Planning Practice & Research

ISSN: 0269-7459 (Print) 1360-0583 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cppr20

The Role of Forestry in the Development and

Reform of Green Belts
Cecil C. Konijnendijk
To cite this article: Cecil C. Konijnendijk (2010) The Role of Forestry in the Development
and Reform of Green Belts, Planning Practice & Research, 25:2, 241-254, DOI:
10.1080/02697451003740270
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740270

Published online: 23 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 168

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cppr20
Download by: [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015]

Date: 22 October 2015, At: 22:24

Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 25, No. 2,

pp. 241254, April 2010

ARTICLE

The Role of Forestry in the Development

and Reform of Green Belts
Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

CECIL C. KONIJNENDIJK

Abstract
Forests and forestry have played an important role in the implementation of green belts. They
offer important lessons for green belt planning reform. Experiences have been gained with multistakeholder approaches and overcoming stakeholder resistance to open space allocation. Forestry
near towns has had to balance the interests of different levels of government, crucial in a time of
deregulation and decentralization. Integrative approaches such as urban forestry and community
forestry contribute to green space planning beyond the urbanrural divide. Finally, urban forests
and community forests are multifunctional landscapes, where forest in a judicial sense is only
one element.

Introduction
The implementation of green belts has been one of the main planning instruments
for attempting to control urban growth (Amati, 2008a). The concept of green belt
has its roots in the 19th century, both in the Garden City movement (which saw
cities as ideally being surrounded by a band of undeveloped land) as well as in
attempts to preserve existing greenery around major European cities like Berlin,
Frankfurt, St Petersburg and Vienna.
Implementation of the green belt concept as we know it today started in 20thcentury England, based on modernistic planning ideas, such as a strict division
between different land uses, and between town and country. Without any doubt,
the London Green Belt is the most famous example, but presently there are 14
green belts in Great Britain (Amati, 2008a). Green belt implementation has been a
cornerstone of British planning policy for over 50 years (Elson et al., 1993; Amati,
2008a). The first national green belt policy in 1955 was followed by series of
amendments, and the green belt concept is still very much alive today. Moreover,
it has come to influence land-use planning and attempts to control urban growth
across the world.
During recent years, however, the green belt concept has come under scrutiny,
in the UK as well as elsewhere (for example, Amati, 2006; Hall, 2007; Yang &
Jinxing, 2007). Dramatic changes are occurring in society and in planning; for
Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Faculty of Life Sciences,
University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: cck@life.ku.dk
ISSN 0269-7459 print/1360-0583 online/10/02024114 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02697451003740270

241

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
example, related to new housing needs, ongoing urban growth, and sustainable
development debates. Planners seek to direct the growth of cities towards
sustainable patterns of land use (Amati, 2008a). Does the green belt concept meet
this challenge, or is it too restrictive in its present, often rather rigid, form?
This article starts from the assumption that the green belt concept still has its
value in controlling urban growth and creating sustainable urbanrural regions, but
that its need to be reformed in line with current demands. It highlights one of the
main land uses within most green belts (i.e. forestry), showing that forests as welldefined (and often well-protected) land use have played a pivotal role in the
creation and conservation of green belts. However, the article takes a step further,
as in the green belt planning reform discourse important lessons can be learnt from
the dramatic changes that forestry (and even forest) in and near cities has
undergone over time and especially recent decades.
Changing Green Belt Concept
In a recent book (Amati, 2008b), contributions by authors from across the world
embody a search for a post-modern green belt concept. The green belt concept is
based on a preservation ethos, as a range of preservationist groups found each
other in early 20th-century Britain in advocating for a rigorous separation of
town and country in green belts, in a blanket prohibition on development, and
in keeping settlements small and compact. Thus the focus of green belt policies
has been very much on controlling urban growth and preserving open land around
cities.
The green belt concept was seen as a universal solution to urban growth: by
drawing a line around cities and their surrounding open land, city growth could be
limited, wherever one would be in the world (Yang & Jinxing, 2007; Amati,
2008a). The concept found wide international following, from the countries of the
Commonwealth to those of South East Asia.
It cannot be denied that implementation of the green belt concept has had
success. An early 1990s report of the UK Department of Environment (Elson
et al., 1993), for example, stated that several of the main purposes of green belts
had been realized. Unrestricted sprawl had been prevented, towns had been
prevented from merging, and (although overlapping the first two) the surrounding
countryside had been safeguarded from encroachment. Moreover, the total green
belt area in England and Scotland had been expanded to about 1.5 million ha at the
time.
However, the Elson et al. (1993) report also indicated some problems with the
classic view of the green belt. Not many people seemed to be aware of the formal
objectives of green belts, for example. Four out of five people questioned in a
survey supported green belts and wanted them to be preserved, but for different
reasons than the formal ones, rather prioritizing preservation of the special
character of the green belt and providing space for people to enjoy (see also Amati,
2008a). The report also noted a need to widen the scope of green belts and
consider a loosening of its rather rigid definition; for example, to promote its role
in urban regeneration. Here the selective release of employment sites, and
allowing for more recreation and tourism to be developed, could be desirable.
242

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Voices calling for a reform of the green belt concept have grown stronger since.
Based on a wide range of green belt case studies that identify major challenges to
the traditional green belt concept, Amati (2008a) lists four dimensions or aspects
key to the reform of the green belt concept. Although the author clearly states that
this list is not comprehensive, the dimensions do give a useful insight in what
needs to be addressed when developing a post-modern green belt concept. The
four aspects are as follows:
. Relationship of land owners and the green belt. As literature shows, land
owners have often resisted green belts; for example, as they felt they were left
outside of the decision-making process. In this paper, a broader perspective is
taken, looking at how the commitment of landowners as well as other
stakeholders to open space can be secured.
. Increasing deregulation in governance and planning. In many developed
countries, the role of the state is decreasing and more is left to local authorities
and the private sector. More comprehensive regional planning thus becomes
difficult and new institutional set-ups are needed.
. Reforms in green space planning. During recent decadesfor example,
because of the sustainable (urban) development debate and new knowledge
from fields such as ecologymore focus has been placed on a more holistic
and integrative way of looking at green space. This has resulted in the
emergence of concepts such as green structure planning, green infrastructure,
and so forth, and to approaches to look beyond the traditional citycountryside
divide.
. Patching together of a more flexible green belt. There is no one-fits-all green
belt concept, as experience has shown. Local conditions often require
flexibility and adaptation, as for example shown by the paper on the Tokyo
green belt by Watanabe et al. (2008). Open space will have different
objectives, as well as different ecological, social, cultural and economic
features, which need to be taken into account, rather than being smothered in
a restrictive green belt definition.
The latter aspect connects to the recommendations by Elson et al. (1993) to look at
more multifunctional green belts. The authors mention the need to combine
continued support for agriculture, recognize a wider role of sports and recreation
(and better public access), enhance safeguards for nature conservation, restore
damaged landscapes and derelict land, and retain attractive landscapes. Ali (2008)
argues that factors determining the success of green belts include political will,
public support, appropriate planning, and enabling legislation.
Forests, Forestry and Cities
Forests and cities have always had a lovehate relationship (Konijnendijk, 2003,
2008). As cities developed, they were heavily dependent on the surrounding
woodland for the provision of construction timber, fuelwood, as well as raw
materials for a range of trades and industries. This led to overexploitation and
clearing of forests. However, some forests near cities were conserved; initially as
243

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
hunting domains of the aristocracy, but later also through the conservation efforts
of city authorities. The latter efforts led to the emergence of city forest (in
German: Stadtwald) as a distinct phenomenon. Many of Europes cities have wellknown city forests within or near their boundaries; for example, Londons Epping
Forest, the Bois de Boulogne of Paris, Berlins Grunewald and the Wienerwald of
Vienna.
Although we often take the definition of forest as a given, the meaning of what
constitutes a forest in, for example, judicial terms has changed over time. Forest
was initially defined, for example, as referring to exclusive, often enclosed (but not
necessarily treed), hunting domains (Olwig, 1996; Nail, 2008). This is a long
stretch from the present definitions of what constitutes a forest; that is, an
ecosystem characterized by a more or less dense and extensive tree cover (for
example, Helms, 1998).
Although legal definitions of forests differ between countries, presently forest
is an often well-defined land use, with a strong judicial anchorage in a countrys
national and sometimes regional forest legislation (Bauer et al., 2004), dating back
to the forest laws of the Middle Ages (for example, Nail, 2008). In many European
countries in particular, strong forest legislation makes it very difficult to transform
forest into another land use (Bauer et al., 2004).
During recent years, there has been greater attention for the particular type of
forestry practised in and near cities and towns (Konijnendijk, 2003, 2008;
Kowarik & Korner, 2005; Nail, 2008). Forests near cities make many important
contributions to urban society; for example, by offering recreational environments,
representing nature nearby, enhancing the landscape, and protecting drinking
water resources. Moreover, the provision of biofuel has (once again) become an
important function of many forests near cities (for example, Konijnendijk, 2008).
This also links up to the contributions of forests and trees to adapting urban areas
to climate change. They play an important role in this respect; for example, by
cooling the air and reducing solar radiation (for example, Jim & Chen, 2009). The
presence of forests in and near urban areas varies greatly across Europe and the
world, ranging from almost half to only a few percent of the land (Konijnendijk,
2003).
Role of Forests in Development and Implementation of the Green Belt
Concept
As discussed, cities and forests have always been closely linked, although their
relationship has been complex. Many cities maintained forests nearby as timber
and fuelwood reserves, as emergency sources of food and fodder, and later
increasingly as recreational landscapes and for environmental services. Breiling
and Ruland (2008) describe the important links between Vienna and the
Wienerwald, an extensive forest area reaching all the way into the city proper.
The use of the Wienerwald changed over time with changing lifestyles and societal
needs. During times of war and crisis, for example in the years immediately after
World War II, the Wienerwald provided fuelwood and food to the citys
population. In this sense, the Wienerwald represents the typical historical
development and role of many city forests (Konijnendijk, 2008).
244

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

City forests such as the Wienerwald also played an important role in the
establishment of the first green belts. Once again, Vienna can serve as an example,
as its Wald- und Wiesengurtel (Forest and Meadow Belt), which the
establishment started almost 150 years ago, is one of the oldest green belts in
the world. The first part of the green belt to become protected was part of the
Wienerwald. By the 19th century, this forest had become a very important outdoor
recreation destination for the people of Vienna. However, the Austrian state
wanted to sell the forest to generate much-needed income. The first steps in this
direction led to extensive cutting by private entrepreneurs. A journalist by the
name of Josef Schoffel led a successful public campaign, also called the first
Austrian citizens initiative, to protect the forest. This led to total prohibition of
cutting in 1872, the de facto start of the Viennese green belt. In 1905, the green
belt proper was established, by the adding of four other green space areas. Over
time, the green belt was expanded further; for example, by afforestation. It
developed into a mosaic of land uses, but forests remained a key element, covering
over one-third of the present-day green belt (Konijnendijk, 1997; Breiling &
Ruland, 2008)
Very similar stories to that of the forests near Vienna and their inclusion in
green belts can be told for many European cities; for example, Berlin (Cornelius,
1995), Paris (Kalaora, 1981), London (Green, 1996) and Oslo (Opheim, 1984). In
the UK, forests have played an important role in green belt creation as well, for
example as forestry has been regarded an appropriate land use within
green belt areas. Elson et al. (1993) mention that land uses in the urban fringe
should be restricted to those appropriate to a rural area, such as agriculture and
forestry.
In the former Soviet Union and other former communist countries, belts of
protection forestsa category of forests specifically mentioned in forest
legislationwere established around large cities during the 1930s and 1940s. In
the case of St Petersburg (then named Leningrad) and Moscow, so-called forest
park zones were established (Kitaev, 2006; Konijnendijk, 2008). The government
of the Soviet Union adopted a special decree in 1932, which allocated all forests
located in the suburban districts of the Leningrad Region as forests of special
purpose (Kuznetsov & Ignatieva, 2003). This was the beginning of the suburban
forest-park zone of Leningrad, which still exists today. The forest-park belt
around Moscow followed in 1935, after which various greenbelt forests were
appointed throughout the Soviet Union in 1943. Forests within the about more
than 140, 000 ha forest park zone in what is now St Petersburg belong to different
legal categories, such as forest of common use (including protection forests) and
forests of special importance. Kuznetsov and Ignatieva (2003) mention that
present-day Russia has about 18 million ha of greenbelt forests.
Latvia, formerly part of the Soviet Union, has similar forest greenbelt
legislation in place. The countrys forest legislation calls for forest protection
belts to be established around all cities and towns (Donis, 2003). The main goal
of such as protection belt is to provide suitable opportunities for recreation to
urban dwellers and to minimize any negative impacts caused by urban areas on
the surrounding environment. Legislation states the main principles to be
adopted, which include the maximum area of protection belts, their integration in
245

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
territorial development plans and restrictions placed on forest management
activities.
During the 20th century, and especially after World War II, governments in
many forest-poor countries in north-western Europe embarked on larger-scale
afforestation programmes. Motives for establishing new forests have been many,
ranging from greater timber self-sufficiency to landscape enhancement, but
providing sufficient recreational areas for urbanizing societies has been a primary
objective. Efforts were assisted by a decline in European agriculture and
subsequent European Commission subvention schemes for afforestation of
former agricultural land. In countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, The
Netherlands and the UK (England, Scotland), afforestation near large
agglomerations has been prioritized (Konijnendijk, 2003). In this way, green
belts (both formal and informal) have been strengthened. The buffering and
landscape role of forests has been emphasized in many of these afforestation
projects. Forests form a clear (also visual) division or transition between city and
surrounding countryside.
When looking at the present composition of green belts across the world, it is
clear that forests continue to comprise a significant component. More than 85% of
the St Petersburg forest park zone consists of forests (Kuznetsov & Ignatieva,
2003). In Vienna, more than one-third of the designated green belt is classified as
forests (Breiling & Ruland, 2008). Most of the Sao Paolo City Green Belt (part of
the Mata Atlantica Biosphere Reserve) comprises tropical humid forests
(UNESCO, 2008). In China, forest greenbelt is a specific, well-defined type of
land use, and the green belts of many Chinese cities, including Beijing and
Shanghai, have forests as a major component (for example, Li et al., 2005; Yang &
Jinxing, 2007).
Role of Forests in Reforming the Green Belt Concept
Towards Coalitions of the Willing
The first category of reasons for green belt reform mentioned by Amati (2008a) is
that of coalitions of the un-willinglandowners and the green belt, which
considers the tension between the position of planners as experts, removed
from the political process and able to arbitrarily make decisions, and the need for
policies to attract political support (Amati, 2008a, p. 11). As a result, there is
often fierce resistance to green belts.
Over time, especially publicly-owned forests have become a natural element,
and even core, of green belts. Public ownership of forests obviously made it easier
to impose restrictions in terms of, for example, restricted development of the land.
However, not all forests surrounding urban areas have been owned by
municipalities. Especially outside the municipal boundaries, forests have often
been owned by other actors, such as the state and private land owners. This has
meant that coalitions of willing land owners had to be established during the
development of green belts. This has not been an easy task. Examples of multiowner set-ups for (forested) green belts are described at the end of this section, as
well as elsewhere in this article.
246

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

Moreover, forestry close to cities has often met resistance, as professional
foresters often took their legitimacy as sole experts in planning and managing
forests for granted. City forestry history, however, is full of social conflicts over
the forests and their management (Konijnendijk, 2003, 2008). Although many
conflicts have concerned forest conservation versus urban and infrastructure
development, thus placing foresters, interest groups and the public at large in the
same camp, other conflict cases have related to visitors feeling left out from
forestry decision-making (also Janse & Konijnendijk, 2007).
As a result of conflicts as well as a general societal push towards direct
democracy, forestry in and near urban areas has become increasingly socially
inclusive (Van Herzele et al., 2005; Janse & Konijnendijk, 2007). In fact, the
focus on the interests of local residents and public involvement has become one of
the distinguishing elements of urban forestry (Konijnendijk, 2003). Forests are in
this sense treated like other green elements of peoples living environment.
International agreements such as Local Agenda 21 and the Aarhus Convention
have emphasized the need to involve residents in decision-making regarding their
own living environment (Van Herzele et al., 2005).
By involving visitors, residents at large, and various interest groups, the
legitimacy of decision-making can be enhanced, the quality of decisions can be
improved, and conflicts can be avoided or at least managed (for example, Van
Herzele et al., 2005). Janse and Konijnendijk (2007) describe experiences with
different forms of public involvement in six urban woodland cases across Europe.
Many of these cases also succeeded in bringing different public authorities, such
as state and municipal actors, different segments of local government, public
officials and politicians, closer together.
Coalitions of the willing have been formed, with a shared interest in
conserving forests and using them in a sustainable way. In some cases, highly
innovative institutional set-ups have been established for this purpose, such as
user councils that advise decision-makers, or entirely new publicprivate
partnerships. Examples of the latter have been the English Community Forest
teams (Davies & Vaughan, 2001; Konijnendijk, 2003), which have enabled the
creation and management of partly forested, multifunctional landscapes near large
agglomerations in England. These management bodies have been supported and
financed by various public bodies and private funds, but without a direct link to a
certain public authority. Obviously this particular set-up has led to challenges
regarding, for example, sustainable funding and land ownership (large parts of the
Community Forests are on private land), but important lessons can be learnt from
it, also for the green belt planning at large.
The case of the Community Forests, as well as many other afforestation projects
throughout Europe, also confirms the special role played by land owners. In many
cases, farmers have been resisting afforestation in peri-urban areasfearing, for
example, lower values of their own land. However, in other cases, farmers have
opted to (partly) shift to forestry, helped by various subvention schemes (for
example, Lloyd et al., 1995). The lesson to be learnt here for green belt planning
and management is that land owners should be directly involved in the decisionmaking process and that their wishes should be incorporated into green belt
planning.
247

Cecil C. Konijnendijk

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Dealing with Deregulation

A second reason for green belt planning reform related to the trend towards
deregulation and decentralization in planning and government in many (western)
countries. The risks for the open land in and around larger metropolitan areas are
clear, for example, when planning responsibility is taken away from a regional
authority and handed to the various local authorities within the metropolitan area
who might pursue their own (conflicting) agendas. Caspersen et al. (2006) provide
a vivid example of this for the case of Greater Copenhagen.
Once again, perhaps some lessons can be learnt from forestry. Because of its
particular history, forestry near cities has often been the domain of a wide range of
actors. In many cases, as mentioned, municipalities own large parts of the nearby
forests, but other public and private actors also play an important role. The state
forest service, for example, has often taken the responsibility over former royal
hunting domains. A forest in the heart of the Dutch city of The Hague, for
example, is managed by the Dutch state forest service (Konijnendijk, 2008). Donis
(2003) describes for the case of Riga, Latvia, how both city and state own part of
the forest belt around the citysometimes with differing objectives for forest
management, for example in terms of maximizing profits from timber sales or
offering recreation opportunities. Other forest owners in the urban fringe include
nature conservation organizations, water boards, the church, various private land
owners, and so forth.
In some cases, efforts have been undertaken to deal with the mosaic of forest
ownership and planning and management responsibilities. New ways of forest
governance (i.e. of how and by whom decisions about forests are made) have been
developed. In the Slovenian city of Celje, for example, a special city forest brand
was developed as a basis for greater collaboration between the municipality, the
state forest service, and private land owners (Konijnendijk, 2008). The example of
the English Community Forests has already been mentioned.
An important factor in the context of forest governance is that, in most
countries, there is a strong national forest law/act covering forests of all
ownerships. This means that national interests automatically are in play, also
on the local level, leading to conflicts of interests between, for example, cities
and state. On the other hand, forest legislation is also important in terms of
forest conservation and serving the interests of the general public. The challenge
then lies in balancing national and local interests; for example, by developing
local forest management plans that meet local interests, but respect the
national forest law and forest policy interests. Perhaps green belt planning can
draw some lessons from forestrys experience, as green belts often have been
imposed through national legislation, perhaps taking too little notice of local
interests.
Reforming Greenery
During the past years, the range of concepts and approaches within planning and
management of urban and peri-urban green spaces has been rapidly expanding.
Many of these concepts and approaches have in common that they take a more
248

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

holistic and integrative perspective of green spaces, considering all urban and periurban green as part of a green structure or green net. Moreover, there seems to be
a trend towards looking beyond the urbanrural divide, in contrast to the more
polarizing green belt concept. Kuhn (2003) argues that a negative definition of
landscape form, which is derived as an urban containment, can hardly be
successful to protect open spaces in expanding city regions. A more positive, less
restrictive definition of landscape, based on the uses and perceptions by people, is
desirable. Examples of how focus on green belts has shifted to emphasizing green
nets, green wedges, and so forth, in cities like Adelaide and Ottawa are provided
in Amati (2008b). In Vienna, recent years have seen more efforts to connect the
citys green belt with the inner-city green patches into a green net (Breiling &
Ruland, 2008).
Pirnat (2000) described for forests in and near urban areas how ecological
considerations have become more important. Planners have focused on the role of
forest patches and corridors in enhancing connectivity of vegetation, thus
promoting the conservation of biodiversity, also in urban and suburban areas. But
more integrative approaches to green space look at other aspects of functionality as
well. The concept of green infrastructure, for example, focuses on the many
services provided by green spaces, placing it at the same level as an urban areas
other infrastructure (transportation, sewage, water, etc.) (for example, Gill et al.,
2008).
With regards to forests and forestry, approaches such as urban forestry and
community forestry have been developed in line with new demands in urbanized
societies. Urban forestry, for example, is not restricted to the planning and
management of actual forests, but incorporates all trees and associated vegetation
in and near urban areas (Konijnendijk, 2003). It has gradually found broader
following, starting in North America during the 1960s, but also expanding to
Europe and other parts of the world, and involving a wide range of fields and
disciplines. Thus not only foresters are involved in managing urban forests, but
interdisciplinary teams of landscape planners, landscape architects, ecologists,
horticulturists, arborists, social scientists, and so forth.
By broadening the forest concept and by involving other professions, it can be
argued that urban forestry is helping to redefine forestry at large, in a time when
conventional forestry with its timber production focus and uncontested role of
foresters as sole experts has come under societal scrutiny (Konijnendijk, 2003).
Urban forestry has also led the way through its greater focus on public
involvement, and especially on social forest services. It embodies greater
flexibility. Forest no longer has to be eternal from a legal perspective as
temporal woodland areas can be created, perhaps later to be developed into green
housing or industrial areas. Lloyd et al. (1995), for example, call for greater
flexibility in converting woodland back to agricultural land where needed/
preferred. In this way, farmers might be more inclined to engage in (temporary)
woodland creation, depending on factors such as subsidies, land prices and
expected income. An example of the broadening and more flexible use of the
forest concept is embodied by the English Community Forests, which are
actually mosaics of land use with a tree cover of up to 3040% (for example,
Davies & Vaughan, 2001).
249

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
This type of greater flexibility, integration and partnership in forestry will
impact green belt planning as well.

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Towards Multifunctionality and Patching Together a Flexible Green Belt

The emergence of more integrative green space planning approaches links up to
treating green belts as patchworks of land use, ownership, changing functions,
and so forth. Rather than using a one-fits-all, top-down approach to allocating
and conserving green belts, more adaptive approaches are likely to emerge and
become successful; for example, in terms of meeting societys demands and
involving different stakeholders.
The English Community Forests programme can once again serve as example.
When Elson et al. (1993) issued their planning evaluation of UK green belt
policies, the Community Forests programme had just been started. From the start,
the programme established close links to green belt policies. Community Forests
were defined as new multipurpose woodlands in the countryside and around towns
that would benefit the community at large by enhancing the landscape, providing
new environs for recreation and wildlife, attracting development and helping to
mitigate the greenhouse effect. According to the initial plans, these areas of 20,
00040, 000 ha in size would have up to 50% planted. Later, the share of forests
was reduced to 3040% (Davies & Vaughan, 2001).
The draft plan for one of the (what would become) 12 Community Forests,
Thames Chase near London, stated that The Forest was seen as the main
framework for protecting and enhancing the green belt (of London, author), and
achieving local authority objectives within the defined area (Elson et al., 1993, p.
73). Interestingly enough, the programme also started questioning some of the
rigidity of the green belt concept; for example, in blocking new development for
recreation, tourism and employment creation. Greater flexibility was sought in
terms of multi-functionality and catering for the various needs of local society.
Elson et al. (1993) found, in fact, that forest landscapes were probably the most
appropriate landscapes for making exceptions to the rule, as forests by their
nature allow for better absorption of noise and hiding of buildings. The authors
saw the Community Forest programme as a promising contributor to green belt
reform.
Forests in and near cities have always been multifunctional, characterized by
changing priorities for their functions, from providing a source of wood and food
in times of crisis, to offering recreational and natural environments nearby for
urban dwellers to de-stress. The main argumentation for preserving the
Wienerwald under 19th-century economic pressure was based on its important
multifunctional role, supporting nature, society and economy (Breiling & Ruland,
2008).
The Vienna green belt also offers an excellent example of a patched together
green belt, with a wide array of land uses, from forests to agricultural land and
small allotment gardens. This patchwork of land use allowed a gradual but steady
expansion of the green belt to 21, 500 ha by 2005 (Breiling & Ruland, 2008). The
English Community Forests also comprise a similar patchwork of land use, as
well as of land ownership. Large parts of the Community Forests comprise
250

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

privately owned land. Through financial incentives and voluntary agreements,
private land owners help fulfil public demands for, for example, recreation areas
near urban centres.
Flexibility in forest function in the green belt is also part of the latest plan for
the Riga green belt, as described by Donis (2003). Based on a thorough analysis of
actual recreational use of the green belt, as well as taking into consideration other
functions, the municipality proposed to create three types of zones in the forest: a
protection belt, visually sensitive areas and non-restricted areas.

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Forests and Green Belts: Future Perspective

As stated by Amati (2008a), green belt implementation is still a relevant planning
policy. But today it is (or should be) a drastically different, flexible growth
management tool that recognizes a variety of needs. The pressure on existing
green belts is enormous, for example, in England because of the governments
commitment to develop three million new housing units by 2020 (Hecimovich,
2008). The present planning policy guidance defines five purposes for green belts,
including to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, to prevent
neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment, to preserve the setting and special character of
historic towns, and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land, thus illustrating the broadening of green belt
objectives over time.
For the case of the Beijing Green Belt, an analysis by Yang and Jinxing (2007)
shows many of the usual pitfalls that call for green belt planning
reform. Unrealistic predictions of urban growth and a too-rigid allocation of the
first green belt led to its failure. The lack of participation of key stakeholders (e.g.
farmers) in the planning process was another main reason for failure in the case of
Beijing.
The strong judicial protection has helped green belt preservation over time, but
not always. In Moscow, even the high share of forest land did not halt urban
development pressure in a time of rapid (post-Soviet era) privatization. Analysis
showed that close to 15% of the forested land in the Moscow green belt was
converted to suburban residential and commercial uses during 19912001
(Boentje & Blinnikov, 2007). Close to 5, 000 ha of forests in the St Petersburg
forest park zone were cut for industrial development, infrastructure, and so forth,
during 1993-2003 (Kuznetsov & Ignatieva, 2003). These examples show that even
stringent national (forest) legislation cannot stop local urban developmentand
thus that alternative ways of ensuring sufficient open space in and around cities
needs to be found.
Green belt reform is a necessity, for example through new types of institutional
and multi-partner arrangements, and forestry is an integral part of this reform.
During recent years, several interesting new initiatives have emergedmany of
which deal with the four reform dimensions presented in this paper; that is,
stakeholder participation, dealing with changes in government and planning,
adopting new approaches to green space planning and management, and creating
multifunctional patchworks in a landscape approach.
251

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
One of the new set-ups for managing (part of) the peri-urban landscape is the
Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald in and near Vienna, installed by UNESCO in 2005
(Umweltdachverband fur das Biospharenpark Wienerwald Management &
sterreichische UNESCO Kommission, 2006; Breiling & Ruland, 2008). The
O
Reserve covers the entire Wienerwald forest area, including elements of the
Vienna green belt, comprising 105, 000 ha. No less than 51 local authorities are
part of the Biosphere Reserve, and a special coordination body with participation
of municipalities, state actors and other stakeholders was set up. As with all
Biosphere Reserves, the judicial set-up of the Wienerwald Reserve is rather
loose, but parts of the area are protected as part of the Vienna greenbelt, Nature
2000 areas, and so forth. Thus a patchwork has been created of land uses of
different protection status and ownership, but with some overall objectives and
guidelines for planning, management and use. Local authorities and stakeholders
are connected to national and even global policy agendas.
A second innovative set-up is that of the national urban parks in Sweden and
Finland. These new types of national parks, with woodland as the core element,
were created to answer the question of how to protect valuable natural and cultural
resources in proximity to urban settlements (Schantz, 2006). The first of its kind is
the National Urban Park of Stockholm, comprising the Djurgarden, HagaBrunnsviken and Ulriksdal areas. New national legislation was prepared in the
form of a National Urban Parks Act as a chapter in the Swedish Environmental
Code. Once again, national interests (the park is an area of national importance
through its natural and cultural values) are combined with local implementation. A
patchwork of land use, land ownership and stakeholders is brought together to
achieve overall goals for the area, under the coordination of the County
Administration Board of Stockholm. Similar national urban parks were since set
up in Finland (e.g. in Hameenlinna), under new legislation under the Land Use and
Building Act. In the Finnish case, the need for a new dialogue between the Finnish
state and municipalities was stated as a primary reason for implementing the
national urban park concept.
Both the Biosphere Reserve and the National Urban Park case, with forests as
the core element, provide interesting examples for green belt planning reform. In
spite of their status as reserve or national park, legislation and policy are
flexible, allowing for adaptation according to changing needs, shifting priorities
between land use and objectives, and so forth. Moreover, both new set-ups are
firmly basedand can only succeed througha partnership and multi-stakeholder
approach, involving a wide array of public land owners (for example, 51 local
authorities in the case of the Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald) as well as private
land owners and other private actors. These experiences, as well as those of the
English Community Forests, build on the long history of forestrys role in green
beltsshowing possible future directions for green belt planning.
References
Ali, A. K. (2008) Greenbelts to contain urban growth in Ontario, Canada: Promises and prospects, Planning
Practice and Research, 23(4), pp. 533548.
Amati, M. (2006) From a blanket to a patchwork: The practicalities of reforming the London green belt, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), pp. 579594.

252

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Role of Forestry in Development and Reform of Green Belts

Amati, M. (Ed.) (2008a) Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Amati, M. (2008b) Chapter 1Green belts: A twentieth-century planning experiment, in: M. Amati (Ed.) Urban
Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century, pp. 117 (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Bauer, J., Kniivila, M. & Schmithusen, F. (2004) Forest legislation in Europe: How 23 Countries Approach the
Obligation to Reforest, Public Access and Use of Non-wood Forest Products, Geneva Timber and Forest
Discussion Paper 37 (Geneva: UN-ECE/FAO, Timber Branch).
Boentje, J. P. & Blinnikov, M. S. (2007) Post-Soviet forest fragmentation and loss in the Green Belt around
Moscow, Russia (19912001): A remote sensing perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4),
pp. 208221.
Breiling, M. & Ruland, G. (2008) Chapter 9The Vienna Green Belt: From localised protection to a regional
concept, in: M. Amati (Ed.) Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century, pp. 167183 (Aldershot:
Ashgate).
Caspersen, O., Konijnendijk, C. C. & Olafsson, A. S. (2006) Green planning and land-useThe recreational
landscape of Greater Copenhagen, Geografisk Tidskrift, 106(2), pp. 720.
Cornelius, R. (1995) Geschichte der Waldentwicklung: die Veranderung der Walder durch die Waldnutzungen
und Immissionsbelastungen seit dem Mittelalter, Monitoring Programm Naturhaushalt Heft 3 (Berlin:
Senatsverwaltung fur Stadtentwicklung und Umweltschutz).
Davies, C. & Vaughan, J. (2001) Its my forestCreating common ownership and care of the urban forest, in: C.
C. Konijnendijk & Flemish Forest Organisation (Eds) Communicating and Financing Urban Forests.
Proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd IUFRO European Forum on Urban Forestry, Aarhus (May 1999) and
Budapest (May 2000), pp. 3547 (Brussels: Afdeling Bos en Groen, Ministerie van de Vlaamse
Gemeenschap).
Donis, J. (2003) Designating a greenbelt around the city of Riga, Latvia, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,
2(1), pp. 3139.
Elson, M., Walker, S. & MacDonald, R. (Eds) (1993) The Effectiveness of Green Belts, Department of
Environment, Planning Research Programme (London: HMSO).
Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., Pauleit, S., Theuray, N. & Lindley, S. J. (2008) Characterising the
environment of UK cities and towns: A template for landscape planning, Landscape and Urban Planning,
87(3), pp. 210222.
Green, G. (1996) Epping Forest through the ages, 5th ed. (Ilford, Essex: published by author).
Hall, P. (2007) Rethinking the mark three green belt, Town and Country Planning, 76(8), pp. 229231.
Hecimovich, J. (2008) Greenbelts or green wedges?, Planning, 74(3), pp. 4043.
Helms, J. A. (1998) The Dictionary of Forestry, p. 70 (Bethesda, MD: The Society of American
Foresters).
Janse, G. & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2007) Communication between science, policy and citizens in public
participation in urban forestryExperiences from the NeighbourWoods project, Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 6(1), pp. 2340.
Jim, C. Y. & Chen, W. Y. (2009) Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China, Cities, 26(4), pp.
187194.
Kalaora, B. (1981) Les salons verts: parcours de la ville a` la foret, in: M. Anselme, J.-L. Parisis, M. Peraldi, Y.
Rochi & B. Kalaora (Eds) Tant quil y aura des arbres. Pratiques et politiques de nature 18701960.
Recherches 45(September), pp. 85109.
Kitaev, A. (2006) Red parks: green space in Leningrad. 19171990, in: P. Clark (Ed.) The European City and
Green Space. London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St Petersburg, 18502000, pp. 289305 (Farham, Hants,
UK: Ashgate Historical Urban Studies).
Konijnendijk, C. C. (1997) Urban Forestry: Overview and Analysis of European Urban Forest Policies: Part 1:
Conceptual Framework and European Urban Forestry History, EFI Working Paper 12 (Joensuu: European
Forest Institute).
Konijnendijk, C. C. (2003) A decade of urban forestry in Europe, Forest Policy and Economics, 5(3), pp. 173
186.
Konijnendijk, C. C. (2008) The Forest and the City: The cultural landscape of urban woodland (Heidelberg:
Springer).
Kowarik, I. & Korner, S. (Eds) (2005) Wild Urban WoodlandsNew Perspectives for Urban Forestry (Berlin:
Springer).
Kuhn, M. (2003) Greenbelt and Green Heart: Separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(12), pp. 1927.

253

Downloaded by [Anelis Plus Consortium 2015] at 22:24 22 October 2015

Cecil C. Konijnendijk
Kuznetsov, E. & Ignatieva, M. (2003) St. Petersburg Forest GreenbeltStatus report (St Petersburg: St Petersburg
State Forest Technical Academy and Danish Cooperation for the Environment in Eastern Europe).
Li, F., Wang, R., Liu, X. & Zhang, X. (2005) Urban forest in China: Development patterns, influencing factors
and research prospects, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 12(2),
pp. 197204.
Lloyd, T., Watkins, C. & Williams, D. (1995) Turning farmers into foresters via market liberalisation, Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 46(3), pp. 361370.
Nail, S. (2008) Forest Policies and Social Change. An English Case Study (Heidelberg: Springer).
Olwig, K. R. (1996) Reinventing common nature: Yosemite and Mount RushmoreA meandering tale of a
double nature, in: W. Cronon (Ed.) Uncommon Ground. Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, pp. 379
408 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company).
Opheim, T. (1984) Notes on the Oslomarka, in: O. Saastamoinen, S. G. Hultman, N. E. Koch & L. Matsson (Eds)
Multiple Use forestry in the Scandinavian Countries, pp. 3943 (Helsinki: Finnish Forest Research Institute).
Pirnat, J. (2000) Conservation and management of forest patches and corridors in suburban landscapes,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(23), pp. 135143.
Schantz, P. (2006) The formation of National Urban Parks: A Nordic contribution to sustainable development?,
in: P. Clark (Ed.) The European City and Green Space. London, Stockholm, Helsinki and St Petersburg,
18502000, pp. 159174 (Hants: Ashgate Historical Urban Studies).
sterreichische UNESCO Kommission
Umweltdachverband fur das Biospharenpark Wienerwald Management & O
(2006) Leben im Biospharenpark Wienerwald. Modellregion der Nachhaltigkeit. Vienna. Available at http://
www.biosphaerenpark-wienerwald.org/cms/_data/S1-34.pdf (accessed 29 October 2007)
UNESCO (2008) Biosphere reserve informationBrazilMata Atlantica (including Sao Paolo City Greenbelt),
MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory. Available at http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.
asp?codeBRA01&modeall (accessed 19 April 2009).
Van Herzele, A., Collins, K. & Tyrvainen, L. (2005) Involving people in urban forestryA discussion of
participatory practices throughout Europe, in: C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. B. Randrup & J.
Schipperijn (Eds) Urban Forests and TreesA Reference Book, pp. 207228 (Berlin: Springer).
Watanabe, T., Amati, M., Endo, K. & Yokohari, M. (2008) Chapter 2: The abandonment of Tokyos Green Belt
and the search for a new discourse of preservation in Tokyos suburbs, in: M. Amati (Ed.) Urban Green Belts
in the Twenty-first Century, pp. 2136 (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Yang, J. & Jinxing, Z. (2007) The failure and success of greenbelt programme in Beijing, Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 6(4), pp. 287296.

254