ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Report:
MILESTONE 34
Overview of analytical framework, selected cases and
planning documents
Work package 5:
Partners involved:
Contributing Researchers:
Description:
Green infrastructure planning and implementation
TUM; UNIBA; MRI
Hansen, R.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S.; Davies, C.; Lafortezza, R.; Debellis, Y.; Tosics, I.
The contents of this report outline the analytical framework for assessment
of the current state of urban green infrastructure planning in Europe as part
of the EU FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567) GREEN SURGE project (2013-2017).
Primary authors: Rieke Hansen, Emily Lorance Rall
Technische Universität München, Germany
Version 1• July 31st 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
1
1
Introduction
2
2
Theoretical Background
4
2.1
Typology of planning and territorial government families
4
2.2
Definition of Urban Green Infrastructure Planning
6
2.3
Policy concepts
9
3
Case Study Selection for Tier 1
11
3.1
Data base
11
3.2
Selection Criteria
11
3.2.1 Planning Family and Territorial Government Typology
11
3.2.2 Physical and socio-demographic criteria
14
3.2.3 Pragmatic criteria
14
3.2.4 Priority list
15
3.3
The Selected Case Studies
15
4
Analytical Framework for tier 1
18
4.1
Research questions
18
4.2
Study design
19
4.3
Questionnaire
20
4.4
Desk study
21
4.5
Document analysis
21
4.6
Synthesis
22
5
Outlook on next steps
25
5.1
Expected results from Tier 1
25
5.2
Outlook on Tier 2
26
5.3
Outlook on Tier 3
27
Acknowledgements
29
References
30
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 1
SUMMARY
This report outlines the analytical framework for assessment of the current state of urban green
infrastructure (UGI) planning in Europe within GREEN SURGE, an EU FP7 collaborative project,
FP7-ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567 (2013-2017). It primarily focuses on the approach to Task 5.1 of
the project, including outlining the case study and planning document selection process, but also
briefly outlines the next tasks of the ‘Green infrastructure planning and implementation’ Work
Package (WP5), as well as links with other Work Packages within the project.
The overarching aim of Task 5.1 is to assess the state of UGI planning in European urban areas.
We will achieve this aim by employing multiple methods to:
 Assess the adoption of principles of UGI planning in current practices of strategic green
space planning across European city regions;
 Analyze the main gaps for effective UGI implementation; and
 Determine limitations and opportunities of current approaches.
For Task 5.1, a stepwise approach was adopted, in which the first step involved determining a
‘planning family’ typology based on peer-reviewed research which could underlie our selection
of 20 case studies. Following this research, five planning families were classified: (i) Nordic, (ii)
British, (iii) Mediterranean, (iv) Central, and (v) New Member States. We next identified territorial government, socio-demographic and physical criteria which could complement the planning
family typology in the selection process. By integrating these criteria into a prioritization scheme
along with pragmatic criteria, we identified 20 case study cities which we feel are sufficiently
representative of strategic green space planning across different regions in Europe.
A structured expert questionnaire was devised for interviewing chief planners in municipal departments within each case. The researchers also conducted a document analysis and desk study
to gain additional insight on current green space planning and the implementation of UGI in the
case study cities. Data collection is currently in progress, but the report briefly outlines how results from these data collection methods will be analysed and triangulated to answer a number
of research questions related to examining the state of UGI planning and implementation across
Europe.
The outputs of Task 5.1 will directly link into Task 5.2, notably with respect to defining what is
good practice and identifying good practice cases in the light of current practice. Additionally,
outputs will be used in Task 5.3 to develop new strategies for UGI planning in cooperation with
relevant stakeholders in the project’s Urban Learning Labs.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 1
1
INTRODUCTION
With this report, which is also Milestone 34 of the GREEN SURGE project, we aim to provide an
overview of the analytical framework as well as selected cases and planning documents for a
substantial portion of research within the project, namely that relating to research carried out
within Work Package (WP) 5, ‘Green infrastructure planning and implementation.’
As stated in the project’s Description of Work (DoW), “WP5 aims to advance UGI [urban green
infrastructure] planning and implementation at the city and city-regional scale to more effectively promote urban BD [biodiversity] and ESS [ecosystem services] towards more resilient and
low-impact European cities” (GREEN SURGE 2013, Part A, p21). Specifically, it seeks to do this
through three objectives: 1) assessing the state of UGI planning in European urban areas; 2)
identifying and analysing good practices of UGI planning and implementation; and 3) developing
and testing innovative strategies and tools for UGI planning and implementation (ibid). These
objectives relate to work within three tasks of WP5—Tasks 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, respectively—and
follow a three tiered approach. Tier 1 represents a comparative analysis of European cities and
city regions based on 20 case studies across Europe. Tier 2 focusses on 8-10 in-depth good practice studies, building on Tier 1 results but also potentially including additional European and
non-European examples. Tier 3 is the level of Urban Learning Labs (ULLs) and aims at applying
good practices, methods and tools identified by the GREEN SURGE consortium towards UGI
strategy development in combination with ULL stakeholders.
This report primarily lays out work undertaken for Task 5.1, ‘Assessing the state of green infrastructure planning in European urban areas,’ in which we seek to understand the current state of
UGI planning, including gaps as well as limitations and opportunities for development of more
comprehensive UGI planning through a mix of literature review and comparative analysis of 20
functional urban areas across Europe. As the first task within WP5, considerable work was needed in establishing the theoretical foundations for principles and concepts of interest in GREEN
SURGE (e.g., what is urban green infrastructure exactly and how can it be defined) as well as in
developing a sampling strategy for the limited sample size and selecting appropriate methods,
analyses, and triangulation approaches for the comparative case study.
The following sections outline these considerations and the decisions made with regard to them,
as well as offering an outlook on future activities within WP5 and how they relate to other Work
Packages. Section 2 describes the theoretical underpinnings for work done within WP5, including development of a typology of planning families and territorial governments, GREEN SURGE’s
definition of UGI planning, and definitions of other concepts central to GREEN SURGE such as
biocultural diversity and a green economy. Section 3 details the approach we took for selecting
case studies and presents the final list of cases across the planning families to which they belong.
In Section 4, we explain the analytical framework for Tier 1 analysis, including our central
research questions and study design, individual methods, and how we plan to synthesize the
data. Section 5 provides an outlook on expected Tier 1 results as well as plans for Tier 2 and 3
research and analysis.
While this report focuses on work done within WP5, this work cuts across that of many Work
Packages, especially WP6, which focuses on innovative governance of urban green space and
biocultural diversity. WP6 and WP5 are considered as intertwined since planning and govern-
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 2
ance issues are normally part of the same policy set. For example, governance approaches to
involving citizens directly in decision-making frequently deals with planning as well as implementation issues. Thus, research approaches were coordinated between these Work Packages
and data collection combined. Notwithstanding, the theoretical background and analytical
framework presented in the following serve as a reference and guidance for other GREEN SURGE
Work Packages in helping them link work in their respective Work Packages with that of WP5.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 3
2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section describes the theoretical foundations, including development of a typology of planning families, definition of UGI planning, and definitions of other concepts central to GREEN
SURGE.
2.1
Typology of planning and territorial government families
In selecting a representative sample of European cities, it is necessary to take into account existing planning and governance systems across the continent. Thus, the literature review in Task
5.1 began with a survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature and policy documents from the
European Union which aimed to classify different European planning cultures and histories. We
not only took account of established classifications such as Newman and Thornley (1996) and
the EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (EC 1997), but also addendums (ESPON 2007) and newer classification frameworks which seek to represent more nuanced and
governance-oriented realities (c.f. Knieling and Othengrafen 2009, Nadin & Stead 2008, Steinhauer 2011).
There have been many attempts to create a typology of European planning systems, with the
most well-known of these coming in the mid-1990’s (Newman and Thornley 1996, EC 1997).
These two classification systems distinguished four systems (summarized on the basis of ESPON
2007):
1. The regional economic approach (French Model)
The aim of the regional economic approach is to let regional economic development conform
to some overall idea formulated by a central agency, using powers and funds at its disposal.
Under this approach „spatial planning has a very broad meaning relating to the pursuit of
wide social and economic objectives; especially in relation to disparities […] between
different regions. […] Where this approach […] is dominant, central government inevitably
plays an important role” (EC 1997, p. 36).
2. The comprehensive integrated approach (German Model)
In this approach „spatial planning is conducted through a very systematic and formal
hierarchy of plans from national to local level, which coordinate public sector activity across
different sectors but focus more specifically on spatial coordination than economic
development. […] This tradition is necessarily associated with mature systems. It requires
responsive and sophisticated planning institutions and mechanisms and considerable
political commitment. […] Public sector investments in bringing about the realisation of the
planning framework is also the norm” (EC 1997, pp. 36–37).
3. Land use spatial planning (British Model)
This planning approach has the goal of controlling land use change. Its focus has strong roots
in the spatial planning of the United Kingdom. Here, „planning is more closely associated with
the narrower task of controlling the change of use of land at the strategic and local levels […],
where regulation has been and is vigorously and effectively pursued with the objective of
ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. In this situation, local authorities
undertake most of the planning work, but the central administration is also able to exercise a
degree of power, either though supervising the system and for setting central policy
objectives” (EC 1997, p. 37).
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 4
4. Urbanism tradition (Mediterranean Model)
This style of spatial planning takes place on the local level through building regulations. It
„has a strong architectural flavour and concern with urban design, townscape and building
control. […] Regulation has been undertaken through rigid zoning and codes. There is a
multiplicity of laws and regulations but the systems are not so well established, and have no
commanded great political priority or general public support. As a result they have been less
effective in controlling development. Like the other traditions above, it is possible to
recognize change here with government at all levels making considerable efforts to establish
more firm planning control and to broaden the concerns of spatial planning” (EC 1997, p. 37).
While these efforts provided a foundational base upon which planning families could be classified, they also came at a time when the culture of planning across Europe was beginning to shift
towards more integrated coordination and equitable distribution of resources. In recognition of
these changes, a massive research effort was undertaken by the European Spatial Planning Observatory Network, funded by the European Commission, to reclassify European planning systems (ESPON 2007). The results provided insight into shifting planning and governance conditions across Europe, but the resulting, highly nuanced categorization makes it difficult to clearly
classify several countries. Additionally, the new member states emerging after the fall of the
USSR were classified across several categories, but their continuing political instability prevents
distinct categorization of these countries based on formal administrative dimensions. The shortcomings of the ESPON (2007) report underline the need to balance the multifaceted changes in
planning families across Europe on one hand with a straightforward classification system on the
other hand.
In the last 10 years, another dimension for classifying planning typologies emerged which seeks
to integrate more cultural, socio-economic, and political elements (c.f. Knieling and Othengrafen
2009, Nadin & Stead 2008, Steinhauer, 2011). The new frameworks based on this dimension
seek to go beyond the traditional formal focus on governance structures and legal and administrative systems to further explain how culture impacts day-to-day planning and governance. This
concept, termed “planning cultures,” is defined by Knieling and Othengrafen (2009: xxiv) as referring to “different planning systems and traditions [...] and the broader cultural context of
spatial planning and development [...] [which] consists of more than planning instruments and
procedures; it is the aggregate of the social, environmental, and historical grounding of urban
and regional planning […] describing the specific ‘cultural contexts’ in which planning is
embedded and operates.” While the concept of planning cultures brings useful contextual information about the realities of planning in different areas of Europe, there is a lack of comparative
literature on these aspects which hinders categorization of countries on these types of cultural
criteria.
The categorization of planning and governance cultures selected for GREEN SURGE recognizes
these past efforts on planning family and culture typologies while aiming for a classification
scheme which can also be representative for the limited sample size of 20 case study cities.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 5
2.2
Definition of Urban Green Infrastructure Planning
GREEN SURGE understands UGI as a strategic planning approach. However, green infrastructure
is an elusive concept aligned with various meanings ranging from a planning approach for largescale green space networks to ecosystem-based storm water management. To foster a common
understanding of UGI planning, WP5 developed a paper laying out definitions and a conceptualization of UGI based on literature and EU policy. This paper was discussed with all project Work
Packages. In an iterative process, green space, UGI, UGI planning and governance were defined
and these definitions shared among the Consortium, with suggestions made for how to use each
term (for the other definitions, see Box 1).
Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) planning is a strategic planning approach that aims at developing networks of green and blue spaces in urban areas designed and managed to deliver a wide
range of ecosystem services1. Interlinked with GI planning on a landscape scale, UGI planning
aims at creating multifunctional networks on different spatial levels, from urban regional to city
and neighborhood planning. Due to its integrative, multifunctional approach, UGI planning is
capable of considering and contributing to a broad range of policy objectives related to urban
green space such as conservation of biodiversity, enhancing ecosystem services for human
health and well-being, adaptation to climate change, and supporting the green economy.
UGI planning addresses the usually public-sector led process of planning and implementing
green space-related policy goals2. UGI planning is differentiated from other green space planning
approaches by being based on a specific set of principles that relate to the content as well as the
process of planning, and which are defined below. Although we see the public sector as a main
actor for UGI planning, we are well aware that the importance of non-state actors is growing. WP
5 will address collaborative and socially inclusive approaches with regard to public-sector led
planning.
We suggest framing the GREEN SURGE approach by five interwoven elements: policy objectives,
UGI planning principles, planning process approach, governance arrangements and implementation measures (see Figure 1). The element on the left side and the one in the middle of Figure 1
represent the content of UGI planning and governance, the two stacked on the right address the
processes of planning and governance, while the box on the bottom represents the process of
implementation of planning and governance objectives and measures. These elements are described further below.
1
This is based on the definitions given in the DoW as well as in the European Commission’s Green Infrastructure
strategy (COM(2013) 249 final). While it seems important to closely align our understanding of UGI to the definition
of the European Commission so that results from GREEN SURGE can be linked to the EU policy context, for GREEN
SURGE the definition needed to be adapted for application to urban areas.
2
The focus lies on the “plan-making function” of spatial urban planning that is represented by strategies and principles
for spatial organization, land use or built form arrangement (Healy and Williams 1993). This function also includes
implementation of the plans’ objectives and measures.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 6
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for UGI planning and governance
Integration of policy objectives: UGI planning and governance integrates different policy objectives related to urban green space which address current and future challenges and can be
adapted to local conditions and needs. Some of these needs such as biodiversity conservation or
climate change mitigation are commonly acknowledged in relation to urban green space while
for others such as strengthening biocultural diversity or green economy, GREEN SURGE will develop new concepts and strategies (see chapter 2.3).
UGI planning principles: A set of specific principles constitute the content of UGI as a planning
approach (based on Benedict and McMahon 2006; Kambites and Owen 2006; Pauleit et al. 2011;
COM 2013, 249 final):
 Integration: UGI planning considers urban green as a kind of infrastructure and seeks
the integration and coordination of urban green with other urban infrastructures in
terms of physical and functional relations (e.g. built-up structure, transport infrastructure, water management system).
 Network/connectivity: UGI planning aims for added values derived from interlinking
green spaces functionally and physically.
 Delivery of ecosystem services/multifunctionality: represents the ability of UGI to provide several ecological, socio-cultural, and economic benefits. It means that multiple ecological, social and also economic functions, goods and services shall be explicitly considered instead of being a product of chance. UGI planning aims at intertwining or combining different functions to enhance the capacity of urban green space to deliver valuable
goods and services.
 Multi-Scale: UGI planning can be considered for different spatial levels ranging from
city-regions to local projects. UGI planning aims at linking different spatial scales within
and above city-regions.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 7
Principles related to the planning process: additional principles define characteristics of UGI
planning processes:
 Strategic: UGI planning is based on long-term spatial visions supplemented by actions
and means for implementation but remains flexible over time. The process is usually led
by the public sector3 but that does not mean that non-state actors are excluded (see “socially inclusive” below).
 Inter- and Transdisciplinary: UGI planning aims at linkages between disciplines, as
well as between science, policy and practice. It integrates knowledge and demands from
different disciplines such as landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, and landscape architecture and is developed in partnership with different local authorities and
stakeholders.
 Socially inclusive: UGI planning aims for collaborative, socially-inclusive processes.
Implementation measures address how planning and governance arrangements aim at impacts in real life through programs, monitoring, evaluation etc.
Governance arrangements are addressed by WP 6.
Box 1: Additional terms and suggestions for how to use each term
Green space stands for all kinds for urban green (and blue) spaces regardless of their ownership, management,
current use, and functionality. It can also comprise agricultural and forest land, wastelands, cemeteries and
private gardens.
In GREEN SURGE the term green spaces can be applied to existing or planned green elements and structures,
regardless of whether or not they take into account UGI principles.
Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI): In general the concept of green infrastructure (GI) stands for a specific
perspective on natural areas and other open spaces in urban and non-urban surroundings which considers
these areas as crucial for human life as other infrastructure types. More specifically, GI is understood as an
interconnected network of green spaces that provides multiple benefits for humans and embodies the principles of multifunctionality and connectivity.
4
In the GI Strategy of the European Commission, multifunctionality is directly related to ecosystem services . In
the brochure “Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe” by the European Union (2013), GI is defined as “a
spatial structure providing benefits from nature to people, aims to enhance nature’s ability to deliver multiple
valuable ecosystem goods and services, such as clean air or water.” We suggest that the above can also be
applied for UGI: UGI is a network of urban green spaces that is designed and managed to deliver a wide range
of ecosystem services.
All types of urban green space, regardless of ownership and whether these were planned intentionally or have
been created by the action of individuals or community groups can become part of the UGI when they fulfill
the principles of UGI.
3
Albrechts (2006): “Strategic spatial planning is a transformative and integrative, (preferably) public sector led […]
socio-spatial […] process through which a vision, coherent actions and means for implementation are produced that
shape and frame what a place is and might become.”
4
Green infrastructure is “designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services” (COM(2013) 249
final).
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 8
UGI should only be used if the principles embedded in this concept are communicated. At a minimum UGI
should always be used in relation a) to the objective of delivering multiple ecosystem functions, good or services/benefits, or b) to the objective of connecting green spaces physically and/or functionally—ideally both.
In comparison, UGI planning addresses the usually public-sector led process of planning and implementing
green space-related policy goals (full definition was given above).
Governance in relation to UGI: GREEN SURGE focuses on governance arrangements, with a particular focus on
the inclusiveness of decision-making and the role of multiple actors for UGI planning and management. There
may be challenging tensions between strategic planning concepts and approaches and new forms of governance that accentuate the participation of multiple actors and responsive governments. Questions include how,
in settings of strong strategic planning by professionals based on specific principles, a highly diverse potential
set of initiatives coming from below can be accommodated.
2.3
Policy concepts
UGI planning as an approach to support the implementation of concepts such as green economy
or ecosystem services is one aim of the GREEN SURGE project. Central concepts to the project
were identified in a collaborative process among all Work Packages and suggestions for definitions collected. For communication with city officials and stakeholders, short and easy-tounderstand definitions were developed which were used in the data collection process of WP5 as
well as shared with other Work Packages (see Table 1).
Table 1: Suggestions for the communication of policy concepts to stakeholders
Concept
Definition /Explanation
Urban Green
Infrastructure
(UGI)
Urban Green Infrastructure is understood as an interconnected network of green spaces
that provides multiple benefits for humans and embodies—amongst others—the principles of multifunctionality (consideration of multiple benefits of green spaces) and connectivity (functionally and physically linking green spaces for added value).
Ecosystem services
(ESS)
Ecosystem services are the material and non-material benefits that nature provides for
humans and can be categorised into the following four categories: Provisioning services,
Regulating services, Habitat services and Cultural services.
Biodiversity (BD)
Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms and their habitats; this includes
diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.
Biocultural
diversity (BCD)
The diversity of life in all its manifestations (biological, cultural and linguistic) and systemic interactions among these. Urban biocultural diversity is a concept emphasizing the links
between biological diversity and cultural diversity in cities or city regions.
Green economy
A green economy is one that aims to improve human well-being and social equity while
significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive.
Climate change
adaptation
Adaptation to climate change means anticipating the adverse effects of climate change
and taking appropriate action to prevent or minimise the damage they can cause, or
taking advantage of opportunities that may arise.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 9
Human health
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the
absence of disease or infirmity.
Participation
Involvement of citizens in different stages of planning including goal-setting, implementation and monitoring/evaluation.
Social Cohesion
Social cohesion is understood as the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its
members, minimising disparities and avoiding polarisation. People from different backgrounds should have an equal chance to participate in decision-making, should have
similar life opportunities and equal access to services, including, access to green spaces.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 10
3
CASE STUDY SELECTION FOR TIER 1
The 20 Tier 1 case studies were selected to represent the diversity of European cities and cityregions. In aiming for a diverse sample, an iterative selection process was defined in cooperation
with GREEN SURGE partners whose work is related to Tier 1.
3.1
Data base
It was decided that use of the Urban Atlas and Urban Audit datasets would best enable Tier 1
work. Urban Atlas and Urban Audit provide European-wide (EU27), comparable data on land
use, socio-demographics and economic development, currently including data on more than 300
cities.
Based on Earth observation satellite images, the Urban Atlas provides land cover data at a 2.5m
spatial resolution for 305 Large Urban Zones (LUZ) for the reference year 2006.5 LUZ are defined
as commuting zones and include cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants. Urban Audit collects
comparable statistics and indicators for European core city areas and LUZ for different time
periods.6
For the case study city selection, only the core cities were used. They were delineated using the
core city layer from the Urban Audit which refers to the administrative city boundaries.
3.2
Selection Criteria
Selection of the 20 case studies for the Tier 1 analysis was grounded in the idea of providing a
representative sample of European cities – respective of both planning systems and cultures as
well as different situations affecting planning realities across Europe (i.e. population dynamics
and green space coverage) – so that results could be generalized to other areas of Europe not
able to be covered. Based on discussions with project partners during and after the GREEN
SURGE kick-off meeting in Copenhagen on the 2nd and 3rd of December 2013, three sets of criteria
were decided upon:
 Planning family and territorial government typology
 Physical/socio-economic criteria
 Pragmatic criteria
Each of these are described in further detail below. Though additional layers of criteria were
considered (i.e. challenges related to climate change, ethnic compositions and migration
dynamics, economic development), we decided to limit the number of criteria to these due to
data availability and sample size considerations.
3.2.1 Planning Family and Territorial Government Typology
The first criterion fulfils the aim of GREEN SURGE’s Tier 1 analysis “to represent different European macro-regions of planning systems and cultures” (GREEN SURGE 2013, Part A, p21). After
reviewing a number of existing classification frameworks for European planning systems, as
described in Section 2.1 above, we decided on a framework which integrates the commonalities
5
Urban Atlas, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas#tab-methodology
6
Urban Audit Data Collections,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/city_urban/urban_audit_data_collections
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 11
of the systems used by major European projects as well as scientific studies which were mainly
based on spatial, legal and social aspects of planning. Above all, the categorization underlying
Tier 1 case selection reflects the compilation in the review of existing planning system typologies
undertaken by Nadin and Stead (2008, see Table 2), which included and reflects the ESPON
(2007) and EU Compendium (COM 1997) classifications organized into four main categories:
Nordic/Comprehensive integrated, British/Land use management, Central/Regional economic
planning and Mediterranean/Urbanism (Table 2). Additionally, as noted in Nadin and Stead
(2008), many of the new member states emerging after the breakup of the USSR are difficult to
categorize as they still have relatively unstable governments and shift in between many of the
previous four categories as they transition into more stable democracies. Thus, these states warrant a separate category.
The chosen typology of planning families as one criterion for case study selection is represented
in Table 2 below. Depending upon the number of countries belonging to each planning family
and other criteria, namely the capacity of research partners, three to five cases were chosen for
each planning family.
Table 2: Typology of planning families
Planning family
Description
Nordic
British
Mediterranean
Comprehensive integrated: coordination of
spatial impacts of public policies by the
frame of strategic documents and plans
Land use management: regulation of
functional land use by plans and decisions
about the conflicts
Urbanism: structural planning, urban design
through rigid building regulations, zoning and
codes
Central
Regional economic planning: management
of regional economy by public interventions
into the infrastructure and development
New member states
Post-socialist: in the process of change
Countries
Nr. of case
studies
Denmark, Finland,
Sweden
3
United Kingdom,
Ireland
3
Greece, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, Malta,
Cyprus
Austria, Germany,
France, Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxembourg
Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland,
Czech republic,
Slovakia, Hungary,
Slovenia, Croatia,
Romania, Bulgaria
4
5
5
Selection was further guided by a territorial government system typology, as outlined in the EU
FP6 PLUREL7 report (Tosics 2013: 380, see Table 3). The territorial government system typology
includes the “hard factors” of government and is therefore a strong element within the broader
governance approach. The latter includes many more elements which cannot be measured sys7
PLUREL (Peri-urban Land Use Relationships), EU FP6 (2007-2010), www.plurel.net
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 12
tematically across all EU countries (similarly to the planning culture concept discussed in the
previous chapter).
In order to make the selection of the case study cities more plausible, the territorial government
system typology was chosen as a sub-criterion of the planning family typology. The more difficult-to-measure governance aspects will be explored on the basis of the interviews conducted in
the selected case study cities. Further detail on the developed typology of planning families and
territorial government system will be provided in Deliverable 5.1.
8
Table 3: Territorial government system typology (based on Tosics 2013 ). The colours represent the different
planning families from above.
Government 1. Classic
2. Centralized 3. Centralized 4. Decentral- 5. Regionali6. Federal
structure
unitary
unitary with
unitary with
ized unitary
zed unitary
states
strong, but
strong, intewith strong
non-integrated local
local and
grated local
authority level strong regionauthority level
al level
EU-15 and
EFTA countries
Greece
Portugal
Denmark
France
Italy
Austria
Ireland
Finland
United
9
Kingdom
Spain
Belgium
Luxembourg
The
Netherlands
Sweden
Germany
Switzerland
Norway
New Member
States
Bulgaria
Estonia
Czech
Republic
Hungary
Latvia
Romania
Slovenia
Poland
Lithuania
Slovakia
Cyprus
Malta
8
The origin of this typology can be found in Tosics and Dukes (2005).
9
Since the development of this typology, fundamental changes have occurred in the UK, namely the decision of the
Cameron government to abolish the regional level in England. This means that the classification of the UK may need
to be adjusted in the future. However, the effect of these changes on the position of municipalities and the role/power
of Local Enterprise Partnerships is not yet clear, nor is the future composition of the UK (i.e., the Scottish
referendum). As the dimension of territorial government structure is only a subordinated variable and does not play
a decisive role in the selection of case study cities, we decided to leave the position of the UK unchanged in the table.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 13
3.2.2 Physical and socio-demographic criteria
Aside planning family and territorial government typologies, representativeness of European
case study cities should reflect the physical geography and socio-demographic composition of
Europe. We used Urban Atlas and Urban Audit datasets to identify relevant criteria. For this
study, three indicators were considered as reprensenting the diversity of European cities as well
as crucial differences in terms of the capacity to govern urban green space:
 Population size (as an indicator for the administrative capacity for green space planning)
 Population dynamics (as an indicator for economic prosperity)
 Green space per capita (as an indicator for urban green area density)
Biogeographic regions were not considered as an additional criterion. However, the selection of
case studies across the different planning families covers more than half of the eleven European
biogeographic regions.10
Many variables from the Urban Audit cover the period 1990-2012. However, for a large number
of cities, no data are available for the respective time periods. For each indicator the most
complete datasets were chosen:
 population for the year 2009
 annual population change rate, 2001-2012
For the per capita green space in m² per inhabitants, the areas for each core city covered by
green space were combined with the population for the year 2006.11
For each indicator the average for all cities with data was used to build four classes based on
quartiles (see Table 4). This approach was selected to reduce the effect of extremes caused by
specific conditions in a few countries.
Table 4: Classification of physical and socio-demographic indicators
per capita green space (m² per Population 2009
Annual population change
inhabitants) 2006
rate 2001-2012
</= 10
< /= 200 000
</= -0,26
11 – 20
200 001-400 000
-0,25 to 0
21 – 30
400 001-600 000
0 to < 0,25
>/= 31
>/= 600 001
>/= 0,26
3.2.3 Pragmatic criteria
Selection of the case study cities was also influenced by a set of pragmatic criteria, namely
availability of national Green Surge partners, since knowledge of the particular language and
planning context in each case is required. Additionally, some cities had already indicated their
Biogeographic regions in Europe: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-ineurope-1
10
11
Urban Atlas classes: urban green, forest, agriculture areas. For detailed description of land cover classes see
European Commission (2011). Mapping Guide for a European Urban Atlas. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/data/urban-atlas/mapping-guide
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 14
interest in participating in GREEN SURGE. These cities were considered if they fit into the
selection scheme.
To gather a list of potential cases, the researchers contributing to Task 5.1 were asked to name
cities:
 that know about Green Surge and already indicated their interest in being part of it (ULLs
excluded);
 they have been working with or have otherwise good contacts with in their country;
 they have been working with or have otherwise good contacts and where they have
adequate language knowledge from other European countries.
3.2.4 Priority list
Data for all three criteria were collected and used to group and rank the case study cities. First,
the cities were grouped according to planning and territorial government types. Afterwards,
cities were ranked according to existing experience and contacts among the group of scientists
(i.e. pragmatic criteria). The ranking was organized as follows:
 1 = ULL city
 2 = city officials expressed interest in participating
 3 = good contact/experience
 4 = contact/experience, but no partner in country
 5 = no contact/no experience
All ULL cities were included in the final selection, as indicated in the project’s DoW (GREEN
SURGE 2013, Part A, p21). All other cases were considered on the basis of their ranking of pragmatic criteria in comparison with the physical and socio-demographic classes of which they were
found. For each planning family, cities were chosen that represent a broad variety of classes. The
selection was cross-checked with the territorial government system typology so that as many
classes as possible were covered.
3.3
The Selected Case Studies
The priority list was discussed with all researchers assigned to conduct the case study analyses,
after which the final selection was made. Afterwards, the potential case study cities were contacted to ask for their willingness to participate.
The five ULLs and 15 additional case studies represent 14 European states (see Figure 2) in all
planning families and with different physical and socio-demographic characteristics (see Table
5). In terms of territorial government system, only the “classic unitary countries” are not covered. The capacity of the research teams and their knowledge of languages lead partly to a selection of more than one case per state (e.g., Poland or Netherlands), while other states could not be
included (e.g., France or Greece).
For each planning family, we aimed for a diverse representation of classes, though varying regional conditions limited representation of some classes (e.g., large amounts of urban green
space in the Nordic family compared to low ones in the Mediterranean family). In some cases
such as for the British planning family the pragmatic criteria were valued higher than the variety.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 15
Table 5: Socio-demographic and physical classification of the case study cities. The colours represent the classification of physical and socio-demographic indicators from Table 4. The 5 ULLs are in bold.
per capita green space
Name
Country
Population 2009 Annual population
change rate 2001-2012 (m²/inhab.) 2006
Nordic planning family: Comprehensive integrated
12
Århus
Denmark
n.d.
n.d.
31,34
Helsinki
Finland
576632
0,93
25,51
Malmö
Sweden
293909
1,36
35,01
Central planning family: Regional economic planning
Amsterdam
Netherlands
755605
0,62
17,62
Berlin
Germany
3442675
0,05
16,82
Halle an der
Saale
Linz
Germany
232323
-1,10
25,16
Austria
189122
-0,38
27,14
Utrecht
Netherlands
299891
1,70
21,04
British planning family: Land use management
Bristol
United kingdom
433100
0,46
27,30
Edinburgh
United kingdom
477700
0,50
32,69
Liverpool
United kingdom
442300
-0,10
27,68
1621537
-0,23
2,96
Mediterranean planning family: Urbanism
Barcelona
Spain
Bari
Italy
320677
-0,40
5,57
Lisboa including
13
Almada
Milano
Portugal
479884
-0,90
23,36
1295705
-0,37
8,98
New member states planning family: Post-socialist
Ljubljana
Slovenia
276091
0,14
9,29
Italy
Lódz
Poland
742387
-0,75
11,81
Oradea
Romania
204880
-0,56
3,90
Poznan
Poland
554221
-0,30
36,39
Szeged
Hungary
169030
n.d.
33,38
12
Population 2001: 286668
13
As a city within the Lisbon-LUZ, Almada is considered as a sub-case of the LUZ.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 16
Figure 2: Selected case study cities and their planning families for the Tier 1 analysis. (Adapted from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-culturalvectors/)
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 17
4
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR TIER 1
Task 5.1 was structured by research questions which were answered by combining several data
collection and analysis methods such as expert interviews, document analysis and case study
comparison. The analytical framework structuring this process is outlined below.
4.1
Research questions
The analytical framework for Tier 1 is organized in such a way as to allow adequate exploration
of the current state of UGI planning across European regions. Specifically, we aim to determine
the extent of adoption of UGI planning principles, including major gaps in implementation and
where there are limitations and opportunities for further development. Our research questions
were accordingly grouped into three themes (see Box 2).
Box 2: Tier 1 research questions
Theme 1: Adoption of principles of UGI planning in current practices of strategic green space planning across
European city regions
1.1) Which UGI planning principles are integrated in current green space planning practice? Which principles
were omitted?
1.2) Which principles for planning processes defined as characteristic for UGI planning are integrated in current green space planning practice? Which process principles were omitted?
1.3) Which policy objectives relevant for GREEN SURGE were integrated into current strategic green space
planning? Which were missing?
1.4) Which additional policy objectives related to urban green space are the most common?
Theme 2: Main gaps for effective UGI implementation
2.1) What mechanisms are in place to ensure plans are implemented?
2.2) What are supporting or hindering factors to implementation?
Theme 3: Limitations and opportunities of current approaches
3.1) What are the main differences and similarities between and within the planning families (e.g., with respect to the adoption of the UGI concept and its implementation compared to institutional context or
planning system)?
3.2) What are the main gaps and limitations of current approaches which can be found within and across the
planning families?
3.3) What correlations exist between identified UGI-related instruments and policies and socio-demographic,
physical and biogeographic factors (i.e. city size, green space coverage, population dynamics, effects of climate change)? What conditions support or hinder strategic UGI planning?
3.4) Which of the current planning practices can be considered as UGI planning or come very close to the concept?
3.5) What lessons can be learned from current planning practice? Are there common challenges within or
across European regions for which solutions have not yet been found? Have there been solutions developed in certain regions which might feasibly be implemented elsewhere in Europe?
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 18
4.2
Study design
The main aim of the Tier 1 analysis of 20 case studies was to explore the state of green space
planning and governance in Europe and how planning practice relates to the concept of UGI.
The information was gathered in a three-part approach:
I) Questionnaire for case study officials
II) Desk study by local partner
III) Planning/policy document analysis by local partner
The questionnaire was our core tool for data collection and included the basic information needs
of WP2, 5, and 6. A questionnaire with closed and open questions to be answered by city officials
was considered as the most efficient tool for a study conducted by several researchers who may
have not all been experienced in methods from social sciences.
Further advantages were:
- the data was collected in a format that was easy to process (i.e., might have required only
translation); the combination of open and closed questions would allow quantitative and
qualitative analyses,
- if answers were not sufficient further enquiry and addition of information would be
relatively easy.
Conducting only one questionnaire per case study city we were aware that the results might
represent a narrowed perspective of the particular department which the interviewee was
related to. But dealing with several questionnaires/interviews and probable conflicting results
would exceed the capacity for data analysis of the Consortium. To overcome the limitations of
one interview per case, the questionnaires were reviewed with regard to the objectivity of the
interviewees and additional reflections of the interviewer. Furthermore, a desk study was
conducted to verify and supplement results from the questionnaire. It also served to collect
information that would go beyond the scope of the questionnaire (e.g., description of planning
instruments for UGI on the city- and city-regional level). The desk study further enabled the
scientist to critically reflect upon the results from the questionnaire and, if in doubt, make
comments for the study leaders.
As an additional approach, a document analysis was conducted by the local scientists and
focused on up to two important plans or policies related to UGI. Following a coding protocol, the
scientists read the documents carefully and added data to the protocol (e.g., which policy
concepts were addressed, which implementation measures were indicated). This method
provided insight on if or how different policy concepts and GI principles were considered in
planning and how the plans were implemented. As it was not completed by the city officials it
provided a more neutral perspective. We conisdered this approach to be efficient, comparably
easy and promising for obtaining comparable results.
As the data for Tier 1 were collected by several researchers, good guidance and structuring of the
process was crucial to secure consistent data collection. Thus, a set of documents with
instructions as well as supporting documents such as an information sheet for city officals were
created and distributed to the participating researchers (Table 6; all documents are available on
request).
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 19
Table 6: Instructions and material for Tier 1 data collection
Data collection part
Document title
Instruction to overall process
Questionnaire and supporting documents for city
officals
Desk study and review of questionnaire
Document analysis with table for suggesting
documents that would meet the criteria for analysis
GS_tier 1 case studies_00_instruction
(powerpoint-document explaining all tasks alinged
with a timeframe; to be used as a checklist)
GS_tier 1 case studies_01_information sheet
GS_tier 1 case studies_02_questionnaire
GS_tier 1 case studies_03_consent form
GS_tier 1 case studies_04_desk study
GS_tier 1 case studies_05_review of questionnaire
GS_tier 1 case studies_06_planning documents
GS_tier 1 case studies_07_document analysis
The data collection process began in mid-May 2014 and will run through September 2014. At the
beginning of the data collection process a webinar took place where the study leaders explained
the different tasks and answered questions of the participating researchers. Questions arising
during the webinar and the data collection process were collected and answered through a living
FAQ-document. Each of the elements of the three-part approach are described further below.
4.3
Questionnaire
The aim of the expert questionnaire was to explore how city officials perceive and value different
aspects of UGI planning and governance. It was discussed and developed in an iterative approach
including several reviews by research partners in WP 2, 5 and 6. A final revision took place after
pilot testing with the City of Utrecht, Netherlands.
The questionnaire was titled “Questionnaire on urban green space14 planning and governance in
Europe” and consisted of six parts:
-
-
PART I – BASIC INFORMATION on the case study and interviewee
PART II – GREEN SPACE PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE
A) general development of urban green space; priorities, efforts and challenges in
green space planning
B) participation in green space planning and governance; role of new participatory
governance practices (mainly for WP 6)
C) non-governmental actors and green space initiatives (mainly for WP 6)
D) implementation of green space planning and policies
E) processes and principles in green space planning
F) responsibilities and cooperation
PART III – BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY (for WP 2)
PART IV –THEMES RELATED TO URBAN GREEN SPACE
A) Most important themes/issues in green space planning of the city
B) GREEN SURGE themes such as UGI, biodiversity, or climate change and their relevance in urban planning and policy-making
Based on prior studies we assumed that not many cities already work with the term „urban green infrastructure“
although their planning activities might be similar to the concept. Thus, we preferred “urban green space planning”
as the more likely known/more easily understood term.
14
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 20
-
PART V – FINISH
The questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter explaining the study aims and a consent
form for the interviewee to sign.
The questionnaire was distributed to chief planners (urban planning and/or green space
planning). The answering process was guided by the interviewer face-to-face or, if not possible,
via telephone. The interviewer would read out the questionnaire literally. Additional explanations were given if aspects remained unclear. The interviewer filled in the questionnaire, leaving
the city official to concentrate on answering. If possible vocal recording was used as a backup.
4.4
Desk study
The aim of the desk study was to portray the planning and governance system of the case study
city and its surrounding urban area. Information was gathered from literature, reports, technical
media, web pages, planning laws, local and regional plans, existing relevant policies and the like.
If the interviewer was inexperienced in urban green space planning and governance a discussion
with a local expert was suggested to identify the most relevant features of the local system and
important references. The desk study was structure by a document with questions on:
- Main charcteristics of the planning system with regard to urban green space
(instruments and organisation, recent changes, future challenges, drivers of change)
- Participatory governance context (for WP 6)
The desk study also helped the researchers to critically review the questionnaire. We provided a
separate document for the interviewer to indicate if in his/her opinion points were missing and
where statements should be used carefully.
4.5
Document analysis
For each case study, depending on availabilty, one or two plans relating to urban green space
were analysed with regard to the concept of UGI and other concepts relevant in GREEN SURGE.
Researchers were provided with a table to fill in basic information for two strategic planning
documents that were suggested by city officals. One plan was identified to represent the most
relevant for the protection and/or development of urban green space in the city/urban region
(category 1) and the other one the most innovative for the protection and/or development of
urban green space in the city/urban region (category 2).
The suggestions were reviewed by the study leaders in terms of comparability amongst each
other and relevance for the study aims. Plans were included or excluded if the following applied:
-
-
Outdated plans or plans in progress: If for plans updates and revisions were announced
but not available yet, the currently valid plans were only included in the study if the city
officials considered them as representing still relevant principles and objectives. If drafts
of new plans or updates and revision of existing plans were available these were
included, with the awareness that the draft might differ from the finally accepted plan.
Limited consideration of green space in urban planning: To be included in the analysis, at
least half of the analysis questions should be applicable. The researchers executing the
document analysis were asked to screen documents that have only little content directly
related to urban green space and if so, only execute a limited version of the analysis. The
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 21
finding that urban planning in some cities only considers urban green space in a very
limited way would be integrated as a result in and of itself.
The selection of planning documents is currently in finalization. After agreement on which plans
should be analysed, the researchers will carefully read the plans and if necessary collect
additional information on the planning process. For each plan they will fill out a table with open
and closed questions on:
1)
2)
3)
4)
4.6
Basic information on the planning document
Themes and policy objectives
Planning process and implementation
UGI principles
Synthesis
Data collection will end in September 2014. Until then, all data from the three-part approach and
associated documents (i.e., planning documents, review of questionnaire) collected by the
researchers will be sent to WP5 leaders, who will conduct immediate data verification on each
packet received. All questionnaire responses will then be transposed into a coded spreadsheet
for use in later cross-case analysis.
As Task 5.1 aims to explore a number of aspects of UGI planning, we use categorical aggregation
(Creswell 2007) to combine the various data points across categories in four themes: UGI
planning principles, UGI planning processes, GREEN SURGE policy concepts, and
implementation. (The fifth element of the GREEN SURGE conceptual framework, governance
arrangements, will be analysed by WP6.) Data triangulation across themes within each case is
aided through the use of case study portraits and a profile matrix.
The case study portraits describe the planning system and context for each case, and include
images, maps and text. Portraits help researchers to better understand the complexity and
important relationships inherent in each case, thereby ensuring a holistic analysis of each case
(Yin 2003). The portraits were seen as essential to gathering all necessary information to
consider each case within its unique context, as well as to illustrate various socio-demographic,
political and geographic characteristics for use in cross-case comparison. Each case study
portrait will be populated by WP5 leaders and an experienced researcher within each planning
family. To help ensure consistent results for sections answered by the researchers, a mock-up
will be drafted and circulated to each designated researcher. The portraits for each case will be
reviewed by the research team who collected the information as well as by the interviewed chief
planner to help validate our results.
WP5 leaders will also triangulate collected data through a profile matrix, where results of each
case for every category within the four UGI planning themes will be summarized. The matrix will
serve within case analysis by presenting results per variable, creating a more direct link of
results to within case research questions than the case study portraits. The matrix will further
serve, along with a researcher workshop, as the starting point for cross-case synthesis.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 22
A researcher workshop is organized for the fall of 2014 as a forum for researchers to present
substantial findings from their cases to other researchers as well as outline steps for Tier 2 work.
The workshop will allow discussion of major themes coming out of the case research, both
within and across planning families, and will provide initial input for assessing major limitations
and opportunities for UGI planning (and governance, WP6). Further cross-case assessment of
these and other aspects will be aided by matrices, which will be used to detect patterns and
feasible generalizations in answering our research questions as well as to test hypotheses and
advance key questions for further research on UGI planning in Europe. Additionally, we will use
a literature review to help verify and explore the results. The interrelations between different
research parts for Tier 1 are illustrated in Figure 3.
Tier 1: State of UGI planning in Europe
Case study classification and selection


Literature review
Planning and government typology
Socio-demographic and physical data
Case studies (15+ 5 ULL)



Expert questionnaire (and its critical review)
Desk study (on planning and governance system)
Planning document analysis
20 case study portraits
Researcher workshop for case
study evaluation
Cross-case comparison: current state of UGI planning in Europe
Tier 2: Good practices of UGI planning and implementation
Figure 3: The different research steps for Tier 1 and their interrelations. Major outputs are marked in lilac.
The relation between research questions and applied methods for data collection and analysis is
outlined in Table 7. Themes 1 and 2 (adoption of UGI principles and implementation gaps) will
be explored within cases and across cases, both within planning families and for Europe as a
whole. Theme 3 questions (limitations and opportunities of current approaches) rely on crosscase synthesis techniques.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 23
Table 7: Research questions and related data collection and analysis being undertaken for Tier 1.
Research questions
Methods and material
Theme 1: Adoption of principles of UGI planning in current practices of strategic green space planning across European city regions
1.1) Which UGI planning principles are integrated in
current green space planning practice? Which
principles were omitted?
 Definition of planning principles based on literature review
and agreed upon within GREEN SURGE Consortium
 Questionnaire and its critical review
 Document analysis
1.2) Which principles for planning processes defined as characteristic for UGI planning are integrated in current green space planning practice?
Which process principles were omitted?
 Definition of principles for the planning process based on
literature review and agreed upon within Consortium
 Questionnaire and its critical review
 Document analysis
1.3) Which policy objectives relevant for GREEN
SURGE were integrated into current strategic green
space planning? Which were missing?
 Definition of policy objectives relevant for GREEN SURGE
and agreed upon within Consortium
 Questionnaire and its critical review
 Document analysis
1.4) Which additional policy objectives related to
urban green space are the most common?
 Questionnaire and its critical review
 Document analysis
Theme 2: Main gaps for effective UGI implementation
2.1) What mechanisms are in place to ensure plans
are implemented?
 Questionnaire and its critical review
 Document analysis
2.2) What are supporting or hindering factors to
implementation?
 Questionnaire and its critical review
Theme 3: Limitations and opportunities of current approaches
3.1) What are the main differences and similarities
between and within the planning families (e.g.,
with respect to the adoption of the UGI concept
and its implementation compared to institutional
context or planning system)?
 Literature review
 Cross-case comparison of case study portraits (mainly
based on desk study)
 Cross-case comparison of results for all other research q.
 Workshop on case evaluation and lessons with all research
teams that participated in the Tier 1 case studies
3.2) What are the main gaps and limitations of
current approaches which can be found within and
across the planning families?
 See 3.1
3.3) What correlations exist between identified
UGI-related instruments and policies and sociodemographic, physical and biogeographic factors
(i.e. city size, green space coverage, population
dynamics, effects of climate change)? What conditions support or hinder UGI planning?
 Cross-case comparison of case study portraits (mainly
based on desk study)
3.4) Which of the current planning practices can be
considered as UGI planning or come very close to
the concept?
 Cross-case comparison of results for 1.1 and 1.2 and case
study portraits (mainly based on desk study)
3.5) What lessons can be learned from current
planning practice? Are there common challenges
within or across European regions for which solutions have not yet been found? Have there been
solutions developed which might feasibly be implemented elsewhere in Europe?
 Literature review
 Cross-case comparison of case study portraits (mainly
based on desk study)
 Review of results for all others research questions
 Workshop with all research teams that participated in the
Tier 1 case studies
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 24
5
OUTLOOK ON NEXT STEPS
While writing this report, the Tier 1 data collection process was running concurrently. This section gives an outlook on how the expected outputs can be used to support the work of other
Work Packages. Furthermore, we draft how the three tiers in WP5 relate to and build upon one
another as well as provide a brief outline for approaches foreseen in Tier 2 and 3.
5.1
Expected results from Tier 1
The aim of Tier 1 is to assess the state of green infrastructure planning in European urban areas.
This task will provide an overview of current strategic approaches in green space planning to
provide a better understanding of the conditions for strategic UGI planning in different parts of
Europe. The results will on one hand provide an overview; on the other hand the portraits of the
20 case study cities will provide insights and lessons which are of interest for planning practitioners. These will be published in a report (D5.1).
The results can further be used to deepen or supplement analyses conducted in other GREEN
SURGE WPs.





For WP2 on biocultural diversity, the Tier 1 data collection included a specific section in
the questionnaire, the results of which will be analysed by WP2.
In collaboration with WP3 on functional linkages, the data will allow assessment of the
relation between planning systems and the current state of the physical green structure,
e.g. which factors support the protection and/or enhancement of urban green space.
WP3 will apply selected landscape indices to assess green space components, their spatial distribution, fragmentation, etc.
For WP4, questions on the consideration of green economy were included in the questionnaire and document analysis to explore if the concept is already implemented in urban green space/UGI planning and which good examples can be found (in preparation for
Tier 2).
The Tier 1 data collection is a combined effort of WP5 and WP6. Especially the questionnaire and desk study integrate research on innovative governance approaches. The data
relevant for WP6 will be analysed by the responsible team. The Tier 1 data will allow assessing relations between planning by public authorities and more bottom-up innovative
governance, as well as build the basis for strategies that combine both approaches.
For the ULLs (WP7) Tier 1 provides a seminal data collection of each ULL city and allows
comparison of the current situation in these cities with general trends in Europe. This
knowledge can be helpful to consider the transferability of strategies and approaches
tested in the ULLs.
Within WP5, the outputs of 5.1 will be used in Task 5.2, notably with respect to defining what is
good practice and identifying good practice cases as well as providing context through the work
on planning typologies and through the desk studies. Task 5.1 outputs will also be used in Task
5.3 to develop new strategies for UGI planning in cooperation with relevant stakeholders in the
project’s ULLs.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 25
5.2
Outlook on Tier 2
Tier 2 within GREEN SURGE aims to identify and analyse good practices of UGI planning, governance and implementation, including valuation and market integration. Information gleaned from
the Tier 2 study is expected to incorporate findings on the state-of-the-art of UGI planning from
Tier 1 and stakeholder perspectives from the ULLs in Tier 3, but also to inform UGI strategy development in Tier 3. Within WP5, Tier 2 work (Task 5.2) will focus on identifying good practices
in strategic UGI planning, including preconditions and factors of success as well as limitations of
current good practices in UGI planning. Research will primarily include a literature review,
workshops and in-depth analysis of 8-10 European and potentially also non-European cities representing good practice cases.
Selection and analysis of the cases will build on work undertaken in Task 5.1 by incorporating
the planning family typologies, principles of UGI planning and good practice cases identified
through the literature review and by using findings from the 20-case Tier 1 analysis. Selection
will be further guided by expert consultation, in which WP5 partners will identify and interview
international experts on UGI planning from different continents to ask for their assessment of
good UGI examples (i.e., which cities and why). Additionally, consideration will be given to possible incorporation of one to two GREEN SURGE ULLs as well as case study cities included in the
policy analyses conducted as part of the EU FP 7 URBES (Urban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) project,15 in which a number of WP5 researchers were involved.
For each potential good practice example identified, we will relate it to one or more central
themes of the GREEN SURGE project. These include:
1) UGI principles
 Connectivity
 Multifunctionality/multiple ecosystem services
 Integration/Cooperation
 Social inclusion/participation
 Implementation
2) GREEN SURGE concepts
 Green Economy
 Biocultural Diversity
3) Urgent issues for many European cities which relate to UGI
 E.g., Climate change adaptation
 Other issues identified based on Tier 1 results
Following identification of two or more good practice cases representative of each theme, selection of the final 8-10 cases will be guided by a set of criteria relating to pragmatic considerations
and representativeness across European regions. These include: 1) availability of relevant information on the case, 2) willingness of local level practitioners to participate, 3) coverage of
various planning families, population sizes and geographic areas.
15
URBES (Urban Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), EU FP7 (2012-2014), http://urbesproject.org/
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 26
After the final selection is made, a stakeholder analysis in each case conducted in collaboration
with WP6 will determine public and private stakeholders concerned with UGI planning and governance. Semi-structured interviews with these stakeholders will explore in-depth how they
perceive UGI efforts of the city, as well as challenges and barriers to effective UGI implementation. We will further probe how each theme is considered in strategic planning on a regional and
city-level as well as how it is implemented on the district and project-level in the associated case.
Limitations of current UGI good practices will also be assessed as a prerequisite for advancing
the state-of-the-art in Task 5.3.
Other methods used to investigate each case will include a review of a range of written documents (e.g. planning documents related to UGI and key projects for its implementation, scientific
and non-scientific publications, and Internet sources), as well as workshops with representatives
from planning offices and other parties involved in the development and implementation of the
UGI strategy, but also parties which may hold critical views on the selected UGI strategy such as
NGOs. The workshops, which may take the form of webinars, will aim to explore how transferable UGI strategies and approaches are, and will incorporate results from Tier 1 and initial work
on Tier 2 as the basis for further discussion. Results of these workshops will be transferred to
those involving ULL stakeholders (M24), where discussions on these topics will take on a more
structured approach in relation to strategy development within these cities. Collaboration with
WP6 at this stage will address issues of UGI governance. Aside from joint work with WP7 in the
ULLs, possible connections with other WPs will be decided at the GREEN SURGE general assembly meeting scheduled in the fall of 2014.
Work from the literature review, interviews and workshops in Tier 2 will be synthesized in a
report on advanced approaches and strategies for UGI planning and implementation (D27). This
will likely include a small chapter incorporating stakeholder perspectives from the planned
webinars (M24).
5.3
Outlook on Tier 3
The aim of Tier 3 in GREEN SURGE is the development, testing and implementation of “innovative UGI planning, governance and valuation approaches to enhance biocultural diversity, ecosystem services and economic opportunities within [the] five ULLs” (GREEN SURGE 2013, Part B,
p6). Within WP5 we will concentrate Tier 3 work on development of innovative strategies and
tools for UGI planning. Based on work completed in Tasks 5.1 and 5.2, and in cooperation with
WP2, WP3, WP6 and WP7, we will develop new strategies for UGI planning in cooperation with
relevant stakeholders in the selected ULLs as part of the learning alliance (LA)16 approach, designed to enhance transdisciplinary learning and understanding through a combined top-down,
bottom-up feedback loop.
Strategies developed will take into account the overall vision and scenarios produced within
each ULL, so that they will have the potential to achieve a shared vision regardless of scenario.
Identification of barriers to strategy implementation and ways to overcome these barriers will
be undertaken in cooperation with WP5 and WP6, and evaluations of strategy performance in
terms of contributions to quality of life and a green economy will be performed by WP3 and
16
For more information on the learning alliance approach, see GREEN SURGE 2013, Part B, pp7-8.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 27
WP4, respectively. WP5 will interact with the LAs in the five ULLs from an early stage but engage
in the participatory development of their UGI strategies from month 24.
Work in the ULLs will happen as a two-way, collaborative process -- both top-down and bottomup -- to advance the state-of-the-art. On the one hand, results from Tasks 5.1 and 5.2 will inform
the development of strategies with good practices and provide instruction on the limitations and
implementation challenges of these good practices as an input for the ULLs. On the other hand,
stakeholders within each ULL will inform WP5 researchers on how far such good practices are
transferrable and how they would need to be adapted in the specific context of their city region,
including specific barriers for the implementation of these good practices within developed
strategies and how these barriers can be overcome. This analysis will link in with the interviews
and workshops undertaken in Tasks 5.2 and will complement the results of this Task. The combined results of the two-way LA process will be essential to arrive at guidelines for UGI planning
in European cities which also include guidance on their adaptation and implementation in a specific urban context.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 28
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the following people from the GREEN SURGE consortium for their
invaluable contribution to the preparation of this report and to the Tier 1 approach in general,
through their participation, support and the supply of background material as well as critical
discussions and reviews:
 Arjen Buijs, Marleen Buizer and Birgit Elands (WU),
 Dagmar Haase and Nadja Kabisch (UBER),
 Sara Arjmandia (TUM),
 Jari Niemelä and Kati Vierikko (UH),
 Bianca Ambrose-Oji, Amy Stewart and Alexander van der Jagt (FCRA),
 Cecil Cornelis Konijnendijk (UCPH),
 Éva Gerőházi and Luca Száraz (MRI),
 Barbara Anton (ICLEI).
Furthermore, we warmly thank all researchers that contributed to the Tier 1 data collection.
They were so numerous we can only name their organizations: UCPH, UH, WU, SRC, TUM, UNIBA,
FCRA, MRI, ULOD, SLU, FFCUL.17 Special thanks go to Sara Udina Armengol and Hector Rodal
Lopez from the municipality of Barcelona for their enthusiasm and work which enabled us to
include a case study from Spain.
17
The long versions of the participants’ names can be found in GREEN SURGE 2013, Part A, A.2, p4.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 29
REFERENCES
Albrechts, L. (2006): Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to Strategic Projects. In: EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 14 (10), pp. 1487–1500.
Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. (2006): Green infrastructure. Linking landscapes and communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
COM [European Commission] (2013) 249 final: Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital.
Creswell, J. W. (2007): Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE
Publications.
EC [European Commission] (1997): The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development Studies 28. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
EEA (2011): Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its
integration into policies using monitoring systems. EEA Technical report No 18/2011.
ESPON [European Spatial Planning Observatory Network] (2007): ESPON Project 2.3.2. Governance of
Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level.
European Union (2013): Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe.
GREEN SURGE (2013): Annex 1, Description of Work, "Green Infrastructure and Urban Biodiversity for
Sustainable Urban Development and the Green Economy” (GREEN SURGE, FP7-ENV.2013.6.2-5603567), Version 2013-10-16.
Healey, P. and Williams, R. (1993): European Urban Planning Systems: Diversity and Convergence. In:
Urban Studies 30 (4-5), S. 701–720.
Kambites, C. and Owen, S. (2006): Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. In:
Planning Practice and Research 21 (4), S. 483–496.
Knieling, J. and Othengrafen, F. (eds.), (2009): Planning Cultures in Europe. Decoding Cultural Phenomena
in Urban and Regional Planning. Aldershot.
Pauleit, S., Liu, L., Ahern, J. and Kazmierczak, A. (2011): Multifunctional green infrastructure planning to
promote ecological services in the city. In: Jari Niemelä (Hg.): Urban ecology. Patterns, processes, and
applications. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (Oxford biology).
Nadin, V. and Stead, D. (2008): European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP-The
Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47.
Newman, P. and Thornley, A. (1996): Urban Planning in Europe; International competition, national systems and planning projects, London: Routledge.
Steinhauer, C. (2011): International Knowledge Transfer-Analysis of Planning Cultures. In M. Schrenk, V. V.
Popovich, & P. Zeile (Eds.), REAL CORP 2011 Tagungsband. Essen. Retrieved from
http://www.geomultimedia.com/archive/CORP2011_87.pdf
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 30
Tosics, I. (2013): Sustainable land use in peri-urban areas: government, planning and financial instruments. In: Nillson, K – Pauleit, S – Bell, S – Aalbers, C – Nielsen, T.S. (eds) Peri-urban futures: Scenarios
and models for land use change in Europe. Springer, 2013. pp.373-404.
Tosics, I. and Dukes, T. (2005): Urban Development Programmes in the Context of Public Administration
and Urban Policy. In.: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie - 2005, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 390408. Published by BlackweIl Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK and Malden USA.
Yin, R. K. (2003): Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK • Report Milestone 34 • WP5 • Page 31