Ecological Sustainability and Urban Green Space

RINGKØBING PAPERS Water Management Landuse Planning Waste Management Area Resources Habitat Quality

Urban Density and Green Structure Case Studies Ringkøbing -DK Stocksbridge -UK Oslo -Forsheimer -N Poland- Green networks -PL Tidaholm & Trollhatten -S Social Impacts of sustainable Housing Oslo - city centre -N Helsinki - Espoo -SU Political Instruments Norway - N Click a Topic QUIT Ringkøbing Area Resources Purpose of research Collecting data Data on green space in Køge Green space in Ringkøbing Conclusions References Click a Topic

RINGKØBING CASE STUDY - AREA RESOURCES DATA ON GREENSPACE IN KØGE To access this information use the bottom left menu or the arrows at the foot of the page Green space resources in the pilot study in Koege In the Køge study the field survey, combined with map measurements and statistical information on the household size, was compared with statistical information on the whole town, in order to map the area resources of the different residential categories (fig 1). Note: in the following paragraphs the term "vegetation" is used to cover planting such as trees, shrubs, herbacious plants, and also grass; the term "grass" is used to cover both grass laid as lawns and rough grass left as meadowland. The single family house properties had an average of 53% vegetation covered area, comprising 60% grass and 40% planted areas, including surrounding hedges. As the general size for single family house properties is between 700 and 1000 sq.m and an average household in Koege comprises less than 2.5 persons, the area resource was considered sufficient in relation to property based use/retainment of biodegradable waste and storm water at the level of the individual property, and no further study on the area resources of this residential category was carried out. Different residential density types in Køge by surface cover (Fig.1) Type of Housing Single Low density Flats Centre % of total Built 29% 21% 18(-11)% 42% % of total Paved 18% 31% 37(-21)% 33% Vegetation 53% 48% 45(-68)% 25% % of total Non-built 71% 79% 82(-90)% 58% % of non-built area Paved 25% 39% 45(-24)% 56% % of non-built area Vegetation 75% 61% 55(-76)% 44% % of vegetation area Grass 60% 82% (39)-67% 59% % of vegetation area Planted 40% 18% (61)-33% 41% Actual vegetation area Per dwelling 586 sq.m 91 sq.m* 88(-193) sq.m* 97 sq.m* Actual vegetation area Per person 293 sq.m 61 sq.m 51(-116) sq.m 51 sq.m *Statistical data - average for all Køge (other numbers are from case study areas) (-x) result not used (atypical)     Figure 1a - Graphs of surface cover by house type For the 18 low-density structure zones in Koege, discounting the older areas of the town centre, the average part of non-built areas was 83%, comprising 218 sq.m per household/120 sq.m per person. The two developments studied in detail had a non-built area of 79% and so are below but close to the 83% average of all Koege. Not unexpectedly, the vegetation area was less than that of single family house developments (43%/53%), but more surprising was the finding that only 18% of this area is planted. It is less than half of the planted areas of the other three residential area categories. (See Fig 1a).) For the 14 apartment block structure zones of Koege the statistically-based average part of the non-built area was 89%, comprising 130 sq.m per household/72 sq.m per person. The two developments studied in detail had an average non-built area of 82% and 90% respectively, and so are close to the average. However, the latter development is assumed atypical for apartment blocks (social housing), as the non-built area per person/per household exceeds all other developments in Koege (270 sq.m per household/124 sq.m per person. Based on these figures it is assumed that he vegetation area of 55 % of the non-built area of the first development is a more appropriate assumption for an average apartment block than the 76% of the latter. The last category studied was the six structure zones of the typical provincial town centre of Koege, which has medieval origins, as has Ringkoebing. The average part of non-built area was 63%, so exceeding the measured 58% of the selected test area. The non-built area comprised 161sq. m per household/120 sq.m per person, which is more than anticipated in this seemingly dense area. The selected test area had a paved area of 33% and a vegetation area of 25% of the total area. The vegetation areas comprised 59% grass and 41% plantings, which in comparison with other residential areas suggests that the smaller the area of open space the more it is used for planting (trees, bushes, flowers), rather than grass. When comparing these percentages of biologically open, mainly vegetation-covered areas (a few comprise bare soil) with figures estimated by studying plot ratio regulations (Dahl, 1947,p49), the result is that in single family house developments the estimated vegetation area is very different from the actual measurements found in this field study (75% as against 53%). The same is true for low density developments (60% as against 48%). For apartment block developments the vegetation ratio seem to have been greatly underestimated when compared with the results of the field study (20-35% compared with 45%). For central areas the consistancy is, however, fair (30% compared with 25%). Consequently these findings suggest that using plot ratios as a point of departure for estimating area resources is no substitute for using more exact local statistics derived from GIS or other on-site information.