- Email: [email protected]
An introduction to greenway planning around the world
Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
Editorial
An introduction to greenway planning around the world
1. Introduction Almost a decade ago, the first special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning devoted to greenway planning was published (vol. 33, 1995). The special issue was edited by Julius Gy. F´abos and Jack Ahern and contained 26 articles, primarily from North America. This special issue was reprinted in book form as Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement (F´abos and Ahern, 1996). Since this time, the embryonic international greenway movement, described in this special, issue has become more widespread through such groups as the European Greenway Association and greenway conferences, such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s International Trails and Greenway Conference, Trail Link. The current editors saw a need to document recent innovations in greenway planning around the world and to expand the small but growing literature on greenway planning and research. Towards this end, we invited over 30 authors from around the world to contribute papers. These authors were selected because they were leaders in greenway planning in their respective countries and/or had published on this topic in the past. These papers were peer-reviewed, edited and resubmitted. During this process, several authors dropped out and others were added. Of course the final product could not be all-inclusive, constrained by limited publishing space and limited time to edit and organize these papers. The first 10 greenway papers were recently published in a special issue of Landscape and Urban Plan0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.028
ning (vol. 68, issues 2–3) that came out in spring of 2004 (F´abos and Ryan, 2004). This special issue had six authors from North America, two from Europe, and one each from Asia and Oceania. The second and final part of this special series, the current volume, devoted to international greenways contains 15 papers that provide an even more extensive international array of greenway projects from five continents. One-third of the papers are from North America, one-third from Europe (Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom), and the balance from Asia, South America, and Africa. The greenway movement in Asia in particular has seen explosive growth in the past decade as represented by papers from China (Yu et al.), Japan (Yokohari) and Singapore (Tan). A paper by Frischenbruder and Pellegrino talks about the spread of greenway planning in Brazil; and Zakaria describes greenways and neighborhood planning in the suburbs of Cairo, Egypt. Together, these two volumes of Landscape and Urban Planning represent the most up-to-date snapshot of greenway planning around the world and illustrate how different countries deal with planning linear corridors of protected green space at multiple-scales and for multiple purposes.
2. Review of the greenway papers The fifteen papers contained in this special issue fall into three general categories: (1) greenway case studies at multiple-scales (nine papers); (2) greenway networks for land preservation at the community scale
2
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
(two papers); and (3) historical and theoretical discussions about ways that greenways are conceived and defined in different countries (four papers). This latter category, greenway definitions is also found in several other papers in this special issue. 2.1. Greenway case studies at multiple-scales The first group of papers describes greenway planning at a range of scales from the large-scale region to the metropolitan and local level. While the scales vary between papers, the theme of planning for ecological, recreational, and cultural purposes is found in all of the papers with many incorporating multiple purposes. The first two papers in the special issue by Christina von Haaren and Michael Reich of Germany, and Margaret Bryant of the United States emphasize planning greenways for ecological value and habitat protection. As described by Jongman et al. (2004) in our first volume of international greenways, ecological networks in Europe have become increasingly important in many new greenway initiatives, spurred by both national-level and European Union legislation. German landscape architect Christina von Haaren and ecologist Michael Reich, of the Institute for Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation at the University of Hannover, review their country’s long-standing history of greenway planning. The first generation of German greenways, such as those around Stuttgart, focused on green space protection around urban areas, recreation and air quality protection. More recent greenway projects have focused on habitat networks for multiple species protection. In fact, the goal is to protect up to 10% of the German landscape in these habitat corridors, which is a laudable goal considering the high population density of the country and high percentages of private ownership. The coordination of greenways at the national level is complicated by the fact that the German federal states have the legislative authority for greenway and landscape planning. This theme of cross-boundary planning is similar to that in the New England region of the United States described in the editors’ own paper, later in this same issue (Ryan, F´abos, and Allan). Haaren and Reich give examples of habitat networks at multiple scales from the state-level to the local-level. The case study in the municipality of Kronsberg describes the difficulties of implementing a greenway for ecological and recreational purposes across a predom-
inantly privately owned farming area, a theme which has appeared in other greenway projects, such as those in the northeastern and central United States (Ryan and Hansel Walker, 2004; Schrader, 1995). The Kronsberg project of Germany illustrates how rational, scientific knowledge about habitat planning must often yield to political realities and management issues when implemented at the local-level. Ecological greenways are also the focus of a paper by Margaret Bryant of the United States. This paper describes the challenge of habitat planning in a developed urban watershed in the Washington, DC metropolitan region. Urban river corridors are the setting for many international greenway projects that are described in the two special issues, such as previously published papers by Asakawa et al., 2004 in Sapporo, Japan; and Gobster and Westphal (2004) in Chicago, Illinois. Bryant points to the fact that there is often very little biotic information about urban watersheds, yet these water resources are especially important to local residents as well as impact regional ecological health, in this case the threatened Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Her review of landscape planning tools in the region is a good counterpoint to Haaren and Reich’s overview of German landscape planning legislation. The next three papers by Tan, Frischenbruder and Pellegrino, and Ribeiro and Barao begin with an overview of greenway planning in each of their respective countries (Singapore, Brazil, and Portugal). These authors use multiple case studies to illustrate the range of greenway planning projects and issues. Dr. Kiat W. Tan, chief executive officer for Singapore’s National Parks describes his country’s efforts to develop a network of greenway corridors in this densely populated island nation. The heavily developed nature of this city–state requires what landscape architect Jack Ahern (1995) calls an “opportunistic” approach to greenway planning. The greenway network utilizes narrow strips of land along drainage channels and road right-of-ways. The challenge of implementing a greenway network in one of the world’s most densely populated urban areas provides insights for other countries with rapidly urbanizing areas. Marisa T. Mamede Frischenbruder and Paulo Pellegrino conducted a survey of greenway planners, designers, and researchers in Brazil to determine the eight projects that exemplify innovative greenway planning in their country. These projects range in scale from the
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
state-level to local-level and illustrate recent landscape planning efforts in Brazil to protect and preserve natural corridors in and around rapidly growing urban areas. Like the work in Europe and North America, there is a heavy focus on water quality and habitat protection, especially in Brazil’s coastal cities that lie within the endangered Atlantic rainforest ecosystem. These authors use the term “green and blue” infrastructure to emphasize the riparian nature of these greenways. In a similar format as the paper from Brazil, Portuguese landscape architects Luis Ribeiro and Teresa Barao give a historic overview of landscape and greenway planning in Portugal followed by examples of projects at multiple scales. The five case studies range from the culturally rich Sintra region west of Lisbon to urban greenways in the city of Tomar. An emphasis on human use of the greenway corridors for recreation, as well as the protection of cultural resources create greenways with a more multi-purpose focus than the habitat network projects described by Haaren and Reich (Germany) or Bryant (United States). It is interesting to note that in Portugal as in Germany and Brazil, nationwide environmental legislation had a strong impact on encouraging greenway planning at the regional and municipal levels. Another constant in these urban settings is the need to make use of limited rights of ways, such as historic canals and rivers to create greenways in urban areas. Two papers describe the state of greenway planning in Italy. Alessandro Toccolini, president of the Italian Greenway Association, and his colleagues at the University of Milan illustrate a landscape assessment for a greenway network in the densely populated Lambro River Valley Park, north of Milan. This park is a typical European green-line type park with existing cities, villages, farms, and natural areas (Corbett, 1983). By focusing on existing trails, these researchers found that almost 80% of a non-motorized pedestrian network already exists and just required careful planning to create new linkages to connect urban residents to the region’s amenities. This project is unique for Italy in that it focuses on a greenway network, rather than a single corridor. As a counterpoint, Italian landscape architect Katherina Scudo details two greenways in the Pavia area south of Milan. The Battle of Pavia Greenway highlights a greenway that preserves and promotes a historical and culturally rich area that was critical to the
3
history of Italy. By connecting historic-cultural resources and fragmented open space along river corridors, this project achieves a multi-purpose greenway that is somewhat unique in Italy. The implementation of the Battle of Pavia Greenway inspired regional government agencies to plan a more extensive 100 km greenway to connect northward to Milan and south to Varzi in the Apennine Mountains. This paper reveals that building small sections of long greenway corridors can help win support of local residents and the attention of local officials. In this case, public support for the greenway convinced regional officials to expand the greenway network. This phenomenon of a small, successful greenway project advancing larger scale networks was also described in Portugal by Ribeiro and Barao, as well as by the author of the next paper. The next two papers in this special issue look at which planning strategies and tools are successful for planning and implementing large-scale greenways. Landscape architect Nancy Rottle from the Pacific Northwest region of the United States gives a detailed case study of the mountains to sound greenway in Washington State. Using multiple methodologies of archival research, professional experience, and interviews, Rottle describes how grass-root efforts of volunteers mobilized a broad-based coalition of government agencies, environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders to plan a 65 km (40 mile) wide corridor along a major interstate highway. Spanning from the Seattle metropolitan area along the Pacific Ocean over the towering Cascade Mountains, this 160 km (100 mile) long corridor includes working farm and forest landscapes, scenic resources, recreational trails, wildlife habitat, and historic and cultural resources. In this paper, Rottle proposes the “landscape-based greenway” as a new typology to describe this “megacorridor” approach that emphasizes human use of the landscape. While this approach is similar to many European models of greenway planning within a working landscape, such as the Lambro River study in Italy by Toccolini et al., the scale of the project is much larger and utilizes a major highway as the organizing element rather than historic rivers or canals. Furthermore, Rottle highlights a planning process that is extremely broad-based with leadership and coordination for the project coming from the private, non-profit sector rather than the government. The results of her research suggest that successful large-scale greenway
4
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
planning can be achieved by (1) defining a flexible, almost diffuse greenway boundary for the corridor; (2) including a broad-based, well-organized collaborative process; (3) having effective leadership; (4) promoting a greenway vision rather than a detailed plan; and (5) utilizing creative land protection strategies, such as land trades between public and private interests. A research paper by the co-editors of this special issue and Jessica Allan highlights successful approaches to greenway planning in another region of the United States, New England. This study used indepth interviews with greenway planners from governmental agencies and non-profit organizations to understand strategies for coordinating large-scale greenways across multiple political jurisdictions. The greenway planning experts in the region reiterated many of the same themes found in Rottle’s research: the importance of partnerships and collaboration, clearly defined goals and a shared vision plan, public involvement, and regional coordination. The importance of having a lead organization to coordinate regional planning is a key component that is difficult to achieve in a large, multistate region such as New England and has been more successful in the less politically fractured Mountains to Sound Greenway of Washington State described in the case study by Nancy Rottle. A comparison between these two papers will allow the reader to learn more about planning tools and strategies to implement largescale regional greenways. 2.2. Greenway networks for land preservation at the community scale The second category of papers in this special issue look at the use of greenways to preserve land within new communities. These greenways take a “defensive” approach to planning and use a landscape assessment to determine the most threatened resources to preserve (Ahern, 1995). In the first special issue on international greenways, papers by Randall Arendt (2004) and Conine et al. (2004) covered the topic of using greenways to create community-wide greenway networks in the United States. These two papers in the current special issue cover the topic of greenways and community planning from an international perspective. Egyptian architect and planner Khalid Zakaria El Adli Imam of Cairo University traces the history of greenways in shaping urban form and uses a case
study of a master planned residential community west of Cairo, Egypt to illustrate the application of these ideas to the Mideast. Dr. Imam translates a traditional Egyptian street pattern called the “hara” into a cul-desac network of streets with clustered homes in a new suburban community. This clustered plan allows for a network of protected green space with pedestrian and cycle paths that connect residents to the community center with its park, mosque, shopping center, and community building. The protected green space in this community highlights scenic views to the nearby pyramids of Giza, preserves shallow depressions in the natural terrain, and creates landscaped pedestrian corridors to modify the harsh desert climate. While the first paper by Dr. Imam describes a community that is still in the planning stages, Japanese planner Makoto Yokohari and his colleagues at the University of Tsukuba evaluate the greenway networks of Japanese New Towns that were developed over thirty years ago. These new towns were part of the modernist-planning era that rebuilt Europe and Japan after the Second World War. Yokohari’s study exemplifies the dynamic nature of managing greenway networks. Originally, greenway corridors in Japanese New Towns were developed to provide landscaped corridors for pedestrian and cyclists. Unfortunately, these corridors have become too “green” as vegetation matured and became overgrown. Moreover, changes in Japanese society have resulted in perceptions that these greenways are unsafe. Crime is a management issue that urban greenways in other countries have had to grapple with for sometime, because the long linear nature of greenways often create corridors that are hidden from nearby streets and homes (Luymes and Tamminga, 1995). Since understanding the public’s perceptions of greenways is a critical aspect of greenway planning and management, these researchers conducted a survey of local residents living near the Tsukuba greenway network. The results of the study showed that residents feared crime in those areas that were dark, overgrown, and underused. This study highlights the fact that greenway need adaptive management to respond to changing environmental and societal condit ions. 2.3. Historical and theoretical greenway papers The final four papers in this special issue discuss the historical development of greenway planning interna-
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
tionally, as well as in specific countries. Moreover, several papers are essays on the theoretical and conceptual roots of greenway planning, and address such questions as: (1) how have greenways been defined in their respective countries and (2) how does greenway planning fit within the larger context of landscape planning? Chinese landscape architect Kongjian Yu and his colleagues review the history of greenway planning in China. While the term, “greenway” is a modern planning term; ancient Chinese planners utilized greenway corridors along canals and other linear corridors. These authors describe a “top–down” approach to planning that has resulted in large-scale projects for resource protection and hazard mitigation. For example, greenways are part of massive windbreaks in farming areas and reforestation along drainage corridors. In many ways, these corridors are akin to the European ecological networks described by Jongman et al. (2004) and Haaren and Reich in this issue. However, the Chinese emphasis is on productive, working landscapes rather than on habitat protection. Yu and others acknowledge that Chinese greenway planning has “little concern for human uses” such as recreation. However, China, as a rapidly urbanizing nation, has put a strong emphasis on urban park planning and has begun to embrace a more recreationally-focused greenway as part of newly planned linear park systems. Chinese landscape architect Kongjian Yu and his colleagues review the history of greenway planning in China. While the term, “greenway” is a modern planning term; ancient Chinese planners utilized greenway corridors along canals and other linear corridors. These authors describe a “top–down” approach to planning that has resulted in large-scale projects for resource protection and hazard mitigation. For example, greenways are part of massive windbreaks in farming areas and reforestation along drainage corridors. In many ways, these corridors are akin to the European ecological networks described by Jongman et al. (2004) and Haaren and Reich in this issue. However, the Chinese emphasis is on productive, working landscapes rather than on habitat protection. Yu and others acknowledge that Chinese greenway planning has “little concern for human uses” such as recreation. However, China, as a rapidly urbanizing nation, has put a strong emphasis on urban park planning and has begun to embrace a more recreationally-focused greenway as part of newly planned linear park systems.
5
Anthony Walmsley puts greenways in the larger land-use planning context of the past twenty-five years, predominantly in the United States. This paper defines and reviews some of the recent trends in land use planning including, new urbanism, smart growth, and green infrastructure. Walmsley distinguishes green infrastructure from greenways in that green infrastructure is more ecologically focused, preserves large ecological “hubs”, and provides a framework for growth. He uses the State of New Jersey’s Open Space and Greenway Vision plan as an example of a green infrastructure assessment. While one may argue that greenways include all the aspects of green infrastructure described in Walmsley’s paper, he is correct that this new term has been embraced by many in the environmental and planning world. As Walmsley notes, green infrastructure puts an emphasis on the essential quality of green space protection, rather than the amenity aspects that some solely recreation focused greenway corridors may have. The seminal point of this paper is that land use planning and conservation planning should happen together. To extend this example to the entire volume of international greenways, greenway planning is part of the larger landscape planning discipline and should be integrated into the planning process as suggested by Tom Turner of Great Britain. The final paper in this special issue is a short communication from Jon Rodiek, editor of Landscape and Urban Planning that summarizes a keynote address that he gave at the inaugural F´abos Landscape Planning and Greenway Symposium at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in conjunction with the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning’s Centennial celebration. His short paper describes the impact that landscape planning that includes greenway planning has had on the profession of landscape architecture, including the increasing interdisciplinary aspect of the profession and the importance of ecological science to design and planning. In a larger sense, greenway planning as a subset of landscape planning has been important part of this evolution.
3. Conclusion In summary, this collection of international papers shows that greenway planning has expanded around the world in the past decade since the first green-
6
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
way special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning in 1995. The papers in this two part special issue (2004–2005) include authors from twelve countries on five continents. More than a “beginning of an international movement” as described by F´abos and Ahern (1996), greenways have become a force in landscape planning. With this explosive growth in greenway planning and implementation has come a diversity and complexity of projects and approaches as described in the paper by Anthony Walmsley. Yet, the most significant aspects of greenway planning remain constant—the great majority of greenways are part of natural drainage areas of local, regional, and national territories (F´abos, 1995). These riparian corridors need to be handled with special care. River corridors are the most significant part of the landscape for natural protection, for recreation opportunities, and for proper planning of cultural heritage areas, at every scale (Lewis, 1964). Hence, the importance of greenway planning will increase significantly worldwide in the future. The international papers in this special issue illustrate that greenway researchers and planners play a very important role in several key areas of the planning process: • They are invaluable in assessing resource values (natural, recreational, and historical/cultural resources). • They are essential for formulating useful vision plans and proposing viable alternative planning scenarios. • They are useful facilitators for involving the public in planning, design, and management decisions. We hope that the literature produced by the authors of these 25 greenway papers, and distributed worldwide by Landscape and Urban Planning, will be a powerful and effective promoter for the emerging greenway movement. In the words of Anthony Walmsley, this effort will aid significantly in “multiplying and diversifying [greenway planning] in the 21st century.” As environmental concerns and increased population place greater pressures on natural systems, especially river corridors, the time for planning environmentally sensitive greenways and green space networks is even more critical than ever. We hope that these volumes will inspire the next generation of landscape planners to expand both the research and practice of greenway planning.
References Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 131–156. Arendt, R., 2004. Linked landscapes: creating greenway corridors through conservation subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central United States. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 241–269. Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., Yabe, K., 2004. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo. Jpn. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 167–182. Conine, A., Xiang, W.N., Young, J., Whitley, D., 2004. Planning for multi-purpose greenways in Concord, North Carolina. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 271–287. Corbett, M.R., 1983. Greenline Parks, Land Conservation Trends for the Eighties and Beyond. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC. F´abos, J.G., 1995. Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 1–13. F´abos, J.G., Ahern, J. (Eds.), 1996. Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement. Elsevier, Amsterdam. F´abos, J.G., Ryan, R.L. (Eds.), 2004. International greenway planning: an introduction. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 143– 146. Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L., 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 147–165. Jongman, R.H.G., Kulvik, M., Kristiansen, I., 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 305–320. Lewis Jr., P.H., 1964. Quality corridors in Wisconsin. Landscape Archit. 54 (2), 100–107. Luymes, D.T., Tamminga, K., 1995. Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 391–400. Ryan, R., Hansel Walker, J.T., 2004. Protecting and managing private farmland and public greenways in the urban fringe. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 183–198. Schrader, C.C., 1995. Rural greenway planning: the role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 375– 390.
Julius Gy. F´abos Robert L. Ryan∗ Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts 109 Hills North, Amherst, MA 01003-9328, USA ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 413 545 6633; fax: +1 413 545 1772 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.Gy. F´abos) [email protected] (R.L. Ryan) Available online 8 December 2004
Editorial
An introduction to greenway planning around the world
1. Introduction Almost a decade ago, the first special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning devoted to greenway planning was published (vol. 33, 1995). The special issue was edited by Julius Gy. F´abos and Jack Ahern and contained 26 articles, primarily from North America. This special issue was reprinted in book form as Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement (F´abos and Ahern, 1996). Since this time, the embryonic international greenway movement, described in this special, issue has become more widespread through such groups as the European Greenway Association and greenway conferences, such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy’s International Trails and Greenway Conference, Trail Link. The current editors saw a need to document recent innovations in greenway planning around the world and to expand the small but growing literature on greenway planning and research. Towards this end, we invited over 30 authors from around the world to contribute papers. These authors were selected because they were leaders in greenway planning in their respective countries and/or had published on this topic in the past. These papers were peer-reviewed, edited and resubmitted. During this process, several authors dropped out and others were added. Of course the final product could not be all-inclusive, constrained by limited publishing space and limited time to edit and organize these papers. The first 10 greenway papers were recently published in a special issue of Landscape and Urban Plan0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.028
ning (vol. 68, issues 2–3) that came out in spring of 2004 (F´abos and Ryan, 2004). This special issue had six authors from North America, two from Europe, and one each from Asia and Oceania. The second and final part of this special series, the current volume, devoted to international greenways contains 15 papers that provide an even more extensive international array of greenway projects from five continents. One-third of the papers are from North America, one-third from Europe (Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom), and the balance from Asia, South America, and Africa. The greenway movement in Asia in particular has seen explosive growth in the past decade as represented by papers from China (Yu et al.), Japan (Yokohari) and Singapore (Tan). A paper by Frischenbruder and Pellegrino talks about the spread of greenway planning in Brazil; and Zakaria describes greenways and neighborhood planning in the suburbs of Cairo, Egypt. Together, these two volumes of Landscape and Urban Planning represent the most up-to-date snapshot of greenway planning around the world and illustrate how different countries deal with planning linear corridors of protected green space at multiple-scales and for multiple purposes.
2. Review of the greenway papers The fifteen papers contained in this special issue fall into three general categories: (1) greenway case studies at multiple-scales (nine papers); (2) greenway networks for land preservation at the community scale
2
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
(two papers); and (3) historical and theoretical discussions about ways that greenways are conceived and defined in different countries (four papers). This latter category, greenway definitions is also found in several other papers in this special issue. 2.1. Greenway case studies at multiple-scales The first group of papers describes greenway planning at a range of scales from the large-scale region to the metropolitan and local level. While the scales vary between papers, the theme of planning for ecological, recreational, and cultural purposes is found in all of the papers with many incorporating multiple purposes. The first two papers in the special issue by Christina von Haaren and Michael Reich of Germany, and Margaret Bryant of the United States emphasize planning greenways for ecological value and habitat protection. As described by Jongman et al. (2004) in our first volume of international greenways, ecological networks in Europe have become increasingly important in many new greenway initiatives, spurred by both national-level and European Union legislation. German landscape architect Christina von Haaren and ecologist Michael Reich, of the Institute for Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation at the University of Hannover, review their country’s long-standing history of greenway planning. The first generation of German greenways, such as those around Stuttgart, focused on green space protection around urban areas, recreation and air quality protection. More recent greenway projects have focused on habitat networks for multiple species protection. In fact, the goal is to protect up to 10% of the German landscape in these habitat corridors, which is a laudable goal considering the high population density of the country and high percentages of private ownership. The coordination of greenways at the national level is complicated by the fact that the German federal states have the legislative authority for greenway and landscape planning. This theme of cross-boundary planning is similar to that in the New England region of the United States described in the editors’ own paper, later in this same issue (Ryan, F´abos, and Allan). Haaren and Reich give examples of habitat networks at multiple scales from the state-level to the local-level. The case study in the municipality of Kronsberg describes the difficulties of implementing a greenway for ecological and recreational purposes across a predom-
inantly privately owned farming area, a theme which has appeared in other greenway projects, such as those in the northeastern and central United States (Ryan and Hansel Walker, 2004; Schrader, 1995). The Kronsberg project of Germany illustrates how rational, scientific knowledge about habitat planning must often yield to political realities and management issues when implemented at the local-level. Ecological greenways are also the focus of a paper by Margaret Bryant of the United States. This paper describes the challenge of habitat planning in a developed urban watershed in the Washington, DC metropolitan region. Urban river corridors are the setting for many international greenway projects that are described in the two special issues, such as previously published papers by Asakawa et al., 2004 in Sapporo, Japan; and Gobster and Westphal (2004) in Chicago, Illinois. Bryant points to the fact that there is often very little biotic information about urban watersheds, yet these water resources are especially important to local residents as well as impact regional ecological health, in this case the threatened Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Her review of landscape planning tools in the region is a good counterpoint to Haaren and Reich’s overview of German landscape planning legislation. The next three papers by Tan, Frischenbruder and Pellegrino, and Ribeiro and Barao begin with an overview of greenway planning in each of their respective countries (Singapore, Brazil, and Portugal). These authors use multiple case studies to illustrate the range of greenway planning projects and issues. Dr. Kiat W. Tan, chief executive officer for Singapore’s National Parks describes his country’s efforts to develop a network of greenway corridors in this densely populated island nation. The heavily developed nature of this city–state requires what landscape architect Jack Ahern (1995) calls an “opportunistic” approach to greenway planning. The greenway network utilizes narrow strips of land along drainage channels and road right-of-ways. The challenge of implementing a greenway network in one of the world’s most densely populated urban areas provides insights for other countries with rapidly urbanizing areas. Marisa T. Mamede Frischenbruder and Paulo Pellegrino conducted a survey of greenway planners, designers, and researchers in Brazil to determine the eight projects that exemplify innovative greenway planning in their country. These projects range in scale from the
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
state-level to local-level and illustrate recent landscape planning efforts in Brazil to protect and preserve natural corridors in and around rapidly growing urban areas. Like the work in Europe and North America, there is a heavy focus on water quality and habitat protection, especially in Brazil’s coastal cities that lie within the endangered Atlantic rainforest ecosystem. These authors use the term “green and blue” infrastructure to emphasize the riparian nature of these greenways. In a similar format as the paper from Brazil, Portuguese landscape architects Luis Ribeiro and Teresa Barao give a historic overview of landscape and greenway planning in Portugal followed by examples of projects at multiple scales. The five case studies range from the culturally rich Sintra region west of Lisbon to urban greenways in the city of Tomar. An emphasis on human use of the greenway corridors for recreation, as well as the protection of cultural resources create greenways with a more multi-purpose focus than the habitat network projects described by Haaren and Reich (Germany) or Bryant (United States). It is interesting to note that in Portugal as in Germany and Brazil, nationwide environmental legislation had a strong impact on encouraging greenway planning at the regional and municipal levels. Another constant in these urban settings is the need to make use of limited rights of ways, such as historic canals and rivers to create greenways in urban areas. Two papers describe the state of greenway planning in Italy. Alessandro Toccolini, president of the Italian Greenway Association, and his colleagues at the University of Milan illustrate a landscape assessment for a greenway network in the densely populated Lambro River Valley Park, north of Milan. This park is a typical European green-line type park with existing cities, villages, farms, and natural areas (Corbett, 1983). By focusing on existing trails, these researchers found that almost 80% of a non-motorized pedestrian network already exists and just required careful planning to create new linkages to connect urban residents to the region’s amenities. This project is unique for Italy in that it focuses on a greenway network, rather than a single corridor. As a counterpoint, Italian landscape architect Katherina Scudo details two greenways in the Pavia area south of Milan. The Battle of Pavia Greenway highlights a greenway that preserves and promotes a historical and culturally rich area that was critical to the
3
history of Italy. By connecting historic-cultural resources and fragmented open space along river corridors, this project achieves a multi-purpose greenway that is somewhat unique in Italy. The implementation of the Battle of Pavia Greenway inspired regional government agencies to plan a more extensive 100 km greenway to connect northward to Milan and south to Varzi in the Apennine Mountains. This paper reveals that building small sections of long greenway corridors can help win support of local residents and the attention of local officials. In this case, public support for the greenway convinced regional officials to expand the greenway network. This phenomenon of a small, successful greenway project advancing larger scale networks was also described in Portugal by Ribeiro and Barao, as well as by the author of the next paper. The next two papers in this special issue look at which planning strategies and tools are successful for planning and implementing large-scale greenways. Landscape architect Nancy Rottle from the Pacific Northwest region of the United States gives a detailed case study of the mountains to sound greenway in Washington State. Using multiple methodologies of archival research, professional experience, and interviews, Rottle describes how grass-root efforts of volunteers mobilized a broad-based coalition of government agencies, environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders to plan a 65 km (40 mile) wide corridor along a major interstate highway. Spanning from the Seattle metropolitan area along the Pacific Ocean over the towering Cascade Mountains, this 160 km (100 mile) long corridor includes working farm and forest landscapes, scenic resources, recreational trails, wildlife habitat, and historic and cultural resources. In this paper, Rottle proposes the “landscape-based greenway” as a new typology to describe this “megacorridor” approach that emphasizes human use of the landscape. While this approach is similar to many European models of greenway planning within a working landscape, such as the Lambro River study in Italy by Toccolini et al., the scale of the project is much larger and utilizes a major highway as the organizing element rather than historic rivers or canals. Furthermore, Rottle highlights a planning process that is extremely broad-based with leadership and coordination for the project coming from the private, non-profit sector rather than the government. The results of her research suggest that successful large-scale greenway
4
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
planning can be achieved by (1) defining a flexible, almost diffuse greenway boundary for the corridor; (2) including a broad-based, well-organized collaborative process; (3) having effective leadership; (4) promoting a greenway vision rather than a detailed plan; and (5) utilizing creative land protection strategies, such as land trades between public and private interests. A research paper by the co-editors of this special issue and Jessica Allan highlights successful approaches to greenway planning in another region of the United States, New England. This study used indepth interviews with greenway planners from governmental agencies and non-profit organizations to understand strategies for coordinating large-scale greenways across multiple political jurisdictions. The greenway planning experts in the region reiterated many of the same themes found in Rottle’s research: the importance of partnerships and collaboration, clearly defined goals and a shared vision plan, public involvement, and regional coordination. The importance of having a lead organization to coordinate regional planning is a key component that is difficult to achieve in a large, multistate region such as New England and has been more successful in the less politically fractured Mountains to Sound Greenway of Washington State described in the case study by Nancy Rottle. A comparison between these two papers will allow the reader to learn more about planning tools and strategies to implement largescale regional greenways. 2.2. Greenway networks for land preservation at the community scale The second category of papers in this special issue look at the use of greenways to preserve land within new communities. These greenways take a “defensive” approach to planning and use a landscape assessment to determine the most threatened resources to preserve (Ahern, 1995). In the first special issue on international greenways, papers by Randall Arendt (2004) and Conine et al. (2004) covered the topic of using greenways to create community-wide greenway networks in the United States. These two papers in the current special issue cover the topic of greenways and community planning from an international perspective. Egyptian architect and planner Khalid Zakaria El Adli Imam of Cairo University traces the history of greenways in shaping urban form and uses a case
study of a master planned residential community west of Cairo, Egypt to illustrate the application of these ideas to the Mideast. Dr. Imam translates a traditional Egyptian street pattern called the “hara” into a cul-desac network of streets with clustered homes in a new suburban community. This clustered plan allows for a network of protected green space with pedestrian and cycle paths that connect residents to the community center with its park, mosque, shopping center, and community building. The protected green space in this community highlights scenic views to the nearby pyramids of Giza, preserves shallow depressions in the natural terrain, and creates landscaped pedestrian corridors to modify the harsh desert climate. While the first paper by Dr. Imam describes a community that is still in the planning stages, Japanese planner Makoto Yokohari and his colleagues at the University of Tsukuba evaluate the greenway networks of Japanese New Towns that were developed over thirty years ago. These new towns were part of the modernist-planning era that rebuilt Europe and Japan after the Second World War. Yokohari’s study exemplifies the dynamic nature of managing greenway networks. Originally, greenway corridors in Japanese New Towns were developed to provide landscaped corridors for pedestrian and cyclists. Unfortunately, these corridors have become too “green” as vegetation matured and became overgrown. Moreover, changes in Japanese society have resulted in perceptions that these greenways are unsafe. Crime is a management issue that urban greenways in other countries have had to grapple with for sometime, because the long linear nature of greenways often create corridors that are hidden from nearby streets and homes (Luymes and Tamminga, 1995). Since understanding the public’s perceptions of greenways is a critical aspect of greenway planning and management, these researchers conducted a survey of local residents living near the Tsukuba greenway network. The results of the study showed that residents feared crime in those areas that were dark, overgrown, and underused. This study highlights the fact that greenway need adaptive management to respond to changing environmental and societal condit ions. 2.3. Historical and theoretical greenway papers The final four papers in this special issue discuss the historical development of greenway planning interna-
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
tionally, as well as in specific countries. Moreover, several papers are essays on the theoretical and conceptual roots of greenway planning, and address such questions as: (1) how have greenways been defined in their respective countries and (2) how does greenway planning fit within the larger context of landscape planning? Chinese landscape architect Kongjian Yu and his colleagues review the history of greenway planning in China. While the term, “greenway” is a modern planning term; ancient Chinese planners utilized greenway corridors along canals and other linear corridors. These authors describe a “top–down” approach to planning that has resulted in large-scale projects for resource protection and hazard mitigation. For example, greenways are part of massive windbreaks in farming areas and reforestation along drainage corridors. In many ways, these corridors are akin to the European ecological networks described by Jongman et al. (2004) and Haaren and Reich in this issue. However, the Chinese emphasis is on productive, working landscapes rather than on habitat protection. Yu and others acknowledge that Chinese greenway planning has “little concern for human uses” such as recreation. However, China, as a rapidly urbanizing nation, has put a strong emphasis on urban park planning and has begun to embrace a more recreationally-focused greenway as part of newly planned linear park systems. Chinese landscape architect Kongjian Yu and his colleagues review the history of greenway planning in China. While the term, “greenway” is a modern planning term; ancient Chinese planners utilized greenway corridors along canals and other linear corridors. These authors describe a “top–down” approach to planning that has resulted in large-scale projects for resource protection and hazard mitigation. For example, greenways are part of massive windbreaks in farming areas and reforestation along drainage corridors. In many ways, these corridors are akin to the European ecological networks described by Jongman et al. (2004) and Haaren and Reich in this issue. However, the Chinese emphasis is on productive, working landscapes rather than on habitat protection. Yu and others acknowledge that Chinese greenway planning has “little concern for human uses” such as recreation. However, China, as a rapidly urbanizing nation, has put a strong emphasis on urban park planning and has begun to embrace a more recreationally-focused greenway as part of newly planned linear park systems.
5
Anthony Walmsley puts greenways in the larger land-use planning context of the past twenty-five years, predominantly in the United States. This paper defines and reviews some of the recent trends in land use planning including, new urbanism, smart growth, and green infrastructure. Walmsley distinguishes green infrastructure from greenways in that green infrastructure is more ecologically focused, preserves large ecological “hubs”, and provides a framework for growth. He uses the State of New Jersey’s Open Space and Greenway Vision plan as an example of a green infrastructure assessment. While one may argue that greenways include all the aspects of green infrastructure described in Walmsley’s paper, he is correct that this new term has been embraced by many in the environmental and planning world. As Walmsley notes, green infrastructure puts an emphasis on the essential quality of green space protection, rather than the amenity aspects that some solely recreation focused greenway corridors may have. The seminal point of this paper is that land use planning and conservation planning should happen together. To extend this example to the entire volume of international greenways, greenway planning is part of the larger landscape planning discipline and should be integrated into the planning process as suggested by Tom Turner of Great Britain. The final paper in this special issue is a short communication from Jon Rodiek, editor of Landscape and Urban Planning that summarizes a keynote address that he gave at the inaugural F´abos Landscape Planning and Greenway Symposium at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in conjunction with the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning’s Centennial celebration. His short paper describes the impact that landscape planning that includes greenway planning has had on the profession of landscape architecture, including the increasing interdisciplinary aspect of the profession and the importance of ecological science to design and planning. In a larger sense, greenway planning as a subset of landscape planning has been important part of this evolution.
3. Conclusion In summary, this collection of international papers shows that greenway planning has expanded around the world in the past decade since the first green-
6
Editorial / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 1–6
way special issue of Landscape and Urban Planning in 1995. The papers in this two part special issue (2004–2005) include authors from twelve countries on five continents. More than a “beginning of an international movement” as described by F´abos and Ahern (1996), greenways have become a force in landscape planning. With this explosive growth in greenway planning and implementation has come a diversity and complexity of projects and approaches as described in the paper by Anthony Walmsley. Yet, the most significant aspects of greenway planning remain constant—the great majority of greenways are part of natural drainage areas of local, regional, and national territories (F´abos, 1995). These riparian corridors need to be handled with special care. River corridors are the most significant part of the landscape for natural protection, for recreation opportunities, and for proper planning of cultural heritage areas, at every scale (Lewis, 1964). Hence, the importance of greenway planning will increase significantly worldwide in the future. The international papers in this special issue illustrate that greenway researchers and planners play a very important role in several key areas of the planning process: • They are invaluable in assessing resource values (natural, recreational, and historical/cultural resources). • They are essential for formulating useful vision plans and proposing viable alternative planning scenarios. • They are useful facilitators for involving the public in planning, design, and management decisions. We hope that the literature produced by the authors of these 25 greenway papers, and distributed worldwide by Landscape and Urban Planning, will be a powerful and effective promoter for the emerging greenway movement. In the words of Anthony Walmsley, this effort will aid significantly in “multiplying and diversifying [greenway planning] in the 21st century.” As environmental concerns and increased population place greater pressures on natural systems, especially river corridors, the time for planning environmentally sensitive greenways and green space networks is even more critical than ever. We hope that these volumes will inspire the next generation of landscape planners to expand both the research and practice of greenway planning.
References Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 131–156. Arendt, R., 2004. Linked landscapes: creating greenway corridors through conservation subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central United States. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 241–269. Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., Yabe, K., 2004. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo. Jpn. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 167–182. Conine, A., Xiang, W.N., Young, J., Whitley, D., 2004. Planning for multi-purpose greenways in Concord, North Carolina. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 271–287. Corbett, M.R., 1983. Greenline Parks, Land Conservation Trends for the Eighties and Beyond. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC. F´abos, J.G., 1995. Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 1–13. F´abos, J.G., Ahern, J. (Eds.), 1996. Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement. Elsevier, Amsterdam. F´abos, J.G., Ryan, R.L. (Eds.), 2004. International greenway planning: an introduction. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 143– 146. Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L., 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 147–165. Jongman, R.H.G., Kulvik, M., Kristiansen, I., 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 305–320. Lewis Jr., P.H., 1964. Quality corridors in Wisconsin. Landscape Archit. 54 (2), 100–107. Luymes, D.T., Tamminga, K., 1995. Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 391–400. Ryan, R., Hansel Walker, J.T., 2004. Protecting and managing private farmland and public greenways in the urban fringe. Landscape Urban Plan. 68 (2–3), 183–198. Schrader, C.C., 1995. Rural greenway planning: the role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies. Landscape Urban Plan. 33 (1–3), 375– 390.
Julius Gy. F´abos Robert L. Ryan∗ Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts 109 Hills North, Amherst, MA 01003-9328, USA ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 413 545 6633; fax: +1 413 545 1772 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.Gy. F´abos) [email protected] (R.L. Ryan) Available online 8 December 2004