431
‘Green Infrastructure Frameworks’ and ‘Green Infrastructure Strategies’ (for a comprehensive overview on the political and neo-liberal background of this development see Hehn 2016). Green Infrastructure (GI) is “a network of multi-functional
green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities” (Department for
Communities and Local Government 2012, p. 52). The respective definitions of GI
can differ and include different types of ‘green’ (e.g. even light railway lines) or
aquatic features such as rivers, canals and ponds (ibid.). GI strategies are prepared at
a local level to establish, maintain and enhance a municipality’s GI, often not only
to achieve ecological aims but also economic and social benefits (e.g. economic
growth, property values, labor productivity, social cohesion, or quality of place)
(Manchester City Council 2015). Many GI-strategies are explicitly aimed – amongst
other things – at improving the health and well-being of residents. To some extent,
aims or measures stated in GI strategies are incorporated into the Local Plans and/or
Core Strategies and thereby influence official, legally binding plans. In the following
sections we concentrate on Local Plans/Core Strategies and GI strategies, particularly regarding possible differences in how they tackle health issues.
19.3.3 Landscape Planning and Health in Germany
As there is a certain ‘traditional’ (even if criticised and contested) emphasis on biodiversity in landscape plans in Germany, human health has never been an important
topic there. Although human health is mentioned in §1 BNatSchG as one reason for
protecting nature, it doesn’t have the status of a ‘natural asset,’ which landscape
planning is obliged to deal with. Consequently, considering health issues is a voluntary task, unless landscape plans are subject to a SEA, as is the case in some federal
states. In such a case, potential health impacts of the landscape plan have to be
assessed and valued, but still no kind of ‘pro-active planning for health,’ especially
regarding health promotion, is required. Furthermore, differentiated knowledge
about health effects of biodiversity, landscape and green spaces is often lacking
amongst conservationists and landscape planners, at least if it reaches beyond the
general notion that ‘a good environmental condition is the basis of human life.’ At
the same time, health authorities are seldom involved in planning decisions.
Consequently, very few landscape plans explicitly and pro-actively refer to human
health (Rittel et al. 2016). Where this is done, it happens in the context of experiencing nature, urban green spaces and recreation, as in the local landscape plan of the
city of Hohen Neuendorf (Stadt Hohen Neuendorf 2014) as an example.
Nonetheless there are many links to health issues in landscape planning in general, but also in the respective single planning documents. Human health is often
addressed implicitly, e.g. when dealing with ‘recreation,’ but also when dealing with
other issues, such as air purification, groundwater protection, soil conservation,
climate change, etc. (see examples in Sect. 19.2 and more comprehensively in Sect.
19.4). But these connections – and therefore the relevance of conserving and
19 Linking Landscape Planning and Health
‘Green Infrastructure Frameworks’ and ‘Green Infrastructure Strategies’ (for a comprehensive overview on the political and neo-liberal background of this development see Hehn 2016). Green Infrastructure (GI) is “a network of multi-functional
green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities” (Department for
Communities and Local Government 2012, p. 52). The respective definitions of GI
can differ and include different types of ‘green’ (e.g. even light railway lines) or
aquatic features such as rivers, canals and ponds (ibid.). GI strategies are prepared at
a local level to establish, maintain and enhance a municipality’s GI, often not only
to achieve ecological aims but also economic and social benefits (e.g. economic
growth, property values, labor productivity, social cohesion, or quality of place)
(Manchester City Council 2015). Many GI-strategies are explicitly aimed – amongst
other things – at improving the health and well-being of residents. To some extent,
aims or measures stated in GI strategies are incorporated into the Local Plans and/or
Core Strategies and thereby influence official, legally binding plans. In the following
sections we concentrate on Local Plans/Core Strategies and GI strategies, particularly regarding possible differences in how they tackle health issues.
19.3.3 Landscape Planning and Health in Germany
As there is a certain ‘traditional’ (even if criticised and contested) emphasis on biodiversity in landscape plans in Germany, human health has never been an important
topic there. Although human health is mentioned in §1 BNatSchG as one reason for
protecting nature, it doesn’t have the status of a ‘natural asset,’ which landscape
planning is obliged to deal with. Consequently, considering health issues is a voluntary task, unless landscape plans are subject to a SEA, as is the case in some federal
states. In such a case, potential health impacts of the landscape plan have to be
assessed and valued, but still no kind of ‘pro-active planning for health,’ especially
regarding health promotion, is required. Furthermore, differentiated knowledge
about health effects of biodiversity, landscape and green spaces is often lacking
amongst conservationists and landscape planners, at least if it reaches beyond the
general notion that ‘a good environmental condition is the basis of human life.’ At
the same time, health authorities are seldom involved in planning decisions.
Consequently, very few landscape plans explicitly and pro-actively refer to human
health (Rittel et al. 2016). Where this is done, it happens in the context of experiencing nature, urban green spaces and recreation, as in the local landscape plan of the
city of Hohen Neuendorf (Stadt Hohen Neuendorf 2014) as an example.
Nonetheless there are many links to health issues in landscape planning in general, but also in the respective single planning documents. Human health is often
addressed implicitly, e.g. when dealing with ‘recreation,’ but also when dealing with
other issues, such as air purification, groundwater protection, soil conservation,
climate change, etc. (see examples in Sect. 19.2 and more comprehensively in Sect.
19.4). But these connections – and therefore the relevance of conserving and
19 Linking Landscape Planning and Health