Comparison and connection between two levels

Using the same framework, the results of the above two sections (5.4.2 and 5.4.3) emphasized different aspects on the topic of urban green space multifunctionality at the city level (The Greenbelt as a whole) and local level (small projects inside Greenbelt). At city scale, analysis could concentrate on the ratio of involvement, the cohesion of functions and the balance among types. Thus the discussion on this scale normally was used for policy-making and similar context. At local scale, the extent of implement, the preference and neglecting of functions and the interaction between functions could get a closer understanding. So this scale was mostly connected with design and stakeholders’ opinions. These two scales were often discussed separately due to above difference. However, this case provides a chance to connect the two level into one platform. And the status report functioned as a feedback for the system to interpret the cohesion and contradiction between the results of the two scales.

Based on Fig 5.4.1, multifunctionality in the scale of the whole Greenbelt showed the combination and balance among different types of targets, the general plan, though written 25 years ago, still seems to be a well-produced guideline for the development. However, being equally targeted didn’t mean the same in its lower level. Through the distribution of Table 5.4.2, how each listed function was

emphasized in the selected different small projects could be seen clearly. Comparing with Table 5.4.1, Table 5.4.2 is not balanced at all but shows that cultural aspects are the actual emphasis and extensive actions of implementation in Greenbelt. It was paid with more direct attention within more projects. Though not all the projects implemented were used here, the randomness and lack of attention in provisioning aspect is quite obvious. Regulating and Habitat aspects synergies with each other but within certain types of projects. Higher level of multifunctionality like that in Group III only happened in quite limited projects, which are separated sites inside the vast Greenbelt. Combining the results on both city and local scales, the multifunctionality of Greenbelt Frankfurt could be portrayed as culturally prioritized and spatially non-homogeneous place, meanwhile, great potential lies in the further combination among cultural and non-cultural aspects.

The time frame of the different kinds of projects could give another dimension to the understanding. Not every series existed on the founding of the Greenbelt and several important projects, like the Education Program, the Old Airfield Reconstruction and some favorited sites of the Orchard Meadow, began approximately since 2003. Since that time, the combination between different types of projects were more intensively considered. The New Plan in 2013 turn again the emphasis to the connectivity of Greenbelt and its surrounding green networks, inside towards the city center and outside reaches the Regional Park Rhein-Main, as well as the utilizing of Greenbelt as a huge natural capital to respond to contemporary popular urban topics, like social equity and urban climate adaptation. However, only considering from the content of the plan, it may be more popular than straight to the point. Without substantial projects under this new guideline, the real changes are hard to imagine.

5.4.5 Summary

The aim of section 5.4 is to interpret from the provisioning perspective, how different ES were targeted by planners in the planning practice. Though the coding and analyzing of related documents, the same analytic framework was applied in both city and local level, to catch the actual purposes behind the rhetoric planning documents. With this lens of multifunctionality, the main findings of the planning efforts of Greenbelt Frankfurt can be concluded as follow.

First of all, the majority of ES was already included in Greenbelt Plan 1991 in a quite balanced way. It proved the suitability of this framework to be applied on urban open space planning within a large time span. Though there had been shifting of political emphases and international interests, the main demands for urban green space hasn’t changed much, but rather adding with some new topics. Based on the analysis, the concept of Greenbelt Frankfurt as a large continuous green open space was advanced at the time, and its long living need to be credited to the founders.

Second, the Greenbelt implementation is not that balanced in functions considering its specific projects. There was barely much work done by the Project Group on the improving of provisioning

services, as well as Habitat functions, were mostly natural reservation related and the locations were separated in the Greenbelt. The Cultural services were the actual focus of attention throughout time.

Third, based on the Report on Greenbelt, regulating services and habitat functions have better feedback than the other two type, especially than the cultural aspects. It helps to pointed out the dissimilar nature of the cultural services with others. Other types of ES could normally follow the rule that the more works done, the better results get. Thus the ignored ones like food/ crop provision was not in a satisfied situation, while the climate related ES got positive feedback due to being frequent direct and indirect targeted. On the contrary, the most targeted cultural services have not so good feedbacks, like the aesthetic appreciation and recreation. A reasonable explanation is cultural services generally have lower dependency level on land occupation but high dependence on design and intangible conditions.

Last not least, the successful and favorable projects, mostly in recent decade, always combine the cultural services with others in harmonious, and thus maximize both capacities. But how these interactions between functions are planned and synergized need further discussion.