LED2LEAP 2020 - Freising Team 7: Difference between revisions
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
'' | '' | ||
*''EU Directive on public access to environmental information''<br> | *''EU Directive on public access to environmental information''<br> | ||
The directive shows that the EU has eye for the public and its interest in the landscape, but you could say that it is a bit vage and it | The directive shows that the EU has eye for the public and its interest in the landscape, but you could say that it is a bit vage and it leaves too much to the member states. There also seems to be not in control on what degree the member states implement this. Furthermore it mainly speaks about how public participants have access to the general landscape information, rejecting a proposal,... but never mentions the community as an active participant in a design (cfr. Ladder of Participation). | ||
*''Council of Europe'' | *''Council of Europe'' | ||
Revision as of 20:39, 28 April 2020
>>>back to working groups overview
| Area | Freising & Munich Airport area | |
| Place | Freising - Dachau corridor | |
| Country | Germany | |
| Topics | Landscape democracy / health and well-being / blue-green infrastructure | |
| Author(s) | Farhana Afroze, Sonja De Weert, Noorjahan Begum, Bogdan Drăghici | |
| ||
Landscape Democracy Rationale
The landscape is part of the community, as is the community part of the landscape. The community lives in the landscape, but is also shaped by it. Changes on either of them will also affect the other. Therefore it is important to include the people who live here in planning processes, so that they have a voice through active participation in its protection, conserving and maintaining it as best as they can.
Location and scope
Freising - Munich Airport community
Location
Freising is located north of the Bavarian capital Munich, Germany.
Characteristics
- plain, with hills in the north
- the rivers Isar, Moosach and Amper
- mainly arable lands, moorlands and forests
- Munich international airport
Socio-economical
- 48.000 inhabitants (546/km2 (2018)
- Strong developed education system
- Important religious presence
- City full of young people (16.4% below 17 years, lot of students)
- Strong economy (mainly trade, traffic and services; only 1% in agriculture)
- Good community transition (from a rather rural area to an important business location)
- Low unemployment rate (more than 4000 enterprises, largest continuous hop-growing site in the world)
- Many investors and developers
Munich Airport
Munich Airport & surrounding farmland Overview
Groups of actors and stakeholders present here
- Key actors :Individuals, Authorities, Heath care system, Airport, Communication (mobility)
- Primary groups: Farmers, Environment protection, Recreation, Education, Environmental protection associations, Commerce, Industry
- Secondary groups: Churches, Cultural groups, Elders, People with disabilities, Energy, Investors & Developers, Tourism
Actors
Needs & Aspirations
The Freising community includes different social groups and stakeholders like local and external. Social groups are children, students, individuals, senior citizens, differently able people, churches, different ethnic groups, and also many cultural communities. Additionally, education, agriculture, health care, restaurants, tourism, leisure-time and relaxation, small-big business groups, industries, Munich airport plays the local stakeholder role. There are some external stakeholders influences also exist from communications, forestry, authorities, developers, recycling, energy sectors, and water protection sectors, etc. All groups are either directly or indirectly connected with each other.
Regarding the landscape demands the Freising community needs some aspirations. For instance, the community requires better and clear recreation spaces, improved traffic connections (more parking places or ringway), innercity bike path connections, and also needs more public open spaces.
Relationships between your actors and groups
- How would you describe the power relationship between the groups?
- Which groups may have shared interests and which are these? (max 200 signs)
Actor interactions
Authorities have the executive power (over individuals) due to the voted laws. On the other hand if individuals, when united in mind and body, they can create a voice that can influence the authorities. Industry is also an important factor of influence due to its economic impact/control, because it's creating jobs, and provides a better way of living for people.
The tourism, agriculture, authority and recycling communities have in common environmental protection. The other way around, the farmers and environmental protection share the same space, but have other interests and goals.
Summary of your learnings from the transnational discussion panel on April 22
On April 22 you will present the PPT version of this first assignment to other seminar groups working in other geographical community contexts. Please give here a short summary of your learnings during this presentation, for example:
- Other analytical approaches
- Other representation styles
- Other value schemes: any surprises?
- Constructive comments we received on our presentation
Via the panel we had a look on how the other groups used the framework. It was interesting to see that they sometimes had another analytical approach or used a different way of visualizing. That broadened our horizon and gave us inspiration. We also received some very useful feedback about how to further develop our community map to a higher level.
Theory reflection
- From the Storytelling, a model of and a model for planning- we have learned regarding the process of how to develop ideas on storytelling in planning practice. It represents how a good story can help to overcome a critical situation of planning to reach in the desired ending as well as connect present not only to make sense of the past but also to prepare for the future through the stories.
- EU Directive on public access to environmental information
The directive shows that the EU has eye for the public and its interest in the landscape, but you could say that it is a bit vage and it leaves too much to the member states. There also seems to be not in control on what degree the member states implement this. Furthermore it mainly speaks about how public participants have access to the general landscape information, rejecting a proposal,... but never mentions the community as an active participant in a design (cfr. Ladder of Participation).
- Council of Europe
According to the European Landscape Convention, the public's active participation is prior to protect the heritage value of the landscape. Additionally, the mutuality between local inhabitants and the professionals is also key factors for identifying and assessing landscape features.
- You can choose references from our reading list or suggest others
- Scope: 250 words
References
- https://www.kreis-freising.de/
- http://www.citypopulation.de/php/germany-bayern.php?cityid=09178124
- https://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/Freising
- https://www.freising.de/media/user_upload/61_Stadtplanung_Umwelt/6110_pdf-Files/STEP/stadtteilsteckbrief-suedwest.pdf
- https://www.bavaria.by/visit/freising/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freising
- https://www.salaryexpert.com/cost-of-living/germany/freising
Phase B: Democratic Landscape Analysis and Assessment
* template coming
Phase C: Collaborative Visioning and Goal Setting
* template coming
Phase D: Collaborative Design, Transformation and Planning
* template coming
Phase E: Collaborative Design, Transformation and Planning
* template coming
= Phase E: Collaborative Evaluation and Future Agendas * template coming
Process Reflection
- Reflect in your intercultural and interdisciplinary team on the outcomes of your study
- Which limitations were you facing?
- What have you learnt from each other?
- What would you do differently next time?
- You can also use diagrams/visuals
- 250 words text
All in all the work done until now by our team, gave us a better understanding of our position in the community and our power to change and influence it. And for sure it made us realize that as active participants in the community or given the chance to some of us becoming specialists, elected representatives or technical staff of local, regional and national authorities, we have a great responsibility towards the present and future well-being of the hole society. And we also realized this aspect that the landscape related issues are not affecting just one part of the community/society but the hole and that there should be a much better communication between all actors.