Planning Cities with Ecosystem Services Biodiversity and Social Values of Urban Green Spaces
HENVI Workshop 2012: Ecosystem services in urban areas Theme: Ecology and Culture of Landscape Sustainability Supervisor: Maija Faehnle Work Group : Tuulia Lammi Aura Lamminparras Anu Miettinen Ladan Samooty Estelle Vitt 1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction....................................................................................................................3
II. Controlling invasive species: seeds in urban ecosystems ‌.................................4 III. Biodiversity and urban green spaces......................................................................11 IV. Social and recreational aspects of green spaces.................................................13 V. Discussion and recommendations..........................................................................20 Acknowledgments References
2
I. Introduction The concept of sustainability is affecting more and more in the field of city planning. With a successful planning process it is able to address the sustainability, but there are also many problems. For example urban green, the perspective of our essay, provides economic, ecological, social and cultural benefits, but problems come up, when trying to value these aspects. Are economic and ecologic benefits more important than social? How to take biodiversity and cultural sustainability into account in growing cities? The answer is not easy and more research is needed.
The aim of this work is to survey options for urban green areas and consider what needs to be taken into account when planning cities. One point is to understand the meaning of different ecosystem services to city planning. There is growing interest in ecosystem services in cities, but there is also a lack of information about these issues. This work has social and ecological point of views of our case examples. Case examples are in city of Helsinki. This work looks into the urban forests, green roofs and invasive seeds. Our example urban forest is Vartiosaari 3
which is urban island located near Helsinki. There is a threat that Vartosaari`s forests are planned and will be substituted by housing development projects.
II. Seeds in Urban Ecosystems The case of Vartiosaari Villilt채 vihre채lt채 saarelta is the name of a Finnish weblog, where, since 2010, the writers have been writing and telling the news and history of Vartiosaari. The bloggers, Geographer Marko Lepp채nen and Biologist Anu Adela Pajunen aim to increase the knowledge of and about Vartiosaari and its incredible biodiversity, it is a place where it is possible to find several different kinds of biotypes in a single square meter island, an island the distance of which to mainland, is 4
only 100 meters. Because of the different biotypes, forests and the topographical distances, the island seems to be bigger than it is in reality. Instead any cars or tarmac roads, you walk on old track paths. To the 1970's there has been active agriculture – at least in the summer on the island, and fresh milk has been sent to city in the mornings on the boat that brings both the newspapers and post to the island. Today at least 50 plots are cultivated and there are some more in the gardens of villas. (Elonkehä Magazine,2009).
Vartiosaari is already attached to nationwide significant cultural environmental group. (Government Decision 22.12.2009). However, Vartiosaari is as a planning area once again, one plan is to develop the island as a recreation area, and two other plans include luxurious blockhouses, roads, three bridges and other radical infrastructural changes. For example, it takes a bit energy to go to other urban forests in Helsinki region, such as Nuuksio, but for the majority of local people, this slight effort only adds to the charm and the special feeling of a wild urban-forest. Urban forest is not park, it is real forest in the city, accessible easily by public transport. Take first a metro, then a bus and then just hitchhike by boat to Vartiosaari! A good thing to know about Vartiosaari is that it is one of those islands in Helsinki where landing by boat is allowed at any time.
Ecological Values of Vartiosaari “From the research made into the landscape we can make the conclusion that in Vartiosaari there exists historically and environmentally valuable sites, many of these are not only unique in Helsinki, but in Finland.” (Vartiosaaren maisemaselvitys 2011). Biodiversity conservation needs activism by individuals; in Vartiosaari there is a huge problem in protecting natural and original plants from invasive plants like Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), which need to be rooted out to stop them spreading. Otherwise these kind of invasive plants grow at rates that the indigenous plants die. In plantation plots there are strict rules as to what kind of plants are permitted and how the garden should be fertilized, that is by using only natural means, only organic farming is allowed. These farmed plants are not allowed 5
to spread into original meadow landscape. (Vartiosaaren Palstanviljelyohjeet 2011, Interviews 3/2012)
The Helsinki City environmental center has classified the Northern-Vartiosaari as an invaluable flora location. As an example of the unique value of this site, reference can be made to Lehtoängelmä (Thalictrum aquilegiifolium), which grows in only two other locations other than Vartiosaari in Finland. Beach just plague (Petasites spurius), also needs to be protected, Vartiosaari is the only known growing place in Finland.
Vartiosaari is a suitable place to collect some herbs and plants from nature, mushrooms and wild berries also grow there, through analyses the food plants have been proved pure, and good for consumption. The variety of plants is extraordinary because of all the different biotypes. The variety of trees and different types of forest is enormous. It is surprising to find such old trees in a Helsinki City urban forest. Vartiosaari can be seen as a living ecosystem bank, in a city. Vartiosaari have different kind of ecosystem survives as urban green in different forms like old urban forests, large biodiversity in flora and fauna, shore side life and possibility to have a shared summer cottage in the city and planting plots, and even not to forget day hiking. What if all these people would travel by car to their own private summer cottages? (Villiltä vihreältä saarelta; Interviews 3/2012)
Regulating and Monitoring Issues of Seeds One of the main issues in new EU legislation is its effort to combine different directives and harmonize the legislation of different Member States, which means that one state is not allowed to have stricter legislation than the others. Another aim is also to make legislation more understandable to the public. Naturally these aims sound like great aims. However there is huge concern about the upcoming legislation among different stakeholders, in the public, and among different Member States authorities. The lack of relevant information and the non-transparent legislative phases do not ease the combining of information. Almost all the information is secret and some sketches for directives are to be published earliest in autumn 2012, which in reality means spring 2013. There is concern about the fact that forest and agriculture directives are planned to be combined. Today agriculture is market directed, rather than about forests and conserving seeds and biodiversity. One main concern is that this new legislation is going to allow the cultivation of non-local, non-original and even GM seeds in forests. All of which are activities that are still forbidden in Finland. (EU, Plants. Health and Consumers; Geenivaraneuvottelukunta Vetoomus 2008, Interviews 3/2012: Evira, MMM, Metla, 6
Geenivaralautakunta, Professors in Helsinki University). The bottom line in this respect is if humans can finally homogenize nature.
Benefits and problems of seed certification Since EU Council Directive 2002/53 on the marketing vegetable seeds and since it has become easy to trace the origin of seeds, there has been the possibility to certify seeds, in other words, claim legal ownership to initial seeds. By seed certification, a very expensive process, a person or a company will get the legal immaterial rights to the those seeds, which means that an individual farmer is allowed use seeds only once before having to get permission for the re-use any material related to the plants grown from those specific seeds. Especially organic farmers are questioning the right for their own organic seeds by asking Whose harvest? (EU, Council Directive 2008)
Genetically modified seeds In the report MMM 2005: 9, dealing with the coexistence of genetically modified, conventional, organic and indigenous seeds, the Finnish Forest- and Agriculture Ministry suggests that genetically modified seeds could be a solution in eliminating famine in developing countries. In the same rapport it is mentioned that already in the year 2004, 90% of genetically modified cultivation happened in developing countries. What is then the problem with certification which concerns both GM as well initial seeds? It is the Seed Marketing Directives, you are no longer allowed to collect seeds for sowing from your own harvest. You are forced to buy new seeds for cultivation from companies usually governed by monopolies ever single time you want to plant your crop. How can this kind of policy help prevent famine or poverty in developing countries or anywhere else? How would this nourish biodiversity? There is also the other aspect of the certification system. Ever since there has been seeds, nature has through evolution developed new kinds of indigenous species and varieties in different areas of EU Member States, and even inside single Member States. When only a couple of seeds of one species are selected to be certified seeds and for the use of marketing and distributing, we might lose a huge quantity of genuine multi biodiversity and therefore lose the possibility for biodiversity conservation, something that is needed for plant breeding in the future. It is important to notice that some newly developed seeds last in cultivation only a maximum of ten years, it is a very short time. It seems that the knowledge of seed legislation, and questions thereof are mainly circulating “underground”, for example among small planting groups like Maatiaiset, Hyötykasviyhdistys, Finnish organizations, are writing manifestos to the Finnish Government and are co-operating globally in these important questions about our seed future. (MMM 2005:9; Maatiainen: GMOlausunto 2008; Pähkylä 1/2012; Pähkylä 2/2012, Shiva, Vandana. 2006.) Plantation plots may help us understand more clearly ecology, biodiversity, the ecosystem and natural cycles. For example some plants protect other plants from diseases, others from pests or vermin. Some plants function as fertilizers. Some plants destroy each other when placed next to one-another. These qualities are also useful in larger scale organic agriculture farming, and can be considered even on green-roofs and other alternative farming locations. For the individual it becomes more understandable what non-ecological cultivation means in practice 7
when plants are cultivated ecologically and selections of seeds and plants are made by the individual over the long periods of yearly cultivation. It might increase interest in maintaining indigenous seeds in living seed banks which in practice means maintenance cultivation. For example old potato species can not survive in storage year after year without cultivation. Garden flower seeds are not regulated or certified in the same way as cultivated seeds or forest seeds. However garden seeds are used in a small areas like planting plots. (Työryhmämuistio MMM 2005:9; Tikka 2/2012)
Genetically Modified (GM) Seeds In urban areas – and unfortunately in large scale agriculture – there is a grave lack of pollinators which are essential in order to have harvests. Meadow flowers and different kinds of herbs help us increase these pollinators. It seems therefore reasonable to suggest an idea for the future: "registered open source seeds". The seed is registered and certified by an official body, and you can get all information about its origin, with the difference that when you buy and get the seed, you are free to use it year after year indefinitely. You are also able to re-sell your seeds (by making sure that the origin is the same and the seeds are not genetically modified). It should be legislated that the registration and the process of re-selling, or re-certification, of this kinds of seeds would be free, or very inexpensive. This might help people save original and indigenous seeds and it might also help the food problem in developing countries and elsewhere. Remember that in 2004 90% of GM seeds were cultivated in developing countries. And every year they are forced to buy new seeds because of the seeds fall into the protective legislation of immaterial rights, and thus they are not even allowed to collect seeds from their own harvest for use. In the Finnish report about GM-seeds from the year 2005 they said that GM-seeds would help farmers in developing countries. My question is how? Are not the legislations for immaterial rights protections just another way to monopolize seed production, and thus profit from hunger? (Vandana Shiva, Manifesto) Since 2009, registration of indigenous seeds have steadily been on the increase in Finland. What does this mean for a small area farmer like those who have a planting pot in Vartiosaari or organic farmers? (EU. 2009. GMOs in a nutshell; Työryhmämuistio MMM 2005:9, Evira Suomen Kasvilajiketiedote / Finnish Plant Variety Journal 2009, 2010:2, 2011:2, 2012:1; Shiva, Vandana. 2006.) When thinking about environmental policy, I understand now more clearly that it is not just a problem that researchers are not listened to. But that there is a deep lack in publicly available and published information, especially in and from official legislation departments. They have good intentions (some of them and sometimes) but the public do not know about these important policies. Officers do not inform, the press do not ask.. My question is age old: how to make policy more transparent? The honey pot is this: how to provide information about environmental questions and legislation so that we all as the public can know the facts and that these facts are easily understandable, i.e. how can information about new legislation be made easily available and be told in a way that even without specific information one can figure out 8
the main points? In Finland I have found articles about this seed issue from "underground magazines" like Voima, Pähkylä etc. People who cultivate small areas seems to quite aware about directives. Green roofs in Central-Europe, where the problem that mostly cultivating areas have along with their large farming areas and unitary floral life, is therefore the lack of variety in the kind of plants for different and essential pollinators. Green roofs should be planned also for agricultural locations, for example, the roofs of large livestock buildings could be used as such locations, and thus the mass industry could be helping not only biodiversity in pollinators and plant life but also employment in local areas.
Links between seeds and green roof maintenance There are two categories of green roofs distinguishable according to their soil depth: the intensive and the extensive. Extensive roofs have soil media from 2 to 6 inches deep whereas intensive ones are heavier and thicker. The depth of the soil media induces the kind of vegetation they can support. Extensive green roofs are generally planted with short roots vegetation such as mosses, small shrubs and sedums. Intensive green roofs can bear larger and more elaborate vegetation including shrubs and trees. Extensive roofs are widespread in European countries. Whatever the case, all green roofs will require structural and horticultural maintenance activities. The vegetation selected has a direct impact on the maintenance required so it is really important to match these two parameters (Calkins, 2011).
9
Table 1: Comparison of extensive and intensive green roof systems Source: Johnston, 1996, p. 54
III. Biodiversity and Urban Green Spaces Contribution of green roofs to biodiversity conservation The contribution of green roofs to biodiversity is not to be ignored. “if suitable niches are provided on green roofs, plants and animals will move in rapidly and establish communities. Customized green roofs can even provide habitat for declining and endangered species, suggesting that they have the potential to be an essential tool in species conservation.� (Marinelli 2006)
10
In a research, green roofs are being studied as potential breeding habitats for migratory birds. The study compares bird presence on traditional roofs to that on green roofs and finds that bird foraging and roosting population is noticeably higher on green roofs. Because the observed birds were mostly migratory ones, this study can be significant in avian conservation from a Ramsar Convention point of view. (Fordham 2011) “One reason why the richest data come from across the pond is that green roofs have been a component of the urban landscapes in Germany and Switzerland for the better part of the past century. There’s a 90-year-old green roof in Zurich, Switzerland, for instance, that plays home to native orchids, and many Swiss cities have incorporated green roofs into an overall biodiversity strategy.” (AIA 2009)
Some of the oldest studies on biodiversity in relation to green roofs is perhaps done in late nineteenth century in Germany, indicating that green roofs can play a major role in attracting and housing viable populations of small vertebrates and a wide array of invertebrates. Manfred Köhler has directly observed and confirmed this fact in his studies on the 1980s. (Marinelli 2006)
11
The endangered bird species enlisted in EU Bird Directive, Vanellus vanellus, brooding on a government building in Germany (source: Baumann 2006, photo credit: A.F.Kaufmann)
Strategies to attract biodiversity to green roofs In one study (Canero & Redondo 2010), bird populations are observed from four most essential habitat components, food, shelter, water and space. A wide range of examples are provided from different cities worldwide, and the study concludes with the high potential green roofs have in attracting and maintaining viable avian populations. However, the paper also suggests a 12
question as to which species are most suitable and less harmful to the fragile microhabitats provided, especially in their first stages. Some practical solutions are as follows:
- man-made structures as nest sites - nest boxes - planting attractive species to birds (species with seeds and fruit as food supply) - water outlets and reservoirs, such as small shallow ponds, and irrigation systems - sheltered areas from adverse abiotic elements, such as wind and rain
It is noteworthy to mention that by following these seemingly simple strategies and by creating a varied landscape, a green roof project at the University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland, noticeable human intervention has been used in the positive direction to restore migratory bird species that had undergone habitat loss. (Pledge, 2005)
IV. Social and Recreational Aspects of Green Spaces Social Values of Vartiosaari Public green areas are quite multifunctional places. Urban woodlands and parks serve areas for recreation and entertainment. Usually green areas and urban forests contribute the quality of life in cities (Tyrv채inen et al., 2006). Urban forests have five kinds of benefits. They have social benefits, aesthetic and agricultural benefits, climatic and physical benefits, ecological benefits and economic benefits (Tyrv채inen et al., 2005)
The aim of this part is to describe the social and aesthetic benefits and values of the Vartiosaari. Vartiosaari is island near Helsinki. It has 80 hectares of forests and meadows. And it is 13
considered as public recreation place for the citizens of Helsinki. In summer time Vartiosaari has thousands of visitors from mainland of Helsinki.
There are no studies about Vartiosaari`s social values. But social benefits of urban green are quite well known. The key functions of urban forests are improvement of the home and work environment, the positive impact on mental health issues of the inhabitants, cultural as well as historical values and the sense of belonging to a community which accompanies psychological well-being. (Tyrväinen et al., 2005).
Urban forests usually improve the air quality of the city. The leaves of the trees can take up many pollutants and they also provide shelter from the sun. Urban forests can also reduce stress and be places for quieting down in hectic city life.
Although urban forests are important places for peace and quiet, they are also important places for social contacts and bringing people together. In historical perspective urban green areas have been places to meet people outside of the home and work (Tyrväinen et al., 2005). Many social and cultural clubs have rented a villa from Vartiosaari. For example there is a youth club, cottage of the homeless people’s association and many unions’ places. Society of Vartiosaari also arranges many kinds of public events (Vartiosaari Seura).
Vartiosaari has very important cultural environment and many old villas. Twenty of the villas are listed buildings. Vartiosaari is considered as very important cultural site. There are no roads or shops, but still there are about 20 people living round the year. Vartiosaari has also a forest church, which attracts tourists. Vartiosaari has also rural landscapes, meadows and natural pastures as well as urban gardens (Vartiosaari seura).
Urban forests have also important educational values. They help people and especially children to learn about nature’s processes (Tyrväinen et al., 2005). In Vartiosaari it is also possible to learn about traditional land uses and city kids can see sheeps, goats and meadows. Historical villas are telling story from the history (Vartiosaari seura). 14
Accessibility is a very important dimension of urban forests. From a social point of view urban forests should be near population center. But usually ecologist wants to minimize the disturbance of nature’s heritages (Tyrväinen et al., 2005). Although Vartiosaari is very near to Helsinki city center it is little bit isolated and only achievable by boat. And the main tourist season is in summertime. But of course part of Vartosaari`s excitement is the isolation part of the island (Vartiosaari Seura).
Tyrväinen et al. 2006 studied feelings of citizens of Helsinki about urban green areas. According to this study, citizens of Helsinki felt that most recreational places are forests and meadows. When people described their favorite places, the most used expressions were peaceful, feeling of the forest and natural. Generally people preferred peaceful, large, natural areas and as well open rural landscapes. People thought that the main benefits of the urban green areas were providing opportunities for outdoor recreation, “contribute to a pleasant cityscape” and “enhance health and wellbeing” (Tyrväinen et al., 2006). Vartiosaari suits well for this range of desire to be more involved with nature.
15
An intensive green roof in lower Manhattan (source: Alyson Hurt, Wikimedia Commons)
16
An extensive green roof at Mountain Equipment Coop, Toronto, Canada. (source: sookie, Wikimedia commons)
Seeds’ choice for thriving and biodiverse green roofs Some rules can be followed in order to construct a successful green roof system (Environmental Services of Portland, 2000). The first one is to choose plants with no or little input requirements in water, fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides. The second one is a low-maintenance with no needing in mowing, trimming or manual sowing. The third one is to choose plants with a high resistance to extreme weather conditions like strong wind patterns, heat and cold. And the last one is to choose groundcover plants in order to promote the biodiversity like it had been shown for arthropods in a recent study led in the United States (Schindler, 2011). Finally, according to the Environmental Services of Portland, a mix of sedum and succulent is recommended because they possess many of these attributes.
17
A question remains: should we use only native species on the green roofs? The answer to this question leads to define the major objective of green roof. On the one hand the habitat created on the roof should try to reflect local habitats the best. In this case the objective is to compensate the lack of the original landscape and to be a priority habitat. On the other hand the green roof can be a way to promote faunal diversity and/or to provide a longer flowering season therefore non-native species can be useful but they have to be closely monitored in not becoming invasive. (The Green Roof Centre, 2010). For example in Sheffield, a “Pictorial Meadow Green Roof seed mix� with both native and non-native species has been developed by Pictorial Meadow Ltd . The diversity of vegetation types with good nectar sources and seed producers is one of the keys to attract birds and pollinators such as bees and butterflies on green roofs. This combination has been used on many roofs in the city.
Maintaining and monitoring of green roofs There are two kinds of maintenance of green roofs. The first kind is limited in time and occurs just after the installation of the green roof. At this moment the vegetation should be watered, fertilized and weeded intensively in order to allow the establishment of the initial vegetation matrix. This phase spends six months to two years.
The second kind of maintenance is continuous and consists of monthly visual inspections and repair. The green roof is monitored for pest problems, soil problems, and diseased plants. In order to deal with invasive species and pest problems, integrated pest management methods can be used. The state of the vegetation is a really good indicator to determine if the roof ecosystem is thriving or not. The expert must react if areas are not getting established, or if plants are dying that means that the local conditions (soil, moisture, presence of competitive weeds, sun or shade) do not fit. Once the problem is identified, he has to find corrective measures to replace the plants with more suitable species and/or to modify the conditions of using. For example, green urban areas are often used as a dog-walking area but the trampling and the dung can impact vegetation intolerant to pets (Calkins, 2011).
Social Values of Green Roofs 18
Green roofs enhance the quality of life in cities and that is the major social benefit of them. Many of the ecological benefits of green roofs, e.g. reduction of smog levels, affect the physical health of people. Green roofs affect also the mental health of people even though these aspects may not be as noticeable as ecological aspects. International Green Roof Association says that the “natural look� is one obvious benefit of green roofs. The natural look is one of the social values that green roofs have: it tells about the aesthetic qualities of them.
Recreational aspects of green roofs If there is free entry to green roofs, people can find natural viewing space for social interaction, recreation and relaxation. Building occupants can for example dine, interact with friends or business colleagues and enjoy the green plants on green roofs (Banting et al., 2005).
Especially community gardens as a hobby on rooftops is a quite hot topic nowadays and there are plenty of discussion and study about them. This kind of roof-farming makes people aware of functions of nature and increases their environmental consciousness. (Piironen, 2011).
Health benefits of green roofs Greenery in cities has also effects on physical health of people, and those benefits are thought to come from better air quality, noise reduction, less temperature fluctuation in the building and humidity control etc. (Dinsdale et al., 2006). For example when improving air quality, the plants on green roofs can capture airborne pollutants at atmospheric deposition and also filter noxious gases. These positive physical benefits improve the quality of life of residents and can even decrease demands on the health care system (Green Roof Benefits, 2012). Urban green also leads people spending more time outdoors and being physically more active (Tzoulas et al., 2007). If there is a green roof big enough, it could serve for example as a jogging path or an outdoor gym.
It has been proved that natural scenes are generally restorative environments that can help recovering from directed attention fatigue and stress (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Mental benefits are thought to come from the visual, audio and olfactory joys of plants (Dinsdale et al., 2006). 19
Besides, green roofs can have positive effects to mental health by increasing social cohesion, sense of community and public safety (Green Roof Benefits, 2012).
But do green roofs offer enough green? Studies show that it is not for people to be immersed in the green space for improvements in mental health. Even just viewing green space for example from classroom or office has positive effects (Dinsdale et al., 2006) so in that context we can say, that green roofs offer enough green.
Opening of the new green roof on the podium of City Hall during Doors Open 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Source: Tabercil, 2010, Wikimedia commons)
The aesthetic characteristics of green roofs Research has shown that people prefer areas with vegetation and other natural elements over those without. People also think they are aesthetically more beautiful and evoke more positive emotional responses (Korpela et al., 2002).
Even though there is consensus over the general preference and aesthetic, affective and restorative qualities of greenery, there is complexity within different types of vegetation. White and Gatersleben (2011) researched how people feel about greenery on residential building and the different types of vegetation. Results showed that building-integrated vegetation, usually green roofs, were more preferred and considered more beautiful, aesthetically pleasing and 20
restorative than those without vegetation. Generally, the more natural the landscape, the more it is preferred. For example, the natural meadow roof was preferred over its counterpart turf, which is more well-kept and human-influenced. In addition to turf, also brown vegetation on roofs was not perceived as significantly different from houses with no vegetation. It can be said that the more natural-like the roof is the more aesthetic benefits the carry (White and Gatersleben, 2011).
Educational values Green roofs have also educational opportunities, especially if there would be green roofs on schools and kindergartens. Green roofs would offer an easily accessible sight to teach students about biology and the meanings of green roofs (Green Roof Benefits, 2012).
For example The Calhoun School in New York has its own Green Roof Learning center since 2005. On the roof there is an herb garden that is planted by food service chefs and children. Its purpose is to promote healthy eating habits. The roof has been used for environmental and plant biology studies but also for math and as a source for inspiration for poetry classes. There are also plans for weather station and solar panels (Green Roof Learning… 2012).
V. Discussion and Recommendations Seed regulation. A green roof is a new ecosystem created artificially; however, human being still have to include it as a whole. Indeed even if it is located on top of a building it has interactions with the surrounding environment. The seeds for instance, can easily go from the roof to the surrounding soil just because of wind. So creating a bright new ecosystem on a green roof couldn’t it be harmful for the existing surrounded environment? Especially in the case of planting non-native species on the green roof, don’t we risk to upset the balance of the natural environment?
21
Social Issues. There are no systematic studies about Vartosaari`s social values, but it is presumable that the social and cultural value of this historical urban forest is significant. Vartiosaari offers very important social values like recreational places, cultural places and places for social get together (vartiosaari is home for many clubs and societies). Social values are not usually taken into account when in urban land use. Economic and ecological values come first. Should these social values be prioritized when deciding in land use? Are ecological or economic values more important issues in urban green?
The social benefits of green roofs are not as obvious as its ecological benefits. For example, aesthetic value of urban green and its positive effects on human health can be considered almost facts, but how big is this effect on the field of green roofs? It is easy to suspect, that all the residents of a city are not able to enjoy the aesthetic value of green roofs in a same way. In city centres there are usually high buildings, so an individual stroller can’t see the beauty of green roofs so easily. Of course the residents of a certain building may have an access to the roof, but everyone doesn’t have the same opportunity. Taking social benefits into account in the level of one building may be quite easy, but what about in city-level? Urban green has evidently social value and green roofs, for one, can manifest this value, but how big is the social value of green roofs after all? Should we try to concentrate on it in city-level planning more and more, or should we just focus on ecological and economic benefits and hope that social benefits come on the side? Biodiversity conservation. There is evidence that green roofs are influential in mitigating the disappearance of endangered bird species (Brenneisen, 2003). How to enhance green roofs as habitat hubs to increase the largest number of endangered species attracted to them so they are eventually used as permanent breeding sites ? Concerning our study site, how can abiotic conditions be ameliorated so over-wintering species in these roofs can survive the harsh winter climate while they are exposed to more wind and cold on top of a man-made structure? And if this species richness is achieved, will this ‘close contact ‘pose any concerns or risks to human health ?
22
Acknowledgments This work was a part of the HENVI workshop: Ecosystem services in urban areas. Janna Pietikäinen was the workshop’s coordinator and provided all this platform to exchange ideas. We wish to thank our lecturers Susanna Lehvävirta, Maija Faehnle, Heikki Setälä, Adriaan Perrels and Sirpa Tani for their inspiring lectures. Our supervisor, Maija Faehnle, has our warm gratitude for enthusiastically helping and commenting our work from beginning to the end.
References America’s Community of Architects website, http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/0424/0424p_greenroof.cfm 2009.
23
Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., Au, A., Currie, B.A., Verrati, M. 2005. Report on the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto. Dept. of Architectural Science, Ryerson University. Baumann, Nathalie. 2006. Ground-Nesting Birds on Green Roof in Switzerland: Preliminary Observations. Urban Habitats, 4:1. Calkins, M. 2011. The Sustainable Sites Handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Dinsdale, S., Pearen, B., Wilson, C. 2006. Feasibility Study for Green Roof Application on Queen’s University Campus. Queen’s Physical Plant Services. Evira 2012:1. Finnish Plant Variety Journal.Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/evira/publications/?a=category&cid=65] Evira 2011:2. Finnish Plant Variety Journal.Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/evira/publications/?a=category&cid=65] EU, Council Directive 2002/53/EC. Common Catalogue of Varieties of agricultural plant species.Webpage. [26.3.2012] [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0053:EN:NOT] EU, Council Directive 2002/54/EC. Marketing beet seeds. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0054:EN:NOT] EU, Council Directive 2002/53/EC. Marketing vegetable seeds. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0053:EN:NOT] EU, Council Directive 2009/145/EC. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0145:en:NOT] EU, Council Directive 2008/62/EC. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0062:EN:NOT] EU. 2009. GMOs in a nutshell. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/qanda/GMO_qanda_2010_en.pdf] EU, Plants. Health and Consumers. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm] Fordham notes website, [29.3.2012] http://fordhamnotes.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-green-more-birdsmore-diversity.html Geenivaralautakunta. 2008. Geenivaraneuvottelukunta Vetoomus maa- ja metsätalouden geenivaraohjelmien resurssien lisäämiseksi. Grain, 1/2008, Whose harvest? The politic of organic seed certification. Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.grain.org/article/entries/141-whose-harvest-the-politics-of-organic-seed-certification]
24
Green Roof Benefits. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. Web-page. [28.3.2012]. [http://www.greenroofs.org/index.php/about-green-roofs/green-roof-benefits]. Green Roof Learning Center. The Calhoun School. Web-page. [28.3.2012]. [http://www.calhoun.org/page.cfm?p=36]. International Green Roof Association. Benefits of Green Roofs. Web-page. [28.3.2012]. [http://www.igraworld.com/benefits/index.php]. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York. Korpela, K.M., Klemettilä, T., Hietanen, J.K. 2002. Evidence for rapid evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34, 634–650. Larsson, T.B., Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. 2001. Luomusiemenpolitiikka, 2006, Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.luomu.fi/tietopankki/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Luomusiemenpolitiikka.pdf] Luomusiemenpolitiikka, 2008 Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.luomu.fi/tietopankki/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Luomusiemenpolitiikka.pdf] Maatiainen, GMO-lausunto, 2008, Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://www.maatiainen.fi/arkisto/gmolausunto_2008+intro.pdf] Marinelli, J. Urban Habitats website, http://www.urbanhabitats.org/v04n01/introduction.html 2006. Niinikoski, Marja-Leena. 2012. Siementen vapaudesta. Pähkylä 1/2012, Hyötykasviyhdistys ry Piironen, M. 2011. Kattojen hyödyntäminen kaupunkiviljelyssä. Esimerkkinä ravintola Savoy. Maisterin opinnäytetyö. Taideteollinen korkeakoulu, Aalto-yliopisto. Pledge, E. 2005. Green Roofs: Ecological Design and Construction. Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, Pennsylvania, USA. Portland Environmental Services. 2000. City of Portland Ecoroof program - Questions & Answers. R. Fernandez-Canero, R. & Gonzalez-Redondo, Green Roofs as a Habitat for Birds: A Review, Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9:15, 2010. (2010/05/helsingin-tuntematon-saaristokyla/ Villiltä vihreältä saarelta; Elonkehä Magazine 8/2009) Ryttäri, Terhi: Rantaruttojuuri. Teoksessa Uhanalaiset kasvimme. Toim. Ryttäri, Terhi & Kettunen, Taina. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki 1997, s. 204. Salmenkari, Taru. 2011. Poliittinen siemen.Voima 10/2011 Pg.33 Web-page. [26.3.2012] [http://fifi.voima.fi/voima-artikkeli/2011/numero-10/poliittinen-siemen] Schindler, B. Y. 2011. Ecological, social, and policy factors influencing biodiversity on green roofs.
25
Shiva, Vandana. 2006. Manifesto on the future of seeds. Arsia - Regione Toscana: Sesto Fiorentino The Green Roof Centre .2010. Habitat Action Plan. Sheffield. Tikka, Kalevi. 2012. Mukulamessu. Pähkylä 2/2012, Hyötykasviyhdistys ry Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit. S., Seeland, K. & de Vries, S. 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B. & Schipperijn, J. (eds.): Urban forests and trees – A reference book. Springer, Berlin, Pp. 81-114. Tyrväinen,L., Mäkinen, K. & Schipperijn, J. 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. Pp 5-19. Työryhmämuistio MMM 2005:9, Muuntogeenisten viljelykasvien sekä tavanomaisten ja luonnonmukaisten maatataloustuotannon rinnakkaiselon mahdollistaminen Suomessa. Väliraportti. Helsinki 2005. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167–178. Vartiosaariseura, Vartiosaaren Palstanviljelyohjeet 2011 Vartiosaaren, Maisemaselvitys, 2011, Helsingin kaupunkisuunnittelu.Ympäristötoimisto. Vartiosaari Seura. http://kaupunginosat.net/vartiosaari/ajankohtaista.shtml Villiltä vihreältä saarelta. Web-page. [26.3.2012]. [http://villiltavihrealtasaarelta.blogspot.com/2010/05/helsingin-tuntematon-saaristokyla_11.html] [http://villiltavihrealtasaarelta.blogspot.com/search/label/lehto%C3%A4ngelm%C3%A4] White, E.V., Gatersleben, B. 2011. Greenery on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 89–98. www.pictorialmeadows.co.uk/green_roof_mix
26