Landscape architecture - Master thesis by Rikke Sheena Petersen

Slagelse Commons 1

Title: Slagelse Commons Master thesis in Landscape Architecture Faculty of SCIENCE Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management Master of Science (MSc) in Landscape Architecture 2 x 45 ECTS thesis programme Authors: znw401 Rikke Sheena Petersen kmc242 Cayn Jacobus Leonardus Wilmsen Supervisors: Mona Chor Bjørn - Assistent Professor; Forest, Nature and Biomass Richard Hare - Teacher; Landscape Architecture and Planning Disclaimers: Maps, illustrations, and photos in this report are created and owned by the authors unless stated otherwise Copenhagen - July 17th 2020

Preface This thesis is written and compiled by Rikke Sheena Petersen and Cayn Jacobus Leonardus Wilmsen, master students in Landscape Architecture at the University of Copenhagen. Based on earlier collaborations, prior to this master thesis, and our connection through mutual interests, we decided to join forces for a more in-depth research & design project. In this master thesis, we saw (and still see) the perfect opportunity to bring our competences as landscape architects and our interest in the practices of urban ecology and climate adaptation and the many opportunities it gives at once to support the environment. This project is two-folded. First, the process (and consequently, this report as a final product) is influenced by the fusion of theoretical research and on-site registrations in ecological terms, and the ‘traditional’ landscape architecture practices that involve detailed investigation of the place and its identity, and the relation to its surroundings. Second and most importantly, we seek for optimal integration of (urban) ecology/biodiversity in and around utilized spaces, without compromising either of the dimensions that each has a specific function to the urban ecosystem. We like to thank our supervisors, Mona and Richard, for sharing their experience and knowledge, and their constructive feedback on our progress. We also want to thank Puk Kirkeskov Hvistedal from Slagelse Municipality for the enthusiasm and insights on the project area. Finally, we like to thank our family and friends for their years of unconditional love and support in the process/development/growth to this important moment in our lives.

Rikke Sheena Petersen

Cayn Wilmsen

Table of content Preface

Table of content

Abstract

Introduction

I - The project site Project area in perspective Slagelse municipality Town development

10 10 10 12

Aim

Lighthouse project: Slagelse Gl. Stadion

II - Theories & methods Biodiversity

18 18 20

The ecological crisis in Denmark

Close-to-nature management Landscape level Habitat level Species level Close-to-nature management

24 24 24 26 26

Applied methods Urban habitat index

28 28 28 28 28

What is biodiversity Why biodiversity matters

Forest stand structures Park tree registration Groundcover Vegetation

III - Analysis Landscape analysis Infrastructure

32 32

Green structure Area development through time Area diversity - picture collage Landscape characteristics and use Connections & accesibility Key findings

Ecology & management Habitat structures & quality Tree structures Ground cover vegetation Key findings

34 36 38 40 44 46 48 48 55 62 68

IV - Design Guidelines Key findings sum-up & Recommendations

Slagelse Commons - Concept

Interventions Themes Identity Biodiversity Connections

74 74 74 75 75

V - Proposal Nature Park Introduction Terrain Recreation

78 80 86 88 89 90

Town Park Introduction Connectivity Terrain Recreation

92 94 96 100 103 104

Vegetation layout Management

Vegetation layout

Management

105

Sports Park

106

VI - Outro Conclusion

110

Discussion & reflections

111

References Literature Web

112 112 114 114 116

Appendix Overview

117 117 117 117 117 117 117 117

Pictures and figures Maps A - Habitat Unit Diversity B - Urban Habitat Index C - Forest Stand Structures D - Park Tree Registration E - Cover Analysis F - Ellenberg Indicator Values; Species list G - Masterplan 1:2.000 - A1

Abstract The ecological and the climate crisis are a result of centuries of neglect towards the natural environment, through continuous development of the built environment. In this master thesis, we seek for the integration of nature-based design and management solutions that increase biodiversity in a highly programmed public green space for various sports and leisure activities. Prior to the design process, we do a profound study on the current ecological status with the use of various research methods, and an in-depth analysis that searches for opportunities to strengthen the identity and to create coherence in a large recreational space for residents. The findings of the analysis are presented with a masterplan for Slagelse Commons, which strengthens the identity through improved ecological and recreational quality. Furthermore, the masterplan is a long-term vision that aims for flexibility in development and management and yet, sustains a strong ecological and recreational composition through the years. Slagelse Commons forms the green gateway between Slagelse Skovene and the town center and therefore is a significant extension of the local and regional ecosystem. This is enhanced with the integration of an eco-passage, that restores both the recreational and ecological connectivity to the open country. Additionally, Slagelse Commons is marked with a tower and a grazing meadow that makes Slagelse more visible and enriches the recreational experience.

Introduction As the level of the built environment has increased over the past centuries, and with that, the extensive use of natural resources for agriculture, forestry, new buildings, infrastructure and production, the grown environment was slowly rejected and strictly separated from the city (Stig L. Andersson, 2019). In the current anthropocentric era, a great number of species; animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and everything living, have gone extinct or are on the way to extinction (DMU, 2011) and the speed of this development is alarming (IUCN, 2020). It is of great importance that the ongoing urban and rural development takes this fact into account, by the active incorporation of natureenhancing solutions, if we want to restore the damages that have been done. According to McKinney (2006) biodiversity is the answer to the urbanization and homogenization that occur and continue to increase. Furthermore, biodiversity and ecological quality should always be considered during the design and planning process in the urban environment (Taylor & Hochuli, 2005). The Convention of Biological Diversity mentions the following: “protecting biodiversity is in our self-interest” (CBD, 2000). As it threatens our own quality of life, we are not only ethically responsible for the restoration of the global ecosystem but more importantly, we are the (ethical) subject of the matter, together with all other living organisms on this planet (Gamborg & Gjerris, 2009). The project’s focus is based upon these facts, and will be a part of the ecological restoration on a local level (with a regional impact), and thus will increase biodiversity quality, by proposing a design that integrates new natural elements, and at the same time, sympathizes with the existing human activity in the specific area.

I - The project site

Project area in perspective Slagelse municipality Slagelse Municipality is located in the western corner of Sealand and inhabits over 79.000 people in 2020 (Nøgletal, 2020). The municipality consists of three larger towns; Skælskør, Korsør, and Slagelse, as well as many small villages, see fig. 1.1.1. With the bridge from Korsør to Fyn, the municipality functions as a connection hub on a national level. Jutland Sealand Fyn

100km

Besides improving opportunities for education and business, one of the aims of the municipality is to create more attractive experiences, which helps to fuel the municipality as a community and makes Slagelse attractive for tourism and visitors again (Kommuneplan, 2017). This intention will be achieved by creating more coherence between the urban areas and the open country, and by highlighting the attractive experiences. Furthermore, the municipality wants to support the citizen’s opportunities for movement, play, recreation, relaxation, and mental recovery by facilitation of welcoming and inviting settings (Kommuneplan, 2017). The town of Slagelse inhabits approximately 35.000 residents (2020), which makes it the 8th biggest town in Sealand and one of the oldest as it was established as a proper town market in 1288 (Arnskov, 1930). The project area is located in the southwestern fringes of the urban area and lies in the vicinity of Slagelse Skovene, west of the highway. The project area plays a key role in the climate adaptation strategy that was implemented in 2012.

Slagelse

Korsør

Skælskør

Town development 0

10km

Town center project area

Fig. 1.1.1 - Context map

2km

In the last 180 years, Slagelse town has expanded. On a town level, this has mostly been caused by the high demand and construction of houses in the 1950 and ’60s, as well as the improved connectivity of the town to the rest of Denmark with the inauguration of the highway (E20) in 1965. The construction of the highway was the result of recurring traffic jams for the ferry between Fyn and Sealand, that reached until the town center of Slagelse (Slagelse bys historie, 2013). Although the physical connectivity has improved on a regional and national level, it has also caused a local disconnect from Slagelse to its natural surroundings. Despite the rest of Slagelse, the project area has not been taken over by buildings and other intensive land use. The site is planned and designed as a place for the public, recreational use in various means, and has, therefore, maintained a certain openness where people can move freely, and do and be as they wish. Furthermore, the area distinguishes itself from the urban environment as an entrance to the forest and the open grasslands east of the highway. Deriving from this, the project area has significant potential to restore the connection to the open country that was once there, both in ecological and recreational terms.

1840-1899

1977-1985

1901-1945

1986-2008

1953-1976

2009-2020

2km

Fig. 1.1.2 - Town development - 1840 - 2020

Pic. 1.1.1. - Spectators at a football match at the Old Stadium 1934 See references on page 124 for the source of the original image

Lighthouse project: Slagelse Gl. Stadion

The project area takes its base in the municipal climate adaptation strategy as one of the Lighthouse projects (Fyrtårnsprojekter), where the municipality reconstructs the Old Stadium (Gl. Stadion) as a stormwater retention zone (‘Klimabassin’) to mitigate the effects of climate change and which additionally, includes new recreational possibilities for young and old (Handleplan til klimatilpasningsplanen, 2014). The Old Stadium is located in a large green oasis in the southeast corner of Slagelse that is filled with a wide range of recreational facilities that stimulates the senses through play, encourages learning, and is a place to inspire one and another while respecting and highlighting the historical layers and narrative of the place (Handleplan til klimatilpasningsplanen, 2014).

The municipality has defined 7 principles that give direction to the development of the area that both answers local wishes and aims for the climate adaptation strategy: 1. The area shall create coherence between the town elements 2. The area must meet the needs that are not met elsewhere in Slagelse 3. The design of the area must be based on the users 4. All forms of water must be ‘re-used’ all year round, e.g. iceskating in the water detention zone 5. The narrative and history of the area must be visible and be a part of the masterplan 6. Operation and maintenance shall be minimized as much as possible 7. Soil within the area is reused as much as possible to create the desired terrain

ve j Pa rk Old Stadium

Hig

hw ay

E20

Grøn

ning en

øjv

rik

Fre

Teglværksvej

Fig. 1.1.3. - Project area Scale 1:5.000

Aim The aim of this project is to restore the identity of Slagelse that is specifically carried by this place, a place that has been full of development, human activity, and beautiful stories. This is done in two ways. On one hand, the ecological value of the incoming green structures will be improved to restore Slagelse’s connection to its native land, which by itself carries a rich history. On the other hand, the area will be redesigned as one large recreational space that facilitates the wishes and needs of the multiple user groups; to make it a place for each and everyone, where someone can feel attached to or identify with and be at ease. The project area will form a keystone structure that carries a strong sense of attachment and identity for Slagelse and its residents. Furthermore, it will be a keystone green structure for the distribution of valuable nature that supports the regional ecosystem and moreover, that strengthens the sense of identity.

Town center

Project area

Slagelse Skovene

Fig. 1.2.1 - Aim diagram

II - Theories & methods This chapter gives the first insight into how the ecological value can be improved through focus on biodiversity and naturebased management practices, based on existing theory, methods, and empirical knowledge. The theory section gives a global understanding of biodiversity and its importance to the overall ecology. Subsequently, several applied methods are briefly explained for the purpose of gaining more knowledge on the current ecological status of the project site.

Biodiversity What is biodiversity The word biodiversity has become a common word. It has become a fashionable word for new marketing strategies or for the laypeople to give an explanation to their abstract understanding of something new that has appeared in their lives. Most often, biodiversity is used to address something that we all need or want; it touches upon something that has intrinsic value on its own. The feel-good factor makes people use it more frequently in all levels of society, while the basic understanding of the concept stays behind. The urgency of both the ecological and the climate crisis demands clarity on this ‘new’ matter. To address the urgency of the matter to integrate biodiversity in the urban environment (to support the ecosystem by enhancing biodiversity), this investigation starts with two questions; what does ‘biodiversity’ actually mean & why does biodiversity matter? To answer the first question, most scientists refer to the following definitions: “Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia (among other things), terrestrial, marina and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.” (CBD, 1992) “Biodiversity is the variety of life, in all of its manifestations. It encompasses all forms, levels, and combinations of natural variation and thus serves as a broad unifying concept.” (Gaston & Spicer, 2004)

Gaston & Spicer (2004) have divided biodiversity into three levels: genetic-, organismal-, and ecological diversity. Genetic diversity includes the genetic material of which an organism is built, and how this varies per individual, as well as species. Organismal diversity encompasses how organisms relate to each other and how this brings a certain hierarchy among them in a certain space or system. Ecological diversity includes the variation of the different niches, habitats, and other living environments in which the interactions among organisms take place. All three layers are interlinked with each other and indicate the immense complexity of the functionality of nature in general. The overall diversity of organisms, habitat, and genus, and the interactions among them, is mentioned to be one of the key determinants for the functionality of the ecosystem (Gaston & Spicer, 2004). Ecosystems can adapt and appropriate themselves naturally when environmental conditions change (Reed & Lister, 2014). In a stable ecosystem, all organisms, species, and habitat cooperate to maintain a state of stability. The natural process is complex, and sometimes it is a messy process. It is a never-ending manifestation of which scientists are just starting to comprehend how the ecosystem can be supported, and with that ecosystem health and human health. In this report, the words ‘habitat’ and ‘habitat type’ are used regularly. Habitat refers to “a place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs” (EEA Glossary, n.d.).

”Biodiversity is the term for diversity in all living things. Biodiversity is thus the number of different frogs and toads in the watering hole , birds in the sky, butterflies in the meadow, lichen in the dunes and mushrooms in the forest. Biodiversity is also the habitat of the species : fish lakes and streams and the hollow trees of the beetles. Biodiversity is for the one still interaction between species and their environment. Therefore , the processes are an important part of biodiversity: the pollination of the flowers by the bees, the crustaceans’ excavation on the sea floor, the fury of the storm in the forest and on the coast, and groundwater seepage into the marshes.” (Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, 2011)

Why biodiversity matters In 1973, the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss used the concept ‘Deep Ecology’ to argue that human beings are equal to all other living beings on this planet and are part of an interrelated ‘biospheric’ network (Næss, 2008). Therefore, every organism on this planet has intrinsic value on its own and thus, puts humankind in the same ecological order as any other animal, plant, fungi, or bacteria (Næss, 2008). This also means that other organisms than Homo sapiens have the same right to live in their ways (Næss, 2008). Biodiversity implies that every being can coexist and live in symbiosis with other beings, to find stability and continuity in life (Næss, 2008); this is called homeostasis. In terms of ecosystem functioning, homeostasis means that all species within a ‘local assemblage’ complement each other and even become dependent on one another as each species uses different resources (Gaston & Spicer, 2004). Each animal, plant, fungi, or even the smallest microbes play a role in this ecological cycle. This implies that the more species live in such a community that is able to complement each other, the more resources are available for these species to thrive – of course, to a certain threshold; the quality of nature is that it regulates itself (Gaston & Spicer, 2004). By any means, if biodiversity is in a highly stable state, an ecosystem can slowly move towards self-sufficiency and is then most resilient when changes happen in the ecological network. Therefore, biodiversity must be maintained to prevent collapse and remain the functionality of the ecosystem as it is. Besides the ecological value and the intrinsic value of nature and biodiversity, there are also many other values: genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational, and aesthetic. A few of those can be completely or partially put under the concept of Ecosystem Services, which is described by the UN as a framework that benefits humankind (United Nations, 2005, via Taylor & Hochuli, 2015) (fig. 2.1.1). Evidently, it provides our food, wood, and many other natural resources. Also, it regulates climatic conditions, regardless of the current change that the global climate is dealing with, such as air filtration, heat reduction and infiltration, and evaporation of stormwater events. For example, even the presence of unmown grass can have a positive effect on the immune system (Beninde et al., 2015). Furthermore, the ecosystem supports

humankind in the restoration of natural processes in the soil, such as groundwater, decomposition of organic material, and remediation of over-polluted environments. Finally, the many ways that urban nature benefits our own health is more substantial than one thinks and is often overseen. Most of the nature-citizen interactions take place within the city, and thus – often unconsciously- benefits our cultural identity, social values, and our personal mental health (Beninde et al., 2015). However, ecosystem services exist independently from their benefits to humankind, and should also be of service for animals, plants, and other organisms (Taylor & Hochuli, 2005). This means that the ecosystem is required to be a healthy and stable system, to be able to serve the needs of every organism on this planet. Ecosystem distress is, therefore, a no-go in order to let nature reorganize itself, and become resilient and vital (Taylor & Hochuli, 2005). Unfortunately, humankind has neglected the grown environment for centuries and has slowly rejected it from the city (Stig L. Andersson, 2019). The commitment to reject our dependence on nature and to put ourselves on top of the ‘food chain’ has largely contributed to the detachment of humankind to nature, and as Næss (2008) states, to ourselves. Increasing processes in the urban environment, such as homogenization of nature and urbanization through pollution, use of de-icing salts, eutrophication of the soil, lack of permeable surface, habitat fragmentation, invasive species and disturbances by traffic, light or noise; these are just the main causes of declining biodiversity (Grimm et al., 2008; McKinney, 2006). The way that humankind has exploited and depleted natural resources in the anthropocentric era is not a way we are going to sustain ourselves, as is proven through the changes of the climate and the increasing decline of species and habitat loss. Biodiversity is the buffer between resilience and vulnerability of the ecosystem; in other words, biodiversity is the buffer for human life (fig 2.1.2). It will teach us that we are able to coexist too, as we have always done. We do not have to fight against nature and ourselves, but instead, we cooperate and live in symbiosis with each other. Therefore, rather than looking at how urbanization has negatively impacted global biodiversity (McKinney, 2008; Grimm et al., 2008), more effective would be to look at how biodiversity can thrive in the urban environment and create stability and continuity in life for more beings than just humankind.

Fig. 2.1.1 Opposite side top - Ecosystem Services Diagram showing the four groups of ecosystem services; Supporting, Cultural, Provisioning, and Regulating. See reference on page 124 Fig. 2.1.2 Opposite side buttom - Ecosystem Functioning Diagram showing how an ecosystem can be both vulnerable and resilient depending on the use

al lu tur C

Spir relig itual and ious value s

alu

ter h wa

Fres

Air quality regulation

Wa ter

tion ma

Disease and pest regulation

M ext odera rem tio e e n of ven ts Pollin ation

in g

for

reg u

n atio gul n re sio Ero cation r purifi ent Wate ste treatm a and w

S u p p o rt

Climate

esis

synth

l Soi

ater ia

urc

re al

dic

Nutrient cycling

Photo

Raw m

ing ion

eti

Mental and alth physical he

sth

ion m reat uris Rec ecoto and

Food

Pro vis

homogenization of nature intensive nature management

ecosystem vulnerability

fragmentation of habitat declining biodiversity overexploitation of resources urbanization eutrophication

regulati

lati

la egu

tin

diversification of nature nature-based management habitat connectivity high biodiversity balanced use of resources

ecosystem resilience

urban nature protected nature

The ecological crisis in Denmark Danmarks Biodiversitet, 2011 (DMU, 2011) A review on the current ecological status of Denmark concluded in 2010 that the UN-target to stagnate the decline of biodiversity had not been achieved, among many other countries worldwide (Meltofte, 2010; via DMU, 2011). This gave Danish nature organizations and governmental institutions the opportunity to reflect upon the situation. In this re-evaluation, it has been concluded that the loss of habitat (forests, coastal areas, grassland lakes, and streams) and the lacking conservation of existing habitat is an important cause of the species decline in Denmark (DMU, 2011). So far, the most significant habitats (forests, lakes, rivers, grassland) in Denmark have been investigated and improved. Unfortunately, there is still a decline of vulnerable species, such as butterflies, beetles, and fungi, that might be caused by the fact that the current efforts do not yet compensate for the past loss of species and habitat (DMU, 2011). Besides the larger natural habitats, also cities and agricultural areas can be considered as habitats. Both habitats are often mosaics of various small (read: easy to oversee) habitat and niches that have specific conditions that could attract rare species. However, in the current days, these small pieces of land are mostly perceived as economic opportunities, without consideration of the ecological value (DMU, 2011). As the DMU (Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser) concludes, there is a general lack of knowledge about the thousands of threatened species, habitat, and natural processes that occur within the borders of Denmark. Besides physical conservation of the habitat, also the knowledge gap is required to be closed, based on existing data (DMU, 2011). Lifestyle and nature quality in the urban environment (LiNaBy, 2011) Green spaces in the urban environment have a few very specific values that sustain the city in various ways. The urban environment provides a framework for social functions, leisure and recreation, and the general continuity and sustainability of life (LiNaBy, 2011). People often perceive urban greenspaces as an extension of their home or backyard. Moreover, the scenery of nature in the city is something that people often connect to their personal history and identity (LiNaBy, 2011). In relation to the changes of the climate, the many green spaces support us in the absorption of rainwater, it filters the air and it cools down the city, among many other services (LiNaBy, 2011). Unfortunately, the quality of nature in green areas is often low to the expense of regulations and urban functions. However, something that is consistently observed is that green areas in the continuity of the natural surroundings of the city have a much higher quality of nature. In this light, urban green spaces can play a role in the restoration of biological diversity.

Close-to-nature management In the last decades, many methods have been proven to improve biodiversity with applied methods in the urban environment. Therefore, in this section, we discuss a selection of parameters that could improve biodiversity. The local ecosystem, in this case, the project area in Slagelse, is divided into three scales: landscape, habitat, and species.

Landscape level There are many kinds of research that mention connectivity between habitats and other natural living environments to be crucial for the overall functionality of the ecosystem. The motive for that is to decrease the segregation of the many green spaces and habitat in the urban environment, and therefore, to enhance opportunities for migration of animals and natural dispersal of plants, fungi and many more (Beninde et al., 2015). To minimize the fragmentation of habitats, a few principles must be considered whilst integrating ecological elements in the urban environment, see fig. 2.3.1. Moreover, green corridors are more supportive of the connectivity than stepping-stone habitat, as the latter implies that there is some kind of barrier, often caused by roads and buildings (Beninde et al., 2015). Structural diversity within the habitats is strongly required to increase biodiversity, which can be obtained by a wide variation in vegetation structures, compositions and density (herbs, shrubs, trees) and different conditions like soil, terrain differences, water, and so on (Beninde et al., 2015) In general, the larger a green area is, the more likely it is to increase habitat heterogeneity in that green area (Beninde et al., 2015). Therefore, the larger the size of the area, the better.

Habitat level Structural elements such as forests and complex woody compositions are likely to have a high variety of resources for foraging, nesting, and shelter, and therefore, also attract a higher diversity of species (Threlfall, 2016). This complexity is often caused by the difference of lighting depending on the overall canopy coverage, the diversity of successive stages of vegetation and decomposing organic materials, and the overall composition of organisms that live in symbiosis within this habitat (Gao et al., 2014). In a habitat with complex understorey, birds, bats, and small mammals are more likely to find a suitable place for nesting, shelter or to find food (Threlfall et al., 2017). Additionally, ‘urban wildlife’ finds less disturbance by people and predator animals, or domestic cats (Cerra & Crain, 2016). Furthermore, a higher diversity of insects can be achieved by increasing the plant species diversity within these complex habitat structures (Threlfall et al., 2017), which then can also increase the abundance of insectivorous birds. However, herbaceous vegetation compositions attract the most diverse collection of insect species (Kazemi et al., 2009). In general, the richness and diversity of insect species

is an important indicator of the overall ecosystem functioning (Kazemi et al., 2009). Among many other contributions, it is a food resource for birds and mammals, and it is an indicator of the habitat and species diversity of plants. Herbaceous vegetation is a collection of flowering plants that provide nectar and pollen for pollinators, and host plants that allow many insect species to lay their eggs and grow larvae (Blackmore & Goulsen, 2014). However, the urban environment often consists of a monocultural lawn that barely supports biodiversity, and moreover, maintenance of a ‘green carpet’ is rather intensive and unsustainable (Kazemi et al., 2009; Smith & Fellowes, 2014). On the other hand, herbaceous fields require less management during the year but need some support to create persistence against grasses and weeds (Bjørn, M.C., 2015). The presence of water cover is another parameter of biodiversity (Beninde et al., 2015), as it requires different vegetation compositions and therefore attracts other wildlife. This can be achieved in various ways; with a pond, a stormwater retention area, or standing groundwater. Retention zones are primarily designed to regulate the stormwater runoff, which also mitigates the local climate and restores the balance of the natural hydrology (Monberg et al., 2018). Additionally, when this is applied with a rich diversity of aquatic and riparian plants (bioretention), it becomes a whole habitat on itself with a variety of insects and other animals (Monberg et al., 2018; Kazemi et al., 2009). For the design and realization of a pond with a permanent water cover, the living conditions of amphibians (e.g. frogs and toads) are a perfect indicator of the improvement of the overall biodiversity. Amphibians are sensitive species and their habitat is easily disturbed as they require a place to spawn, go in hibernation and find shelter when predators approach. A natural gradient on the bank of the pond allows them to migrate, and places with direct sunlight increase the food availability (algae and invertebrates) are other variables to take into account (Holtmann et al., 2017). Moreover, it also allows birds to nest between the reeds. Ecological diversity also entails the interaction between all the different habitat and niches within an ecosystem (fig. 2.3.2) (Gaston & Spicer, 2004). Therefore, the edge of these habitats functions as habitats on their own, where often dispersal and interaction between organisms takes place (Ries et al., 2004). For example, forest edges are of significant importance as a habitat for butterflies, which can be used as an indicator of the ecological quality (Butterfly Conservation, 2011).

Fig. 2.3.1 Opposite side top - Ecological principles on landscape level As part of a larger green structure to the surroundings, a few principles need to be considered to improve the ecological quality of green spaces in the urban environment. See reference on page 124 Fig. 2.3.2 Opposite side buttom - Ecological principles on habitat level This drawing shows a few examples of how the diversity and interaction of habitat can increase the variety of microclimate, suitable for different animal species

size area

number of areas

distance connectivity compactness

transition zones

vertical complexity of woody vegetation a rich, herbaceous flower meadow

a variety of open and mosaic edges natural dispersal

pollinators prefer small, warm niches

Species level To fully enhance the regional ecosystem, it is more efficient to put emphasis on the development of native plant species and communities, as these attract species (e.g. insects, fungi, bacteria) that are adapted to the same natural conditions and therefore, complement each other (Helden et al., 2012). However, to a certain extent non-native vegetation also has values that are worth considering. For example, exotic plants often extend the flowering period that enhances pollination for the generalist species and it adds recreational value (Salisbury et al., 2015). Furthermore, to create a designated bird habitat, vegetation complexity is more important than species diversity (Threlfall et al., 2017). In the ecological crisis, there are many species that are threatened with extinction, even in Denmark (DMU, 2011). There are a few species groups that are extremely sensitive to disturbances and are therefore most threatened, such as the pollinators due to a lack of foraging (nectar and pollen), nesting sites, and overwintering sites (terrain, soil). From the pollinators, the amount of bees is the most abundant. The bees can be divided into three groups: honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumblebees (Bombus sp.), and solitary bees. In terms of foraging, the honey- and bumblebee can be considered as generalist species that use each flowering plant to provide their colonies of food, and support the dispersal of these flowering species. For nesting they need an undisturbed place where there is a place for large cavities, such as abandoned rodent nests or in tussock grasses, and facing to the north, undisturbed from people and drastic temperature fluctuations (Goulson, 2008). On the other hand, solitary bees require warmer conditions and prefer field edges where it is easy to find shelter and food (Sydenham et al., 2014). Butterflies are a good indicator of the overall regional biodiversity, as they are the most vulnerable to changes in the environment. Butterflies, moths, and ants prefer the semi-open grassland structures that have foraging opportunities in the meadow and can find protection from wind and cold. This can be done by the integration of coves along the forest edge that breaks the wind and creates warmer conditions locally, suitable for many insects besides butterflies (Sydenham et al., 2014; Butterfly Conservation, 2011). Furthermore, the dispersal of forest edges into the open creates a mosaic of shrubs, trees, and herbs that create shelter and shadow, and thus increases the habitat heterogeneity. Currently, green spaces in the urban environment are often neatened up for aesthetic purposes and lack of dead materials such as deadwood and leaf litter. Designated places where leaf litter or biomass can be left, will attract species that decompose these materials and with that, make the required nutrients available again for growing vegetation (Threlfall et al., 2017). Also, it is used as shelter (fig. 2.3.3) for many

insects, and small mammals such as the hedgehog or mice (Threlfall et al., 2017). Furthermore, also rocks, gravel, and sandy soils can provide warm nesting spots for insects such as beetles (Ishimatsu & Ito, 2013). In terms of decomposition, it is important to focus on ground beetles, as they are most affected by environmental changes, which makes them perfect indicator species for the overall biodiversity (Ishimatsu & Ito, 2013). This can, for example, be enhanced by the management intensity of singular trees, that are often dominant structures in the urban environment. aged singular trees can provide a richer diversity of microclimates on its own and can house red-listed insects (Sörensson, 2008). Over time, a tree creates different ‘scars’ that evolve into resources for insects, such as standing water, decaying cavities or branches, mold, and fungi, or resin (Sörensson, 2008). Moreover, there are easy-to-apply methods that can be integrated without disregarding the safety of users or compensating the recreational value, that prevents premature felling (Ravn et al., 2017).

Close-to-nature management The management of urban nature can have both a negative and positive impact on the ecological quality, such as the use of pesticides and herbicides, the structural removal of alien invasive species, and other disturbances such as extensive recreational use (Beninde et al. 2015). As Threlfall et al. (2016) conclude: “effective management of any urban green space network should recognize the distinct characteristics of each habitat, (…).” Close-to-nature management is derived from the concept of ‘close-to-nature forestry’. This framework also takes the nature conservation value, cultural heritage, and landscape amenities into consideration (Larsen, 2012). In the urban environment, this entails that there are designated areas for either recreational, ecological, or other purposes, which implies that areas with an ecological aim should be maintained to support the local biodiversity, rather than for aesthetical value. Moreover, in the longer term, this means that these improved habitats enhance the continuity and succession of nature in the urban environment and its surroundings. Nature-based management means a decrease of interventions that could damage the local climatic conditions of habitat, alter the soil composition, or disrupt the local biodiversity by the use of heavy machinery or pesticides. One of these nature-based methods is grazing. Moderate and mosaic grazing can create preferable conditions for the growth of habitat structures and impacts the biodiversity of flower meadows, preferred by birds, mammals, and insects (Allison & Bender, 2017).

Fig. 2.3.3 Opposite side - Ecological principles on species level This drawing shows a few examples of how small attributes such as deadwood, water, or difference in the soil can improve the suitability for nesting and foraging insects

tree in decay, full of decomposing insects and fungi

reeds, nesting for ducks and amphibians pond, full of life

stones and old brickwalls provide small cavities for nesting and shelter

deadwood for solitary bees to and a food resource for beetles

gravel and sand for insects to warm up and find shelter standing water

Applied methods In this section, we describe specific methods that we use as tools to make a proposal that will enhance the biodiversity quality within the project area.

Habitat unit diversity The Habitat Unit Diversity (HUD) method gives an overall understanding of the different ecological structures of the project site. Mapping the different habitat units in the project area and the direct surroundings is an ‘easy-to-apply’ technique to monitor the habitat heterogeneity of urban parks (Hermy & Cornelis, 2000). In this project, we use it as a starting point for the ecological analysis and to get an understanding of the site on a more general level. See fig 2.4.1 for the registration location, and appendix A-a for legend descriptions.

Urban habitat index The Urban Habitat Index is a tool to score the biodiversity quality of a specific urban habitat. The index is divided into different categories (see appendix B) and will give an indication of the presence of attributes that either enhance or diminish the habitat(s). This tool is retrieved from evidence-based researches (e.g. Monberg et al., 2018, 2019; Hermy & Cornelis, 2000, 2004; DMU, 2011; Sörensson, 2008). From the overall understanding of the different structures from the habitat unit diversity mapping, we now get a closer look into the qualities of relevant structures, within the project area. Because of the project area’s size and diverse habitats, we cannot use this method without dividing the area so that it has representative habitats within the area. With this solution, the data is equitable and comparable and will be used to locate attributes that can be improved. We gather the two areas Herthalund and Amphitheater as one cohesive habitat, as they have similar structures, the same goes for Lystanlægget, Old stadium, and the front side of Slagelse Hallen, and for the swamp and hospital garden (see fig. 2.4.1 for location).

Forest stand structures A forest stand has many components that indicate its complexity. The different tree species and their distribution, the upcoming understorey, the interaction and competition among vegetation, the different microclimate created due to these interactions and the general growth conditions such as light-availability or soil type, can tell us more about the quality of the biodiversity within the forest stands, and will thus help us to develop these areas to benefit our aim. To get a representative indication of the areas’ forest stands structures, we have located two areas where we want to investigate the biodiversity quality (see fig 2.4.1 for location).

The method is to mark a transect of xx meter depending on the stand size, in this case, 50 meters. All trees above one meter in height that crosses the centreline, are measured and documented, this will give us a representative view on the spatial composition, stand age, scale, and structures (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2005). On-site registration: Besides identifying all the species, all trees are measured in height, stem circumference (at one-meter height), and canopy diameter; the morphological measurements. This can help us estimate their age. Additionally, the location and the status of the tree are estimated, to see how it interacts with other trees in the immediate surroundings. We use Kraft’s Crown Classification to determine the status of the trees (Smith et al., 1997). The collected data will then be visualized in diagrams indicating the vertical and horizontal structures, by making both a section and a canopy projection diagram.

Park tree registration By collecting data of all park trees in and around Lystanlægget (see fig 2.4.1 for location), we are able to get an overview on the age (Skovbrugstabeller, 1990), and diversity between the trees in the area. Additionally, we want to investigate the attributes of each tree that indicate the biodiversity quality. This is done by using the AHA-method. The method focuses on attributes that attract species that are often threatened or red-listed, which implies that they are good biodiversity indicators (Sörensson 2008). In general, a tree or a plant has a high biodiversity value and can be quantified in regard to the red-listed and threatened species, by the amount and size of the cavities and decay, resin, mold, fungi, standing water, tree size, and the age. These variables indicate a richer microclimate on average and can attract a large number of insects, fungi, bacteria, and also provide a rich food resource for smaller mammals than a tree without ‘scars’ (Sörensson 2008). For each of the AHAvariables (see appendix D,b) a score will determine if the tree has a high or low conservation priority, or if it is a resource tree (Sörensson 2008). Even though this method is very time consuming, we believe it is worth the effort; not only are the results very valuable for the project and its process, it can also be valuable for the municipality, as they can use it as a tool to manage the area in the future.

Groundcover Vegetation Focusing our attention on the ground level, we want to gain knowledge of the ground cover layers within the project area. This is a task that is not easily done, as the registration period is February, and thereby winter. So instead of making detailed vegetation registrations on a species level, we use a method that quantifies the variables bare soil, moss, grass, forbs, and shrubs. These variables will tell us something about the living conditions of the specific area that we investigate. To make the registrations equitable and comparable, we use the transect method that allows us to point out three areas that we want to

further investigate; Old Athletics Stadium, Herthalund, and the northern part of the military terrain (see fig. 2.4.1 for locations). At these areas we layout a 40-meter transect and make 3-4 representable slots of 1 m2 (Petersen & Vestergaard, 2012). To determine the ratio between the different variables within each slot, a quick and verbal method is used, as we on the count of three, out loud say the percentage that we on our own have assessed by looking at the slot. If the percentage is more or less the same, we use an average to estimate a fair percentage of the variable, and then take the next variable and do the same, and so forth.

Pa rk

ve j

Additionally to these variable calculations, we have tried to determine some of the species that we could verify on the spot. By further examination, the species can give us an indication of the ecological characteristics of the three areas. We use Ellenberg’s Indicator Values to do that. Ellenberg’s Indicator Values is a list of species that are based on extensive knowledge of European vascular plants. These plants’ ecological characteristics such as their tolerance of soil moisture, nitrate, pH value, salinity, and light, are scaled between 1-9 or 1-12, where a low score is poor, and a high score is rich (Hill, 1999; Petersen & Vestergaard, 2012).

rik

Fre

Hig

hw ay

Grøn

ninge

øjv

It is important to notice here, that this only gives us an indication of the characteristics, as we also need to verify the ratio between the species. This is unfortunately not possible this time of year (during winter), as we only have determined some of the species, and these species are found sporadically within the plots. Further investigation should be made in the spring/summer seasons, to get a true image of the ecological characteristics and a detailed list of species. Furthermore, we also use Ellenberg’s Indicator Values as a tool to investigate the ecological characteristics of the swamp (see fig. 2.4.1 for location), as it is an area with great potential for an expansion of its habitat to enhance the biodiversity quality within the project area.

Teglværksvej E

Legends:

Fig. 2.4.1 Data registration An overview over data registration locations Scale: 1:5.000

Habitat unit diversity Urban habitat index A - Park side B - Swamp/pond C - Herthalund/amphitheater Park tree registration - A Forest stand structures D - Forest pach north/east of sports fields E - Herthalund Ground cover F - Old stadium G - Herhalund H - Northern part of military terrain Swamp

III - Analysis The analysis of the project site is divided into two sections: landscape analysis and ecology & management. The landscape analysis contains a study on the spatial layout and user experience of the project area from town level to the different areas throughout the area. This will give insight into what and where the weak and strong points are, and thus, where improvements are required. The second section is an elaborate study on the current ecological status of the project area. Additionally, insight into the conditions of the natural surroundings gives an indication of the potential for improvement of the ecological value within the project area. Each section concludes with a summary of the key findings of the section.

Landscape analysis Infrastructure Municipal- / regional- / national- connections Slagelse is located north of the E20 highway going east/west, which connects the town with Funen, Jutland, and Copenhagen. The state route 22 going north/south, connects Slagelse with Kalundborg north of Sealand, and Næstved and Vordingborg to the south. The national and regional railway also passes through, which makes Slagelse easy accessible by car and train, both from near and far. Recreational infrastructure Taking a closer look at the recreational infrastructure, Slagelse has both international-, regional- connections as well as local hiking tracks within Slagelse. E6 is an international hiking track that reaches 6.300 km going from Stockholm (SWE) via Copenhagen (DK), Goslar (D), and Koper (SLO) to Alexandroupolis (GR). The route is a part of 12 E-paths that are long-distance walking trails within Europe, that connect national and regional walking trails, and provides intercultural experiences across European borders (ERA, 2020). On a regional level, Fodsporet is a hiking trail that reaches 48 km. It is a nature track that is built on the old railway tracks between Næstved in the south, Skælskør in the west, and Slagelse in the north (Udinaturen, n.d.). A part of Fodsporet is marked as a health track, called Sundhedssporet, where you can test your fitness (Udinaturen, n.d.).

Within Slagelse there are listed 4 different trails with each their own focus, called Kløverstierne, which are marked with different colors. The green track is 2.7 km and focuses on churches and culture, the black track is 11.4 km and focuses on nature and green oases, the red track is 7.4 km and focuses on schools and paths, and finally, the blue track is 5.3 km and focuses on cultural heritage and sports life (Friluftsguiden, 2020). As the illustration shows, the blue, black, and red Kløverstiernetracks cross or pass the project area, and the international trail almost crosses the project area as well. With these recreational trails, Slagelse has the opportunity to promote themselves as a worthy stopover for potential visitors of the town, from a local to an international level. Town layout and orientation points The 4th layer shows the city function layout in relation to the project area. As the illustration shows, the project area borders the town center to the north, residential areas to the south and west, and a large hospital area to the east. The location of the project area is thus a hotspot for a very diverse audience.

Fig. 3.1.1 Opposite site - Infrastructure layer 1: Municipal- / regional- / national- connections layer 2: recreational infrastructure layer 3: town layout and orientation points

Scale: 1:50.000

Høng

Kalundborg

Copenhagen

Sct. Mikkels Church Lystanlægget / Old stadium gate

Studentersøen

Amphitheater

Antvorskov ruins

Fyn & Jylland

Næstved & Vordingborg

Fyn & Jylland Secondary roads Municipal road State route 22 Highway E20 Regional railway Main railway

Kløverstien: red track 7.40 km Kløverstien: blue track 5.30 km Kløverstien: green track 2.70 km Kløverstien: black track 11.40 km

Fodsporet Sundhedssporet European hiking track E6

Orientation points Town centre Project area outline

Skælskør & Næstved

Green spaces Hospital area Residential areas Industrial areas Technical areas

grobdnulaK

gnøH

negahnepoC

dnallyJ & nyF

grobgnidroV & devtsæN

dnallyJ & nyF sdaor yradnoceS daor lapicinuM 22 etuor etatS 02E yawhgiH yawliar lanoigeR yawliar niaM

Sct. Mikkels Church Lystanlægget / Old stadium gate

Studentersøen

Amphitheater

Antvorskov ruins

Kløverstien: red track 7.40 km Kløverstien: blue track 5.30 km Kløverstien: green track 2.70 km Kløverstien: black track 11.40 km

Fodsporet Sundhedssporet European hiking track E6

Orientation points Town centre Project area outline

Skælskør & Næstved

Green spaces Hospital area Residential areas Industrial areas Technical areas

grobdnulaK

gnøH

negahnepoC

dnallyJ & nyF

grobgnidroV & devtsæN

dnallyJ & nyF

teropsdoF teropssdehdnuS 6E kcart gnikih naeporuE

devtsæN & røkslækS

mk 04.7 kcart der :neitsrevølK mk 03.5 kcart eulb :neitsrevølK mk 07.2 kcart neerg :neitsrevølK mk 04.11 kcart kcalb :neitsrevølK

sdaor yradnoceS daor lapicinuM 22 etuor etatS 02E yawhgiH yawliar lanoigeR yawliar niaM

Sct. Mikkels Church Lystanlægget / Old stadium gate

Studentersøen

Amphitheater

Antvorskov ruins

Orientation points Town centre Project area outline

Green spaces Hospital area Residential areas Industrial areas Technical areas

Green structure Protected nature types The geological diversity has resulted in a great variety of nature, of which few of the nature areas are classified as valuable and therefore, are protected. Also adjacent to and within the project area, there are many small wet areas in the form of lakes, bogs, and ponds. Moreover, there is a protected meadow (eng) and pasture (overdrev) in direct connection to the project area. Soil The project area is mostly covered in moraine clay(Atlas over Danmark, 1949). Locally, in the southern part of the project area, the soil consists of meltwater clay. The varying conditions of the soil are the result of glacial movements and derogation (Atlas over Danmark, 1949). Landscape types The project area is bordering the landscape type that is classified as undulating dead-ice landscape, which implies that the landscape east of Slagelse is formed by the glacial movements during the last ice age (Atlas of Denmark, 1949). The wash out of meltwater and the deposits of soil have created a meltwater valley, of which the project area is part of. Public spaces The project area is, predominantly on the southern and eastern side, surrounded by large green structures at Slagelse Skovene and the dry grasslands of Antvorskov Military Terrain. Nature is brought further into the urban environment with a cluster of public spaces in the project area that facilitates small green structures or large green structures, such as the forest patches and the public green spaces. The three maps shown here indicate that the project area forms a keystone structure between the urban and the natural environment, and furthermore, where nature distributes itself further into the city that makes the city more livable and connected to its native land.

Fig. 3.1.2 Opposite side - Green structure - an overview Layer 1: Protected nature types Layer 2: Soil Layer 3: Landscape types Layer 4: Public spaces

Scale: 1:50.000

Lakes and flowing water Bogs Pastures Meadows

Morain clay Meltwater clay Freshwater formation Extra-marginal landscape Fluvial sand and gravel deposits

Maintained, hummocky dead ice landscape Maintained, arable fields Protected, arable fields Other, arable fields Maintained, river valley Protected, river valley

Slagelse skovene and forest pathes Military terrain New forest, Nordskoven planned outline

Public green spaces Cemeteries Sports facilities Allotments

retaw gniwofl dna sekaL sgoB serutsaP swodaeM

Morain clay Meltwater clay Freshwater formation Extra-marginal landscape Fluvial sand and gravel deposits

Maintained, hummocky dead ice landscape Maintained, arable fields Protected, arable fields Other, arable fields Maintained, river valley Protected, river valley

Slagelse skovene and forest pathes Military terrain New forest, Nordskoven planned outline

Public green spaces Cemeteries Sports facilities Allotments

yalc niaroM yalc retawtleM noitamrof retawhserF epacsdnal lanigram-artxE stisoped levarg dna dnas laivulF

retaw gniwofl dna sekaL sgoB serutsaP swodaeM

Maintained, hummocky dead ice landscape Maintained, arable fields Protected, arable fields Other, arable fields Maintained, river valley Protected, river valley

Slagelse skovene and forest pathes Military terrain New forest, Nordskoven planned outline

Public green spaces Cemeteries Sports facilities Allotments

epacsdnal eci daed ykcommuh ,deniatniaM sdlefi elbara ,deniatniaM sdlefi elbara ,detcetorP sdlefi elbara ,rehtO yellav revir ,deniatniaM yellav revir ,detcetorP

yalc niaroM yalc retawtleM noitamrof retawhserF epacsdnal lanigram-artxE stisoped levarg dna dnas laivulF

retaw gniwofl dna sekaL sgoB serutsaP swodaeM

Slagelse skovene and forest pathes Military terrain New forest, Nordskoven planned outline

Public green spaces Cemeteries Sports facilities Allotments

Area development through time Although the construction of the highway and other roads such as Grønningen have created favorable conditions for the connection of Slagelse to the rest of Denmark, both the recreational and ecological connectivity of Slagelse to Slagelse skovene and the meadows of Antvorskov have been cut off. As part of the local connectivity, Skovstien (1840-1899) was detached from the forest by the highway and eventually dissolved in the continuous expansion of the regional hospital. With that, the historical connection between Lystanlægget and Lystskov has gone lost, and consequently, Slagelse has been detached from its own native ground and elements that carry parts of Slagelse’s identity. Furthermore, urban expansion and the construction of roads has affected the ecological connectivity that influences the natural movement and dispersal of vegetation and animals, among other natural processes (e.g. geology and hydrology) from the natural to the urban environment. The development of the living environment has caused major changes in the project area and the direct surroundings. These changes can predominantly be ascribed to the continuous expansion of amenities such as the hospital area and the various sports facilities. The different functions that have claimed their part in the area, have been developed with separate interests, purely focused on the functionality and quality of their own facilities. Therefore, there is a lack of

coherence with neighboring amenities and lack of connection to the landscape. The numerous developments throughout the years have created lots of smaller, fragmented pieces of land that have been neglected in the design and planning processes throughout the years and miss a clear aim in regard to the urban or natural environment. On a positive note, the wide range of public amenities have created a worthy establishment of recreational activities that attracts a diverse mix of user groups, and thus, the area is of high value for many of Slagelse’s residents. The project area serves as an outdoor extension of their homes. Based on the places created throughout the project area, many stories have been attached to this public green space, such as Idrætsparken -of which the gate is a remnant-, the historic connection between Lystanlægget and Lystskov, Herthalund as remains of the tile factory, and the plays and concerts at the amphitheater. It is of significant value for Slagelse and its residents to acknowledge stories from the past that have gone lost through the years and create a place for new stories that strengthen the sense of identity in one large recreational space. The current status of the ongoing development of the area is the plans for a new town hall and an extension of the football stadium. The proposal for the new layout can be seen in the last diagram of fig. 3.1.3.

new hospital Lystanlægget

Skov

stien

Grønningen

Studentersø /Lystskov new residential area

tile factory at Herthalund

1840-1899

1977-1985 new hospital

new regional hospital

Lystanlægget

Idrætsparken / Old Stadium amphitheatre

nature protection plan

1901-1945

1986-2008

expansion hospital

new football stadium

expansion sports complex

stormwater detention zone

psychiatric hospital

highway (E20)

1953-1976

2009-2020

Fig. 3.1.3 - Area development - 1840 - 2020 Town Hall

parking house

expansion football stadium

Pic. 3.1.1 Opposite side - Slagelse Idrætspark and surroundings 1934 The historic picture indicates that the area has gone through major changes in the past century. On the left side, Lystanlægget in the corner and Idrætsparken with the gate below. In the right bottom, the amphitheater, built in 1933. See reference on page 124 for the source of the image

Future plans for the area

250

500m

Area diversity - picture collage

Pic. 3.1.2 Lystanlægget Open spatial layout towards Parkvej

Pic. 3.1.5 Outside the new stadium, Talent Campus and residential housing A space for entrance/exit and garbage disposal only, no recreational settings

Pic. 3.1.3 Lystanlægget View over the pond facing Slagelse Hallen and Stadium

Pic. 3.1.6 Old Stadium Gate The gate telling the story of the inauguration of Idrætsparken back in 1927

Pic. 3.1.4 Outside Slagelse Hallen and Slagelse stadium Open space with gravel roads and parking spaces in between solitary trees

Pic. 3.1.7 Frederikshøjvej, Parkvej side The streets layout suffers from earlier use

Pic. 3.1.8 - Re- / detention zone at Old Stadium An area primarily aimed for climate adaptation

Pic. 3.1.11 Amphitheater Currently under renovation

Pic. 3.1.9 Artificial football fields The surrounding layout undergoing changes, and for now lack meaning

Pic. 3.1.12 Behind Amphitheater towards Herthalund Human-made tracks leading the users from a to b

Pic. 3.1.10 Behind UV-Hallen The football fields behind UV-Hallen are disconnected with the fenced fields

Pic. 3.1.13 Herthalund The area is hilly and has great opportunities for further development

Landscape characteristics and use Serial vision part 1

1... Here I’m seen. I walk my dog, feed the ducks, play with family and friends. Here I feel relaxed ...

de j jve

shø

rik

vej

rk Pa

Fre

2... Here I’m confused, where to look and where to go, there is no guidance ...

Grøn

ninge

hw ay Hig

3... Here I’m exposed, intangible to my surroundings, at a place that once was ...

E20

Teglværksvej

Fig. 3.1.4 Mapping and illustrations of serial visions 1-4 Scale 1:5000

4... Here I exercise, getting my pulse up, interacting with my friends, here is my free time, I’m having fun ...

Spatial composition and use part 1 1 - Lystanlægget Lystanlægget is the town’s main public park, for recreation, social gatherings, summer concerts, bird feeding, picnic, strolling, playing, et cetera. The park is for everyone and is planned and maintained as an English garden, with short cut grass, solitary trees, curved paths, a maze, and a big pond. The spatial compositions within the park vary from smaller niches at the inner borders, towards private gardens, to more open areas towards Parkvej. The park’s layout works well from a recreational perspective in many ways but can be improved in terms of vegetation structures that are less intensively managed, thus creating a more biodiverse spatial composition towards Parkvej.

2 - Frederikshøjvej Frederikshøjvej has undergone many layouts to accommodate different uses over time. The current status of the street is a mix of different levels, as it now merges with a former asphalted bike path, with different patches of gravel stones, and a parking lot that leads to nowhere. The street almost merges into the old stadium and adds to the experience of a very open empty space, a non-space. 3 - Old Stadium and gate The area where the old stadium is located no longer serves as a sports facility but is now primarily used for water re-/ detention and has no recreational function. The area can store a great amount of water, to mitigate the interferences caused by climate change such as the increasing stormwater events in the last decade that has caused several flooding issues in urban environments. However, the landscape layout has been neglected as a result and is now inaccessible. The entrance to the old stadium is still standing. It was renovated in 2017 (Sjællandske Nyheder, 2017), but is no longer in use. Now, it stands like an odd piece in the landscape; it is a monument, a piece of history. 4 - Sports fields The sports fields take up 5.8 ha of space and mainly serve football players, both amateurs and professionals of all ages. The area is open, but the high fences that enclose the fields disturb the overview of the area. The area is highly managed, and no additional volumes other than the fences occur. The space is only functioning as a sports facility. With a few alterations, it is possible to make the area a bit more interesting, by integrating trees in-between the fields, as well as benches for more comfort while watching the game. Fig. 3.1.5 Principle sections part 1 - 4 drawings, spatial compositions

Serial vision part 2

5... Here I enter another world, I have the overview, I feel secure ...

Frede riksh øjvej

8 6... Here I see an exciting new landscape, I feel closer to nature and the forest, yet I feel detached and disconnected from my route...

E20 hw ay

Grøn

v Teglværks

ninge

Hig

Fig. 3.1.6 Mapping and illustrations of serial visions 5-8 Scale 1:5000

7... Here I feel the terrain changing, I walk my dog, I pass through, following the path ...

8... How did I get here? I’m surrounded by trees, the moss lightens up the woods and lake, here I feel at peace, yet the highway is pervasive ...

Spatial composition and use part 2 5 - Amphitheater The amphitheater was designed by C. TH. Sørensen back in 1933 and was one of the first kinds to be built. At this moment it is undergoing a massive renovation. It is located at the highest point in Slagelse, 68m above sea level. Approximately 14m higher than the direct surroundings. The theater is used for gatherings, plays, et cetera. On top of the hill, it is possible to get a view of the town center during wintertime when there are no leaves on the trees. This place has great potential to be a landmark for Slagelse, because of its height. 6 - Hospital garden The hospital’s outdoor facilities are primarily intended for the patients of the psychiatric hospital. However, the area is accessible from Frederikshøjvej, where a little opening leads to a steep hill, where the pond shows up. The area has great potential for expansion across Frederikshøjvej, to merge with the swamp on the other side of the road. This could not only enhance the biodiversity quality of this area, but it also adds value to the spatial composition, and by that, adds more attractive experiences for the visitors of the site.

7 - Herhalund Herthalund is a grassy pocket park that is surrounded by forest stands, in the far southern part of the project area. The area is hilly with one path leading through the area following the edge of the forest stand on one side. The forest along the western side serves as a border towards the private gardens. During observations in wintertime, it seems like a place that is only used for walking dogs and going from a to b. However, the area has great potential to be much more than a field of grass, as the terrain gives many opportunities for recreational experiences and to enhance biodiversity. 8 - Forest Slagelse Lystskov and Studentersø, east of the highway, are part of a larger afforested area called Slagelse Skovene, which has a great historical value related to Slagelse town, Denmark and the military. Nowadays, it is a recreational forest enjoyed by both hikers, bikers, runners, and scouts, and the Soldier’s Lodge facilitates an open shelter for recreational purposes. Furthermore, the area is of great significance for various redlisted species, such as the hazel mouse and the marter. It would be of great value to the historical narrative, for Slagelse municipality, and for the quality of Slagelse’s biodiversity if the physical connection is re-established. Fig. 3.1.7 Principle sections part 2 - 4 drawings, spatial compositions

Connections & accesibility Currently, there are two types of infrastructure in the project area; recreational path systems and roads that are predominantly used by motorized traffic to go from A to B. In the eastern corner of the project area, Grønningen crosses the project area. The road is part of the town ring and is an important access road to the highway and the regional hospital, that accommodates many parking opportunities. In relation to the project area, Grønningen mainly functions as a thoroughfare and is uninviting for recreational purposes. Moreover, the road forms a physical barrier for both recreational and ecological purposes, which is further amplified by the highway between the project area and Slagelse Skovene. From the logistic roads that cross the area, Parkvej is the most vital artery for the accessibility of the area, both for cars and in a recreational sense. As a rather intensively used road, it connects the project area to the wider surroundings of Slagelse. The street provides access to Frederikshøjvej and the parking lot between Lystanlægget and the avenue along with the football stadium. The parking lot is mostly used by visitors to the Talent Campus, Slagelse Hallen, or the football facilities coming from Parkvej. However, the capacity of the parking lot has reached its limits and therefore, a temporary parking lot has been brought into place. Frederikshøjvej can be accessed from Parkvej, where most people enter the area to go to UV-Hallen, the amphitheater, or the few entrances of backyards of the adjoining residential areas. Furthermore, many locals use this road to walk their dogs. From the northern side, Frederikshøjvej is accessed via Fælledvej, where it forms an access point for the tennis club and the back entrance of the football stadium and clubhouse. Currently, the road only functions as an access road for the different amenities connected to it, and not as a thoroughfare between Parkvej and Fælledvej. Therefore, it can be questioned whether a full loop that crosses the project area is a requirement to maintain sufficient accessibility. For example, between the parking lot of the tennis club and the amphitheater, there are no amenities that need direct accessibility for cars.

facilities of the psychiatric hospital have their own recreational infrastructure, that answers the requirements of that specific amenity. For example, Lystanlægget has a path system that was designed specifically to guide the visitor along with different experiences throughout the public park, as a means of attraction and leisure. Recently, also the outdoor facilities of the psychiatric hospital have been designed with a similar design philosophy. However, the path systems along the sports facilities are straightforward and mostly function as a connection between the fields and the indoor facilities, and for spectators to watch the game. Additionally, there are a few single paths, such as at Herthalund and along with the sports complex that has low experiential value. Three of the four Kløverstierne-tracks cross the project area. Except for the blue track, the trails are put very much in the edges of the project area, and therefore the recreational experience for the hikers is kept to a minimum. The E6-hiking trail, in the very bottom of the map, is mostly leading the international hiker towards Slagelse Skovene, and not toward the town center. However, the project area could be of importance as a stopover for the guests between the original track and the town center, as an invitation to see more of Slagelse’s beauty. In general, the connectivity and accessibility of the area can be considered as good. However, several layers of infrastructure have been planned and designed very exclusively and do not interact with the surroundings. There is a lack of coherence and consistency throughout the area, that could be improved by logic connections, and the use of matching design language and materials.

Teglværksvej, between Herthalund and the amphitheater, is a street with low traffic intensity. The road mainly provides connectivity for the residential area east of Herthalund. Besides, it provides local accessibility of the recreational paths in the southern and northern directions. In terms of recreational connectivity, the project area consists of several smaller path systems. In the southern and western side of the project area. There are various paths that create local accessibility between the project site and the surrounding residential areas. The different amenities in the project area, in this case, Lystanlægget, the sports facilities, and the outdoor

Fig. 3.1.8 Opposite side - Connections and accessibility Scale: 1:5.000

Fælledv ej

Parkvej

Fælle dvej

n allée Slots

ej øjv sh rik de Fre

øjvej riksh Frede

Hig hw ay (E2 0)

Teglværksv

Grøn ning en

Legends:

Project outline Recreational path Kløverstien: red track Kløverstien: blue track Kløverstien: black track European hiking track (E6)

Recreational access point Logistic access point Parking lot

Key findings Both Slagelse town and the project area have undergone many changes and developments in the urban environment, in the past two centuries. This has created a whole range of new possibilities, such as an improved regional and national connectivity with the construction of the highway. Also, there is an extensive recreational infrastructure with Kløverstierne and E6-trail, that invites residents to see more of Slagelse and the natural surroundings. The project area forms a keystone green structure for Slagelse, and with that, it forms the gateway between the open country and the town center. The project area has the potential to function as a recreational hub on a local and regional level and can become the postcard of Slagelse that invites visitors to enjoy the town a little longer and invites the residents to go out and see more of the surroundings.

In conclusion, the project area does not feel like one coherent green space in the urban environment. On the upside, areas such as Lystanlægget and the hospital garden are designed with a clear recreational focus and have consistent use of materials (e.g. paving and furniture), green structures, and the overall atmosphere.

Within the project area, various recreational activities have been added to the urban environment that could improve the wellbeing of the resident and the visitor such as the many sports facilities, the public park to meet friends and family, or to simply have a stroll. Furthermore, the area consists of a few iconic elements that function as local landmarks and additionally, contain a rich history for Slagelse and its residents, such as the gate at the Old Stadium and the Amphitheater. Overall, the various areas have been the basis for many stories that have been created throughout the years. On the downside, several elements that contribute to Slagelse’s heritage have gone lost in the continuous development of amenities in the project area. To fully enhance the recreational experience, the advice is to restore and highlight landscape elements as an embrace of Slagelse’s identity.

For the overall accessibility of the project area, Parkvej is the most important artery from different corners of Slagelse. From Parkvej, the resident or the visitor can access Frederikshøjvej, which leads the user along with the many facilities. Although Frederikshøjvej is mainly used as an entrance to the different facilities, the road is currently constructed as a thoroughfare between Parkvej and Fælledvej, north of the project area. To improve the connectivity of the hospital garden and the rest of the project area, Frederikshøjvej can be considered as a barrier, as there are no entrances to facilities in this corner of the project area. In general, the secondary roads that give access to the project area (Parkvej and Teglværksvej) are currently not included as part of the green space and rather function as a thoroughfare. Furthermore, to restore the connection of Slagelse with its heritage, natural surroundings, and identity that is partially located outside of the urban environment, solutions have to be found to overcome physical barriers; Grønningen and the highway.

The expansion of different facilities such as the hospital or the football complex, so far, has only taken place for the quality of the facility, and therefore, there is a lack of interaction among the various facilities and to the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, there are several spaces that are not utilized to their fullest potential, such as the Old Stadium and Herthalund.

In general, a distinction can be made in terms of recreational intensity. At the town side, the urban green space is specifically designed and programmed for leisure, and functions as a meeting point for the residents; predominantly Lystanlægget. The football complex is fully accommodated for sports activities, and the eastern half of the project area does not have a specific recreational aim and is surrounded by larger green structures.

Ecology & management Habitat structures & quality In this part of the Ecology & Management analysis, we take a closer look at the current habitat structures within the project site. The Habitat Unit Diversity analysis will give an understanding of the ratio between the different habitat structures and what the current situation is in terms of overall connectivity. The quality of the registered structures is assessed with the Urban Habitat Index. This will give an indication of the current management practices, and what the strengths and weaknesses are in terms of biodiversity-supporting practices.

Habitat Unit Diversity A dominant structure is the mixed forest stand, as shown on the map (fig. 3.2.3). The forest structure continues from Slagelse Skovene into the urban environment. It encircles the residential areas near Teglværksvej in the south and reaches toward the hospital area, north of the project site. Additionally, the ‘garden’ of the new psychiatric hospital is planted fairly recently and the plantings will in the longer term integrate with the mixed forest stand that surrounds the garden. Another observation is the amount of grassed areas throughout the area. At Lystanlægget and surroundings, the lawn is cut frequently. At Herthalund the grassland is cut less frequently but has not been left to grow naturally, which is further discussed on page 63. However, on top of the landfill at Herthalund, there is a rather large patch that is left to grow spontaneously, which requires less management. This patch, that looks like a local experiment, has similar characteristics as the herbaceous vegetation growing naturally at Antvorskov military terrain. This patch will be further discussed in the Ground Cover Vegetation analysis on page 74. The football pitches are dominant components in the center of the project area, as can be concluded from the data results in fig. 3.2.2. The sports fields and the direct surroundings are managed intensively for the good of the sports fields, and the addition of natural components has been omitted. Lystanlægget consists of many small habitat units; which, from an ecological perspective, can be perceived as fragmented. Along Parkvej, there is a mix of newly-planted shrubbery underneath rows of an ornamental cherry tree, combined with solitary trees of different species. The westside of Lystanlægget is mostly defined by Rhododendron-patches and multi-layered woody compositions, as part of the private gardens, that together can be seen as a green curtain between the public and the private area. The northern part of Lystanlægget consists of denser vegetation compositions with a mix of shrub and tree species, where most of the trees are far in the adult stage. Although the northern part of the park and the private gardens along the western outline are not part of our project area, the existing habitat structures could have a significant effect on the ecological connectivity of the project area with its surroundings.

Within the project area, there are a few areas that can be collectively defined as ‘wet areas’, such as the pond HU29 at Lystanlægget and in the garden of the psychiatric hospital garden. The areas around these ponds, and the swamp just west of the hospital garden, are defined as tall herb vegetation. These patches consist of vegetation that indicates the wet conditions such as reed (Phragmites australis) and common bulrush (Typha latifolia), which will be further discussed in the Ground Cover Vegetation analysis. By visual observation, we see an opportunity in the Old Stadium area, where both the natural hydrology and the designation as a detention zone have an effect on the current wet conditions and the potential for increasing habitat heterogeneity. Inferring from the diagram beneath (fig 3.2.1), the mixed forest stand, frequently mown lawn, and the sports fields, the permeable cover, take up more than half of the project area, to be precise 69.5%. The impermeable cover, including the buildings, take up only 11.5% of the area. From this, we can conclude that the overall permeability of the area is good and that a large amount of (semi-)permeable cover increases the chances of natural infiltration and evapo(transpi)ration, in order to restore the balance of the natural groundwater levels (Gill et al., 2007). See Appendix A for a detailed review of the data results of the Habitat Unit Diversity mapping.

Permeability of the project area Impermeable cover (including buildings) Semi-impermeable (including artificial sportsfields) Permeable cover (habitat structures, incl. bare soil) Wet areas (ponds and tall herb vegetation)

Permeability of the project area Impermeable cover (including buildings) Fig. 3.2.1 - Permeable vs. impermeable cover (including artificial sportsfields) This data onlySemi-impermeable looks at areas within the project outline

Permeable cover (habitat structures, incl. bare soil) Wet areas (ponds and tall herb vegetation)

11.5% 3.5% 81.6% 3.4%

Planar elements

Park wood forest Mixed forest stand 21.0% Newly planted forest stand 2.0% Forest grassland 1.2% Labyrinth Shrubs 0.8% Lawn, frequently mown 30.3% Lawn, occasionally mown 4.5% Lawn, wet area 2.2% Lawn, sports field 18.2% Hay meadow 0.7% Tall herbaceous vegetation 1.6% Pond 1.8% (Semi-)permeable pavement 2.8%

Pa rk

Other planar elements Private gardens Asphalt, impermable cover Buildings Bare soil Artificial sports fields

10.0% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7%

rik

Double tree row; alley Single tree row Hedge, regularly sheared

øjv

HU33 HU34 HU35

Fre

Linear elements

Single trees Human construction

Grøn

E2 Hig

hw ay

HU52 HU56

ninge

Punctual elements

HU3 HU6.1 HU6.2 HU8 HU12 HU13 HU14.1 HU14.2 HU14.3 HU15 HU16 HU19 HU29 HU31

ve j

% of planar elements within the project area marked with a green outline

Teglgårdsvej

Planar elements within project area Mixed forest stand

21.0%

Shrubs Lawn, frequently mown Lawn, occasionally mown Lawn, wet area Lawn, sports field Hay meadow Tall herbaceous vegetation Pond

0.8% 30.3% 4.5% 2.2% 18.2% 0.7% 1.6% 1.8%

Fig 3.2.2 - Ratio diagram Newly planted forest stand 2.0% %-ratio of habitat structures and other planar elements Forest grassland 1.2% within the project area

Fig. 3.2.3 - Habitat Unit Diversity map Scale: 1:5.000

Fre shø rik de

vej

rk Pa

E20 hw ay Hig

Grøn

ninge

j jve

Teglværksvej

Groundwater levels Low Medium High Critical

Hydrology As discussed in the Habitat Unit Diversity analysis, the wet areas are fairly small in comparison to other habitat units. However, observations in the area indicate that water is a dominant component (fig 3.2.4), and further examination shows that the area is not designed to deal with natural hydrology. As shown on the pictures beneath, the high groundwater levels cause various issues at Lystanlægget (pic. 3.2.1), the sports fields (pic. 3.2.2), and other utilized spaces. The old

athletics stadium is currently used as a detention zone, where conveyed rainwater from Slagelse and the groundwater meet (pic. 3.2.3). The swamp and the pond in the southeast corner of Frederikshøjvej show that these wet conditions can be used otherwise and imply new opportunities for other conflicting areas in the project site as well (pic. 3.2.4).

Pic. 3.2.1 - Hydrology issues at the southern sports fields

Pic. 3.2.3 - The Old Stadium is rather inaccessible during winter time

Pic. 3.2.2 - Hydrology issues at Lystanlægget

Pic- 3.2.4 - The swamp, east of UV-hallen, indicates ecological potential

Fig. 3.2.4 Opposite side - Hydrology The natural hydrology, as shown in the map, is extracted from an uncertain database Kommuneplan, 2017 Scale: 1:5.000

Urban Habitat Index Parkside Lystanlægget’s center of attention is a pond larger than 100m2 and has a bank predominantly made from stones and sporadic clumps of reeds. However, a natural transition zone is missing, as well as aquatic plants in the pond (picture 3.2.5). The water is brought in movement with a fountain, used in summer, and an overflow that is mostly used in winter to discharge surplus water to the old athletics stadium. On a regular basis, visitors of the park feed the birds along the edge of the pond. A large part of the old athletics stadium is elevated and therefore, consists of slopes in both northern and southern directions (pic. 3.2.6) that could potentially create opportunities for pollinators to nest. Although most of the slopes are covered with a frequently mowed herb layer, patches of bare soil are also present. However, foraging opportunities are currently low as herbaceous vegetation is non-existent.

Overall, the lawn in the survey area is mowed frequently and therefore causes a lack of microhabitat for insects to nest, forage or overwinter. Although flowering vegetation is present, the blooming period is short due to a lack of species diversity and mostly consists of non-native species, such as Rhododendron sp., Prunus serrulata, and P. subhirtella (pic. 3.2.7). This prevents sensitive species such as butterflies or dragonflies from finding suitable habitats, and thus, does not support the species diversity. The sports park entrance and Lystanlægget have a large crown cover and therefore the area has many shaded or half-shaded spots. However, multi-layered patches are not present within the registration area that could offer refuge for animal species, as well as housing opportunities such as birdhouses. Furthermore, there is a lack of tree and shrub species that provide food such as berries and nuts for birds and small mammals. Most

Pic. 3.2.5 - The pond at Lystanlægget shows a lack of (semi-)aquatic vegetation

Pic. 3.2.7 - The Rhododendron-patches are perfect habitat for birds, but pollinators mainly prefer native nectar

Pic. 3.2.6 - The slopes around the old stadium create potential nesting sites for pollinators

Pic. 3.2.8 - Short cut grass with surrounding tree stands

tree species are broadleaved and within the project area, there are only two conifer species growing (Pinus nigra and P. sylvestris). The age, size, and species diversity of the park trees are relatively high, based on the first visual observations. In general, the trees in the park are maintained regularly in regards to safety, which causes a lack of microclimate in the trees that could attract specialist species such as fungi, beetles, or mosses. There is a lot of road noise coming from Parkvej, the traffic intensity is relatively high and also conveys quite some heavy traffic. Evidently, the road forms an ecological barrier for ‘urban wildlife’, mainly for animals that cannot fly. Herthalund & Amphitheater The recreational activity in the area is rather low in comparison to Lystanlægget and functions more as an extended backyard for

the surrounding neighborhood. Although the area has a more ‘natural appearance’ due to the forest stands that surround the survey area, maintenance is still done occasionally (pic. 3.2.8). The area lacks a clear management goal, both in recreational and ecological terms. The forest patches that enclose the areas create many different microclimates, as the presence of the many different bird noises in the survey area indicates this. At a few locations, the area consists of multilayered stands, along Teglværksvej and the western patch at Herthalund (picture 3.2.9). Deadwood and heaps of leaves have been left sporadically that could attract different kinds of insects. However, most of the forest patches are maintained fairly intensively for recreational use or safety regulations and therefore lack structural complexity and diversity in microclimate. At Herthalund, spontaneous herbaceous vegetation on top of the landfill at Herthalund adds an extra dimension to the species diversity (pic. 3.2.10). Flowering vegetation seems, however, to be lacking in the surroundings, as well as at the amphitheater. The grassed areas are mown occasionally and leave out foraging opportunities for pollinators. Nevertheless, topography and the shade of the surrounding canopies cause a variety of local conditions and create patches of mud or bare soil in the lower places, where runoff rainwater causes saturation of the soil. Similar to Lystanlægget, the survey area lack opportunities that could support nesting for birds, insects, or other animals, such as bird or bat houses, deadwood, stones, and gravel, or structural complex vegetation. In general, the noise of the highway is noticeably higher than at Lystanlægget and could cause disturbances to the natural surroundings.

Pic. 3.2.9 - Structural complexity in many forms along Teglværksvej

Pic. 3.2.10 - Herbaceous vegetation on the landfill at Herthalund

Swamp and hospital pond The areas east of Amphitheater, the swamp, and the pond at the hospital have a high diversity in vegetation and create many different microclimates that attract a wide range of animal species (pic. 3.2.11). The areas seem to be undisturbed and the vegetation diversity is based on natural succession, mostly consisting of aquatic and semi-aquatic herbs, shrubs, and mosses. The size of the trees and shrubs and the lack of decomposing materials indicate that the patch is left undisturbed fairly recently. The potential of these two wet areas, in order to improve the biodiversity within the project site, will be further discussed in the Ground Cover Vegetation Analysis on page 76. Around the pond, the hospital garden has been planted recently, in 2015. In a few years, the newly planted mixed forest stand will grow into a viable habitat structure, complementary to the existing mixed forest stands that surround the hospital garden. Moreover, the sown seed mixes in the hospital garden could attract pollinators and other insects. Both habitat types will eventually increase the habitat heterogeneity of the southeastern part of the project area. However, there are many single trees planted in the hospital garden that are in bad shape or even dead (pic. 3.2.12). The pond and the swamp are connected with each other with external, artificial water flow. The swamp and the pond are rather inaccessible for people as there are no paths going through the patches. However, Frederikshøjvej creates a minor barrier, mainly for underground natural processes. The topography at the hospital garden changes frequently and creates a few slopes that create different conditions for nesting and foraging opportunities. Also in this area, the noise of the highway is unpleasantly present. The intensity of traffic on Frederikshøjvej is low and can be considered insignificant.

Pic. 3.2.11 - A view from the Amphitheater on the swamp indicates the species and habitat diversity of the swamp

General findings From the Habitat Unit Diversity mapping and the Urban Habitat index, we can conclude that the management approach is aimed at the recreational use of the area, both the lack of diversity in habitat structures and variety in management leaves the project area rather monotonous. However, there are also a number of areas that lack a clear management goal. Overall, the different habitat structures, even the nature-like forest stands, are kept fairly neat in regards to safety and aesthetic appearance. Deadwood is often removed after maintenance, and trees are managed to prevent further decay that could potentially attract specialist species. Also, other biodiversity-elements such as herbaceous vegetation, complex woody structures, bird- and bat houses, or food provision for animals could help to increase the overall biodiversity of the project area. The area contains a number of elements that show the potential of the area in terms of ecological functionality. The swamp, the newly planted hospital garden, and the spontaneous vegetation at Herthalund show that a less intensive management regime can increase the habitat and species diversity in a fairly short amount of time, by allowing natural processes to develop organically. Furthermore, the local changes in the topography within the project area creates opportunities for a more diverse landscape. The existing habitat structures are then able to fuse and create natural gradients. The addition of habitat structures will complement the existing ecosystem and create opportunities to attract foraging and nesting sites for urban wildlife. The local natural hydrology could also further enhance the habitat heterogeneity in the project area, and the overall connectivity of wet areas in the urban environment. By active use of the fluctuating groundwater levels, new habitat structures could enrich the area, and moreover, add attractional values to the place. See Appendix B for a detailed overview of the Urban Habitat Index.

Pic. 3.2.12 - The singular planted trees in the hospital are in rather bad condition

Tree structures There are four habitat structures within the category of forest structures, that are significant to our project site; Mixed Forest Stand The project area predominantly consists of mixed forest stands, with a mix of native tree broadleaved species that are -to a certain extent- allowed to grow and regenerate naturally, as well as for native shrub species that create an understorey in combination with the young shoots of tree species. As this is a dominant habitat type in the project area and can have a significant effect on the overall biodiversity, this structure will be further analyzed on the next page.

Birch Forest West of the UV-Hallen, there is a relatively small patch that gives a unique character to the project area. The patch is only planted with birch trees (Betula sp.); a birch grove with frequently mown grass underneath. The stand creates a gradual transition between the sports park and the private gardens, west of the project area. The stand will be integrated into the design proposal without compromising the characteristic structure or the separation between public and private.

Single Trees The parkside and the hospital garden both consist of solitary trees, not planted in direct relation to other plants. However, as part of the Lystanlægget or the hospital garden, these trees are part of a larger green structure through the project area. The trees in the hospital garden are newly planted and are therefore not significant for closer examination. The trees at Lystanlægget are mostly planted for the overall aesthetic appeal, and less for the sake of the ecosystem. The ecological potential for the single trees at Lystanlægget will be further investigated in Park Tree Registration on page 70.

Park Wood stand North of the project site, at Lystanlægget, the park consists of a number of double-layered stand structures. The overstorey consists of adult trees of different broadleaved species. The understorey contains a low shrub structure, mainly consisting of Symphoricarpos sp. Although this habitat structure is not part of the project area, the patches can be of significance to the overall connectivity of habitat structures within the project site in relation to its surroundings, in regard of the overall urban ecosystem.

Pic. 3.2.13 - Birch forest

Pic. 3.2.14 - Park wood stand Northern part of Lystanlægget

Forest stand structures In this section, we do a brief analysis of the conditions of the mixed forest stands that surround the eastern part of the project site. To get an indication of the growth of the trees over time, we visualize how the forest stand could look like in 25 years, based on current management practices, in order to see what the possibilities are for the long term development of the forest stands and the project site. Stadium Forest - current situation The transect, fig. 3.2.6, consists of six native, broadleaved species: beech (6x Fagus sylvatica), Norway maple (3x Acer platanoides), common oak (4x Quercus robur), red oak (3x Q. rubra), hawthorn (5x Crataegus monogyna), and elderberry (3x Sambucus nigra). The forest stand has been thinned recently and occasional gaps were made to bring light into the stand, to give light-demanding species such as common oak, Norway maple, hawthorn, and elderberry the opportunity to regenerate. Along Frederikshøjvej the edge is compact and is hard to access. Besides the registered species in the transect, hawthorn and elderberry, also dogwood (Cornus sp.), rowan (Sorbus sp.), and cherry (Prunus sp.), were observed. The center of the forest stand mainly consists of light-demanding species, such as Norway maple, red oak, and the common oak. The open canopy allows these species and a sporadic hawthorn to regenerate in the gaps. Beech dominates the edges alongside the football fields and does not allow any understory to grow underneath, except some young beech-shoots. The edge is open and allows a

50 m

100 m

Fig. 3.2.5 - Stadium forest patch Transect location and direction

See Appendix C for a detailed review of the data registration. Stadium Forest - estimated development of 25 years Recent thinnings in the Stadium Forest will allow regrowth of saplings of light-demanding species in the understorey (elderberry, hawthorn, cherry, dogwood, and rowan), and the growth of trees with full and strong canopies in the overarching canopy in the next 25 years (fig. 3.2.6). Currently, there are 15 trees growing between 0-20 meters on the transect, mostly light-demanding species. The density of the edge is a quality that is suggested to maintain to create structural woody complexity for birds. Therefore, only a few cuttings have been made (5 and 7, hawthorn; 9, red oak; 14, beech) to allow the growth of new saplings of edge species and further compaction in the longer term, along Frederikshøjvej. In the middle of the stand, one Norway maple (17) and a common oak (19) have been removed, as the overarching oaks and beech will presumably suppress these trees in a longer time span. Alongside the football fields, two beech trees have been removed (21 & 23) to allow surrounding beech trees to grow a full canopy. Few young shoots of beech are allowed to grow, to replace the older ones in the future. Qualities and weaknesses The Stadium Forest is enclosed by Frederikshøjvej east of the stand, and the sports fields on the westside. Therefore, expansion of the stand to increase ecological opportunities are rather low. However, the forest stand has a few qualities that could improve the complexity that could enhance the stand as a habitat. The stand is fairly diverse in terms of species. There are many species observed along the Frederikshøjvej-edge that indicate good foraging opportunities for birds. Also, insect diversity is presumably high, as all registered and observed species are native. To improve the forest stand as a suitable habitat for birds, the advice is to increase the layer-complexity of the stand. This is currently lacking and needs time to grow as shown in the 25-years estimation. By removal of a few adult trees, gaps in the overarching canopy will induce regeneration of light-demanding species that could create a permanent understorey, such as hawthorn, rowan, elder, and Norway maple.

j højve eriks

Fred

direct view inside the forest from the sports park. Also, the area around the forest path is kept clear from understorey and tree saplings. Recent thinning might indicate that this is done in regard to overview and safety.

Fig. 3.2.6 - Opposite side - Stadium forest Transects Top: current situation, Bottom: 25 years ahead Scale 1:400

24 Beech

Beech

22 Beech

Beech 20 Beech Beech

18 Common oak Common oak Common oak

16 Common oak

15 Common hawthorn

13 Norway maple

11 Elder 12 Norway maple

6 Common oak 8 Common hawthorn 10 Northern Red Oak

Blackthorn

4 Northern Red Oak

23 Beech 24 Beech

22 Beech

21 Beech

20 Beech

19 Common oak

16 Common oak 17 Norway maple 18 Common oak

15 Common hawthorn

13 Norway maple 14 Beech

5 Common hawthorn 6 Common oak 7 Common hawthorn 8 Common hawthorn 9 Northern Red Oak 10 Northern Red Oak 11 Elder 12 Norway maple

4Northern Red Oak

1 Elder 2 Common hawthorn 3 Elder

Current situation

0m 50 m

50 m

25 year ahead

50 m

Herthalund - current situation The transect is located in the eastern forest stand of Herthalund, located on a site formerly used as a clay quarry. The steep slopes are the remains of the diggings that were done, which is now overgrown. Left of the profile diagram (in eastern direction), the forest stand is surrounded by private gardens (fig. 3.2.7). On the right (west of the forest stand) it borders a largely managed grassland. This stand has also been thinned fairly recently and allows species, other than beech, to grow new sprouts in the understorey. The forest stand is fairly monotonous, only consisting of beech and sycamore maple (A.pseudoplatanus). Apart from these species, also common oak was found close to the transect area. All three species are native to Denmark. However, beech dominates the site (fig. 3.2.8). The species is known for its dense canopy and therefore does not allow much regrowth in the understorey other than new beech saplings and sporadically a sycamore maple that has enough light to grow in the bigger gaps. As light-demanding species, the few sycamore maple trees fill up the gaps between the dominant beech trees. In general, the forest stand prevents erosion from the slopes, and thus a part of the local history will remain. See Appendix C for a detailed review of the data registration. Herthalund - estimated development of 25 years In the 25-year visualization (fig. 3.2.8), a few beech trees (3, 4, 5) have been removed to allow more growing space in the

Teglværksvej

50 m

The special characteristics of a beech dominated forest stand has a value on its own, as it creates a closed canopy cover, leaving only a few species to grow in the understorey. This is caused by the heavy shading, and therefore, decreases the opportunity for more diverse species composition, and by that structural complexity within the stand. On the other hand, along the edge of the forest stand, where light can penetrate the tree canopy, due to the current management style, light-demanding trees such as sycamore maple and blackthorn will enrich the habitat diversity to a certain extent along the edge of the forest stand. Qualities and weaknesses The forest stand is largely dominated by beech trees, which can be seen as a quality on its own. The characteristic beech forest is the most common in Denmark and houses its own assemblage of species that thrive in this habitat. However, to further enhance the biodiversity of this stand is to allow young beech-shoots to grow for long-term renewal of the forest canopy. Moreover, the variety of age in beech trees creates structural complexity within that is attractive for birds. Under the current management regime, the stand is not allowed to further expand outside the set boundaries, as it would do naturally. However, the adjacent grassland on the westside is rather functionless. By regulated integration of natural dispersal into the grassland, new small niches can be created that increase the habitat heterogeneity. This can be done by natural dispersal of sycamore maple and blackthorn, and additionally, the introduction of other occurring native species, such as hawthorn, cherry, apple, and many more. This will increase the species diversity, and therefore improve possibilities for birds, insects, and rodents to find food, shelter, or nest. Moreover, this improves the experience for the resident and visitors, without compromising the recreational value.

100 m

Fig. 3.2.7 - Herthalund forest patch Transect location and direction

canopy of the surrounding beech trees (1, 2, 6). New sprouts of beech, between 0-10 meters on the transect can grow further to eventually replace the current mature trees in the upper canopy. Also, beech trees 7 & 8 have been removed as surrounding beech trees (6 & 9) suppresses their canopy. Opening in the upper canopy allows spontaneous regrowth of saplings of beech, sycamore maple, or other species that grow in the surroundings. The maple trees (11 & 12) have been removed to allow light on the slope, that allows regeneration of trees that presumably will prevent further erosion of this local piece of heritage.

Fig. 3.2.8 - Opposite side - Herthalund forest Transects Top: current situation, Bottom: 25 years ahead Scale 1:400

Beech

14 Beech

Blackthorn

11 Sycamore maple

10 Sycamore maple

Blackthorn

Sycamore maple

9 Beech

Beech

6 Beech

5 Beech

14 Beech

10 Sycamore maple 11 Sycamore maple 12 Sycamore maple 13 Beech

8 Beech 9Beech

7 Beech

6 Beech

5 Beech

2 Beech 3 Beech 4 Beech

1 Beech

2 Beech

Beech 1 Beech Beech

Current situation

0m 50 m

50 m

25 year ahead

50 m

Park tree registration The park tree registration in fig. 3.2.11 shows the different species, AHA classification, and location of all registered trees. Figure 3.2.9, shows that almost 85% of the trees range between the age of 0 and 40 years old, of which 74 (out of 81) have been planted in the last ten years, mainly along Parkvej (whitebeam, winter-flowering cherry, and Japanese cherry). These species have been planted mainly along Parkvej. Furthermore, the collection of small-leaved lime, common oak, birch, and European ash, east of Parkvej have been planted about 20-30 years ago (see Appendix D). In the long term, this could imply that the trees also will die or need to be removed around the same time. This could leave a physical gap in the overall green structure, both in aesthetical appearance and in the loss of many small habitats at the same time, which could cause a decline in the local diversity and abundance of species. Additionally, as the newly planted trees (age 0-10) mainly consist of three species -of which two are non-natives, this could potentially create monotony. This can be prevented by the strategic plantation of new trees every few years that replaces trees that expectedly will die soon or that need to be removed in regard to safety. Planting trees in different periods of time creates the possibility for insects and birds to find a new nesting site or habitat within the surroundings, without a massive decline of the local biodiversity. As the diagram (fig. 3.2.10) shows, the number of trees that have an AHA-conservation value, is rather low in comparison to the number of resource trees and ‘no-value’ trees, to be precise 19.5% against 80.5%. The main reason is that the trees are maintained according to the safety regulations for the public space. However, it also prevents the trees to grow organically by the dynamics of nature, such as the growth of mosses or lichens, emerging cavities or decaying wood, standing water, or fungi. Among other components, the lack of these attributes eliminates the potential to attract insect species that are dependent on these specific conditions, such as beetles and a few species of hoverflies that often nest in cavities (Sörensson, 2008). In the area, 24 species have been registered on a total of 230 trees. From that, 14 species can be considered as native and 10 species are considered non-native or exotic (Euforgen, n.d.). The ratio between native and non-native is almost equal, 51.3% (118 native trees) to 48.7% (112 non-native trees). From the non-native trees, 33% consists of winter-flowering cherry and Japanese cherry, which have been planted in the past decade. Ornamental non-native trees such as the Japanese cherry trees planted along Parkvej improve the aesthetic appearance of the park, but will not improve the ecological functionality of the area. Research shows that the species diversity of wasps,

and honey- and bumblebees are proven to be twice as high on native trees than on non-native trees. Furthermore, the amount of individual insects on native trees is three times higher than on non-natives (Helden et al., 2012). Eventually, the abundance of insects also has an effect on the presence of insectivorous birds in the area. Trees within the park that already have a high biodiversity value in terms of the nativity are birch, whitebeam, beech, European ash, common oak, Austrian pine, scots pine, small-leaved lime, weeping willow, and sweet cherry. This shows that the overall species diversity of the parkside is good, and can be built on to create an efficient strategy in a longer time perspective, in terms of the ecological values of the area. In terms of management of the park trees, there are a few measures that can be taken to enhance the biodiversity value of solitary trees in the park, without compromising the aesthetic value of the park or creating hazardous situations. The first step is to select native trees that are allowed to grow old and where natural processes are free to go, on and around the tree. To prevent safety issues, a field of herbaceous vegetation can be sown that has the size of the canopy around the tree, and elements such as large stones can be placed around to prevent people from entering the area (Ravn et al., 2017). Additionally, management will be of mere support to the ongoing processes in and on the tree. Another solution that is easy to apply, is to place deadwood of native species in the park, both in shadow-rich and sunny areas, that could attract different species that will decompose the wood and enrich the local soil. Furthermore, a collection of single trees could also become part of larger habitat patches of high and lower trees in combination with shrubs and herbaceous cover, that all together create a multi-layered stand that attracts insects, birds, and mammals. By lowering the management intensity to a minimum, the habitat structure can reach maximum potential in the urban environment. Based on the analysis of the collected data, we foresee a few challenges for the long term development of Lystanlægget and its surroundings, in terms of the biodiversity aim of the project as well as the aesthetics and functionality of the park that is, to a great extent characterized by the tree composition. For both aims, the biodiversity aim and the park characteristics, it is important to act now in order to preserve the local heritage and enhance the ecological potential of the western area of the project site. See Appendix D for a detailed review of the data registration.

Fig. 3.2.11 Opposite side - Park tree registrations Scale: 1:2.000

Parkvej

88 87

Legends:

Tree species (a-z) Acer campestre

99 101

Acer platanoides 166

Aesculus hippocastanum

102

98 103

167

Betula utilis

119

164

Prunus avium Prunus serrulata (var.)

159

Pterocarya fraxinifolia

113

118

152

Tilia cordata

Conservation priority

151

157

150

116

79-83>> 54 55 56 57

58 59

4 1

140

23 24

143

144

145

146

17 18

13 14 16

29 30

149

122

156

Class IV (low value)

147

155

38 39

9 10

148

Class III (medium value)

8 7

138 139

142

Sorbus aria

132

153

158

73 74 75

133

141

Salix (x) sepulcralis ’Chrysocoma’

Class R

114

115

137

162

161

Quercus robur

(high value

112

117 135 134

Pyrus communis (var.)

Class II

35 34

136

Prunus subhirtella (var.)

(very high value)

36 37

107

111

160

163

108

Pinus sylvestris

52 53

45 44

110

Pinus nigra

70 71

106 109

Laburnum sp.

48 49 50 51

Fraxinus excelsior

Class I

120

165

104

Crataegus monogyna Fagus sylvatica

62 61

105

Betula sp. (pubescens & pendula)

100

168

Acer pseudoplatanus

85 92

169

Native / Non-native

65 64 66 67 68

121

154

(resource tree)

123 124

Fre ej

øjv sh

1.4% 5.9% 0.9% 11.3% 38.9% 41.6%

Fig. 3.2.9 - AHA - diagram

125

Amount of trees per age class; age diversity

Fig. 3.2.10 - Age class - diagram

rik

I II III IV V -

Amount of trees per AHA-conservation priority

0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70+ dead

36.2% 11.3% 10.0% 26.7% 1.8% 3.2% 4.5% 5.9% 0.5%

130

126 127 128 129

131

Ground cover vegetation In this paragraph of the Ecology & Management analysis, we will come to understand how different types of ground cover vegetation interact and how the different registered species tell us more about the overall ecological characteristics of the site. Based on the findings, this section discusses the potential for the ground cover vegetation within the project site.

Cover Analysis Old stadium On the transect (fig. 3.2.12), three plots are registered that show different conditions and changes in vegetation, from dry to entirely covered in water. The first examination slot is on the slope that encloses the old athletics stadium. The soil is humid due to weather conditions, but the infiltration seems good as the soil has a sandy texture. The second and third slots are taken in the lower area, where the soil is saturated because of a high groundwater level. Most of the third slot has a water cover. The survey area is mown frequently and there are no shrubs or trees growing in the vicinity of the transect. In terms of cover ratio, the results show a shift in the number of grasses and forbs. Whereas forbs are dominant in the welldrained first slot, grasses gradually take over further along the transect where it becomes harder for forbs to survive. For the time of registration, in winter, the diversity of forb species is relatively high (6 species), but decreases as the conditions become too extreme, in slot 2 and 3. Also for the mosses, the conditions in the lower area are too wet and too extreme, as they need a stable humid climate to thrive. Moreover, the conditions of the grasses seem to get worse with a standing water cover. Herthalund This transect is located on the side of a small landfill, with a difference of 5 meters between slots 4 and 7 (SDFE, 2017). Slot 4 is located in a patch of spontaneous herbaceous vegetation on the hilltop. Slots 5 and 6 are located on the hillside, and slot 7 is located in the lower parts of Herthalund, where the mud indicates saturation of the soil. Overall, the grassland at Herthalund is maintained less strictly than the lawn at Lystanlægget. The grasses are the dominating vegetation type along the transect even though there is a decrease in ratio further down the hill. The forbs are only able to grow at slot 4 and 7. In slot 4, forbs are able to regenerate naturally but are still overthrown by the number of grasses. Although 5% of slot 4 is covered with forbs, 3 different species are found. The conditions of the fourth slot are somehow similar to the conditions of slots 1 and 2 at the Old Stadium; a few forb species are able to survive, as the amount of bare soil indicates the meager growth conditions. Mosses are more present on the hillside, in slots 5 and 6, which might indicate the stability of the humidity. Between slots 5 and

6 a shift takes place in the two occurring grass species on the transect. Antvorskov Military Terrain The military terrain takes part in the support of a bigger nature reserve, between Slagelse and Sorø, therefore the transect is located in a meadow that is allowed to regenerate naturally, and is managed to a minimum extent. The overall topography alters slightly. Slot 8 and slot 9 are located in a lower area, but the soil is well-drained. Slot 10 has more humid conditions, but the soil is not saturated. Slot 11 has a standing water cover due to wheel tracks that have compressed the soil locally. In general, grasses are most dominant within the transect area. However, where the cover of grasses seems to decline, the ratio of mosses grows. The humid conditions in slot 10 show that mosses take up a larger surface of the slot, which might be explained by the humidity of the soil. However, the wet conditions are too extreme for mosses to grow in slot 11. Other than a small patch of undisturbed soil where the 5% forbs are growing, only grasses are able to grow in and around the standing water. At slot 8, 9, and 10, the amount of forb species are relatively high in relation to the cover ratio of forbs, in comparison to the Old Stadium and Herthalund. The amount of bare soil is fairly insignificant inferring from the cover ratios. There is some woody vegetation registered in slots 8 and 9 that is naturally able to regenerate in open meadows, such as hawthorn and blackberry. General findings Overall, grasses are the dominating herbaceous species as they are more resistant to changes in the conditions of the site. However, within all three survey areas, there are only 2-3 grass species found. It indicates that diversity is rather monotonous. The presence of moss seems to be correlated to the humidity of the soil. However, standing water or saturated soil is too much and might imply that mosses need fairly stable conditions to grow. The amount of bare soil decreases where herbaceous vegetation is allowed to grow naturally. On the other hand, the amount of bare soil increases where management is more intense, and forbs, grasses, and mosses are not able to fully thrive, such as slot 1 at the Old Stadium. In general, the average cover ratio of forb species is low, but on the other hand, the number of species within these surfaces are relatively high, as the diagram shows (fig. 3.2.13 and 3.2.14). Based on the observations at Antvorskov Military Terrain and slot 8 at Herthalund might imply that the amount of forb species is even higher, as many species disappear in wintertime and regrow in spring and summer. We can conclude that the amount of forb species is much higher in the ‘unmanaged’ meadows, where vegetation is free to grow spontaneously. See Appendix E for a detailed review of the Cover Analysis.

Fig. 3.2.12 - Cover analysis transects The transects give a representative view of the current situation in terms of herbaceous diversity

Old Stadium 55°23'55.8"N 11°21'42.0"E slot 1: 1-2m

slot 2: 15-16m

slot 3: 34-35m

slot 4: 3-4m

slot 5: 13-14m

slot 6: 25-26m

slot 7: 37-38m

slot 8: 4-5m

slot 9: 16-17m

slot 10: 25-26m

slot 11: 34-35m

Herthalund 55°23'39.4"N 11°21'56.8"E

Antvorskov Military Terrain 55°23'45.6"N 11°22'48.2"E

100

4.0

3.5

3.0

70 60

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Fig. 3.2.13 - Average cover ratio per survey area (%) In terms of cover ratio per sq.m.,grasses are dominating

sh ru bs

se s m os

l so i

ba re

se s

Old Stadium Herthalund Antvorskov Military Terrain

s ub sh r

m os

so i

ba re

rb fo

as gr

se s

0.5

se s

Fig. 3.2.14 - Average number of species per survey area The species diversity of forbs is high in relation to the cover ratio

Ellenberg’s Indicator Values In this paragraph, we get a better understanding of the correlations between the different species registered in and around the transect areas of the Cover Analysis, and the site conditions. Based on Ellenberg’s Indicator Values, all native species to Denmark require certain site conditions. With a collection of registered species, this will give a representative view of the general ecological conditions of the site. Despite the winter conditions, we have tried to determine as many species found in the slots of the Cover Analysis. Besides, we also have done an additional registration of herbaceous species in the proximity of the transects to get a more representative understanding of the overall ecological characteristics. Old Stadium The herbaceous species that were found in and around the transect, are common species. Broad-leaved dock and curled dock are often seen as weeds (Danmarks Flora, 2012). Daisy, white clover, and dovesfoot cranesbill are low in height and are therefore less sensitive to mowing and grazing. Based on Ellenberg’s Indicator Values (EIV), all determined species are an indicator of humid or damp conditions, as is proven in the Cover Analysis (Hill, 1999). The degree of nitrogen in the soil, and thus the fertility of the soil is intermediate. However, broad-leaved dock shows a high local nitrogen content, which might indicate local traces of building grounds or animal excrements (Hill, 1999). The pH of the soil is very average but leans slightly more towards the acidic, all species love well-lit places, and have low or no tolerance for salty soils. Herthalund Similar to the Old Stadium, the found species are quite common in the region and procreate relatively easily. Brown knapweed, cocksfoot, and curled dock were registered in the spontaneous 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ity sa lin

ht lig

en og ni tr

Old Stadium Herthalund Antvorskov Military Terrain

Fig. 3.2.15 - Average Ellenberg Indicator Values per survey area Calculations of the average Indicator Values show the similarities between the natural surroundings and the urban area, and thus the potential

vegetation on the hilltop, whereas dovesfoot cranesbill and white clover were found in the lower area of Herthalund, at slot 7 of the Cover Analysis. As the species in the lower parts are somewhat the same to the Old Stadium, and as shown in Appendix F, the EIV indicate similar conditions. The soil is humid or damp, and the content of nitrogen, as well as the pH, are average. The occurring species thrive in well-lit places and indicate low salinity of the soil. Antvorskov Military Terrain The composition of the species that were found in and around the transect at the military terrain, shows a big difference in comparison to the Old Stadium and Herthalund. Moreover, more species were found in the area, indicating a higher species diversity. The northern area of the military terrain is protected by the National Nature Conservation Act as a pasture or dry grassland (‘Overdrev’) with high ecological values for the region. Usually, the area is mown once a year to prevent too much overgrowth in order to maintain the open grassland (Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse, 2014). The moisture content of the soil is an indicator of slight dry soil, but the species also tolerate slight wetness of the soil. This is based on the EIV of agrimony, rapeseed, brown knapweed, chicory, wild carrot, and perforate St. John’s Wort. Other species, such as common yarrow, common couch, and tansy also indicate a moist site. Referring to the natural hydrology of Slagelse and surroundings, the humidity of the soil is presumably influenced by the fluctuating groundwater levels. The degree of nitrogen is varying through the site, as wild carrot indicates a more or less infertile soil, and for example rapeseed, common couch, and tansy indicate a richly fertile soil. All other species range in between those two levels of nitrogen content. The registered species are predominantly indicators for a basic soil with very low acidity, which implies that the species growing in this composition are not able to survive in acidic soils. Ellenberg’s Indicator Values confirm that the plants thrive in well-lit places, as the species were found in an open meadow. Similar to the vegetation at the Old Stadium and Herthalund, the species indicate very low to no salinity of the soil. Overall, the averages of the EIV on the military terrain are fairly similar to the average values at Herthalund and the Old Stadium (fig. 3.2.15). The corresponding values might imply that the possibilities to apply spontaneous vegetation in the project area, should be feasible, demonstrated by the nearly matching EIV values. The potential for this grassland habitat type will be further explored on the next page. See Appendix F for a detailed review of Ellenberg’s Indicator Values.

Potentials Dry grassland habitat type The military terrain of Antvorskov accommodates different plant and animal species that have been recognized as important for the regional ecosystem (Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse, 2014). Among a few plant species that also have been registered in our data collection are defined as regionally significant, such as common yarrow, brown knapweed, woodland hawthorn, and perforate St. John’s Wort (Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse, 2014). Among animals, many of the native Danish amphibian species have been found or released in the area, such as European tree frog or the great crested newt. Most of them are protected by Annex IV of the Habitat Directive, which protects vulnerable species both in- and outside Natura2000-areas. Although mammals, amphibians, and others have been registered, insects have not been registered yet. However, the registered plants in the northern area can give an indication of the ecological value, that could enhance insect diversity.

incompatible to regenerate by itself and thus, needs pollinators to do that (Knuth, P. 1898; via Biolflor, n.d., Centaurea jacea L. s. l.). Besides the mentioned species, also the other registered flora species attract a specific selection of butterfly species, even the two grass species, cocksfoot, and common couch, are used for caterpillars as a food resource. The quality of wild carrot is its far-reaching scent of the flowers and the morphology of the flower has the quality to attract many different pollinator species from a longer distance (Lamborn & Ollerton, 2000). Of the pollinator family, it mainly attracts hoverflies and bumblebees (Blackmore & Goulsen, 2014).

This grassland habitat type, of the moraine landscape, is often characterized by sprawling trees and shrubs that are pioneering the open areas, and a species-rich ground cover of forbs, grasses, and mosses. Due to the hilly landscape, there is a quick conveyance of rainwater and therefore creates relatively dry conditions (Danmarks Flora, 2012, pp. 60-65). However, locally, the clayey soil can cause slower infiltration. The composition of flora changes constantly as the availability of nutrients varies, specific to the species’ adaptation strategies (Danmarks Flora, 2012, pp. 60-65). The registered species in figure 3.2.16 indicate a variety of nutrient availability. In general, the nutrient conditions are low as the area was formerly used for grazing. The current vegetation composition has established a specific balance of nutrients and other conditions that increases insect diversity and that of other wildlife (Danmarks Flora, 2012, pp. 60-65).

Swamp & hospital pond Within the project area, we see great potential in the pond and swamp in the southeast corner of the project site, for the expansion of natural habitat. As mentioned in the Habitat Structure Analysis on page 64, the patches were able to develop spontaneously without any management practices coming in between. Moreover, as both can be considered as wet habitats, they show great possibilities for other spots in the project site where the natural hydrology conflicts with the local amenities, as shown on page 60. Above all, the Old Stadium currently lacks amenity and, in combination with a function as a detention zone, it creates a suitable place to accommodate a large natural habitat in the urban environment, that resembles similar conditions.

Looking at the species that are found in our data collection, a few herbaceous species have a very specific function as a host plant for eggs, larvae, and caterpillars, or as a nectar plant. In this case, we have taken a closer look at the correlation between butterfly species and the registered species on the military terrain. Butterflies require very specific conditions and species for survival and therefore are suitable indicators for the overall attraction of pollinators and other insects. For example, perforate St. John’s Wort can host 14 different butterfly species to lay their eggs, of which 5 only lay their eggs on this plant species specifically (Floraweb, n.d., H. perforatum L.). Also, common yarrow accommodates one monophagous butterfly species (Floraweb, n.d., A. millefolium L.). Agrimony is an important resource for a few butterfly species too ((Floraweb, n.d., A. eupatoria L.). Brown knapweed is a very important nectar plant, as there are 52 different butterfly species that use this flower as a food resource. Additionally, this plant species is

Overall, we can conclude that even a small selection of flora species, that naturally grows in the region, proves that specific insects and flora complement each other, and both need support in order to ensure their survival. The connectivity between the military terrain and the project site is, therefore, an evident opportunity.

Also for this area, a selection of species is found that indicate specific conditions of the area, based on Ellenberg’s Indicator Values. The average moisture of the soil is much higher as species as common reed and common bulrush indicate. In general, the fertility of the soil is relatively rich, but species as jointleaf rush and grey willow indicate that the soil might be aerated badly locally, which stalls decomposition and local nutrient supply (Hill, 1999). To conclude, among the many other habitat structures that were found in the project site and the nearby surroundings, there are many possibilities to increase the habitat heterogeneity within the project area. By naturalization of specifically designated areas, this habitat type could be of great value for the local ecosystem. Fig. 3.2.16 Opposite side - Registred species All species registered at Antvorskov Military Terrain, the swamp and the hospital pond, early February 2020. References of the pictures are listed on page 125, references

Dry grassland biotope

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow

Agrimonia eupatoria Agrimony

Arctium tomentosum Woolly burdock

Brassica napus Rapeseed

Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed

Cichorium intybus Chicory

Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle

Crataegus laevigata Woodland hawthorn

Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot

Daucus carota Wild carrot

Elytrigia repens common couch

Hypericum perforatum perforate St. John’s Wort

Rosa canina dog rose

Rumex crispus Curled dock

Rubus sp.

Alnus glutinosa Black alder

Elytrigia repens Common couch

Ficaria verna Pilewort

Fraxinus excelsior Common ash

Phragmites australis Common reed

Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup

Salix cinerea Grey willow

Typha latifolia Common bulrush

Swamp & hospital pond

Tanacetum vulgare Tansy

Juncus articulatus Jointleaf rush

Key findings A summary of the most important points of the ecological analysis, and what we recommend based on these findings. The analysis of the current ecological conditions and management practices shows that the area has a high ecological potential to support the ecosystem. The potential takes its base in the few larger structures, such as the mixed forest stands and the openness of the grassed areas and the few wet areas, that to a certain extent are connected or show similarities to the natural surroundings. However, the analysis also shows that the overall green structure awaits a few challenges in order to enhance the ecological quality of the area as much as possible, without compromise of the current recreational values. Current management practices are rather intensive and do not fully connect to a specific aim that could support the ecosystem. By designating and designing specific areas that have a clear ecological and/or recreational purpose, the management practices can be adjusted to a specific aim. In general, it may be concluded that a division of the area can be made, based on management intensity and size of habitat structures. At the football complex and at Lystanlægget, the green structures are managed rather intensively and spread as solitary and small elements. In the eastern corner, the project area consists of more continuous green structures, such as the mixed forest stands. The tree structure analysis shows that integration of the tree stands in the surroundings, whether it is a collection of solitary trees or a dense forest-like composition, which is currently missing. By allowing more natural gradients of the mixed forest stand, and spontaneous regrowth in the open areas where possible, will create different niches and thus increase the overall biodiversity quality. Also, the single trees at Lystanlægget and surroundings are more than just aesthetic symbols, and should also be considered as part of a larger green structure.

By acknowledgment of the biological life cycle of trees, a long term strategy can be developed that will function as a part of the overall green structure, and with that, be of service for the local ecosystem. This also implies the integration of deadwood and the decay of trees where possible, without compromising the safety of residents and visitors. The grassland habitat type at Antvorskov Military Terrain and the swamp and pond in the project area is an inspiration for the integration of herbaceous vegetation and the use of the natural hydrology within the project site to provide new habitats. The analysis shows that the conditions within the project site are fairly similar to the conditions in the natural surroundings, which implies that manipulation of the urban environment can be kept to a minimum. The herbaceous vegetation can be sown in seed mixes in designated places, this will enhance insectand birdlife (among other wildlife). Furthermore, it will create flower-rich areas that improve the aesthetic appearance of the recreational areas. In the areas where the high groundwater levels conflict with the local amenity of the area, a few places can be designated as permanent wet areas that create natural gradients between aquatic, riparian, and dry herbaceous and woody vegetation, which on its own has a high habitat heterogeneity. Although management will be further discussed in the proposal, in general, the number of working hours on direct maintenance per area will decrease when management is applied to support the ecological quality. This reclaimed time can be used on the support of habitat structures and on a strategic level, to improve the ecosystem on a local and regional scale.

IV - Design Guidelines This chapter sums up the key findings from the analysis with a design vision, which is eventually translated into 4 guiding principles: the concept. Each principle is further elaborated with a program of the main interventions that form the basis for the proposal. All in all, this chapter contains the key recommendations to improve the recreational and ecological quality of the project area.

Key findings sum-up & Recommendations The project area forms a gateway between the town center of Slagelse and the open country east of the highway, that makes a link to Slagelse Skovene and the meadows of Antvorskov Military Terrain. Therefore, there is a lot of potentials to improve the quality of the project area as one large public space; based on the current recreational infrastructure and diversity of facilities, and as an extension of the ecosystem into the urban environment. Recreation In the last 180 years, the project area has become a very diverse green space, predominantly planned and designed as a recreational space. The area is accommodated with various sports and leisure facilities and elements or areas that refer to its heritage, such as Lystanlægget. As a result, many stories have been attached to the multiple places and elements through the years and have created a strong sense of attachment for Slagelse’s residents. Furthermore, Slagelse and its surroundings are provided with several hiking- and bicycle trails, and moreover, the project area has the potential to be the recreational stepping stone between the town center and the open country, to welcome visitors of Slagelse and display its charm and identity. This could be further enhanced by highlighting iconic and monumental landscape elements such as the gate at Old Stadium or the amphitheater, to improve Slagelse’s visibility. Although the recreational opportunities have been expanding continuously, it has also caused fragmentation of the project area. The various facilities have been developed separately from each other which has caused segregation and inconsistency throughout the project area and lacks interaction with the surroundings. Solutions to create coherence can be found in the use of materials, spatial components such as green structures, and a consistent recreational path system that unifies the various places in the project area. To fully embrace the project area as one recreational space, roads such as Teglværksvej and Parkvej form the stitch between the different areas of the project site and will be integrated into the park atmosphere. Without compromise of the logistic thoroughfare, the recreational value will locally be prioritized over the logistic function of the road, which improves safety for the park user. Furthermore, to include the hospital garden to the project area, Frederikshøjvej forms a local barrier. Therefore, partial removal is an opportunity that will not compromise the accessibility of facilities along the road. To further enhance ecological and recreational quality, the far eastern corner of the project area has the potential to restore the physical connection between Slagelse and the open country, which can overcome the highway and Grønningen as barriers. Ecology The ecological quality is currently sustained by the few key structures found in the project area, such as the mixed forest

stands, the open grasslands, and the few wet areas. The sizes of these habitat structures are substantial, and therefore are crucial for the improvement of overall green structures, to utilize the full ecological potential in the urban environment. Additionally, as the landscape analysis has shown, the project area consists of various non-spaces and thus, lacks a vision that supports the ecological potential throughout the project site. It is therefore recommended to designate areas that are specifically planned, designed, and managed with an ecological or recreational focus. For example, in various places, open grasslands are not utilized, and the forest stands are growing in confined spaces. This gives an opportunity for the natural dispersal of the forest stands into the open, which could enhance the diversity of habitat and smaller niches. To improve the ecological quality for pollinator insects in the project area, implementation of the dry grassland habitat type, naturally growing at Antvorskov Military Terrain, is recommended. Additionally, the high groundwater levels throughout the project area present the opportunity to increase the number of wet habitats (e.g. the swamp and the water retention zone at the Old Stadium) and thus, to increase biodiversity. The green structures throughout the project area are currently managed rather intensively, mainly at Lystanlægget and the spaces between and around the sports facilities. By the integration of local biodiversity hotspots composed of woody structures, herbaceous vegetation, decomposing materials, stones, gravel, and bare soil, various smaller habitats can be created for insects, fungi, and other organisms. Furthermore, less intensive management is required for these habitats and thus, will be less disturbed. In general, the size of the project area indicates that there is plenty of space to allow urban nature to grow in more natural conditions, which evidently will increase ecological quality. Moreover, it could also improve the recreational experience through a diversity of natural, spatial components, which will change the aesthetic appearance of the project area and will create more coherence.

Slagelse Commons - Concept

Themes

Identity

Biodiversity

Connections

Fig. 4.1.1 Concept diagrams The proposal for Slagelse Commons is based on four principles that answer the requirements for a unified green, recreational area

Interventions Slagelse Commons is built from the following four principles, that is the concept:

Themes

Identity

Slagelse Commons is divided into three themes, that each fit a different context: Town Park, Sports Park, and Nature Park. All areas are intertwined and are not supposed to be seen as three separate areas, but as a united area, where the borders are fluent, that together makes Slagelse Commons.

Slagelse Commons will have a strong sense of identity and is formed by the many interventions set for the project. The identity shall be an embedded part of the community as well as a trademark for Slagelse municipality. Especially the following interventions will enhance a strong identity for Slagelse Commons:

•

Town Park - urban, dynamic, and full of life:

Town Park is a meeting point for the residents of Slagelse and its visitors, in the northern part of Slagelse Commons, bordering the town center. People can enjoy their leisure time among others in the area that is enriched with activities for young and old, embraced by urban nature. •

Sports Park - supportive, interactive, and unifying:

Sports Park is accommodated with existing sports facilities, such as the football fields, football stadium, and SBI clubhouse. Here, people can enjoy a football match, exercise and be inspired by others. Only a few interventions will be made here, so it will align with the rest of the Commons in terms of vegetation structures and connectivity. •

Nature Park - rural, restorative, and extraordinary:

Nature Park will form the green gateway between Slagelse and the outer town, in the eastern corner of Slagelse Commons. Here, people can enjoy nature in full glory, as an extension of their homes and to find mental respite.

•

Reintroduce the Old Gate as the entrance of Old Stadium

•

Reinforce the Old Gate by staging it as icon of Town Park

•

Addition of recreational activities that accommodates a diversity of user groups, such as skatepark and ice rink

•

Integration of new Town Hall in park atmosphere

•

Take advantage of Amphi hill as the highest point, and stage a grand view

•

Insert grazing animals to activate Nature Park

•

Reestablish the physical connection to Slagelse Lystskov with an eco-passage

•

Choice of material and spatial layout shall be cohesive, that also ensures visual connectivity

•

Inclusion of Sports Park in material and spatial layout

•

Integration of natural elements that honors the local conditions (e.g. groundwater, herbaceous meadow) and restores natural identity

Biodiversity

Connections

Slagelse Commons will be a place with a strong biodiverse profile. The area’s green spaces will be altered to accommodate the best conditions for strong biodiversity, that also mitigates the effects of climate change, by incorporation of new vegetation structures, topography, and management styles:

Slagelse Commons is bound together by coherence in connectivity and will be easily accessible from multiple entrances:

•

Improvement of habitat connectivity throughout the area: herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation structures, and wet habitat

•

Implementation of herbaceous meadow that resembles the natural landscape of Antvorskov

•

Implementation of forest development aim that allows more vertical and horizontal complexity within forest patches and along the edges

•

Integration of scattered volumes of woody vegetation to diversify habitats and niches in the herbaceous fields

•

Local rearrangement of topography to introduce wet habitat, based on natural hydrology

•

Natural gradients along watersides that creates a dynamic mix of aquatic, semi-aquatic and herbaceous vegetation

•

Implementation of aquatic vegetation in areas with permanent water cover

•

Integration of decomposing materials, such as dead trees and deadwood, leaflitter, biomass

•

Integration of small rock formations, gravel, sand, and other soil types along watersides and sloping terrain

•

Implementation of a long-term vision that supports the ecological quality, with consistent and less intensive management practices

•

Integration of growth space for veteran trees

•

Plantation of native species, prioritized over exotic species

•

Emphasize key access points for easy orientation (Parkvej, Fælledvej, Teglværksvej)

•

Division of Frederikshøjvej will unite the Commons from east to west, by putting emphasis on recreational use and spatial layout

•

Integration of remains of Frederikshøjvej into the Commons that unifies Town Park, Nature Park, and Sports Park

•

Expansion and reorganization of the existing recreational path systems within the area

•

Integrate Parkvej as part of the commons

•

Integration of eco-passage in recreational infrastructure

V - Proposal The proposal presents the design outcome of the preceding analysis and design guidelines. This chapter is divided into three sections: Nature Park, Town Park, and Sports Park. The proposal for each park is explained in five steps: a brief introduction per park, the local connectivity, and accessibility, alterations of the terrain that embraces the natural conditions, additions of recreational activities, an overview of the new vegetation layout, and finally, management recommendations to enhance biodiversity. For a complete overview of the masterplan, find the fold-out map in Appendix G.

Slagelse Commons - Nature Park

Introduction Nature Park is located at the southern end of Slagelse Commons, with grazing animals, and lush vegetation that accommodates the current terrain with few, but significant alterations. The overall goal for this area is to enhance biodiversity quality, to create a connection to Slagelse Lystskov with an ecopassage, and create a recreational Nature Park for the citizens of Slagelse. Nature Park’s outline includes parts of the psychiatric hospital’s outdoor facilities, Herthalund south of Teglværksvej, and the forest patch east of the sports fields. The Park will merge into the Sports Park, the Amphitheater, Park Boulevard (former Frederikshøjvej, the west side), and will border the eco-passage that crosses Grønningen and the highway. The Nature Park will act as an identity marker for the community of Slagelse and will be a place where the citizens can feel closer to nature, interact with the surrounding elements as well as with the grazing animals. It will also act as an identity marker for Slagelse as a branding tool, e.g. attracting hikers on a local, regional, national and international level, as the location will act as a natural stopover for the many hiking tracks that border the area.

The eco-passage will act as a landmark for Slagelse, as it will be a visual element for the many drivers passing through Slagelse every day. Another new landmark for Slagelse will be the new Amphi Tower, a tower so high it will be seen from a great distance, a tower from where visitors can see all the way to the forest on the south-east side, and into the city on the north side. With this proposal, the area will undergo a great transformation. The functions of the area will be strong visually, and the landscape characteristics will be transformed into a grazing meadow that has similar spatial and ecological characteristics as the pasture (overdrev) east of the highway, and by that the main spatial composition will be changed, see fig. 5.1.2.

Pic. 5.1.1 - Previous page: Illustration - Herthalund a part of Nature Park Fig. 5.1.1 - opposite side: Masterplan - Nature Park Scale 1:3.000

Fig. 5.1.2 - Section AA 1:250 - Herthalund

Slagelse stadium

Fælledv ej

Promenade

Sk ov vej en

Hospital

Mixed forest stand

ej hø jv eriks Fred

Football fields

SBI clubhouse Fenced football fields

Tennis club

Psychiatric hospital

Artificial football fields

rk Pa E2 0

rd va le Bou

Studentersøen & Slagelse Lystskov

H igh wa y

Psychiatric hospital

Football fields Fencing UV-Hallen

Soldatens lod

Swamp

Pond Amphitheater

Grazing meadow

Eco-passage

Amphi Tower

Antvorskov Military terrain

Mixed forest stand

Herthalund Grazing meadow

Gr ønn in ge n

Teglværks vej

Frede

Fælle d

riksh

vej

øjvej

Connectivity

ninge

Hig

hw ay

E20

Teglværksvej

Grøn

Current Frederikshøjvej Current paths

Fig. 5.1.3 - Connections Within Nature Park, a new recreational path system will bind the area together. The layout takes its base from the current situation, and will in the long run also be accommodated by natural tracks made by the grazing animals. Scale 1:2.000

Fig. 5.1.4 - Section BB 1:250 - Park Boulevard

One of the main interventions of this proposal is that Frederikshøjvej is largely removed to make space for nature, this means that cars no longer can enter the area. This makes room for a larger coherent greener area, that benefits a better biodiversity quality as well as making the area better connected, physically and visually, as one area instead of two separated areas with a challenging layout. Additionally, the introduction of an 80-meter broad eco-passage across the highway will create the ecological connection that is of great importance to fully utilize the potential to improve the biodiversity in Nature Park and Slagelse Commons, as well as a direct physical connection for recreational purposes.

Park Boulevard Frederikshøjvej towards the amphitheater, now called Park Boulevard, forms the core connection between Nature Park, Sports Park, and Town Park. Park Boulevard will end in a culde-sac outside UV-Hallen, where it forms an access point for Nature Park as well as for UV-Hallen with parking facilities. From here visitors can either go directly up the hill towards the new landmark, Amphi Tower, or into the park around the hill, see fig. 5.1.4.

With these interventions, Nature Park will now have three main entrances that create accessibility for recreational purposes.

Fig. 5.1.5 - Section CC 1:250 - Frederikshøjvej

Frederikshøjvej Frederikshøjvej that enters from the opposite side of the park, will be cut off from the area at the parking lot at the tennis lanes. This will now act as a new main access point, where visitors can enter both the forest stand, the sports fields, and the grazing meadow.

Fig. 5.1.6 - Section DD 1:250 - Teglværksvej

Teglværksvej The third entrance of Nature Park is located between Herthalund and the amphitheater, on Teglværksvej. Here, visitors have the opportunity to park their cars before entering the park. To accommodate the grazing animals to roam freely around the park, cattle grids in Teglværksvej will prevent the animals to flee the area. The street will be narrowed alongside the two areas and speed limits/dumbs will nudge the drivers to slow down and be aware of crossing animals. Pedestrians and bicyclists can use the drop gate to enter and cross the area safely.

Frede

Fælle d

riksh øjvej

Terrain

vej

Grøn

ninge

Hig

hw ay

E20

Teglværksvej

Current contour lines New contour lines

Fig. 5.1.7 - Terrain The main changes in the terrain will be at the swamp and hospital pond. Note: Contour lines of the eco-passage are not included in this proposal, because this intervention needs further investigation Scale 1:2.000

Fig. 5.1.8 - Section EE 1:250 - Swamp and pond

Swamp and pond To increase the size of the wet area, and by that enhancing the biodiversity quality, the swamp and the pond in the garden of the psychiatric hospital will be physically connected. Spatially, this creates a stronger visual connection between the psychiatric hospital area and the park, as well as the removal of the current vegetation that acts as a wall between the two areas. This solution will also give the hospital patients direct access to the park. The pond is enlarged into the southern direction, and the layout of the football fields west of the swamp

is arranged more efficiently, to expand the swamp further into the park. The sizes and the capacities of the football fields have not been compromised. The intention is to keep the excavated soil inside the area to create more diversity in terms of terrain. This creates more variety in local conditions and thus, habitat diversity.

Recreation Grazing meadow As the main attraction of Nature Park, the area is provided with grazing animals. Visitors are able to access the grazing meadow, to connect with the animals and the diverse nature around. As an addition to the grazing meadow and the naturally scattered woody structures, Nature Park will be planted with edible trees that invite visitors to forage their fruits and collect nuts, as a means to reconnect with nature. A few suggested species are walnut (Juglans regia), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), sweet cherry (Prunus avium), hazelnut (Corylus avellana), apple (Malus domestica), pear (Pyrus communis) and red and black currant (Ribes rubrum & R. nigrum).

Amphi Tower

Pic. 5.1.2 - Illustration based on reference - Sydhavnstippen See reference on page 125 for the source of the original image

The hill at the amphitheater is marked with a tower where visitors can climb up to and catch a beautiful view over Slagelse Commons, Slagelse town and the forest. The tower will not only be a recreational attraction but will also function as a landmark and orientation point to the wider surroundings.

Eco passage

Pic. 5.1.3 - Illustration based on reference - naturpark Amager See reference on page 125 for the source of the original image

The ultimate aim is to reconnect Slagelse Commons with Slagelse Skovene, east of the highway. This new connection will be manifested with an eco-passage, which creates better ecological connectivity between Nature Park and the natural surroundings. Furthermore, it gives visitors to Nature Park an opportunity to access the forest, and at the same time, enjoy the nature around them. Overall, the additional green corridor enables animals to roam freely, with fewer obstructions, and potentially restores the connection between the town and forest as it was before the highway was inaugurated. Pic. 5.1.4 - Reference - Santa Monica Mountains LA See reference on page 125 the source of the original image

Frede riksh

vej

Grøn

ninge

øjvej

Vegetation layout

Fælle d

Hig hw ay

E20

Teglværksvej

Current situation

Fig. 5.1.9 - Vegetation layout This figure shows how the vegetation layout transforms into a mosaic-like pattern throughout the area, mainly created by the grazing animals. This will not only have ecological benefits, but it will also benefit all the visitors, by creating multiple spatial compositions, which generate a variety of different experiences Scale 1:2.000

Management Nature Park is intended to be developed based on naturebased management practices. In the longer term, this allows higher biodiversity, and thus support of the ecosystem. To describe and ensure the long-term goals for the Nature Park area at Slagelse Commons, we use the Forest Development Type 92 (Grazing Forest) as a design tool (Larsen et al., 2005). The aim of this type of development can best be described as a meadow landscape, with scattered trees and bushes that vary from small solitary stands to larger group stands, in a mixture of both pioneer and a few climactic species. This enables integration of the current forest stands into the open grasslands and moreover, creates more ecological opportunities. The diversity of vegetation and local conditions creates habitats and niches for a wide range of fungi-, insect- and potentially red-listed species (Lassen & Larsen, 2017). This FDT enhances the recreational experience of Nature Park, which is a variable that changes with the dynamics of the ecosystem. The open meadows consist of local herbaceous vegetation grown from the local or regional seed pool, which contains species that typically occur on dry grasslands.

meadow landscape with scattered woody structures. Moreover, the grazing animals help to create small niches, such as bare soil, that provides a food or nesting resource for particular insect species. In general, a mixture of different grazing species influences the overall vegetation and soil composition through selective grazing, and they contribute to the circulation and redistribution of nutrients and seeds (Buttenschøn et al., 2018). In this proposal, we suggest a mixture of alpacas, sheep, and cattle that complement each other in terms of diet and are suitable for a recreationally accessible area as Nature Park (Lassen & Larsen, 2017). The grazing area has a size of approximately 7 hectares (fenced), which has a carrying capacity for 6 large grazing animals (e.g. cattle) (Butterschøn et al., 2018). However, the literature on the carrying capacity varies and therefore, this is a very rough estimation. Butterschøn et al. (2018) suggest keeping the grazing pressure moderated to preserve the diversity of herbaceous species. This can be done with a rotary system, where animals with a less specific diet, (e.g. sheep) are guided by shepherds to prevent local overgrazing.

Advice for the development of Nature Park is to plant shrubs and trees that somewhat mimics the final image of natural dispersal by the use of light-demanding (fast-growing) and edible species. This initial step helps the growth of the first vegetation structures, which eventually induces the further increase of habitats, and thus biodiversity (Larsen et al., 2005). The plantation of physical structures will help to give the residents of Slagelse a better understanding of the ideal picture of Nature Park, which creates a sense of interest and attachment to the place.

In general, the grazing livestock will not be able to reach all the places, and each species has a certain selection of diet. Therefore, regular management is required to preserve accessibility for visitors and to prioritize arising niches or habitat that attract valuable, yet vulnerable species. Also, the edges of the wet habitat should be kept somewhat free to ensure an overview and prevent the dominance of reeds and woody structures. The remains of thinning practices can be left in the woody structures to attract fungi, bacteria, and decomposing insects. The use of motorized and electric gear must be restricted to prevent disturbance in the ecosystem. Moreover, too much thinning can affect the stability of the habitat, in terms of species richness and diversity, for which thinning must be done with a sensible eye.

In terms of management, as the name of the FDT implies, Nature Park will for the largest part be maintained by grazing livestock. The grazing animals contribute to reach and maintain the management aim, which is to create and preserve an open

100

101

Slagelse Commons - Town Park

102

103

Introduction Town Park is located in the northern part of Slagelse Commons, bordering the town center, with a high activity level as well as exciting nature experiences. The overall goal for this area is to create a clear language that binds the fragmented area together as one coherent park. This will give the community functional outdoor facilities to accommodate leisure activities as well as giving the municipality an outdoor area where people can meet across age and interests. Town Park’s outline includes parts of Lystanlægget that border Parkvej, the front of the new Town Hall area, the corridor along with the Talent Campus building, as well as the Old Stadium area. These different areas are stitched together by Parkvej, which will be integrated into the park atmosphere. The park will merge into the Sports Park and Nature Park with the new Park Boulevard, former Frederikshøjvej. The old gate at Lystanlægget will act as an identity marker for Slagelse Commons and is staged as a monument in the landscape. This will bring new life to the odd piece out, and create a function as an entrance/access point. The gate tells the story about what was once there and will be the key to create new stories for the local residents to this place.

Fig. 5.2.2 - Section FF 1:250 - Lystanlægget

104

The overall composition characteristics of the design are created by using amorphous shapes throughout the area. This forms a cohesive language in the visual understanding of the site and also frames the new additional vegetation structures and hydrology issues. With this proposal, we embrace the existing heritage and strengthen the sense of attachment with interventions that create more intimacy. We also enhance biodiversity quality by implementing various vegetation structures that create a more heterogeneous landscape composition. This also adds more value to visitors that frequent the park.

Pic. 5.2.1 - Previous page: Illustration - The Old Gate, a part of Town Park Fig. 5.2.1 - opposite side: Masterplan - Town Park Scale 1:3.000

Hospital

Lystanlægget Town Hall

Town Hall Square

Pond

Slagelse Stadium

t en Tal

Defining edge

tial en sid re & us de a mp Ca men o Pr

Defining edge

s se hou

Pond

SBI clubhouse Old Gate

Fenced football fields Seatings

vej rk Pa en allé Slots

Old stadium

Bird tower

Retaining walls

rk Pa

Artificial football fields

le Bou rd va 105

Connectivity

øjv

rik

Fre

vej

rk Pa

Slots

allée

H Current Roads/parking Current paths

Fig. 5.2.3 - Connections The new path structure within Town Park is an addition to the current path system, to create a better physical connection of Lystanlægget with the Old Stadium and the new Town Hall Square. Existing access streets – Parkvej, Frederikshøjvej, and the access road near the new Town Hall – is revised to improve the connection within Slagelse Commons and the surroundings Scale 1:2.000

106

Fig. 5.2.4 - Section GG 1:250 - Parkvej

Parkvej Parkvej is included in the proposal to make the street a part of Town Park, rather than just a logistic thoroughfare. The edges of the green areas along Parkvej are provided with herbaceous vegetation and sporadic woody structures that create a visual connection, on both sides, so that it feels like a street within the park. This means that the street will be downgraded in regard to safety and sense of scale for park users. This implies that the road will be narrowed from 9.00m to 7.50m (Neuferth, 2000), and additional zebra crossings, road bumps, or other changes

in surface material, will bring awareness to the motorized traffic on Parkvej to create a safe passage for the park user. On the Lystanlægget-side, the sidewalk is integrated into the park aligned with the existing paths in the park. The pedestrian is guided through the green of the park with a small detour, which creates a safer connection along Parkvej and moreover, improves the experience of the user, while they still are able to walk along Parkvej on the other side.

107

Fig. 5.2.5 - Section HH 1:250 - Park Boulevard

Park Boulevard The new Park Boulevard is an important access point of Slagelse Commons and forms the backbone that binds Sports Park, Nature Park, and Town Park together. The proposal suggests an afforested lane, full of woody vegetation, that creates an important ecological structure between Nature Park and Town Park. Furthermore, it adds a new recreational experience to Town Park. Accessing from Parkvej, the paved road is slightly moved, to broaden the verges for better growth space. Towards Old Stadium, the woody vegetation will further disperse and fuse with the suggested species for Old Stadium, see page 102. The suggested vegetation is selected to create a rich experience

108

of colors, flowers, and structures throughout the seasons, and to enhance local biodiversity by use of predominantly native species: sessile oak (Quercus petraea), common oak (Q. robur), red oak (Q. rubra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Scots and black pine (Pinus sylvestris and P. nigra), and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Suggested shrubs are also found in the forest stand analysis, such as hawthorn (C. monogyna), elder (S. nigra), dogwood (Cornus sp.) and cherry (P. spinosa). Also, vines along the fence of the football fields are suggested (Clematis vitalba and Lonicera periclymenum). Additionally, remains of thinning, deadwood, and leaflitter do not have to be removed completely, in order to improve the conditions for decomposing insects and fungi.

Fig. 5.2.6 - Section II 1:250 - Promenade

Promenade The Promenade forms the access point for many different functions and is an important meeting point for Slagelse Commons. Along Promenade there is the new Town Hall Square, and existing amenities such as the SBI clubhouse, the Talent Campus, the residential apartments, and the football stadium.

The green zone along the promenade is cleared from clutter (e.g. garbage disposal) to create more interaction between the Talent Campus and the football field on the opposite side with seating possibilities. This also creates the opportunity for residents of the apartments to be included to use this space as an extended backyard. Furthermore, the green corridor along the football fields has favorable conditions for the pine trees that currently grow on the location of the new Town Hall.

109

Terrain

k Par lev

Bou

vej

rk Pa

ard

allée

Slots n

Current contour lines New contour lines

Fig. 5.2.7 - Terrain As one of the main interventions, the groundwater is brought to the surface as a permanent element in the urban landscape, to restore a piece of local heritage and to solve current flooding issues, in the southern corner of Lystanlægget. The other main intervention is the new layout of the Old Stadium, that not only will function as a water retention zone, but also act as a recreational element in the landscape Scale 1:2.000

110

Fig. 5.2.8 - Section JJ 1:250 - The Old Gate

The Old Gate In the southern corner of Lystanlægget and around the gate, the terrain will be lowered in order to create a permanent water cover as is shown in fig. 5.2.7. The two small ponds consist of reeds and other semi-aquatic vegetation along the edges that create a natural gradient, to facilitate nesting and foraging opportunities for ducks, insects, and possibly amphibians. (This also applies to the large pond in the center of Lystanlægget.)

The water cover and the vegetation creates a visual connection between the gate and Lystanlægget. A path facilitates the physical connection which will reestablish the Old Gate, as an entrance/access point, and make it functional again, see fig. 5.2.8.

111

Fig. 5.2.9 - Section KK 1:250 - The Old Stadium

The Old Stadium At Old Stadium, the terrain is adjusted more intensively to create a playful landscape of small mounts, slopes, and depressions (see fig. 5.2.7, previous page). In a recreational sense, the Old Stadium consists of a deck path that guides the visitor through the wet area and helps to reconnect with nature. Around the area, visitors are able to find different points-of-views, as shown in the section above. In ecological terms, the undulating terrain and thus the changing conditions in the area facilitate the perfect conditions

112

for various habitats and niches that already occur in the natural surroundings of Slagelse. Besides the herbaceous species that have been described in the analysis, we suggest a few species that are able to grow in these wet or humid conditions and further enhances the habitat diversity; black alder (Alnus glutinosa), white willow (Salix alba), grey willow (S. cinereal), common ash (Fraxinus excelsior), manna ash (F. ornus), whitebeam (Sorbus latifolia), European aspen (Populus tremula), Scots elm (Ulmus glabra) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa).

Recreation Town Hall Square The area in front of the planned Town Hall will function as an activity area, with room for a skatepark and will have outdoor fitness opportunities. The area is large and can accommodate other activities as well. The area’s functions are based upon the municipality’s wishes and are aimed for everyone; a place where people can meet across ages and interests.

Ice rink

Pic. 5.2.2 - Reference - activities in public parks See reference on page 125 for the source of the original image

The concrete oval, that currently functions as a rainwater detention zone, is now also designated as an ice rink and can facilitate many other recreational opportunities in the future, also in the summer (e.g. hockey or volleyball).

Pic. 5.2.3 - Illustration - The ice rink at Old Stadium

Bird tower A small tower located at the Old Stadium invites visitors to climb into and enjoy the urban nature from a distance and see how the elements and organisms interact and work together.

Pic. 5.2.4 - Illustration based on reference - Wilderness tower, Somerset England See reference on page 125 for the source of the original image

113

Vegetation layout

vej

rk Pa

ule Bo

allée

Slots

Current situation

Fig. 5.2.10 - Vegetation layout This figure shows how the vegetation layout has transformed from solitary trees and openly exposed non-spaces, into a variety of different vegetation structures creating a new spatial composition that accommodates the new functions of the place Scale 1:2.000

114

Management Herbaceous vegetation The herbaceous vegetation will be grown with a seed mix from the local or regional seed pool, that contains the species that have been registered in Appendix F (Antvorskov Military Terrain). The intent is to let the herbaceous seed mixes grow spontaneously after sowing, implying that some species will thrive in specific areas and others will not. This requires a change of perception in relation to the current aesthetic appearance.

The woody structures in the herbaceous meadows consist of existing trees, in combination with newly-planted native shrub species, which must be maintained annually, to prevent colonization over the herbaceous vegetation. This is required to keep an open structure along Parkvej. However, cutting with motorized and electric gear must be restricted to prevent disturbance of these biodiversity hotspots. Instead, existing plants will be thinned, rather than sheared as a hedge structure.

Management is required in order to support the dry grassland composition from an invasion of grasses (surrounding lawn species). The first sowing is advised to be done in winter to increase the chances of succession (Hitchmough et al., 2004). Moreover, removing to the top layer (20cm) before sowing prevents regeneration of the local seed pool, which in this case mostly consists of a cultivated grass species (Hitchmough et al., 2004). To strengthen the regeneration of flowering species and to prevent the dominance of grasses, the biomass is removed and spread over the meadow to induce germination of the dry grassland species (Bjørn & Ørgaard, 2020). Annual cutting is therefore advised to be done in winter. On the contrary, summer cutting will have a negative effect on the growth of the dry grassland species in the following year, and thus, should be prevented (Bjørn et al., 2016). Also local thinning of tussock grasses helps to create new openings for seed dispersal (Bjørn & Ørgaard, 2016).

Cutting and removal of hazardous trees must be considered more carefully for the good of biodiversity. For example, old trees that are required to be cut in regards to safety along a path or road are unavoidable. However, knowledge about which fungi create hazardous situations is required to prevent unnecessary cuttings, as most fungi do not threaten the tree and thus safety. If removal of the tree is the only option, leaving a stump of higher than 0.5m and dividing the deadwood over the park can attract decomposing insects and fungi. Furthermore, the sculpture of the cut tree is an attractive element in the urban environment.

This composition of herbaceous species naturally grows on nutrient-low soils, and therefore fertilizers should not be used. Moreover, the use of herbicides and pesticides must be restricted too, as this affects the soil and the species richness of the meadows. If invasive species occur within the area, such as Lupinus sp., this can be combated by local mowing after the flowering period, before the species sets its seeds at the end of August (Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse, 2014). Local cutting prevents major disturbance of the surroundings, and further dispersal of the lupine into Town Park.

Woody vegetation and structures Frederikshøj Boulevard requires specific management to maintain the image of an urban forest. The selected tree species are a selection of predominantly light-demanding species. Therefore re-opening of the canopy, and thus selective removal of trees and young shoots every 5 years is required to create age diversity and to maintain the species richness. Moreover, regular thinning of shrubs and young shoots are advised to maintain some openness and visual connections to the surroundings (e.g. Old Stadium and football fields). At least 15-20% of the area should be covered with shrubs to facilitate vertical complexity for birds and mammals.

To be able to grow veteran trees in Town Park, measures are required locally to improve the conditions of the tree. This can be done by sowing the herbaceous mix and enclosure of the area, to prevent disturbance in the soil or on the tree (Ravn et al., 2017). Placement of rocks or deadwood around the canopy does not only regulate safety, but it also becomes a small biodiversity hotspot on its own over time.

Aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation The ponds at Lystanlægget and around the gate will mainly consist of reed beds and tall herbaceous vegetation. Species as common reed and common bulrush have the tendency to grow fast, and therefore, annual thinning is required. This prevents clogging of the rainwater inlet and overflow and helps to maintain openings where people can access the pond. At the Old Stadium, thinning of woody vegetation and reed beds is required to prevent densification, in order to preserve openness in terms of the recreational experience. In an ecological sense, it prevents the dominance of certain habitat types over others, and therefore management supports the diversity of habitats within the area.

115

The Sports Park is in this report not fully elaborated. The Sports Park has a clear function on its own and does not fully comply with the aim of this report; to improve the ecological quality of Slagelse Commons as an extension of Slagelse Skovene. Moreover, the spaces around the football fields are rather small and do not allow many possibilities to embrace the ecological aim. However, the Sports Park is a dominant entity within Slagelse Commons but lacks interaction with its surroundings. So far, development has only been concentrated on the functionality of the Sports Park. In this proposal, we suggest easier accessibility in recreational terms, and integration of green elements that create a spatial connection between Sports Park and its surroundings; Nature Park and Town Park. One of the interventions is to mitigate the visual disturbances that the fences around the football fields cause, in relation to the surroundings. Along Town Hall Square, Park Boulevard, and the western edge of the artificial sports field we propose the use of climbing vines along the fences that comply with the nature-like composition of the surroundings. We suggest native species as honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) and Old

Fig. 5.3.2 - Section LL 1:250 - Artificial football fields

116

Man’s Beard (Clematis vitalba), which have a high ornamental and ecological value. The fences along the Promenade and the clubhouse, and the paths in between the football fields are recommended to keep free from climbing vines, and can be foreseen of seating possibilities along the sides of the fields for family and other spectators (see fig. 5.3.2.). Also, this proposal suggests relocations of a few pine trees that currently grow on the new Town Hall location. As the trees are evergreen and have a peg root, disturbance of the football fields can be prevented. The use of coherent furniture and paving materials is recommended to create more unity around the football fields and to create a better connection with Nature Park and Town Park. Potentially, this makes the Sports Park inviting and easier access for users and visitors other than football players and fans. Instead, it becomes part of the recreational infrastructure of Slagelse Commons.

Fig. 5.3.1 - opposite side: Masterplan - Sports Park Scale 1:2.000

Slagelse Commons - Sports Park

arkvej

Town Hall Parking garage Slagelse Stadium Town Hall Square

Fælle dvej

s se hou

ej hø jv eriks Fred

tial en sid re & e us mp nad t Ca me en P ro Tal Football fields Fenced football fields

SBI clubhouse

P L

Bird tower

rk Pa le Bou

Old Stadium

Artificial football fields

rd va Football fields

Swamp

UV-Hallen P

Amphitheater Amphi Tower

117

118

VI - Outro

119

Conclusion The aim of this project was to restore the identity of Slagelse, by increasing the ecological values of the incoming green structures and redesigning the area to fulfill recreational purposes. We can conclude that the proposal does show how Slagelse ideally can look like when embracing the aim to the fullest. It is an outcome of an elaborate study on how ecological restoration can be integrated most effectively in a human-made and highly programmed environment, and form a significant asset for the regional and local ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal functions as a guideline for the municipality on how the overall sense of identity of Slagelse Commons and Slagelse Town can be strengthened, through honoring local heritage and improvement of the overall recreational experience. This masterplan celebrates the existing diversity of Slagelse Commons, its surroundings and its users; to create new stories and attachments.

120

Discussion & reflections In general, the proposal suggests considerable changes of the overall aesthetic appearance of Slagelse Commons, which requires a gradual shift in perception of the way the area will be managed, and furthermore how the area will be used by Slagelse’s residents. Current management practices are focused on keeping the green space free from clutter and prevent seeming disorganization, for example with shortcut lawn, sheared hedges, and removal of leaf litter or dead materials. This masterplan presents the opposite, it emphasizes the fusion of the unstructured nature in the fixed, urban environment.

throughout the year, both in ecological terms and the overall landscape. For example, a movement registration of people through Slagelse Commons could tell more about the behavior of people that are affected by the spatial layout. Additionally, a study on the traffic intensity of Parkvej and its logistic connectivity on a town level, as Parkvej currently does not function as a ‘park road’. Furthermore, an additional study on vegetation in the spring, summer, and autumn would have given us a more precise understanding of the ecological qualities and its applicability in the urban environment.

Furthermore, designing with the guiding principles of nature and ecology has made us aware that the proposal is not a fixed plan; it is not a plan that will function for only 20 years and then requires renovation. The execution of the proposal is an ongoing process, just as the dynamics of nature. This means that the conditions will change through time (for example climate change causes a shift in the composition of plant and insect species), to which management is able to adapt based on the aim to support the local ecosystem and to maintain the recreational attractiveness. For example, the appliance of grazing animals in Nature Park is intended as an experiment to increase the recreational experience and to support the ecosystem. However, the theoretical and empirical knowledge on grazing animals is broad and requires further study to appropriate the method to the context of the site. Few questions that can be asked are: what is the grazing capacity of the fenced meadow, is a physical pass-over to the pastures east of the highway a possibility to enlarge the grazing meadow, and what animals are appropriate for the support of the ecosystem and the recreational experience? Also, how could the fenced area be appropriated without compromising the possibilities for residents to walk their dog?

As a reflection on the process, the biggest challenge was to find an appropriate balance between the amount of research on how the ecosystem can be supported and the study and design of the landscape as a general assignment as landscape architects. As ecology is a fairly new science for us landscape architects, the frequently asked question is to what level of detail we should go with the research of the ecological status of the place and how it can be applied to its fullest effect in the overall landscape design. In this process, our study and design are mostly focused on the overall ecological structure, based on theoretical knowledge. From this point, whether it is a continuation of this design process or an assignment in our future careers as landscape architects, lays a strong foundation on our competence to integrate biodiversity in a programmed space, and gives us the opportunity to gain more knowledge on a species level and other related topics that support the ecosystem, such as geological and hydrological processes.

With this proposal as an outcome, we have become aware that there are many steps that still have to be taken before this plan can be executed, and eventually will look like the masterplan suggests. The masterplan is based on principles that should form a guideline for the municipality of Slagelse, for a continuation of the design process. All in all, this plan expresses a long-term vision for Slagelse Commons, which still has endless possibilities, in various parts of the process: design, planning, execution, management, and maintenance.

To reflect on our motivation, besides studying the ‘art’ of landscape architecture, we are also interested in the practices of ecological restoration and climate adaptation. We see that so much can be achieved as the urban environment is a place where everything and everyone that expresses life needs a place, also nature. This process has made us even more conscious that landscape architecture is an interdisciplinary and applied science; expertise from different fields is gathered and eventually brought into reality with an executed plan, that not only caters the needs and wishes of people but in this era full of crises, also answers the requirements that restore the done damage of the past centuries.

The research phase of this master thesis took mostly place during wintertime, and therefore the time and the amount of collected data is rather limited. Therefore, the analysis and the masterplan of this master thesis give a general view of the site. Consequently, this means there is still a lot of information that has not been examined, and therefore there is a gap in the understanding of the place, in terms of the overall cultural and natural landscape in which Slagelse Commons is embedded. We believe that seasonal registration is a requirement, to get a better insight into the dynamics and changes in use and natural conditions of the various places at Slagelse Commons

121

References Literature Allison, C.D., Bender, L.C. (2017), Grazing and biodiversity, College of agricultural, consumer and environmental sciences, New Mexico State University, Circular 686 (CRC-686) Arnskov, P., (1931), Bogen om Slagelse; Historiske og topografiske skildringer af Slagelse gennem aarene, Aage Bøggild Beninde, J., Veith, M., Hochkirch, A., (2015), Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation, Ecology Letters, 18: pp. 581-592 Bjørn, M. C. (2015). Between Design and Ecology: Innovative Herbaceous Vegetation. Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen Blackmore, L.M., Goulson, D., (2014), Evaluating the effectiveness of wildflower seed mixes for boosting floral diversity and bumblebee and hoverfly abundance in urban areas, Insect Conservation and Diversity, 7: pp. 480-484 Bjørn, Mona Chor & Ørgaard, Marian, (May 2020), Biodiversitetens nye veje. JA\ktuelt, Vol. 2. p. 10-13 3 p. (moMentum+) Bjørn, M. C., Weiner, J., & Ørgaard, M. (2016). Is colourful self-sustaining forb vegetation mere fantasy? , Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 75-79. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.11.011 Buttenschøn, R. M., Gottlieb, L., & Byriel, D. B. (2018). Naturplejeportalen - Rapportudgave. Frederiksberg: Københavns Universitet. IGN Rapport Butterfly Conservation, (2011), Creating a butterfly-friendly ride side scallop, Butterfly Conservation, Dorset, England Cerra, J.F., Crain, R., (2016), Urban birds and planting design: strategies for incorporating ecological goals into residential landscapes, Urban Ecosyst, 19: pp. 1823-1846 Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, Naturhistorisk Museum Aarhus, (January 2011), Danmarks Biodiversitet 2010, Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse (2014), Antvorskov Øvelsesplads, Drifts- og plejeplan 2015-2029, Forsvarsministeriets Ejendomsstyrelse Gamborg C. & Gjerris, M., (2009), The price of responsibility – ethical perspectives, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Gao, T., Hedblom, M., Emilsson, T., Nielsen, A.B., (2014), The role of forest stand structure as biodiversity indicator, Forest Ecology and Management, 30: pp. 82-93 Gaston, K.J. & Spicer, J.I., (2004), Biodiversity: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Blackwell Science Ltd., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R., Pauleit, S., (2007) Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure, Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 33, No. 1, Climate Changes and Cities, pp. 115-133 Giversen, I., Jensen, J., Kristiansen, B., Norman, L., (2012), Danmarks flora efter voksested, Gyldendal Goulson, D., Lye, G.C., Darvill, B. (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees, Annu. Rev. Entomol., 53: pp. 191-208 Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, Jianguo Wu, Xuemei Bai, Briggs, J.M., (2008), Global Change and the Ecology of Cities, Science, Vol. 139, Issue 5864, pp. 756-760 Hansen, G.S., Mikkelsen, S.B., Larsen, B.R., (2013) Slagelse bys historie, Slagelse Arkiverne & Slagelse Kommune Helden, A.J., Stamp, G.C., Leather, S.R., (2012), Urban biodiversity: comparison of insect assemblages on native and non-native trees, Urban Ecosyst, 15: pp. 611-624 Hermy, M., Cornelis, J., (2000), Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and surburban parks, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49: pp. 149-162 Hermy, M., Cornelis, J., (2004) Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: pp. 384-401 Hill, M., Mountford, J., Roy, D. (1999) Ellenberg’s indicator values for British plants Technical annex, Crown, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands (United Kingdom) Hitchmough, J. et al., (2004), Establishing North-American prairie vegetation in urban parks in northern England – Part 1: Effect of sowing season, sowing rate and soil type, Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, 2 Holtmann, L., Philipp, K., Becke, C., Fartmann, T., (2017), Effects of habitat and landscape quality on amphibian assemblages of urban stormwater ponds, Urban Ecosyst, 20: pp. 1249-1259 Ishimatsu, K., Ito, K., (2013), Brown/biodiverse roofs: a conservation action for threatened brownfields to support urban biodiversity, Landscape Ecol Eng, 9: pp. 299-304 Kazemi, F., Beecham, S., Gibbs, J., (2009), Streetscale bioretention basins in Melbourne and their effect on local biodiversity, Ecological Engineering, 35: pp. 1454–1465

122

Lamborn, E., Ollerton, J., (2000), Experimental assessment of the functional morphology of inflorescences of Daucus carota (Apiacea): Testing the ‘fly catcher effect’, Functional Ecology, 14(4): pp. 445-454 Larsen, J.B., (2012), Close-to-nature forest management: the Danish approach to sustainable forestry. Sustainable forest management: current research. Editor: Julio J. Diez. InTech, 2012. pp. 199-218 Larsen, J.B., Jakobsen, M., Jensen, M., Nielsen A.B., Granat, H., (2005), Forest Development Types. In Larsen (Ed.) Nature-based Forest Management, Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift, 90, 1-400. Lassen, J. N. & Larsen, J. B., (2017), Danmarks Nye Skove - Håndbog i skovrejsning og skovudvikling, Landskabsværkstedet, 1. udgave, 1. oplag McKinney, M.L., (2006), Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization, Biological Conservation 127, pp. 247-260 McKinney, M.L., (2008), Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals, Urban Ecosyst 11, pp. 161–176 Meltofte, H. (red.) (2010) Danmarks Natur 2010 – om tabet af biologisk mangfoldighed, Det Grønne Kontaktudvalg Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005), Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Monberg, R.J., Howe, A.G., Ravn, H.P., Jensen, M.B., (2018), Exploring structural habitat heterogeneity in sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) for urban biodiversity support, Urban Ecosyst, 21: pp. 1159-1170 Monberg, R.J., Howe, A.G., Kepfer-Rojas, S., Ravn, H.P., Jensen, M.B, (2019), Vegetation development in a stormwater management system designed to enhance ecological qualities, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46: 126463 Neufert, E. & Neufert, P., (2000) Neufert: Architects’ Data Hardcover, Wiley-Blackwell, 3rd revised edition Nielsen, A.B., Nielsen, J.B., (2005), The use of profile diagrams for mixed stands in urban woodlands – the management perspective, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3: pp. 163-175 Nielsen, N., Schou, A. (1949), Atlas over Danmark; Landskabsformerne, Det Kongelige Danske Geografiske Selskab, København Næss, A., (2005), The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary, in A. Drengson & H. Glasser (Eds.), Selected Works of Arne Naess, X (pp. 7–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Petersen, L.K., Hald, A.B., Jensen, A., (2011) Livstil og naturkvalitet i byrummet – en synteserapport, Aarhus Universitet, DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, Aarhus, Denmark Petersen, P.M., Vestergaard, P., (2006), Vegetationsøkologi, 4. udgave, 2. oplag (2012), Gyldendal, København Ravn H.P., Skov, S., Thomsen, I.M., (April 2017), Veterantræer og biodiversitet, Skov & Landskab, Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv: No. 03.13-20 Ries, L., Fletcher, R.J. Jr., Battin, J., Sisk, T.D., (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability explained, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35: pp. 491-522 Salisbury, A., Armitage, J., Bostock, H., Perry, J., Tatchell, M,. Thompson, K., (2015), Enhancing gardens as habitats for flowering-visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic species, Journal of Applied Ecology, 52: pp. 1156-1164 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, (April 2000), Sustaining Life on Earth – How the Convention on Biological Diversity promotes nature and human wellbeing. Slagelse Kommune, Teknik og Miljø & Plan og Byg (2014), Handleplan til klimatilpasningsplanen Smith, D.M., Larson, B.C., Kelly, M.J., Ashton, P.M.S., (1997) The practice of silviculture: Applied forest ecology (ed. 9). Wiley, New York Smith, L.S., Fellowes, M.D.E., (2014) The grass-free lawn: Management and species choice for optimum ground cover and plant diversity, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13: pp. 433-442 Statens forstlige Forsøgsvæsen (1990), Skovbrugstabeller, Kandrup, København Sydenham, M.A.K., Eldegard, K., Totland, Ø., (2014), Spatio-temporal variation in species assemblages in field edges: seasonally distinct responses of solitary bees to local habitat characteristics and landscape conditions, Biodivers Conserv, 23: 2393-2414 Sörensson, M., (2008) AHA – a simple method for evaluating conservation priorities of trees in South Swedish parks and urban areas from an entomo-saproxylic viewpoint, Entomologisk Tidskrift 129 (2): 81-90 Taylor, L., Hochuli, D.F., (2014) Creating better cities: how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents’ wellbeing, Urban Ecosyst (2015) 18: 747-762 Threlfall, C.G., Ossola, A., Hahs, A.K., Williams, N.S.G., Wilson, L., Livesley, S.J., (2016), Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition across Urban Green Space Types, Front. Ecol. Evo. 4:66

123

Threlfall, C.G., Mata, L., Mackie, J.A., Hahs, A.K., Stork, N.E., Williams, N.S.G., Livesley, S.J., (2017), Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions, Journal of Applied Ecology, 54: pp. 1874-1883 Trier, H. (April, 2019), Slagelse sygehus’ historie, Slagelse Arkiverne United Nations (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 2. Use of Terms: “Biological Diversity”, p. 3

Web Stig L. Andersson, (April 4, 2019), Stig L. Andersson i arkitekturmanifest: Fremtidens byer skal fungere og føles som skove, Politiken Byrum: https://politikenbyrum.dk/ Debat/art7115302/Fremtidens-byer-skal-fungere-og-f%C3%B8les-som-skove. Accessed: October 2, 2020. EEA Glossary (2020), Habitat; definition of habitat: https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-glossary/habitat. Accessed: July 12, 2020. EUFORGEN, n.d.: European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN), (n.d.), Species: http://www.euforgen.org/species/. Accessed: April 5, 2020. ERA 2020: European Ramblers Assocciation (ERA-EWV-FERP), (2020), E6: https://www.era-ewv-ferp.org/e-paths/e6/. Accessed: April 24, 2020. Friluftsguiden, (2020), Vandring, Lokale ruter, Kløversti: http://www.friluftsguiden.dk/?activity=vandring&ad=lokale&action=trail. Accessed: April 21, 2020. Floraweb (n.d.) Pflanzenarten: http://www.floraweb.de/pflanzenarten/artenhome.xsql?suchnr=3036&. Accessed: June 2, 2020. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, (2020-1), Background & History: https://www.iucnredlist.org/about/background-history. Accessed: January 11, 2020. Knuth, P., (1898), BiolFlor, Centaurea jacea L. s. l.: https://www.ufz.de/biolflor/taxonomie/taxonomie.jsp?action=filter&ID_Familie=-1&ID_Gattung=165&ID_Taxonomie=688. Accessed: June 2, 2020. Reed, C., Lister, N.M., (April 2014), Ecology and Design: Parallel Genealogies, Places Journal: https://doi.org/10.22269/140414. Accessed: June 6, 2020. Sjællandske Nyheder (August 21, 2017), Pris for renovering runder 200.00 kroner: https://sn.dk/Slagelse/Pris-for-renovering-runder-200000-kroner/artikel/676952. Accessed on July 2, 2020. Slagelse Kommune (2017), Kommuneplan: https://www.slagelsekp17.dk/. Accessed: multiple times between November 18, 2019 and July 13, 2020. Nøgletal 2020: Social og Indenrigsministeriet (07/05-2020), SIMs Kommunale Nøgletal: http://www.noegletal.dk/. Accessed: July 6, 2020. Sørenson, C.Th. (1933) Slagelse, Frederikshøj, festplads: http://www.kunstbib.dk/samlinger/arkitekturtegninger/vaerker/000027049. Accessed: January 6, 2020. Udinaturen.dk, (n.d.): Slagelse sundhedsspor, Naturstyrelsen: https://udinaturen.dk/shelter/9360. Accessed: April 24, 2020.

Pictures and figures Pic. 1.1.1 Artist unknown (07-10-1934), Tilskuere ved fodboldkamp i Slagelse idrætspark 7.10.1934, Slagelse Stads- og Lokalarkiv: https://arkiv.dk/vis/24422. Received from Slagelse Municipality: July 2, 2020. Note: due to summer closure of the Slagelse Stads- og Lokalarkiv, retrieval of the historic picture through the official ways is not possible. This picture is received from Slagelse Municipality and added with their permission. Fig. 2.1.1 Metro Vancouver (2019), Ecological Health and Metro Vancouver: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/conserving-connecting/about-ecologicalhealth/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed: July 14, 2020. Fig. 2.3.1 Vincentz, R., Hahn-Petersen, P., Bro, L.K., (2013), Biodiversitet i byer, Miljøministeriet Naturstyrelsen, p. 12 Fig. 3.1.1 Layer 1 & 3: SDFE Kortviewer, DTK/Kort50, 1:50.000 (04-05-2016) Layer 2: Sjællandsleden (n.d.): http://sjaellandsleden.dk/?group_ad=4128&action=trail&region=1 Fig. 3.1.2 Layer 1: SDFE, Slagelse Kommune, Beskyttede naturtyper & Beskyttede vandløb (DAI) (Natur) Layer 2: SDFE, Slagelse Kommune, Jordartskort fra GEUS 1:200.000 (Jord og råstof) Layer 3: SDFE, Slagelse Kommune, Landskab, Landskabstyper (KP 2017) Layer 4: SDFE Kortviewer, DTK/Kort50, 1:50.000 (04-05-2016) Pic. 3.1.1 Aero Express (29-06-1934). Luftfoto af gl. stadion, Slagelse Stads- og Lokalarkiv: https://arkiv.dk/vis/24861. Received from Slagelse Municipality: July 6, 2020. Note: due to summer closure of the Slagelse Stads- og Lokalarkiv, retrieval of the historic picture through the official ways is not possible. This picture is received from Slagelse Municipality and added with their permission.

124

Fig 3.2.4 SDFE, Slagelse Kommune, Oversvømmelseskort grundvand & Kritisk grundvandsstigning (KP 2017) Fig. 3.2.16 All pictures below are retrieved on June 1, 2020. Achillea millefolium, common yarrow Hoogendoorn, J.W., Ridderkerk, NL (18-06-2015): https://waarneming.nl/species/6310/ Achillea millefolium, common yarrow John Astria (04-2017): https://johnastria007.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/agrimonia_eupatoria_bloem.jpg Alnus glutinosa, black alder Reitsma, G., Zwolle – Westerveldse Bos, NL (04-02-2009): https://waarneming.nl/species/6359/ Arctium tomentosum, woolly burdock Corten, H., Maastricht, NL (01-08-2007): https://waarneming.nl/species/6309/ Brassica napus, rapeseed KU Leuven, Campus Kortrijk (n.d.): https://www.kuleuven-kulak.be/kulakbiocampus/images/lage%20planten/Brassica%20napus%20-%20Koolzaad/ Centaurea jacea, brown knapweed Blaich, G., Rechtenbach, DE (20-06-2016): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Centaurea+jacea&grp=pfl&fm=pflfamla&abs=&lan=x Cichorium intybus, chicory Blaich, G., Freiburg, DE (12-07-2008): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Cichorium+intybus Cirsium vulgare, spear thistle Flogaus-Faust, R., Sellingsdorf, DE (02-09-2005): https://nafoku.de/rff/e/cirsvul0.htm Crataegus laevigata, woodland hawthorn Blaich, G., Nüdlingen, DE (09-05-2015): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Crataegus+laevigata Dactylis glomerata, cocksfoot Blaich, G., Groβkrotzenburg, DE (18-07-2015): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Dactylis+glomerata Daucus carota, wild carrot First Nature, Daucus carota – Wild carrot (n.d.): https://www.first-nature.com/flowers/daucus-carota.php Elytrigia repens, common couch Blaich, G., Seeheim an der Bergstraβe, DE (28-06-2013): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Elymus+repens Ficaria verna, pilewort Blaich, G., Hemsbach, DE (08-03-2014): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Ficaria+verna Fraxinus excelsior, common ash Bouwmans, J., Rhenen – Blauwe Kamer, NL (27-03-2014): https://waarneming.nl/species/6796/ Hypericum perforatum, perforate St. John’s Wort Blaich, G., Fridingen, DE (26-06-2018): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Hypericum+perforatum Juncus articulatus, jointleaf rush Blaich, G., Gessertshausen, DE (30-07-2011): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Juncus+articulatus Phragmites australis, common reed Verbeek, M., Budel-Dorplein, Ringselvennen, NL (02-09-2006): https://waarneming.nl/species/7175/ Ranunculus repens, creeping buttercup Nitter, G. (28-05-2015): http://www.gerhard.nitter.de/Steckbriefe/Ranunculus-repens.html Rosa canina, dog rose Flogaus-Faust, R., Badberg (Kaiserstuhl), (26-05-2005): https://nafoku.de/rff/e/rosacan0.htm Rumex crispus, curled dock Wyngaert, G. van den, Breskens – Nieuwesluis, NL (13-08-2019): https://waarneming.nl/species/7371/photos/?page=38 Rubus sp. Blaich, G., Karlsruhe, DE (14-08-2019): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Rubus+plicatus Salix cinerea, grey willow Blaich, G., Weinheim an der Bergstraβe, DE (16-03-2019): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Salix+cinerea Tanacetum vulgare, tansy Flogaus-Faust, R., zwischen Götzenhain und Offenthal, DE (24-11-2003): https://nafoku.de/rff/e/tanavul2.htm Typha latifolia, common bulrush Blaich, G., Eich, DE (01-07-2014): http://www.guenther-blaich.de/pflseite.php?par=Typha+latifolia Pic. 5.1.2 Andersen, Claus (2018): http://www.sydhavnstippen.dk/archives/7658. Accessed: July 1, 2020. Pic. 5.1.3 Møller & Grønberg + ADEPT, Main entrance at Asger Jorns Alle (11-01-2019): https://www.amagernyt.dk/2019/01/11/naturpark-amager-faar-et-arkitektonisk-loeft/. Accessed: July 1, 2020. Pic. 5.1.4 WebUrbanist, Animal Overpass, Santa Monica, USA (09-08-2015): https://weburbanist.com/2015/09/08/animal-overpass-la-wildlife-crossing-to-be-largest-in-us/. Accessed: July 1, 2020. Pic. 5.2.2 02LANDSKAP, Flatås Park, Gothenburg, Sweden (12-07-2018): http://landezine.com/index.php/2018/07/flatas-park-by-02landskap/. Accessed: July 1, 2020. Pic. 5.2.4 Marcus Jefferies, Somerset, England (13-05-2020): https://www.designboom.com/art/wilderness-tower-brutalist-inspired-folly-somerset-england-05-13-2020/. Accessed: July 1, 2020.

125

Maps Danmarks Miljøportal, Data om miljøet i Danmark (2019): https://arealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/ Google Maps (2020) Aerodata International Surveys, CNES: https://www.google.com/maps/place/4200+Slagelse/@55.3974124,11.3687267,1709m/ data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x464d6162e0d4cdb7:0xbf0409f313af0f00!8m2!3d55.403692!4d11.355257. Directly applied for following figures: 1.1.3 / 2.4.1 / 3.1.1 / 3.1.2 / 3.1.4 / 3.1.6 / 3.2.5 / 3.2.7 Historisk Atlas (2016): https://historiskatlas.dk/ Styrelsen for Dataforsyning og Effektivisering (2017) Slagelse Kommune: https://kort.slagelse.dk/ Styrelsen for Dataforsyning og Effektivisering (2019) SDFE Kortviewer: https://sdfekort.dk/ Styrelsen for Dataforsyning og Effektivisering (2019) SDFE Kortviewer, Danmarks Højdemodel: 0.5m hødjekurver. Directly applied for following figures: 3.2.6 / 3.2.8 / 3.2.12 / 5.1.1 / 5.1.7 / 5.2.1 / 5.2.7 / 5.3.1

126

Appendix Overview A - Habitat Unit Diversity

a: Legend description b: Diagram data B - Urban Habitat Index C - Forest Stand Structures a: Transect data b: Kraft’s Crown classification D - Park Tree Registration a: Registration data b: AHA description c: Diagram data E - Cover Analysis F - Ellenberg Indicator Values; Species list G - Masterplan 1:2.000 - A1

127

A - Habitat Unit Diversity a: Legend description 1

Planar elements

Linear elements

1.1

Forest stand: unit composed of more or less natural forest vegetation 1.1.1 deciduous wood: forest stand of deciduous trees a coppice: forest stand of regularly cutted thickets (HU1) b coppice with standards: forest stand of regularly cutted and upper trees (HU2) c park wood: forest stand of single trees with ligneous undergrowth (HU3) d leafy regular high forest: forest stand of regular high

2.1

Alley: double or four-double row of trees, including the verges (HU33)

2.2

Tree row: row of trees (HU34)

2.3

Hedge: linear wooden vegetation 2.3.1 sheared hedge: hedge that is regularly sheared (HU35) 2.3.2 non-sheared hedge: hedge that is not sheared (HU36)

2.3.3

wooden embankment: hedge on an embankment created by humans (HU37)

2.4

Road verge: non-hardened strip along a road (HU38)

2.5

Bank: strip of land on each side of a water feature or a watercourse 2.5.1 bank of a water feature: bank of castle moat or pond a natural: bank not consolidated by humans (HU39) b semi-natural: bank consolidated by humans where vegetation is possible (HU40) 2.5.2 bank of a watercourse: bank of a ditch, brook or river a natural: bank not consolidated by humans (HU41) b semi-natural: bank consolidated by humans where vegetation is possible (HU42)

2.6

Watercourse: linear element used for the discharge of water 2.6.1 ditch: watercourse with a width of max. 1 m that may contain water (HU43) 2.6.2 brook: watercourse with a width of max. 3 m that always contains water (HU44) 2.6.3 river: watercourse with a width of >3 m (HU45)

2.7

Road infrastructure: strip used and prepared for pedestrians and service traffic 2.7.1 road: road infrastructure with a width of >2 m a half-hardened: road with a hardening that is not completely sealed (HU46) b not hardened: road without any hardening (HU47) 2.7.2 sunken road: sunken road infrastructure, including the verges (HU48) 2.7.3 path: road infrastructure with a width of >2 m a half-hardened: path with a hardening that is not completely sealed (HU49) b not hardened: path without any hardening (HU50)

2.8

Wall: linear masonry used as enclosing (HU51)

thickets

deciduous

128

trees (HU4) 1.1.2 coniferous wood: forest stand of conifers (HU5) 1.1.3 mixed wood: forest stand of deciduous and coniferous trees (HU6)

1.2

Plantation: unit composed of planted trees 1.2.1 orchard: enclosed unit planted with fruit trees (HU7) 1.2.2 forest grassland: grassland planted with forest trees (HU8) 1.2.3 tree gallery: linear plantation of trees without undergrowth (HU9) 1.2.4 arboretum: plantation of different tree species with an educational function (HU10) 1.2.5 forest plantation: plantation of forest trees (<3 m) (HU11)

1.3

Labyrinth: unit composed of close hedges in labyrinth form (HU12)

1.4

Shrub plantation: unit composed of shrubs (HU13)

1.5

Grassland: unit composed of grass species 1.5.1 lawn: frequently mown grassland (HU14) 1.5.2 sportsfield: frequently mown grassland used as sports ground (HU15) 1.5.3 hay meadow: grassland used to make hay (HU16) 1.5.4 pasture: grassland grazed by animals (HU17) 1.5.5 hay-pasture: grassland that is grazed after haymaking (HU18)

1.6

Tall herb vegetation: unit composed of rough herbs, inclusive reed vegetation (HU19)

1.7

Heathland: unit composed of dwarfshrubs (HU20)

1.8

Agricultural area: unit composed of arable crops (HU21)

1.9

Fallow land: temporary unit composed of fallow ground (HU22)

1.10

Garden: enclosed unit composed of vegetables, fruit or ornamental 3 plants 1.10.1 kitchen garden: garden composed of vegetables and 3.1 fruit (HU23) 1.10.2 herb garden: garden composed of medicinal herbs (HU24) 1.10.3 rose garden: garden composed of roses (HU25) 3.2 1.10.4 ornamental garden: garden composed of other ornamental plants (HU26) 3.3

Punctual elements

1.11

Ornamental plantation: non-enclosed unit composed of ornamental plants (HU27)

3.4

Tumulus: burial mound (HU55)

1.12

Water feature: unit composed of water 1.12.1 castle-moat: water feature round a historical building (HU28) 1.12.2 pond: water feature free from each building (HU29)

3.5

Infrastructure elementL human construction (well, fountain, kiosk, chapel, monument, statue, bridge, aviary, ...) (HU56)

1.13

Building: unit composed of buildings, inclusive the limited space between the buildings (HU30)

1.14

Car park: unit composed of parking places for vehicles 1.14.1 half-hardened: parking with a hardening that is not completely sealed (HU31) 1.14.2 not hardened: parking without any hardening (HU

Note:

Single tree or shrub: tree or shrub not surrounded by other trees or shrubs (HU52) Pool: small, shallow, stagnant water <100 m2 (HU53) Icehouse: house where ice was kept (HU54)

This legend is developed and applied for the research of the habitat unit diversity in Belgium urban parks, by Hermy & Cornelis (2000). The habitat units registered in the project area are derived from the original legend, or are adjusted where an accurate description fitting to the structure was missing.

b: Diagram data

Project area Planar elements within project area

Mixed forest stand Newly planted

Forest grassland Shrubs Freq mown grass Occ. Mown grass Wet lawn Sportsfields

Hay meadow Tall herb vegetation Ponds Semi-perm cover

Bare soil Artificial sportsfields Imperm. cover Buildings

Permeability project area

Wet areas (ponds and tall herb vegetation) Permeable cover (habitat structures, incl. bare soil)

Semi-permeable cover (incl. artificial sportsfields) Impermeable cover (incl. buildings)

m2 270852

ha 27.1

% 100.0

56 853 5 388

5.6853 0.5388

21.0 2.0

0.1814 0.4248 0.4977 0.7696

0.7 1.6 1.8 2.8

3 2 82 12 5 49 1 4 4 7

340 038 153 238 900 265

814 248 977 696

0.3340 0.2038 8.2153 1.2238 0.5900 4.9265

1 1 27 4 270

910 850 182 000 852

0.1910 0.1850 2.7182 0.4000 27.0852

9 225 220 899

0.9225 22.0899

9 546 31 182 270 852

0.9546 3.1182 27.0852

1.2 0.8 30.3 4.5 2.2 18.2

0.7 0.7 10.0 1.5 100%

3.4% 81.6%

3.5% 11.5% 100%

129

B - Urban Habitat Index 1

Area

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Lystanlægget Swamp & hospital pond Park >10 ha No major barriers (large building in/or roads through area) Access to green/brown/blue corridors (more than 5m wide) Adjacent to the sea Adjacent to other green area(s) (closer than 200m; connectivity) Soft transition zones between park and surroundings; hedgerow

Water

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17

Page 1/2

Score:

Open (or potential for temporary) stream/ditch/canal (linear) Meandering (or potential for temporary) stream Signs of water flow (e.g. fountain, running stream/lotic system) Sign of temporary pond/water body (of any size) Potential for temporarily flooded, grassed area (observe terrain) Overgrown swamp/swamp-like area Permanent lake, pond > 100 m2 (i.e. score both if > 100 m2) Permanent lake, pond < 100 m2 Large stones in lake/pond/stream Fallen trees/wood/snag in pond/lake/stream Potential for shaded and/or sun-exposed water surface Soft/natural transition-zone (margin) between land and water Mud, or signs thereof Reeds/aquatic plants in transition zone > 5 aquatic plant species Substrate of water body visible in places, i.e. varied depth Trees/shrubs adjacent to/overhanging water Score:

Terrain

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Steep terrain difference (>33%) in places Smooth rolling terrain (with subtle depressions, i.e. not completely flat) Slope/bank facing south with herb layer (but not short mown grass) Slope/bank facing south (as before) with patches of bare soil Bare soil and/or gravel >10m2 (can be pedestrian paths) Bare soil and/or gravel >2m2 (undisturbed) Large stones > 0.5 m in length/diameter Elevated terrain (e.g. slope) with vegetation cover on northern side Score:

Level of continuity

4.1 4.2

Some evidence of consistent management >50 years Brownfield/wasteland with frequent disturbance (1-20y) Score:

130

Hiding and foraging place for animals

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20

Overstorey crown cover (>5% of the park) Understorey (i.e. midstorey) cover (>5% of the park) Multilayered stand-structure (3 or more vegetation layers/storeys) Sun exposed areas (no shade) Shaded areas (i.e. always and/or sometimes shaded) Dense shrubs and undergrowth Hedgerows Soft transition zones between habitats within park Climbing vines in trees Plant species with edible berries or nuts Different plant species with berries or nuts Woodchips, bark, sawdust layers/mounds on ground Decomposing vegetation in heaps Dry stonewall(s) i.e. without mortar (signs of degradation if with mortar) Mound of stones, gravel, or sand Smaller earth mounds/heaps Bird box(es) Insect hotel(s) Bat box(es) Holes (<5 cm Ø) in bare soil/substrate (e.g. mouse/ant holes, etc.) Score:

Herthalund

Amphitheater

0 0 1 0 1 1

0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 1 1

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1

1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

1 0

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

Page 2/2 6

Plant diversity

6.1 6.2 6.3

6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 7

Lystanlægget Swamp & hospital pond > 5 different native tree species > 15 different tree species > 10 decidous(broad leaved) tree species

0 1 0 0 0 2

Score:

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5

Score:

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

1 0 1 0 1 1 1 5

Score:

0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 5

1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 7

1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 6

Score:

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3

1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Bird feeders or sign of bird feeding Cats or signs of cats (sorry, cats aren't so good for birds, small mammals) Dogs running wildly off-leash Impermeable pavement covering more than 20% of area 1 invasive plant species > 3 invasive plant species Invasive animal species > 3 invasive animal species Many (open to interpretation) lamp posts (for night light) Lamp posts lighting large trees all night Noise (loud and regular); i.e score if "loud" road noise is absent Potential for salted paths (i.e. paved paths throughout) Grassed areas predominantly cut short Score:

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 12

1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 8

1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 9

Total score:

Score:

Big trees ( > 70 cm diameter at breast height, i.e. dbh) Big trees ( > 50 cm dbh) Medium sized trees (10 trees > 30 cm dbh) Trees in groups/clusters Large singular trees Understorey of trees Trees with cavities/holes/cracks Trees with loose bark Deadwood > 70 cm in diameter, (standing/lying) Deadwood > 50 cm in diameter, (standing/lying); could be branches Deadwood, > 30 cm in diameter (standing/lying); could be branches

> 5 different bird species Birds of prey (including birds that fish) Mammals (not dogs) Amphibians or reptiles > 20 arthropod species > 8 arthropod species Animal noises, i.e. animal sounds contributing to soundscape

Fungi on trees, or substrate > 4 different fungi species observed Lichens on trees/stones Mosses on trees/stone Lichens/moss on man-made structures Signs of natural succession/regeneration/seed setting Pollinating insects and flowering plants Signs of herbivory insects, i.e. leaves with holes/bite marks Spiders and/or spiderwebs People running/walking/riding on allocated paths People sitting on lawn area; not disrupting "wilder areas"

Maintenance / Management

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8

Garbage removal facilities Both long and short (cut) grass/herb vegetation Pile(s) of branches Grazing animals (or signs thereof, e.g. fences) Tree stumps (assume for a purpose) Piles/layers of litterfall/leaves left to decay (perhaps from last year) Sign of integrating deadwood in park design Wilder areas set aside, i.e. minimal maintenance

Lack of (potential) negative impacts (scored if no presence or sign)

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 11.12 11.13

1 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 4

Biological interactions / Human recreation

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11

1 0 0

0 1 1 1 1 5

Animal diversity

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

1 0 0

Amphitheater

0 1 0 0 0 4

> 3 conifer tree species > 5 shrub species > 5 native annuals and/or perennial herb species (herbaceous storey) > 10 annuals and/or perennials herb species Spontaneous (weedy-type) vegetation

Trees and deadwood

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11

1 1 1

Herthalund

131

132

Qru

Qro

Qru

Apl

Qro

Apl

Qro

elde

hawthorn

elderberry

red oak

hawthorn

common oak

hawthorn

red oak

elder

Norway maple

beech

hawthorn

common oak

Norway maple

common oak

beech

Sambucus nigra

Crataegus monogyna

Sambucus nigra

Quercus rubra

Crataegus monogyna

Quercus robur

Crataegus monogyna

Quercus rubra

Sambucus nigra

Acer platanoides

Fagus sylvatica

Crataegus monogyna

Quercus robur

Acer platanoides

Quercus robur

Fagus sylvatica

Aps

beech

sycamore maple

beech

Fagus sylvatica

Acer pseudoplatanus

Fagus sylvatica

English name

Fagus sylvatica

Latin name

Herthalund - 55°23'42.3"N 11°21'57.9"E

English name

Latin name

Stadium Forest - 55°23'59.1"N - 11°21'59.6"E

bøg

ahorn

bøg

Dansk navn

bøg

almindelig eg

spidsløn

almindelig eg

engriflet hvidtjørn

bøg

spidsløn

almindelig hyld

rød-eg

engriflet hvidtjørn

44.5

36.0

35.5

34.5

24.5

24.0

20.0

16.5

14.0

11.0

10.5

9.5

2.0

distance from 0-point (m)

47.0

46.5

43.5

39.5

36.5

32.0

28.0

26.5

22.0

20.0

19.0

17.0

16.0

14.5

14.0

13.5

12.5

12.0

almindelig eg engriflet hvidtjørn

11.5

6.5

2.0

1.0

0.5

distance from 0-point (m)

engriflet hvidtjørn

rød-eg

almindelig hyld

engriflet hvidtjørn

almindelig hyld

Dansk navn

0.5-R

0.0

0.5-L

1.0-L

0.0

2.5-R

4.0-L

3.5-R

0.5-L

1.5-L

3.0-R

4.0-R

4.5-R

1.5-L

distance from midline (m)

4.0-R

0.5-L

1.0-R

0.5-L

3.5-R

2.5-L

2.5-R

0.5-L

3.0-L

0.0

1.5-R

1.0-L

3.0-R

2.0-L

2.5-L

3.0-L

1.0-L

1.5-R

0.0

2.0-R

2.0-L

0.5-L

0.0

distance from midline (m)

9.0

1.0

5.0

1.0

2.0

9.0

1.0

5.0

3.0

1.0

4.0

6.0

north

1.0

5.0

4.0

4.5

1.5

4.0

0.0

3.0

7.0

1.0

2.0

9.0

0.5

5.0

4.0

6.0

2.5

2.0

3.0

1.0

0.5

5.0

2.0

north

6.0

1.0

0.5

6.0

2.0

7.0

0.0

9.0

4.0

0.5

3.0

4.0

11.0

8.0

south

6.0

2.0

6.0

3.0

5.0

3.0

4.0

1.5

1.0

1.5

6.0

0.5

1.0

0.0

4.0

2.5

5.0

0.0

1.5

south

7.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

1.5

4.0

2.0

7.0

6.0

west

1.5

1.0

2.5

5.0

6.0

2.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

7.0

1.0

7.0

1.5

4.0

3.0

west

10.0

1.0

6.0

3.0

10.0

5.0

4.0

7.0

1.0

3.0

2.0

5.0

9.0

east

9.5

8.0

4.5

2.0

5.0

1.5

1.0

3.0

1.5

0.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

4.0

1.0

0.5

east

19.5

2.5

3.0

18.5

6.0

21.5

21.0

22.0

22.5

10.0

11.0

8.0

23.0

26.0

tree height (m)

20.0

17.5

24.5

22.5

24.5

26.5

23.5

7.5

28.5

6.0

4.0

25.0

20.0

6.5

8.0

21.5

6.0

4.5

22.5

2.0

7.0

8.0

6.0

3.0

tree height (m)

150

104

157

141

171

154

244

270

circumference stem (m)

154

170

158

121

158

115

148

138

110

148

128

circumference stem (m)

40-50

0-10

20-30

0-10

50-60

20-30

50-60

60-70

age (estimated)

40-50

60-70

50-60

60-70

80+

70-80

10-20

80+

20-30

0-10

50-60

30-40

20-30

0-10

60-70

20-30

10-20

60-70

10-20

20-30

10-20

age (estimated)

status

C - Forest Stand Structures

a: Transect data

b: Kraft’s Crown classification 5: Dominant trees These crowns extend above the general level of the canopy. They receive full light from above and some light from the sides. Generally, they have the largest, fullest crowns in the stand 4: Codominant trees These crowns make up the general level of the canopy. They receive direct light from above, but little or no light from the sides. Generally they are shorter than the dominant trees. 3: Intermediate trees These crowns occupy a subordinate position in the canopy. They receive some direct light from above, but no direct light from the sides. Crowns are generally narrow and/ or one-sided, and shorter than the dominant and codominant trees. 2: Suppressed trees (Overtopped trees) These crowns are below the general level of the canopy. They receive no direct light. Crowns are generally short, sparse, and narrow. 1: Dead trees Reference: Smith et al., 1997

133

Bu B B B B B Tc B Tc B B B B B B B B B Bu B T Fe Fe Fe Qro Qro Qro Tc Tc Tc Fe Fe Fe Tc Tc Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps

134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Betula utilis Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Tilia cordata Betula sp. Tilia cordata Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula sp. Betula utilis Betula sp. Tilia cordata Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Quercus robur Quercus robur Quercus robur Tilia cordata Tilia cordata Tilia cordata Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Tilia cordata Tilia cordata Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris

Latin name native / non-native

Himalayan birch birch birch birch birch birch small-leaved lime birch small-leaved lime birch birch birch birch birch birch birch birch birch Himalayan birch birch small-leaved lime European ash European ash European ash common oak common oak common oak small-leaved lime small-leaved lime small-leaved lime European ash European ash European ash small-leaved lime small-leaved lime Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine Scots pine

English name Himalaja-birk birk birk birk birk birk småbladet lind birk småbladet lind birk birk birk birk birk birk birk birk birk Himalaja-birk birk småbladet lind ask ask ask almindelig eg almindelig eg almindelig eg småbladet lind småbladet lind småbladet lind ask ask ask småbladet lind småbladet lind skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr skovfyr

Dansk navn 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

amount of trees

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

* ** ** ** ** **

102 66 53 54 90 100 98 57 83 102 90 118 59 119 69 120 75 63 69 55 67 99 92 88 101 86 87 93 73 80 93 82 99 102 89 81 121 101 99 85 127 102 102 97 129 112 127 110 112 83 122 109 104 107 127 95 104 120 165

stem circumference (cm) 8 4 5 6 7 8 8 5 7 9 9 9 10 6 4 7 8 7 6 4 6 8 8 7 8 9 10 8 6 6 9 7 8 8 8 6 10 7 6 5 11 6 6 5 5 6 9 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 6 3 4 4 6

crown diameter (m) 9.5 8.5 5.5 7.5 13.0 13.5 10.5 6.5 10.5 14.0 16.0 14.5 14.0 8.5 11.5 16.0 13.0 11.5 11.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 11.0 10.5 13.5 13.5 12.5 11.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 10.0 11.0 10.5 11.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 12.5 10.5 10.5 8.5 12.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 12.5 11.5 12.5 8.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 9.5

10-20 20-30 10-20 10-20 50-60 50-60 20-30 10-20 20-30 60-70 70+ 60-70 60-70 20-30 30-40 70+ 50-60 30-40 10-20 10-20 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 40-50 40-50 30-40 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 20-30 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40

tree age height (m) (estimated)

B B

stem with cavity

branch with cavity

mucorrhea (resin)

epiphytic fungi

A B

stem with loose bark

A: decaying B: giant tree high stump

R R R R R II R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R

IV R IV R IV R R R

R R II III IV R R R IV IV R R R R

II IV

AHA-class

D - Park Tree Registration

a: Registration data Page 1/3

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Ps Fs Fe Psh Ac Fs Psh Pse Pse Pse Fs Pse Apl Pn Bu Bu B Bu Ap Ah Pf Pf Pf Cm Pse Pse Pf Psh Pse Fe Fe L Psh Pse P Psh

Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr Scots pine skovfyr beech bøg European ash ask winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær field maple navr beech bøg winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær beech bøg Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Norway maple spidsløn Austrian pine sortfyr Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk birch birk Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk sycamore maple ahorn horse-chestnut hestekastanje Caucasian wingnut Kaukasisk vingevalnød Caucasian wingnut Kaukasisk vingevalnød Caucasian wingnut Kaukasisk vingevalnød hawthorn engriflet hvidtjørn Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Caucasian wingnut Kaukasisk vingevalnød winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær European ash ask European ash ask golden rain guldregn winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær sweet cherry fuglekirsebær winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær

Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Pinus sylvestris Fagus sylvatica Fraxinus excelsior Prunus subhirtella Acer campestre Fagus sylvatica Prunus subhirtella Prunus serrulata Prunus serrulata Prunus serrulata Fagus sylvatica Prunus serrulata Acer platanoides Pinus nigra Betula utilis Betula utilis Betula sp. Betula utilis Acer pseudoplatanus Aesculus hippocastanum Pterocarya fraxinifolia Pterocarya fraxinifolia Pterocarya fraxinifolia Crataegus monogyna Prunus serrulata Prunus serrulata Pterocarya fraxinifolia Prunus subhirtella Prunus serrulata Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Laburnum sp. Prunus subhirtella Prunus serrulata Prunus avium Prunus subhirtella

Dansk navn

English name

Latin name native / non-native 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1

amount of trees

* *

130 99 106 110 88 63 112 127 100 121 108 108 106 92 93 120 114 118 83 97 99 106 110 92 172 101 34 85 246 49 49 61 49 230 53 107 305 95 105 112 39 47 294 359 (ms) 400 (ms) 261 113 49 38 247 36 51 117 100 45 51 34 236 29

stem circumference (cm) 8 5 4 5 7 2 6 6 7 6 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 7 6 5 5 5 6 5 11 7 5 8 18 7 5 5 5 15 4 8 17 8 8 11 5 5 14 14 10 9 7 5 3 13 5 3 7 5 3 6 5 12 4

crown diameter (m) 15.5 11.5 13.5 15.5 13.5 9.5 13.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 11.5 11.5 8.5 10.5 11.5 10.5 13.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 12.5 14.5 11.5 11.5 14.5 7.5 11.5 21.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 5.5 20.5 5.0 12.0 22.5 13.0 12.0 19.5 8.5 5.5 16.5 14.5 14.5 12.5 7.5 6.0 5.0 11.5 5.5 6.0 13.5 11.5 5.5 6.0 5.0 11.5 4.5

30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 30-40 dead 30-40 60-70 20-30 0-10 10-20 60-70 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 60-70 0-10 10-20 0-10 10-20 10-20 70+ 10-20 0-10 40-50 30-40 30-40 30-40 20-30 0-10 0-10 30-40 0-10 0-10 20-30 20-30 10-20 0-10 0-10 60-70 0-10

tree age height (m) (estimated)

B B

stem with loose bark

A: decaying B: giant tree high stump

IV R

R IV

R R R R R R R IV R R R R R R R IV IV R R R R R R R I R

AHA-class

III IV

R IV

IV R R R IV I

epiphytic fungi

mucorrhea (resin)

branch with cavity

stem with cavity

Page 2/3

135

Ss P Bu Sa Sa Bu Fe Bu Bu Bu Bu B B Pse Pse B B B B Pse Pse B Pse Pse Psh Pse Pse Psh Pse Pse B B B B Ss Qro Fs Pse Fe Ss Pn Qro Fs Fs Qro Fe Fe Qro Ss Ap Fs

136

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

English name

Dansk navn

Salix (x) sepulcralis ‘Chrysocoma’ weeping willow grædende pile wild pear almindelig pære Pyrus communis ssp. Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis whitebeam akselrøn Sorbus aria whitebeam akselrøn Sorbus aria Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis European ash ask Fraxinus excelsior Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis Himalayan birch Himalaja-birk Betula utilis birch birk Betula sp. Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata birch birk Betula sp. Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær Prunus subhirtella Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata winter-flowering cherryoktoberkirsebær Prunus subhirtella Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. birch birk Betula sp. grædende pile Salix (x) sepulcralis ‘Chrysocoma’ weeping willow common oak almindelig eg Quercus robur beech bøg Fagus sylvatica Japanese cherry Japansk kirsebær Prunus serrulata European ash ask Fraxinus excelsior grædende pile Salix (x) sepulcralis ‘Chrysocoma’ weeping willow Austrian pine sortfyr Pinus nigra common oak almindelig eg Quercus robur beech bøg Fagus sylvatica beech bøg Fagus sylvatica common oak almindelig eg Quercus robur European ash ask Fraxinus excelsior European ash ask Fraxinus excelsior common oak almindelig eg Quercus robur grædende pile Salix (x) sepulcralis ‘Chrysocoma’ weeping willow sycamore maple ahorn Acer pseudoplatanus beech bøg Fagus sylvatica

Latin name native / non-native

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

amount of trees

* * ** ** ** **

** *

** ** ** **

** **

61 40 158 23 17 250 164 223 188 200 116 138 121 69 38 167 101 136 91 57 38 143 53 46 36 60 61 57 52 36 205 225 95 138 440 310 369 44 65 48 187 326 (ms) 178 134 92 151 432 (ms) 320 280 255 278

stem circumference (cm) 6 5 11 1 2 12 10 12 8 6 8 15 10 7 5 11 10 8 6 6 5 8 5 5 4 7 6 7 5 3 14 13 7 9 24 21 16 5 5 7 11 13 10 7 8 10 10 20 18 15 15

crown diameter (m) 6.5 5.0 13.0 6.0 4.5 12.5 9.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 17.0 17.0 5.5 5.0 18.5 13.5 17.5 16.0 5.5 5.0 14.5 6.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 7.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 13.5 15.0 14.5 16.0 20.5 20.5 12.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 14.5 12.5 11.5 17.0 11.5 13.5 17.5 21.5 15.5 24.5 24.5

0-10 0-10 10-20 0-10 0-10 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 10-20 70+ 0-10 0-10 70+ 50-60 70+ 70+ 0-10 0-10 60-70 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 50-60 60-70 60-70 70+ 50-60 70+ 30-40 0-10 0-10 0-10 20-30 30-40 30-40 40-50 10-20 10-20 20-30 70+ 50-60 70+ 70+

tree age height (m) (estimated)

stem with cavity

branch with cavity

mucorrhea epiphytic fungi stem with (resin) loose bark

B (B) B

A: decaying B: giant tree high stump

IV R IV R IV R

R R R R

IV R R R II R II

R R R R

I II IV

IV II

AHA-class

Page 3/3

b: AHA description

Protocol for the classification of urban trees, based on (Sörensson, 2008) Stem with cavity A – large with mould B – commencing with cavity Branch with cavity A – large with mould or water B – small Mucorrhea A > 10 cm long B < 10cm Epiphytic fungi A – several B – a few Stem with loose bark A > 3 dm2 B < 3 dm2 Decaying high stump A > 40cm BHD Giant tree B > 1m BHD (or > 314 cm periphery)

AHA-class

Classiﬁcation Class I

Highest conservation priority two or more A

Class II

High conservation priority

one A or four B

Class III

Of some conservation priority

two B

Class IV

Low priority

one or no B

Class R

Healthy, undamaged tree (>20 years of age)

resource tree

I II III IV R -

numbers

1,4

5,9

11,3

92 Total: 221

100 %

0,9

38,9

41,6

53 % 47 % >> of which 33

118 103

NATIVE NON-NATIVE

& serrulata

c: Diagram data AHA-class I II III IV R -

numbers

1,4

0,9

5,9

11,3

92 Total: 221

41,6

100 %

53 % 47 % >> of which 33% is P. subhirtella

118 103

NATIVE NON-NATIVE

Age diversity 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70

38,9

& serrulata

numbers

36,2

10,0

25 59 4 7

Age diversity 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70+ dead

numbers

36,2

10,0

25 59 4 7

10 13 1

Total: 221

11,3 26,7 1,8 3,2 4,5 5,9 0,5 100 %

11,3 26,7 1,8 3,2 4,5

137

E - Cover Analysis

Old Stadium 1 cover ratio grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

(%)

number of species

20 45 25 10 0

2 6 1 -

100%

2 grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

Herthalund 4

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species 80 5 5 10 0

2 3 1 -

100%

cover ratio number of (%) species 45 30 20 5 0

1 4 1 -

100%

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

75 0 5 20 0

2 1 -

100%

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species 90 0 10 0 0

1 -

100%

cover ratio number of (%) species 75 0 0 25 0

1 1 -

100%

7 grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species 50 10 40 0 0

2 2 -

100%

Antvorskov Military Terrain 8 grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species 50 15 0 30 5

3 4 1 2

100%

cover ratio number of (%) species

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

60 15 5 15 5

2 5 1 -

100%

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

Averages of species group per area Old Stadium

grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

138

Herthalund

Antvorskov Military Terrain

cover ratio (%)

number of species

cover ratio (%)

number of species

cover ratio (%)

number of species

51.67 25.00 18.33 5.00 0.00

1.33 3.33 0.00 0.67 0.00

70.00 3.75 12.50 13.75 0.00

1.75 1.25 0.00 0.75 0.00

60.00 10.00 3.75 23.75 2.50

2.25 3.75 0.00 0.75 1.00

cover ratio number of (%) species 40 5 5 50 0

2 5 1 -

100%

11 grasses forbs bare soil mosses shrubs

cover ratio number of (%) species 90 5 5 0 0

2 1 -

100%

Swamp

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

6 7 8 9 10

Herthalund

Antvorskov Military Terrain

1 2 3 4 5

Old Stadium

Alnus glutinosa Elytriga repens Ficaria verna Fraxinus excelsior Juncus articulatus Phragmites australis Ranunculus repens Salix cinerea Typha latifolia

Achillea millefolium Agrimonia eupatoria Arctium tomentosum Brassica napus Centaurea jacea Cichorium intybus Cirsium vulgare Crataegus laevigata Dactylis glomerata Daucus carota Elytrigia repens Hypericum perforatum Rosa canina Rubus sp. Rumex crispus Tanacetum vulgare

Centaurea jacea Dactylis glomerata Geranium molle Rumex crispus Trifolium repens

Bellis perennis Geranium molle Rumex crispus Rumex obtusifolius Trifolium repens

Latin name

almindelig knopurt almindelig hundegræs blød storkenæb kruset skræppe hvid-kløver

tusindfryd blød storkenæb kruset skræppe butbladet skræppe hvid-kløver

Danish name

black alder common couch pilewort common ash jointleaf rush common reed creeping buttercup grey willow common bulrush

rød-el almindelig kvik almindelig vorterod ask glanskapslet siv tagrør lav ranunkel grå-pil bredbladet dunhammer

T G F T G G F T G

F F F F F F F S G F G F S S F F

F G F F F

F F F F F

P P P P P P P P P

P P B B P P B P P B P P P P P P

P P A P P

P A P P P

classification

s 8, 9, 10 s s 8 s 11 8, 9 8, 9, 10, 11 s 9 s s 8,9, 10 s s

4 4 7 4 7

1,2 1 s s 1, 2

location

8 5 6 6 9 10 7 8 10

5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 6 6 4 .7 1

5 5 6 5 5 .2 5

5 5 6 5 5 5 .2

7 .6 7

moisture

6 7 6 6 3 7 7 5 7

4 4 9 7 5 6 5 6 3 7 5 3 6 7 5 .5 0

6 5 6 6 5 .7 5

4 5 6 9 6 6

6 .0 0

nitrogen

Registered in slot of Cover Analysis transect Registered in surroundings of Cover Analysis transect Registered in swamp and hospital pond (not part of Cover Analysis registrations)

common yarrow almindelig røllike agrimony almindelig agermåne woolly burdock filtet burre rape raps brown knapweed almindelig knopurt chicory cikorie spear thistle horsetidsel woodland hawthorn almindelig hvidtjørn cocksfoot almindelig hundegræs wild carrot vild gulerod common couch almindelig kvik perforate St. John's Wort prikbladet perikon dog rosa glat hunde-rose blackberry almindelig brombær curled dock kruset skræppe tansy rejnfan

brown knapweed cocksfoot dovesfoot cranesbill curled dock white clover

daisy dovesfoot cranesbill curled dock broad-leaved dock white clover

English name

1, 2, …, 11: s: -:

Annual Biennial Perennial

Location:

Forbs Grasses Shrubs Trees

A: B: P:

F: G: S: T:

Classification:

6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 7

6 7 8 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 .9 3

7 6 7 6 6 .5

6 6 7 7 6 6 .4

6 .4 4

5 7 6 5 8 7 6 7 8

7 7 8 7 7 8 7 5 7 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 .2 0

7 7 7 8 7 7 .2

8 7 8 7 7 7 .4

light

6 .5 6

0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 .4 7

0 0 0 2 0 0 .4 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 .4

0 .5 6

salinity

F - Ellenberg Indicataor Values; Species list

139

Slagelse Commons a master thesis in Landscape Architecture Copenhagen - July 2020 by Rikke Sheena Petersen & Cayn Wilmsen

140

Landscape architecture - Master thesis

Articles inside

Why biodiversity matters