1. Developing
Green Infrastructure
in Haslev, Denmark
Theodore Blundell
Lea Bütje
Elizabeth Dent
Elena Diago Blay
Hyeonju Ryu
Rural Landscapes - Management and Planning
18 June 2015
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
2. Content
1 Background + Project Objectives
2 Green Infrastructure (GI): Concepts
3 Methods
4 Analysis
5 Solutions: selected new GI
6 Policy Support for our new selected GI
7 Conclusion & Limitations
3. 1.1 Background to our study
● Habitat loss/Fragmentation
● Grey infrastructure/urbanisation/intensive
agriculture/Forestry
● Results in degradation of ecosystems meaning they
can not perform range of ecosystem services
● Socio-economic consequences
4. 1.2 Project Objectives
Using Green Infrastructure to:
1. Enhance biological connectivity whilst increasing
landscape multifunctionality
2. Improve the accessibility and availability of
recreational areas
5. 2 GI Concepts
● GI aims to protect ecosystems with
their values and functions,
● Provide benefits to people and
wildlife in the form of a range of
ecosystem services.
● Benefits the natural environment
● How people use the environment
● Planning and implementation
● Many varying stakeholders
6. 3.1 Study site
● The town of Haslev, Faxe
Kommune Southern Zealand
● Readily accessible from
Copenhagen
● Multiple land uses ranging from
intensive agriculture to nature
reserves
● A range of stakeholders, local
nature groups to large county
estates
12. 4.1 Spatial Analysis
Landscape Ecology
● Structure
an agricultural background matrix
● Functions of nature areas
timber production, hunting,
recreation
● Connectivity in the landscape
few connections between habitats
13. 4.1 Spatial Analysis
Temporal Landscape Change
3 Major Landscape Changes
● Expansion of agricultural
fields
● Loss of wetlands
● Enlarged urban areas
14. 4.1 Spatial Analysis
Temporal Landscape Change
CHANGE
● Expansion of agricultural fields
● Loss of wetlands
● Enlarged urban areas
PRESSURE
● Agricultural production
● Technological advances
● Immigration
● Economic income
● Immigration
DRIVING FORCE
RESPONSE
● Agricultural Intensification
● Immigation/Emigration
● Urbanization
21. 4.3 Social Analysis
Identification of stakeholders
Primary Secondary
Faxe Kommune
Bregentved Estate
Gisselfeld Estate
Danish Nature Agency
(DNA)
Haslev-Danish Society for
Nature Conservation
(Haslev-DSNC)
32. 5 Solutions: selected new GI
Haslev Orned
Recreational Park
Enlarging
Skoleparken
Haslev Recreational
& Habitat Ringroad
33. ● Implementation
○ outdoor facilities
○ hunting cease
● Key stakeholders
○ Faxe Kommune, Bregentved
Estate & DSNC
○ Citizens participation
● Feasibility
○ Renting out
○ Outdoor Council fund
5 Solutions: selected new GI
Haslev Orned Recreational Park
34. 5 Solutions: selected new GI
Enlarging Skoleparken
● Implementation
○ From crops to grazed grassland
○ Increase biodiversity
○ Educational use
● Key stakeholders
○ Faxe Kommune, land owner & DSNC
● Feasibility
○ Land purchase or subsidies
○ Grass / hay harvest winter foder
○ Close to the city
35. ● Implementation
○ Ringroad of 6.4 km and
biological corridor
● Key stakeholders
○ Faxe Kommune and
Bregentved Estate
● Feasibility
○ Benefits for the whole area
5 Solutions: selected new GI
Haslev Recreational & Habitat Ringroad
36.
37. 6 Policy Support for our new selected GI
● International
○ EU Green Infrastructure Strategy
○ EU Biodiversity Strategy
○ Rural Development Programme
○ Common Agricultural Policy
38. 6 Policy Support for our new selected GI
● National
○ NaturPlan Danmark
● Local
○ Haslev Kommune Plan
(2005-2014)
39. 7 Conclusion and Limitations
● Conclusion
○ new GI to improve biodiversity and recreation
● Limitations
○ time
○ not all stakeholders included
○ bias of citizen survey
○ evaluation of monetary feasibility
40. ● Lessons Learnt
○ flowchart as framework
○ EU GI strategy: e.g.
connecting Natura 2000
sites
○ long-term management
7 Conclusion and Limitations
