The job-shadowing programme proved to be extremely helpful for both visitors and hosts. The transnational approach enabled many project partners to gain a broader insight into the implementation of green infrastructure and to learn about new strategies and tools to support green space planning in peripheral areas. Different contexts of the environment, urbanisation trends and political systems, as well as the integration of different planning systems and perspectives and good practice examples were an enriching part of the international
81 Figure 44. The river Limmat as part of Zurich’s green infrastructure
82 Alpine Space
LOS_DAMA! BACKGROUND
83 LITERATURE LIST
Aalbers, C. B. E. M., & Eckerberg, K. (2013). Bauer, A., Röhl, D., Haase, D., & Schwarz, N. Governance and Sustainability of Peri-Urban (2013). Leipzig-Halle: Ecosystem services in a Areas: A Comparative Analysis of the PLUREL stagnating urban region in eastern Germany. In Case Studies. In K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, C. Aalbers, & T. C. Aalbers, & T. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios futures: Scenarios and models for land use and models for land use change in Europe (pp. change in Europe (pp. 341–372). Springer. 209–239). Springer. 9.
Aalbers, C. B. E. M., & Pauleit, S. (2013). Beaurain, C. (2002). Gouvernance Powerful and large regional authorities are environnementale locale et comportements needed to preserve green open space for urban économiques. Développement Durable Et agglomerations. SPOOL, 1(1). DOI: 10.7480/ Territoires, Dossier 2. spool.2013.1.629 Benedict, M. A., & Mahon, E. T. (2002). Green Aerts, R., Dewaelheyns, V., & Achten, W. M. J. Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st (2016). Potential ecosystem services of urban Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(2), agriculture: a review. Advance online publication. 12–17. DOI: 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.2286V1 Berr, K. (2019). Heimat und Landschaft im Streit Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning der Weltanschauungen. In M. Hülz, O. Kühne, and management of the peri-urban interface: & F. Weber (Eds.), Heimat: Ein vielfältiges perspectives on an emerging field. Environment Konstrukt (pp. 27–51). Springer VS. & Urbanization, 15(1), 135–148. Berr, K., Jenal, C., Kühne, O., & Weber, Ambrose-Oji, B., Buijs, A, A., Gerőházi, E., F. (2019). Inter- und transdisziplinäre Mattijssen, T [T.], Száraz, L., van der Jagt, S., Landschaftsforschung. In O. Kühne, F. Weber, Hansen, R., Rall, E., Andersson, E., Kronenberg, K. Berr, & C. Jenal (Eds.), Handbuch Landschaft J., & Rolf, W. (2017). Innovative Governance (pp. 165–180). Springer VS. for Urban Green Infrastructure: a Guide for Practitioners. Deliverable 6.3. Copenhagen. Berr, K., & Kühne, O. (2020). “Und das GREEN SURGE. http://greensurge.eu/working- ungeheure Bild der Landschaft …“: The Genesis packages/wp6/D6.3_ GREENSURGE-WP6- of Landscape Understanding in the German- guide-FINAL.pdf. speaking Regions. Springer VS.
Antrop, M. (2016). Perspectieven op het Berr, K., Jenal, C., Kühne, O., & Weber, F. (in landschap: Achtergronden om landschappen te press). Praxis Landschaftsgovernance. Ein lezen en te begrijpen (3rd ed.). Academia Press. Überblick. Springer VS.
Arts, B., Buizer, M., Horlings, L., Ingram, V., van Bertrand, N., Cremer-Schulte, D., & Perrin, M. Oosten, C., & Opdam, P. (2017). Landscape (2015). Planification stratégique et asymétries Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review. Annual territoriales: Grenoble et le Grand Genève, Review of Environment and Resources, deux régions urbaines alpines à l’épreuve de la 42(1), 439–463. DOI: 10.1146/annurev- cohérence. Journal of Alpine Research | Revue environ-102016-060932 De Géographie Alpine, 103(3).
Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel- Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (Eds.). (2017). The Koschella, U., & de Zeeuw, H. (Eds.). (2000). Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture Cambridge University Press. on the policy agenda ; a reader on urban agriculture. ZEL.
84 Bowling, J. (2002). The Landscape Approach: Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental Position paper. WWF International. http:// governance: Towards a politics of scales and d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/ networks. Political Geography, 24(8), 875–902. po11landscapeapproach.pdf Buyck, J. (2010). Dessiner la campagne pour Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2015). Towards a new dessiner la ville. Projets de paysage. http://www. epistemology of the urban? City, 19(2-3), 151– projetsdepaysage.fr/fr/dessiner_la_campagne_ 182. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2015.1014712 pour_dessiner_la_ville
Bruns, D., & Münderlein, D. (2017). Kulturell Castillo, S., Winkle, C., Krauss, S., Turkewitz, A., diverse Landschaftswertschätzung und Visuelle Silva, C., & Heinemann, E. (2013). Regulatory Kommunikation. In O. Kühne, H. Megerle, and Other Barriers to Urban and Peri-Urban & F. Weber (Eds.), Landschaftsästhetik und Agriculture:A Case Study of Urban Planners Landschaftswandel (pp. 303–318). Springer VS. and Urban Farmers from the Greater Chicago Metropolitan Area. Journal of Agriculture, Food Bryant, C. (2018). Government versus Systems, and Community Development, 155– Governance: structure versus process. EchoGéo, 166. DOI: 10.5304/jafscd.2013.033.001 43. DOI: 10.4000/echogeo.15288 Charmes, E. (2005). La vie périurbaine face à la Buijs, A. E., Hansen, R., van der Jagt, S., menace des gated communities. L’Harmattan. Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Rall, E., Mattijssen, T., Pauleit, S., Runhaar, H., Olafsson, A. S., & Chilla, T., Kühne, O., & Neufeld, M. (2016). Møller, M. S. (2019). Mosaic governance for Regionalentwicklung. Ulmer. urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Citta’ Metropolitana di Torino. (2018, February Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 53–62. 27). Piano Strategico Citta’ Metropolitana di DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.011 Torino (2018-2020): Un territorio di qualita’. http:// www.cittametropolitana.torino.it/cms/risorse/ Buijs, A. E., Elands, B., Havik, G., Ambrose-Oji, territorio/dwd/urbanistica/PianStrategica/PSMTo_ B., Gerőházi, E., van der Jagt, S., Mattijssen, T., doc_triennale_2018_20.pdf Møller, M. S., & Vierikko, K. (2016). Innovative Governance of Urban Green Spaces: Learning Commission of the European Communities. from 18 Innovative Examples across Europe (2001, July 25). European governance: A white (Deliverable 6.2). GREEN SURGE. http:// paper. COM(2001)428 final. Brussels. https:// greensurge.eu/working- packages/wp6/ ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2001/ EN/1-2001-428-EN-F1-1.Pdf Buijs, A. E., Mattijssen, T. J. M., van der Jagt, A. P. N., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Corner, J. (1999). Introduction: Recovering Elands, B. H. M., & Steen Møller, M. (2016). Landscape as a Critical Cultural Practice. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: In J. Corner & A. Balfour (Eds.), Recovering Fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape contributions through mosaic governance. Theory (pp. 1–29). Princeton Architectural Press. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 1–6. Cosgrove, D. (1984). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. University of Wisconsin Buizer, I. M., Elands, B. H. M., Mattijssen, T. J. Press. M., van der Jagt, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Gerőházi, E., & Santos, E. (2015). The governance of Cosgrove, D. (2004). Landscape and Landschaft: urban green spaces in selected EU-cities. German Historical Institute Bulletin, 35(Fall), Policies, Practices, Actors, Topics’. (Deliverable 57–71. 6.1). GREEN SURGE. http://greensurge.eu/ working-packages/wp6/
85 Council of Europe. (2000). European Landscape Di Leo, S., & Salvia, M. (2017). Local strategies Convention. Strasbourg. Council of Europe and action plans towards resource efficiency in Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Spatial South East Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Planning Division Directorate of Culture and Energy Reviews, 68, 286–305. Cultural and Natural. Donadieu, P. (1998). Campagnes Urbaines. Crumley, C. (2012). A heterachy of knowledge: Arles. Actes Sud/ENSP. Tools for the study of landscape histories and futures. In T. Plieniger & C. Bieling (Eds.), EC. (2011). Our life Insurance, Our Natural Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Understanding and Managing Change in Human- Communication from the Commission to the shaped Environments (pp. 303–313). Cambridge European Parliament, the Council, the Economic University Press. and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (Final). Brussels. European Curry, N., Reed, M., Keech, D., Maye, D., & Commission. Kirwan, J. (2014). Urban agriculture and the policies of the European Union: the need for EC. (2013a). Building a green infrastructure for renewal. Spanish Journal of Rural Development, Europe. Luxembourg. ec.europa.eu/environment/ 91–106. DOI: 10.5261/2014.esp1.08 nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_ broc.pdf Cvejić, R., Eler, K., Pintar, M., Železnikar, S., Haase, D., & Kabisch, N. (2015). A typology of EC. (2013b). Green infrastructure (GI) urban green spaces, ecosystem provisioning - Enhancing Europe’s natural capital: services, and demands. (Deliverable D3.1). Communication from the Commission to the GREEN SURGE. www.greensurge.eu. European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Davies, C [Clive], Hansen, R., Rall, E., Pauleit, Committee of the Regions (COM(2013) final). S., Lafortezza, R [Raffaele], De Bellis, Y., Brussels. European Commission. Santos, A [Artur], & Tosics, I. (2015). Green infrastructure planning and implementation: The Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). status of European green space planning and An Integrative Framework for Collaborative implementation based on an analysis of selected Governance. Journal of Public Administration European city-regions. GREEN SURGE. Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
Davodeau, H. (2005). Les paysages, une Erbaugh, J., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Clarifying the nouvelle préoccupation dans la gestion des landscape approach: A letter to the Editor on espaces périurbains. Cahiers D’économie Et De “Integrated landscape approaches to managing Sociologie Rurales, 77, 65–84. social and environmental issues in the tropics”. Global Change Biology, 23, 4453–4454. de Zeeuw, H., Dubbeling, M., van Veenhuizen, R., & Wilbers, J. Key Issues and Courses of Faludi, A. (2012). Multi-Level (Territorial) Action for Municipal Policy Making on Urban Governance: Three Criticisms. Planning Theory Agriculture: RUAF Working Paper 2. Leusden. & Practice, 13(2), 197–211. RUAF Foundation. FAO. (2020). Urban Food Agenda | Food and Del Baggio, C. (2016). Linking up the Alps: How Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. networks of local political actors build the pan- http://www.fao.org/urban-agriculture/en/ alpine region. Peter Lang.
86 Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, Geneletti, D., La Rosa, D., Spyra, M., & R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S., Barraud, Cortinovis, C. (2017). A review of approaches S., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bertrand-Krajewski, and challenges for sustainable planning in J.‑L., Mikkelsen, P., Rivard, G., Uhl, M., urban peripheries. Landscape and Urban Dagenais, D., & Viklander, M. (2014). SUDS, Planning, 165, 231–243. DOI: 10.1016/j. LID, BMPs, WSUD and more: the evolution and landurbplan.2017.01.013 application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, 12, 1–18. Giller, K. E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P., Hebink, Flury, C., Huber, R., & Tasser, E. (2013). Future P., Heiknig, I., van Ittersum, M. K., Koning, of Mountain Agriculture in the Alps. In S. Mann N., Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H., (Ed.), The Future of Mountain Agriculture (pp. Veldkamp, T., van de Vijver, C., van wijk, M. 105–126). Springer. T., & Windmeijer, P. (2008). Competing claims on natural resources: what role for science? Frantzeskaki, N., & Tilie, N. (2014). The Ecology and Society, 13(2), 34. http://www. dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34 Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio, 43(4), 542–555. Glasze, G., & Mattisek, A. (2009). Diskursforschung in der Humangeographie: Freeman, O. E., Duguma, L. A., & Minang, P. A. Konzeptionelle Grundlagen und empirische (2015). Operationalizing the integrated aldscape Operationalisierung. In G. Glasze & A. Mattisek approach in practice. Ecology and Society, 20(1). (Eds.), Handbuch Diskurs und Raum: Theorien DOI: 10.5751/ES-07175-200124 und Methoden für die Humangeographie sowie die sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Fricke, C. (2014). Grenzüberschreitende Raumforschung (pp. 11–59). transcript Verlag. Governance in der Raumplanung: Organisations- und Kooperationsformen in Basel und Lille. In Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., S. Grotheer, A. Schwöbel, & M. Stepper (Eds.), & Fry, G. (2007). The landscape: what does Nimm’s sportlich – Planung als Hindernislauf: 16. aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Junges Forum der ARL 29. bis 31. Mai 2013 in and Urban Planning, 22(7), 959–972. DOI: Kaiserslautern. Arbeitsberichte der ARL 10 (pp. 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x 62–78). ARL. Görg, C. (2007). Landscape Governance: The Gailing, L., & Leibenath, M. (2012). Von “politics” of scale and the “natural” conditions of der Schwierigkeit “Landschaft” oder places. Geoforum, 38(5), 954–966. “Kulturlandschaft” allgemeingültig zu definieren. Raumforschung Und Raumordnung, 70(2), Gretter, A., Rizzi, C., Favargiotti, S., Betta, A., 95–106. DOI: 10.1007/s13147-011-0129-8 & Ulrici, G. (2018). Trento Social Commons. Community Engagement as Tools for New Gallent, N., Bianconi, M., & Andersson, J. Physical and Cultural Relationships Between (2006). Planning on the edge: England’s rural Rural and Peripheral Spaces. Revue De - urban fringe and the spatial-planning agenda. Géographie Alpine. Advance online publication. Environment and Planning B: Planning and DOI: 10.4000/rga.4166 Design(33), 457–476. Grisel, M., & van der Waart, F. (2011). Multilevel Galli, M., Lardon, S., Marraccini, E., & Bonari, E. urban governance or the art of working together: (Eds.). (2010). Agricultural management in peri- Methods, instruments and practices. European urban areas The experience of an international Urban Knowledge Network. workshop. Felici Editori. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons.
87 Gruenter, R. (1975 [1953]). Hokema, D. (2013). Landschaft im Wandel? Landschaft: Bemerkungen zu Wort und Zeitgenössische Landschaftsbegriffe in Bedeutungsgeschichte. In A. Ritter (Ed.), Wissenschaft, Planung und Alltag. Springer VS. Landschaft und Raum in der Erzählkunst. Wege der Forschung, Bd. 418, S. 192-207. WBG. Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., & Kienast, F. (2008). Evaluation of Hansen, R., Rall, E., Chapman, E., Rolf, W., & Landscape Change by Different Social Groups: Pauleit, S. (2017). Urban Green Infrastructure Results of Two Empirical Studies in Switzerland. Planning: A Guide for Practitioners (report Mountain Research and Development, 28(2), Deliverable 5.3). https://greensurge.eu/products/ 140–147. DOI: 10.1659/mrd.0952 planning-governance/UGI_Planning_Guide_ Sep_2017_web.pdf ISPAT. (2017). Annuario Statistico 2015: TAV. I.15 - Tassi di crescita naturale per comunità di valle Hansen, R., Rolf, W., Rall, E., Pauleit, S., (1981-2015). Istat - IISPAT, Istituto di statistica Erlwein, S., Fohlmeister, S., Santos, A., Luz, della provincia di Trento. http://www.statweb. A. C., Branquinho, C., Santos-Reis, M., provincia.tn.it/pubblicazioniHTML/Annuari%20 Gerőházi, E., Száraz, L., Tosics, I., Davies, C., e%20altre%20pubblicazioni%20di%20 DeBellis, Y., Lafortezza, R., Vierikko, K., van carattere%20generale/Annuari%20statistici/ der Jagt, S., Cvejić, R., . . . Otten, R. (2016). Annuario%20statistico%202015/capitolo01/ Advanced Urban Green Infrastructure Planning t01_015.html and Implementation: Innovative Approaches and Strategies from European Cities (report ISPAT. (2019, August 27). Statistic report on Deliverable 5.2). https://greensurge.eu/working- Trentino’s population. Trento. Statistic office packages/wp5/files/D5_2_Hansen_et_al_2016_ of the Autonomous Province of Trento ISPAT. Advanced_UGI_Planning_and_Implementation_ http://www.statistica.provincia.tn.it/binary/ v3.pdf pat_statistica_new/popolazione/LaPopolazione TrentinaPerEt_1Gennaio2019.1567671603.pdf Hard, G. (1970). Die „Landschaft“ der Sprache und die „Landschaft“ der Geographen: ISTAT. (2019a). Migration (Transfer of Semantische und forschungslogische Studien. residence): Emigrants - province of origin Ferdinand Dümmlers Verlag. [2014-2017]. ISTAT. http://dati.istat.it/Index. aspx?QueryId=34216&lang=en Hard, G. (2002). Landschaft und Raum: Aufsätze zur Theorie der Geographie. ISTAT. (2019b). Migration (Transfer of residence): Osnabrücker Studien zur Geographie, Bd. 22. Immigrants - provincie di destinazione Universitätsverlag Rasch. [2014-2019]. ISTAT. http://dati.istat.it/Index. aspx?QueryId=9435 Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new ISTAT. (2019c). Popolazione residente al 1° politics of space. European Planning Studies, gennaio: Piemonte [2016-2019]. ISTAT. http:// 14(3), 299–320. dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId=18540#
Hedblom, M., Andersson, E., & Borgström, Jackson-Smith, D., & Sharp, J. (2008). Farming S. (2017). Flexible land-use and undefined in the Urban Shadow: Supporting Agriculture at governance:: From threats to potentials in peri- the Rural-Urban Interface. Rural Realities, 2(4), urban landscape planning. Land Use Policy, 63, 1–11. 523–527. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.022
HERCULES. (201x). The landscape approach: Recommendations towards landscape-centred policies. www.hercules-landscapes.eu
88 Jarrige, F., Chery, J.‑P., Buyck, J., & Gambier, Landesstatistik. (2018a, May 28). J. P. (2013). The Montpellier Agglomération: Toursimusstatistik. Salzburg. https://www. New Approaches for Territorial Coordination in salzburg.gv.at/statistik_/Seiten/statistik- the Periurban. In K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, tourismus.aspx C. Aalbers, & T. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use Landesstatistik. (September 2018b). Bevölkerung change in Europe (pp. 241–274). Springer. Land Salzburg: Stand & Entwicklung 2018. Salzburg. AMT DER SALZBURGER Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2011). Diversifying LANDESREGIERUNG Landesamtsdirektion European agglomerations: evidence of Referat 0/24: Landesstatistik und urban population trends for the 21st century. Verwaltungscontrolling. www.salzburg.gv.at/ Population, Space and Place, 17(3), 236–253. statistik-pub-bevoelkerung DOI: 10.1002/psp.600 Lang, J. T. (1987). Creating architectural Körner, S. (2004). Naturbilder und Heimatideale theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in in Naturschutz und Freiraumplanung. In environmental design. Van Nostrand Reinhold L. Fischer (Ed.), Projektionsfläche Natur: Company. Zum Zusammenhang von Naturbildern und gesellschaftlichen Verhältnissen (pp. 77–103). Le Galès, P. (1995). Du gouvernement des villes Hamburg University Press. à la gouvernance urbaine. Revue Française De Science Politique, 1, 57–95. Krasny, M. E., Russ, A., Tidball, K. G., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Civic ecology practices: Le Galès, P. (2003). Governance. In J. Lévy & M. Participatory approaches to generating and Lussault (Eds.), Dictionnaire de la géographie et measuring ecosystem services in cities. de l’espace des sociétés (1st ed., pp. 418–422). Ecosystem Services, 7, 177–186. DOI: 10.1016/j. Belin. ecoser.2013.11.002 Le Galès, P. (2014). Gouvernance. In L. Kühne, O. (2018). Landschaftstheorie und Boussaguet, S. Jacquot, & P. Ravinet (Eds.), Landschaftspraxis: Eine Einführung aus Dictionnaire des politiques publiques (2nd ed., sozialkonstruktivistischer Perspektive. (2., pp. 299–308). Presses de Sciences Po. aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage). Springer VS. Leibenath, M., & Gailing, L. (2012). Semantische Annäherungen an “Landschaft” und Kühne, O., Weber, F., & Jenal, C. (2018). “Kulturlandschaft”. In W. Schenk, M. Kühn, M. Neue Landschaftsgeographie: Ein Überblick. Leibenath, & S. Tzschaschel (Eds.), Suburbane Essentials. Springer VS. Räume als Kulturlandschaften (pp. 58–79). ARL.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A Leloup, F., Moyart, L., & Pecqueur, B. (2005). step-by-step guide for beginners. SAGE. La gouvernance territoriale comme nouveau mode de coordination territoriale? Géographie, La Rosa, D., Geneletti, D., Spyra, M., Albert, Économie, Société, 7(4), 321–331. C., & Fürst, C. (2018). Sustainable Planning for Peri_urban Landscapes. In A. H. Perera, Lohrberg, F., Lička, L., Scazzosi, L., & Timpe, A. U. Peterson, G. Martinez Pastur, & L. R. (Eds.). (2016). Urban agriculture Europe. jovis. Iverson (Eds.), Ecosystem services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations (pp. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management 89–126). Springer. for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x
89 Lörzing, H. (2001). The Nature of Landscape: A Mougeot, L. J. A. (Ed.). (2005). Agropolis: The personal quest. 010 Publishers. Social, Political and Environmental Dimensions of Urban Agriculture. Earthscan. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp. Municipality of Trento. (2019, February 5). Annual statistical report of the Municiality of Trento: Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Lehmann, I., & Bräuer, 2017. Trento. Comune di Trento - Servizio A. (2011). Urban Green Spaces: Potentials and Sviluppo economico, studi e statistica. https:// Constraints for Urban Adaptation to Climate www.comune.trento.it/Aree-tematiche/Statistiche- Change. In K. Otto-Zimmermann (Ed.), Local e-dati-elettorali/Statistiche/Pubblicazioni/ Sustainability: Vol. 1. Resilient Cities: Cities and Annuario-statistico/Annuario-statistico-2017 Adaptation to Climate Change Proceedings of the Global Forum 2010 (Vol. 47, pp. 479–485). Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium Springer. and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), McDonald, L., Allen, L., Benedict, M.A., & 221–229. O’Connor, K. (2005). Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of Conservation Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE. (2017). Planning, 1(1), 6–25. Ecosystem services in the city - Protecting health and enhancing quality of life: Summary for Meadowcroft, J. (2002). Politics and scale: some decision-makers. Berlin, Leipzig. implications for environmental governance. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61(2-4), 169– Ndubisi, F. (2002). Managing change in the 179. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00111-1 landscape: A synthesis of approaches for ecological planning. Landscape Journal, 21(1), Meeus, S. J., & Gulinck, H. (2008). Semi-Urban 138–155. Areas in Landscape Research: A Review. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 2. DOI: Nelles, J. (2013). Cooperation and Capacity? 10.12942/lrlr-2008-3 Exploring the Sources and Limits of City-Region Governance Partnerships. International Journal Milder, J. C., Buck, L. E., DeClerck, F. & of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1349– Scherr, S. J. (2012). Landscape Approaches to 1367. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01112.x Achieving Food Production, Natural Resource Conservation, and the Millennium Development Nilsson, K., Pauleit, S., Bell, S., Aalbers, C Goals. In J.C. Ingram, F. DeClerck, & C. [Carmen], & Nielsen, T. S [Thomas S.]. (2013). Rumbaitis del Rio (Eds.), Ecological Dimensions. Introduction. In K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, Integrating Ecology And Poverty Reduction. C. Aalbers, & T. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban Springer. futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe (pp. 1–9). Springer. Millennium Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. London. Obkircher, S. (2017). Raumentwicklung in Grenzregionen: Bedeutung und Wirkung von Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban agriculture: Planungsleitbildern und Governance-Prozessen. Definition, presence, potentials and risk. In N. Sozial- und Kulturgeographie: Vol. 15. transcript Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel- Verlag. Koschella, & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy Oppel, A. (1884). Landschaftskunde: Versuch agenda ; a reader on urban agriculture (pp. einer Physiognomie der gesamten Erdoberfläche 1–42). ZEL. in Skizzen, Charakteristiken und Schilderungen.
90 PAT - Servizio Statistica. (2019). Movimento Prager, K., Reed, M., & Scott, A. (2012). turistico mensile: Arrivi e presenze negli esercizi Encouraging collaboration for the provision of alberghieri per ambito, provenienza e mese ecosystem services at a landscape scale. Land [2012-2019]. PAT - Servizio statistica. http:// Use Policy, 29(1), 244–249. www.statweb. provincia.tn.it/movTuristico/data. asp?db=annuarioturismo&sp=spArrPres EsAlb Prové, C., Dessein, J., & Krom, M. D. (2016). XAmbProvMes&stag=1 Taking context into account in urban agriculture governance: Case studies of Warsaw (Poland) Pauleit, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy, 56, Anton, B., Buijs, A, A., Haase, D., Elands, 16–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.025 B., Hansen, R., Kowarik, I., Kronenberg, J., Mattijssen, T., Stahl Olafsson, A., Rall, E., van Ravetz, J., Fertner, C., & Nielsen, T. S. (2013). der Jagt, S., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. The Dynamics of Peri-Urbanization. In K. (2019). Advancing Urban Green Infrastructure Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, C. Aalbers, & T. S. in Europe: outcomes and reflections from the Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban and models for land use change in Europe (pp. Greening, 40, 4–16. 13–44). Springer.
Pauleit, S., Breuste, J., Qureshi, S., & Sauerwein, Reed, J., Deakin, L., & Sunderland, T. (2014). M. (2010). Transformation of rural-urban cultural What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ landscapes in Europe: Integrating approaches and how effectively have they been implemented from ecological, socio-economic and planning in the tropics: a systematic map protocol. perspectives. Landscape Online, 20, 1–10. DOI: Environmental Evidence, 4(2), 1–7. 10.3097/LO.201020 Reed, J., & Sunderland, T. (2015). How Pauleit, S., Zölch, T., Hansen, R., Randrup, T. landscape approaches can help achieve the B., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2017). SDGs – in three (challenging) steps: Achieving Nature-based solutions and Climate Change - the SDGs single way to do it, but landscapes Four shades of green. In N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. could provide a useful framework. CIFOR Stadler, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Nature-based solutions Forests News(4 December 2015). https:// to climate change adaptation in urban areas: forestsnews.cifor.org/38373/how-landscape- Linkages between science, policy and practice approaches-can-help-achieve-the-sdgs-in-three- (pp. 29–49). Springer Open. challenging-steps?fnl=en (ANALYSIS).
Piorr, A., Ravetz, J., & Tosics, I. (2011). Peri- Reed, J., van Vianen, J., Deakin, E. L., urbanisation in Europe: Towards European Barlow, J., & Sunderland, T. (2016). Integrated policies to sustain urban-rural futures. landscape approaches to managing social and Frederiksberg. environmental issues in the tropics: Learning from the past to guide the future. Global Change Poulot, M. (2013). Du vert dans le périurbain.: Biology, 22(7), 2540–2554. DOI: 10.1111/ Les espaces ouverts, une hybridation de l’espace gcb.13284 public (exemples franciliens). Espacetemps.net. Reiche, M., Azzu, N., Bogdanski, A., Braatz, S., Poulot, M., Aragau, C., & Rougé, L. (2016). Bunning, S., Evtimov, V., Gauthier, M., Groppo, Les espaces ouverts dans le périurbain ouest P., Hofer, T., Runsten, L., Seeberg-Elverfeldt, francilien: entre appropriations habitantes et C., Sessa, r., Tapio-Bistrom, M. L., Wehrmann, constructions territoriales. Géographie Economie B., Gordesm Alashiya, Ramsay, G., & Puzzili, Société, 18(1), 89–112. F. (Eds.) (2012). Mainstreaming Climate-smart Agriculture into a Broader Landscape Approach: Background paper for the Second Global Conference on Agriculture, Food security and Climate Change. FAO.
91 Reporteur Diversity Europe - GR III / Spain. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Österblom, H., & Olsson, (2004). Agriculture in peri-urban areas: P. (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem European Commission Opinion. Adopted on 16 management, and natural capital. Proceedings of September 2004 (OJ C 74, 23.3.2005 NAT/204- the National Academy of Sciences of the United EESC-2004-1209). States of America, 112(24), 7369–7374. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406493112 Rolf, W., Pauleit, S., & Wiggering, H. (2019). A stakeholder approach, door opener for Seifert, M. (2012). Heimat in Bewegung: Zur farmland and multifunctionality in urban green Suche nach soziokultureller Identität in der infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Spätmoderne. In J. Klose, R. Lindner, & M. 40, 73–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.012 Seifert (Eds.), Heimat heute: Reflexionen und Perspektiven (pp. 15–34). Thelem. Sayer, J. (2009). Reconciling Conservation and Development: Are Landscapes the Selman, P. (1993). Landscape ecology and Answer? Biotropica, 41(6), 649–652. https://doi. countryside planning: vision, theory and practice. org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00575.x Journal of Rural Studies, 9, 1–21.
Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. Sgard, A. (2011). Le paysage en partage: K., Dale, A., Sunderland, T., Supriatna, J., & Habilitation a diriger des recherches [PhD]. Saryanthi, R. (2015). Landscape approaches; Université Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble. what are the pre-conditions for success? Sustainability Science, 10(2), 345–355. DOI: SORS. (2019a). Accommodation establishments 10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5 capacity, tourist arrivals and overnight stays: Overnight stays of foreign visitors in Ljubljana Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, from 2010 to 2018. Statistical Office of the J.‑L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Republic of Slovenia. https://pxweb.stat. Boedhihartono, A. K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van si/SiStatDb/pxweb/en/20_Ekonomsko/20_ Oosten, C., & Buck, L. E. (2013). Ten principles Ekonomsko__21_gostinstvo_turizem__01_ for a landscape approach to reconciling nastanitev__02_21645_nastanitev_ agriculture, conservation, and other competing letno/2164521S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of SORS. (2019b). Demography and social America, 110(21), 8349–8356. DOI: 10.1073/ statistics: Population of Central Slovenia, pnas.1210595110 all ages, all sex, per 1 January. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https:// Scherr, S. J., Shames, S., & Friedman, pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/pxweb/en/10_Dem_ R. (2013). Defining Integrated Landscape soc/10_Dem_soc__05_prebivalstvo__10_ Management for Policy Makers. ecoagriculture stevilo_preb__10_05C20_prebivalstvo_stat_ partners. ecoagriculture Policy Focus. https:// regije/05C2001S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ ecoagriculture.org/publication/defining-integrated- landscape-management-for-policy-makers/ SORS. (2019c). Demography and social statistics: Population for age groups 0-14, Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., & Winkler, 15-65, 65+ for central Slovenia for the years K. J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for 2006 and 2019. (05C2002). Statistical mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept Office of the Republic of Slovenia. https:// in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/pxweb/en/10_Dem_ Ecosystem Services, 16, 174–181. https:// soc/10_Dem_soc__05_prebivalstvo__10_ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ stevilo_preb__10_05C20_prebivalstvo_stat_ S2212041615300425 regije/05C2002S.px/table/tableViewLayout1/
92 Stadt Wien. (2019). Bevölkerung nach Bezirken Tosics, I. (2013). Sustainable Land Use in 2004 bis 2019. Stadt Wien, Wirtschaft, Arbeit Peri-Urban Areas: Government, Planning and und Statistik (Magistratsabteilung 23). https:// Financial Instruments. In K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, www.wien.gv.at/statistik/bevoelkerung/tabellen/ S. Bell, C. Aalbers, & T. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri- bevoelkerung-bez-zr.html urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe (pp. 373–404). Springer. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Tréguer, D. & Pehu, E. (June 2014). Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Moving Toward a Sustainable Landscape Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Approach to Development (Agriculture Studies of Science, 19, 387–420. and Environmental Services Department NOTES No. 12). Washington D.C. The Statistik Austria (2013, October 30). PDF. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank. org/curated/en/819501468 151511677/ Statistik Austria (2018, September 6). PDF. pdf/884330BRI0AES000Box385225B00 PUBLIC0.pdf Statistisches Amt München. (2019a, May 20). Die Bevölkerung 1) am 31.12.2018 differenziert nach Tress, G., Tress, B. & Fry, G [G.]. (2005). Migrationsgruppen. Munich. Statistisches Amt Defining concepts and the process of knowledge München. production in integrative research. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: Statistisches Amt München. (2019b, June Aspects of integration, education and application. 18). Die Ein- und Auspendler/ -innen in den (pp. 13–26). Springer. Jahren 2010 - 2018. Munich. Statistisches Amt München. van Tuijl, E., Hospers, G.‑J. & van den Berg, L. (2018). Opportunities and Challenges of Urban Steiner, F. (2008). The Living Landscape: An Agriculture for Sustainable City Development. ecological approach to landscape planning (2nd European Spatial Research and Policy, 25(2), ed.). Island Press. 5–22. DOI: 10.18778/1231-1952.25.2.01
Sunderland, T. (2014). ‘Landscape approach’ van Veenhuizen, R. (2006). Cities farming for the defies simple definition — and that’s good: future: Urban agriculture for green and productive It’s about muddling through and being flexible cities. RUAF Foundation. http://search.ebscohost. enough to adapt to change. CIFOR Forests com/login. aspx?direct=true&scope=site& News(27 August 2014). https://forestsnews.cifor. db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=202061 org/23834/landscape-approach-defies-simple- definition-and-thats-good?fnl=en (ANALYSIS). von der Dunk, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Dalang, T. & Hersperger, A. M. (2011). Defining a typology Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N. & Woolley, H. (2003). of peri-urban land-use conflicts – A case study Nature, role, and value of green space in towns from Switzerland. Landscape and Urban and cities: An overview. Built Environment, 29(2), Planning, 101(2), 149–156. DOI: 10.1016/j. 94–106. landurbplan.2011.02.007
Termeer, C. J.A.M., Dewulf A. & van Lieshout, Waldheim, C. (Ed.). (2006). The Landscape M. (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in Urbanism Reader. Princeton Architectural Press. governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29. http://www. Walmsey, A. (2006). Greenways: multiplying and ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art29/ diversifying in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 252–290.
93 Westerink, J., & Aalbers, C. B.E.M [Carmen B.E.M.]. (2013). The Hague Region: Negotiating the Common Ground in Peri-Urban Landscapes. In K. Nilsson, S. Pauleit, S. Bell, C. Aalbers, & T. S. Nielsen (Eds.), Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for land use change in Europe. Springer.
Westerink, J., Jongeneel, R., Polman, N., Prager, K [Katrin], Franks, J., Dupraz, P., & Mettepenningen, E. (2017). Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management. Land Use Policy, 69, 176–192. DOI: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.09.002
Westerink, J., Lagendijk, A., Dühr, S., van der Jagt, P., & Kempenaar, A. (2013). Contested Spaces? The Use of Place Concepts to Communicate Visions for Peri-Urban Areas. European Planning Studies, 21(6), 780–800. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.665042
Wilhelm, J. A., & Smith, R. G. (2018). Ecosystem services and land sparing potential of urban and peri-urban agriculture: A review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(5), 481–494. DOI: 10.1017/S1742170517000205
Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Young, O. (2006). Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11(1). http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/.
Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—A review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy(28), 639–648.
94 95 96 APPENDIX, PHOTOCREDITS, PROJECT PARTNER CONTACTS AND IMPRINT
97 APPENDIX
PILOT ACTION PLAN
LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area
LOS_DAMA!
Landscape and Open Space Development in Alpine Metropolitan Areas
Priority 3 – Liveable Alpine Space Project duration: 01.11.2016 – 31.10.2019
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |1
LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Version Date Author Organisation
98
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |2 CONTENTS
A LOS_DAMA! local strategy and overall project 1.1 Short description of the overall territory and of local pilot(s) 1.2 Challenges in regard to landscape issue and green infrastructure planning and implementation General objectives in LOS_DAMA! at the scale of the local territory 1.3 Stakeholder process in the project 1.4 Strategy and methods to work at local level 1.5 Main actions with timeline 1.6 Milestones of the project(s)
B Factsheet city region 1. Introduction to the region 2. Demography and geography 2.1 Climate conditions (main urban centre) 2.2 Urban green infrastructure indicators 3. Planning system 3.1 Administrative structure 3.2 Administrative competences concerning planning (related to green infrastructure and landscape) 3.3 Administrative borders at the scale of FUA 3.4 Planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level, which determine and/or influence plan- and decision-making in the regional area 3.5 Local policies implemented on biodiversity, landscape, open/green spaces, and urban-rural relationships. 4. Green infrastructure 4.1 Land use statistics (Corine Land Cover) 5. Examples of achievements in green space planning, implementation and/or management
C Local pilot informtion and implementation
1. General information on the local pilot project 1.1 Objectives/goals 1.2 Milestones and deliverables 1.3 Funding
99 2. Detailed description of the local pilot project area 2.1 Current green and open spaces 2.2 Land use changes 2.3 Issues 2.4 Current plans, projects and initiatives 2.5 Objectives 2.6 Need for more information regarding GI challenges and objectives
3. Governance: stakeholders, collaboration and participation 3.1 Green space planning and implementation responsibilities 3.2 Stakeholders analysis 3.3 Stakeholder detailed presentation 3.4 Collaboration 3.5 Intergovernmental collaboration 3.6 Governance issues beyond project boundaries 3.7 Participation 3.8 Stakeholder management 3.9 Need for more information regarding stakeholder identification, management or governance and participation. 4. Consolidation, monitoring and evaluation 4.1 Consolidation 4.2 Monitoring 4.3 Evaluation 4.4 Bibliography
100 GUIDELINES FOR THE PAP
The PAP Structure The PAP consists of 4 parts. Each part can be read separately, yet together these parts form the PAP: A. LOS_DAMA! local strategy and overall projects B. Factsheet city region C. Poster / map of pilot project D. Local pilot information and implementation Part A. LOS_DAMA! local strategy and overall projects gives a short overview of the Pilot Action Plan and the (individual) pilot projects in maximum two pages. The information should be formulated in short and clear statements. Part B. Factsheet city region is meant to give insight into the context of the pilot project concerning demography, climate, planning system and developments on a larger scale level (regional and national). It does NOT describe the local context of the pilot project. The aim of this part is to provide other project partners understanding in the regional (city) context. Segments of part B. Factsheet city region will be filled in by either the WP T1 Leader or by the KPs. These segments are indicated with the colour orange. The parts on planning system regarding “administrative structure” and “administrative competences concerning planning”, indicated in yellow, will be filled in by the KPs from the International Manual of Planning Practice by Ryser and Franchini. The PPs are asked to review the texts and adjust were needed. Please adjust the text according to citation standards. If you are not familiar with these standards or have questions regarding it, please contact one of the KPs. The organisation diagram aims at gathering the main competencies in terms of green infrastructure planning. The PPs are asked to describe for each topic/theme the main competencies and related tools according to the different levels, and to cite the main related planning legislation (maximum of 2). This diagram thus presents a synoptic view of the role of each administrative level in green infrastructure planning. Part C. Local pilot information and implementation describes the local pilot projects in five sections. The sections more or less logically follow up on each other. All together these sections aim to provide a cohesive account of the pilot project. In Section 1, the goals, activities and milestones regarding the local pilot project are to be described. A detailed description of the pilot project area will be giving in section 2, while, in section 3, information about stakeholders, collaborations and participation will be gathered. These last two sections form input for section 4 in which, by reflecting on the previous sections, the opportunities, barriers and constraints are extracted and then will be described how these can be dealt with. In section 5, then will be written how the activities and milestones will be managed, consolidated and evaluated. The PPs are asked to fill in this part to the best of their current knowledge regarding the pilot project, yet in later stages information can be added or adjusted. Final If you have any questions or remarks, the WP T1 leader and the knowledge partners are more than willing to support you with filling in the PAP. However, what we cannot do is to write the PAP for you.
101 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
A Name Pilot Area | LOS_DAMA! local strategy and overall project (2 pages max.)
1.1 Short description of the overall territory and of local pilot(s) To be written here.
1.2 Challenges in regard to landscape issue and green infrastructure planning and implementation To be written here.
1.3 General objectives in LOS_DAMA! at the scale of the local territory To be written here.
1.4 Stakeholder process in the project To be written here.
1.5 Strategy and methods to work at local level To be written here.
1.6 Main actions with timeline To be written here.
1.7 Milestones of the project(s) Very short presentation of the main milestones of the overall local project. To be written here.
102 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |7 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
B Name pilot area | Factsheet city region Description of the regional (city) context of the pilot project to gain insight in trends, planning system and developments on a larger scale level (regional and national).
1.1 Introduction to the region General description of the region with the most important features (natural characteristics, relief, relation to mountain/alpine space, regional situation, transport network) To be written Map of XXXX (FUA) in its geographical context with main land uses and land forms (Source: XXXX)
1.2 Demography and geography Main urban centre Region Country
Functional Urban Area1 Urban Core Area XXX,XX km² Area XXX,X km² (EEA, (OECD.Stat, 2014) 2017) Population XXXX inh. (Eurostat, Population XXXX inh. 2013) (Eurostat, 2013) Population growth X,X % (YEAR to YEAR) Population growth rate X,X % (YEAR to rate YEAR) Number of households XXXX households Number of households XXXX households (Eurostat, 2014) (Eurostat, 2014) Household growth rate X,X % Household growth rate X,X % Density XX,X inh./km² Density XXX,X inh./km² (EEA, 2017) Built-up area X,X % Built-up area X,X % Public green space per X,X m2 per inhabitant Public green space per capita X,X m2 per capita inhabitant Number of XX municipalities
Which trends have occurred during the past 5-10 years? (demographic changes, ageing, large influx of tourists or non-resident employees? If available give numbers. To be written
Which trends are expected during the next 5-10 years? (demographic changes, population growth or reduction, ageing, large influx of tourists or non-resident employees? To be written
1 As defined by the OECD (More Information on www.oecd.org).
103
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |8 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
1.2.1 Climate conditions (main urban centre) Max. average temperature XX,X °C (EEA, 2017) Min. average temperature X,X °C (EEA, 2017) Precipitation per year XXX,X mm (EEA, 2017) Average amount of extreme heat days X days per year Please describe the climate in the pilot’s region (mild or cold winters, hot or cool summers, precipitation, snowfall, windy, etc.) and which benefits and disadvantages this climate has. To be written.
Please describe the climate change expectations for the region: increase in temperature and precipitation, amount of heat waves, water scarcity etc. Include the sources. To be written.
1.2.2 Urban green infrastructure indicators2 Share of green urban areas XX,X % Class Distribution of green urban areas3 XX,X m/ha Class Effective green infrastructure (mean)4 XX,X % Class Mean hotspot5 XX,X % Class Green infrastructure type6
1.3 Planning system Territorial government system type 7 Planning family8
1.3.1 Administrative structure Please review the summary below of the general features of the planning system and Institutional organisations, and adjust where needed according to citation rules.
2 EEA (2017). The Interactive Map of Green Infrastructure Indicators. Each indicator is divided in 5 classes, ranging from I to V. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/urban- environment/urban-green-infrastructure/urban-green-infrastructure-1. Accessed at 10 May 2017. 3 This measure provides a proxy for the equal or non-equal distribution of green urban areas in the city. Increasing the green area and distributing it more evenly is an effective measure in reducing the undesired effects of clustered urban green areas. 4 Indication of the potential distribution of green infrastructure in the peri-urban area; that is, the probability of finding a green infrastructure element in the territory or in the neighbouring area. 5 The hotspot percentage identifies those areas where the influence of green spaces and the impact of artificial elements overlap. 6 The typology of the cities has been based on nine parameters: proportion of green urban areas, degree of soil sealing, distribution of green urban areas, effective green infrastructure (urban hinterland), hotspot ratio (hinterland), terrestrial urban blue areas, low density areas, proportion of urban forest and proportion of Natura 2000 sites. 7 Based on Davies et al. (2015), Tosics (2013) and Tosics and Dukes (2005). 8 Based on Davies et al. (2015) and Nadin and Stead (2008).
104 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |9 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
1.3.2 Administrative competences concerning planning (related to green infrastructure and landscape) Please review the summary below of the main organisations on a national, regional and local level and their roles, responsibilities and competences, and adjust where needed in accordance to citation rules.
Insert here an organisation diagram and include the source in the text below. Organisation diagram concerning the administrative competences regarding planning and planning instruments (Source: XXXX)
1.3.3 Administrative borders at the scale of FUA Insert here a map with the administrative borders within the region (of municipalities, city regions, etc.) and the name of the administrative bodies. Map of the administrative borders within the region with names (Source: XXXXXX)
1.3.4 Planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level, which determine and/or influence plan- and decision-making in the regional area Landscape Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding landscape. To be written
Biodiversity Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding biodiversity and nature conservation. To be written
Water Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding water protection and water quality. To be written
Agriculture and Forestry Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding agriculture and forestry. To be written
Mountain Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding mountain preservation and uses. To be written
Others Short summary of relevant planning legislation, policies, instruments and enforcement on national or regional level regarding other aspects of green space (e.g. transport, housing, tourism, sustainability) To be written
105
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |10 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
1.3.5 Local policies implemented on biodiversity, landscape, open/green spaces, and urban- rural relationships. Please describe, for the different fields, the political framework and which local initiatives will be taken in the next 5 years to enhance the local policies.
1.4 Green infrastructure 1.4.1 Land use statistics (Corine Land Cover) Land cover Land use percentage (2012) Land use change (1990- 2012) Arable land X,X % X,X % Artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas X,X % X,X % Forest X,X % X,X % Heterogeneous agricultural areas X,X % X,X % Industrial, commercial and transport units X,X % X,X % Inland waters X,X % X,X % Inland wetlands X,X % X,X % Marine waters X,X % X,X % Maritime wetlands X,X % X,X % Mine, dump and construction sites X,X % X,X % Open spaces with little or no vegetation X,X % X,X % Pastures X,X % X,X % Permanent crops X,X % X,X % Scrub and/or herbaceous vegetation X,X % X,X % Urban fabric X,X % X,X %
1.5 Examples of achievements in green space planning, implementation and/or management Please list 2 concrete examples successes and 1 failure within green space planning, implementation and/or management within the pilot project’s region in the last 10 years. Give a short description for each example; define whether it is an action, project or policy; and explain the innovation or novelty of the example and what can be learned from the example. 1 To be written
2 To be written
3 To be written
Focus on governance (intergovernmental, participation with non-governmental stakeholders, institutional and/or operational) involved in examples Please describe how the collaboration and/or participation was organised, and highlight the role of governmental bodies, NGOs and other stakeholders. 1 To be written
2 To be written
3 To be written
106 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |11 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Focus on lessons learned Please describe what you learned from your experience in the examples (reasons of success or failure), and which changes the experience brought at the local / regional level. 1 To be written
2 To be written
3 To be written
The benefits of sharing these experiences Please describe why, in your opinion, it is interesting to share this experience with LOS_DAMA! Partners, what added value and what can be learnt from these to improve policies 1 To be written
2 To be written
3 To be written
107
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |12 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
C Name Pilot Area | Local pilot information and implementation Within Part D the focus is on the local pilot project. It describes the local project area, the problems, and the stakeholders. Moreover, it describes how the local pilot project will be managed, the actions and milestones, the monitoring and which lessons are finally learned. Partner with more than one pilot project fill in part D for each of the pilot projects.
General information on the local pilot project Insert here a communicative map of the pilot area.
Map of the project area.
Short description of the pilot project’s contents and its context. To be written here
1.1 Objectives/goals Main objective(s) of the pilot project Please describe the main objective(s) regarding the green/open spaces (e.g. the peri-urban green infrastructure or physical environment) and landscape in the pilot project area To be written here in bullet points
Collaboration within the local pilot project Please describe with whom you will collaborate in the pilot project (e.g. other departments, other governmental bodies or institutions) and describe how and which methods and/or tools will be used. To be written here in bullet points.
Participation in the local pilot project Please describe how diverse non-governmental stakeholders (e.g. citizens, inhabitants, private landowners, etc.) will be involved in the pilot project, and describe how and which methods and/or tools will be used. To be written here in bullet points.
The intended improvement Please describe what will be the intended improvement on local level by implementing this pilot project. To be written here in bullet points.
1.2 Milestones and deliverables Please explain the main milestones of the local pilot project, and the deliverables you intend to reach at the end of the LOS_DAMA! project. If possible add a date. Date (jjjj.mm.(dd)) Milestones Deliverables 2017.01. Kick-off of the project
108 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |14 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Added-value of the local pilot project Please describe what, in your opinion, can be the added value of the pilot project for other LOS_DAMA! partners. This can be a method, a tool, good practice or an experience. To be written here in bullet points.
Consolidation and spin-off of the local pilot project Please explain what the pilot project could offer to local public policies, how the consolidation of the pilot project’s activities and the pilot project’s follow-up will be organised. To be written here.
1.3 Funding Funding of pilot project activities Please describe how (parts of) the pilot project will be funded (e.g. the funding framework (from State, region, EU funds, proper resources…)). To be written here.
Need for (further) funding Please describe whether there is a need for (further) funding, for which activities, and how you intend to gain these funding. To be written here.
109
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |15 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Detailed description of the local pilot project area 2.1 Current green and open spaces Landscape characteristics Please describe the landscape characteristics of the pilot area (flat, hilly or mountainous; dry or wet; open or enclosed; monotonous or heterogenic; main vegetation types; historical and cultural elements, etc.). To be written here.
Biodiversity characteristics Please indicate whether there are nature protection areas in the pilot area. Please specify the habitat/biotope types, occurring rare or endangered key species, and the type of nature protection. A map with the nature protection areas could be very useful. To be written here.
Open/green spaces as part of a larger network Please describe whether and how green spaces in the pilot area are considered as a part of a larger (green) network (e.g. green belt, corridors, habitat network). A map can be included to support the explanation. To be written here.
Land ownership Please describe briefly the land ownership situation, and the related problems and opportunities. To be written here.
Multifunctionality Please indicate below which functions, services or benefits the pilot area provides. Make an estimated guess or ask a local expert (e.g. environmental manager, ecologist or landscape planner)9 Food and fodder crops Local climate regulation Recreation Wild fruits, mushrooms and Air quality Mental and physical health game Fish Carbon sequestration and Tourism storage Livestock Noise control Aesthetic appreciation Wood products Water regulation (Delay or Sense of place / identification avoidance of floods, droughts and fires, protection for storm surges, and water as a means of transport) Energy crops Waste-water treatment Inspiration for culture, art and design Natural plant fibres (e.g. linen, Erosion prevention Education sisal, hemp) Other natural materials (e.g. Pollination Nature experience flowers, feathers) Fresh water Biological control Natural medicinal resources Preservation of biodiversity
9 For a more extensive description of the ecosystem services, see http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/ and https://cices.eu/
110 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |16 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Considered ecosystem functions/services Please describe which ecosystem functions/services (see above) will be considered in the pilot project. To be written in bullet points
Valued open/green spaces Please indicate which green and/or open spaces in the pilot area are particularly valued, and why? To be written in bullet points
2.2 Land use changes Change in quantity of green and/or open spaces Indicate how the quantity of the green and/or open spaces changed in the pilot area during the last 20 years, and describe the drivers for the land use change. To be written here.
Change in quality of green and/or open spaces Indicate how the quality of the green and/or open spaces for recreation changed in the pilot area during the last 10 (-20) years. To be written here.
Future land use changes Indicate which land use trends/changes are expected in the pilot area within the next 5-10 years, in particular concerning green and/or open spaces. Write here in bullet points
2.3 Issues In terms of project implementation, specify which of the following issues are present in the pilot area, and describe the issue in more detail. Biodiversity / nature To be written here. conservation Open spaces To be written here.
Landscape identity To be written here.
Urban-rural To be written here. interlinkages Mountain/alpine To be written here.
Health / To be written here. environmental Urbanisation and To be written here. infrastructure Other To be written here.
Assessment methods and tools Please indicate which methods and tools are used to assess the green and/or open spaces of the pilot project area and its related issues. Write here in bullet points
111
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |17 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Need for assessment of open/green space OPTIONAL Is there a need for more assessment of the open and green spaces in the pilot area? Please specify what needs further assessment.
Need for information on assessment methods and/or tools OPTIONAL Please specify whether there is a need for more information on different methods, tools or techniques to assess the green and/or open spaces in the pilot area?
2.4 Current plans, projects and initiatives Most relevant planning documents Mention the three most important (strategical) planning documents (on regional or local scale) for the local pilot area. Please also provide a copy or digital version of the planning documents. Title Year Author or institution 1 2 3 Current and planned activities in the pilot project area Please indicate whether specific (planning, implementation or management) projects or initiatives concerning green and/or open spaces currently exist in the pilot area or are planned. To be written here in bullet points
Linking pilot project with ongoing activities Please indicate whether there are, in your opinion, possibilities to link the pilot project with ongoing or planned projects in the pilot project area. To be written here.
2.5 Objectives Major objectives for the pilot project area Indicate below which three challenges related to green spaces are the most relevant for the local pilot project and with which activities and measures will these three challenges be addressed? Other challenges can be added. Objectives Activities and measures Promoting health, human well-being, To be written here in bullet points. and quality of life Climate change adaptation and To be written here in bullet points. resilience Enhancing biodiversity and nature To be written here in bullet points. experience Promoting social cohesion, social To be written here in bullet points. inclusion and accessibility Promoting green, local and sustainable To be written here in bullet points. economy and resource efficiency Landscape identity and cultural diversity To be written here in bullet points. Rural-urban cohesion To be written here in bullet points. Other To be written here in bullet points.
112 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |18 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Dealing with issues Please specify to what extent the pilot project will deal/solve with the issues indicated in 2.3. Biodiversity / nature conservation Open spaces Landscape identity Urban-rural linkages Mountain/alpine Health / environment Urbanisation and infrastructure Other
Synergies between objectives Please indicate whether there are synergies between the different objectives of the pilot project. To be written here.
Conflicts between objectives Please indicate whether there are conflicts between the different objectives of the pilot project. To be written here.
2.6 Need for more information regarding PUGI challenges and objectives Need for information on how to identifying challenges for peri-urban green infrastructure OPTIONAL Would more information (e.g. methods, tools) on identifying challenges be helpful for the pilot project? If yes, please try to describe as specific as possible the difficulty you encounter or which information you might need. To be written here.
Need for information on dealing with challenges and objectives for peri-urban green OPTIONAL infrastructure Would more information (e.g. methods, tools) on which activities and measures can help to deal with the pilot project’s challenges or objectives for peri-urban green infrastructure be helpful? If yes, please try to describe as specific as possible the difficulty you encounter or which information you might need. To be written here.
113
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |19 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Governance: stakeholders, collaboration and participation 3.1 Green space planning and implementation responsibilities Responsible department Please describe which department(s) in the regional and/or city (municipal) administration (will) deal with the green space planning and implementation in the pilot project and to which political decision-making body does the topic belong. To be written here.
Relevant administrative institutions Please describe which administrative institutions (organisations, in particular (semi-)public authorities and/or governmental agencies) are relevant for the pilot project (by involvement or activities in the local pilot area). Municipality of Munich
Intergovernmental cooperation Please describe with which departments (disciplines) or administrative bodies the responsible department (should) cooperate to make the pilot project a success, how this cooperation in your experience works, and which factors hinder or contribute to the cooperation. To be written here.
3.2 Stakeholders analysis 3.2.1 Stakeholder detailed presentation Please indicate in the table on the next page which stakeholders will be or need to be included in green space planning/implementation/management in the local pilot project. Please specify in addition the form of organization (examples are given, delete what is not relevant), the role of the stakeholder in the pilot project, and the interest of the stakeholder in the pilot project area. Main stakeholders Highlight the 3 main important stakeholders in the stakeholder analysis table on the next page.
Power-interest matrix / Assessment of power level vs. interest OPTIONAL PM Description of the relevance of the power-interest matrix. ONLINE The power-interest analysis is made available on Basecamp (or Mydrive) with a full description on how to use it.
Conflict and cooperation analysis OPTIONAL PM Description of the relevance of the conflict and cooperation analysis ONLINE The conflict and cooperation analysis is made available on Basecamp (or Mydrive) with a full description on how to use it.
114 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |20 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
3.3 Collaboration 3.3.1 Intergovernmental collaboration Importance of intergovernmental collaboration Please describe whether intergovernmental collaboration is important for the pilot activity or not, and why. To what extent is it an opportunity/risk for the project? Which stakeholders could enable better intergovernmental collaboration? To be written here.
3.3.2 Governance issues beyond project boundaries Including territories outside pilot project area Describe to what extent the pilot project will include territories beyond the project area’s boundaries, and which challenges and opportunities this brings. To be written here.
Key stakeholders from territories beyond the project area Identify key stakeholders within the above identified territories and describe what their added value to the pilot project could be (including influence they may have to local stakeholders system). Stakeholder Added value and influence to pilot
3.4 Participation Participation of non-governmental stakeholders Please describe how users/inhabitants/other non-governmental actors will be involved in the pilot project, and with which pilot activities or in which pilot process part (e.g. design, planning, implementation, maintenance). To be written here.
Improvement of non-governmental stakeholder inclusion Please describe factors enabling better inclusion of users/inhabitants/ other non-governmental actors in the pilot project and the pilot activities. To be written in bullet points
Obstacles to non-governmental stakeholder participation Please describe the major factors hindering participation of users/inhabitants/other non-governmental actors in the pilot project or pilot activities. To be written in bullet points
Methods and tools for non-governmental stakeholder engagement Please describe which methods/tools will be used in the pilot project to engage users/inhabitants/other non- governmental actors to participate in the pilot project or pilot activities? To be written in bullet points
115
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |22 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
3.2.1 Stakeholders analysis Highlight the three most important stakeholders. Name of stakeholder Form of organization Role within the pilot project Background and/or interest in the pilot project area Difficulties/constraints with the stakeholder TUM/UGA/EKUT University/research/experts academic (scientists) Neighbourhood associations Community groups Elected representative at local level Elected representative at regional level NGOs Business community representatives Users Inhabitants Farmers/Foresters
116
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |21 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
3.2.1 Stakeholders analysis Highlight the three most important stakeholders. Name of stakeholder Form of organization Role within the pilot project Background and/or interest in the pilot project area Difficulties/constraints with the stakeholder TUM/UGA/EKUT University/research/experts academic (scientists) Neighbourhood associations Community groups Elected representative at local level Elected representative at regional level NGOs Business community representatives Users Inhabitants Farmers/Foresters
117
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |21 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
3.5 Stakeholder management The leverage effect of LOS_DAMA! Please describe into what extent the LOS_DAMA! project could act as a leverage effect to bring stakeholders closer together or could help with dealing with conflicts between stakeholders, To be written here.
The role of experts Please describe who will be the experts and which role they have. To be written here.
Knowledge transfer Please describe how knowledge, expertise, and experience will be exchanged between different stakeholders. To be written here.
Stakeholder management Please indicate how the relevant stakeholders with their specific interests and roles will be managed. To be written here.
Stakeholder management methods and tools Please indicate which methods/tools will be used to bring different stakeholders together? Identify potential win-win potentials (social, economic, urban issues) of this governance format. To be written in bullet points
3.6 Need for more information regarding stakeholder identification, management or governance and participation. Need for information on how to identifying and/or managing stakeholders OPTIONAL Would more information (e.g. methods, tools) on identifying and managing stakeholders be helpful for the pilot project? If yes, please try to describe as specific as possible the difficulties you encounter or which information you might need. To be written here.
Need for information on improving governmental collaboration OPTIONAL Would more information (e.g. methods, tools) on how to improve governmental collaboration be helpful for the pilot project? If yes, please try to describe as specific as possible the difficulty you encounter or which information you might need. To be written here.
Need for information on how to improve stakeholder involvement OPTIONAL Would more information (e.g. methods, tools) on how to improve stakeholder involvement in project activities be helpful for the pilot project? If yes, please try to describe as specific as possible the difficulty you encounter or which information you might need. To be written here.
118 PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |23 LOS_DAMA! WP T1 Pilot Action Plan Framework
Consolidation, monitoring and evaluation 4.1 Consolidation Follow-up of the pilot project Please describe what will happen with the pilot project, after it is completed? What ‘follow up’ work is planned, how will it be managed and what will be the long term economic value of it for the pilot area? To be written here.
Consolidation in policies and instruments Please describe whether and how the pilot project will be incorporated into (formal and/or informal) policies and/or instruments? To be written here.
4.2 Monitoring Please indicate whether the pilot project will be monitored. Yes/No If yes, please describe what will be monitored and how. If no, please describe why not. To be written here.
If yes, please indicate criteria to monitor the success of your activities To be written here.
4.3 Evaluation Please indicate whether the pilot project will be evaluated. Yes/No If yes, please describe what will be evaluated and how. If no, please describe why not. To be written here.
If yes, please indicate criteria to evaluate the success of your activities To be written here.
Bibliography
EEA (24 March 2017). Interactive Map of Green Infrastructure Indicators. European Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/urban-environment/ urban-green-infrastructure/urban-green-infrastructure-1. Accessed at 10 May 2017.
Ryser, J. and Franchini, T. (2015). The International Manual of Planning Practice. The Hague: ISOCARP.
Eurostat (n.d.). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/cities/data/database. Accessed at 21 July 2017.
OECD.Stat (2017). Available at: http://stats.oecd.org. Accessed at 21 July 2017. van Weperen, E.A practical method for selecting stakeholders in local landscape planning for ecosystem services, Wageningen University. Wageningen. http://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/d/4/0/17e6e6b7-0ba0- 4447-ba5b-9078c9368106_Weperen,%20Eefke%20van%20Thesis%20LUP80436_201303.pdf. Accessed 20.03.2017.
119
PILOT ACTION PLAN | Name pilot area |24 TOOLBOX DESCRIPTION
GreenGreen infrastructuresustainability to share for better better living. living
Toolbox description
Template
.
European Regional Development Fund
Vienna/Freising 10 December 2019 C. Stockinger & M. van Lierop
Toolbox description template An aim of the toolbox is to share our experiences and expertise with other professionals, who are dealing with the issues as we do. It is therefore important to describe the tools in a comprehensive way. The following template is intended to write down the information regarding the tools in a clear, concise and understandable manner. Please, first have a look at the whole template and then fill in the template as well as you can for each tool. Perhaps you will not be able to write down all details. Maybe you are currently applying the tool or maybe you did not apply the tool yet. Also in this case, fill in what you can fill in. In a later round you can add new information and insights. In the below table you can rewrite the text in grey to describe the tool. The text in black indicates multiple choice questions, for which you can highlight the answers that apply to the tool, or delete the answer which does not apply to the tool.
120
Name of the tool Acronym of project partner
General description
Please describe the tool precisely, clearly and to the point, so that an outsider might understand what you did. Which steps are taken to organise the tool? Which activities did you do? When did you do these activities, at the start, middle or end of the pilot project process?
Please describe what you want to achieved by applying this tool. Why are you using this tool (e.g. financial leverage, communication, enhance participation)? How did this tool help you to achieve this goal?
Whom?
Target group(s) of the tool: Regional decision- Regional Farmers Small and medium- Local politicians makers administration sized enterprises Directly involved Regional Local policy-makers Sectoral agencies citizens Higher education and politicians (energy, forestry, water, research Regional policy- General public etc.) Local decision- makers Other: NGOs / associations / makers Local administration Landowners local interest groups (non-political)
Applier(s)/Executive(s) of the tool: Regional decision- Regional Farmers Small and medium- Local politicians makers administration sized enterprises Directly involved citizens Regional Local policy-makers Sectoral agencies General public Higher education politicians (energy, forestry, water, and research Regional policy- etc.) NGOs / associations / Local decision- makers Other: local interest groups (non- makers Landowners Local administration political)
Number of people needed to use the tool effectively (e.g. the minimum of participants) and number of people, who can be involved (e.g. the maximum of participants): min. ………………….. – max. …………………..
Is the tool suitable for direct and/or Direct participation (direct Indirect participation (involvement by representatives) indirect participation? involvement of stakeholders)
Level of direct Information Consultation (Participants Collaboration (Participants and organisers participation (Participants are and organisers exchange work together on the tool and develop informed) information and ideas) together the outcomes)
When?
To which process aim/ step does the tool fit?
Problem identification and Inventory and analysis Implementation Evaluation and monitoring awareness-raising Plan, planning and Management Promote involvement, engagement, Goal-setting and idea-generation designing ownership and empowerment
How?
Is the tool formal (based in legalisation) or informal Formal (‘hard’, legally binding) Informal (‘soft’, legally non-binding) (not based in legislation)?
121
Is it an Online-tool? No No, but possible online Yes
Can the tool be used on the implementation site, e.g. No Yes the location where spatial measures will/need to be taken place?
Please describe the needs regarding material, equipment, catering, location, staff, moderator, expertise)
Strong points and limitations
Based on your experiences with the tool, what are the strong points of the tool? Which success did you have with this tool?
Based on your experiences with the tool, what are the limitations of the tool?
Tips for application: DO’s and DON’Ts
Based on your experiences with the tool, what could support the application of the tool? Is there a certain way of communication that might help? Are there other tools which can support this tool?
Based on your experiences with the tool, what could hinder the application of the tool? Are there things you definitely should not do?
Comments
122 INTERVIEWT TOPICS
1.1 Planning challenges a. The biggest challenges related to (peri-urban) green space in your city/urban region b. The applied planning models/concepts/strategies/principles 1.2 Multiscale and plan-nesting a. Integration of the project within a larger (green) network b. The influence of plans and/or policies on EU, national, regional and/or local level on the pilot project c. Linking with other ongoing or planned projects 1.3 Strategical (long-term) planning 1.4 Role of design/designing 1.5 Transdisciplinarity a. Cooperation with other departments/institutions/disciplines b. Cooperation with researchers c. Exchange of knowledge, expertise and experiences between different experts d. Good practice examples for knowledge transfer e. Applied (innovative) strategies/methods/tools for improvement of collaboration between different experts 1.6 Participation of non-governmental actors a. Project initiators b. Involved non-governmental actors and their role c. Not involved non-governmental actors, who should be involved d. Factors contributing and hindering to participation of non-governmental actors e. Applied (innovative) strategies/methods/tools to promote participation 1.7 Implementation a. Applied instruments/strategies/programs/methods/measures for project implementation, financing, management, monitoring and evaluation b. Difficulties and conflicts with project implementation c. Factors contributing and hindering project implementation 1.8 Consolidation a. Securing the implementation and management of the project b. Applied (innovative) strategies/methods/tools for consolidation c. Current progress of the project
123 AUTHORS
Dr. Karsten Berr studied landscape conservation at the University of Osnabrück, and philosophy and sociology at the Distance Learning University of Hagen, where he gained his doctorate with a thesis on philosophy in 2008. After appointments in Oldenburg, Hagen and Vechta, he headed a German Research Foundation project from 2012‒2017 on the theory of landscape and landscape architecture at the Technical University of Dresden, Brandenburg University of Technology (Cottbus), and the University of Vechta. In May 2018, he took up an appointment at the University of Tübingen’s School of Geo-Sciences. His research focuses on the inter- and transdisciplinary theory, practice and ethics of landscape and architecture, landscape conflicts, the philosophy and aesthetics of art, nature and landscape, cultural theory, and anthropology.
Alessandro Betta graduated in 2015 with honours in Architecture at Politecnico di Milano, Italy, where he also tutored in landscape architecture courses. In his PhD research at the University of Trento, Alessandro focuses on planning and design strategies for hybrid territories and green infrastructures, in particular for urban fringes in mountainous territories. Currently, he works for the Edmund Mach Foundation as project manager for EIT Climate-KIC funded projects. During the LOS_DAMA! project, he was employed as a project officer for the City of Trento. In the meantime, Alessandro collaborates with the architectural studios Apicultura and Camposaz in the field of public spaces design and GIS mapping.
Martina van Lierop is a research and teaching associate with a master’s degree in Landscape Architecture and Planning from Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Her research focuses on the interaction between research, design and practice, and on the design of planning processes and research methodology. Her expertise is in green infrastructure planning and its local implementation in collaborative and participatory processes, while in her research she focuses on the supporting approaches, strategies and methods. Martina has contributed to Dutch national funded projects, and coordinated and contributed to several international and national capacity-building and student workshops in, among others, Belarus, China, Germany, Palestine, Poland, Russia and the Netherlands.
Dr. Aurore Meyfroidt is a post-doctoral researcher at the PACTE CNRS Research Centre, within the research team “Cities and Territories”, at the University Grenoble Alpes. Her research interests are metropolitan and peri-urban dynamics, nature in the city, stakeholder constellations and governance. Alongside teaching geography and urban planning at UGA, she has been guest lecturing at Charles University in Prague, the “Ecole Normale Supérieure” in Lyon and Sciences Po Rennes. She gained experience in research-to-practice projects as the Collaborative Research Chair “Living together in the City of Tomorrow” (Labex IMU, University of Lyon) as well as in the assessment of centres of rural excellence (former DIACT, now CGET, French State Agency for Territorial Justice).
Prof. Dr. Stephan Pauleit is a professor in strategic landscape planning and management. His expertise is in urban ecology and green infrastructure planning, ranging from studies of the cooling capacity of urban trees and other types of urban green to advancing concepts of green infrastructure as a planning approach. He has published 91 peer-reviewed papers and supervised 32 PhD students, as well as a large number of graduate and post-graduate students. He has contributed as a work package leader to several EU funded projects as well as national projects funded by German, UK, Danish and Bavarian organisations. He has been appointed member of the advisory board for other research projects and research organisations.
124 PHOTO CREDITS
Unless stated otherwise, LOS_DAMA! project partners hold copyrights for the images.
Jošt Gantar (Ljubljana): http://www.slovenia.info p.26
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz (Munich): p.38
Thierry Chenu (Grenoble): p.53 Top
Christian Fürthner (Vienna): p.57 Top
Michele D´Ottavio (Turin): p.69 Top
Dobner I Angermann (Munich) p.96-97
125 PROJECT PARTNERS-CONTACTS
Landeshauptstadt München (Lead Partner) UIRS Ljubljana Franziska Drasdo +49 89 233 24508 Sergeja Praper Gulič +386 1420 1318 [email protected] [email protected] www.muenchen.de/Los-Dama.html www.uirs.si/projekt?id=323
Comune di Trento Giovanna Ulrici +39 0461 884524 Stadt Wien [email protected] Christina Stockinger +43 1 4000 88886 www.comune.trento.it/Aree-tematiche/ [email protected] Ambiente-e-territorio/Parchi-e-giardini/Iniziative/ www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/projekte/ LOS_DAMA landschaft-freiraum/landschaft/gruenraum/los- dama.html Grenoble-Alpes Métropole Guillaume Tournaire +33 4765 95706 SIR Salzburg [email protected] Manuela Brückler +43 662 62345524 www.lametro.fr/482-programmes- [email protected] europeens.htm www.salzburg.gv.at/bauenwohnen_/Seiten/los- Regione Piemonte dama.aspx Maria Quarta +39 011 4324518 [email protected] TUM Technische Universität München Martina van Lierop +49 8161 714777 www.regione.piemonte.it/ambiente/los_dama/ [email protected] https://www.landschaftsentwicklung.wzw.tum. Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen de/startseite/ Corinna Jenal +49 7071 2977535 [email protected] Université Grenoble Alpes Aurore Meyfroidt +33 476822038 [email protected]
126 IMPRINT
PUBLISHER The EU-project LOS_DAMA! (November 2016 - December 2019) was co-financed by City of Munich - Department of Urban Planning European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Blumenstrasse 28a - 80331 Munich in the Interreg Alpine Space Programme of the European Union. TUM Technical University Munich Arcisstraße 21 - 80333 München www.muenchen.de/plan [email protected]
Piedmont Region Division of Strategic Planning and Green Economy corso Bolzano, 44 - 10121 Torino [email protected] in collaboration with Division of External relations and communication
EDITORIAL OFFICE This publication was created in cooperation with all LOS_DAMA! partners.
PROOFREADING Kern AG https://www.e-kern.com/de/
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Alessandro Betta (TRENT), Aurore Meyfroidt (UGA), Martina Van Lierop (TUM)
DESIGN AND LAYOUT ERICA s.a.s. - Pinerolo [TO] www.studioerica.it
TUM Technische University of Munich Martina van Lierop, Nuria Roig.
127 Alpine Space