European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research -

COST Action C11

INDEX

Working Group 1A
Human Issues

Working Groups

1A - Ecological Issues

1B- Human Issues

2 - Policies

Click here to email Gunilla with comments and information

Working Group 1B - HUMAN ISSUES - MENU OF INFORMATION AND PAPERS PRESENTED TO WORKING GROUP

Other papers available

Work programme

Bibliography

Leisure in Marseilles

Qualities of agricultural land for urban greenspace

Valuing the greenstructure

May 01 - notes from marseille meetings

Nov 01 notes from Breda meeting1

Warsaw Agenda and notes

Quality of Parks

Benefits of nature

Milan Oct 02
Minutes

Munich June 02 Minutes

Sociotop maps
Stockholm

Psychological factors
Preferred environments

Thermal comfort

Belgium - benefits for people

Working Group 1A - Human issues

Warsaw Agenda

COST C11 Seventh meeting in Warsaw

September 11-14, 2003

 

Working group 1B: human issues

Agenda

 

Friday, September 12

10.30-13.00 : session 1

 

  • welcome of delegates
  • adoption of agenda and approval of minutes from last meeting
  • presentations of papers from the members

 

 

Saturday, September 13

9.00-10.30: session 2

 

  • the Report; setting the list of contributions from WG1b, finished and not yet finished papers
  • the Report; synthesis, decision of how to write introduction to WG1b-papers
  • the Report; dissemination strategy &endash; including Conference/contributions from WG1b

 

Sunday, September 14

9.00-10.30: session 3

 

  • work to be done until the next meeting
  • proposals for STMS
  • any other business

 

Notes:

The following is quoted from the Milan minutes:

Referring to the list of topics (the coloured boxes) produced for the Munich meeting, we recalled the connections between WG-members and topics, and summarised what material has been produced, and what is still left to be done:

 

- Lucia (pedestrians);

- Bernard (learnings from new towns experience);

- Karsten (culture and ideas in connection with green structure)

- Kimmo (traces to logic and philosophy);

- Gunilla ("public green" - a sustainable concept?)

- Philippe (learnings from urban renewal)

 

The group expressed a positive view to a proposal to present some material at latest the 20 of January, 2003. Each of us has here a possibility to publish texts, which for one reason or another do not fit any existing scientific journal - such as compilation of knowledge, broad or narrow in subject, or as a description of development.

 

WG session 2, 8 October

Discussion of written contributions

In this session three contributions were discussed, the paper "Thermal comfort" by Giovanni Scudo, the summary of A. Ståhle´s lecture and a preliminary paper "A pedestrian green structure" by Gunilla Lindholm. Some common problems or issues for further elaboration in this WG could be identified in the discussion, such as:

professionally defined quality - on what basis?

different scale - different qualities

expert preferences vs. public preferences

physical vs. psychological comfort and preference

developing/restoring - different set of values and use of green structure?

the gap between research and practise

Plans for tomorrow - discussion about the WG 1b:s future work

Some time was set for the discussion on the future for the WG:s. We agreed on continuing in the same group for the rest of the COST Action (at least until the meeting in Rome), but from the next meeting and onwards change perspective from "basic research and knowledge on human issues concerning green structure and urban planning" to "the use of knowledge on human issues concerning green structure in urban planning, design and management". For this purpose, between February and June, each WG member should read all the papers, so far produced, in relation to "the sorting boxes" and write out of them his personal synthesis. Those should be discussed in Warsaw.

 

Even if I am not in Warsaw, I will administrate your contributions until the meeting, so please send them as mail attachments AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Then I will have a chance to make a preliminary order of the available and new papers before sending the bunch to Bernard! I know it will be hard for most of us to find the time for both writing a paper and make a "planning implementation" of the WG1b work until now, but please try to make at least the last one! These comments will make the group take the step from theory to practise, which was our intention at the last meeting.

 

I suggest you offer half a day this week &endash; it does not take you more time make the "personal synthesis" AND to either choose a text you already have or write a more or less readable synopsis for a coming paper!

 

Looking forward to your answers at latest FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5:TH. Email to GL

 

Milan minutes

Minutes from COST Action C11, WG 1b "human issues", the meeting in Milan, October 6-8, 2002

 

WG 1B session 1, 7 October

"Urban Planning for a Quality Dense Green Structure - Stockholm Sociotop Map and Park Programme", lecture by landscape architect Alexander Ståhle

The lecture outlined the role of green structure in the Stockholm situation, in urban planning and in the park programme, were the "sociotop map" has been functioning as a key - both concerning the acceptance of "green issues" in the municipal planning procedures and concerning the dialogue between developers interests and common interests on a site and district level.

See menu above for paper

 

"Outlining the diversity of human aspects on green structure and urban planning"

Referring to the list of topics (the coloured boxes) produced for the Munich meeting, we recalled the connections between WG-members and topics, and summarised what material has been produced, and what is still left to be done:

- Lucia (pedestrians);

- Bernard (learnings from new towns experience);

- Karsten (culture and ideas in connection with green structure)

- Kimmo (traces to logic and philosophy);

- Gunilla ("public green" - a sustainable concept?)

- Philippe (learnings from urban renewal)

The group expressed a positive view to a proposal to present some material at latest the 20 of January, 2003. Each of us has here a possibility to publish texts, which for one reason or another do not fit any existing scientific journal - such as compilation of knowledge, broad or narrow in subject, or as a description of development.

 

WG session 2, 8 October

Discussion of written contributions

In this session three contributions were discussed, the paper "Thermal comfort" by Giovanni Scudo, the summary of A. Ståhle´s lecture and a preliminary paper "A pedestrian green structure" by Gunilla Lindholm. Some common problems or issues for further elaboration in this WG could be identified in the discussion, such as:

 

 

  • professionally defined quality - on what basis?
  • different scale - different qualities
  • expert preferences vs. public preferences
  • physical vs. psychological comfort and preference
  • developing/restoring - different set of values and use of green structure?
  • the gap between research and practise

Plans for tomorrow - discussion about the WG 1b:s future work

Some time was set for the discussion on the future for the WG:s. We agreed on continuing in the same group for the rest of the COST Action (at least until the meeting in Rome), but from the next meeting and onwards change perspective from "basic research and knowledge on human issues concerning green structure and urban planning" to "the use of knowledge on human issues concerning green structure in urban planning, design and management". For this purpose, between February and June, each WG member should read all the papers, so far produced, in relation to "the sorting boxes" and write out of them his personal synthesis. Those should be discussed in Warsaw.

 

 

Minutes taken by Bernard Duhem and Gunilla Lindholm

 

Preliminary Agenda
Munich

June 2002

Working group 1B: Human issues

1. Expected participants: 

o Gunilla LINDHOLM, Sweden, chairwoman of the working group

o Kristina BJORNBERG, Sweden,

Klaus WAGNER, Austria

o Phillippe HANOCQ, Belgium

o Jean-Marie HALLEUX, Belgium

o Kimmo LAPINTIE, Finland

o Bernard DUHEM, France

o Lucia MARTINCIGH, Italy

o Giovanni SCUDO, Italy

o Kestutis ZALECKIS, Lithuania

o Carmen AALBERS, The Netherlands

o Karsten JORGENSEN, Norway

o Carolyn HARRISON, United Kingdom

2.) Agenda.

 

Friday, June 7

9.30-11.30: Session 1 at Munich Technical University at Weihenstephan, Freising

o Welcome of delegates

o Adoption of agenda

o Approval of the minutes from the last meeting

o Report of the chairwoman (G. Lindholm)

o Case studies: State of the art

o Presentation and discussion of individual sub-studies

Saturday, June 8

9.00-12.00: Session 2 at Planning Department, City of Munich

o Presentation and discussion of individual case studies, continued

o Discussion:

- Comparison of the results

- Methods

- Further information required to complete sub-studies

- Work program: conclusions

 

 

 

Sunday, June 9

 

9.00-11.00: Session 3 at Munich Technical University at Weihenstephan, Freising

o Work program for the year coming: state of art and sub- studies

o Future meetings

o Proposals for invitation of experts

o Proposals for STSM

o AOB

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes Breda meeting

Nov 2001

4th meeting of the COST-Action C11,

Urban Planning and Green Structures

17.-20.11.2001, Breda NL

Working Group 1B, Human issues

Session 19.11.2001, 15:00:

Gunilla Lindholm acts as chairperson of the working group 1B because Kristina Björnberg could not take part of the meeting (approved by the Management Committee). The first part of the meeting is held together with working group 1A.

After welcomig the participants, Gunilla Lindholm presents the Agenda:

1. Presentations of experts

1. Bernard Duhem gives information about the topic distance &emdash; proximity &emdash; users in the case of Marseille (location of the COST C11 group in May 2001). The paper &emdash; worked out from Ann Carol Werquin is already on the web site of C11. The paper puts together the results of a survey and infos from the municipality and researchers and different inquiries. Some topics of interest: the commuting between the grey city and the green city is an traditional system , half of the people leave the city for recreation ( although from 1990 to 2000 the money spent for green plants etc. increased for 90%). The distance for leisure commuting increases more than the distance for commuting for work or commerce. Most visited are wild natural places and commercial areas. Less visited are classical parks, an exception are the beaches (Brado) with ~100.000 people on shiny days. The trend show a demand for specialised types of green areas, many people live now in periurban, quiet areas and looking for "crowded" leisure locations. The trends should always seen with respect to an economic point of view.

2. Patrik Grahn (department of landscape planning of the Agricultuiral University of Lund?) gives a report about his long term study about evaluations of the quality of parks in an interdisciplinary work with landscape architects, environmental psychologists, physicians and therapists. A paper for the web page will be worked out. One of the new major diseases in Sweden is the burn out syndrome, too much stress. Therefore at first has to be the definition of health and the question, what makes the people feel good to aim at a "sustainable society". Horticultural therapies have to get a new role in Kindergartens and schools. Not really the distance but the time to reach green areas is an important factor of the use of green places. Today 6 minutes walk are accepted (average) to use a green space e.g. after work. In the 50's this indicator was 15 minutes. There has to be made a difference between the age groups. As a compromise a distance of ~300 meters could work as an index. One interesting result of the studies was that people with own yards use public green spaces significantly more often than the others. People use green spaces because of the feeling of fresh air, smelling soil… , because of walking and moving around, detecting animals etc.. Women are not using green spaces in most cases because of a lack of the feeling of safety (especially younger and elder women) or they do'nt want to meet people they don't want to talk to. Men don't use green spaces because of noise and too many &emdash; or too few people, safety is not first rated. A comparison of three cities (Lund, Vasteras and Uppsala) says that people use more green spaces the more they are supplied with green spaces and that it differs between the cities, which size of parks is preferred. Since ever garden and green was connected with a good feeling and stone and grey canyons (like inner city streets) with a bad mood…. 8 basic characteristics of green spaces:

Wild

Lush

Serene

Specious

Common

Imagination

Festive

Essence (culture)

Only a few parks can provide all the 8 characteristics and theses are the most attractive parks for visitors and are showing the most activities. The value of the park differs also with the supply of parks and the number activities is dependent on the size, also the shape of the park effects the activities. He distance to the next park effects the number of visits (300m &emdash; 2,7 visits / week). People with own yards visit the parks 4times often than others. The state of health is significant if people have access to green spaces. This can especially be observed on children Kindergartens of different designs of open or green spaces or on the convalescence of ill people in hospitals with different qualities of green spaces.

1. Kestutis Zaleckis reported about qualities of preferred urban environments (a summary will be worked out for the web page). The objective of the study was to create a model of environments which takes into consideration all the human needs (individual, social and environmental). Especially the new results of environmental psychologists are very important (people need to have access to a preferred environment otherwise they loose motivation and the stress grows). The mental map which is drawn from the individuals weights more than the material environment. The conceptual perception should therefore be an important indicators for the development of green spaces. Following the theories of Cole (?) and Jung the cultural background has a big influence on this perception which is a developing process. In the case of the Lithuanian city Kaunas it has been tried to find out the preferred environment. The first step was to determinate the common image of Kaunas and the results show that the city is not seen as a unit, the image is fragmented. For all of the ~500.000 inhabitants there exists only one centre and the spatial characteristics of the districts around it are quite similar (landmarks, natural boundaries). The structures of a city should be legible, not too divers and not too monotone for not producing visual stress and the green structure plays a significant role as boundaries for separation, belts, forming districts and as the background for landmarks.

 

2. Discussion:

G. Lindholm: does the preferred image of a city reconcile with the theories?

K. Zaleckis: the biggest influence is that of the cultural background and there is a strong opposition between urban environment and the wild nature outside the city.

P. Grahn: the cultural images differs very much also between the cities in Sweden. The cognition of the people differs also very much due to the energy or mood of them. When you are tired or on low energy, you have less cognition and "only" perception on the emotional level (seen at studies in hospitals…. )

K. Jorgensen: The planners cannot only pay attention to the preferred image of the environment, there are many other things to take into consideration…

L. Martincigh: it is necessary for the experts also to know what the people need and they have to check what the people like to find the guiding lines for the design of green structures.

K. Zaleckis: it should be checked and it could be checked with this method.

P. Grahn: The image differs also if the visitor is familiar with an environment or not. The first image is very important.

K. Lapintie: Ther is also a big difference between the cultures. In Scandinavia wild nature means security and they want to live as direct to the nature as possible, e.g. in Africa this would mean unsafety and direct the opposite.

P. Grahn: We have three levels of perception and reaction in our brain, we get ~11.000.000 bits/second and only ~11 of them are going to the neocortex and trigger conscious reactions. The rest is filtered and triggers instincts…

Vähä-Piikiö: The image is also under transition, the perceptions may change and old cultural heritage can play a role.

K. Zaleckis: the plicies don't refer to old cultural heritage and mental images are only one part of the policy.

St. Pauleit: is it possible to use this method of K.Lynch on the level of a whole city, it was developed for smaller districts…

K. Zaleckis: it is the first time that it is used on this level and with a kind of generalisation it seems appropriate

P.Grahn: there are a lot of hierarchies in a city and many studies have shown that Lynch was right with his method. The principles can be found on a small level (garden) and work also on a higher level, also on a national level.

Ph. Hanocq: architects are not always looking for a consense, conflicts maybe programmed.

K. Zaleckis: this is an individual process of the planning methods and different kind of interpretation.

2. Working group 1B session, 20.11.2001

Participants: Gunilla Linmdholm (chair), Kestutis Zaleckis, Patrik Grahn, Karsten Jorgensen, Jean Marie Halleux, Bernard Duhem, Maurizio Meriggi, Kimmo Lapintie, Lucia Martincigh, Philippe Hanocq, Klaus Wagner (minutes)

G.Lindholm: at first we take a look to the notes of Marseille &emdash; approval.

Kristina Björnberg and me have made a proposal of a work programme and tried to categorize some tasks which should be relatred to the report of the whole COST action:

Case studies

State of the art

Workshop

Expert presentations

B. Duhem: on the web site is already material for the progress report which ahs to be worked out for each year of the COST action. The report for 2001 could have the following topics:

General report

Glossary

Visits, cases

Planning systems

Distance and uses

Social districts

K. Lapintie: a scientific background is needed e.g. for the topic distance and uses

L. Martincigh: we have to make relations between users and meanings and qualities , needs and reality

B. Duhem: we have to be aware that our overall topic is green structures, the topic social housing relates more to green areas

P.Grahn: one main topic should be the access to green areas which is very important especially for children and elder people and the status of health depends on it.

L. Martincigh: The motion green structure is a synonym for green system and we have to go deeper in the kind of green spaces also social structures play a role, different values, different qualities. The glossary should be the base, different approaches have to be merged, also access, quality, uses have to be defined.

K. Zaleckis: if we concentrate on structures we also have to look at the different types of areas, the capacities and the difference in ecological and human structures.

K. Lapintie: we have different traditions in research and different meanings of expressions. It is important to connect things in planning which are connected in the real life. E.g. green areas and green services (schools, Kindergartens), we should use a functional and integrated approach.

G. Scudo: one main problem is the difference between research and the practise. There is much research done (e.g. how to move on the street in Naples, shadow…) but planners do not use the reports and we have to join them. The green structures mean a lot for the urban environment, visual, acustic and thermal issues and the vitality of a place.

B. Duhem: maybe we could limit the topics if we gather the knowledge which is already done but not used by the planners

P. Grahn: the main problem is: what happens at the doorstep. If the green structure begins there, the whole green structure is used, otherwise not. In inner cities is the access the important thing (traffic solutions).

Ph. Hanocq: We shold also focus on the maintenance of the green structures and the economic constraints of the cities.

G. Scudo: there are models where people take care of themselves of the green areas or children take care of the green areas of schools.

JM. Halleux: green structured can also be "bad "points of a city if they are not cared about

K. Jorgensen: The chapter bibliography on the web page should not be too broad there should be a filter, e.g.: what is the existing knowldge which is not used but do we know what is used and what not… this will be difficult to answer.

G. Lindholm: we are not expecting a real answer but we could give a direction to keep us upstream

P.Grahn: the planners know a lot of these studies but have often too less money. The politicians are interested in the money output… economic aspects (e.g. less health costs..)

K.Jorgensen: we should make a list of themes to focus on.

G. Lindholm: We have to deal with: systems, structures, connection, spaces, places and we have to identify: users and use, qualities, ideas and images and culture, methods and measurements and we have to decide who is doing what, we should take the case studies as a base. What will be done:

JM Halleux: valuing the green from different point of views

L. Martincigh: what is possible to find in Rome, users…; green spaces and the comfort in the city

G. Scudo: design in the evaluation process, thermal and lightning aspects

P. Grahn: paper see above

G. Lindholm: contribution to the topic ideas, images, cultural background

Ph. Hanocq: integration of landscape planning in the physical planning, green systems in old induxtrial regions

K. Wagner: evaluation of agricultural areas in a multifunctional approach, in connection with the experience of the cities visited in the C11 action.

K. Jorgensen: ideas, images, historical aspects with a focus on Oslo

AC. Werquin, paper see above

K. Lapintie: communication in planning, cultural understanding, results of greenscom project

G. Lindholm: next meeting will be in June 2002. the contributions should be sent to me until February 15th, we will see if a special work group meeting is necessary after that date &emdash; session closed 20.11.2001, 11:30

Agenda -Nov

Message from Gunilla

Chair of Nov. meeting

november 18-19-20th, 2001

Working group 1B: human issues

Agenda

Monday, november 19th                                                         

14.30-16.30 : session 1( joined with WG1A)

                     

· welcome of delegates

· selection of secretariat

· approval of the minutes of the last meeting theme: the use and demand for green structure

 

· lessons from the case of Marseille

             -   summary by Ann Caroll Werquin, France, WG2

· "Green spaces: distances, qualities and uses"

            -   survey by Patrik Grahn, Sweden, expert

· "Qualities of preferred urban environments"

    -   study by Kestutis Zaleckis, Lithuania, WG1

 

· discussion

 

17.00-18.00: WG1B, session 1 continuing

 

work program for the years coming (2001-2003)

· case studies

· state-of-the-art report

 

 

Tuesday, november 20th                                                         

                     

 

9.00-11.00: session 2

 

work program for the years coming: continuing

· workshops

· expert presentations

· preparation of outline work program (including need for other experts or members and cooperation with

other COST Actions or WGs)

· any other business

 

Work Program

 

from Kristina and gunilla

Work Program for the years coming (2001-mid 2003)

 

 

§ case studies

One case study should be compiled for each country on existing greenstructure planning/ plans/concepts. It can be existing case

studies, new case studies (STSM?) and/or  case studies of the visited cities.

 

The case study can focus on human issues related to

-the inner city/dense areas/densification issues

-social housing areas from the 60´s

- urban fringe

 

The case studies should be compiled using a commun framework:

 -trends and driving forces in the country and their impact on greenstructures & human issues

- the case and its relevans for WG 1B

- issues/ problems

- knowledge, tools, methods, competence, working procedure, communication, ..

- results regarding the enhancement of the quality of life of urban citizens

- what is the research contribution? how has research been used/ could have been used

- conclusions: main lessons learnt,  knowledge gaps, failures and success

 

 

Examination of case studies:

- common framework

- focusing on differences and similarities between the countries:

- STSM?

 

Timeschedule

Definition of deliverable

Allocation of tasks

 

 

§ state-of-the-art report

 

Proposed contribution per country:

- research environments on human issues and green structures (knowledge, tools, assessment)

- ongoing research programmes

- main publications

- contacts

 

Timeschedule

Definition of deliverable

Allocation of tasks

 

 

 

§ workshops

 

The first workshop agreed upon will be on residential areas from the 60´s. How to enhance the qualities of "The social housing

areas". Papers should be produced in advance focusing on differences and cultural understanding.

Subjects and goals

Timeschedule

Definition of deliverable

Allocation of tasks

 

Workshops on other subjects

 

 

§ expert presentations

 

Invited experts or WG members could be asked to make deep presentations and discussion on specific topics. The meeting in Breda

will focus on the use and demand for the green structure based on qualities, distance and accessibility.

 

Proposed themes for coming meetings:

- urban character and aestetic performance

- economy (real estate prices)

- every day life for children and youth 

- mobility

- climate

-

                     

 

§ preparation of outline workprogram

 

Time schedule

Definition of deliveries

Allocation of tasks

 

Notes by Stephan

Click here for Notes on joint working group held in Marseille in May

Paper for Breda meeting

Draft paper by Ann-Carol Werquin

email ideas and comments

 

Working Group 1B - Message Board

Bibliography

Munich

Agenda

Work programme

May 01 - notes

Breda Nov 01
Minutes

Munich June 02 Minutes

Milan Oct 02
Minutes

PAPERS - drafts

Leisure in Marseilles

Sociotop maps
Stockholm

Psychological factors

Research Questions identified in the original Proposal

Topics identified during preliminary discussions (brainstorm) by the research group at its first meeting

Methodological concerns

Working Groups - agreed in Dec2000

Members suggestions for Case Studies

Bibliography

 

 

 All rights reserved - © COSTC11, 2002

 

 

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

Meetings

Background

Archive

Return to top of page

updated 6 Nov 2002