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!
Top Related