LUDA newsletter nr. 01 / April 2003

Urban Wastelands of Today – Ecological Recreation Areas of Tomorrow?

Juliane Mathey
Birgit Kochan
Sylke Stutzriemer

Introduction
Under the current conditions of negative growth in many European cities planners are looking for concepts for the use of urban wastelands supporting a sustainable city development. The idea of integrating wastelands into urban green structures comes more and more into the focus of planning institutions. Therefore new visions are searched for and a lot of questions arise. What would be better: to design wastelands or to leave them to natural succession? Do they need to be protected or will especially the (spontaneous) use be an interesting solution? Would habitat management be necessary and how far do creative changes make sense? The ideal case would be the combination of nature protection ideas and provisions for leisure and recreation. If a wide variety of nature types in the city is the aim, then succession stages of wilderness, as different as possible, should be saved or developed. For nature experiences all stages of vegetation can have a specific charm, which is given mainly by structure of vegetation, configuration of habitat, flora and fauna as well as by size and location of the wasteland in the city (Schemel 2002).

Ecological and Social Value of Urban Wastelands
Urban wastelands in many European cities are the only large areas where undisturbed development of wilderness was possible for years and so often they have a high ecological and social value. Even if extremely anthropogenic stamped, they do not seldom impress by their habitat and species diversity, as well as through rarities of flora and fauna (Dettmar 1995, Hamann 1998, Köhler 1998, Kowarik 1993, Rebele & Dettmar 1996, Reidl 1998, Wittig & Zucchi 1993 among others). Furthermore the spontaneous urban vegetation is suitable for recreation, nature experience and environmental education (Opaschowski 2002, Schemel 2002, Herbst 2003 among others). Urban wastelands are liked by a lot of people and sometimes are really searched, because they are areas without control and areas were nothing can be destroyed (Freytag 2003). Caused by human activities, special locations developed there, which are – because of their structure and of their ecological situation – very similar to natural habitats (Rebele & Dettmar 1996). Therefore they can serve as retreats, substitute or stepping stone habitats for a lot of plant and animal species (Dettmar 1995). Even if there are mostly ruderal vegetation with euryoecious species and neophytes, especially brownfields can belong to the most valuable places in the city for habitat protection and species protection (Dettmar 1995), caused by the dynamic and the habitat diversity on these areas. Depending on the length of fallow period and the intensity of current use, different stages of vegetation development dominate. Each stage of vegetation development gives home for special animal species and offers particular possibilities for nature experiences.

The course of succession as well as the composition of plant and animal species is influenced by climate, kind and intensity of former and actual use, neighbourhood effects, degree of soil sealing, location factors as well as by location and extend of the urban waste land (Dettmar 1995, Rebele & Dettmar 1996). Referring to succession of vegetation roughly six types of urban wastelands can be distinguished (Rebele & Dettmar 1996, Schulte et al. 1993): 1) Vegetation-less Wastelands (mostly vegetation-less or soil-sealed; seldom main-habitat for animals, only feed or sunning places), 2) Young Wastelands (< 3 years fallow period, open fragmentary ruderal pioneer populations with short-lived, annual species), 3) Older Wastelands (3-10 years, closing vegetation cover, increasing proportion of persistent ruderal vegetation, dry meadows, single bushes and groves higher than 5 m), 4) Old Wastelands (10-50 years, mainly persistent species, ruderal tall forbs, dry meadows, bushes, single groves higher than 10 m), 5) Wastelands with spontaneous woods (> 50 years, dense groves, if not completely covered highly growing herb layer typical, characteristic wood) and 6) Complex Wastelands (different ages, mosaic of succession stages, valuable structures, because of habitat variety, characteristic border-biocoenosis).

Planning Situation
Seen from the planning point of view, urban wastelands are special transitional stages of urban land development that begin with the loss of the previous usage and end with new sustainable usages. They represent no independent category of areas in the city, but a special state, which every used area in the city can reach. In Germany ecological and social qualities of wastelands generally are not considered with priority during the planning process. Moreover, successions on urban wastelands cause acceptance problems, because the succession areas – valuable for nature protection and nature experience – often do not correspond to aesthetic requests of city dwellers. A long time reuse schemes continued to be dominated by traditional attitudes favouring “revitalisation” for new economical enterprises and developments. Today affected communities show a growing interest in integrating wastelands into the landscape (Kochan et al. 2000, Mathey et al. 1999, 2001). Solutions for nature-conservation are being given ever greater attention by the political establishment as witnessed by the German law of nature protection. Contained therein is the recommendation that non-revivable derelict industrial premises on the edge of and outside communities are to be renatured and integrated into the landscape (BNatSchG 2002). The trend to include urban wastelands systematically into the green systems of cities with the aim to a sustainable urban renovation is relatively new. So approaches of reusing urban wastelands for recreational and nature protection purposes as well as their inclusion into urban landscapes or habitat connectivity systems in a lot of cases are developed in a complicated way. However, what often prevents this being put into practice is the non-availability of respective areas as well as the lack of suitable basic data for planning and of concepts fitting the special problems. The urban planning and the planning basics, as wasteland registers, usually focus on economical marketing. A collection of ecological parameters of urban wastelands is done only with regard to special projects. Urban habitat mappings in which derelict premises are covered in detail are the exception (Kochan et al. 2000, Mathey et al. 1999, 2001, 2003).

Meanwhile a lot of communities created and pursued interesting solutions combining nature conservation, recreational functions and utilisation.
•    Some cities or regions used or use the redevelopment of their brownfields for increasing the proportion and the quality of urban green spaces and at the same time enhancing the whole urban green system of the city (German Ruhr Area and cities like Antwerp, Sofia, Zurich).
•    In some cases – e. g. Wismar, Germany – programmes are being devised in consultation with the owners. The implementations are supported by the municipality by providing Employment Scheme staff and equipment (public-private partnership). A number of development plans have been drawn up for such sites, including planning schemes for property developers. Often, for the most part no maintenance is envisaged, exceptions being an initial sowing to ameliorate the soil and the maintenance of bat dwellings. Derelict factory premises were soon in use again and valuable sites within these complexes are mostly used for compen-sating measures, though they are not exclusively given over to nature conservation (Kochan et al. 2000).
•    In Wolfen (Germany) "revitalisation" of diverse industrial wastelands has been effected whilst at the same time steppingstone biotopes have been preserved with the aim of incorporating them into a broad band of greenbelts. For "revitalisation" purposes, derelict municipal industrial premises are being held in readiness for developers by being ecologically maintained. Boundary sections only are cut at most twice a year, with areas of higher growth being left as retreats for fauna. Accompanying public relation measures were undertaken to support the acceptance. This approach has two advantages. Firstly, the site can be reutilised at any time and, secondly, it is 100% available for nature conservation purposes in the meantime (temporary nature conservation). This appears to be a promising way of using biotopes as stepping stones for interconnecting biotope systems even where it is intended to reuse wastelands.
•    Horticultural shows likewise offer an opportunity to combine landscape and nature conservation with economical tasks. This option has already been taken up in Großenhain and Rostock (Germany). In the latter instance, it can be envisaged incorporating derelict industrial premises into an interconnecting biotope system.
•    Examples for using the wilderness of urban wastelands as aesthetical-ecological elements are the „jardin en mouvement“ in Paris, where different stages of wildness and the dispersion of plants are shown (Freytag 2003) and the “industrial wood” on the site of a former coal mine “Zeche Zollverein” in Essen (German Ruhr Area) where a succession area could develop, but it also is designed to keep the site continually usable (Dettmar 2002).
•    For urban wastelands, which can not be kept as green spaces at long term sight, temporary solutions are suitable, which meet aesthetical demands of dwellers and offer possibilities for recreation and nature experiences on public green spaces. For a site situated in the densely populated eastern part of Leipzig (Germany) the owner used the opportunity to knock down the ruins, since the demolition and redesigning was supported by the municipality using founding for redevelopment (Stadt Leipzig 2002). A contract between owner and municipality guarantees the public usability as well as the maintenance paid by city administrationfor the next eight years. For the site of a former manufactory in Dresden (Germany) residents initiated a temporary use as a leisure park, youth playground and micro-museum. In agreement with the owner this area, foreseen for housing, can be used as a green oasis for the next two years (Mathey et al. 2003).
It is interesting, that this upgrading from urban wasteland into green areas does not only effect ecological and social, but also economical values. In many cases owners of neighbouring build-ings are motivated to revaluate their houses (Mathey et al. 2003).

Conclusions and Outlook
Under the conditions of shrinking, chances arise for restructuring green systems of cities and connecting them to the surrounding landscape. Meaningful incorporation of urban wastelands into the green structures of urban spaces applying the principle of interconnecting biotopes, provides opportunities for an ecological upgrading of former industrialised regions (soft site factors) and hence for the elimination of local disadvantages. Urban wastelands are especially interesting for urban green systems, because with their various stages of vegetation they provide a brought spectrum of urban nature types. Therefore urban wastelands should not only be kept for infill development, but their potentials for recreation and nature experience should be used and spontaneous use should be accepted, if there are no accident hazards on the site. It is appropriate to take serious thought about temporary usages as green spaces and parks for a limited time. Though especially in densely populated urban quarters with green and nature experience deficits, such sites are quickly accepted by the residents. Even on reused sites succession can be accepted. Thereby it is suggested, to raise the acceptance of urban wastelands respectively succession areas by partial upgrading. In this context it is deciding, how far the occurrence and the preservation of neophytes and pervasive plants will be accepted and if it will be possible to realise dynamic land-use-concepts like the principle of rotation. The aims for the urban wasteland development should be set up in consideration of respective city’s specific open space needs, scenic conditions as well as general green development strategies. It is important in the process to deal with existing structures, buildings, flora and fauna in a differentiated manner even if forms of utilisation are not wholly called into question. For the systematic development of urban wastelands in a city an inventory and a systematisation of their potentials are necessary. Based on the specific aims of the city, a distinction has to be undertaken between urban wastelands suitable for constructional-infrastructural revitalisation and such sites which - due to their location and potentials for green system - shall fulfil open space functions in future. At least the different departments of municipal administration have to come to a common strategic concept. So a differentiated use of urban wastelands can contribute to an increasing quality of settlement structures and thereby to a better quality of urban life.

Dr. rer. nat. Juliane Mathey, Dipl.-Ing (FH) Birgit Kochan, Dipl-Ing. (FH) Sylke Stutzriemer
Department of Regional Development and Landscape Ecology of Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden (Germany)

References

BNatSchG – Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 25. März 2002. In: Bundesgesetzblatt vom 5. April 2002, 1193-1218.
Dettmar, J. (1995): Industriebedingte Lebensräume in Europa. In: Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde, Sukopp-Festschrift, 27, 111-118.
Dettmar, J. (2002): Alternative Wildnis. In: Garten und Landschaft, Heft 5, 2002, 15-17.
Freytag, Anette (2003): Bereit für die Brache? Veränderungen von Landschaften und Städten im Kontext der Globalisierung. In: Stadt+Grün 6/2003, 36-42.
Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz – BNatSchG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 25. März 2002. In: Bundesgesetzblatt vom 5. April 2002, 1193-1218.
Hamann, M. (1998): Tierökologische Aspekte beim Brachenmanagement. In: Stadtbiotopkartierung. In: NUA-Seminarbericht Band 2, 35-43.
Herbst, H. (2003): The importance of wastelands as urban wildlife areas – with particular reference to the cities Leipzig and Birmingham. In: UFZ-Bericht 2/2003.
Kochan, B.; Mathey, J.; Stutzriemer, S. (2000): Industriebrache - und wie weiter? Ergebnisse einer bun-desweiten Befragung. In: Stadt Osnabrück (Hrsg.): Ökokonto. Faunistische Kartierungen und Flächen-bevorratung für den Naturschutz. Secolo Verlag. Osnabrück 2000, S. 68-76.
Köhler, R. (1998): Tierökologische Untersuchungen an Brachflächen im östlichen Ruhrgebiet. In: Stadtbio-topkartierung. In: NUA-Seminarbericht Band 2, 22-34.
Kowarik, I. (1993): Stadtbrachen als Niemandsländer, Naturschutzgebiete oder Gartenkunstwerke der Zukunft? In: Wittig, R; Zucchi, H. (Hrsg.): Städtische Brachflächen und ihre Bedeutung aus der Sicht von Ökologie, Umwelterziehung und Planung. Geobotanische Kolloquien 9, 3-24.
Mathey, J.; Kochan, B.; Stutzriemer, S. (1999): Integration of brownfields into habitat-patch-connectivities. Case studies from medium-sized towns in eastern Germany. Working Paper Book to the 35th IsoCaRP International Congress in Gelsenkirchen. The Future of Industrial Regions - Regional Strategies and Lokal Action towards Sustainability. Gelsenkirchen, 239-243.
Mathey, J.; Kochan, B.; Stutzriemer, S. (2001): Biodiversität auf städtischen Industriebrachen? - Ein Krite-rienkatalog zur Einschätzung naturverträglicher Folgenutzungen. In: Zeitschrift für angewandte Um-weltforschung (ZAU), Sonderheft 13, 71-82.
Mathey, J.; Kochan, B.; Stutzriemer, S. (2003): Städtische Brachflächen – ökologische Aspekte in der Planungspraxis. In: Arlt, G.; Kowarik, I.; Mathey, J.; Rebele, F.: Urbane Innenentwicklung in Ökologie und Planung. IÖR-Schriften, Bd. 39, 75-84.
Opaschowski, H. W. (2002): Travel und Travail. Oder: Schlange stehen für Kultur und Freizeit. In: Stadt und Raum 5, 308-314.
Rebele, F. & Dettmar, J. (1996): Industriebrachen. Ökologie und Management. Stuttgart.
Reidl, K. (1998): Ökologische Bedeutung von Brachflächen im Ruhrgebiet. In: NUA-Seminarbericht Band 2. 9-21.
Schemel, H.-J. (2002): Naturerfahrungsräume in der Stadt und ihr Beitrag zu einer evolutionären Planung. Beitrag für Internationales Symposium „Landschaftsplanung contra Evolution“ 2001 in Neu-haus/Solling. In: Natur- und Kulturlandschaft, Band 5, 253-258.
Schulte, W.; Werner, P.; Blume, H.-P.; Breuste, J.; Finke, L., Grauthoff, M.; Kuttler, W.; Mook, V.; Mueh-lenberg, A.; Pustal, W.; Reidl, K.; Voggenreiter, V.; Wittig, R. (1997): Richtlinien für eine naturschutz-bezogene, ökologisch orientierte Stadtentwicklung in Deutschland. In: Natur und Landschaft 72/12, 535-549.
Stadt Leipzig (2002): Excursion-Leader for the 6th URGE-Workshop 17.-20.10.2002 in Leipzig.
Wittig, R.; Zucchi, H. (Hrsg.): Städtische Brachflächen und ihre Bedeutung aus der Sicht von Ökologie, Umwelterziehung und Planung. Geobotanische Kolloquien 9.