Plans for urban green infrastructure in Scandinavia

Abstract

Scandinavian countries are often mentioned as forerunners in sustainable urban development; here, green infrastructure (GI) planning has played an important role. However, little is known about the status of GI planning at a municipal level-this paper aims to provide such knowledge. In an analysis of GI plans or municipal master plans from 24 municipalities in Scandinavia, we explored the scope of the plans, the focus of the goals/strategies, the terminology, and the measures for access to green spaces. The results show that all the municipalities had strategies for GI, but only 60% had a GI plan or a similar "greenspace" document. Social values were the main focus of the plans, particularly recreation and access. GI was a concept more commonly used in practice compared with ecosystem services. The findings confirm a common Scandinavian approach to urban GI planning, which provides a relevant general frame for future globally strategic GI planning.

Using green infrastructure to stimulate discourse with and for planning practice: experiences with fuzzy concepts from a pan-European, a national and a local perspective

“…4-6). Despite this high-level policy support and attention in academia, there is no systematic overview on how the concept has been taken up in planning practice in different European countries during the last ten years (exceptions include Davies et al 2015;Nordh and Olafsson 2020 on Scandinavian countries and reports from single countries such as Lennon 2014 for Ireland or Gavrilidis et al 2020 for Romania). This is also complicated by the fact that similar approaches such as ecological networks and green space planning had been implemented before in many countries (Nordh and Olafsson 2020;Grădinaru and Hersperger 2018), p. 21).…”

Ecosystem Services Provided By Urban Forests In The Southern Caucasus Region: A Modeling Study In Tbilisi, Georgia

“…The lack of knowledge is still present in ecology and ecosystem services of urban parks, when small urban green spaces and parks were often regarded as being an attribute, or a decorative element of municipal and urban open space systems due to assumptions that their small size and isolation restricts their capacity of delivering ecosystem services, i.e., making them ecologically less valuable than large city and county parks (Forsyth and Musacchio, 2005). Besides, the studies of ecological benefits and functions of urban green spaces are necessary for putting more focus on the type and quality of park vegetation (Nordh and Olafsson, 2021), its ecosystem functions and benefits than on the share and measure of green space per capita, as it is often presented in general urban literature (Badiu et al 2016). A small urban forest like Expo park can offset CO2 emitted by more than 80 Georgian citizens (2.14 t per capita, www.worldometers.info) and fine particles of about 40 diesel cars EURO IV with an annual mileage of 2000 km (assuming the concentration of PM2.5 is half of the total mass of particles 0.025 g/km).…”

Change processes and driving forces behind urban spatial development in four Norwegian municipalities

“…The contents of urban spatial planning, judged against sustainability criteria, have been investigated in various world regions and especially in Northern Europe (e.g., Naess et al 1998Naess et al , 2013Naess, Strand, Naess & Nicolaisen, 2011;Högström et al, 2013;Metzger & Olsson, 2013;Holgersen & Malm, 2015;Nordh & Olafsson, 2021). In general, these studies show the environmental merits of compact urban development policies but also the conflicts with social sustainability criteria (notably housing affordability) as well as local environmental amenities.…”