-
ES2423 V18 Sustainable development: A case study University of
Gothenburg
GREENERY ON LINDHOLMEN A CASE STUDY
Photographer unknown. (2017). Karlastaden_MakaMaka [website].
Karlastaden.se
Moa Hjulfors, Julia Johansson, Timmy Nilsson, Helena Nazari,
Saulius Šatas, Malin Taube
-
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Problem Formulation 1
1.2 Aim and Research Questions 2
1.3 Study Area 2
2. Background 3
2.1 The Importance of Urban Greenery 3
2.2 Urban Greenery and Sustainability 4
2.3 Requirements and Guidelines for Urban Greenery 7
3. Method 9
3.1 Document Study 9
3.2 Interview 9
3.3 GIS 12
4. Results 16
4.1 Document Study 16
4.2 Interviews 18
4.3 GIS 21
5. Discussion 25
5.1 Detailed Development Plans 25
5.2 Guidelines 27
5.3 Distribution of Green Space 27
5.4 Sustainable Development and Requirements 28
5.5 Group Work 30
6. Conclusions 31
References 32
Appendices 36
Appendix A 36
Appendix B 37
Appendix C 38
Appendix D 39
Appendix E 40
-
Abstract
Greenery is an essential part in creating an attractive and
sustainable city, still it is easily forgotten
or turned down by other priorities when a city is growing.
Lindholmen is currently growing in
population and is a significant part of the vision of the
RiverCity, which is a large city development
project in the centre of Gothenburg. The aim of this study is to
evaluate Lindholmen from a
greenery perspective, both in a present and future perspective.
This includes examining how
greenery and its social and ecological benefits, regarding
factors such as well-being and ecosystem
services are considered by the municipality and in the city
planning documents and visions. This
report is based on a case study design, and has been carried out
by ways of document analysis,
qualitative interviews as well as GIS analyses. The results have
shown that Lindholmen does not
live up to the current requirements on greenery near residences
set by the city of Gothenburg.
There are a few new green areas included in the detailed
development plans, the two largest being
a green area near Karlastaden and a park near Götaverksgatan.
Although these green areas will
contribute to an increased amount of usable public green space
on Lindholmen, the total amount
of green area will decrease due to the high level of
construction in the area. In the detailed
development plans, the greenery has not been prioritised and
Lindholmen will not by any means
be as green as the vision wishes. Since greenery is a
prerequisite for fighting effects of climate
change and creating a sustainable city, this is nothing that can
be downplayed.
-
1
1. Introduction
Greenery is an essential part in creating an attractive and
sustainable city (European Union, 2010).
Urban greenery improves the living environment in cities through
ecosystem services, for example
by regulating pollution and creating a favourable microclimate
in the city. Green spaces also create
meeting places and contribute to contact with nature which can
lead to both physical and
psychological benefits (ISOCARP, 2009). Urban greenery is also
important from an economic
perspective since the loss of these valuable services would lead
to high costs when compensating
for them (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013).
This report is a part of the course Sustainable Development: A
Case Study given by the University
of Gothenburg and focuses on greenery from a city planning
perspective, where the study area is
Lindholmen in Gothenburg. Lindholmen is currently growing in
population and is a significant
part of the vision of the RiverCity, a large city development
project in the center of Gothenburg.
Gothenburg City is currently planning around 2 000 new
residences and 2 000 new workplaces by
2021 on Lindholmen (Göteborgs Stad, 2017A). Today many people
work, study or live in the area,
and the Lindholmens Science Park’s vision is counting on about
30 000 people in circulation by
2020 (Lindholmen Science Park, 2013).
1.1 Problem Formulation
Research shows that greenery has an essential role in improving
the environment and the quality
of life, especially for people, in an urban environment. So why
is it still so easily forgotten or
turned down by other priorities when a city is growing?
Lindholmen is currently going through an
extensive development, but how much greenery is really planned?
Will it be enough to be
sustainable in a social and ecological perspective? If the level
of greenery in a city decreases, the
ecosystem services will be weakened. This will reduce the city’s
capability of withstanding the
impacts of current and future climate change, such as increased
precipitation, flooding, and more
strong and frequent heat waves. It would also decrease the
inhabitants’ ability for recreation in the
city. The desire is to investigate these questions to increase
awareness on the importance of
greenery and to question the stakeholders’ priorities. This will
be done by interviewing important
stakeholders and examining relevant guiding documents to get an
overall view of the situation on
Lindholmen today.
-
2
1.2 Aim and Research Questions
The aim of this study is to evaluate Lindholmen from a greenery
perspective, both in a present and
future perspective. This includes examining how greenery and its
social and ecological benefits,
regarding factors such as well-being and ecosystem services,
(see section 2.1) are considered by
the municipality and in the city planning documents and visions.
This will be answered through
the research questions below.
1. How is greenery considered by the municipality and in the
development plans and visions
for the area?
2. What is the current and future distribution of green areas on
Lindholmen?
1.3 Study Area
The study area in this project is the district of Lindholmen,
situated on the northern bank of Göta
Älv (the Göta river). It is located in the Lundby district. The
area in question historically served as
a harbour and shipbuilding area. The northern edge of the
district is the railway Hamnbanan and
the highway Lundbyleden, running side by side. To the south the
river acts as the border. The
western part of Lindholmen is older, and mainly contains
residential areas. Slottsberget and
Sörhallsberget are located here, breaking up the plain surface
with vegetation and mountainous
terrain, with Sannegård harbour acting as the western district
barrier. Whereas the eastern part
houses the Radio and TV-house, as well as industrial areas by
the Lundby harbour, with hard
surfaces and few green areas. The closeness to the water helped
in the historical growth of
Lindholmen, as the harbour and industries used this opportunity.
The central parts of Lindholmen
consists of educational facilities as well as a central business
district (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A).
The exact borders of the study area will mimic those the City of
Gothenburg (2017A) use.
-
3
2. Background
2.1 The Importance of Urban Greenery
There are several ways of integrating greenery in a dense city.
Greenery in cities could be in the
form of traditional parks, but also green passages, green
facades and green roofs as well as private
gardens or courtyards (Malmö Stad, n.d.a.). Urban greenery is
important for the ability to take
advantage of locally generated ecosystem services such as water
management, stabilised
temperatures, wind protection, noise reduction and air
filtration (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).
Greenery is also important from social and recreational
perspectives. Recreational green areas
should be accessible, usable, varied, inviting and well
maintained in order to attract users from the
neighbourhood and beyond (Roo, 2011).
2.1.1 Importance for the Environment
Stormwater
Threats from climate change are unavoidable and the city of
Gothenburg has to deal with these
effects. Over the second half of 20th century, periods with high
water levels, extreme precipitation
and flooding have increased (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A). Moreover,
the forecast for the current
century doesn’t look very promising. It is estimated that along
the coast, water level is expected to
rise by 80 cm by the end of this century. This will affect the
Göta River’s water level, and since
Lindholmen is low lying part of the inner-city zone, flooding
may occur under extreme weather
(see Appendix B) (Göteborgsregionens Kommunalförbund, 2012).
Greenery could serve as a tool
in mitigating flooding since the ground in vegetated areas
allows for water infiltration and
vegetation takes up water and evaporates it (Andersson-Sköld et
al., 2015; Bolund & Hunhammar,
1999).
Urban Heat Island
City zones tend to have higher temperatures compared to their
surroundings, especially at night
(Azevedo, Chapman, Muller, 2016). The rise of temperature in
cities is, among other factors,
caused by heating and traffic in combination with large areas of
heat absorbing surfaces, like
asphalt and buildings, with low albedo (Bolund & Hunhammar,
1999; Gómez-Baggethun &
Barton, 2013). The heat stored during the day is trapped during
the night, reducing the rate at which
the city cools. This phenomenon, called the urban heat island,
can lead to amplified heat waves,
which may cause severe illnesses and death (Andersson-Sköld, et
al., 2015; Bolund &
Hunhammar, 1999). During heat waves the wind is quite still, so
the quality of the air also has a
tendency to deteriorate due to accumulation of local emissions
of pollutants (Meng, Zhang, Zhao,
Duan, Xu & Kan, 2012). Urban greenery stabilises local
temperature and works as a buffer to the
urban heat island effect. This is mainly done by
evapotranspirative cooling and shading
(Andersson-Sköld et al., 2015; Bolund & Hunhammar,
1999).
-
4
Noise pollution
The city is a noisy environment. Noise from traffic,
construction and other human activities in a
city can lead to psychological and physical health problems,
including irritation, headache and
sleeping problems (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013;
Göteborgsregionens Kommunalförbund,
2012). Soil and vegetation can contribute to diminishing the
noise by absorbing or reflecting the
sound waves (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013). Being in a
green and natural surrounding can
also shield the visual intrusion of traffic and decrease the
experience of noise (Bolund &
Hunhammar, 1999).
Air Quality
Air pollution is a major environmental and public health problem
in cities (Bolund & Hunhammar,
1999). The majority of the air pollution is caused by
transportation, industry, waste incineration
and heating of buildings. Polluted environment results in
increased health risks, such as respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton,
2013). However, urban greenery can
improve air quality by filtering pollutants and particles from
the air. The filtering is done through
the leaves of trees and shrubs (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).
Examples of pollution the vegetation
removes are CO2, various heavy metals, dust and toxic particles
that fluctuate in the air (Virtudes,
2016).
2.1.2 Importance for Human Health
All environmental benefits are also beneficial for human
well-being, since we are dependent upon
the environment to function. Since the population of Lindholmen
is increasing, issues regarding
greenery and human health are getting more central. According to
Naturvårdsverket (2017) urban
greenery affects human health in several ways, mentally and
physically. Except the benefits
mentioned in 2.1.1, spending time in green areas also have
identified mental health effects such as
improved concentration, lowered stress levels, increased
performance and a feeling of being both
happier and healthier. After staying in a green area for some
time, both reduced heart rate, reduced
blood pressure and reduced muscle tension can be measured as
physical indicators of the mental
wellbeing (Naturvårdsverket, 2017).
2.2 Urban Greenery and Sustainability
Today, more than half of the world’s population live in urban
areas, and the urban settlement is
expected to increase in the future (United Nations, 2016). This
is stressing the need for planning
for sustainable cities. Growing cities and urban areas can have
issues such as air pollution and
other environmental problems, and social issues in the form of
neighbourhood collapses, for
instance (WCED, 1987). Urban greenery provides both
environmental and social benefits (Dinnie
et al, 2013) and could be an important tool for mitigating the
problems and creating sustainable
cities.
-
5
2.2.1 Sustainable Development in This Study - Nested View
When discussing sustainable development, the most widespread
definition comes from the well-
known report Our common future. It defines sustainable
development as development that “meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 16). In 2002, three dimensions was framed
to the concept - economic,
social and ecological (United Nations, 2002).
This study will work with the sustainability concept in line
with how Giddings et al. (2002)
describes a “nested” sustainable development, see Figure 1.
According to the nested model, the
social dimension, which includes society and all human
activities, is within the scope of the
environment and the ecological dimension. The economic
sustainability is a subset to the social
dimension and is dependent upon both the environment and
society. Ecological sustainability is
defined as the maintenance of the structure and processes of
ecosystems according to Park &
Allaby (2017) and is therefore what this study is mostly
focusing on. The economic and social
values and structures should be formed so they are conducive to
the ecological sustainability. The
social sustainability should also aim to maintain and improve
the well-being of people, as a
combination of an environment- and people-oriented view
mentioned by Chiu (2003). The
economic sustainability should ensure a continued economic
growth while maintaining an efficient
use of resources (Gregory et al., 2009). Thus, the ecological
sustainability works as the basis for
the other dimensions and should always be considered when
sustainability questions are discussed.
Figure 1. “Nested” sustainable development, with ecological
sustainability as
an outset for both social and economic sustainability.
-
6
2.2.2 Sustainability in Urban Environments
When considering urban environments, greenery is an important
tool for achieving both social,
economic and ecological sustainability (Chiesura, 2004). The
effects of greenery make the urban
environment ecologically sustainable through contributing with
ecosystem services such as water
and air purification, flood mitigation and climate regulation,
as well as providing habitats for
animal species. These ecosystem services provide benefits for
both the human society and the
ecosystem itself (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010). Greenery
creates an attractive environment
and contributes to social and recreational activities as well as
other sources of physical and mental
well-being. Green areas promote health through e.g. stress
recovery and physical activities which
can relieve the pressure on health care and thus lead to social
benefits and economic savings in the
long-term (Abraham et al, 2010). If the city does not provide
these urban green spaces for recovery
and other psychological benefits it could lead to large
healthcare costs in the long run (Thomson,
2002). Another social benefit from green areas are their ability
to enhance social integration
through facilitating social meetings and community building
(Abraham et al, 2010). Thus,
greenery enhances a socially sustainable society.
The ecosystem services from urban greenery bring several
economically sustainable aspects, other
than the economic savings from the health benefits mentioned
above. Greenery reduces the risk of
flooding, which leads to economic savings in the form of reduced
damage on infrastructure and
buildings. Another economic benefit from the greenery is that it
helps to regulate the temperature
in the city, reducing the need for cooling systems, and cleans
the stormwater as well as the air from
pollutants. Since society has difficulties in valuing the
ecosystem services from greenery, it is often
not prioritised in society (Naturvårdsverket, 2017). A
sustainable city environment should be
decoupled from negative ecological impacts and should be both
socio-economically and
ecologically sustainable in the long term (UNEP, 2012).
2.2.3 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
The United Nations have adopted an Agenda as a plan for action
to shift the world towards a more
sustainable path. Within the 2030 Agenda 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG:s) and 169
targets have been formed. The goals involve, for example, ending
poverty and hunger, protecting
the planet from degradation, and to foster peaceful and just
societies (United Nations, 2015).
The SDG:s that are adopted by Sweden's parliament also apply at
the municipal level. The goals
shall therefore be incorporated into the municipal planning of
land and water such as overview
plans, area plans, detailed development plans and so on
(Boverket, 2017). Several goals have been
identified as relevant to this study. Goal 3, Good health and
wellbeing, aims to reduce the number
of deaths and illnesses from water and soil pollution, as well
as reduce premature mortality from
non-communicable diseases through promoting mental health and
well-being. Urban greenery
could help improve mental health and wellbeing through ecosystem
services. Furthermore,
vegetation binds the soil and filters water, reducing dispersion
of contamination, a property that
-
7
contributes to both goal 3 and goal 6 - Clean water and
sanitation. The 6th goal aims to, for
instance, improve water quality by reduction of pollution and
halving the proportion of untreated
wastewater (United Nations, 2018).
Goal 11, Sustainable cities and communities, intends to, for
example, provide high quality green
areas to everyone. The goal concerns this study since urban
greenery provide both social and
environmental sustainability. The 13th goal, climate action,
intends to minimise the vulnerability
to climate-related hazards. Greenery and soil has a buffering
effect against large amounts of water
which can potentially occur after heavy rainfall. The greenery
also provides shade and dampens
winds, making weathers appear less extreme. Last but not least
the 15th goal Life on land is
relevant for this study. It states that, for instance, ecosystem
and biodiversity values shall be
integrated into national and local planning (United Nations,
2018).
2.3 Requirements and Guidelines for Urban Greenery
In the national and local planning a number of documents shall
be considered, in addition to the
already included SDG:s. The following section takes up some
documents relevant for Lindholmen
containing requirements and guidelines for the planning for
greenery and sustainability.
2.3.1 National level
The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808) states in chapter 3, 6
§ that; ”The need for green
areas in urban areas and nearby urban areas should be taken into
account in particular.”
(Translated from Swedish). Some more specific regulations are
found in the Planning and Building
act (2010:900). The law states that each municipality is
responsible for the lawful planning of land
and water. There is a pervading focus on requirements for
contributing to a long-term sustainable
living environment in land and water planning. Specifically
stated is the need to find suitable places
where parks, other green areas and places for play can be
located. Exercise and other outdoor
activities should be considered when planning and should be
available close to planned
residentials, preschools, schools and similar buildings.
2.3.2 Local level
The comprehensive plan for Gothenburg has an overall focus on
sustainable development from
both social, economic, and ecological point of view for the
whole municipality. The ambition is to
create a good interaction between the city and nature. One of
the goals is that water and greenery
should be utilised and developed as resources in urban
development, and be accessible to everyone.
The city will be planned accordingly to facilitate transport by
foot and by bicycle
(Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2009). There is no in-depth
comprehensive plan for Lindholmen. In the
Green Strategy for a Dense and Green City, a central goal is
that Gothenburg shall be a dense and
green city with a rich flora and fauna where ecosystem services
are utilised. The document is
constructed by Gothenburg city and works as underlying
information for planning matters
-
8
(Göteborgs Stad, 2014A). The amount of green area shall be
enough to fulfil the recreational need
of the residents. The need varies depending on several factors.
The number of square meters per
resident should be considered together with the environmental
objective of Good Built
Environment of the City of Gothenburg (Göteborgs Stad,
2014A).
Regarding ecosystem services in the RiverCity vision, the
addition of more greenery is especially
emphasised together with the ability of embracing the water.
Three specific strategies have been
defined; the whole city, meeting the water and strengthening the
center. Green spaces should be
deployed in a way that it could increase accessibility and
attract people to the waterside. A dense
city requires some large parks and many smaller green spaces
that would serve as hotspots for rest
and recreation. Lindholmen should be an attractive area and
guarantee recreational activities all
year around (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A). More detailed information
about the planned greenery on
Lindholmen is found in the document Green plan for Central
RiverCity (2012B) and Analys av
grönytor och parkmark på Lindholmen (2017A). The documents state
which parks are in the area
today, which functions they have and recommendations of how the
future planning of green areas
should be done.
2.3.3 Green Areas in Cities
The Swedish central administration authority Boverket works on
behalf of the government with
social planning and urban development, conveying regulations and
providing guidance and
informative texts for city planning. There are no exact
regulations or laws regarding the
amount/area of green areas or greenery, though Boverket has some
guidelines. These are; the close
park, the local park, the district park and the free-areas. The
close park (närparken) should ideally
be within 50 m of the residence. The local park (lokalparken)
should be reached within 200 m
without having to cross busy roads. The neighbourhood park
(stadsdelsparken) should not be more
than 800 m away. The free-areas (friarealerna) should have a
ratio of least 300-400 m2 per resident
(Boverket, 2007).
The city of Gothenburg has made some other definitions where the
park near residences
(bostadsnära park och naturområde) should be within 300 m from
residence and the district park
(stadsdelsparken) should be reached within 1 km or 15 minutes of
walking. These parks are
intended for resting, to be meeting points, playing and so on.
Larger parks are the city park
(stadspark) and the larger nature and recreational area (större
natur- och rekreationsområde)
which should be reached within 30 minutes from residence. They
are intended both to give a
distinctive character, exercise and nature experience (Göteborgs
Stad, 2014A). For more detailed
information, see appendix A.
-
9
3. Method
This study adheres to the case study design. It is idiographic
in nature, aiming to generalise a
statement, which can be applied to other times, places or cases.
Generally, case study designs are
favourably complemented by mixed method approaches, though this
study will be of a qualitative
nature (Bryman, 2012). Document analysis is the base method for
this study. Secondly, qualitative
interviews will be conducted. Finally, GIS analyses will be
applied. Interviews and the studied
documents will answer both the first and second question, while
GIS will give an edge in the
visualisation for the second question.
3.1 Document Study
The utilised document analysis type is that of qualitative
analysis (Esaiasson, Gilljam, Oscarsson,
& Wängnerud, 2012). The analysis itself will evaluate to
which degree the planning processes of
the detailed development plans selected live up to the standards
of the international, national and
local documents, as well as the visions for the RiverCity
recounted above in section 2.3.
The sampling for the detailed development plans was based upon
the criterion of the size they
demarcate, as well as whether or not they are completed. The
resultant selection were:
Götaverksgatan 2-2510 (1480k-2-5210) and Karlavagnsplatsen
2-5400 (1480K-2-5400)
(Göteborgs Stad, 2014B; Göteborgs Stad, 2017D). Meaning that a
judgemental or purposive
sample has been applied (Barber, 1988).
Gathering information from detailed development plans was
conducted through finding sections
surrounding greenery or ecosystem services, from a planning
perspective. These sections were
marked and cross-referenced with earlier information gathered
from the documents mentioned
above. This to find how planning and development is realised
separate from the vision.
3.1.1 Critique for the Research of Documents and Literature
Examining only two detailed development plans, those of
Karlavagnsplatsen and Götaverksgatan
(Göteborgs Stad, 2014; Göteborgs Stad, 2017D), do not wholly
encompass Lindholmen. Though,
given that the developments of other detailed development plans
are already complete, and given
the aim to evaluate Lindholmen from a future perspective, this
was deemed acceptable. Having
only selected two development areas, while others have been
declared accepted for development,
can result in a skewed result. Especially due to them being
located geographically close. Had
another or additional areas been chosen, then a wider
information base would have been achieved.
3.2 Interview
In this section, the different interviews, the sampling,
methodology and stakeholders will be
explained and the choices made will be motivated. The staple of
qualitative research is that
-
10
“Qualitative research /…/ [is] concerned with words rather than
numbers” (Bryman, 2012, p.
380). Furthermore, interviews follow an interpretivist point of
view, meaning that the result are
the experiences of the informants, translated through
interviewers. This does allow the informants
to shed light upon their personal narrative, or that of the part
they represent (Bryman, 2012).
3.2.1 Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study are two administrations who are
responsible for the city planning
on Lindholmen. The two administrations, and their
representatives are Eva Tenow, project
manager for Lindholmen, at the City Building Office (CBO), or
Stadsbyggnadskontoret; Therése
Ryding and Maja Moberg are landscape architects of the Park and
Nature administration (P&N),
or Park- & Naturförvaltingen.
The two administrations both work with city planning, albeit
from different perspectives. The
CBO’s tasks are to create comprehensive plans for all of
Gothenburg, as well as detailed
development plans for development of the city, aiming to lead a
world-class city development for
people to realise their dreams (Göteborgs Stad, n.d.a. A).
Respectively, the P&N are responsible
for developing and managing new and existing green spaces, parks
and other social areas. Both
for social and ecological support in an ever densifying city
environment (Göteborgs Stad, n.d.a.
B).
3.2.2 Informant & Expert Interview
Through interviews, a top-down perspective is offered from the
point of view of the planning
administrations. Through interviewing, the aim is to garner
information as to how the project is
proceeding according to the visions and documents released.
Furthermore, an expert interview was
conducted with Mattias Sandberg, employed at the University of
Gothenburg. The material from
Mattias Sandberg’s interview was mainly used for inspiration and
as background material.
3.2.3 Sampling Interview
Selection for administrations to interview was through a
judgmental, or purposive, sampling;
selecting those who are involved in the process of planning on
Lindholmen. They were contacted
through e-mail, each mail asking if a representative for the
administration would be available for
an interview about an evaluation of the planning process on
Lindholmen through a greenery
perspective. The administrations chose the informants at this
point. In the case of Mattias
Sandberg, he was referred to the study as he holds information
regarding how greenery affects
people, as well as how people experience greenery, albeit from a
top-down perspective.
3.2.4 Interview Methodology
In all three interviews, the questions were constructed and
phrased in a way as to avoid leading
questions. Both informant interviews had some similar questions,
some different, and different
-
11
structure, as to garner a wider type of responses. For the CBO,
the questions were generally more
planning-oriented, whereas the questions for P&N were
greenery and urban greenery-oriented. In
the questions that did not differ between administrations,
wording stayed the same to avoid error
on those points (Bryman, 2012). The three interviews were all
conducted during the same week,
on the 24th, 25th and 27th of April, and were all conducted in
external conference or meeting
rooms.
Before beginning the interview proper, the project was
introduced on a deeper level (Bryman,
2012). Two people were present at the interviews, one asking
questions and taking notes via pen
and paper, and one shouldering taking more in-depth and more
exhaustive notes via computer. The
interview was also recorded, with permission. Given the
semi-structured form of the interview,
follow-up questions thought of in the moment and not part of the
interview guide were asked. If a
question was unintentionally answered before being asked, the
question was rephrased into a
probing, asking if the informant has something to add about the
subject. The interviewees were
allowed to speak their mind freely on every question, meaning,
giving them the power to lead the
flow of the interview, with little fear of being cut off to
answer the next question. This did result
in some questions being skipped, in favour of those deemed more
important. Following this, the
interviews were transcribed in full, word by word.
3.2.5 Thematic Analysis
The data analysis method for the interviews was a thematic
analysis. It was used to identify,
analyse and report patterns or themes in the collected data. A
theoretical, or deductive, thematic
analysis has been selected for this study. This as the data is
not epistemologically bound. In the
same vein, the analysis will focus on the semantic themes; i.e.,
what is important is what is directly
communicated during the interviews (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
Given the theoretical approach, the coding process revolved
around the predefined research
questions. The transcribed interview material was still read
through in its entirety, noting ideas to
become codes. Codes alluding to similar subjects were grouped,
forming initial themes, followed
by restructuring and revisioning of said themes until the final
product is reached (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
In the search for themes, Bryman (2012) mentions a number of
categories which are recommended
to look for. Of these eight, two have been selected; these being
repetitions and cases of missing
data. Generally, the creation of themes was based upon the
research questions, resulting in a more
analytical approach.
3.2.6 Critique for Interview and Sampling
An informant interview gains a qualitative top-down perspective
in the context studied, meaning
that this study lacks a bottom-up perspective. This could have
been mended by use of a
questionnaire, as was originally planned (Esaiasson, et. al.,
2012). Though, it was discarded due
-
12
to time restraints. Had the created questionnaire been included,
it would have contributed with data
regarding what types of habits and preferences people
frequenting Lindholmen have when it comes
to visiting green areas or parks.
The interviews were conducted in supervised settings, meaning
that the interviewer has control
over the interview situation. This means that the interviewer
can control the types of questions
asked, gaining a specified, although potentially skewing the
result. Furthermore, the data gathered
may be further altered by the interviewer through transcription,
with parts not deemed important
simply be left out. On the other hand, during interviews the
interviewer effect is at its strongest,
meaning that the interactions between interviewer and
interviewee may be affected, consciously
or unconsciously. Factors this may include is the interviewee
being steered into giving certain
answers by the interviewer, or the interviewee (sub)consciously
only giving answers they feel the
interviewee desires (Esaiasson, et. al., 2012).
As the interviewer let the interviewee speak freely for each
question, with no interruption, time
became an issue. Not asking each question resulted in a smaller
base from which to base the
thematic analysis upon. This was partially remedied by, before
the interview, creating an internal
grading system as to value the inherent importance of questions,
which was applied when the
interviewer subjectively felt that the remaining time may not be
enough, changing the order of the
questions to be based on the importance. Having a set time
allotment on each question would likely
allow for each question to be answered, but would create a
‘forced’ setting in which certain,
perhaps vital, things would risk being left out. Furthermore,
letting the interviewees speak freely
presumably minimised the interviewer effect, as the role of the
interviewer was merely to listen
and ask questions.
The questions asked between the two informant interviews
differed, but given that the two
administrations have different foci when it comes to planning,
it was deemed appropriate to change
the questions. With questions shaped to fit the recipient, the
answers will be more exhaustive, and
give a more varied discussion.
During, and following the transcription, the interviews were
translated in their entirety. This is a
potential source of errors, as through translating the
subconscious values of the researcher risk
shining through. Furthermore, the translation process may also
result in plain linguistic errors, due
to misspelling or misunderstandings.
3.3 GIS
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a type of software with
which maps can be created;
both for visualisation and for analysis. In this study it will
be used for both; digitalising, i.e., turning
a merely visual map into a map that can be used for analysis.
Furthermore, this digitalised map
will contain data both for a current and future state, according
to detailed development plans,
-
13
Lindholmen after 2021 (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A; Göteborgs Stad,
2014B; Göteborgs Stad, 2017A;
Göteborgs Stad, 2017D). The digitalisations are shown in Figure
3 & 4 in the results.
3.3.1 Distribution of Green Spaces on Lindholmen
Regarding the classification of green spaces in Figure 3 &
4, it was subjectively graded by the
cartographer. The factors affecting the final classification for
the space were the size, overall shape,
proximity to traffic, type of traffic, proximity to water,
amount of trees in or in close proximity to
the space, as well as to a degree what they are classified as in
Göteborgs Stad (2017A). Areas
deemed Usable, then, were mainly those classified as parks or
pocket parks in Göteborgs Stad
(2017A), and easy to access both from the outside and when
occupying the space. Partially Usable
areas are partially covered with terrain difficult to navigate,
such as trees or an incline, near larger
traffic routes or generally not sizable enough to garner a long
stay. Despite this, Partially Usable
areas are still able to be visited like a park, despite not
being one. Finally, areas classified as Not
Usable received their labels due to their small size, uninviting
shape, thick vegetation, which
should not or cannot not be set foot on, as well as close
proximity to traffic.
These areas were used to calculate the area of green spaces, in
a similar fashion as to what the
Göteborgs Stad (2017A) have calculated. The first set of
calculations include all green spaces on
Lindholmen, regardless of Usability. The second set of
calculations include only the areas deemed
Usable in the GIS analysis. Both sets of calculations take into
account both the current and future
distribution of greenery, as well as the current population of
3542, and a preliminary future
population of approximately 6840 residents.
3.3.2 Green Factor Tool
Following the definition of the city of Gothenburg, the Green
Factor tool (GFt, Grönytefaktor) is
a measure of the degree of ecosystem services supplied to the
surrounding area, through the
combination of green and blue areas. The ecosystem services are
quantified. Though, the levels
can differ depending on context and location and be applied from
a perspective of both
compensation from offset greenery as well as general quality
improvement (Göteborgs Stad,
2017A).
-
14
The previously digitalised data contained green space, hard or
paved surfaces, current and future
trees, as well as future developments, with already existing
buildings downloaded separately
(Lantmäteriet, 2017; Lantmäteriet 2015). Calculating GFt is done
by calculating the area of the
digitalised zones and assigning them values
dependent on their “eco effectiveness”. The
values used for this case will mirror those in the
example of Gothenburg City (see Figure 2);
where green surfaces and bushes have a value of
0.4, hard surfaces a value of 0.25 and roofs a
value of 0. This example does not give trees a
value, but for this case trees are deemed
equivalent to bushes. The calculations were
conducted both for a current state with
downloaded data, as well as a future state of
Lindholmen with all new developments
finished. The GFt area is calculated by
multiplying the surface area and the specific
value, resulting in the sum of eco effective area,
which in turn is divided by the total area
(Göteborgs Stad, 2017B).
3.3.3 Tree Density
From the previously mentioned digitalisation, the data for trees
was run through a ‘point density’
tool. Future trees were added from trees placed in maps of
detailed development plans’ maps.
Already existing trees within these zones were removed, while
the remainder were merged with
the planned trees to create a future scenario of trees on
Lindholmen. Figure 5 shows the spatial
distribution of trees on Lindholmen.
3.3.4 Other Analyses
This section contains the methodology for the two maps in the
Appendix; the flooding map as well
as the proximity map of green areas (Appendix B and C). The
prior was created using data from
Lindberg, Johansson, & Thorsson (2013), specifically a
heightmap containing the heights of
buildings as well as the terrain, also called a digital surface
model (DSM). In the DSM, all values
(heights) of 0-1 meters, 1-2 meters and 2-3 meters were selected
and given new values of 0 and 1.
These new values correspond with the areas which do and
respectively do not fall into the spans
mentioned above, i.e., the new possible shorelines and different
water levels.
The proximity map was created by using the Buffer tool, creating
an outline of 300 m surrounding
the selected green areas. This analysis used all Usable green
areas; the two parks near residences
Figure 2: Sample picture taken from Göteborgs
Stad (2017B), depicting how to calculate the
GFt. Translated from Swedish.
-
15
(Göteborgs Stad 2017A); as well as the new green areas above 0.2
ha in Karlastaden and
Götaverksgatan (Göteborgs Stad, 2014; Göteborgs Stad,
2017D).
3.3.5 Critique for GIS-method
Regarding the digitalisation, the result is only as good as the
base material. Possible faults in the
base data is translated into the data created for this study. It
is also wholly possible, due to the
human element, to misunderstand the base data, or to overlook
and misclassify a part of the map.
The following analyses will also then suffer from this
mistranslation. Furthermore, the tree data
for the future scenario may not reflect the future as the trees
present in the detailed development
plan may not reflect the actual development taking place.
There are multiple ways to calculate GFt; including different or
a wider range of surface area
types. It is also wholly dependent upon geographical location,
municipality, as well as context.
Gothenburg aims to further develop the Malmö model, which takes
into account a wider range of
factors in consideration when calculating the GFt (SLU, 2014).
Furthermore, the choice to equate
trees and bushes was based upon the method of digitalisation for
trees; as trees and bushes were
not able to be differentiated in the analysis.
The analyses do not take into account the areas outside of
Lindholmen. Thus, the result is not
wholly representative of reality. Though, it is deemed to be
representative of the case study area.
-
16
4. Results
4.1 Document Study
There is ongoing work in Gothenburg concerning ecosystem
services, e.g. with the newly
developed strategy for nature care, development for preserving
and development of nature values
in the planning process. Some new guiding documents for the
planning have been constructed.
The two documents discussing the green factor tool are Green
Factor Tool (Göteborgs Stad,
2017B) and Compensation Measures for loss of greenery and
ecosystem services in development
(Göteborgs Stad, 2017C). These two are going to aid future
planning processes in evaluating if
there are enough green areas and thereby helping to get an
overview of the available ecosystem
services in an area. The city of Gothenburg does not yet work
with the green factor tool, but the
compensation of green area has been used before (Göteborgs Stad,
2015). In the green strategy for
Gothenburg there is a specific goal regarding parks and nature
areas. The city should be planned
to make good use of ecosystem services, which contributes to a
higher biodiversity and a more
attractive city (Göteborgs Stad, 2014A).
In the RiverCity vision it is emphasised that the city will be
green and the ambition is to build a
network of smaller green spaces and areas, who in turn will be
connected to larger parks, as well
as the water. There should be a high biodiversity and the many
green areas should together
contribute to an attractive environment and a good city life. In
the Green plan for the RiverCity,
the fact that green roofs have several functions is mentioned,
for example, they both reduce the
noise in indoor environment and also provide habitats for
important pollinators. A conclusion that
is drawn is that a number of parks will be needed in the area of
central RiverCity to reach the local
environmental quality objectives of Gothenburg. Furthermore,
accessibility to the green areas
needs to be taken into account during the planning process to
reduce the barrier effects separating
residents from green space (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A).
4.1.1 Detailed Development Plan for Karlavagnsplatsen
The detailed development plan for Karlavagnsplatsen (plan 2-5400
(1480K-2-5400)) claims to be
compliant with the comprehensive plan which proposes that the
area of Karlastaden should be used
for mixed urban housing; workplaces, service, commerce and
smaller green areas. The plan has a
clearly stated purpose to contribute to the realisation of the
RiverCity vision. A major focus is
placed on the vision’s three strategies for making Karlastaden a
“… dense, green, meaningful and
urban part of the inner city.”. For an efficient use of
ecosystem services, the importance of
abundant vegetation in all streets is emphasised. It is stated
that the area should have an "urban
design with elements of trees, greenery and opportunity for play
and experience" (Göteborgs Stad,
2017D).
The detailed development plan has a rather self-critical part
where considerations and
consequences have been thought through. This insight lifts that
allowing a high degree of risk
-
17
during exploitation jeopardises fulfilling targets for
sustainability. Innovative thinking is stated to
be required for example to provide outdoor space for preschools
and schools. The plan includes
preschool playgrounds on roofs, which is admitted being a
relatively untested method of meeting
the surface needs. The study regarding social impacts and
children's perspectives, that also has
been conducted within the scope of the detailed development
plan, concludes that it is harder to
achieve good quality for the playgrounds since they are more
affected by external disturbances
and are getting less of nature and greenery.
The green area south of Hamnbanan should, according to the
detailed development plan, be
designed as a park environment, including small areas for
spontaneous activities, but at the same
time not be inviting to longer stays for large crowds. The green
area is also intended as a
complement to the preschool's limited outdoor environment but is
not suitable for a larger
playground. An investigation of compensatory measures for nature
and recreation areas has been
conducted with the conclusion that there is no need for
compensation of greenery in the current
plan.
Several environmental objectives will be affected by the
implementation of the detailed
development plan. Due to increased traffic movements in the
area, the objectives Restricted
environmental impact, Fresh air, Natural acidification only -
milestone emission of nitrogen
oxides and Good built environment - milestone waste and energy
are negatively affected.
4.1.2 Detailed Development for Götaverksgatan
The detailed development plan for Götaverksgatan (plan 2-2510
(1480k-2-5210)) has its main
focus on the densification of the city, on embracing the water
and to a much smaller extent on
greenery. The area is included in the program for
Lindholmshamnen - Lundbystrand (2000), which
states that the area between the harbour and Lindholmsallén can
be used for city core development.
The area shall have a mixed use with housing, education,
commerce and recreation.
Despite there being a park within the planning area, other parks
and green areas outside the area,
such as Ramberget and Slottsberget, are expressed as large
assets which are to be used. With a
future reduction of the barrier effect from Hamnbanan and
Lundbyleden the area would be given
a greater access to natural environments. The courtyards have
underground garages beneath them,
whose roofs shall be built to carry one meter of soil and trees
to make them green. The courtyards
together with some green roofs are referred to as an asset for
delaying stormwater.
There is some greenery in the area today, such as tree
plantations and hedges. The trees at
Lindholmsallén and Götaverksgatan are presented as assets for
the planning area. They are in the
plan considered to enable experiences of greenery and
possibilities for play and recreation. The
plan involves the creation of a park in the eastern part of the
area. The park will add a public space
which can be used by residents and those working in the area,
handle stormwater and will be visible
from the quayside.
-
18
The area most used for recreational purposes is the section
along the quay, by the water. The quay
area at Lindholmsbassängen will be developed into an attractive
public area and walking path. At
the water there will be opportunities for resting and meetings.
A park passage is proposed from
the quayside towards Lindholmsallén.
4.2 Interviews
This section will present the result gained from the qualitative
interviews with the City Building
Office (CBO) and the Park and Nature Administration (P&N).
The result is divided into three parts
“Greenery on Lindholmen today”, “Guidelines on greenery” and
“New development”. These titles,
or themes, were created through a thematic analysis of the
interviews (see section 3.2.5). The “New
development” is divided into the areas of Karlastaden and
Götaverksgatan, which are the areas
with the largest new green spaces, as well as the largest new
areas to be developed (see Figure 5).
Problematic aspects of the new green areas were a centre of
attention during the interviews and
will also be brought up in the result; such as the green space
near Hamnbanan and co-utilisation
of parks.
4.2.1 Greenery on Lindholmen Today
There is a lack of green areas, and especially public parks, on
Lindholmen today, according to both
the CBO and the P&N. “On Lindholmen there is very little
greenery to begin with and it is a
general challenge to create parks the way the ‘Green strategy’
wants”, P&N states. The green
areas that exist, are in many cases not municipal or do not
count as parks, the CBO (2018) claims.
Due to challenges such as competition for the land, adding new
parks and green areas is difficult,
according to the P&N (2018). They mention that there are
difficulties in referring the inhabitants
to green areas in the nearby areas as well, since they are not
easily available. “If you want to use
Ramberget as a park asset on Lindholmen we have to work on
bridging the areas” (P&N, 2018).
The CBO recognises this problem as well. “there are Keillers
park and Ramberget but it is quite
far and it is difficult to get there. [Ramberget] is also very
steep towards Lindholmen. There are
requirements that a common park should be available and such a
steep area is not considered
available.“ (CBO, 2018).
Both the CBO and P&N discuss that there are many
difficulties in the planning processes for
greenery in cities, and that it is not always the highest
priority. “There was a high ambition that
we should have a green city, for example on the Lindholmen
Ports, but [the greenery] has also
decreased between planning and implementation. It happens almost
always” (P&N, 2018). The
P&N also state that “The Green strategy is supposed to have
the same status as the expansion
strategy (translated from utbyggnadsstrategin) and traffic
strategy, but it does not actually”. The
CBO are also aware of this down-prioritisation of greenery in
the planning processes: “Right now,
we know that in the RiverCity there is too little [greenery]
planned, so we are trying to make that
known and try to get these guidelines that we were talking about
before.” They claim that the
economy is the problem in many cases: “In the individual
detailed development plans, considering
-
19
the three sustainability aspects, the economy tends to be more
important the further the project
comes. For quite a while it has meant that park area has
decreased in size /.../ so the public place
is in some cases lost. This happens for economic reasons.” (CBO
2018).
4.2.2 Guidelines on Greenery
The green strategy of Gothenburg City specifies three levels of
parks needed in the city; “we have
parks near residences, which shall be within a certain distance
from the residence [300 m], and
then we have the district park, which is the next level and
should be in every city part within a
certain distance [1 km], and then we have city parks which is
for the whole city, such as
Slottsskogen.” (CBO, 2018). The P&N works to fulfil the
goals in the green strategy, but since the
municipality does not have much public space to work with from
the beginning it is difficult to
achieve. “We experience /.../ that it is quite difficult to
achieve this since we need to create 2
hectares of district park for example, /.../ where would you put
it and where do you get that space
from? /.../ There is much competition for space” (P&N,
2018).
Both CBO and P&N identify shortcomings with these
guidelines. “[The parks are] specified in
how big they shall be, minimum, but [they are] not specified
depending on how dense the area is
built, how many people who live in that area and if that
increase the size requirements - such
guidelines do not exist” (CBO, 2018). This might be a problem in
a city which is densifying and
where green spaces reduce in size. “We see that especially in
central parts of the city, where it is
extremely dense, the green areas that exist get worn in a
completely different way” (CBO, 2018).
The P&N (2018) also mean that with more people and smaller
green spaces you can see that
conflicts between people with different activities and interests
also increase.
This calls for the need of other types of guidelines, for
example in the unit area per person. “This
is something we have begun looking into. There are no such
established guidelines yet, but we
hope such values or guidelines can be made. But then it is
connected to residents, normally. And
that could be problematic in an area such as Lindholmen that has
very few residents but many
people who work there. So, on paper, there will be quite little
green area on Lindholmen, [than if
the people working on Lindholmen were included in the
calculation]” (CBO, 2018). P&N (2018)
can see how this kind of value is important when it comes to
communicating with other
administrations and developers. They are planning on applying
this to Lindholmen, to see if the
value can be met. “I think we have said 6 m2 park [per resident]
as a goal on Lindholmen, but this
is a target and nothing politically established” (P&N,
2018).
4.2.3 New Development
Karlastaden
P&N (2018) states that “In Karlastaden buildings have been
prioritised above all [other
development].” The CBO (2018) mentions that a square-area is
planned alongside Lindholmsallén,
but that “within the built-up area there are no park areas
planned.”, except for some smaller
-
20
areas. There is a green area planned south of Hamnbanan of about
1.2 ha (see Figure 5) but that
area is not allowed to be called a park.
Green Space near Hamnbanan
P&N (2018) mentions that there was an idea to create a
district park that is needed on Lindholmen
close to Karlavagnsplatsen, but that the closeness to Hamnbanan,
the railway used for import and
export of (sometimes) hazardous cargo, is a problem: “We are not
allowed to have a park there.
There is an explosion risk /.../ we cannot encourage
long-lasting stays”. They believe that it would
have been better to use the space for a car park, or something
that could reduce noise. They are
critical towards the green structure in Karlastaden: “there is a
lot of park in the plan, but it does
not work in reality, because we are not able to use it that
way”. Since the green space near
Hamnbanan cannot be counted as, or be prepared to be, a
traditional park, it is not included in the
total park area for Lindholmen (P&N, 2018). “it will be
experienced as a park, if it is carried out.
But we are not allowed to count it as a park, because we cannot
tell people to go there /.../ It
contributes to an experience, but we cannot say that it has a
function as a recreational place”
(P&N, 2018).
Götaverksgatan
A park of 0.3 ha is planned for 2021 at Götaverksgatan on
Lindholmen (see Figure 5). It is going
to be co-utilised with a preschool next to it, take care of
stormwater and have walking- and bike
lanes going through it (P&N, 2018).
Co-utilisation
The park at Götaverksgatan is an example of an area that will be
used for many functions at the
same time, so called co-utilisation. The CBO mentions that they
have started to compensate for
the lack of land for preschool yards with co-utilisation of park
areas. “You place a preschool close
to a park /.../ the preschool yard will be a bit smaller, but on
the other hand you can use the park
area” (CBO, 2018). The P&N also mentions co-utilisation as a
way of solving the problem with
few public areas and park areas, especially for school yards.
However, they do not see it as a
perfect solution. “We are now in a phase where we realise that
we cannot have co-utilisation to
100%, because it is neither good for the park or the children”
(P&N, 2018). The critique against
co-utilisation is shared with the CBO, who mentions that the
park will be used by many more
people and thus become very strained. “You get the ones that are
normally using a park, plus the
preschool children too. /.../ it has been shown to be
problematic” (CBO, 2018). There is also a
problem with that the park areas in many cases are supposed to
work for management of
stormwater as well. “If you imagine that it is going to be a
playground or an area for visits in
combination with that it will be flooded quite often there is a
conflict of interest, and that is
something we are working on, to make sure we are getting areas
big enough so we can do more
than just a pond” (P&N, 2018).
-
21
4.3 GIS
In this section the maps created through the GIS analyses will
be presented. The classifications of
the green spaces, and the analyses for GFt and tree density
resulted in three maps, shown below.
Additional maps showing the current and future tree density,
individually, will be included in the
Appendix D and E.
4.3.1 Distribution of Green Spaces on Lindholmen
As is shown below, Figure 3 & 5 contain the spatial
distribution of differently classed green areas
on Lindholmen. The current distribution of green spaces per
inhabitant on Lindholmen is
approximately 59 m2 (Figure 3), and the future distribution for
the year 2021 will be 29 m2 (Figure
4). If only the areas deemed Usable were used in the
calculation, then the distribution will be
approximately 6.4 m2 per inhabitant; whereas when considering
the future population change the
future distribution will be approximately 4 m2, not including
new area by Karlastaden, and
reaching 5.7 m2 with it included. As for the GFt, Figure 3,
shows the current state of Lindholmen,
which has resulted in GFt = 0.24. In the same vein, Figure 4
shows the future state of Lindholmen,
following major development projects. Here the GFt = 0.23. The
level of Usability has been
discussed in section 3.3.1 and in table 1.
Table 1: Definition of the different classifications of green
areas in Figure 3-6.
Classifications Definition
Usable Classified as parks or pocket parks in (Göteborg Stad,
2017A), and easy to access both
from the outside and when occupying the space.
Partially Usable Areas partially covered with terrain difficult
to navigate, such as trees or a steep incline,
near larger traffic routes or generally not sizable enough to
garner a long stay.
Partially Usable areas are still able to be visited like a park,
despite not being one.
Not Usable Small size, uninviting shape, thick vegetation, which
should not or cannot be set foot on,
as well as close proximity to traffic.
-
22
Figure 3: Map showing the current distribution of greenery on
Lindholmen. GSD-Fastighetskartan,
byggnader © Lantmäteriet (2017).
Figure 4: Pie chart showing the current distribution of greenery
on Lindholmen.
-
23
Figure 6: Pie chart showing the future distribution of greenery
on Lindholmen, in the year 2021.
Figure 5: Map showing the future distribution of greenery on
Lindholmen, in the year 2021. The area
marked with an A is deemed Partially Usable, whereas B is
Usable. GSD-Fastighetskartan,
byggnader © Lantmäteriet (2017); Göteborgs Stad (2014B);
Göteborgs Stad (2017E).
-
24
4.3.2 Tree Density
Figure 7 shows the spatial density of trees on Lindholmen. The
current spread of trees is shown
in the lighter green colour, while the future 2021 scenario has
the darker green colour, for when
the major development projects are finished.
Figure 7: Map showing the current and future 2021, tree density
on Lindholmen. GDF-Ortofoto, raster
0.5 m © Lantmäteriet (2015); Göteborgs Stad (2014B); Göteborgs
Stad, (2017E).
-
25
5. Discussion
There is not much greenery today on Lindholmen. This was stated
in the interviews (see section
4.2.1), and is also shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows that a
large part (≈ 90 %) of the green areas
that exist on Lindholmen are not considered directly Usable.
They could for instance be classified
as not so easily available or not considered appropriate for
typical park activities such as picnics.
The municipality has certain requirements for parks that needs
to be fulfilled. It should be
accessible and available for everyone, and it also has to be
owned by the municipality and have a
minimum size of 0.2 ha. The municipality cannot ensure that
parks not under its jurisdiction will
remain parks in the future as well, therefore they cannot be
counted as available green areas. Some
of the parks that are considered Usable in Figure 3 and 5 are
for example owned by Chalmers and
can therefore not be counted by the municipality in their
planning processes. Others are preschool
yards, which are only available to the public when the school is
closed, and some are courtyards,
owned by the property owner. So, from the municipality's point
of view, the usable amount of
greenery on Lindholmen is even less. The fact that there are not
any easily accessible green areas
in the nearby area increases the need for green space on
Lindholmen even more.
5.1 Detailed Development Plans
5.1.1 Karlavagnsplatsen
The Karlavagnsplatsen detailed development plan was adopted in
2017. It is overall extensive and
takes a lot of aspects into consideration in its many
appurtenant investigations such as
environmental technical soil investigation, green area analysis
and climate adaptation. There is a
good conformity with the vision at first sight, though new
constructions seem to be prioritised
more frequently, when compared to developing parks or greenery.
The placement of trees is
designated in the development plan, but neither green facades
nor low greenery in the street are
specifically mentioned, which is the most visible on the vision
pictures of Karlastaden
(Karlastaden, n.d.a.). A partial de-prioritisation of greenery
is for example implied by the quote
"...urban design with elements of trees, greenery and
opportunity for play and experience", where
the greenery does not seem to have a too important role.
As also implied by the CBO, it is likely that Karlastaden will
not be perceived as green as it appears
in the future vision for the area. It relies on the area close
to Hamnbanan to fulfil the need for green
space. That is an easy solution, with the problem being the
risks one is putting themselves into by
spending their time there. Both the CBO and the P&N states
that the area cannot be used as a park,
considering the risks, but the area is still going to be
prepared to be used for park-like activities to
some extent. It seems like green areas has such a low priority
that it can only be placed on the
ground where they cannot build revenue-bringing
construction.
The choice of localisation for preschools and enough green space
to accommodate them appears a
bit desperate. The testing of having the preschools on the roofs
without knowing it will work,
-
26
seemingly without a backup-plan, is risky. Especially since the
investigation regarding social
impacts concluded that it will be harder to achieve enough
greenery it does not seem like an
assuring plan. Additionally, one could question if the area next
to Hamnbanan really is a suitable
place for compensating for the preschools small playground. If
an accident on Hamnbanan was to
occur, then the smaller children, the most vulnerable with the
least crisis management ability are
likely to be the ones most exposed to the danger. There are no
other options for accessing enough
greenery due to the high rate of exploitation. The P&N
mentioned in the interview that “In
Karlastaden, buildings have been prioritised above all“ (see
section 4.2.3), and considering that
the only space they have set available for greenery is an area
with an explosion risk, that statement
could be seen as confirmed.
5.1.2 Götaverksgatan
The Götaverksgatan detailed development plan was adopted in
2013. However, the RiverCity
vision, adopted in 2012, is not mentioned at all in the document
and there are no direct connections
to it. Though, in the plan the meeting and embracing of the
water is emphasised through measures
to make it more accessible in the planned quayside passage,
which is in line with the RiverCity
vision. A continuous focus on achieving a green city is however
lacking and the planned park is
not described at all as thoroughly as the quayside. The park is
expected to fill several purposes;
extra outdoor space for the nearby preschool, taking care of
stormwater and being a passage for
walking- and bike lanes. Due to that, the use is expected to be
great, and so is the wear and tear.
The fact that the park is also planned to take care of
stormwater will likely decrease the useful
surface area and thereby further increase the wear and tear.
This co-utilisation of the park was
criticised by both the CBO and the P&N during the
interviews. The P&N especially pointed out
the problems with using an area both for e.g. playgrounds and
stormwater management.
Considering the lack of other areas for stormwater management,
the park at Götaverksgatan might
have to handle large amounts of water, leading to it being in
the risk of becoming a very wet and
muddy park area. That the courtyards are expected to be green
areas with trees and act as a
complement to the overloaded park is an advantage for the plan,
but is it enough? Courtyards and
potential green roofs are not publicly available in the same way
as the park. Especially since such
a large part of people moving around on Lindholmen are visiting
or working there, a large
proportion are not expected to have access to these areas with a
more private character.
Nearby green areas are too entrusted to satisfy the need of
green space within the detailed
development plan area. For example, the fact that Ramberget can
be seen from the Götaverksgatan
area is mentioned as an opportunity for play and recreation,
although a view hardly increases the
possibility for play and recreation within the area. The
RiverCity’s clear goal of being "a green
city at the water's edge" can hardly be considered being
achieved since greenery is not mentioned
more than necessary. Instead of contributing to a green city by
the water, Götaverksgatan risks
being only by the water.
-
27
5.2 Guidelines
Today, Lindholmen does not meet the Park requirements set by
Gothenburg City (see section
4.2.2). When it comes to public parks of at least 0.2 ha within
300 m of residences, so called Park
near residences, only the area close to Slottsberget has access
to parks which meet the
requirements. These can be found in Figure 3 and Appendix C.
Considering that the national
guidelines of Boverket have even stricter recommendations; one
park within 50 m from the
residence and another within 200 m, makes the situation on
Lindholmen feel even less acceptable.
Lindholmen also lacks a district park in the area, as stated in
the interview with P&N (see 4.2.2).
The planned green space near Hamnbanan was at first intended to
be the district park on
Lindholmen, but due to the explosive risk from the railway, it
was not suitable. Though, even if
the risk did not exist, the green area would still not fill the
size requirement, since the minimum
for a district park is 2 ha and the green area will be
approximately 1.2 ha.
When it comes to green area per resident, the P&N is
experimenting with the goal of 6 m2 on
Lindholmen. According to another study conducted in the area
(Gothenburg City, 2017A) there is
currently only 2.2 m2 park space per resident on Lindholmen.
Though this calculation only include
parks which follows the requirements set by the municipality
(public and municipally-owned park
over 0.2 ha). As stated in section 4.3.1, if all green areas
deemed Usable in this study, which can
be both private and smaller areas than 0.3 ha, was included in
the calculation the distribution would
be 6.4 m2 per resident. When adding the future planned green
area deemed Usable, near
Götaverksgatan, while also considering the future population
increase, the value will go down to
4 m2. Meaning that even with the addition of a park it is still
not enough to match the increasing
population and the densification of Lindholmen. When only
counting green areas following the
requirements set by the municipality, while considering the
future population increase, then the
value would be even less; 1.6 m2 per resident. That is a very
low value which do not comply with
the goal of a green and sustainable city. Even if the big new
green area near Hamnbanan was
included, the value would still only be 3.3 m2 per resident.
5.3 Distribution of Green Space
As can be seen in section 4.3.1, the analysis stems from GIS
analyses, and shows that in the future
the amount of green area per person has reduced, both when
counting all green areas, as well as
only the areas deemed Usable, despite the latter actually
increasing in surface area (see Figure 3-
6). This is in part due to the projected increase in population
Lindholmen will go through in the
coming years (see section 3.3.1). Given this population increase
(Göteborgs Stad, 2017A), the
future distribution of green spaces will not be enough. For the
year 2021, the prognosis for the
future population of Lindholmen is approximately 6 840 people,
up from the current 3 542. If the
goal is to supply each individual with at least 6 m2, then the
upper limit Lindholmen can provide
for is 4 600 people. If the population increase prognosis is
upheld, then Lindholmen needs to
increase its Usable greenery up to 41 052 m2, up from 27 516
m2.
-
28
In a similar vein, as the GFt goes down in the future is partly
due to a decrease in green space as
well as an increase in the area of buildings, despite an
increase in number of trees. As is seen in
Figure 2, the buildings do not contribute at all in the
calculations for GFt. Additionally, the GFt
may not be suited to evaluate an area of this size, and may be
better suited to conduct in sections
of a grid, or an area by area basis. Furthermore, the water is
not included in the calculations
conducted, but are a valid thing to include in the calculations
(Göteborgs Stad, 2017B).
Furthermore, the GFt as a compensation measure has its faults;
for example, a park or open green
space can in theory be replaced by a number of trees; which
while offering the same GFt, does
miss out on other values intrinsic to a park or green space.
Following this, the tree density stills leaves a large surface
not covered by any trees, even in the
future. Furthermore, as can be seen in Appendix C, Lindholmen is
not very well covered by parks
near residences, green spaces above 0.2 ha. When removing the
requirement of 0.2 ha, all of
Lindholmen has less than 300 m to a green area; though, these
areas lack the capacity to hold
enough people.
5.4 Sustainable Development and Requirements
5.4.1 Sustainable Development as Considered by the
Municipality
In the Green Strategy for a Dense and Green City, the city of
Gothenburg claims to aim for
becoming a green, dense and sustainable city. In the document
there are two goals, one social and
one ecological, and through the progress with these, the city is
claiming to contribute to an an
economically sustainable city as well (Göteborgs stad, 2014A).
Having the social and ecological
sustainability as the outset and the economy as a subset to them
agrees with the nested view on
sustainability (as in Giddings et al, 2002, see section 2.2.1).
However, this does not seem to be
how it works in reality. According to the interview results, the
economy seems to be prioritised
before the social and ecological aspects in many cases (see
section 4.2.1). The CBO mentions that
the economy tends to be of greater importance the further
building project have progressed, leading
to the amount of park areas being reduced. The P&N claims
that the Green strategy is supposed to
have the same status as other planning strategies, but that it
does not. Considering the planned
future greenery, which is visualised in figure 5, it is clear
that this is the case, that the greenery has
not been prioritised. The amount of green space per inhabitant
has decreased even more in the
future visualisation, in comparison with the current amount.
This is not in line with their thoughts
on sustainability, where a better economic sustainability is
supposed to come as a result from
working with ecological and social sustainability.
5.4.2 Sustainable Development Goals
The lack of current and planned greenery on Lindholmen is not
contributing to the fulfilment of
the SDG:s. To be able to combat problems such as mental health
issues, green areas are an
important element to consider, even in a smaller area such as
Lindholmen. When preparing for the
-
29
emerging climate change in such exposed areas as Lindholmens,
with higher water levels and more
troublesome weather awaiting, it is important for the city of
Gothenburg to take as much advantage
as possible from ecosystem services. Ineffectiveness for example
in taking care of stormwater will
not be an advantageous property for the coastal area. Planning
for climate change in an early stage
sets the standard for future development projects and can help
prevent future damages. In a dense
city environment, space must be set aside for areas that
maintain both mental and physical health,
as well as environmental functions.
5.4.3 Relation to Requirements
One of the local goals for Gothenburg is that water and greenery
should be accessible to everyone.
With the park near Hamnbanan being in the risk zone for
explosion, the distance and steepness to
Ramberget and the lack of other green spaces one could claim
that this will not be the case on
Lindholmen. Considering the current plans for the area, the park
on Götaverksgatan will be the
most accessible park. If the entire of Lindholmen would have to
use that one park, it would
definitely be a victim of overuse.
The overall focus on sustainable development that is pervading
the comprehensive plan for
Gothenburg and the Green strategy, and that is further
emphasised in the RiverCity vision and the
Karlastaden website, suddenly seems to go missing in the
detailed development plans that have
been looked into in this study. The comprehensive plans’ view of
greenery as a resource available
to everyone appears on the detailed level to have turned into an
unwanted requirement that is put
as little effort as possible into.
It is advantageous that there is such a high ambition and a lot
of work going on within the city
regarding urban greenery, considering both the new tools for
implementing urban greenery and
the strategy for nature care. These will be important
instruments for ensuring the access to greenery
for citizens in future planning areas. Though, for Lindholmen
they do not seem to have affected
the planning process noticeable. The implemented compensation
measures were not considered
necessary for either of the detailed development plans which
confirms that the measures are not
enough. Specifically, in cases as Lindholmen, which has little
greenery to begin with, the
compensation tool misses its point of contributing to a green
city.
Both the documents mentioned above, as well as the law, deem
greenery and ecosystem services
important. The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808) states in
chapter 3, 6 § that; ”The need
for green areas in urban areas and nearby urban areas should be
taken into account in
particular.” Thus, the role of greenery and its ecosystem
services needs to be put in the center, as
the importance of human well-being and biological diversity are
not something which can be
downplayed in the face of economic growth, as it is dependent on
those.
In the detailed development plans, the regulations regarding
compensation measures and closeness
to parks have been utilised and almost reached. Going by
Appendix C, most of Lindholmen will
in the future have green areas in close proximity to residences.
Though, problems arise with the
-
30
increased population density when a large number of people will
have to share a small green area
close to their residence. This means that the green areas will
likely get overused due to the small
amount of greenery person. The regulation suggested by the
P&N, a set area of green space per
person living in the area, is thus deemed important. Though, a
problem with this regulation is that
it does not include the people who only visit Lindholmen in the
calculations of green space,
resulting in an overall lack of green space for all. Optimally,
the regulation would take into account
both the residents as well as an estimated amount of
visitors.
5.5 Group Work
This study has been conducted in a group setting. In general,
group work does offer its pros and
cons. The basis of group work is that work tasks can be
delegated among members. While this
delegation of tasks does reduce the workload for each individual
member, equal commitment is
expected as to finish their tasks, and to do so in close
communication with the others. If done
correctly, group work has the potential to elevate works above
what individual authors can create,
at the risk of creating a work filled with individual parts,
rather than the sections making up parts
of a whole.
Graduating from being a group to a team is a process which
develops through time. During the
initial stages of group work, the group is heavily dependent
upon a leader figure to advance. In
this case, no clear leader figure stepped forward, the role was
shouldered by part of the group.
While this may have resulted in an initial lack of structure, it
did transform into a dynamic
delegation of tasks, based upon each member’s expertise.
-
31
6. Conclusions
Today, Lindholmen does not live up to the current requirements
on greenery near residences set
by the city of Gothenburg. The area is currently undergoing
major developments with the
RiverCity vision to create a green and sustainable city. There
are a few new green areas included
in the detailed development plans, the two largest being a green
area near Karlastaden and a park
near Götaverksgatan. Although these green areas will contribute
to an increased amount of usable
public green space on Lindholmen, the total amount of green area
will decrease due to the high
level of construction in the area.
Even though the importance of greenery is well known among
responsible stakeholders, it
obviously has been de-prioritised in favour of economic
development on Lindholmen. This de-
prioritisation stresses the need for new guidelines regarding
greenery, for instance in the form of
a minimum amount of green area per resident. Adding to that, the
expected increase in population
and the lack of current and planned green areas will decrease
the amount of green space per
resident considerably. Considering the number of people visiting
from outside of Lindholmen, the
guideline should preferably also take visitors into account.
In the detailed development plans, the greenery has not been
prioritised and Lindholmen will not
by any means be as green as the vision wishes. Since greenery is
a prerequisite for fighting effects
of climate change and creating a sustainable city, this is
nothing that can be downplayed.
-
32
References
Abraham, A., Sommehalder, K. & Abel, T. (2010) Landscape and
well-being: a scoping study on
the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments.
International Journal of Public health.
55:1. 59-69.
Andersson-Sköld, Y., Thorsson, S., Rayner, D., Lindberg, F.,
Janhäll, S., Jonsson, A., …
Granberg, M. (2015). An integrated method for assessing
climate-related risks and adaptation
alternatives in urban areas. Climate Risk Management, 7,
31–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.01.003
Azevedo J.A., Chapman L., Muller C.L. 2016. Quantifying the
Daytime and Night-Time Urban
Heat Island in Birmingham, UK: A Comparison of Satellite Derived
Land Surface Temperature
and High Resolution Air Temperature Observations. School of
Geography, Earth and
Environmental Science, University of Birmingham BT15 2 TT,
UK.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4 ed.). Oxford:
Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Bolund, & Hunhammar. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban
areas. Ecological Economics,
29(2), 293-301.
Boverket (2007) Bostadsnära natur - inspiration &
vägledning. Karlskrona: Boverket
https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2007/bostadsnara_natur.pdf
Boverket (2017) Klimatanpassning
http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-
sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chiesura, A. (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable
city. Landscape and Urban
planning. 68:1. 129-138.
Chiu, R.L.H. (2003) Social Sustainability, sustainable
development and housing development. t.
In: FORREST, R. & LEE, J. (eds.) Housing and Social Change.
London: Routledge.
Dinnie, E., Brown, K. & Morris, S. (2013) Community,
cooperation and conflict: Negotiating the
social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences.
Landscape and Urban Planning.
111. 1-9.criti
European Union. (2010). Making our cities attractive and
sustainable. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2007/bostadsnara_natur.pdfhttp://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/
-
33
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G. (2002) Envi