Developing

Green Infrastructure

in Haslev, Denmark

Theodore BlundellLea Bütje

Elizabeth DentElena Diago Blay

Hyeonju Ryu

Rural Landscapes - Management and Planning

18 June 2015

FACULTY OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

Content

1 Background + Project Objectives2 Green Infrastructure (GI): Concepts3 Methods4 Analysis5 Solutions: selected new GI6 Policy Support for our new selected GI7 Conclusion & Limitations

1.1 Background to our study

● Habitat loss/Fragmentation● Grey infrastructure/urbanisation/intensive

agriculture/Forestry● Results in degradation of ecosystems meaning they

can not perform range of ecosystem services ● Socio-economic consequences

1.2 Project Objectives

Using Green Infrastructure to:

1. Enhance biological connectivity whilst increasing landscape multifunctionality

2. Improve the accessibility and availability of recreational areas

2 GI Concepts

● GI aims to protect ecosystems with their values and functions,

● Provide benefits to people and wildlife in the form of a range of ecosystem services.

● Benefits the natural environment ● How people use the environment ● Planning and implementation ● Many varying stakeholders

3.1 Study site

● The town of Haslev, Faxe Kommune Southern Zealand

● Readily accessible from Copenhagen

● Multiple land uses ranging from intensive agriculture to nature reserves

● A range of stakeholders, local nature groups to large county estates

Map of study site with key habitats outlined

3.2 Analysis

4.1 Spatial Analysis

Landscape Ecology

FIVE main biotopes

1. Urban2. Agriculture3. Dry habitat4. Wet habitat 5. Forest

4.1 Spatial Analysis

Landscape Ecology

● Structurean agricultural background matrix

● Functions of nature areastimber production, hunting, recreation

● Connectivity in the landscapefew connections between habitats

4.1 Spatial Analysis

Temporal Landscape Change

3 Major Landscape Changes

● Expansion of agricultural fields

● Loss of wetlands● Enlarged urban areas

4.1 Spatial Analysis

Temporal Landscape Change

CHANGE● Expansion of agricultural fields● Loss of wetlands● Enlarged urban areas

PRESSURE● Agricultural production● Technological advances● Immigration

● Economic income● Immigration

DRIVING FORCE

RESPONSE● Agricultural Intensification● Immigation/Emigration● Urbanization

4.2 Ecological Analysis

Status of Biodiversity10 endangered/vulnerable spp. out of 335

4.2 Ecological Analysis

Threats to Biodiversity

4.2 Ecological Analysis

Threats to Biodiversity

4.2 Ecological Analysis

Threats to Biodiversity

I think we’re lost

US TOO

4.3 Social AnalysisIdentification of stakeholders

Primary Secondary

Faxe KommuneBregentved EstateGisselfeld Estate

Danish Nature Agency (DNA)

Haslev-Danish Society for Nature Conservation

(Haslev-DSNC)

4.3 Social AnalysisDanish Nature Agency (DNA)

4.3 Social AnalysisHaslev Branch ofDanish Society for Nature Conservation (DSNC)

Preserving & Protecting Local Nature

4.3 Social AnalysisFaxe Kommune

Represent the public & their interests

4.3 Social AnalysisBregentved Estate

4.3 Social AnalysisGisselfeld Estate

Primary Secondary

Faxe Kommune Bregentved EstateGisselfeld Estate

Danish Nature Agency (DNA)

Haslev-Danish Society for Nature Conservation (Haslev-

DSNC)

5 Key Stakeholders

4.3 Social AnalysisIdentification of stakeholders

4.3 Social AnalysisInterest vs Power

Primary Stakeholders

Secondary Stakeholders

4.3 Social AnalysisCitizen Survey & Observations

Recreation: - walking- cycling- jogging- Running

Requirements: - Flatter paths- Better accessibility during

hunting seasons- Lack of cycle paths

Recreational Areas: - Haslev Orned- Skoleparken

5 Solutions: selected new GIHaslev Orned Recreational Park

Enlarging Skoleparken

Haslev Recreational & Habitat Ringroad

● Implementation○ outdoor facilities○ hunting cease

● Key stakeholders○ Faxe Kommune, Bregentved

Estate & DSNC○ Citizens participation

● Feasibility○ Renting out○ Outdoor Council fund

5 Solutions: selected new GI

Haslev Orned Recreational Park

5 Solutions: selected new GIEnlarging Skoleparken

● Implementation○ From crops to grazed grassland○ Increase biodiversity○ Educational use

● Key stakeholders○ Faxe Kommune, land owner & DSNC

● Feasibility○ Land purchase or subsidies○ Grass / hay harvest winter foder○ Close to the city

● Implementation○ Ringroad of 6.4 km and

biological corridor● Key stakeholders

○ Faxe Kommune and Bregentved Estate

● Feasibility○ Benefits for the whole area

5 Solutions: selected new GIHaslev Recreational & Habitat Ringroad

6 Policy Support for our new selected GI

● International○ EU Green Infrastructure Strategy○ EU Biodiversity Strategy○ Rural Development Programme○ Common Agricultural Policy

6 Policy Support for our new selected GI

● National○ NaturPlan Danmark

● Local○ Haslev Kommune Plan

(2005-2014)

7 Conclusion and Limitations

● Conclusion○ new GI to improve biodiversity and recreation

● Limitations○ time○ not all stakeholders included○ bias of citizen survey○ evaluation of monetary feasibility

● Lessons Learnt○ flowchart as framework○ EU GI strategy: e.g.

connecting Natura 2000 sites

○ long-term management

7 Conclusion and Limitations

Thank you for your attention!