ADVANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT OF EUROPEAN CITIES THROUGH

SOCIALLY-INCLUSIVE PLANNING, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF URBAN WOODLANDS

EU Fifth Framework Programme

Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources
QLK5-2001-00165

Theoretical Framework

By Fabio Salbitano, Cecil Konijnendijk, Roland Gustavsson, Ann Van Herzele, Beatrice Hunter,
Anna Jönsson, Kirsi-Maria Mäkinen, Andreas Ottitsch, Alan Simson, Liisa Tyrväinen,
and Rik De Vreese

Version December 12, 2001

1
Table of Contents

1. An Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
2. Study Object: Defining ‘Urban Woodland’ & ‘NeighbourWoods’ ................................... 6
2.1 Urban ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Woodland ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Towards a definition of 'urban woodland' .................................................................... 7
2.4 Defining 'NeighbourWoods'......................................................................................... 9
3. Definition of the development objective: Quality of life & environment .......................... 9
3. 1 Definitions of terms..................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 ‘Quality’ .............................................................................................................. 10
3.1.2 ‘Life’.................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3 ‘Environment’ .................................................................................................... 10
3.2 The problem of tautology ........................................................................................... 10
3.3 The role of subjective assessment of quality.............................................................. 11
3.4 Specific aspects of ‘Quality of life’ in an urban environment ................................... 11
3.5 Quantification of quality ............................................................................................ 12
3.5.1 Physical aspects of ‘quality of life’ ..................................................................... 12
3.5.2 Psychological aspects of quality of life............................................................... 13
4.1 Planning...................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Defining planning................................................................................................ 14
4.1.2 Planning and urban forests .................................................................................. 16
4.1.3 Defining planning within the frame of NeighbourWoods................................... 17
4.2 Design......................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Defining design ................................................................................................... 18
4.2.2 Design within the context of NeighbourWoods .................................................. 20
4.3 Management & management planning....................................................................... 20
4.3.1 Introduction to traditional and innovative management approaches................... 20
4.3.2 Some key definitions ........................................................................................... 21
4.3.3 Comments concerning the use of the terms in the NeighbourWoods project ..... 23
4.3.4 Background to the definitions & theoretical framework..................................... 23
5. Prerequisites for Planning, Design and Management: Sound Information for Decision
Making and Social Inclusiveness ......................................................................................... 27
5.1 Information for decision making ................................................................................ 27
5.1.1 Information incorporated into decision making - introduction ........................... 28
5.1.2 Information needs in urban woodland planning and design................................ 29
5.1.3 Indicators for key information............................................................................. 30
5.2 Social inclusiveness.................................................................................................... 32
5.2.1 Defining social inclusiveness .............................................................................. 32
5.2.2 Social inclusiveness and NeighbourWoods ........................................................ 35
6. Conclusion: Key Definitions within NeighbourWoods ................................................... 35
References ............................................................................................................................ 37

2
 “The arrangement of human things proceeded first
basing itself on the forest, than on tents, later on
villages and towns. Finally came the academy”
G.B. Vico , La Scienza Nova

“Environment: something that environs.

Surroundings”
(Webster , 1916-2000)

1. Introduction
By Fabio Salbitano - DISTAF, University of Florence & Cecil Konijnendijk - Danish
Forest & Landscape Research Institute

1.1 Purpose of this document

The project ‘NeighbourWoods’ starts from the hypotheses that there is a clear need for
enhancing the conservation, management and development of urban woodland resources at
people’s doorsteps, there where their societal value is highest, but where urban pressures
are often also at their maximum. Proper planning and design of urban woodlands, based
upon a strategic, integrative, well-informed, multi-disciplinary and participatory approach,
can only be developed when supported by a set of concrete tools for planners and designers.
Therefore, the study has as its main development objective: to develop tools to enhance the
planning, design and prospective management of urban woodlands, applicable to the
diversity of European contexts and inclusive of all stakeholders, so that the contribution
such woodlands can make to the quality of urban life and the urban environment is
improved.

The study aims to develop tools that will improve the planning and design of urban
woodlands in Europe. Better planning and design are thought to lead to a healthier, more
sustainable and more functional urban woodland resource in Europe.

The overall structure of NeighbourWoods can be summarised as follows:

1. Develop a theoretical framework for the study.
2. Identify and analyse existing good practices for the integrated, socially-inclusive and
well-informed planning and design of urban woodlands in Europe.
3. Select and develop a set of tools that seem particularly promising.
4. Test these tools in six urban woodland case-study areas in Europe, together with local
stakeholders.
5. Analyse the testing, prepare a proposed toolbox for urban woodland planning and
design in Europe and disseminate the results among a wide range of audiences.

This document, the first deliverable produced within the project, is a product of the first
part of the study. It summarises a theoretical framework that will guide all future research
and development activities.

3
1.2 Introduction to the theoretical framework
At the very beginning, there was Nature. This trivial assumption drives a set of reflections
aimed to find out the substantial relationships between the present apotheosis of the human
footprint on the planet – i.e. the urban context and the urbanisation of culture and
consciousness - and nature. Human wellbeing as dependent on the quality of life and nature
(that is: the environment) is closely linked with the ongoing debate on the future of the
earth. The founding hypothesis of this study is that a crucial element of this is enhancing
the conservation and development of urban woodlands at dwellers’ doorsteps - the
NeighbourWoods - for advancing the quality of life of European cities. This hypothesis
should be seen from the viewpoint of a need for integration and harmonisation between
human societies and environment.

Ciancio and Nocentini (1997) state: “Forest and man, a never-ending story. For better and
for worse, it is the story of mankind, of its relationship with forest, and in more general
terms, of its attitude towards nature”. According to an evolutionary approach, humans
learned by experience how to interact with and in their neighbouring environment. They
were interacting and modifying the environment in which they lived, resulting in changes to
the natural landscape, an evident shift to an increasingly evident cultural landscape
(Appleton, 1975). Humankind and environment influenced each other during their
evolution. Human beings learned and modified their behaviour and their lifestyle in order to
survive in the best way they could within their neighbouring space. In this sense, the
concept of environmental education as a life-long learning experience fits both at individual
and population/community level. This process is easily understood as common to all human
communities.

The development of the interaction between man and nature, or perhaps better: nature and
man can be utilised as a working concept. Societal and economic functions as well as
stressing the needs (e.g. conservation, management of conflicts), aesthetics, technology and
spirit of the place are key elements that have accompanied the use of space and the
relationship between man and environment.

Forest represented the ultimate frontier in this relationship (Harrison, 1992). In parallel, the
‘town’ has been interpreted as one of the main successful achievements in the development
of human history (Harvey, 1985). Renzo Piano (pers. comm.) states that towns are the
distinguishing element of contemporary society. The concept of ‘town’ derives from the
need of concentrating in a single place all what is requested by human communities. Thus
in a contemporary vision of space and environment, one of the intrinsic problems is the
definition of what is a town and what is not. In other words, the question is to set
geographical, physical, social, economic, environmental, behavioural and mental
‘boundaries’ to towns.

Throughout history and until recently, the boundary between two elements - what is town
and what is not - was usually sharply defined. This involved not only physical and
architectural aspects, but also culture & lifestyles, resources and needs. The dichotomy
between rural and urban spaces was quite well defined by walls: not only by physical walls
(the walled architecture) but also by psychological, cultural and societal ones. The ability
and opportunity to climb the walls has been very low.

4
We now live in different times. Walls no longer influence the chance of satisfying the
inborn and experiential needs concerning nature expressed by human beings. The ‘age of
the man’ of the modernistic view (Harvey, 1989) is developing into a complex set of needs
and resources. What today binds man and environment is no longer only the direct
necessity of surviving, at least not for the majority of the world’s population.

The human dimension of natural spaces in and around town has developed into a key policy
and research issue, as for example reflected in various research programmes. The main aim
is to develop integrated, ecological-oriented approaches to urban processes and phenomena
and to assess at an urban system level the interaction between the ‘bio-ecological sub-
system’ and the ‘human, socio-perceptive’ sub-system (Bonnes, 1987, 1991 and 1993)

Relationships that lie at the heart of this development are:

Man and nature

Man and resources;
Man and space;
Man and economy
Reciprocal needs
Benefits
Responsibilities and actions

We define the object of our research, the NeighbourWoods, as part of the environment
where these developments and relationships are strongly present. NeighbourWoods, as can
be seen in Chapter 2, represent key aspects of the natural environment in and near urban
areas. Woodlands in and near urbanites play a major role in keeping people in touch with
nature and natural processes, at their very doorsteps. These small and large areas where
trees dominate the landscape, situated in the heart of cities and towns or at their perimeter,
enable regular contact with nature, nature education and provide pleasant living and
working environments. As woods and woodlands planned for and managed by the local
community, they are catalysts for partnerships and community building, whilst providing
the local community with a wide range of environmental, socio-cultural and economic
benefits.

The aim of this Theoretical Framework is to provide a set of key concepts and definitions
that will base and guide research & development activities aimed at defining and
developing promising tools for the socially-inclusive planning, design and management of
urban woodlands in Europe. As mentioned, the starting hypothesis of this project - firmly
based on previous studies - is that urban woodlands are main contributors to the quality of
life and environment of European urban dwellers.

The theoretical frame is built on four main elements, namely the definition of:

1. The object of research & development, i.e. the NeighbourWoods (Chapter 2).
2. The development objectives of research & development, i.e. advancing the contribution
of NeighbourWoods to the quality of life and environment (Chapter 3).
3. The actions that need to be taken in order to enhance/advance NeighbourWoods’
contribution to the quality of life and environment, that is through sound planning,
management and design (Chapter 4).

5
4. The prerequisites for woodland planning, management and design, i.e. these being
socially-inclusive and based on sound information for decision making (Chapter 5).

A summary of the Theoretical Framework and its key concepts is provided in Chapter 6.

2. Study Object: Defining ‘Urban Woodland’ & ‘NeighbourWoods’

By Cecil Konijnendijk - Danish Forest & Landscape Research Institute

The term urban woodland, a central concept within the project NeighbourWoods (NBW),
consists of two main elements: 'urban' and 'wood' or 'woodland'. Both terms have proven to
be rather difficult to define unambiguously.

2.1 Urban

Webster’s International Dictionary (as cited by Bowman, 1992) defines urban as “of,
relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city”. This definition evokes another
difficulty, i.e. to define what is a ‘city’ (or ‘town’, as discussed in Chapter 1). The World
Resources Institute (WRI, 1997) mentions that ‘urban’ is a statistical concept, defined by
countries’ governments. Although the term ‘urban’ mostly refers to many people living
together within a small area, other definitions of urban are applied, including political
function, predominant activity of the region, or a combination of different criteria. The
question what constitutes an urban area remains difficult. In Iceland, settlements of over 50
people are already classified as urban (Benedikz and Skarphéðinsdóttir 1999). ‘Urban’ also
refers to a lifestyle, a set of values and norms that is different from rural ones.

A city, WRI states, is more than just a large number of people living together, while the
term 'urban' often refers to a certain minimum amount of inhabitants within a certain area.
A city is a complex political, economic and social entity. Scholars have tried to grasp the
concept of a city. The well-known urban designer Kevin Lynch (cited by Kostof, 1991)
states: “City forms, their actual function, and the ideas and values that people attach to
them make up a single phenomenon”. Kostof (1991) provides a range of characteristics.
Cities, he said, are places made up of buildings and people. But cities are also distinguished
by some kind of monumental definition, that is, where the fabric is more than a blanket of
residences. Cities have some physical circumscription, whether material of symbolic, to
separate those who belong in the urban order from those who don not. In the old days, these
were the city walls. But cities are no independent entities. They are “intimately engaged
with their countryside, a territory that feeds them and which they protect and provide
services for”. Kostof concluded his work on city design by expressing his admiration for
the city as human phenomenon: “the city is one of the most remarkable, one of the most
enduring of human artefacts and human institutions.”

While city has its origin in the term civitas i.e. ‘a community of citizens’, ‘urban’ (from
urbs: the walled centre where important political activity is taking place) today thus
encompasses a much broader concept referring more to character and identity (Harvey,
1989). Although both the narrower concept of a city referring to a specific community with
some binding principles and the broader concept of urban referring to e.g. lifestyle, norms,

6
values as much as to e.g. geographical characteristics are of relevance here, the first seems
the most important for the concept of ‘NeighbourWoods’.

2.2 Woodland

A first comment to make is that there are major differences between languages when
looking at the terminology to describe tree-dominated ecosystems and areas of land. A
traditional distinction e.g. in German is that between ‘Wald’ and ‘Forst’, i.e. between the
'wild' treed ecosystem and that which is manipulated and managed by man. A similar
existence existed in Dutch with ‘woud’ and ‘bos’, as well as in other languages.

In English as well as in other languages and cultures woodland is clearly not the same as
forest. The term woodland generally seems to be used as a broader concept than 'forest'.
Forests are often rather strictly defined, e.g. according to % canopy cover and area size.
Traditionally, the term 'forest' has been used as a legal term.

Woodland incorporates more than just forests. It also refer to areas with a tree vegetation
that is perhaps less dense, or to a wooded area of a small size. The Dictionary of Forestry
(DoF) (Helms, 1998) defined woodland as: “1. a forest area; 2. a plant community in
which, in contract to a typical forest, the trees are often small, characteristically short-
boled relative to their crown depth, and forming only an open canopy with the intervening
area being occupied by lower vegetation, commonly grass.” For comparison, the DoF
defines ‘forest’ as: “an ecosystem characterized by a more or less dense and extensive tree
cover, often consisting of stands varying in characteristics such as species composition,
structure, age class, and associated processes, and commonly including meadows, streams,
fish and wildlife”. Organisations such as FAO have very detailed - but often debated -
definitions of forests. (Interestingly enough, FAO uses different definitions for forests in
developed and developing countries.) Forests are classified in many different ways,
including the main division between natural forests and plantations.

Even more tree-based land resources are incorporated under the term ‘wood’ (as in
'NeighbourWoods'). Simson (pers. comm.) mentioned how the term wood is more
frequently used in the United Kingdom, as it has a more positive feeling to it than forest
(i.e. reference to monotonous stands of sitka spruce). The DoF (Helms, 1998) defines
‘wood’ as: “1. a community of trees growing more or less closely together, of smaller
extent than a forest - note a wood may or may not constitute a stand, depending on its
degree of homogeneity in one or more respects; 2. an area of woodland bearing a local
name - synonym woods; 3. the material produced in the stems and branches of trees and
other woody plants.”

2.3 Towards a definition of 'urban woodland'

A direct derivation of the above might lead to defining urban wood(land) as an area of land
dominated by trees to be found in/belonging to urban areas. But this definition easily
becomes too narrow, as:
- Many important ‘urban woodlands’ are actually found at the fringe of urban areas (e.g.
periurban woodlands).

7
- The dominance of urban values, interests and uses in decision making about woodlands
can also lead to ‘urbanisation’, even when these woodlands are situated further away
from urban centres.

Rather similar questions of definition have been dealt with in urban forestry. Lok and Mars
(1989), for example, describe that one can speak of urban forestry on a certain scale, when
at least half of the decisions regarding the use of a certain forest or plantation are made
according to the wishes of the population in the urban areas. Konijnendijk and Vlasman
(1993) add that in the case of a true urban forest, the use of that forest is dominated by the
population from one certain city: “A city forest is an area - thought of and managed as a
forest - in or near a city, of which the use by the inhabitants of the city concerned is signifi-
cantly greater than the use by others. A city forest is accessible and within reach for all
inhabitants of the city concerned.” When regarding the role of local actors and interests as
key element, an urban forest or woodland might be described as “a forest ecosystem (or
rather: an area of land dominated by tree vegetation) in or near a specific urban area, of
which the use and related decision-making processes are dominated by local urban actors
and their interests, values and norms” (Konijnendijk, 1999). In other words: local, urban
interests are determining what happens with these woodlands, in the spirit of e.g.
community forestry. Logically, the woodlands closest to local urban communities are in
focus. Various studies have indicated the importance of distance, i.e. nearby forests and
green spaces were often the most popular and most used. An interesting link exists with the
older term 'community forest', i.e. “a forest owned and generally managed by a community,
the members of which share its benefits -see communal forest, social forest” (Helms, 1998).
Community forestry e.g. has been defined as “any form of social forestry that is based on
the local people’s direct participation in the production process, either by growing trees
themselves or by processing tree products locally.” (Raintree, 1991); the term has mostly
been applied, however, in a rural and/or development context.

Urban forestry literature tends to describe ‘urban forest’ in a broader way than ‘urban
woodland’, i.e. incorporating all tree resources (including individual trees) in and near
urban areas. Miller (1997), for example, defines urban forest as: “the sum of all woody and
associated vegetation in and around dense human settlements, ranging from small
communities in rural settings to metropolitan regions.”

However, the term ‘urban forests’ refers to a somewhat different approach in large parts of
(continental) Europe, and actually getting very close to the term ‘urban woodland’. In for
instance the Netherlands, Germany, Eastern Europe, and also in parts of Scandinavia, focus
has been more on forest ecosystems. The term ‘urban forest’ often has quite a long tradition
as referring to forest ecosystems near and especially in towns and cities. Reference can be
made to the terms Stadtwald (German), stadsbos (Dutch), forêt urbaine (French), and
bynaer skov (Danish), kaupunkimetsä and now taajamametsä (Finnish) (Konijnendijk
1999).

The need for distinguishing urban forests or woodlands from non-urban ones - a
precondition also for NeighbourWoods! - was e.g. stressed by Lee (1984): “the problems of
managing forests and wildlands on the urban fringe requires specialized knowledge and
skills that do not currently exist.”

8
2.4 Defining 'NeighbourWoods'

Thus, the concept of ‘urban woodland’ as used in the project follows several lines:
- In order to create the needed close relationships between local, urban inhabitants and
woods, proximity of these woods to urban dwellers seems a necessity.
- It refers to woods that are, in a way, part of the local urban/city community, be it as
formal ownership or in other forms (e.g. through dominance in decision-making,
planning, design, management).
- It refers to woods, i.e. smaller and larger tracts of lands characterised by dominant tree
vegetation. Moreover, it refer to close links between large tracts of wooded land, parks
as well as smaller green areas. Also, the term relates to different cultural meanings of
wooded land.

The term ‘NeighbourWoods’ encompasses all of these dimensions:

1. NEIGHBOURWoods - woods at people’s doorsteps:

- regular contact with nature, nature education, pleasant living and working
environment.
2. NeighbOURWoods - planned & managed for and by local residents:
- public involvement; partnerships; multiple benefits for local population; part of
local community.
3. NeighbourWOODS - woods/woodlands of different sizes and character
- from small woods to large periurban forests; different concepts of ‘forest’.

A wood and perhaps even a NeighbourWood could then be defined as a place where trees
determine or are significant aspects of the visual, social, cultural and ecological character
of the townscape. Very important in this definition is the use of the term ‘place’ as referring
to local identity.

3. Definition of the development objective: Quality of life & environment

By Beatrice Hunter and Andreas Ottitsch - European Forest Institute

Before listing some formal specifications and definitions, several basic considerations
should be kept in mind. An definition on ‘quality’ will always be subjective in the sense
that it depends on the point of view of the person or being, for whom or which quality is
defined. In addition ‘quality’ has a twofold meaning in that on one side it may be judged
along some sort of scale, allowing for a ranking from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ quality. On the other
hand, it is usually used in a ‘positive’ sense when applied in the context of conscious efforts
of a person or being to influence its environment, since such actions will – at least in their
immediate intent, while not necessary in their long-term consequence – be aimed at
‘improving’ the ‘quality of life’ of the acting entity, while simultaneously perhaps deterring
the ‘quality of life’ for other entities.

3.1 Definitions of terms

Following the example of some of the previous chapter, this brief text on definitions will
start with the ‘common’ definitions used for the terms in question, using ‘Webster’s

9
Dictionary’ (Web, 1913) (accessed by: http://www.goldendome.net/Tools/WebSter/) as a
first reference.

3.1.1 ‘Quality’
“1. The condition of being of such and such a sort as distinguished from others”.

While this first definition does not carry a value statement in it, the term quality is very
often also used with an intrinsic statement of (superior) quality attached to it, consequently
Webster’s also gives the following reference to this “value-laden” use of “quality”: “5.
Superior birth or station; high rank; elevated character…” (ibidem)

3.1.2 ‘Life’
‘Life’ is defined in Webster’s with the following:
1. The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with
death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant
in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions;
-- used of all animal and vegetable organisms.

In addition to this purely ‘biological’ definition an additional use of the word, also defined
in the dictionary might be of higher interest to the purposes of this project:
“5. A certain way or manner of living with respect to conditions, circumstances, character,
conduct, occupation, etc.; hence, human affairs; also, lives, considered collectively, as a
distinct class or type; as, low life; a good or evil life; the life of Indians, or of miners.
That which before us lies in daily life. --Milton. “ (ibidem)
This use of the word ‘life’ clearly relates it to ‘human life’, but not in a biological but more
in a cultural sense.

3.1.3 ‘Environment’
Looking for the definition of ‘environment’, the following can be retrieved:
“2. That which environs or surrounds; surrounding conditions, influences, or forces, by
which living forms are influenced and modified in their growth and development. “
This shows that ‘environment’ implies a ‘reference’ to something or somebody, which is
the ‘point of view’, from which it is defined. In the context of the NBW-project, human
beings may be seen as being the ‘life form’ of reference.

Taking these definitions into consideration ‘Quality of life’ may thus be defined as the
‘Conditions describing the way or manner of living’ and ‘Quality of Environment’ as
‘Conditions describing conditions, by which living forms (human beings) are influenced’.

3.2 The problem of tautology

A certain degree of tautology may thus be unavoidable if different definitions for ‘quality
of life’ and ‘quality of environment’ are being looked for in order to define them as objects
of research, since ‘Environment’ is by definition the sum of ‘conditions’ influencing life (if

10
the more social scientific definition given under top 5. according to Webster is used), thus
also including those influencing the ‘quality’ of this life.

In other words: It is not possible to imagine how a ‘good quality of life’ may be achieved in
an ‘bad quality environment’, since the latter also has to be taken into account in defining
the first, at least as long as this refers to the ‘external’ conditions. In a ‘moral’ sense of
course it might be possible to lead a ‘good’ life in a ‘miserable’ environment, but these
considerations are – at least to the understanding of the author of these deliberations – not
part of the question to be solved in the NBW-project.

3.3 The role of subjective assessment of quality

The term ‘quality of life’, however has more than just a material meaning. If the full term is
looked up, the following defintion comes up:

“quality of life n : your personal satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the cultural or
intellectual conditions under which you live (as distinct from material comfort); "the new
art museum is expected to improve the quality of life” (http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-
bin/http_webster?quality+of+life&method=exact) (WordNet R1.6)

This definition explicitly sets ‘quality of life’ apart from the more material aspects of life
(such as nutrition, shelter, etc.) but puts it on a different level, which implicitly usually is
assumed to be also ‘higher’.

Consequently when looking at the term ‘quality of life’ in the context of the NBW-project,
it will be necessary not only to focus on the potential material benefits derived from urban
woodland (e.g.: micro-climate, shelter, material products, direct services (e.g.: water quality
or also recreational facilities), but also to ‘immaterial’ benefits, such as ‘cultural’ identity,
‘sense of place’, ‘sense of belonging’).

3.4 Specific aspects of ‘Quality of life’ in an urban environment

When considering the potential role of green space in the context of quality of life in urban
environments it will be necessary to consider what distinguishes urban environments from
rural ones, namely those distinguishing factors that quite obviously render urban lifestyles
more attractive to an ever-increasing number of human beings. The latter make up for the
majority of the population at least in Europe.

When looking at quality of urban life, factors such as human networks, social relationships
within neighbourhoods, the living conditions of ethnic and other minorities, and of course
the relationship between man and the environment have to be regarded. In the latter context
the role and use of open or specifically green spaces, the perception of such spaces, their
contribution to urban identity both at the neighbourhood as well as on other levels of urban
societies, and the relationships between public health and urban green spaces will have to
be considered (Frick, 1986).

11
In the context of the NBW-project, consequently, it will be necessary to focus also on those
positive or negative effects related to urban woodland, which are of specific importance in
relation to ‘urban’ as opposed to ‘rural’ lifestyles. In this context is added that ‘urban
lifestyle’ does not relate merely to more superficially visible factors, such as population
density or even relationship between build-up area and free green spaces or agricultural
land, but more to general factors, such as employment-structure (sources of income), family
structures, values and beliefs. Thus it has been stated that urban lifestyles are also present in
seemingly rural communities, influencing the whole interaction pattern of society and
environment.

The definition of ‘urban’, given in Chapter 2 as part of this project gives ample recognition
to this wider and deeper sense of the term ‘urban’ and its derivatives.

The ways in which urban woodland contributes to the specific ‘urban’ quality of life are
certainly of interest for the NBW-project. Such specific contributions may be expected to
be more than just adding a reminder of rural life or ‘nature’ to urban environments. For
example the ratio and distribution of woodland or green spaces within housing zones (e.g.:
as measured at the voting-district or even block-level) may be more important for the
quality of urban life, than the overall ratio of city-green space or its management styles and
practices.

3.5 Quantification of quality

It has been demonstrated above that ‘quality of life’ encompasses more than just physical
aspects but is highly linked also to psychological aspects and individual perception of the
conditions and circumstances that influence an individual’s life.

3.5.1 Physical aspects of ‘quality of life’

Therefore ‘quality of environment’ has to take into account at one hand physical aspects,
which are more or less ‘measurable’ (such as average temperature, noise-reduction, filter-
effects against various pollutants) as well as accessible to simulation and modelling by use
of various computer-based tools. In this respect the potential contribution of a planned
woodland to physical aspects of environmental quality should may serve as an additional
legitimisation for the funds necessary to realise the project. It may be necessary, however to
also conceive of potential negative effects of urban woodland to physical aspects of
environmental quality. Such negative effects may consist of debris from trees (pollen,
seeds, fruits, leaves, twigs, branches) which unless properly treated (i.e.: removed) is likely
to cause problems to some urban infrastructure (e.g. surface-water-run-off-systems), be a
nuisance to private households as it increases the need for domestic cleaning, or even a
health problem as it increases the exposure of individuals to allergenic substances. In
addition to modelling the mere physical consequences (i.e. change of climate, temperature,
amount of debris etc.), it may be necessary to attach financial value to both the benefits as
well as the costs derived from the changes induced by urban woodland. Sufficient studies
and compilations exist in this respect (see e.g.: Forrest et al. (1999) for an overview on the
European context), which may be used as a starting point for further research within the
project. In most cases physical aspects can be linked in a rather direct way to financial
values. Examples are available for the change in expenses for heating or air-conditioning,

12
reduced costs for water-preparation, or even reduced expenses for public health-care
systems. Similarly an increase in costs for the cleaning and management of public spaces or
costs for treatment of allergies may also be derived in rather direct ways. In a European
context also the problem of forest fires and the threat posed to urban dwellings from such
fires has to be mentioned. This relationship has to be looked upon more closely, though as
the different conflicts of interest linked to urban dwellings are sometimes also named as
one of the reasons for forest fires in the vicinity of urban regions (i.e. land speculation,
recreation pressure).

3.5.2 Psychological aspects of quality of life

In addition the more psychological aspects and contributions of urban woodland have to be
considered as well, according to the earlier considerations brought up in this paper. Among
such non-material contributions one can think of aesthetic effects, which influence the
general state of mind of individuals or a whole population. Chapter 4 elaborates on this
aspect in the section on design. The role which urban woodland may play in creating an
‘identity’ of an urban dwelling or of parts thereof has also been discussed extensively, in a
European context for example by Konijnendijk (1999). Speaking of quality of life, the
beneficial role of an interaction with a natural environment on human wellbeing in general
and on the developmental processes of children may also have to be taken into
consideration. The presence of urban woodland themselves may thus be considered
beneficial to ‘quality of life’, even if no direct product or benefit is derived from them by an
individual. On the other hand some detrimental effects of urban woodland also are known.
The main known factor here is an increased feeling of lack of security in relation to crimes,
as such areas are used by some individuals to carry out criminal acts. Such may consist of
using the shelter of such areas either to attack individuals or to perform illegal activities
(e.g.: drug-dealing, illegal prostitution). It is interesting to note, though, that there exist
differences in the perception of this specific ‘negative effect’ of urban woodlands between
different countries in Europe as well as within countries.

As regards the evaluation of these non-physical factors linked to urban woodland, which
influence quality of life and environment, there also exists a body of evaluation-methods.
From a general point of view, these can be divided into ‘contingent valuation’-type of
studies on one hand and ‘revealed preferences’-type on the other hand. (For an overview on
these methods and their respective problems and merits see for example Turner (1993)).
Whereas the first tries to establish financial values by asking respondents to make bids in a
‘virtual’ market (i.e.: willingness to pay), the latter one looks at existing markets (e.g.:
property values) and tries to derive the influence of the factor in question on the price for a
certain commodity. The problems related to the first one are mainly linked to the
‘artificiality’ of the method and the fact that respondent’s replies may not reflect there real
preference and behaviour. The problems related to the second one are linked to establishing
a direct connection between the relevant factor and the markets under research and the
potential danger of multiple counting of different factors.

4. Activities to Meet the Development Objective: Planning, Design and

Management (of Urban Woodlands)

13
4.1 Planning
By Rik De Vreese - Flemish Forest Organisation

4.1.1 Defining planning

Planning can be defined as “the act or process of making or carrying out plans;
specifically: the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic
unit” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2001). Planning can take many different
forms, from small-scale, short-term plans to large-scale, long-term plans. It may consider a
few resources or it may consider as many resources and uses as possible. When making
plans, one can use a multidisciplinary approach or one can use just his or here specialism.
(Olsona and Orrl, 1999). In generally, the primary objective of planning is to make
decisions about the use of resources. Planning should facilitate the efficient use of
resources. Traditionally, planning had been very rational and technocratic. Over the past 30
years, the need for land use and environmental planning has increased dramatically with
rising competition for scarce resources and the need to protect threatened environments
(Marsh, 1991). Planning processes can be formal, informal or a mixture of both. During the
past years, participation became more important in planning processes. Stakeholders start to
organise themselves, so it became easier to define target groups and to include them into
planning processes.

Planning is strictly related with decision making. Planning is used to describe anything
from a series of arbitrary or dogmatic decisions to a critical and sophisticated investigation
into the whole range of possible choices open to an enterprise. Planning embraces three
closely related activities. First, the collection and assembly of data, secondly, the
examination and the testing, against the ‘correct’ criteria, of the various possible courses of
action and thirdly, the formulation of plans. Ideally, plans or decisions should be made only
after all the possible choices have been considered and tested to see which is most likely to
achieve the policy objectives (Johnston et al., 1967). One can compare planning with
building a bridge between the present and desired future. For example, a forest management
plan is a bridge between the present state of the forest known from inventories, and the
desired state in the future (De Wulf, 1999). One can reach the desired future through many
different pathways.

Decision-making can be executed on several levels. The two most important and most
distinguished are the political level and the technical or operational level. One can define
(long-term) goals at the technical level, such as the amount of dead wood that should be
available in a forest complex. To achieve these technical goals, one must implement these
at the management level. The planning processes and the relationship between decision-
making (or strategic planing), the technical or operational planning and the management
and design of woodlands should not be regarded as a linear sequence, but more as an
interrelated circuit (Marsh, 1991). This is symbolised in the Figure 1 (post Marsh, 1991).

14
 Decision making

Management and design Technical planning

Figure 1: Relationships in planning process (post Marsh, 1991)

One can classify plans belonging to different topics: planning period, area, disciplines
involved and content. The planning period is defined as “the duration for which a plan is
drawn up” (IUFRO, 2001). The planning period can be short (1 to 5 years), intermediate (5
to 20 years) or long-term (more than 20 years). Long-term plans reflect the long-term
policy objectives. They are revised only when it is apparent that there has been a substantial
and permanent change in circumstances. Medium-term plans may be considered with the
headlamps of a car, which light up the road for a constant distance ahead. These plans are
revised periodically, often annually, as new information becomes available or as
circumstances change. Very short-term plants, in the form of e.g. annual programs of work,
take the immediate circumstances into account (Johnston et al., 1967). Plans can be made
on a very local scale (e.g. a management plan for street trees on street level), or on large
area (national plans). The planning team can be composed of specialists from one
discipline, or the planning team can be multi-disciplinary. The classification to the content
is related to the discipline involved. For each activity involved in the plan, one can make a
partial plan (e.g. inventory, thinning, cutting, planting, etc.). A plan can be classified into
more than one category; for instance, a land use plan is a multidisciplinary, long-term and
low-scale (large area) plan. A one-year working plan for a small urban forest covers only a
short period, a small area and some disciplines (mainly forestry-related items). The
intended use of the plan and the intended planning period determine the detail and duration
of the plan.

Who does the planning? Professional planners probably do not do the majority of planning.
They usually function in a technical and advisory capacity to the decision makers by
providing data, forecasting futures, defining alternatives and structuring strategies for
implementation of formal plans. Most of planning is done by corporation officers,
government officials and their agents, the leaders of institutions, the military and other
organisations, including citizen’s groups. The overall direction of a plan always
represents some sort of policy decision. These concepts about the future are called
planning goals and they are the driving forces behind the planning process. (Marsh, 1991)

15
Church et al. (2000) distinguish three levels of planning: strategic, tactical and operational.
Strategic planning is long-term, multidisciplinary and large-area planning. Operational
(forest) planning is defined as “the short-term, often annual, planning in the framework of
long-term organisational objectives and medium-term (management plan) goals” (IUFRO,
2001). Tactical planning is situated in between strategic and operational planning. It
describes goals in a medium-term time interval, to be implemented on a smaller area. So,
operational planning concerns with the practical implementation of the strategic and tactical
plans. This type of planning is short-term and is done on smaller areas. Normally, partially
operational plans for each (group of) tasks are made.

4.1.2 Planning and urban forests

Related to NeighbourWoods and urban forests, 8 types of planning can be distinguished:
policy planning, land use planning, landscape planning, forest management planning, urban
planning and participatory planning. Below, these types of planning are defined.

Policy planning: a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been
agreed officially by a group of people, a business organisation, a government or a political
party (Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 2001)

Land use planning: The process of organising the use of lands and their resources to best
meet people's needs over time, according to the land's capabilities (USDA Forest Service,
2001).

Forest land-use planning: Development of forest management plans as an integral part of

regional or national land-use planning, for the purpose of nature protection and landscape
conservation (IUFRO, 2001).

Landscape Design: the art of arranging Landform, Vegetation, Water, Paving and
Structures to make good outdoor space (Landscape Planning Web, 2001).

Landscape Planning is similar to Landscape Design but planning projects tend to be more
concerned with public goods than private goods, larger in scale and longer in duration
(Landscape Planning Web, 2001).

(Forest) management planning: The medium-term planning process in a forest enterprise,

in which decisions are made, based on long-term objectives and current (inventory)
information, concerning the management of the forests (IUFRO, 2001).

Stand management planning: Planning methods for the management of individual stands,
as opposed to the total forest (IUFRO, 2001).

Urban planning: The programs pursued in most industrialised countries in an attempt to

achieve certain social and economic objectives, in particular to shape and improve the
urban environment in which increasing proportions of the world's population spend their
lives (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2001). Urban planning is related to economic
development, social programs, land use and transportation planning (Marsh, 1991).

16
Participatory planning: Interest groups, stakeholders or a wider public are involved at
each successive stage of planning (Sidaway, 1997 in Konijnendijk, 1999).

Konijnendijk (1999) quotes Hidding et al. (1991) to describe the relationship between
politics, policy-making and planning. Politics involve normative discussions on principles.
Policy-making then concerns the releasing of certain political decisions, while planning
relates to the search for implementation options.

Landscape (ecological) planning is a holistic approach that not only takes the physical facts
of an area, but it should also deal with the social situation of the people whom planning
affects (Luz, 2000).

Urban planning and redevelopment is aimed at fulfilling social and economic objectives
that go beyond the physical form and arrangement of buildings, streets, parks, utilities, etc.
Urban planning may be described as a social movement, as a governmental function, or as a
technical profession. Each aspect has its own concepts, history, and theories. Together they
fuse into the effort of modern society to shape and improve the environment of the city
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2001).

Luz (2000) describes the difference between the implementation of landscape (ecological)
planning with and without participation. The examples of participatory approaches to
landscape ecology and landscape planning are encouraging and innovative, and reveal a
new trend in contemporary landscape management in Germany. However, they are far from
being in universal practice with widespread agreement among experts. He describes that
many natural scientists in planning teams remain reluctant to include ‘ordinary people’ in
the process; it remains safer to focus on so-called objective planning criteria instead of
opening the discussion for subjective or even emotional issues.

Planning processes are both predictive and prescriptive. Prospective thinking is needed
within planning, looking at future values and the future of existing values. Nevertheless, the
integration of clear planning goals facilitates the evaluation and steering of the plan, within
the planning period and at the end of the planning period.

4.1.3 Defining planning within the frame of NeighbourWoods

In the NeighbourWoods-project, we can use the keyword planning along these outlines:
- planning should be strategic, this means the resources should be used in a way to afford
the maximum support to adopted policies (in the case of policy-making and strategic
planning) or to adopted goals (in the case of operational planning);
- planning can take place on different hierarchical levels, depending on the used time
intervals, scale, disciplines, etc.;
- both formal and informal planning processes will be considered, with a links to
participation and social inclusiveness, design and management.

4.2 Design
By Alan Simson - Faculty of Health and Environment, Leeds Metropolitan University

17
4.2.1 Defining design
The term ‘design’ embraces a wide spectrum of possibilities, and thus makes it difficult to
establish an unambiguous definition of the word. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary
(OERD), for example, defines design as “a plan or drawing produced to show the look and
function or workings of a building, garment or other object before it is built or made”.
Such a definition is, arguably, too narrow to apply to urban forestry, in that it is confined to
matters associated only with aesthetics and technology. That said, designers are often
criticised (Carr et al, 1992 for example) for concentrating far too much on the aesthetic and
physical aspects of environmental design, to the exclusion of other, equally important
qualities. In their view, the human dimension of space is often neglected in public space
design, which all too often results in spaces that do not work for people. Walpole, writing
in the Guardian newspaper about the absence of people in the photographic coverage of the
award-winning Royal Albert Dock piazza would seem to agree, as he complained that
“human needs are sacrificed on the altar of design and aestheticism. People tend to go
missing in the pristine imagery of architecture and design, where life’s untidiness is
regarded as an aesthetic intrusion” (Walpole, 1998). Such criticism would suggest that
when design is only seen as a vehicle for the expression of professional excellence and the
demonstration of technical proficiency and aesthetic value, it has little social relevance (see
Koh, 1982; Lyle, 1985; Howlett, 1998). This is particularly relevant in considering the role
of design in urban forestry.

But are aesthetics always bad? Is there such a thing as a ‘natural aesthetic’? McHarg
certainly thought so, and in his book ‘Design with Nature’ (McHarg, 1971), he argued
persuasively that it was through contact with nature or “natural” design that people derived
most pleasure and enjoyment. However, McHarg was primarily dealing with large-scale
regional planning, rather that site-specific urban or peri-urban design, and although the
‘natural aesthetic’ is an important component of urban forestry or NeighbourWood design,
his theories are too perhaps too general to give us a crisp definition of design in the context
of this project. Perhaps therefore we should consider urban design as a potential source of
inspiration for an appropriate definition of ‘design’.

Urban Design, like urban forestry, is multi-disciplinary activity, concerned with the
planning, design and management of urban areas. By definition therefore, it ought to
encompass the philosophical rationale behind urban forestry, particularly in matters of
design. As with urban forestry, finding a universally accepted definition of “urban design”
is not straightforward. A consensual definition can be found in the constitution of the Urban
Design Group, which maintains that “urban design nurtures the essence of the places
where people live and work and it creates places that people can enjoy and which refresh
the spirit. Urban design is concerned both with processes and the three-dimensional
products of change, at scales from a group of buildings to a city centre or a metropolitan
area”. (Urban Design Group, 2000)

Such a definition contributes useful elements to a potential working definition of ‘design’

as related to urban forestry and NeighbourWoods, particularly the inclusion of people and
place. There is however a lack of anything to do with natural processes in this definition,
or of the fourth dimension of ‘time’, or how important such contact with these processes are
to the human psyche.

18
The development of the concept of ‘place’ is generally attributed to Canter (1977). He
maintained that the constituents of ‘place’ were Activities, Physical Attributes and
Conceptions, and that “place” developed as a result of a relationship between these
constituents. He maintained that a place cannot be fully identified until:

! we know what behaviour is associated with, or it is anticipated will be taking

place there;
! what the physical parameters of that setting are;
! the conception (or descriptions) which people hold of their behaviour in that
physical environment.

There will of course be ambiguities as to what constitutes ‘place’. For example, people’s
conceptions may alter depending upon the user group to which they belong, which may
depend on age, or their motives for being there, or the time of day, etc.

In spite of the wide degree of variability between these three constituents, the task of design
in the context of Canter’s concept of ‘place’ is to manipulate the physical attributes of a site
or sites in such a way as to draw upon, or create, the appropriate context for specifiable
activities and conceptions.

Similar views have been expressed by authors such as Lynch (1960), Bentley et al (1985)
and Carr et al (1992). They have suggested that the relationship between people and their
environment is not just based on aesthetics, but by how responsive to their needs the place
is, in other words the human dimension of a place and how well it functions for them. This
would seem to be central to urban forestry and NeighbourWood design thinking, and
suggests that to be responsive to people’s needs a place must, at the very least, be created
by melding design with science and people.

Such a view has been supported by the Kaplans in their work on people’s environmental
preferences (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). They discovered that there was a remarkable
consistency in people’s preferred environments, despite their demographic differences.
Underlying their reactions to the aesthetic was an assessment of each environment in terms
of its compatibility with their needs and purposes. Such a definition is close to some of the
definitions of landscape architecture.

As with urban forestry, a satisfactory “one size fits all” definition of landscape architecture
remains elusive, but there have been serious attempts to narrow the differences. The
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), for example, have defined landscape
architecture as “ the art of design, planning or management of the land, the arrangement of
natural and man-made elements thereon through application of cultural and scientific
knowledge, to the end that the resultant environment serves useful and enjoyable purpose”
(American Society of Landscape Architects, 1981). Not a very accessible definition, but it
does introduce the concept of culture into the equation, and that management is an aspect of
design.

Booth attempted to simplify this definition by maintaining that design should combine art
and science, and should have as its primary focus the sensitive joining of people and their
outdoor activities with the land. He thus defined landscape architecture as “a professional

19
design discipline that, in the broadest sense, deals with integrating people and the outdoor
environment in a manner beneficial to both” (Booth, 1993).

Thwaites has criticised this approach to landscape design (Thwaites, 2001). He maintains
that it overlooks the fact that what is important to human fulfilment is largely experiential,
related to understanding the environment and not simply using it; the freedom of choice to
interpret freely and modify the surroundings according to personal assessments of need,
desire and aspiration; to be able to experience a measure of autonomy and self-
determination.

4.2.2 Design within the context of NeighbourWoods

Thus for NeighbourWoods, design should be conceived as a socially inclusive language,
which is able to transcend national and cultural boundaries, whilst remaining inclusive of
local dialects. It should provide an interwoven mosaic of places, defined in both spatial and
experiential terms, in which the creative engagement of people with such places is an
important element in the achievement of individual fulfilment. It is about the creation of
“places” that are conducive to human fulfilment by creating a close association between
physical elements and human experiences, and could be defined as integration of spatial,
experiential, economic and technological dimensions.

Thus NeighbourWood design” should exhibit SEET:

- Spatial enrichment – variety and diversity; perceptions of public/private space, etc.;

- Experiential benefit – adding to the quality of life, measured both qualitatively and
quantitatively, including quality of life indicators from Agenda 21, EU?, other local
indicators, management concepts and the 4th dimension, involvement of users, etc;
- Economic efficiency – implementation costs, maintenance costs, etc.
- Technological soundness – function and utility, robustness, longevity, engagement
with natural processes, appropriate management and maintenance.

4.3 Management & management planning

By Roland Gustavsson & Anna Jönsson - Department of Landscape Planning Alnarp,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

4.3.1 Introduction to traditional and innovative management approaches

More attention is needed for the long-term management of NeighbourWoods, stressing the
meaning of ‘long term management and management planning’ as an active process,
dealing with care-taking and development in order to fulfil human preferences of places,
local landscapes, trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, water, paths, and other facilities. Too often
the importance of a management planning is not really recognised and the possibilities to
raise qualities considerable stay unseen. This is a fact concerning a huge amount of areas
like sub-urban parks and nature areas in cities or in the urban rural fringe, all over Europe.
To strictly keep to natural processes, or the opposite to stay within a maintenance approach
can often be totally dominating, but are questioned here. A simplistic approach in which
just the natural processes are followed can very much be characterised as a ‘laissez-faire

20
policy’ without any special intentions. By ‘maintenance’ you rather stress the other
extreme, i.e. ‘to keep’, ‘preserve’ or ‘conserve’.

An integrated, creative, long-term developing management means something quite different

from both a laissez-faire and a maintenance policy. By ‘management’ you stress the wish to
work with changes and potentials in a conscious way.

In an action-oriented perspective, management is maybe more than anything else the phase
in which past meets future, ideas and intentions are realised (or not), different interest
groups get activated, professional people meet local volunteers, and man meets the
landscape to create an all together active, positive relationship. Management thereby has
three important parts that should be inseparable:
(a) the intentional; using a lot of energy and brains to catch bright and brave ideas;
(b) the technocratic; finding the smart technical solutions and methods; and
(c) the communicative; sharing and engaging, including both professionals and local
people.

Today these three parts are developing too much as special individual knowledge fields and
it is a challenge to improve the integration. If we would fail to integrate better, the
landscapes will decrease sooner than most of us believe is possible. Moreover, within the
technocratic part the relationship between the spirit of the place, architectural expressions,
technical aspects, biological processes and time aspects should be stressed much more in an
integrated way compared to what is the case today (Gustavsson, 1999a and 1999b;
Kennedy and Koch, forthcoming).

Very often design and management have been unluckily separated. It is a misunderstanding
to consider design as just a question of aesthetics in a narrow sense related to ‘free art’ or
just beautification. Design should rather be seen as a field of knowledge belonging to a
wide practical skill. As such it should be enlarged and deepened in its relationship also to
forestry, ecology, and to social and other functional aspects. Neither should design be
limited to the establishment phase as it often is today. Design is in fact a crucial part of
man’s relationship with landscape dynamics and to a good management.

4.3.2 Some key definitions

Planning: A general definition is provided by Ramirez (1995): ”planning is a reflection of
such that otherwise take place unreflected” (Ramirez, 1995). More practically-oriented
planning has been defined as ”the integration of scientific and technical knowledge that
provides options for making decisions about alternative futures” (Ndubishi, 1997), as well
as being ”a process for considering and reaching consensus on a range of choices” (Steiner,
1991).

Management, management planning: Considering NeighbourWoods and other types of

urban forests: ‘management planning and its implementation in practice thereby have three
important parts as also discussed before: (a) the intentional; using a lot of energy and brains
to catch bright and brave ideas, (b) the technocratic; finding the smart technical solutions
and methods, and (c) the communicative; sharing and engaging, integrating both
professionals and local people’ (Gustavsson, forthcoming).

21
Steiner states, in a landscape planning context: ”Management has been defined as the
judicious use of means to accomplish a desired end. It involves working with people to
accomplish organisational goals. For practical purposes, many see the distinction between
planning and management as largely semantic. The management of resources, such as
land, may be a goal of a planning process, conversely, planning may be a means of
management.” (Steiner, 1991). ”Managers implement plans” (Forman, 1995).

Sustainability: ”Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). ”A sustainable environment
is an area in which ecological integrity and basic human needs concurrently are
maintained over generations” (Forman, 1995)

Sustainable management: At the Rio conference in 1992 sustainable forest management

was defined as ”ensuring that biological diversity, productivity, regenerative capacity and
vitality shall be maintained, while at the same time the ability of the forest now and in the
future to fulfil that relevant ecological, economic, social and cultural functions is
preserved.” Later, at the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (in
Helsinki) this was defined one step further: ”Sustainable management means the
stewardship and use of forests and forest land in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their
biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now
and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national and
global levels, without causing damages to other ecosystems” (Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe, 1993)

Ecosystem management: ”Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of

ecological relationship within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the
general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term.” (Grumbine,
1994)

Adaptive management: ”Adaptive management assumes that scientific knowledge is

provisional and focuses on management as a learning process or continous experiment
where incorporating the results of previous actions allows managers to remain flexible and
adapt to uncertainty” (Grumbine, 1994)

Maintenance: The performance of such duties of upkeep and care as mowing, pruning,
fertilizing,watering, trash pick-up, oiling, painting, raking, and the like to ensure that a
landscape develops and stays in good and servicable condition. Maintenance should begin
immediately following project completion. (Morrow, 1987)

Carrying capacity: ”Maximum population size that the land will sustain / the maximum
number of individuals an environment or place can support” (Forman, 1995).

”The term is very much used in scientific contexts, in which the view of the natural sciences
dominate. Critical carrying capacity is a very central issue and in this discourse the
objective of environmental sustainability focuses on the conservation of environmental
systems instead of single elements. It forces attention to the way phenomena are
interconnected.” (Glargaard Bahrenscheer et al., 1999)

22
The definition of ecological carrying capacity is modified from Speight (1973) as: ”The
maximum intensity of use, measured in terms of the number of people a year woodland
ground vegetation will support without undergoing an unacceptable degree of ecological
change away from the original ecosystem condition considered desirable.” (Littlemore,
1999)

4.3.3 Comments concerning the use of the terms in the NeighbourWoods project
Management as well as management planning are active processes, dealing with care-
taking and a development in order to fulfil human preferences of places, local landscapes,
trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, water, paths, and other facilities. An integrated, creative, long-
term developing management means something quite different from both a laissez-faire and
a maintenance policy. By management you stress the wish to work with changes and
potentials in a conscious way. Management planning for a NeighbourWood means to work
in a value-laden dialogue between people, between professionals and local actors, between
the manager, the landscape and its element, and between present, past, and future. In most
cases it means to create a good balance in between ‘values in being’ and ‘existing values’
that should be conserved for future generations.

Terms like ‘sustainable management’, ‘ecosystem management’, ‘adaptive management’,

‘carrying capacity’ are all useful terms, which get their usefulness and their more exact
meaning in the specific context in a dialogue relating to specific goals as well as time,
place, landscape, and present and future resources.

4.3.4 Background to the definitions & theoretical framework

4.3.4.1 Theoretical background

The present time acts as a breaking point between the major traditions of yesterday and the
emerging attitudes and management concepts of tomorrow. This is due to the dramatic
changes in the landscape as well as in the society through the latest fifty years (Gustavsson
& Ingelög 1994, Turner 1996). This breaking point will bring us many challenges.
‘Classical traditions’ looking at agrarian heritage, forestry traditions and from the early
times of nature conservation as well as park traditions for inner-city areas clash with more
recent traditions often defined as ‘suburban’ or ‘naturalistic’ and relating to young green
areas in the outer zones of cities, in the urban fringe, or concerning zones in the countryside
landscape which are affected by a recreation interest or more generally by the closeness of
cities.

One challenge will be to keep a deep base of knowledge belonging to ‘the classical
traditions’ with a knowledge that has evolved through hundreds of years or more, but which
today is diminishing parallel to a decreasing number of working people in the countryside
and increasing urbanism. Another challenge will be to make sure that the many new
approaches will keep their promise: be environmental friendly, sustainable and have all the
qualities we wish them to have from social, cultural and aesthetic perspectives. In this
process future management planners will - in a ‘communicative and dynamic management
planning’ - probably more than ever before be key persons acting in local cases as helpers
from ‘the outside’. They will initiate and coordinate, steer management strategies, deal with
predictable and unpredictable changes, landscape values, ethics, aesthetics, and bio-

23
diversity aspects. They will try to find constructive ways by using ‘words of honour’ such
as participator-lead, sustainable, multiple-use, cultural identity, carrying capacity,
ecosystem and natural resource management.

4.3.4.2. A theoretical discussion of some basic aspects

Three aspects are central to the development of the theoretical framework for
NeighbourWoods:
- how to integrate a classic, deep knowledge with a new, innovative;
- how to integrate aesthetic aspects in the management planning system; and
- how to handle a spatial-dynamic, articulated information about intentions, goals,
management methods etc. in a communication with the help of graphic, computer-based
tools.

Thinking concepts and the articulated language - focusing on the theory of knowledge and
the embodied knowledge
We understand each other less than we think. To tackle this is one of the biggest challenges
of our time (Toulmin, 1972). Obviously there is a great need to search for references that
we collectively can share, as well as for a rich set of concepts and visions and thereby
stressing the language itself. If we do not have a rich and articulated language we will not
be able to think or act in an advanced way (Toulmin, 1972; Ong, 1982). This is of relevance
for the management of woodlands. Moreover, we also have the specialist phenomena. It
always seems to create more problems than possibilities when wishing to move over
‘barriers’ or to set up groups of specialists for research or practice. Separated worlds of
views and economic systems create many conflicts and give many problems if we try to
find good multi-purpose solutions for a local landscape as a whole. One of the main
questions that should be raised is: how can we come back to more holistic approaches - but
without loosing the deeper insight of a specialist? We have the dualistic way to see and
organise the world, and unfortunately the cut is too often in between countryside - urban,
nature - culture, natural science - human science, analytic traditions - design traditions,
conserve - create, agricultural systems - forested systems, or open - closed. The numbers of
involved specialists are increasing all the time. But we are loosening up old traditional
systems of professional managers related to local areas and thereby to local social
networks. What are we loosing with the last generation of managers who ’learnt by
practice’ on their way out?

Exploring scientific traditions which now more often are related to human science and
philosophy rather than natural science
A goal should be to create a much better balance between different scientific approaches.
Today, the dominating approach when considering management, landscape, nature or
woodlands has been natural science. However, all of these knowledge fields also have
dimensions in which human intentions and actions are of crucial interest, and should be
more fully understood. Particularly, basic approaches should be obtained from the design
traditions and from disciplines in which the communication of knowledge is focused upon.
Moreover, administrators as well as management planners dealing with landscape planning
and conservation should have deep insights in aesthetics, ethics, evaluation theory, also
including how ideas have changed over time and differs between different countries.

24
Over-fragmentation, over-specialisation, over-standardisation and about the ability to be
able to include not rational dimensions, and dimensions which are not visually seen as
objects or habitats
Directly related to a landscape management planning we need to widen the approaches and
respect myths, and a more integrated historical knowledge about ideas, happenings etc,
telling us stories from different time layers and act as a base for understanding our own
time. Today we suffer from an over-fragmentation and an over-specialisation, ”believing
too much in one way, one world, one truth, and one best plan” as Tom Turner has
expressed it in his book about a postmodern view of planning (Turner, 1996).

4.3.4.3 The landscape perspective

Landscape is seldom present in a practical management planning. Instead, the focus is on
the objects, stands or agricultural fields as isolated phenomena, physically as well as
mentally. To supply the object-directed concepts of today with a place and landscape
concept seems obvious to suggest.

The need to stress reference landscapes as an approach.

There is a need for reference landscapes, that we can share, and have as full scale, living
visions to be able to be articulated enough, and making it easier to understand each other.
These reference landscapes should also be covered by a long-term research making it
possible to discuss landscape dynamics, as well as different theories and their
consequences.

Landscape laboratory as a concept

Landscape laboratories are a special reference landscape concept, which allow us ‘to go
beyond history’, and parallel, strengthen the linkages between past and future. The
landscape laboratories at the university campus of Alnarp and Snogeholm in Sweden and in
Holstebro in Denmark are in many ways very special reference landscapes. They have a
strong emphasis on experiments, on the possibilities to see many future alternatives side by
side in a very concentrated way and the possibilities they give us to go beyond history.

4.3.4.4 Towards a landscape ecology aesthetic

Searching to improve management planning, one important challenge should be to integrate
aesthetic, and landscape ecology aesthetic as well as social-recreational aspects better in the
management planning. When trying to do so, it should be discussed how, and there should
be an increasing research in the field as a base. If not reflected upon it is easy to think that
ecology belongs to a quite another world compared to aesthetics. But isn’t it more true that
ecology as a science can be related to aesthetics just as easy as to natural history or flora
and fauna conservation. It is just a question of traditions that we have not done so. In a
similar way it can be assumed that history as a science can be related to aesthetics equally
as to flora and fauna conservation. In both cases there are relationships but of course also
parts that do not relate. Various examples of landscape-directed concepts in which the
aesthetic dimensions should be regarded as important six different aspects can be
mentioned, including those of wilderness as an ethical-natural but also cultural concept;
images of history; networks (from top to bottom); special places and exceptions;
characteristics of individual stands and meetings between stands (e.g. Gustavsson, 1995;
Gustavsson and Fransson, 1991; Ode 2000).

25
Widening the meaning of aesthetics - aesthetics as the ultimate expression of ethics, care,
exploitation and beauty
Designers and professionals dealing with aesthetics represent two of the most important
traditions to be awarded more space in the practical ‘world of landscape and landscape
management’, in practice as well as the academics and the research world. In this way the
linking of aesthetics to forest practices and planning occur in a pluralistic, forward-looking
and creative way. An important part of recreation and multifunctional research during the
last decades have focused on the people and their perceptions and preferences. The
downside has been that these are very object and process-oriented and are thereby stand in
natural and social science traditions. They give an overview of how people react on visual
qualities, but they tell us rather little about the ethics, deeper aesthetics, the links to
intentions and actions, or of important special landscape contexts, based on a place and
intention concept rather than on a object and process concept. Instead of keeping aesthetics
outside or regard them as minor aspects by involving just visual qualities and questions of
beauty, an alternative is to choose a view in which the meaning of aesthetics is widened.
One then chooses to see it as the final and always changing physical and mental result of
our ethics. It then will include aspects such as well-being, exploitation, care, long term
awareness, beauty, identity, symbolic meanings, links between history, and what we give
birth to (e.g. Collingwood, 1958; Croce, 1969; Ramirez, 1995). However, a problem of
today is that aesthetic is very much seen as a knowledge field ‘just belonging’ to the fine
arts, and the urban culture, with no or very marginal connections with knowledge fields like
plant ecology or forest economy. In this ‘narrow’ view it can as such be developed
exclusively by artists referring to the free arts, or be developed by environmental
psychologists. It could, however, as suggested here, also mean the much wider
development with strong links to landscape, ecology, to important functions in the
landscape, to environmental new challenges as well as old cultural traditions.

4.3.4.5 Time perspectives - the use of historical or dynamic landscape perspectives

Probably we should be worried about the different and uncoordinated time-perspectives that
exist in a planning process or if we try to coordinate different planning attempts with
different perspectives of time-scales for the same landscape area. There are two dominating
views: one concentrating of today and the short term perspective and one concerned about
yesterday. These want to be treated separately from each other and are both basically static.
Very little is thought about tomorrow (the pro-perspective view). Very few, also including
researchers, want to integrate all three; i.e. yesterday, today and tomorrow, creating a
dynamic view of landscape.

The place concept and the contextual concept

At least in Sweden few people think about a forest as a forest plantation. Rather a forest is a
forest landscape that includes forest stands as well as exceptions, i.e. parts that are not
stands or even tree-dominated. However despite the obvious meaning the word ‘forest’ has
for most people, forest management planning is very much stand- and object-oriented,
focusing on parts of a local area rather than the area as a whole, and seldom giving focus or
support for the ‘exceptions’ that makes it a ‘real forest’. The same could be said in relation
to an agricultural landscape. To think about spatial patterns in this connection is rare but
important giving a feeling for the whole forest as a place. Also, at another ‘human level’,
this means identifying and respecting small places within the forest, creating the wished

26
atmosphere, taking necessary notion and care of the walls and the entrances as well as for
the inner ‘rooms’.

Management design concepts

In analytic traditions the specialist is analysing existing values in a retroperspective view.
There are existing rules and the values are already there, in a top-down concept with little
trust in the local people or experts as actors on the local level. To be creative in this view is
something that is said to be subjective and should be avoided. If we focus on the design
tradition, however subjectivity is only possible in its strict sense for persons who are very
sick and introverte, and objectivity is not worth trying as it excludes personal engagement,
which is the most important skill we have. Three kinds of a landscape design planning that
should be considered as central to management planning and implementation are identified
here; three kinds that all very much are ’in the air’ and used in practice:
- Object-oriented design. A design approach that has dominated among architects and
landscape architects. Might at the same time lead to a too long distance between
discussing forms, aesthetics, on one side and landscape, functions, and human
intentions on the other side, depending on how you take it through. It might also lead to
a too abstract view of landscape as an ecological-morphological system.
- Landscape ecology oriented design. Stressing existing habitats, networks of habitats,
and landscape processes. Landscape philosophers like the danish Finn Arler (2000) has
written that he would mot move a metre from landscape ecology motives.
- Communicative, intention lead and action directed design. This stresses the importance
to let the people be actively involved, where values are discussed and formulated (in
being) rather than been taken for granted. It also stresses the context (place and time). In
this approach every situation unique, generality grows from the bottom rather than from
an abstract form thinking. The personal and the shared references and visions are
central as working tools in the concept (Ramirez 1995, Iversen Nassauer 1995 and
1997).

4.3.4.6 Redirect planning and design to function as primary communicative tools

Finally, some words on design and planning as communicative tools in the management
process, touching upon traditions common in Sweden until the end of the 1950s. These
traditions need rediscovering because they allow for effective possibilities to communicate
and create a much more active relationship for many more stakeholders and not only a few
specialists. It is interesting to gain more experience as to concerns what information will be
easy and what will be difficult to share. In this joint effort to improve our tools in an
integration of design, planning, management, and communication three types of tools might
be most relevant to assist the process and improve the situation of today, i.e. (1) computer-
based visualisation methods; (2) landscape laboratories and reference landscapes; and (3)
public participation methods.

5. Prerequisites for Planning, Design and Management: Sound

Information for Decision Making and Social Inclusiveness
5.1 Information for decision making
By Liisa Tyrväinen & Kirsi-Maria Mäkinen - Faculty of Forestry, University of Helsinki

27
5.1.1 Information incorporated into decision making - introduction
In urban forestry decision-making many kind of facts, objectives and problems have to be
identified from a vast amount of existing environmental and societal data. When
constructing the scheme for information for decision-making in urban forestry crucial
information and models of decision-making have to be acknowledged. In addition we have
to know who are the decision-makers and what kind of information they need.

Information can be defined in various ways. Information is connected to the concept of

knowledge. Data consists of signs (Greek semeion) that we sense and perceive. Data
becomes information when it gets some kind of form (registration with instrument or in
sensorial way). In becoming information data gets a certain meaning. Information dealing
with concepts face ontological questions that can be solved through approaches of realism,
nominalism or conceptualism. (Niiniluoto, 1996)

Definitions:
Information: forma (form), informare (to formulate, to form), information (s-g that is
formulated) (Niiniluoto, 1996).

Information: 1) The act of informing or communicating knowledge or intelligence. 2)

News, advice or knowledge, communicated by others or obtained by personal study and
investigation; intelligence; knowledge derived from reading, observation or instruction.
(Webster’ Dictionary, 1913; Hypertext Webster Gateway)

Information types:
1) Physical: organisation of material system, organisation level, complexity, entropy
2) Lingual: syntactic (coding process), semantic (message, information contents) or
pragmatic (meaning, value of information) (Niiniluoto, 1996)

A decision-making process is often linked to participatory planning situation. The questions

of information need to be assessed from many aspects: different needs and sources of
information, use and modification of information as well as communicational procedures.
Professional and public information and data usually exist and is available in the beginning
of the planning process, but information is also created and formed during the planning
process.

Rational decision making implies that:

1) the problem is identified
2) goals and priorities are specified,
3) alternative means are evaluated,
4) decision criteria are adopted, and
5) a decision which maximises the attainment of the goals is made (Kweit and Kweit,
1987; Kangas et al., 1996.).

Management, design and (participatory) planning processes have their own special needs
for information, but they also produce and modify it during the processes based on their
specific traditions and knowledge. Furthermore, decision-makers have to be aware of
current regulations and policies of environmental planning. The successful process of
decision making includes criteria like 1) accessibility (openness of the process), 2) fairness,

28
3) understandability (accuracy, quality of information), and 4) empowerment (perception of
the impact each party has on the decision (Young et al., 1993 ref. Kangas et al., 1996)

5.1.2 Information needs in urban woodland planning and design

Due to the theory of information the knowledge of information has been categorised
according to four main categories dealing with existing information types (fields of
information), their properties and ways that information can be transmitted and received.

- Information types: Division of information according to scientific disciplines and

study objects
- Quality of data/information: Description of important properties of information
- Communication and collaboration aspects: Transmission and transcription of
information
- System structure and technology aspects: Instruments for collecting and modifying
information

5.1.2.1 Grouping of ‘information types’

The first category ‘Information types’ was so complicated to construct that we want to
explain our choices. Information can be sorted due to the object of information or due to the
scientific discipline. In multidisciplinary approach the division of information may be
adapted on several basis. An exceptional division should be explained and be consistent and
informative to the approach.

The division in our table format consists of human information and environmental
information. It is due to the facts that in urban environment planning we need information
on the inhabitants (e. g. values, preferences) and on the environment. The quality of
information differs significantly between human and environmental information because of
differences in paradigms and research approaches and methods.

In forestry planning the ecological information is commonly emphasised. When adapting

forestry planning to urban environmental planning the ecological information plays a
smaller part in a vast front of all information types.

In the current division the environmental information consist of environmental

characteristics: ecological and technical/engineering information (land and nature as a
resource). It was problematic to define if this category should also contain other kind of
environmental information: historical (cultural) elements/signs/places and also aesthetic
properties.

The division for human information was also difficult to construct because the selected
aspects differ, complete and cross each other. The Psychological approach covers the
information of values, attitudes, emotions and preferences, which influence to many other
categories. When identifying a Political, procedural and communicational approach we
wanted to emphasize their meaning in social-inclusive planning process. A heterogenous
category of Artistic, architectural, cultural and traditional approach is important
describing the cultural context of decision making. This category derives its meanings from
psychological and socio-economical approaches. Questions: Is cultural context adequately

29
represented in the latter category? Are the norms and traditions properly placed to latter
category or should they be in procedural category?

The socio-economic approach has a background in uses and utility. The object of
information focuses to the use and benefits of urban forests and green areas. The theories
and methods of socio-economic approach are often significantly different compared to
other approaches of human information.

The aesthetic approach was traditionally difficult and it is currently placed to human
information defining the characteristics of aesthetic attitudes and experiences, ones that
could also include to psychological or philosophical information. According to Sepänmaa
(1987) the target of aesthetic study/observation can be 1) planner/designer, 2)
observer/receiver or 3) object (e. g. landscape). On this basis category ‘Aesthetic’ could be
placed in environmental information as well as in human information.

5.1.2.2 Human information/Environmental information – Popper’s ontological approach

Because of the different paradigms natural sciences and social sciences are difficult to
combine. Karl Popper’s ontological idea of reality may be useful to understand these
problems. He separates three types of realities: 1) one with physical objects, processes,
matter and energy, 2) one with conscious processes, and 3) social and cultural products and
constructions. It depends on ontological point of views (materialism, idealism) if these
realities exist.

According to this division information (of realities) could be divided to three categories:
1) physical objects, processes, matter and energy
2) mental, sensorial, emotional, conscious and cognitive processes
3) cultural elements and processes: artefacts, theories, abstractions, concepts, culture,
society

5.1.3 Indicators for key information

Because of the information flood the use of indicators is a suitable way to concentrate to
most important issues. Indicators are usable if they, first of all, exist. In urban planning the
information front covers ecological as well as human information. Ecological indicators are
usually derived from ecological research and theories with an urban emphasis. Social,
cultural or aesthetic indicators have been more vague until recent years and learning their
indications in decision-making is in progress. The indicators of forest uses have been
developed based on visitor studies. Visual assessment results can be seen as a sort of
aesthetic indicator. The indicators that express other (psychological, cultural or cognitive)
meanings of urban forests are still undeveloped though the issues are studied from many
approaches

Socially-inclusive planning processes in urban forestry should develop appropriate

indicators. Indicators are useful because of their simplifying characteristics and compressed
information. The use of indicators is still limited because of the lack of indicators. When
indicators are developed they have to be introduced as tools in the decision-making. The
quality and reliability of indicator must be paid attention in the development process. In
planning process a selection of indicators is affected by value judgements.

30
Regulations and legislation are solid background information for decision-making.
Functional and economical aspects (socio-economic sustainability, cost-benefit analyses,
demand & supply of green areas) are hard and inevitable data in a process, though the tools
to measure the importance of non-monetary values of green environment are still
incomplete. Decision-making can be emphasised, for example by ecological or societal
orientations, and a current management may not be flexible to these aspects, yet. Below a
scheme of decision-maker’s need for information in urban forestry planning is presented.
Objects of information are grouped to regulations and policies, social aspects, demands and
values, and environmental factors (Figure 2).

A meaning of ecological indicators is significant to mediate the environmental quality of

urban woodlands. These indicators should inform about the changes of environment, such
as the loss of natural habitats by construction processes, changes in species distribution, and
what kind of urban nature types exist and what are their effects as habitats.

Examples of ecological indicators:

- amount of woodlands (type of woodland: forest, park, tree alley), natural, constructed)
- quality of woodlands (naturalness, degree of landscaping, vitality, diversity,
connectivity, ecological hot spots)
- species and (bio)indicator species, endangered species

REGULATIONS USES AND

AND POLICIES BENEFITS

URBAN FOREST
LEGISLATION POLICIES SOCIO-ECONOMIC
Land Use and SUSTAINABILITY
Environmental Laws Costs and benefits
and Soft Laws of urban use

GUIDELINES FOR RECREATION

URBAN FOREST Demand and Use
MANAGEMENT
Forestry and
Horticulture
DECISION MAKER CITY PLANNING
Administrators, Public Demand for alternative
land uses and
ENVIRONMENTAL democratic participation
BENEFITS
Pollution, noise,
shade control AESTHETIC VALUES
Public attitudes and preferences

ECOLOGICAL
ASPECTS HEALTH BENEFITS CULTURAL AND
Physical and Mental HISTORICAL
Health VALUES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS VALUES

Figure 2: Description of a decision making situation in urban woodland planning and

design

31
On the ‘human side’ information about demand and supply of different types of woodlands
is important. The indicators should also express the preferences of different nature types.
As a socially-inclusive objective there should also be a note if managers and citizens have
had public meetings and discussions of urban woodland values, uses and prospects. For
example an indicator of public education and information could inform about educational
targets of urban woodland management.

5.2 Social inclusiveness

By Ann Van Herzele - Human Ecology Department, Free University of Brussels

5.2.1 Defining social inclusiveness

In the Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1985) ‘inclusive’ is defined: “including or taking
into account”. In a social sciences definition the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993)
relates ‘social’ to the mutual relationships of human beings and the functions and structures
necessary to membership of a group or society. The combination ‘social inclusiveness’ is a
neologism, which has been created as a policy concept expressing the willingness to
recognise and acknowledge the distinct and diverse needs and abilities of people. In spite of
the criticism of the vagueness and elasticity of the concept, since the 80s a growing but
diverse use of the concept of ‘inclusiveness’ can be observed in all sorts of policy
documents and negotiations. In parallel with the success story of the inclusiveness concept
in the policy domain, in methodology development practices concepts have been launched
such as integral approach, tailor-made social services, case-management etc. According to
Geldof (1998) a great deal of these developments can be brought together as
‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’. However, what precisely does the concept of ‘social
inclusiveness’ imply, and what does this mean in urban settings and more in particular for
urban woodland planning, design and management?

The idea of social inclusiveness can be understood by reflecting on descriptions of the

social component of the sustainable development concept. According to Polèse and Stren
(2000) “socially sustainable cities must be managed in a fashion that is compatible with the
harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conductive to the
compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups while at the same time
encouraging social integration”. They argue that inclusive cities (or socially sustainable
cities) are cities in which “all citizens are incorporated in decisions and policies”.

An interesting basis for any attempt towards sustainable development are the principles of
sustainable development - to be used as assessment criteria - developed by Gardner (1988,
in: Devuyst, 2001) and also later on in an expert meeting organised in 1996 by the
International Institute for Sustainable Development in Bellagio, Switzerland. The latter has
resulted in the Bellagio Principles for Assessment Toward Sustainable Development (Hardi
and Zdan, 1997). Starting from these frames for urban woodland planning, design and
management, a dual commitment could be proposed:

1. Maximising the social benefits of urban woodlands based on convergence of human

interests (accessibility and qualities of goods and services, culturally-appropriate
development and fulfilment, self-reliance etc.), considering equity and disparity within
the current population and between present and future generations.

32
2. Ensuring effective communication with and broad participation of the public. Increased
dialogue with the public opens up perspectives to ensure recognition of diverse and
changing values and expectations and hence how costs and benefits may be equally
shared. However, both strategies require particular attention.

The importance of maximising and sharing the social benefits can be related to the Healthy
Cities project, launched in 1986 by the World Health Organization of the United Nations
(WHO). The basic assumption is that future improvements in health will not be due
principally to medical interventions, but will arise from improving the environment and
promoting lifestyles conductive to health (Davies and Kelly, 1993). Such interpretation is in
line with the broad range of health-related benefits (physical, psychological, emotional etc.)
provided to people by urban woodlands. More generally, outdoor recreation opportunities
have been proved to be an important predictor of community satisfaction and quality of life
(Van Herzele, 2000) However, the question is who is receiving these benefits and where?
In this context the concept of ‘environmental justice’ can be considered. According to
Tarrant and Cordell (1999) this thought can be interpreted in an inclusive way: “All
citizens, regardless of race, income, geography or education, have a right to access quality
natural resources where they live”. On the other hand, socio-economic studies point to the
fact that within cities the choice of places to live are highly determined by market
mechanisms and income levels. Whilst economic changes were improving prosperity for
many, they were threatening the quality of life of others in certain areas. Migrant and ethnic
minority populations often suffer particularly from social and civic disadvantages (Chanan,
1992). Moreover, often these people have been capitulated from rural life into an advanced
industrial society. Different studies (e.g. Martens and Vervaeke, 1997) analysed the
emerging patterns of rising social polarisation and spatial segregation between privileged
people and, those who we now call the socially excluded. This phenomenon is in particular
observed in large cities which play a determining role in the organisation of the world
economy, but deprived neighbourhoods also occur in middle and small sized cities. On the
other hand economic valuation studies do suggest that close proximity to open space and
natural resources increases property and housing values (e.g. Fennema, 1995; Tyrväinen
and Miettinen, 2000) and consequently recreation sites may actually be regarded as locally
desirable land uses (LDLUs). However, there is also evidence that such areas for some
local residents living in close proximity to recreational forests can be considered as LULUs
(locally unwanted land use) if visitor behaviour produces undesirable impacts (Tarrent and
Cordell, 1999). Thus, it is a challenging task for urban woodland planning, design and
management to ensure that decisions regarding the use and allocation of urban woodlands
do not unfairly benefit one group over another and open up opportunity for diversity. It
even can be argued that if social inclusiveness is to be achieved, then it must engage and
empower those who suffer the greatest environmental and social incivilities.

A second point of attention concerns the construction of a public realm within which we
can debate and manage a diversity of concerns in an as inclusive way as possible. The
effective integration of diverse social groups into the political and policy framework is
increasingly seen as essential if cities are to be sustainable over time. There is an increasing
emphasis on the role and contribution of local citizen action. There is a growing interest
among citizens to have a voice in the shaping of their local environment and on the other
hand authorities and planners recognise that unless all stakeholders are acknowledged in the
process, their plans will be challenged, undermined and ignored. Moreover, planners
increasingly tend to rely not only on traditional science for managing ecosystems, but also

33
on civic science. By working together and achieving things together, sense of community
and social integration may increase. In a comprehensive European study on local
community work Chanan (1992) concluded: “Turning the receiver into the giver-and-
receiver, is perhaps, paradoxically, the greatest benefit that can be conferred, in that it
gives the person a greater sense of reciprocity, hence of inclusion and autonomy”.

There is a general agreement that social inclusiveness offers an important dimension to

contemporary planning issues. However, it is more difficult to think of how inclusive
planning need to be and of ways in which it is likely to be implemented. The vague concept
has little precision and has often even less operational value due to its imprecision. In a
critical reflection concerning social welfare work Geldof (1998) points to the problem that
in a decentralised and fragmented policy, on a local level the problems resulting from a
failing central policy have to be solved. He argues that making social corrections on
exclusive market mechanisms should provide to the inclusiveness concept a potential
strategic meaning. This means that planning efforts should not only even out inequalities
and reducing disadvantage. Moreover, concerns with inequality should emphasise on
oppression, domination and exclusion, and the multiple systems of power which produce
these phenomena (Young, 1990). In practice however, the concept of inclusiveness is often
narrowed to methods, for example concerning the provision of services or public
participation in specific projects. Notredame (1998) discusses the effects of continuous
confusion of concepts and wonders if the concept of inclusiveness also could be given a
socialising and politicising interpretation. Then, inclusiveness should be able to alert to
exclusive effects of, for example, all over pervading market mechanisms and strive to make
improvements to the structural (socio-political) contexts that encourage inclusiveness. This
argues for the use of the concept on a higher policy level by setting out processes or
mechanisms by which social exclusion on a local level can be decreased.

Developing understanding of what it means to build inclusionary, collaborative processes is

a major challenge facing all those involved in urban region governance at the present time
(Healey, 1997). One of the key emphases is the recognition of the social context within
which individuals form interests; individuals thus do not arrive at their ‘preferences’
independently, but learn about their views in social contexts and through interaction.
According to Healey (1997) collaborative approaches allow people for collectively learning
about the planning issues, the particular historical and current circumstances, each other
and what they can do.

Urban woodlands are strongly linked and mixed with different dimensions of issues
(environment, quality of life, etc.) as these interrelate in places and link to a very wide
range of people with potentially very diverse stakes in place. Planning, design and
management are social processes through which ways of thinking and way of valuing are
interactively constructed by the participants of the process. In consequence this link making
and more in particular the organisation of the social interaction has to be undertaken in
ways that deal with complexity and with changes in valuing things.

Regarding social inclusiveness equity in participation is a key issue of concern. In an urban

setting this typically involves intersecting with multiple lifeworlds and multiple cultural
communities. It has to be ensured that everyone with a stake in the locality has equal
opportunity for involvement. In practice often the problem emerges that some people are
privileged over others. Different authors (e.g. Buckingham-Hatfield, 2001) point that in

34
reality public participation tends to be captured by the more educated and practised resident
living in more prosperous niches of the urban environment.

Besides distributional issues of who gets to participate in discussion much attention has to
be paid to forms of organising, to the way issues are discussed as well as to the substantive
issues in question. For example it has to be ensured that languages and practices are non-
discriminatory and allow for diversity. If stakeholders come from different cultural
communities, however, building consensus in inclusionary ways will be socially and
politically demanding, requiring careful attention to the communicative practices through
which trust and understanding can develop (Healey, 1997).

5.2.2 Social inclusiveness and NeighbourWoods

Through developing such practices in the field of urban woodlands with its complexity of
issues involved and the range of potential people with a stake in them, the
NeighbourWoods project can make general contribution to the practice of reaching social
inclusiveness.

In conclusion, in order to make the social inclusiveness concept operational, attention

should be simultaneously focused on both levels: the strategic level which refers to the
socio-political context and the project level which refers to the implementation in urban
woodland practice. Within those levels the two aspects substance and organisation should
be considered. In policy analysis, Arts et al. (2000) relate ‘substance’ to discourses:
principles, concepts, ideas, views, objectives, measures etc. and ‘organisation’ to agents,
rules and resources: departments, instruments, procedures, division of tasks and
competence etc. Both aspects should be seen as interrelated and a time-space notion should
be part of the approach. The conceptual frame is presented in Table 1 and needs to be
elaborated on in order to capture all the key issues of social inclusiveness in the context of
urban woodland planning, design and management.

LEVEL Strategic Project

ASPECT Substance Organisation Substance Organisation
ISSUE Optimal access Land use Maximal benefits Information
Equal access Market mechanisms Compatible with Communication
Social carrying Social development diverse needs and Participation of all
capacity (integration, preferences those with ‘a stake’
Sense of community empowerment) Cultural fulfilment Shared control
Building collaborative Inclusive language
processes Mutually learning
Sense of ownership
Table 1: Key issues for making the social inclusiveness concept operational in urban
woodland planning, design and management

6. Conclusion: Key Definitions within NeighbourWoods

By Cecil Konijnendijk - Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute

In this Theoretical Framework, which should be seen as an addition to the Project Proposal,
the key concepts to be used within NeighbourWoods as well as the relationships between
them have been discussed. The definitions and the theoretical background to them will

35
guide all future research & development activities within the project. The Theoretical
Framework is not static, however, and will be modified and strengthened throughout the
project as one of the scientific results of the study.

The object of study, NeighbourWoods, should be seen within the context of changing
human-nature/environment relationships (see Chapter 1). NeighbourWoods as woods and
woodlands in and near urban areas can be seen as being at the forefront of these changing
relationships. NeighbourWoods are defined (see Chapter 2) as wooded areas at urban
people’s doorsteps, representing nature and natural processes nearby. They are part of the
living and working environment of urban dwellers. This leads to the strong social and
community component embedded in the term: these are woods that ideally are very much
part of the local community. They are planned, designed and managed for and by local
people for their own benefit. NeighbourWoods, finally, extend beyond the traditional
concept of forests by including woods and woodlands of various sizes in and near urban
areas. They are places where trees determine or are significant aspects of the visual, social,
cultural and ecological character of the townscape.

This brings us to the development objective of the study, i.e. to advance the quality of life
and environment of urban areas by means of NeighbourWoods. As described in Chapter 3,
‘quality of life’ refers to the conditions describing the way or manner of living, while
‘quality of environment’ relates to conditions describing condition, by which living forms
(human beings) are influenced’. These two concepts are closely related. Within the context
of this study, both terms are used in a more subjective and normative way, i.e. as referring
to ‘good’ and ‘bad’ quality of life and environments. NeighbourWoods can assist when
striving for higher life and environment qualities in urban areas by providing a wide range
of material and non-material benefits, or goods and services. Benefits relate to both the
physical and psychological aspects of the quality of life.

What activities should be undertaken to advance the quality of urban life and environment
by means of NeighbourWoods? Establishing a resource of sustainable and multifunctional
NeighbourWoods in Europe will require the development of appropriate planning, design
and management. At the time, as discussed in Chapter 4, the concepts and tools used in
planning, design and management call for adaptation. Thus, within NeighbourWoods,
planning refers to strategic decision making and an allocation of resources following set
policies and objectives, e.g. for establishing NeighbourWoods. Planning can take at
different hierarchical levels. It can be both of formal and informal nature. Design is more
than a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function of workings of e.g. a forest.
It should be conceived as a socially-inclusive language, which is able to transcend national
and cultural boundaries, whilst remaining inclusive of local dialects. It is about the creation
of ‘places’ that are conducive of human fulfilment by creating a close association between
physical elements and human experiences, and could be designed as integrations of spatial,
experiential, economic and technological dimensions. Management as well as management
planning are active processes dealing with care-taking and a development in order to fulfil
human preferences of places, local landscapes, trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, water, paths,
and other facilities. By management one stresses the wish to work with changes and
potential in a conscious way. It embodies a value-laden dialogue between people and the
landscape, as well as between past, present and future, aiming to establish a balance
between ‘values in being’ and ‘existing values’. Management and management planning
have three important parts: the intentional, the technocratic and the communicative.

36
Developing better tools for the planning, design and management of NeighbourWoods can
be seen as the immediate objectives of this project.

The development of tools for planning, design and management should be done while
keeping several prerequisites or framework condition in mind (see Chapter 5). Important is
that all activities to achieve a sound, sustainable and multifunctional NeighbourWoods-
resource should be based upon comprehensive information and well as models for decision
making. While developing decision-support systems, a division could be made into the
components information types, quality of data/information, communication & collaboration
aspects, and system structure and technology aspects. Key information to be included can
be grouped and presented by means of indicators. Finally, the very concept of
NeighbourWoods places people and local communities first. Therefore all planning, design
and management activities should be socially-inclusive, i.e. they should involve and cater
for (primarily local) people and their distinct and diverse needs and abilities. The social-
inclusiveness concept should be made operational at both the strategic and project level,
focusing on substance as well as organisation.

References
American Society of Landscape Architects, 1981. ASLA Constitution, Members Handbook, p.346.
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. John Wiley, London.
Arler, F. 2000. Aspects of Landscape or Nature Quality. Landscape Ecology 15: 291-302.
Benedikz, T. and Skarphéðinsdóttir, R. 1999. Iceland. In: Forrest, M., Konijnendijk, C.C. and
Randrup, T.B. (eds.), 1999. COST Action E12 - Research and development in urban forestry in
Europe. European Commission, Luxembourg, pp. 166-173.
Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., and Smith, G. 1985 Responsive Environments: A
Manual for Designers. Architectural Press. London.
Bonnes, M. (ed.) 1991. Urban Ecology applied to the city of Rome, UNESCO MAB Project n. 11,
Progress report n. 4. MAB Italia, Roma.
Bonnes, M. (ed.) 1993. Perceptions and evaluations of the urban environment quality: a
pluridisciplinary approach in the European context, MAB-Italia, Enel, Roma.
Bonnes, M. (ed.). 1987. Urban Ecology applied to the city of Rome, UNESCO Programme on Man
and Biosphere, Project n. 11, Progress report n. 3. Istituto di Psicologia del CNR, Roma.
Booth, N. 1993. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design. Preface. Elsevier Science
Publishing Co inc., New York.
Buckingham-Hatfield 2001. In: Devuyst D., Hens L. and Impens R. (eds.). Neighbourhoods in
Crisis and Sustainable Urban Development. Proceedings of a seminar held on 29 October
1999 in Brussels, Belgium. VUB University Press, Brussels
Canter, D, 1977. The Psychology of Place. Architectural Press, London.
Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., and Stone, A. 1992. Public Space. University of Cambridge Press.
Cambridge.
Chanan G. 1992. Out of the Shadows. Local community action and the European Community.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Church, R.L., Murray, A.T. and Barber, K.H. 2000. Forest planning at tactical level. Annals of
operation research, pp. 19-40.
Ciancio, O. and Nocentini, S. 1997. The Forest and man: the evolution of forestry thought from
modern humanism to the culture of complexity. Systemic silviculture and management on
natural bases. In Ciancio, O (ed.). The Forest and Man. Firenze, pp. 21-114
Collingwood, R.G. 1958. The principles of art. Oxford University Press.
Croce, B. 1969. Estetikk som vetenskap om uttrycket. Oversatt fra italiensk av Domenico Aiello.
Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag. Oslo.

37
Davies, J.K. and Kelly, M.P. 1993. Healthy Cities. Research and Practice. Routledge, London.
De Wulf, R., 1999. Bosbeheersplanning (Forest Management Planning). Lecture Notes. Laboratory
for Forest Management and Spatial Information Techniques, Faculty of Agricultural and
Applied Biological Sciences. Ghent University. (In Dutch).
Devuyst, D. 2001. Introduction to sustainability assessment at the local level. In: Devuyst, D., Hens,
L. and De Lannoy (eds.). How Green is the City ? Sustainability Assessment and the
Management of Urban Environments. Columbia University Press, New York.
Fennema 1995. Wonen in het groen; de invloed van “groen” op de prijs van een woning.
Wageningen.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics - The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Forrest M., Konijnendijk C.C., Randrup T.B. 1999. Research and Development in Urban Forestry
in Europe – Report of COST-Action E12 “Urban Forests and Trees” on the State of the Art of
Urban Forestry Research and Development in Europe; European Communities; Luxembourg,
pp. 21-37
Frick D. (ed.) 1986.The Quality of Urban Life – Social Psychological and Physical Conditions –
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York,
Geldof, D. 1998. Het moeizame streven naar een inclusief beleid. Alert 24(4): 18-30.
Glargaard Bahrenscheer, M. et. al. 1999. Sustainable Landscape Management in Southern
Scandinavia.
Grumbine, R.E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1).
Gustavsson, R. 1986. Struktur i lövskogslandskap. Stad & Land, nr 48. Institutionen för
landskapsplanering Alnarp.
Gustavsson, R. 1995. A structural approach to woodland plantations - steps towards a new
approach when restoring or creating new urban and rural landscapes. In: The IALE
Conference 1995 in Reading, England.
Gustavsson, R. 1999a. Local distinctiveness and landscape character. In: Usher, M. (ed.).
Landscape character. Perspectives on management and change. The stationery office,
Scottish Natural Heritage. Edinburgh, pp. 41-57.
Gustavsson, R. 1999b. Landscape management and planning concepts - Reflections on the ongoing
process, the scientific support, dominating aspects and represented competencies. In:
Gustavsson, R. & Ode, Å. (eds.). Sustainable landscape management in southern
Scandinavia. Rapport 99:1. Department of Landscape Planning Alnarp, SLU, pp. 111-127.
Gustavsson, R. forthcoming. Afforestation in and near Urban Areas. Dynamic Design Principles
and Long-Term Management Aspects. Landscape Laboratories as Reference and
Demonstration Areas for Urban and Urban-Rural Afforestation. E12. Reykjavik, Iceland.
2000-09-17, Conference Paper.
Gustavsson, R. and Fransson, L. 1991. Furulund fure. Stad & Land nr. 96. Alnarp.
Gustavsson, R. and Ingelög, T., 1994. Det nya landskapet. Kunskaper och idéer om naturvård,
skogsodling och planering i kulturbygd. Skogsstyrelsens förlag, Jönköping.
Hardi P. and Zdan T., 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development. Principles in Practice.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg.
Harrison, R.P., 1992. Forests. Flammarion.
Harvey, D. 1985. Consciousness and the urban experience. Oxford
Healey P. 1997. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Macmillan
Distribution Ltd. England.
Helms, J. (ed.), 1998. Dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters, Bethesda.
Hidding M.C. et al., 1991. Inleiding planologie. Vakgroep Ruimtelijke Planvorming, Sectie
Planologie, Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen.
Howlett, C. 1998. Ecological values in 20th century landscape design: history and hermeneutics.
Landscape Journal, special issue: 80-98.
Iversen Nassauer, J. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10(4):
229-237.

38
Iversen Nassauer, J. (ed.) 1997. Placing Nature. Culture and Landscape Ecology. Island Press,
Washington D.C.

Johnston, D.R., Grayson, A.J. and Bradley, R.T. 1967. Forest planning. Faber and Faber Limited,
London.
Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., Pukkala, T. and Pykäläinen, J. 1996. A participatory approach to tactical
forest planning. Acta Forestalia Fennica 251. The Finnish Society of Forest Science- The
Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Kennedy; J.J. and Koch, N.E. forthcoming. The challenges of changing urban-rural relations for
forest and nature management in the Western world. Conference paperin the conference ‘The
changing role of forestry in Europe, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 11-14 November 2001.
Koh, J., 1982. Ecological Design: A Post-Modern Paradigm of Holistic Philosophy and
Evolutionary Ethic. Landscape Journal 1: 76-84.
Konijnendijk, C. and A. Vlasman 1993. Van Stadsbos naar Bosstad: ontwikkeling van Nederlandse
stadsbossen (From City Forest to Forest City: development of Dutch urban forests).
Unpublished M.Sc.-thesis. Department of Forestry, Agricultural University, Wageningen.
Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban forestry in Europe – A comparative study of concepts, policies
and planning for forest conservation, management and development in and around major
European cities. University of Joensu, Faculty of Forestry.
Kostof, S., 1991. The city shaped: urban patterns and meanings through history. Thames & Hudson,
London.
Kweit, M. G., and Kweit, R. W. 1987. Citizen participation: Enduring issues for the next century.
National Civic Review 76: 191-198.
Lee, R.G. 1984. Implications of contemporary community organization and social values for forest
management on the residential/wild land interface. In: Bradley (ed.). Land use and forest
resources in a changing environment: the urban / forest interface. University of Washington
Press, Seattle/London, pp. 119-132.
Littlemore, J. 1999. Resolving conflicts between recreation and conservation in Britain´s urban
woodlands - a management guide. Quartely Journal of Forestry: 129-136.
Lok, M. and H. Mars 1989. De relatie tussen bosbouw en verstedelijking: het begrip urbane
bosbouw als conceptueel kader. Departments of Forestry and Physical Planning, Agricultural
University, Wageningen.
Luz, F., 2000. Participatory landscape ecology - A basis for acceptance and implementation.
Landscape and Urban planning 50: 157-166.
Lyle, J., 1985. The Alternating Current of Design Process. Landscape Journal 4: 7-13.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Marsh, W.M. 1991. Landscape Planning. Environmental Applications. Second Edition. New York,
John Wiley & Sons.
Martens A. and Vervaeke (eds.) 1997. La polarisation Sociale des Villes Européennes. Anthropos,
Collection Villes, Paris.
McHarg, I. 1971. Design with Nature, Doubleday for the American Museum of Natural History,
Garden City, New York.
Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspaces. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey.
Ministerial Conference on the protection of forests in Europe, 16-17 June 1993 in Helsinki:
Documents. 1993. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Helsingfors.
Morrow. 1987. A dictionary of landscape architecture. Univ. Of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,
pp. 197.
Ndubishi, F. 1997. Landscape ecological planning. In: George, F. (ed.) Ecological design and
planning.
Notredame L. 1998. Van inclusiviteit tot salamitactiek. Alert 24(4): 31-41.

39
Ode, Å. 2000. Skötselintentioner i plan och genomförande. Rapport 00:3. Institutionen för
landskapsplanering Alnarp.
Ong, J. 1982. Orality and Literacy. Technologizing of the World. Methuen & Co Ltd.
Oxford English Reference Dictionary, 1996 (2nd Ed.), Oxford University Press, pp.386.
Polèse M. and Stren R. (eds.) 2000. The Social Sustainability of Cities. Diversity and the
Management of Change. University of Toronto Press.
Raintree, J.B. 1991. Socioeconomic attributes of trees and tree planting practices. ICRAF and FAO,
Rome.
Ramirez, J.L. 1995. Skapande mening - bidrag till en humanvetenskaplig handlings- och
planeringsteori. Nordiska Institut för Samhällsplanering. Avhandling 13:1. Stockholm
Sidaway, R. 1997. Outdoor recreation and conservation: conflicts and their resolution. In: Solberg,
B. & Miina, S. (eds.). Conflict managament and public participation in land management. EFI
Proceedings No. 4. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp. 289-301.
Steiner, F. 1991. The living landscape - an ecological approach to landscape planning. McGraw-
Hill.
Tarrant, M. and Cordell, K. 1999. Environmental Justice and the Spatial Distribution of Outdoor
Recreation sites. Journal of Leisure research 31(1): 18-34.
Thwaites, K., 2001. Experiential Landscape Place: an exploration of space and experience in
neighbourhood landscape architecture. Landscape Research 26(3): 245-255.
Toulmin, S. 1972. Human Understanding. The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Turner R.K. (ed.). 1993. Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management – Principles and
Practice, Belhaven Press, London, New York
Turner, T., 1996. City as landscape - a post-modern view of design and planning. E & FN Spon,
London.
Tyrväinen L. and Miettinen A. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 39: 205-223.
Urban Design Group 2000. Urban Design Source Book, pp 52.
Van Herzele, A. 2000. Public values and involvement in planning for urban nature - A vision on
current trends and future perspectives in Flanders. Paper presented at the ‘Workshop on the
Flemish Long-term vision (LTV) of nature conservation in urban and suburban areas’,
November 7, 2000.
Vygotsky, L. 1999. Thought and language. The MIT Press. Eleventh printing. The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Walpole, K. 1998. People before Beauty. The Guardian Newspaper, 14th January, p 4.
Whitney, G.G., 1994. From coastal wilderness to fruited plain. Cambridge university press,
Cambridge.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our common future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
Young I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.

Hyperlinks:
Web 1913: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913), accessed via internet:
http://www.goldendome.net/Tools/WebSter/, 2001-09-15
Word Net R1.6: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgibin/http_webster?quality+of+life&method=exact)
Landscape Planning Web, 2001. Http://www.landscapeplanning.gre.ac.uk/
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2001. www.britannica.com.
USDA Forest Service, 2001. People's glossary of ecosystem management terms,
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/emterms.html.
Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2001. www.britannica.com
IUFRO, 2001. SilvaTerm Database, http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/silvavoc/svdatabase.htm
Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 2001. Cambridge University Press Online
Dictionaries. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

40