5.1.1 Warsaw, Poland
As potential elements of green infrastructure in Warsaw in the first order can be regarded: green spaces (parks, didactic gardens, allotment gardens, and cemeteries), open water, forests and remainders of agricultural areas. But the urban fabric consists also of built-up areas (mostly residential) with a big share of vegetation (biologically vital areas). These areas are particularly important to preserve the continuity of the green infrastructure network. In Warsaw it is not unusual that the ratio of biologically vital areas in housing estates reaches even 50%. The share of greenery accompanying housing estates in the total area of green areas in Warsaw is 16%, while parks and green squares is only 10%. In addition to residential areas the greenery accompanying streets and railway trails may also play an important role in formulation the green infrastructure. The greenery accompanying street areas covers 1078,2 ha which is 9% of the total area of green areas in Warsaw.
5.1.2 Gaziantep, Turkey
Main open and green spaces in the city of Gaziantep are of such types as woodlands, parks, playgrounds, water bodies, wide boulevards with sideline trees, and other barelands. These areas have a great potential to serve as a green infrastructure at the urban scale. In addition, residential gardens may contribute as an important green infrastructure element. The biggest share of contribution to green open spaces of Gaziantep belongs to woodlands and agriculture (40%), with green spaces including graveyards and parks (15%), and Sacir creek and its surroundings (5%).
Sacir creek and its surroundings including agricultural and green areas are the most powerful avenue to form the green infrastructure of Gaziantep. Urban green spaces exhibit a scattered and sparse structure which is the weakest facet of Gaziantep’s current state.
5.1.3 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
The main green spaces in Hradec Králové which may create the green infrastructure are as follows:
parks and forest parks, recreational forests, agronomical forests, private gardens, plantations and orchards, cemeteries, small green areas, golf areas and water courses. Urban greenery covers 353 ha in 2009 while forests cover 2570 ha in the same year.
Elbe and Orlice rivers can be considered as the backbone for establishing a green infrastructure corridor in the city. The forests which surround the city in the east, and agricultural areas around the city can also be used as potential to support vital effectiveness of the green system.
5.1.4 Sheffield, United Kingdom
The city is described as combining a wide variety of habitats, including: urban, suburban, parkland and woodland (including some remnant ancient woodland), agricultural land, meadow and freshwater. With an estimated total of over two million trees, Sheffield has more trees per person
When compared to many other European cities, Sheffield considers itself to have: “… more public parks and green spaces, more tree cover, and also boasts the Peak National Park within its city boundary. This unique combination already makes Sheffield the greenest city in Britain” (SCC, 2007b).
5.2 Planningofgreenareas
5.2.1 Warsaw, Poland
The most important instrument of sustainable development at the local level is The Study of the Preconditions and Directions for the Community Spatial Development. The Study is prepared in concordance with Spatial Development and Planning Act (2003). It is a comprehensive plan of future development, which defines: directions of changes in the spatial structure of a city and in the land use, parameters related to the development (e.g., ratio of biologically vital areas, floor area ratio, and height of buildings), directions and rules of natural and cultural heritage protection, transport systems and technical infrastructure development. The Study is a document of analytical, informative and coordinating nature.
The Study for Warsaw, which at the moment is in force, was adopted in 2006. The main provisions of the Study related to the topic are: green urban spaces, nature conservation system and urban natural system.
Urban green areas are regarded as some of the main elements of natural heritage of the city. The nature conservation system shows areas that are under formal protection. Nature conservation brings limitation in land use changes and restrictions in future development.
The Urban Natural System includes areas that are particularly important for environmental performance of the city. Primary areas of the system are generally excluded from the construction.
In supporting areas (that may be dedicated for future development) the minimal size of biologically vital areas is defined.
5.2.2 Gaziantep, Turkey
Two planning documents, worked out at the regional and local level, include provisions related to green spaces planning. The Environmental Development Plan, based on Environmental Law (1983) is elaborated at the regional and watershed scales (with resolutions of 1:100.000 to 1: 25.000). The Urban Master Development Plan (with resolutions of 1:5000 to 1:1000), and Urban Implementary Development Plan (with resolution of 1:1000) are carried out in accordance with environmental development plans, respectively.
The Urban Master Development Plan for Gaziantep, adopted in the 2000s, regulates main land use types such as: residential, industrial, and green areas, main transport arteries, and population densities. The Urban Implementary Development Plan gives detailed information by both map and text report form. That 1:1000 scale map gives areal information on floor area ratio, height of buildings etc while the report explains the reasons and the formulas which used to reach areal decisions on the map. These types of plans are prepared in concordance with the Construction Law (3194/1985). The Urban Implementary Development Plan map gives the exact locations and the types of green areas. This plan is prepared considering future population scenarios which were calculated using projection methods. And, it is obligatory that all urban implementary development
plans should contain a minimum amount of urban green area which is needed for the projected future population.
Gaziantep municipality has put into force its own construction regulation in 2008. This regulation classifies all types of green and recreation areas, and gives detailed rules of their use and construction at local scale. This regulation is of great importance due to the green band concept that recommends connectivity of green areas. This could be considered as a green infrastructure approach.
5.2.3 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
There are two levels of city planning in the Czech Republic. The upper level is called Fundamentals of the landscape development. They determine main directions, conditions and priorities for whole regions, and thus for the Hradec Králové Region development. The Fundamentals were processed by the Landscape Planning Department of the Hradec Králové Region Authority according to the new Building Act published in 2006. The Fundamentals propose limits of the regionally important developing areas, traffic and technical infrastructure, landscape system of ecological stability and civil engineering projects of high public importance. The Fundamentals must be approved by the Region Council.
City plans are the lower level of the spatial planning. They have two parts of the documentation - a text and map ones. The Binding Part of the Plan is the text document determining what land use types and objects are allowed to occur in individual city plan classes (legend). The city plan in the form of a map document is the second part. The Binding Part of the Plan is prepared in concordance with the Law on Spatial Planning and Building Regulations (No 50/1976) and the Ordinance on the Spatial Planning Fundamentals and Spatial Planning Documentation (No 135/2001).
The Spatial Analytical Basic Documents processed by the Regional Authority as the methodological tool for the unified approach and protection of the greenery were updated in December 2010.
The present city plan was approved in 2000. It should be adapted according to comments/demands of inhabitants again respecting the Binding Part that is finally approved by the city council. The green areas form individual classes with limits for other land use types in their locations on one hand, and are regarded and regulated also in other land use classes, even the industrial one, e.g., on the other hand.
The goal of all of these documents is to continue in the main direction and that is the sustainable development of cities as a whole; however, green areas are substantially protected.
5.2.4 Sheffield, United Kingdom
To help maintain and enhance the city’s green infrastructure the local authority has developed the Sheffield Green and Open Space Strategy (SGOSS) which sets out both a vision and proposals for achieving this vision over the next 20 years. These are underpinned by the strategic themes: People, Places, Environment & Sustainability, and Quality Management.
The authorities develop Local Development Frameworks, as part of national planning requirements, within which a Core Strategy document is produced to set out the strategic spatial vision.
Sheffield City Council considers the SGOSS to be an ambitious strategy particularly since it covers all green and open spaces and therefore is across all ownership. The Sheffield City Council
‘Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny Committee Report’ released on 2nd November 2010 (SCC 2010a) underlines both this ambition and the need for local Community Assemblies (community-focused governance entities) to adopt priorities from the SGOSS within their own local plans. In this sense the complex multi-layered, multi-stakeholder nature of integrated approaches to green infrastructure planning in practice are evident. This report states that the assemblies must outline their priority sites for ‘quality uplift’ within a local plan, along with ‘an achievable programme of improvements to raise standards’. The championing of green infrastructure in order to deliver the SGOSS is underlined in that: “Local area ownership and stakeholder buy-in will be essential if the strategy is to be realised”. (SCC 2010a)
The overarching Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) refers to the tension between ‘certainty and flexibility’ within its planning framework – both of which it suggests are important for regeneration and growth and particularly relevant when considering green infrastructure as incorporating many land owners and community planning ‘voices’:
“…the greater the certainty given by a policy the less the flexibility it allows and the more flexibility that is built in the less certain users can be about the outcome… The overall approach in the SDF is to create certainty through allocating specific sites for particular uses and to enable flexibility through designation of wider policy areas, where certain uses are preferred but a range of others is still acceptable.” (SCC, 2010b)
5.3 Greeninfrastructuremanagement
5.3.1 Warsaw, Poland
Management of green structure in Warsaw is dispersed among a dozen parties. The responsibility is closely related to the ownership structure. Of the total number of 84 parks in Warsaw, 68 are managed by the Warsaw Municipality. Iconic, historical parks are managed by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, botanical gardens by scientific institutions (Polish Academy of Science and University of Warsaw). It must be stressed that 68 parks managed by City of Warsaw are maintained by different Municipal Units – Environmental Protection Departments of 17 Warsaw’s Districts, Public Space Management Authority and Municipal Clearing Administration.
Other potential elements of green infrastructure are managed by:
x Regional Water Management Authority: Vistula river corridor with adjacent riparian zone, Zegrzyski Watercourse, Su ewski Brook;
x Municipal Forest Authority, Regional Directorate of State Forests: forests;
x Municipal Cemeteries: Masovian Voivodship, Churches and congregations: cemeteries;
x Polish Allotment Gardens Society: allotment gardens;
x Municipality of Warsaw, Polish National Railways: greenery accompanying streets and railway trails;
x Municipality of Warsaw, legal and natural persons: greenery accompanying housing estates;
x Legal and natural persons: agricultural land;
x Regional Directorate of Environment Protection: nature reserves and other nature protection areas.
This complicated ownership structure could be one of the obstacles to implement the idea of green infrastructure.
5.3.2 Gaziantep, Turkey
Parks in the city of Gaziantep are managed by three municipal bodies. The same applies to urban transportation, forestry, and Sacir creek management. The potential melements of green infrastructure are owned by privat and public bodies. This causes obstacles for designing and compounding the open and green areas systematically.
5.3.3 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
The responsibility for management of green spaces, as in Poland, is devided into many parties. It relates to ownership structure. The Hradec Králové Municipality is owner and manager of cemeteries, parks, forest parks, and recreational forests. Agronomical forests are either owned by state and managed by the Forests of the Czech Republic as a state organization, or by private ovners.
5.3.4 Sheffield, United Kingdom
Green space management based upon collaboration between multiple partners with: “jointly agreed principles, values, objectives and priorities” are acknowledged as a necessary management approach to adopt (DLTR, 2002) for delivering green infrastructure. Key actions around quality management within a multi-partner approach, incorporating community residents, local business, and other interested parties, are:
x QM Q1 Develop benchmarked Sheffield Quality Standards, relevant to different types of green and open space, their users and their management.
o Developing a quality standard that defines the baseline expectations for public green and open spaces, by 2010.
o Developing a full quality standard of management for the wider benefits of green and open spaces by 2012.
x QM Q2 Adopt local quality indicators and respective targets to drive quality improvement at area, city and national levels.
o Developing a quality standard that defines the baseline expectations for public green and open spaces, by 2010.
o Develop targets and progressively improve key sites in each area to the full quality standard by 2024.
x QM Q3 Implement and maintain quality improvement through management planning for each green and open space.
o Develop a common management plan framework to support planning across site types and managers by 2012.
o Update the business case for on-going site management to meet and maintain the Sheffield