European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research -

COST Action C11


COST Action C11
Green structure and urban planning -PROGRESS REPORT 2002 - Bernard Duhem - chairman
Report for 2002
Annex 1 - Agendas
annex - 2 About the green structure
annex - 3.1: thematic papers about ecological issues (WG 1A)
annex - 3.2: thematic papers about human issues (WG 1B)
annex - 3.3: thematic papers about policies (WG 2)

Return to First Page


  1. Overview: action identification data
  2. Objectives
  3. Implementation
  4. Participants
  5. Meetings
  6. Activities and results
  7. Dissemination of results
  8. Short term scientific missions

Economic dimension

1) Overview: action identification datas

- first proposal: march 1998

- technical committee: June 1999

- approval : February 2000

- first meeting: September 2000

- duration : 48 months

- prolongation agreed in 2003: 6 month

- end of the action: March 2005

- signatures: 15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,ÝÝÝ Germany, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Czech Republic.

-Ý Chairperson: Mr Bernard Duhem,

Direction de la recherche ( DRAST)

MinistËre de líEquipement, 92055 Paris La DÈfense cedex 04,





2) Objectives

The main objective of the action is to reach a better understanding of the role played by planning, design and management in the interactions between green and built-up areas, improving the way green areas contribute to the quality of life of urban citizen, to the quality of habitats as a basis for biodiversity and to other aspects of sustainable urban development.

This topic ì Green-structure and urban planningî appeared as an important one in the general debate about the diverse impacts of urban sprawl. The contradictions between the advantages of compact cities and the needs and demands for space and nature, make necessary to improve knowledge and practices about relationships between open and built-up areas. Unless the situations are very diverse in different countries and cities of Europe, the topic is on the agendas quite everywhere, which guaranties interesting exchanges of research results and case studies.

This topic needs a multidisciplinary approach, due to the diverse qualities and uses of green-structures, for human leisure, habitats for plants and animals, microclimate conditions, flows control, space organisation..

3) Implementation

The COST proposal was prepared by a network which was set up in 1995 and met then once a year to exchange research results about ìUrban density and green-structureî. The network included the following countries: The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, The United Kingdom.

The memorandum for understanding ì Green structure and urban planningî raised 5 topics: communication, skills, power relationships, green belts and corridors, water management. During the first meeting in Brussels ( September 2000), additional topics were suggested, and the structuration for work was decided during the second meeting in Sheffield December 2000:

- during the first two years, problem analyses and states of art will be conducted inside three working groups dealing with ecological issues and qualities, human issues and qualities, policy instruments.

- during the last two years, the work will be dedicated to guidelines for policies and design, and case studies comparisons.

The third meeting was held in Marseille in may 2001 and was the occasion for a first meeting of the working groups and an open seminar with local researchers and practitioners.

The fourth, fifth and sixth meetings of the management committee and working groups were held in Breda ( The Netherlands, November 2001), Munich (Germany, June 2002), and Milano ( Italy, October 2002). Following meetings were planned, in Warsaw (June 2003), Rome (September 2003) and Oslo (spring 2004), but the administrative reorganisation of COST will probably lead to different dates.

4. Participants

The following countries have signed the memorandum for understanding and their delegates to the management committee are:

Austria: Mr.Hermann Knoflacher, Mr.Klaus Wagner,

Belgium: Mr.Philippe Hanocq, Ms.Ann Van Herzele

Denmark: Ms.Karen Attwell, Mr.Ulrik Reeh

Finland: Mr.Matti Eronen, Mr.Kimmo Lapintie

France: Mr.Bernard Duhem, Ms.Ann Caroll Werquin

Germany: Ms.Bettina Opperman, Mr.Stephan Pauleit

Italy: Mr.Antonio Acuto, Ms.Lucia Martincigh

Lithuania: Mr.Giedrius Daniulaitis, Mr.Kestutis Zaleckis,

The Netherlands: Mr.Peter Schildwacht, Ms. Marleen Van den Top

Norway: Ms.Unn Ellefsen, Mr.Karsten Jorgensen

Poland: Ms.Ewa Kaliszuk, Ms.Barbara Szulczewska

Spain: Ms.Marta Garcia Nart, Mr.Jorge Martinez Chapa

Sweden: Ms.Kristina Bjˆrnberg, Mr.Bjˆrn Malbert

United Kingdom: Ms.Anne Beer, Ms.Carolyn Harrison

Czech Republic: Ms Irena Hanouskova

chairperson : Mr.Bernard Duhem, France

vice chairperson: Ms.Unn Ellefsen, Norway

Working groups members:

Mr.Jean-Marie Halleux (Belgium)

Mr.Olli Maijala (Finland)

Ms.Carmen Aalber, Mr.Sybrand Tjallingii (The Netherlands)

Mr.Giovanni Scudo (Italy)

Mr.Erik Plathe (Norway)

Ms.Gunilla Lindholm (Sweden)

Mr Carlo BLASI (Italy)

Ms Signe NYHUUS (Norway)

Ms.Suzanne Guldager (Denmark);


Mr.Maurizio Merigi ( Italy);

Ms Eva Erhart( Austria);

Ms.Inkeri Vaha-Piikkio (Finland)


Patrick Grahn(Sweden)

Simone Tiedtke (Germany)


. Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics, Vienna, Austria

. City of Vienna, Austria

. University of Liege, Belgium

. Free University Brussels, Belgium

. Danish Building Research institute, Horsholm, Denmark

. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Centre, Horsholm, Denmark

. City of Helsinki, Finland

. Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

. Ministry for Infrastructure, Transportation and Housing, Paris, France

. Thales consultancy, Paris, France

. National School for Landscape Architecture, Marseille, France

. University of Hannover, Germany

. Munich Technical University, Germany

. University of Manchester, United Kingdom

. Politechnicum of Milan, Italy

. Faculty of Civil Architecture of Milan, Italy

. University of Rome Tre, Italy

. Institute ofÝ Architecture and Construction, Kaunas, Lithuania

. City of Utrecht, The Netherlands

. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

. Ministry for the Environment, Oslo, Norway

. Municipality of Oslo

. Agriculture University in Warsaw, Poland

. Institut for Building Sciences, Madrid, Spain

. Ministry for Public Works, Madrid, Spain

. Ministry for Developpement, Madrid, Spain

. Swedish Council For Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden

. Swedish University of agricultural sciences, Alnarp, Sweden

. Chalmers University, Goteborg, Sweden

. Map21 Ltd, environmental consultants, Sheffield, United Kingdom

5. Meetings

Brussels, September 2000,14-15 : management committee

Sheffield, December 2000, 3-4-5: management committee

Marseille, May 2001, 19-20-21: management committee and working groups

Breda, December 2001, 18-19-20: management committee and working groups

Munich, June 2002, 6-9, management committee and working groups

Milan, October 2002, 5-8, management committee and working groups

(see agendas in annexe 1)

6. Activities and results

At the end of 2002, the Action is half-way. The first year was mainly used to organise the work and agree for a common understanding of the topic, definitions and objectives (see below: ìdefinitions and bibliographyî). The second year was quite productive in basic materials, case studies, description of planning systems, thematic papers (see below:îthematic papersî). Each meeting (management committee and working groups) was an opportunity for technical visits and open seminars with local experts (see below: ìknowledge about greenstructure in..î).

- definitions and bibliography:

The glossary, filled by a wide number of members, brought some enlightments about the objectives of the action while giving definitions for green structures, green-spaces and Green-structure planning.

Green-structure is not a familiar word in most countries, however an agreement emerge, to say green-structure is concerned with a functioning related to the quality of life of urban dwellers, also a "green" way in urban planning and in organising the city (valuing green resources), it concerns the organisational aspects of a city's green-spaces, being more than a matrix of these green-spaces even enlarged to all open spaces , greened, paved-places, Ö but being a general concept and a change in scale, making the concept able to address the challenges nowadays cities (compact city and disperse suburban growth) are facing : fragmentation, lack of identity, pressures and space consumption, recreational needs, mesoclimate and water management, Ö.

With the level of green-structure an ambition is on, especially when this concept meet the field "urban planning". There is, in almost all countries, a noticeable lack of planning theory in relation to the overall role of green-space in cities and a lack of discussion about how a proper consideration and understanding of the function of green-spaces might influence the spatial planning of urban areas, but there are experiences within different cities having used these opportunities and developing conceptual tools and operational methods. The knowledge gathered from these approaches of an active relation between green-structure planning and the functioning of the city is to be gathered, exchanged and assess within the time of the action.

A bibliography can be seen on the website; it will be completed and organised later on.

- knowledge about green-structure in meeting places : see annexe 2.

- working groups papers: see annexe 3.

2003 will be a turning point in the Actionís work. The analytical materials can be considered as produced or collected. The synthesis of them is now to be elaborated by each working group and discussed in the management committee in order to find the global results of the Action.

7. Dissemination of results

This matter is up in the agenda for 2003. As a result of first discussions, an idea would be to produce a synthetic book with the global results and short description of the green structure issues in the planning of some cities (mainly those were meetings were held). In addition, each working group would choose the proper way to disseminate its more precise results (publication or articles).

8. Short term scientific mission

No mission for these two first years.

9. Economic dimension

In the memorandum for understanding the cost of the activities to be carried out under the Action was estimated at roughly 9 million at 1998 price, based on the participation of 9 countries already interested at that time.

The total of person-year involved was expected to be from 75 to 90 researchers.

Part 1 Annexe 1:

management committee meeting agendas

Annexe 1.1. First meeting, Brussels, September 2000, 14-15

first ideas for topics

Topics in the memorandum for understanding

Communication (cf. GREENSCOM)

Professions (cf. meeting Helsinki)

Green ways and green belts

Urban fringe

Power relations


Topics listed in Brussels

Participatory mapping (cf. communication)

Implementation of knowledge

Spatial concepts for green-structure (includes green belts and green ways)

Private spaces/public spaces

Cultural heritage, identity


Rehabilitation, transformation, maintenance, management

Environmental performance or benefits: organic waste treatment, habitats...

Green-structure and intensive use of space/density

The actual green-structure (including commercial areas)

Multi-functions (human uses, comfort, attractiveness, an interesting city)

Policy instruments

Agricultural land.

Methodological concerns


Glossary (green-structure in first)

States of art (thematic and in case studies) and knowledge missing

Concentrated or dispersed case study across the topicsÝ?


Annexe 1.2. Sheffield, United Kingdom, 3- 4-5 December 2000

Sheffield has a very rich green structure. The green belt is protected since 1947, has supported a policy of ìurban compactionî andÝ played a important regional role ; part of it has been incorporated in the Peak National Park, one of the most important in England; districts of villas as Ranmoor/Broomhill, from the second part of the nineteenth century, have a lot of vegetation, unless a process of densification not always as carefull as suitable; old industrial valleys are now large green corridors( Rivelin Valley); and even small, gardens in districts of social single houses contribute in greening the city.

Sheffield has so rich a green structure than problems of maintenance have appeared and leaded to innovative practices. The botanic garden was almost abandoned during the sub-urbanisation period and inhabitants had to react strongly; the garden was classified in the ì Heritage park conservationî and is being restaured with funds from the National Loteryî. In the industrial district of Stocksbridge, many activities related to the green-stucture are impulsed by the Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise Partnership, an association originally dedicated to social and educational problems.


Sunday, December 3rd, 2000, from 9 a.m.:

1. Welcoming of participants

2. Presentation of the new delegates

3. Approval of the agenda

4. Site visits and Presentation of case studies in the Sheffield area.

The tour included a wide range of green spaces, from the highly designed formal parks to the mass of green space which is in effect space left over after planning . (There is so much of it that Sheffield City cannot afford to look after it adequately!)

Ranmoor / Broomhill Victorian suburbia - densification and mature tree loss - the link to the Sheffield biodiversity in urban gardens research project.

Heritage park conservation (Botanical Gardens founded 1833) - lottery funding and ongoing maintenance issues of the present scheme.

Sheffield's Valley Greenways and the city's industrial heritage (Endcliffe Park founded in 1890, Bingham Park, Rivelin Valley walk) - community involvement in regeneration and maintenance of a historic urban green space.

The green space management and maintenance work carried out by the STEP Community Centre at Stocksbridge. Community regeneration and green space issues in a poor industrial community (Stocksbridge and the Steel Valley project) an overview of the green space and natural environment initiatives - community involvement and funding.

Presentation : Community forests and countryside (South Yorkshire Forest and the Sheffield reservoirs) - the changing farming, water conservation and moorland landscapes of the urban fringe and the management issues involved.

Regeneration of Sheffield City centre (a walk through the city centre and its public greenÝ spaces, including the Peace Gardens, Tudor Square, Devonshire Green.


Monday, December 4th, 9 a.m.- 6 p.m.

5. Approval of the minutes of the 1st MC meeting in Brussels (14-15/10/00)

6. Report from the Chairman (Bernard Duhem)

7. Report from the Secretariat (Franck Charmaison)

8.Working plan for the implementation of COST Action C11 in 2001

9. GIS applications in Sheffield

10. Short Term Scientific missions (Peter Schildwacht)

11. Update on the "tasks" defined in Brussels

Tuesday, December 5th, 9 a.m.-1 p.m.

12.Update on the "tasks" defined in Brussels (contd.)

13. Website of COST C11 (Anne Beer)

14. Any other business

15.Next meetings

Annexe 1.3. Marseille, France, 20-22 May 2001

Marseille is a very different case. First of all, due to the seashore position and to a rocky coast, the green-structure is also a blue and white one, from a social point of view (leisure on the sea, on the hills, on the cliffs) as from a landscape one. Second due to the general traditional Mediterranean carracter of the grey city (the dense part from the first roman to the nineteenth), which is there surrounded by a ìgreen cityî developed from the middle nineteenth to the middle twentieth, as nice combination of agriculture and residences. The northern part of this landscape heritage has much suffered in the last decades, due to major infrastructures and social housing heavy buildings. The southern part, socially richer and less under the pressure of traffic flows from the north, has much more resisted. An important issue of the urban development today is to care to what is left of this heritage, but still to face the need of houses not too far from the city core. Marseille also showed the important role of roads, oftenÝ negative but sometimes a positive one in framing and greening the city (avenue du Prado).

Two topics were raised there for the networkís work: the evolution of uses between proximity( gardens) and distance( hills); and the green solutions for the large social districts, which most of the cities have not found yet.

Sunday, May 20

8.00 am/6.00 pm : Visit, comments by Christian Tamisier (english translation by Anne Lowell)

The harbour, the view from the church Notre-Dame de la Garde, the sea-shore drive and the Prado beaches, the coves (les ´ÝCalanquesݪ), lunch in Park PastrÈ, going through the dense part of the town, going through social estates, the Marseille's water-feeder, visiting typical country mansions of Marseille and their estates (´Ýthe green cityݪ on the civil parish, suburb and countryside) : le Merlan, Bastide Montgolfier, commercial supermarket "Grand Littoral, Hano garden, industrial harbour under transformation and back to the city center.

Monday, MayÝ 21

9.00-10.00Ý Management committee meeting

1. Presentation of new delegates and experts

2. Approval of the minutes of the 2nd MC meeting in Sheffield

3. Report of the Chairman (Bernard Duhem)

4. Report of the Secretariat (Franck Charmaison)

5. Monitoring of the cost Action C11 (Jacques Laravoire)

6.Working groups organization

Open seminar about Marseille

10.15 : General introduction : B. Duhem, AC Werquin

10.30 : Site presentation : C. Tamisier

11.00 : City and nature : an historical perspective in Marseille :Ý M.Roncayolo

11.45 : Green, white and blue structure : contemporary uses of nature : G. Demouchy

Afternoon :

2.00 Landscape heritage and urban planning : B. Guillemin

3.00 Master plan and green structure : J. Bonnier

3.45 Planning tools and metropolitan issues : E. Perreau

5 pm :End of the seminar

5.30 pm-7pm: Working groups, 1st sessionÝ 1A + 1B , 2

Tuesday, may 22

9.00-11.00 Working groups, 2nd session

11.00-13.00 Management committee resumes

Synthesis of the sessions of the WGs

Needs for other experts

Short term scientific missions (Peter Schildwacht)

Website of COST C11 (Anne Beer)

Any other business

Next meetings.

Annexe 1.4. Breda, The Netherlands, November 18-19-20th, 2001.

Sunday, November 18

9 am/6 pm : Visits with persons from the municipality and Sjef Langeveld : Haagse Beemden, landscape included planning in the 70s, 80s and 90s (Landgoederenzone, Asterd, Kroten, Hoge Vucht, urban renewal in relation to the surrounding landscape, city centre, river Aa of Weerijs, the making of a green-structure between the city centre and the natural land, Zaartbos, Zaartpark, Sonsbeekpark, Lunch in Mastbos forest, River Molenleij (construction of a natural river in an urban environment), educational education centre.

Monday, November 19

9 am/11pm : Presentations about Breda, by staff from the municipality, with the head of the planning department, Marc Okhuysen, department for environment, and L. Tummers, architect, planner.

11.30-13.00ÝÝ management committee meeting

report of the chairman

- report of the secretariat

- working groups organization and agendas

- short term scientific missions

13.00-14.30 lunch break

14.30- 18.00 working groups sessions, 1A,1B,2

- reports of the chairpersons

-work program organization ( case studies and states of art)

Tuesday, November 20

9.00-11.00ÝÝÝ working groups sessions, continuing

11.00- 13.00 management committee meeting

- synthesis of WG sessions: working program for the next 6 months

- other work to be done

- needs and propositions for other experts

- any other business

- next meetings

Annexe 1.5. Munich, Germany, 6-9 June 2002

City of Munich, Department of Urban Planning and
BuildingConstruction Department / Main Division for Public Green Spaces, Blumenstraþe 28 B, D - 80331 M¸nchen &

Munich Technical University,
Life Science Center Weihenstephan,
Am Hochanger 6, D - 85350 Freising

Thursday 06 June 2002 at Freising

20.00 - 21.00 Dr. Stephan Pauleit and Prof. Dr. Bettina Oppermann

Welcome of the participants ñ Introduction into the programme

Friday 07 June 2002 at TUM, Freising
8.30: Management committee: 1st meeting

Adoption of agenda

Report of the chairman (Bernard Duhem)

Report of the secretariat

9.30: Working groups: 1st meeting

Work programme: Case studies and states of art, see separate agendas

11.30: Welcome from the Technical University of Munich and the City of Munich

Research and Structure of Studies at the Life Science Centre Weihenstephan;b Prof. Dr. L. Trepl, Chair of Landscape Ecology

Policies and Programmes for Greenstructure planning in the City of Munich;
Susanne Hutter von Knorring, Planning Department and
Dr. Ulrich Schneider, Construction Department / Main Division for Public Green Spaces, City of Munich

12.30: Break

13.30: Case study Munich, Field trip by bus from Freising to Munich: The regional and municipal level of Greenstructure Planning in Munich

Problems and Challenges in the Northern Part of the Munich Region,
Mrs. Irene Burkhardt, Consultancy Landscape Ecology Burkhardt

Heath vegetation - Impact mitigation management, Mrs. Christine Joas, Northern Munich Heath Association (Heidefl‰chenverein e.V.)

Recultivation and large scale leisure infrastructure in the urban fringe, Waste management mountain and new leisure area / New football stadium;
Dr. Schneider, Building Department / Greenstructures, and
Mr. Werner Hasenstab, Planning Department, City of Munich

New exhibition centre, new neighbourhood Munich Riem and Garden festival 2005, Mr. Max-Joseph Kronenbitter,
Bundesgartenschau Riem GmbH,

Mr. Johannes Neher, MRG Maþnahmentr‰ger M¸nchen-Riem GmbH,

Mr. Horst Burger, City of Munich, Dr. Wolfram Kˆster, TUM Weihenstephan,

Prof. Dr. Christoph Valentien, TUM Weihenstephan

Saturday 08 June 2002 at the Department of Urban Planning,Ý Munich

8.00:Departure at from Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Freising

9.00:Working group meetings at the Planning Department, City of Munich:

2nd meeting, see separate agendas

12.00: Reception by the City of Munich:
Mrs. Christiane Thalgott, Head of Planning Department
and Talk with short statements experts from the University and the experts from the municipality of Munich
Prof. Dr. Werner Nohl: Human aspects of Greenstructure Planning in Germany;
Prof. Christoph Valentin: History and challenges for the Greenstructure system of Munich

14.00: Lunch at the Planning Department

15.00:Case study Munich: Guided tour through the inner city and bus trip to the banks of the river Isar

Walk through the City Centre to the Hofgarten and the Englischer Garten

The Englischer Garten, Administration of the ÑEnglischer Gartenì Munich,

Large recreation area and restoration of the river Isar,
Mr. Michael Brunner, Construction Department / Main Division for Public Green spaces and Mr. Ulrich Illing, Department of Urban Planning,
City of Munich

Sunday 09 June 2002: COST working day at the TUM, Freising

9.00:. Working groups: 3rd meeting, see separate agendas

11.00: Management committee, 2nd meeting, Chairman: B. Duhem

Synthesis of WG sessions: Report of chairpersons

Working programme for the next 6 months (B. Duhem)

Future meetings

Proposals for other experts

Proposals for short term scientific missions



14.00: End of the meeting, Departure


Annexe 1.6. Milan, Italy, 5-8 October 2002

Polytechnic University of Milan: Department ofÝ Architectural Design, Department ofÝ Building Environment Sciences and Technology , Faculty of Civil Architecture

Lombard Regional Park of Ticino Valley
Municipality ofÝ Milano, Municipality of Abbiategrasso, Municipality of Vigevano

Sunday, 6 October

8.15 - 9.15: Management Committee (1st session)

- Welcome of Participants, B. Duhem chairman

- Presentation of new participants and delegates

- Approval of the agenda

- Approval of the minutes of the 5th Management Committee meeting in Freising and Munich

- Report of the chairman


9.15 -19.30: Plenary meetings of Working Groups 1A,1B,2

Case study Milan: field trip from Milan to Ticino Park

The regional and municipal level of green structures planning in Milan with presentation by: prof. Antonio Acuto (Polytechnic University of Milano), arch. Luciano Saino (former President of Park of Ticino), prof. Maurizio Maggioni (President of Park of Ticino),Ý dott. Dario Furlanetto (biologist and Director of Park of Ticino) , arch. Gianluca Barone (Municipality of Abbiategrasso), prof. Sandro Rossi (Polytechnic University of Milano), Enzo Spialtini (Municipality of Vigevano ñ Urban Planning Dep.)

Monday , 7 October 2002

Faculty of Civil Architecture, Via Durando 10 - Milan


9.00-12.30: Seminar ìThe green structuresÝ in Milan and Padanian area: history and projectî (Plenary meetings of MC and Working Groups 1A, 1B, 2)

- arch. Alberto Tenconi (Lombardy Region planning agency),

The experience of the Lombardy Parks and their role in the planning of Milan area

- arch. Luciano Saino (former president of Lombard Regional Park of Ticino Valley)

Management of a park in an area ofÝ metropolitan development

- prof. Roberto Gambino (Polytechnic University of Turin Department of Urban Planning),

Project Po and Project Ticino

- dott. Dario Furlanetto (Director of Park of Ticino), The role of fluvial parks in the maintenance and implementation of biodiversity in the Padanian area

- prof. Giovanni ScudoÝ (Politechnic University of Milan, Department of Building Environment Sciences and Technology),

Design for comfort in urban green space

12.30 -14.00 : lunch break

14.00-15.30 : Management Committee (2nd session)

- Report from the Secretariat (I. Samaras)

- Budget planning 2002

- STSM status, application (B. Duhem, P. Schildwacht)

- Publications, annual report (B. Duhem)

15.30-18.30 : WGs parallel meetings

Tuesday , 8 October 2002

Faculty of Civil Architecture, Via Durando 10 - Milan

9.15 - 12.00 : WGs parallel meetings

12.00 -13.30 :Management Committee (3rd session)

- Evaluation and monitoring (J. Laravoire, B. Duhem)

- Request for new members (B. Duhem)

- Non-COST participation (I. Samaras)

- Website news (A. Beer)

- Progress report of WGs

- Long term planning (B. Duhem)

- Time and place of next meetings

- Any other Business


Click here to See Part 1 - Annex 2 - about the green-structure in Sheffield, Marseille, Breda, MUNICH


Meetings agendas

2. About the green-structure in Sheffield, Marseille, Breda, Munich-

3. Thematic papers

3.1. Ecological issues -case studies

3.1.1 Munich


3.1.3. Oslo

3.1.4.Ceske Budejovice

3.1.5. Helsinki

3.1.6. Warsaw


3.2. Human issues

3.2.1. Leisure in Marseille

3.2.2. The role of green structure in creating urban preferred environment

3.2.3. Evaluation of the quality of parks

3.2.4. Valuing the green structure

3.2.5. Qualities of agricultural land

3.2.6. Stockholm sociotop maps and park programme

3.2.7. Thermal comfort


3.3. Policies

3.3.1. Policy arrangements

3.3.2.Planning systems and greenspace

3.3.3. Green spaces: inovations from Denmark and Sweden

3.3.4. Green plans: the example of Overvecht The Netherlands