DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Best Practices for Limiting Soil Sealing and Mitigating Its Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Best Practices for Limiting Soil Sealing and Mitigating Its Effects Technical Report - 2011 - 050 Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects April 2011 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu). ISBN : 978-92-79-20669-6 doi : 10.2779/15146 © European Communities, 2011 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. FINAL REPORT Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 Project co-ordination: Luca Marmo and Thomas Strassburger European Commission – DG Environment Authors: Gundula Prokop, Heide Jobstmann and Arnulf Schönbauer Environment Agency Austria April 11, 2011 Final Report Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 Study contracted by the European Commission, DG Environment Project co-ordination: Luca Marmo and Thomas Strassburger (European Commission – DG Environment) Authors: Gundula Prokop, Heide Jobstmann, Arnulf Schönbauer Environment Agency Austria Maps: Christine Gassner Environment Agency Austria 2 Final Report Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................... 15 1 Introduction .................................................................. 24 1.1 Definition of soil sealing and related terms ............................. 24 1.2 The broader context of soil sealing ........................................ 27 1.3 Available data on artificial surface, sealing and land take ......... 28 1.3.1 The extent of artificial surfaces and sealed surfaces in 2006 ........................30 1.3.2 Changes in land use intensity between 1990 and 2006 ................................32 1.3.3 Annual land take before and after 2000.........................................................35 1.3.4 Rapidly growing countries and regions..........................................................37 1.3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................41 2 Overview of existing Policies to reduce and mitigate soil sealing in the EU and Member States ............................... 42 2.1 Relevant policy at EU level (short outline) .............................. 42 2.2 Austria............................................................................... 45 2.2.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................45 2.2.2 Policies of interest .........................................................................................46 2.2.3 Best practice..................................................................................................49 2.2.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................50 2.3 Belgium.............................................................................. 51 2.3.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................51 2.3.2 Policies of interest .........................................................................................53 2.3.3 Best practice..................................................................................................55 2.3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................55 2.4 Bulgaria (short country profile) .............................................. 57 2.5 Cyprus (short country profile)................................................ 60 2.6 Czech Republic ................................................................... 62 2.6.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................62 2.6.2 Policies of interest .........................................................................................63 2.6.3 Best practice..................................................................................................65 2.6.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................65 2.7 Denmark............................................................................. 67 2.7.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................67 2.7.2 Policies of interest .........................................................................................68 2.7.3 Best practice..................................................................................................69 2.7.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................69 2.8 Estonia .............................................................................. 70 2.8.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................70 2.8.2 Policies of Interest .........................................................................................71 2.8.3 Conclusions ...................................................................................................72 2.9 Finland .............................................................................. 73 3 Final Report Overview of best practices for limiting soil sealing or mitigating its effects in EU-27 2.9.1 Land take and sealing ...................................................................................73 2.9.2 Policies of interest .........................................................................................75 2.9.3 Best practice..................................................................................................76 2.9.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................77 2.10 France ............................................................................... 78 2.10.1 Land take and sealing .................................................................................78 2.10.2 Policies of interest .......................................................................................79 2.10.3 Best practice................................................................................................81 2.10.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................81 2.11 Germany ............................................................................ 82 2.11.1 Land take and sealing .................................................................................82 2.11.2 Policies of interest .......................................................................................84 2.11.3 Best practice................................................................................................90 2.11.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................91 2.12 Greece (short country profile) ............................................... 92 2.13 Hungary (short country profile) .............................................. 94 2.14 Ireland ............................................................................... 96 2.14.1 Land take and sealing .................................................................................96 2.14.2 Policies of interest .......................................................................................97 2.14.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................99 2.15 Italy .................................................................................100 2.15.1 Land take and sealing ............................................................................... 100 2.15.2 Policies of interest ..................................................................................... 102 2.15.3 Best practice.............................................................................................. 103 2.15.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 103 2.16 Latvia (short country profile) ................................................104 2.17 Lithuania (short country profile)............................................106 2.18 Luxembourg .......................................................................107 2.18.1 Land Take and sealing .............................................................................. 107 2.18.2 Policies of interest ..................................................................................... 108 2.18.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 110 2.19 Malta (short country profile).................................................111 2.20 The Netherlands .................................................................112 2.20.1 Land take and sealing ............................................................................... 112 2.20.2 Policies of interest ..................................................................................... 114 2.20.3 Best practice.............................................................................................. 115
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constructed Technosols: a Strategy Toward a Circular Economy
    applied sciences Review Constructed Technosols: A Strategy toward a Circular Economy Debora Fabbri 1 , Romeo Pizzol 1, Paola Calza 1, Mery Malandrino 1 , Elisa Gaggero 1, Elio Padoan 2,* and Franco Ajmone-Marsan 2 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Turin, via P. Giuria 5, 10125 Turin, Italy; [email protected] (D.F.); [email protected] (R.P.); [email protected] (P.C.); [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (E.G.) 2 Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Soil is a non-renewable natural resource. However, the current rates of soil usage and degra- dation have led to a loss of soil for agriculture, habitats, biodiversity, and to ecosystems problems. Urban and former industrial areas suffer particularly of these problems, and compensation measures to restore environmental quality include the renaturation of dismissed areas, de-sealing of surfaces, or the building of green infrastructures. In this framework, the development of methodologies for the creation of soils designed to mimic natural soil and suitable for vegetation growth, known as constructed soils or technosols, are here reviewed. The possible design choices and the starting materials have been described, using a circular economy approach, i.e., preferring non-contaminated wastes to non-renewable resources. Technosols appear to be a good solution to the problems of land degradation and urban green if using recycled wastes or by-products, as they can be an alternative to the remediation of contaminated sites and to importing fertile agricultural soil.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Soil in Europe
    The State of Soil in Europe A contribution of the JRC to the European Environment Agency’s Environment State and Outlook Report— SOER 2010 Arwyn Jones, Panos Panagos, Sara Barcelo, Faycal Bouraoui, Claudio Bosco, Olivier Dewitte, Ciro Gardi, Markus Erhard, Javier Hervás, Roland Hiederer, Simon Jeffery, Anke Lükewille, Luca Marmo, Luca Montanarella, Claudia Olazábal, Jan-Erik Petersen, Vit Penizek, Thomas Strassburger, Gergely Tóth, Miet Van Den Eeckhaut, Marc Van Liedekerke, Frank Verheijen, Eva Viestova, Yusuf Yigini EUR 25186 EN - 2012 European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Contact information Arwyn Jones Address: TP 280, Via Enrico Fermi, 2749 ‐ 21027 ‐ Ispra (VA) – Italy E‐mail: [email protected] Tel.: +39 0332 789162 Fax: +39 0332 786394 http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/ JRC68418 EUR 25186 EN ISBN 978‐92‐79‐22805‐6 (print) ISBN 978‐92‐79‐22806‐3 (PDF) ISSN 1018‐5593 (print) ISSN 1831‐9424 (online)
    [Show full text]
  • Landform Studies in Mosedale, Northeastern Lake District: Opportunities for Field Investigations
    Field Studies, 10, (2002) 177 - 206 LANDFORM STUDIES IN MOSEDALE, NORTHEASTERN LAKE DISTRICT: OPPORTUNITIES FOR FIELD INVESTIGATIONS RICHARD CLARK Parcey House, Hartsop, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 0NZ AND PETER WILSON School of Environmental Studies, University of Ulster at Coleraine, Cromore Road, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry BT52 1SA, Northern Ireland (e-mail: [email protected]) ABSTRACT Mosedale is part of the valley of the River Caldew in the Skiddaw upland of the northeastern Lake District. It possesses a diverse, interesting and problematic assemblage of landforms and is convenient to Blencathra Field Centre. The landforms result from glacial, periglacial, fluvial and hillslopes processes and, although some of them have been described previously, others have not. Landforms of one time and environment occur adjacent to those of another. The area is a valuable locality for the field teaching and evaluation of upland geomorphology. In this paper, something of the variety of landforms, materials and processes is outlined for each district in turn. That is followed by suggestions for further enquiry about landform development in time and place. Some questions are posed. These should not be thought of as being the only relevant ones that might be asked about the area: they are intended to help set enquiry off. Mosedale offers a challenge to students at all levels and its landforms demonstrate a complexity that is rarely presented in the textbooks. INTRODUCTION Upland areas attract research and teaching in both earth and life sciences. In part, that is for the pleasure in being there and, substantially, for relative freedom of access to such features as landforms, outcrops and habitats, especially in comparison with intensively occupied lowland areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 2480 ± 90 +1850 8570 NPL-72. Mockerkin Tarn, West Cumberland
    [RADIOCARBON, VOL. 8, 1966, P. 340-347] NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY RADIOCARBON MEASUREMENTS IV I. HASSALL W. J. CALLOW, M. J. BAKER and GERALDINE National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, England The following list comprises measurements made since those re- ported in NPL III and is complete to the end of November 1965. Ages are relative to A.D. 1950 and are calculated using a half-life of 5568 yr. The measurements, corrected for fractionation (quoted 6013 values are relative to the P.D.B. standard), are referred to 0.950 times the activity of the NBS oxalic acid as contemporary reference standard. The quoted uncertainty is one standard deviation derived from a proper combination of the parameter variances as described in detail in NPL III. These variances are those of the standard and background measure- ments over a rolling twenty week period, of the sample C14 and 8013 measurements and of the de Vries effect (assumed to add an additional uncertainty equivalent to a standard deviation of 80 yr). Any uncertainty in the half-life has been excluded so that relative C14 ages may be cor- rectly compared. Absolute age assessments, however, should be made using the accepted best value for the half-life and the appropriate un- certainty then included. If the net sample count rate is less than 4 times the standard error of the difference between the sample and background count rates, a lower limit to the age is reported corresponding to a net sample count rate of 4 times the standard error of this difference. The description of each sample is based on information provided by the person submitting the sample to the laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief Soil Sealing and Land Take
    The RECARE project is funded by the European Commission FP7 Programme, ENV.2013.6.2-4 ‘Sustainable land care in Europe’. POLICY BRIEF SOIL SEALING AND LAND TAKE SUMMARY Urbanisation is an ongoing trend in Europe leading to land take and soil sealing at the expense of agricultural land and other open landscapes. Despite the extensive loss of productive soils and the valuable ecosystem services that soils provide, the awareness of the magnitude and negative implications of these processes remain relatively low. Systematic solutions are required to reduce the scale of land take and soil sealing. More specifically, an overall strategic aim and framework for sustainable soil management at EU and national level are needed, complemented by binding and quantitative land take targets and adequate financial and technical support at national scale. Municipal spatial planning is one of the most important instruments to foster sustainable city development and highlights the importance of cities to guide this process. This also includes testing and deploying new approaches such as joint regional planning, Open Space concepts or the application of zoning concepts to protect the most fertile and valuable soils from sealing. In this policy brief, we illustrate the scale of the problem and identify ready-made solutions and steps policy makers and practitioners can take across different levels, from city planning to national and European level. INTRODUCTION B Europe loses about 1.007 km² of soil due to land take M r annually (EEA 2017), which is approximately a loss f the size of the city of Berlin. Land take especially affects metropolitan areas (peri-urban areas) usually e characterized by land with high soil quality and some of the most productive agricultural soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier Lake, Saddle, & Blue Ice Trails
    Guide to Glacier Lake, Saddle, & Blue Ice Trails in Kachemak Bay State Park Trail Access: Glacier Spit, Saddle, or Humpy Creek Grewingk Tram Spur (1 mile, easy) Allowable Uses: Hiking This spur connects Glacier Distance: 3.2 mi one-way (Glacier Lake Trail) Lake Trail and Emerald Lake Loop Trail. There is a hand- 1.0 mi one way (Saddle Trail) operated cable car pulley 6.7 mi one-way (Glacier Spit to Blue Ice Trail end) system over Grewingk Elevation Gain: 200 ft (Glacier Lake Trail) Creek. Operation requires 200 ft (Glacier Lake to Saddle Trailhead) two people. Maximum capacity of the tram is 500 500 ft (Glacier Spit to Blue Ice Trail end) pounds. If only two people are crossing the Difficulty: Easy; family suitable (Glacier Lake Trail) tram, one person should stay behind and assist in Camping: Moderate (Saddle Trail) pulling the other across. Two people in the tram cart without assistance from others on the plat- Glacier Spit, Grewingk Glacier Lake, Grewingk Creek, Moderate (Blue Ice Trail) form is difficult. Gloves are helpful in operating Tarn Lake, Humpy Creek, Right Beach (accessible at Hiking Time: 1.5 hours (to end Glacier Lake Trail) low tide from Glacier Spit) the tram. 30 minutes (Saddle Trail) Water Availability: 5 hours (Glacier Spit to Blue Ice Trail end) Glacier Lake & Saddle Trails: Grewingk Creek (glacial), Grewingk Glacier Lake A Popular route joins the Saddle and Glacier Lake (glacial), small streams near glacier and on Saddle Tr. Blue Ice Trail: Trails. The Glacier Lake Trail follows flat terrain Safety and Considerations: This is the only developed access to Grewingk through stands of cottonwoods & spruce, and CAUTION: Unless properly trained and outfitted for Glacier.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Consumption and Land Take: Enhancing Conceptual Clarity for Evaluating Spatial Governance in the EU Context
    sustainability Article Land Consumption and Land Take: Enhancing Conceptual Clarity for Evaluating Spatial Governance in the EU Context Elisabeth Marquard 1,* , Stephan Bartke 1 , Judith Gifreu i Font 2 , Alois Humer 3 , Arend Jonkman 4 , Evelin Jürgenson 5, Naja Marot 6, Lien Poelmans 7 , Blaž Repe 8 , Robert Rybski 9, Christoph Schröter-Schlaack 1, Jaroslava Sobocká 10, Michael Tophøj Sørensen 11 , Eliška Vejchodská 12,13 , Athena Yiannakou 14 and Jana Bovet 15 1 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Department of Economics, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany; [email protected] (S.B.); [email protected] (C.S.-S.) 2 Faculty of Law, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] 3 Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Universitaetsstrasse 7/5, 1010 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 4 Department of Management in the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628BL Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected] 5 Chair of Geomatics, Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51014 Tartu, Estonia; [email protected] 6 Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva ulica 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] 7 VITO—Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek, Unit Ruimtelijke Milieuaspecten, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium; [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Sealing and Unsealing
    62,/6($/,1*$1'816($/,1*67$7(2)7+($57$1' (;$03/(6 Short title: SOIL SEALING AND UNSEALING Silvia Tobias*a), Franz Conenb), Adrian Dussa)c), Leonore M. Wenzelb), Christine Busera)c), Christine Alewellb) a)Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Landscape Ecology Group, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland, [email protected] b)University of Basel, Department of Environmental Sciences, Bernoullistrasse 30, 4056 Basel, Switzerland c)University of Zurich, Department of Geography, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland *Corresponding author (also for proofs): Silvia Tobias; [email protected]; Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL; Zürcherstrasse 111; CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Tel: +41-44-739 23 49; fax: +41-739 22 15 7KLVDUWLFOHKDVEHHQDFFHSWHGIRUSXEOLFDWLRQDQGXQGHUJRQHIXOOSHHUUHYLHZEXWKDVQRW EHHQWKURXJKWKHFRS\HGLWLQJW\SHVHWWLQJSDJLQDWLRQDQGSURRIUHDGLQJSURFHVVZKLFKPD\ OHDGWRGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKLVYHUVLRQDQGWKH9HUVLRQRI5HFRUG3OHDVHFLWHWKLVDUWLFOHDV GRLOGU 7KLVDUWLFOHLVSURWHFWHGE\FRS\ULJKW$OOULJKWVUHVHUYHG Abstract Soil sealing for urban and infrastructure development constitutes the most intense form of land degradation and affects all ecosystem services. Researchers and policy makers have become aware of this fact and call for limiting development and compensating for new soil sealing with unsealing measures. In a literature review, we found that the state of research about the impacts of soil sealing is far more advanced than about the potential and prerequisites of unsealing. In practice, soil restoration after
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles Urban Soil Toolkit
    LOS ANGELES URBAN SOIL A beginner’s guide to improving and sustaining the health of LA’s urban soil Funding Agency: Accelerate Resilience L.A., a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors TreePeople’s mission is to inspire, engage and support people to take personal responsibility for the urban environment, making it safe, healthy, fun and sustainable and to share the process as a model for the world. © 2021 by TreePeople. 1 Healthy Soils For Healthy Communities To better explore and utilize the potential of soils in LA, TreePeople launched the “Healthy Soils for Healthy Communities” Initiative. The objectives of the initiative include: ● Elevating healthy soils as the “brown” in green infrastructure policy, planning, management, and investments in both the built and natural environments. ● Increasing public and policy-maker awareness of the importance and potential of healthy soils in building climate resilience, sustaining urban ecosystem functions, and enhancing public health. ● Conducting cutting-edge science and research that gets used to fill the information gaps. ● Facilitating policy changes to promote and support healthy urban soil projects. ● Empowering communities with science-based information, best management practices, and practical tools — including the creation of this LA Urban Soil Toolkit. As the first phase of the initiative, we conducted a needs assessment aiming to: • Determine the current status of LA’s urban soil health. • Identify the most pressing urban soil issues and community needs through community consultation and outreach. • Provide a framework for future work regarding urban soil research, policy, public education and community engagement in the region. For more information about Healthy Soils for Healthy Communities Initiative, please visit: treepeople.org/healthy-soils-for-healthy-communities-initiative/.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles, and the Creation of New Soil Habitats in Other Scientific fields Who Also Made Early Contributions Through the Weathering of Rocks (Puente Et Al., 2004)
    Editorial SOIL, 1, 117–129, 2015 www.soil-journal.net/1/117/2015/ doi:10.5194/soil-1-117-2015 SOIL © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. The interdisciplinary nature of SOIL E. C. Brevik1, A. Cerdà2, J. Mataix-Solera3, L. Pereg4, J. N. Quinton5, J. Six6, and K. Van Oost7 1Department of Natural Sciences, Dickinson State University, Dickinson, ND, USA 2Departament de Geografia, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain 3GEA-Grupo de Edafología Ambiental , Departamento de Agroquímica y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Avda. de la Universidad s/n, Edificio Alcudia, Elche, Alicante, Spain 4School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia 5Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK 6Department of Environmental Systems Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, Tannenstrasse 1, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland 7Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Correspondence to: J. Six ([email protected]) Received: 26 August 2014 – Published in SOIL Discuss.: 23 September 2014 Revised: – – Accepted: 23 December 2014 – Published: 16 January 2015 Abstract. The holistic study of soils requires an interdisciplinary approach involving biologists, chemists, ge- ologists, and physicists, amongst others, something that has been true from the earliest days of the field. In more recent years this list has grown to include anthropologists, economists, engineers, medical professionals, military professionals, sociologists, and even artists. This approach has been strengthened and reinforced as cur- rent research continues to use experts trained in both soil science and related fields and by the wide array of issues impacting the world that require an in-depth understanding of soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Glacial Setting ............................................................................................................................................................4 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 9 Economic Resources..................................................................................................................................................9 Mining Issues..............................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • {Download PDF} Netherland Ebook, Epub
    NETHERLAND PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Joseph O'Neill | 300 pages | 04 Mar 2009 | HarperCollins Publishers | 9780007275700 | English | London, United Kingdom Netherland PDF Book Cancel GO. EU Science Hub. Columbia University Press. With Indonesia's independence, a federal constitution was considered too heavy as the economies of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles were insignificant compared to that of the Netherlands. III, Harper Bros. Iron ore brought a measure of prosperity, and was available throughout the country, including bog iron. It is the northern city that enjoys life to the fullest. The country remained neutral during World War I. The region called the Low Countries comprising Belgium , the Netherlands and Luxembourg and the Country of the Netherlands, have the same toponymy. Most of present-day Netherlands became part of Middle Francia , which was a weak kingdom and subject of numerous partitions and annexation attempts by its stronger neighbours. Zeeland and South Holland produce a lot of butter, which contains a larger amount of milkfat than most other European butter varieties. The circuit was purpose-built for the Dutch TT in , with previous events having been held on public roads. The Dutch East India Company was established in , and by the end of the 17th century, Holland was one of the great sea and colonial powers of Europe. Art museums Vermeer Centre Delft Add to itinerary. It is relatively safe to travel by rail from city to city, compared to some other European countries. Other activities include sailing, fishing, cycling, and bird watching. Consulate General Amsterdam. The Netherlands has multiple music traditions. You'll see -- or smell -- Amsterdam's infamous "coffee shops" where marijuana is legally sold and consumed.
    [Show full text]