ES2423 V18 Sustainable development: A case study University of Gothenburg

GREENERY ON LINDHOLMEN A CASE STUDY

Photographer unknown. (2017). Karlastaden_MakaMaka [website]. Karlastaden.se

Moa Hjulfors, Julia Johansson, Timmy Nilsson, Helena Nazari, Saulius Šatas, Malin Taube

Table of contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Problem Formulation 1

1.2 Aim and Research Questions 2

1.3 Study Area 2

2. Background 3

2.1 The Importance of Urban Greenery 3

2.2 Urban Greenery and Sustainability 4

2.3 Requirements and Guidelines for Urban Greenery 7

3. Method 9

3.1 Document Study 9

3.2 Interview 9

3.3 GIS 12

4. Results 16

4.1 Document Study 16

4.2 Interviews 18

4.3 GIS 21

5. Discussion 25

5.1 Detailed Development Plans 25

5.2 Guidelines 27

5.3 Distribution of Green Space 27

5.4 Sustainable Development and Requirements 28

5.5 Group Work 30

6. Conclusions 31

References 32

Appendices 36

Appendix A 36

Appendix B 37

Appendix C 38

Appendix D 39

Appendix E 40

Abstract

Greenery is an essential part in creating an attractive and sustainable city, still it is easily forgotten

or turned down by other priorities when a city is growing. Lindholmen is currently growing in

population and is a significant part of the vision of the RiverCity, which is a large city development

project in the centre of Gothenburg. The aim of this study is to evaluate Lindholmen from a

greenery perspective, both in a present and future perspective. This includes examining how

greenery and its social and ecological benefits, regarding factors such as well-being and ecosystem

services are considered by the municipality and in the city planning documents and visions. This

report is based on a case study design, and has been carried out by ways of document analysis,

qualitative interviews as well as GIS analyses. The results have shown that Lindholmen does not

live up to the current requirements on greenery near residences set by the city of Gothenburg.

There are a few new green areas included in the detailed development plans, the two largest being

a green area near Karlastaden and a park near Götaverksgatan. Although these green areas will

contribute to an increased amount of usable public green space on Lindholmen, the total amount

of green area will decrease due to the high level of construction in the area. In the detailed

development plans, the greenery has not been prioritised and Lindholmen will not by any means

be as green as the vision wishes. Since greenery is a prerequisite for fighting effects of climate

change and creating a sustainable city, this is nothing that can be downplayed.

1

1. Introduction

Greenery is an essential part in creating an attractive and sustainable city (European Union, 2010).

Urban greenery improves the living environment in cities through ecosystem services, for example

by regulating pollution and creating a favourable microclimate in the city. Green spaces also create

meeting places and contribute to contact with nature which can lead to both physical and

psychological benefits (ISOCARP, 2009). Urban greenery is also important from an economic

perspective since the loss of these valuable services would lead to high costs when compensating

for them (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013).

This report is a part of the course Sustainable Development: A Case Study given by the University

of Gothenburg and focuses on greenery from a city planning perspective, where the study area is

Lindholmen in Gothenburg. Lindholmen is currently growing in population and is a significant

part of the vision of the RiverCity, a large city development project in the center of Gothenburg.

Gothenburg City is currently planning around 2 000 new residences and 2 000 new workplaces by

2021 on Lindholmen (Göteborgs Stad, 2017A). Today many people work, study or live in the area,

and the Lindholmens Science Park’s vision is counting on about 30 000 people in circulation by

2020 (Lindholmen Science Park, 2013).

1.1 Problem Formulation

Research shows that greenery has an essential role in improving the environment and the quality

of life, especially for people, in an urban environment. So why is it still so easily forgotten or

turned down by other priorities when a city is growing? Lindholmen is currently going through an

extensive development, but how much greenery is really planned? Will it be enough to be

sustainable in a social and ecological perspective? If the level of greenery in a city decreases, the

ecosystem services will be weakened. This will reduce the city’s capability of withstanding the

impacts of current and future climate change, such as increased precipitation, flooding, and more

strong and frequent heat waves. It would also decrease the inhabitants’ ability for recreation in the

city. The desire is to investigate these questions to increase awareness on the importance of

greenery and to question the stakeholders’ priorities. This will be done by interviewing important

stakeholders and examining relevant guiding documents to get an overall view of the situation on

Lindholmen today.

2

1.2 Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to evaluate Lindholmen from a greenery perspective, both in a present and

future perspective. This includes examining how greenery and its social and ecological benefits,

regarding factors such as well-being and ecosystem services, (see section 2.1) are considered by

the municipality and in the city planning documents and visions. This will be answered through

the research questions below.

1. How is greenery considered by the municipality and in the development plans and visions

for the area?

2. What is the current and future distribution of green areas on Lindholmen?

1.3 Study Area

The study area in this project is the district of Lindholmen, situated on the northern bank of Göta

Älv (the Göta river). It is located in the Lundby district. The area in question historically served as

a harbour and shipbuilding area. The northern edge of the district is the railway Hamnbanan and

the highway Lundbyleden, running side by side. To the south the river acts as the border. The

western part of Lindholmen is older, and mainly contains residential areas. Slottsberget and

Sörhallsberget are located here, breaking up the plain surface with vegetation and mountainous

terrain, with Sannegård harbour acting as the western district barrier. Whereas the eastern part

houses the Radio and TV-house, as well as industrial areas by the Lundby harbour, with hard

surfaces and few green areas. The closeness to the water helped in the historical growth of

Lindholmen, as the harbour and industries used this opportunity. The central parts of Lindholmen

consists of educational facilities as well as a central business district (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A).

The exact borders of the study area will mimic those the City of Gothenburg (2017A) use.

3

2. Background

2.1 The Importance of Urban Greenery

There are several ways of integrating greenery in a dense city. Greenery in cities could be in the

form of traditional parks, but also green passages, green facades and green roofs as well as private

gardens or courtyards (Malmö Stad, n.d.a.). Urban greenery is important for the ability to take

advantage of locally generated ecosystem services such as water management, stabilised

temperatures, wind protection, noise reduction and air filtration (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).

Greenery is also important from social and recreational perspectives. Recreational green areas

should be accessible, usable, varied, inviting and well maintained in order to attract users from the

neighbourhood and beyond (Roo, 2011).

2.1.1 Importance for the Environment

Stormwater

Threats from climate change are unavoidable and the city of Gothenburg has to deal with these

effects. Over the second half of 20th century, periods with high water levels, extreme precipitation

and flooding have increased (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A). Moreover, the forecast for the current

century doesn’t look very promising. It is estimated that along the coast, water level is expected to

rise by 80 cm by the end of this century. This will affect the Göta River’s water level, and since

Lindholmen is low lying part of the inner-city zone, flooding may occur under extreme weather

(see Appendix B) (Göteborgsregionens Kommunalförbund, 2012). Greenery could serve as a tool

in mitigating flooding since the ground in vegetated areas allows for water infiltration and

vegetation takes up water and evaporates it (Andersson-Sköld et al., 2015; Bolund & Hunhammar,

1999).

Urban Heat Island

City zones tend to have higher temperatures compared to their surroundings, especially at night

(Azevedo, Chapman, Muller, 2016). The rise of temperature in cities is, among other factors,

caused by heating and traffic in combination with large areas of heat absorbing surfaces, like

asphalt and buildings, with low albedo (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Gómez-Baggethun &

Barton, 2013). The heat stored during the day is trapped during the night, reducing the rate at which

the city cools. This phenomenon, called the urban heat island, can lead to amplified heat waves,

which may cause severe illnesses and death (Andersson-Sköld, et al., 2015; Bolund &

Hunhammar, 1999). During heat waves the wind is quite still, so the quality of the air also has a

tendency to deteriorate due to accumulation of local emissions of pollutants (Meng, Zhang, Zhao,

Duan, Xu & Kan, 2012). Urban greenery stabilises local temperature and works as a buffer to the

urban heat island effect. This is mainly done by evapotranspirative cooling and shading

(Andersson-Sköld et al., 2015; Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).

4

Noise pollution

The city is a noisy environment. Noise from traffic, construction and other human activities in a

city can lead to psychological and physical health problems, including irritation, headache and

sleeping problems (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; Göteborgsregionens Kommunalförbund,

2012). Soil and vegetation can contribute to diminishing the noise by absorbing or reflecting the

sound waves (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013). Being in a green and natural surrounding can

also shield the visual intrusion of traffic and decrease the experience of noise (Bolund &

Hunhammar, 1999).

Air Quality

Air pollution is a major environmental and public health problem in cities (Bolund & Hunhammar,

1999). The majority of the air pollution is caused by transportation, industry, waste incineration

and heating of buildings. Polluted environment results in increased health risks, such as respiratory

and cardiovascular diseases (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013). However, urban greenery can

improve air quality by filtering pollutants and particles from the air. The filtering is done through

the leaves of trees and shrubs (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999). Examples of pollution the vegetation

removes are CO2, various heavy metals, dust and toxic particles that fluctuate in the air (Virtudes,

2016).

2.1.2 Importance for Human Health

All environmental benefits are also beneficial for human well-being, since we are dependent upon

the environment to function. Since the population of Lindholmen is increasing, issues regarding

greenery and human health are getting more central. According to Naturvårdsverket (2017) urban

greenery affects human health in several ways, mentally and physically. Except the benefits

mentioned in 2.1.1, spending time in green areas also have identified mental health effects such as

improved concentration, lowered stress levels, increased performance and a feeling of being both

happier and healthier. After staying in a green area for some time, both reduced heart rate, reduced

blood pressure and reduced muscle tension can be measured as physical indicators of the mental

wellbeing (Naturvårdsverket, 2017).

2.2 Urban Greenery and Sustainability

Today, more than half of the world’s population live in urban areas, and the urban settlement is

expected to increase in the future (United Nations, 2016). This is stressing the need for planning

for sustainable cities. Growing cities and urban areas can have issues such as air pollution and

other environmental problems, and social issues in the form of neighbourhood collapses, for

instance (WCED, 1987). Urban greenery provides both environmental and social benefits (Dinnie

et al, 2013) and could be an important tool for mitigating the problems and creating sustainable

cities.

5

2.2.1 Sustainable Development in This Study - Nested View

When discussing sustainable development, the most widespread definition comes from the well-

known report Our common future. It defines sustainable development as development that “meets

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 16). In 2002, three dimensions was framed to the concept - economic,

social and ecological (United Nations, 2002).

This study will work with the sustainability concept in line with how Giddings et al. (2002)

describes a “nested” sustainable development, see Figure 1. According to the nested model, the

social dimension, which includes society and all human activities, is within the scope of the

environment and the ecological dimension. The economic sustainability is a subset to the social

dimension and is dependent upon both the environment and society. Ecological sustainability is

defined as the maintenance of the structure and processes of ecosystems according to Park &

Allaby (2017) and is therefore what this study is mostly focusing on. The economic and social

values and structures should be formed so they are conducive to the ecological sustainability. The

social sustainability should also aim to maintain and improve the well-being of people, as a

combination of an environment- and people-oriented view mentioned by Chiu (2003). The

economic sustainability should ensure a continued economic growth while maintaining an efficient

use of resources (Gregory et al., 2009). Thus, the ecological sustainability works as the basis for

the other dimensions and should always be considered when sustainability questions are discussed.

Figure 1. “Nested” sustainable development, with ecological sustainability as

an outset for both social and economic sustainability.

6

2.2.2 Sustainability in Urban Environments

When considering urban environments, greenery is an important tool for achieving both social,

economic and ecological sustainability (Chiesura, 2004). The effects of greenery make the urban

environment ecologically sustainable through contributing with ecosystem services such as water

and air purification, flood mitigation and climate regulation, as well as providing habitats for

animal species. These ecosystem services provide benefits for both the human society and the

ecosystem itself (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010). Greenery creates an attractive environment

and contributes to social and recreational activities as well as other sources of physical and mental

well-being. Green areas promote health through e.g. stress recovery and physical activities which

can relieve the pressure on health care and thus lead to social benefits and economic savings in the

long-term (Abraham et al, 2010). If the city does not provide these urban green spaces for recovery

and other psychological benefits it could lead to large healthcare costs in the long run (Thomson,

2002). Another social benefit from green areas are their ability to enhance social integration

through facilitating social meetings and community building (Abraham et al, 2010). Thus,

greenery enhances a socially sustainable society.

The ecosystem services from urban greenery bring several economically sustainable aspects, other

than the economic savings from the health benefits mentioned above. Greenery reduces the risk of

flooding, which leads to economic savings in the form of reduced damage on infrastructure and

buildings. Another economic benefit from the greenery is that it helps to regulate the temperature

in the city, reducing the need for cooling systems, and cleans the stormwater as well as the air from

pollutants. Since society has difficulties in valuing the ecosystem services from greenery, it is often

not prioritised in society (Naturvårdsverket, 2017). A sustainable city environment should be

decoupled from negative ecological impacts and should be both socio-economically and

ecologically sustainable in the long term (UNEP, 2012).

2.2.3 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

The United Nations have adopted an Agenda as a plan for action to shift the world towards a more

sustainable path. Within the 2030 Agenda 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG:s) and 169

targets have been formed. The goals involve, for example, ending poverty and hunger, protecting

the planet from degradation, and to foster peaceful and just societies (United Nations, 2015).

The SDG:s that are adopted by Sweden's parliament also apply at the municipal level. The goals

shall therefore be incorporated into the municipal planning of land and water such as overview

plans, area plans, detailed development plans and so on (Boverket, 2017). Several goals have been

identified as relevant to this study. Goal 3, Good health and wellbeing, aims to reduce the number

of deaths and illnesses from water and soil pollution, as well as reduce premature mortality from

non-communicable diseases through promoting mental health and well-being. Urban greenery

could help improve mental health and wellbeing through ecosystem services. Furthermore,

vegetation binds the soil and filters water, reducing dispersion of contamination, a property that

7

contributes to both goal 3 and goal 6 - Clean water and sanitation. The 6th goal aims to, for

instance, improve water quality by reduction of pollution and halving the proportion of untreated

wastewater (United Nations, 2018).

Goal 11, Sustainable cities and communities, intends to, for example, provide high quality green

areas to everyone. The goal concerns this study since urban greenery provide both social and

environmental sustainability. The 13th goal, climate action, intends to minimise the vulnerability

to climate-related hazards. Greenery and soil has a buffering effect against large amounts of water

which can potentially occur after heavy rainfall. The greenery also provides shade and dampens

winds, making weathers appear less extreme. Last but not least the 15th goal Life on land is

relevant for this study. It states that, for instance, ecosystem and biodiversity values shall be

integrated into national and local planning (United Nations, 2018).

2.3 Requirements and Guidelines for Urban Greenery

In the national and local planning a number of documents shall be considered, in addition to the

already included SDG:s. The following section takes up some documents relevant for Lindholmen

containing requirements and guidelines for the planning for greenery and sustainability.

2.3.1 National level

The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808) states in chapter 3, 6 § that; ”The need for green

areas in urban areas and nearby urban areas should be taken into account in particular.”

(Translated from Swedish). Some more specific regulations are found in the Planning and Building

act (2010:900). The law states that each municipality is responsible for the lawful planning of land

and water. There is a pervading focus on requirements for contributing to a long-term sustainable

living environment in land and water planning. Specifically stated is the need to find suitable places

where parks, other green areas and places for play can be located. Exercise and other outdoor

activities should be considered when planning and should be available close to planned

residentials, preschools, schools and similar buildings.

2.3.2 Local level

The comprehensive plan for Gothenburg has an overall focus on sustainable development from

both social, economic, and ecological point of view for the whole municipality. The ambition is to

create a good interaction between the city and nature. One of the goals is that water and greenery

should be utilised and developed as resources in urban development, and be accessible to everyone.

The city will be planned accordingly to facilitate transport by foot and by bicycle

(Stadsbyggnadskontoret, 2009). There is no in-depth comprehensive plan for Lindholmen. In the

Green Strategy for a Dense and Green City, a central goal is that Gothenburg shall be a dense and

green city with a rich flora and fauna where ecosystem services are utilised. The document is

constructed by Gothenburg city and works as underlying information for planning matters

8

(Göteborgs Stad, 2014A). The amount of green area shall be enough to fulfil the recreational need

of the residents. The need varies depending on several factors. The number of square meters per

resident should be considered together with the environmental objective of Good Built

Environment of the City of Gothenburg (Göteborgs Stad, 2014A).

Regarding ecosystem services in the RiverCity vision, the addition of more greenery is especially

emphasised together with the ability of embracing the water. Three specific strategies have been

defined; the whole city, meeting the water and strengthening the center. Green spaces should be

deployed in a way that it could increase accessibility and attract people to the waterside. A dense

city requires some large parks and many smaller green spaces that would serve as hotspots for rest

and recreation. Lindholmen should be an attractive area and guarantee recreational activities all

year around (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A). More detailed information about the planned greenery on

Lindholmen is found in the document Green plan for Central RiverCity (2012B) and Analys av

grönytor och parkmark på Lindholmen (2017A). The documents state which parks are in the area

today, which functions they have and recommendations of how the future planning of green areas

should be done.

2.3.3 Green Areas in Cities

The Swedish central administration authority Boverket works on behalf of the government with

social planning and urban development, conveying regulations and providing guidance and

informative texts for city planning. There are no exact regulations or laws regarding the

amount/area of green areas or greenery, though Boverket has some guidelines. These are; the close

park, the local park, the district park and the free-areas. The close park (närparken) should ideally

be within 50 m of the residence. The local park (lokalparken) should be reached within 200 m

without having to cross busy roads. The neighbourhood park (stadsdelsparken) should not be more

than 800 m away. The free-areas (friarealerna) should have a ratio of least 300-400 m2 per resident

(Boverket, 2007).

The city of Gothenburg has made some other definitions where the park near residences

(bostadsnära park och naturområde) should be within 300 m from residence and the district park

(stadsdelsparken) should be reached within 1 km or 15 minutes of walking. These parks are

intended for resting, to be meeting points, playing and so on. Larger parks are the city park

(stadspark) and the larger nature and recreational area (större natur- och rekreationsområde)

which should be reached within 30 minutes from residence. They are intended both to give a

distinctive character, exercise and nature experience (Göteborgs Stad, 2014A). For more detailed

information, see appendix A.

9

3. Method

This study adheres to the case study design. It is idiographic in nature, aiming to generalise a

statement, which can be applied to other times, places or cases. Generally, case study designs are

favourably complemented by mixed method approaches, though this study will be of a qualitative

nature (Bryman, 2012). Document analysis is the base method for this study. Secondly, qualitative

interviews will be conducted. Finally, GIS analyses will be applied. Interviews and the studied

documents will answer both the first and second question, while GIS will give an edge in the

visualisation for the second question.

3.1 Document Study

The utilised document analysis type is that of qualitative analysis (Esaiasson, Gilljam, Oscarsson,

& Wängnerud, 2012). The analysis itself will evaluate to which degree the planning processes of

the detailed development plans selected live up to the standards of the international, national and

local documents, as well as the visions for the RiverCity recounted above in section 2.3.

The sampling for the detailed development plans was based upon the criterion of the size they

demarcate, as well as whether or not they are completed. The resultant selection were:

Götaverksgatan 2-2510 (1480k-2-5210) and Karlavagnsplatsen 2-5400 (1480K-2-5400)

(Göteborgs Stad, 2014B; Göteborgs Stad, 2017D). Meaning that a judgemental or purposive

sample has been applied (Barber, 1988).

Gathering information from detailed development plans was conducted through finding sections

surrounding greenery or ecosystem services, from a planning perspective. These sections were

marked and cross-referenced with earlier information gathered from the documents mentioned

above. This to find how planning and development is realised separate from the vision.

3.1.1 Critique for the Research of Documents and Literature

Examining only two detailed development plans, those of Karlavagnsplatsen and Götaverksgatan

(Göteborgs Stad, 2014; Göteborgs Stad, 2017D), do not wholly encompass Lindholmen. Though,

given that the developments of other detailed development plans are already complete, and given

the aim to evaluate Lindholmen from a future perspective, this was deemed acceptable. Having

only selected two development areas, while others have been declared accepted for development,

can result in a skewed result. Especially due to them being located geographically close. Had

another or additional areas been chosen, then a wider information base would have been achieved.

3.2 Interview

In this section, the different interviews, the sampling, methodology and stakeholders will be

explained and the choices made will be motivated. The staple of qualitative research is that

10

“Qualitative research /…/ [is] concerned with words rather than numbers” (Bryman, 2012, p.

380). Furthermore, interviews follow an interpretivist point of view, meaning that the result are

the experiences of the informants, translated through interviewers. This does allow the informants

to shed light upon their personal narrative, or that of the part they represent (Bryman, 2012).

3.2.1 Stakeholders

The stakeholders for this study are two administrations who are responsible for the city planning

on Lindholmen. The two administrations, and their representatives are Eva Tenow, project

manager for Lindholmen, at the City Building Office (CBO), or Stadsbyggnadskontoret; Therése

Ryding and Maja Moberg are landscape architects of the Park and Nature administration (P&N),

or Park- & Naturförvaltingen.

The two administrations both work with city planning, albeit from different perspectives. The

CBO’s tasks are to create comprehensive plans for all of Gothenburg, as well as detailed

development plans for development of the city, aiming to lead a world-class city development for

people to realise their dreams (Göteborgs Stad, n.d.a. A). Respectively, the P&N are responsible

for developing and managing new and existing green spaces, parks and other social areas. Both

for social and ecological support in an ever densifying city environment (Göteborgs Stad, n.d.a.

B).

3.2.2 Informant & Expert Interview

Through interviews, a top-down perspective is offered from the point of view of the planning

administrations. Through interviewing, the aim is to garner information as to how the project is

proceeding according to the visions and documents released. Furthermore, an expert interview was

conducted with Mattias Sandberg, employed at the University of Gothenburg. The material from

Mattias Sandberg’s interview was mainly used for inspiration and as background material.

3.2.3 Sampling Interview

Selection for administrations to interview was through a judgmental, or purposive, sampling;

selecting those who are involved in the process of planning on Lindholmen. They were contacted

through e-mail, each mail asking if a representative for the administration would be available for

an interview about an evaluation of the planning process on Lindholmen through a greenery

perspective. The administrations chose the informants at this point. In the case of Mattias

Sandberg, he was referred to the study as he holds information regarding how greenery affects

people, as well as how people experience greenery, albeit from a top-down perspective.

3.2.4 Interview Methodology

In all three interviews, the questions were constructed and phrased in a way as to avoid leading

questions. Both informant interviews had some similar questions, some different, and different

11

structure, as to garner a wider type of responses. For the CBO, the questions were generally more

planning-oriented, whereas the questions for P&N were greenery and urban greenery-oriented. In

the questions that did not differ between administrations, wording stayed the same to avoid error

on those points (Bryman, 2012). The three interviews were all conducted during the same week,

on the 24th, 25th and 27th of April, and were all conducted in external conference or meeting

rooms.

Before beginning the interview proper, the project was introduced on a deeper level (Bryman,

2012). Two people were present at the interviews, one asking questions and taking notes via pen

and paper, and one shouldering taking more in-depth and more exhaustive notes via computer. The

interview was also recorded, with permission. Given the semi-structured form of the interview,

follow-up questions thought of in the moment and not part of the interview guide were asked. If a

question was unintentionally answered before being asked, the question was rephrased into a

probing, asking if the informant has something to add about the subject. The interviewees were

allowed to speak their mind freely on every question, meaning, giving them the power to lead the

flow of the interview, with little fear of being cut off to answer the next question. This did result

in some questions being skipped, in favour of those deemed more important. Following this, the

interviews were transcribed in full, word by word.

3.2.5 Thematic Analysis

The data analysis method for the interviews was a thematic analysis. It was used to identify,

analyse and report patterns or themes in the collected data. A theoretical, or deductive, thematic

analysis has been selected for this study. This as the data is not epistemologically bound. In the

same vein, the analysis will focus on the semantic themes; i.e., what is important is what is directly

communicated during the interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Given the theoretical approach, the coding process revolved around the predefined research

questions. The transcribed interview material was still read through in its entirety, noting ideas to

become codes. Codes alluding to similar subjects were grouped, forming initial themes, followed

by restructuring and revisioning of said themes until the final product is reached (Braun & Clarke,

2006).

In the search for themes, Bryman (2012) mentions a number of categories which are recommended

to look for. Of these eight, two have been selected; these being repetitions and cases of missing

data. Generally, the creation of themes was based upon the research questions, resulting in a more

analytical approach.

3.2.6 Critique for Interview and Sampling

An informant interview gains a qualitative top-down perspective in the context studied, meaning

that this study lacks a bottom-up perspective. This could have been mended by use of a

questionnaire, as was originally planned (Esaiasson, et. al., 2012). Though, it was discarded due

12

to time restraints. Had the created questionnaire been included, it would have contributed with data

regarding what types of habits and preferences people frequenting Lindholmen have when it comes

to visiting green areas or parks.

The interviews were conducted in supervised settings, meaning that the interviewer has control

over the interview situation. This means that the interviewer can control the types of questions

asked, gaining a specified, although potentially skewing the result. Furthermore, the data gathered

may be further altered by the interviewer through transcription, with parts not deemed important

simply be left out. On the other hand, during interviews the interviewer effect is at its strongest,

meaning that the interactions between interviewer and interviewee may be affected, consciously

or unconsciously. Factors this may include is the interviewee being steered into giving certain

answers by the interviewer, or the interviewee (sub)consciously only giving answers they feel the

interviewee desires (Esaiasson, et. al., 2012).

As the interviewer let the interviewee speak freely for each question, with no interruption, time

became an issue. Not asking each question resulted in a smaller base from which to base the

thematic analysis upon. This was partially remedied by, before the interview, creating an internal

grading system as to value the inherent importance of questions, which was applied when the

interviewer subjectively felt that the remaining time may not be enough, changing the order of the

questions to be based on the importance. Having a set time allotment on each question would likely

allow for each question to be answered, but would create a ‘forced’ setting in which certain,

perhaps vital, things would risk being left out. Furthermore, letting the interviewees speak freely

presumably minimised the interviewer effect, as the role of the interviewer was merely to listen

and ask questions.

The questions asked between the two informant interviews differed, but given that the two

administrations have different foci when it comes to planning, it was deemed appropriate to change

the questions. With questions shaped to fit the recipient, the answers will be more exhaustive, and

give a more varied discussion.

During, and following the transcription, the interviews were translated in their entirety. This is a

potential source of errors, as through translating the subconscious values of the researcher risk

shining through. Furthermore, the translation process may also result in plain linguistic errors, due

to misspelling or misunderstandings.

3.3 GIS

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a type of software with which maps can be created;

both for visualisation and for analysis. In this study it will be used for both; digitalising, i.e., turning

a merely visual map into a map that can be used for analysis. Furthermore, this digitalised map

will contain data both for a current and future state, according to detailed development plans,

13

Lindholmen after 2021 (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A; Göteborgs Stad, 2014B; Göteborgs Stad, 2017A;

Göteborgs Stad, 2017D). The digitalisations are shown in Figure 3 & 4 in the results.

3.3.1 Distribution of Green Spaces on Lindholmen

Regarding the classification of green spaces in Figure 3 & 4, it was subjectively graded by the

cartographer. The factors affecting the final classification for the space were the size, overall shape,

proximity to traffic, type of traffic, proximity to water, amount of trees in or in close proximity to

the space, as well as to a degree what they are classified as in Göteborgs Stad (2017A). Areas

deemed Usable, then, were mainly those classified as parks or pocket parks in Göteborgs Stad

(2017A), and easy to access both from the outside and when occupying the space. Partially Usable

areas are partially covered with terrain difficult to navigate, such as trees or an incline, near larger

traffic routes or generally not sizable enough to garner a long stay. Despite this, Partially Usable

areas are still able to be visited like a park, despite not being one. Finally, areas classified as Not

Usable received their labels due to their small size, uninviting shape, thick vegetation, which

should not or cannot not be set foot on, as well as close proximity to traffic.

These areas were used to calculate the area of green spaces, in a similar fashion as to what the

Göteborgs Stad (2017A) have calculated. The first set of calculations include all green spaces on

Lindholmen, regardless of Usability. The second set of calculations include only the areas deemed

Usable in the GIS analysis. Both sets of calculations take into account both the current and future

distribution of greenery, as well as the current population of 3542, and a preliminary future

population of approximately 6840 residents.

3.3.2 Green Factor Tool

Following the definition of the city of Gothenburg, the Green Factor tool (GFt, Grönytefaktor) is

a measure of the degree of ecosystem services supplied to the surrounding area, through the

combination of green and blue areas. The ecosystem services are quantified. Though, the levels

can differ depending on context and location and be applied from a perspective of both

compensation from offset greenery as well as general quality improvement (Göteborgs Stad,

2017A).

14

The previously digitalised data contained green space, hard or paved surfaces, current and future

trees, as well as future developments, with already existing buildings downloaded separately

(Lantmäteriet, 2017; Lantmäteriet 2015). Calculating GFt is done by calculating the area of the

digitalised zones and assigning them values

dependent on their “eco effectiveness”. The

values used for this case will mirror those in the

example of Gothenburg City (see Figure 2);

where green surfaces and bushes have a value of

0.4, hard surfaces a value of 0.25 and roofs a

value of 0. This example does not give trees a

value, but for this case trees are deemed

equivalent to bushes. The calculations were

conducted both for a current state with

downloaded data, as well as a future state of

Lindholmen with all new developments

finished. The GFt area is calculated by

multiplying the surface area and the specific

value, resulting in the sum of eco effective area,

which in turn is divided by the total area

(Göteborgs Stad, 2017B).

3.3.3 Tree Density

From the previously mentioned digitalisation, the data for trees was run through a ‘point density’

tool. Future trees were added from trees placed in maps of detailed development plans’ maps.

Already existing trees within these zones were removed, while the remainder were merged with

the planned trees to create a future scenario of trees on Lindholmen. Figure 5 shows the spatial

distribution of trees on Lindholmen.

3.3.4 Other Analyses

This section contains the methodology for the two maps in the Appendix; the flooding map as well

as the proximity map of green areas (Appendix B and C). The prior was created using data from

Lindberg, Johansson, & Thorsson (2013), specifically a heightmap containing the heights of

buildings as well as the terrain, also called a digital surface model (DSM). In the DSM, all values

(heights) of 0-1 meters, 1-2 meters and 2-3 meters were selected and given new values of 0 and 1.

These new values correspond with the areas which do and respectively do not fall into the spans

mentioned above, i.e., the new possible shorelines and different water levels.

The proximity map was created by using the Buffer tool, creating an outline of 300 m surrounding

the selected green areas. This analysis used all Usable green areas; the two parks near residences

Figure 2: Sample picture taken from Göteborgs

Stad (2017B), depicting how to calculate the

GFt. Translated from Swedish.

15

(Göteborgs Stad 2017A); as well as the new green areas above 0.2 ha in Karlastaden and

Götaverksgatan (Göteborgs Stad, 2014; Göteborgs Stad, 2017D).

3.3.5 Critique for GIS-method

Regarding the digitalisation, the result is only as good as the base material. Possible faults in the

base data is translated into the data created for this study. It is also wholly possible, due to the

human element, to misunderstand the base data, or to overlook and misclassify a part of the map.

The following analyses will also then suffer from this mistranslation. Furthermore, the tree data

for the future scenario may not reflect the future as the trees present in the detailed development

plan may not reflect the actual development taking place.

There are multiple ways to calculate GFt; including different or a wider range of surface area

types. It is also wholly dependent upon geographical location, municipality, as well as context.

Gothenburg aims to further develop the Malmö model, which takes into account a wider range of

factors in consideration when calculating the GFt (SLU, 2014). Furthermore, the choice to equate

trees and bushes was based upon the method of digitalisation for trees; as trees and bushes were

not able to be differentiated in the analysis.

The analyses do not take into account the areas outside of Lindholmen. Thus, the result is not

wholly representative of reality. Though, it is deemed to be representative of the case study area.

16

4. Results

4.1 Document Study

There is ongoing work in Gothenburg concerning ecosystem services, e.g. with the newly

developed strategy for nature care, development for preserving and development of nature values

in the planning process. Some new guiding documents for the planning have been constructed.

The two documents discussing the green factor tool are Green Factor Tool (Göteborgs Stad,

2017B) and Compensation Measures for loss of greenery and ecosystem services in development

(Göteborgs Stad, 2017C). These two are going to aid future planning processes in evaluating if

there are enough green areas and thereby helping to get an overview of the available ecosystem

services in an area. The city of Gothenburg does not yet work with the green factor tool, but the

compensation of green area has been used before (Göteborgs Stad, 2015). In the green strategy for

Gothenburg there is a specific goal regarding parks and nature areas. The city should be planned

to make good use of ecosystem services, which contributes to a higher biodiversity and a more

attractive city (Göteborgs Stad, 2014A).

In the RiverCity vision it is emphasised that the city will be green and the ambition is to build a

network of smaller green spaces and areas, who in turn will be connected to larger parks, as well

as the water. There should be a high biodiversity and the many green areas should together

contribute to an attractive environment and a good city life. In the Green plan for the RiverCity,

the fact that green roofs have several functions is mentioned, for example, they both reduce the

noise in indoor environment and also provide habitats for important pollinators. A conclusion that

is drawn is that a number of parks will be needed in the area of central RiverCity to reach the local

environmental quality objectives of Gothenburg. Furthermore, accessibility to the green areas

needs to be taken into account during the planning process to reduce the barrier effects separating

residents from green space (Göteborgs Stad, 2012A).

4.1.1 Detailed Development Plan for Karlavagnsplatsen

The detailed development plan for Karlavagnsplatsen (plan 2-5400 (1480K-2-5400)) claims to be

compliant with the comprehensive plan which proposes that the area of Karlastaden should be used

for mixed urban housing; workplaces, service, commerce and smaller green areas. The plan has a

clearly stated purpose to contribute to the realisation of the RiverCity vision. A major focus is

placed on the vision’s three strategies for making Karlastaden a “… dense, green, meaningful and

urban part of the inner city.”. For an efficient use of ecosystem services, the importance of

abundant vegetation in all streets is emphasised. It is stated that the area should have an "urban

design with elements of trees, greenery and opportunity for play and experience" (Göteborgs Stad,

2017D).

The detailed development plan has a rather self-critical part where considerations and

consequences have been thought through. This insight lifts that allowing a high degree of risk

17

during exploitation jeopardises fulfilling targets for sustainability. Innovative thinking is stated to

be required for example to provide outdoor space for preschools and schools. The plan includes

preschool playgrounds on roofs, which is admitted being a relatively untested method of meeting

the surface needs. The study regarding social impacts and children's perspectives, that also has

been conducted within the scope of the detailed development plan, concludes that it is harder to

achieve good quality for the playgrounds since they are more affected by external disturbances

and are getting less of nature and greenery.

The green area south of Hamnbanan should, according to the detailed development plan, be

designed as a park environment, including small areas for spontaneous activities, but at the same

time not be inviting to longer stays for large crowds. The green area is also intended as a

complement to the preschool's limited outdoor environment but is not suitable for a larger

playground. An investigation of compensatory measures for nature and recreation areas has been

conducted with the conclusion that there is no need for compensation of greenery in the current

plan.

Several environmental objectives will be affected by the implementation of the detailed

development plan. Due to increased traffic movements in the area, the objectives Restricted

environmental impact, Fresh air, Natural acidification only - milestone emission of nitrogen

oxides and Good built environment - milestone waste and energy are negatively affected.

4.1.2 Detailed Development for Götaverksgatan

The detailed development plan for Götaverksgatan (plan 2-2510 (1480k-2-5210)) has its main

focus on the densification of the city, on embracing the water and to a much smaller extent on

greenery. The area is included in the program for Lindholmshamnen - Lundbystrand (2000), which

states that the area between the harbour and Lindholmsallén can be used for city core development.

The area shall have a mixed use with housing, education, commerce and recreation.

Despite there being a park within the planning area, other parks and green areas outside the area,

such as Ramberget and Slottsberget, are expressed as large assets which are to be used. With a

future reduction of the barrier effect from Hamnbanan and Lundbyleden the area would be given

a greater access to natural environments. The courtyards have underground garages beneath them,

whose roofs shall be built to carry one meter of soil and trees to make them green. The courtyards

together with some green roofs are referred to as an asset for delaying stormwater.

There is some greenery in the area today, such as tree plantations and hedges. The trees at

Lindholmsallén and Götaverksgatan are presented as assets for the planning area. They are in the

plan considered to enable experiences of greenery and possibilities for play and recreation. The

plan involves the creation of a park in the eastern part of the area. The park will add a public space

which can be used by residents and those working in the area, handle stormwater and will be visible

from the quayside.

18

The area most used for recreational purposes is the section along the quay, by the water. The quay

area at Lindholmsbassängen will be developed into an attractive public area and walking path. At

the water there will be opportunities for resting and meetings. A park passage is proposed from

the quayside towards Lindholmsallén.

4.2 Interviews

This section will present the result gained from the qualitative interviews with the City Building

Office (CBO) and the Park and Nature Administration (P&N). The result is divided into three parts

“Greenery on Lindholmen today”, “Guidelines on greenery” and “New development”. These titles,

or themes, were created through a thematic analysis of the interviews (see section 3.2.5). The “New

development” is divided into the areas of Karlastaden and Götaverksgatan, which are the areas

with the largest new green spaces, as well as the largest new areas to be developed (see Figure 5).

Problematic aspects of the new green areas were a centre of attention during the interviews and

will also be brought up in the result; such as the green space near Hamnbanan and co-utilisation

of parks.

4.2.1 Greenery on Lindholmen Today

There is a lack of green areas, and especially public parks, on Lindholmen today, according to both

the CBO and the P&N. “On Lindholmen there is very little greenery to begin with and it is a

general challenge to create parks the way the ‘Green strategy’ wants”, P&N states. The green

areas that exist, are in many cases not municipal or do not count as parks, the CBO (2018) claims.

Due to challenges such as competition for the land, adding new parks and green areas is difficult,

according to the P&N (2018). They mention that there are difficulties in referring the inhabitants

to green areas in the nearby areas as well, since they are not easily available. “If you want to use

Ramberget as a park asset on Lindholmen we have to work on bridging the areas” (P&N, 2018).

The CBO recognises this problem as well. “there are Keillers park and Ramberget but it is quite

far and it is difficult to get there. [Ramberget] is also very steep towards Lindholmen. There are

requirements that a common park should be available and such a steep area is not considered

available.“ (CBO, 2018).

Both the CBO and P&N discuss that there are many difficulties in the planning processes for

greenery in cities, and that it is not always the highest priority. “There was a high ambition that

we should have a green city, for example on the Lindholmen Ports, but [the greenery] has also

decreased between planning and implementation. It happens almost always” (P&N, 2018). The

P&N also state that “The Green strategy is supposed to have the same status as the expansion

strategy (translated from utbyggnadsstrategin) and traffic strategy, but it does not actually”. The

CBO are also aware of this down-prioritisation of greenery in the planning processes: “Right now,

we know that in the RiverCity there is too little [greenery] planned, so we are trying to make that

known and try to get these guidelines that we were talking about before.” They claim that the

economy is the problem in many cases: “In the individual detailed development plans, considering

19

the three sustainability aspects, the economy tends to be more important the further the project

comes. For quite a while it has meant that park area has decreased in size /.../ so the public place

is in some cases lost. This happens for economic reasons.” (CBO 2018).

4.2.2 Guidelines on Greenery

The green strategy of Gothenburg City specifies three levels of parks needed in the city; “we have

parks near residences, which shall be within a certain distance from the residence [300 m], and

then we have the district park, which is the next level and should be in every city part within a

certain distance [1 km], and then we have city parks which is for the whole city, such as

Slottsskogen.” (CBO, 2018). The P&N works to fulfil the goals in the green strategy, but since the

municipality does not have much public space to work with from the beginning it is difficult to

achieve. “We experience /.../ that it is quite difficult to achieve this since we need to create 2

hectares of district park for example, /.../ where would you put it and where do you get that space

from? /.../ There is much competition for space” (P&N, 2018).

Both CBO and P&N identify shortcomings with these guidelines. “[The parks are] specified in

how big they shall be, minimum, but [they are] not specified depending on how dense the area is

built, how many people who live in that area and if that increase the size requirements - such

guidelines do not exist” (CBO, 2018). This might be a problem in a city which is densifying and

where green spaces reduce in size. “We see that especially in central parts of the city, where it is

extremely dense, the green areas that exist get worn in a completely different way” (CBO, 2018).

The P&N (2018) also mean that with more people and smaller green spaces you can see that

conflicts between people with different activities and interests also increase.

This calls for the need of other types of guidelines, for example in the unit area per person. “This

is something we have begun looking into. There are no such established guidelines yet, but we

hope such values or guidelines can be made. But then it is connected to residents, normally. And

that could be problematic in an area such as Lindholmen that has very few residents but many

people who work there. So, on paper, there will be quite little green area on Lindholmen, [than if

the people working on Lindholmen were included in the calculation]” (CBO, 2018). P&N (2018)

can see how this kind of value is important when it comes to communicating with other

administrations and developers. They are planning on applying this to Lindholmen, to see if the

value can be met. “I think we have said 6 m2 park [per resident] as a goal on Lindholmen, but this

is a target and nothing politically established” (P&N, 2018).

4.2.3 New Development

Karlastaden

P&N (2018) states that “In Karlastaden buildings have been prioritised above all [other

development].” The CBO (2018) mentions that a square-area is planned alongside Lindholmsallén,

but that “within the built-up area there are no park areas planned.”, except for some smaller

20

areas. There is a green area planned south of Hamnbanan of about 1.2 ha (see Figure 5) but that

area is not allowed to be called a park.

Green Space near Hamnbanan

P&N (2018) mentions that there was an idea to create a district park that is needed on Lindholmen

close to Karlavagnsplatsen, but that the closeness to Hamnbanan, the railway used for import and

export of (sometimes) hazardous cargo, is a problem: “We are not allowed to have a park there.

There is an explosion risk /.../ we cannot encourage long-lasting stays”. They believe that it would

have been better to use the space for a car park, or something that could reduce noise. They are

critical towards the green structure in Karlastaden: “there is a lot of park in the plan, but it does

not work in reality, because we are not able to use it that way”. Since the green space near

Hamnbanan cannot be counted as, or be prepared to be, a traditional park, it is not included in the

total park area for Lindholmen (P&N, 2018). “it will be experienced as a park, if it is carried out.

But we are not allowed to count it as a park, because we cannot tell people to go there /.../ It

contributes to an experience, but we cannot say that it has a function as a recreational place”

(P&N, 2018).

Götaverksgatan

A park of 0.3 ha is planned for 2021 at Götaverksgatan on Lindholmen (see Figure 5). It is going

to be co-utilised with a preschool next to it, take care of stormwater and have walking- and bike

lanes going through it (P&N, 2018).

Co-utilisation

The park at Götaverksgatan is an example of an area that will be used for many functions at the

same time, so called co-utilisation. The CBO mentions that they have started to compensate for

the lack of land for preschool yards with co-utilisation of park areas. “You place a preschool close

to a park /.../ the preschool yard will be a bit smaller, but on the other hand you can use the park

area” (CBO, 2018). The P&N also mentions co-utilisation as a way of solving the problem with

few public areas and park areas, especially for school yards. However, they do not see it as a

perfect solution. “We are now in a phase where we realise that we cannot have co-utilisation to

100%, because it is neither good for the park or the children” (P&N, 2018). The critique against

co-utilisation is shared with the CBO, who mentions that the park will be used by many more

people and thus become very strained. “You get the ones that are normally using a park, plus the

preschool children too. /.../ it has been shown to be problematic” (CBO, 2018). There is also a

problem with that the park areas in many cases are supposed to work for management of

stormwater as well. “If you imagine that it is going to be a playground or an area for visits in

combination with that it will be flooded quite often there is a conflict of interest, and that is

something we are working on, to make sure we are getting areas big enough so we can do more

than just a pond” (P&N, 2018).

21

4.3 GIS

In this section the maps created through the GIS analyses will be presented. The classifications of

the green spaces, and the analyses for GFt and tree density resulted in three maps, shown below.

Additional maps showing the current and future tree density, individually, will be included in the

Appendix D and E.

4.3.1 Distribution of Green Spaces on Lindholmen

As is shown below, Figure 3 & 5 contain the spatial distribution of differently classed green areas

on Lindholmen. The current distribution of green spaces per inhabitant on Lindholmen is

approximately 59 m2 (Figure 3), and the future distribution for the year 2021 will be 29 m2 (Figure

4). If only the areas deemed Usable were used in the calculation, then the distribution will be

approximately 6.4 m2 per inhabitant; whereas when considering the future population change the

future distribution will be approximately 4 m2, not including new area by Karlastaden, and

reaching 5.7 m2 with it included. As for the GFt, Figure 3, shows the current state of Lindholmen,

which has resulted in GFt = 0.24. In the same vein, Figure 4 shows the future state of Lindholmen,

following major development projects. Here the GFt = 0.23. The level of Usability has been

discussed in section 3.3.1 and in table 1.

Table 1: Definition of the different classifications of green areas in Figure 3-6.

Classifications Definition

Usable Classified as parks or pocket parks in (Göteborg Stad, 2017A), and easy to access both

from the outside and when occupying the space.

Partially Usable Areas partially covered with terrain difficult to navigate, such as trees or a steep incline,

near larger traffic routes or generally not sizable enough to garner a long stay.

Partially Usable areas are still able to be visited like a park, despite not being one.

Not Usable Small size, uninviting shape, thick vegetation, which should not or cannot be set foot on,

as well as close proximity to traffic.

22

Figure 3: Map showing the current distribution of greenery on Lindholmen. GSD-Fastighetskartan,

byggnader © Lantmäteriet (2017).

Figure 4: Pie chart showing the current distribution of greenery on Lindholmen.

23

Figure 6: Pie chart showing the future distribution of greenery on Lindholmen, in the year 2021.

Figure 5: Map showing the future distribution of greenery on Lindholmen, in the year 2021. The area

marked with an A is deemed Partially Usable, whereas B is Usable. GSD-Fastighetskartan,

byggnader © Lantmäteriet (2017); Göteborgs Stad (2014B); Göteborgs Stad (2017E).

24

4.3.2 Tree Density

Figure 7 shows the spatial density of trees on Lindholmen. The current spread of trees is shown

in the lighter green colour, while the future 2021 scenario has the darker green colour, for when

the major development projects are finished.

Figure 7: Map showing the current and future 2021, tree density on Lindholmen. GDF-Ortofoto, raster

0.5 m © Lantmäteriet (2015); Göteborgs Stad (2014B); Göteborgs Stad, (2017E).

25

5. Discussion

There is not much greenery today on Lindholmen. This was stated in the interviews (see section

4.2.1), and is also shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows that a large part (≈ 90 %) of the green areas

that exist on Lindholmen are not considered directly Usable. They could for instance be classified

as not so easily available or not considered appropriate for typical park activities such as picnics.

The municipality has certain requirements for parks that needs to be fulfilled. It should be

accessible and available for everyone, and it also has to be owned by the municipality and have a

minimum size of 0.2 ha. The municipality cannot ensure that parks not under its jurisdiction will

remain parks in the future as well, therefore they cannot be counted as available green areas. Some

of the parks that are considered Usable in Figure 3 and 5 are for example owned by Chalmers and

can therefore not be counted by the municipality in their planning processes. Others are preschool

yards, which are only available to the public when the school is closed, and some are courtyards,

owned by the property owner. So, from the municipality's point of view, the usable amount of

greenery on Lindholmen is even less. The fact that there are not any easily accessible green areas

in the nearby area increases the need for green space on Lindholmen even more.

5.1 Detailed Development Plans

5.1.1 Karlavagnsplatsen

The Karlavagnsplatsen detailed development plan was adopted in 2017. It is overall extensive and

takes a lot of aspects into consideration in its many appurtenant investigations such as

environmental technical soil investigation, green area analysis and climate adaptation. There is a

good conformity with the vision at first sight, though new constructions seem to be prioritised

more frequently, when compared to developing parks or greenery. The placement of trees is

designated in the development plan, but neither green facades nor low greenery in the street are

specifically mentioned, which is the most visible on the vision pictures of Karlastaden

(Karlastaden, n.d.a.). A partial de-prioritisation of greenery is for example implied by the quote

"...urban design with elements of trees, greenery and opportunity for play and experience", where

the greenery does not seem to have a too important role.

As also implied by the CBO, it is likely that Karlastaden will not be perceived as green as it appears

in the future vision for the area. It relies on the area close to Hamnbanan to fulfil the need for green

space. That is an easy solution, with the problem being the risks one is putting themselves into by

spending their time there. Both the CBO and the P&N states that the area cannot be used as a park,

considering the risks, but the area is still going to be prepared to be used for park-like activities to

some extent. It seems like green areas has such a low priority that it can only be placed on the

ground where they cannot build revenue-bringing construction.

The choice of localisation for preschools and enough green space to accommodate them appears a

bit desperate. The testing of having the preschools on the roofs without knowing it will work,

26

seemingly without a backup-plan, is risky. Especially since the investigation regarding social

impacts concluded that it will be harder to achieve enough greenery it does not seem like an

assuring plan. Additionally, one could question if the area next to Hamnbanan really is a suitable

place for compensating for the preschools small playground. If an accident on Hamnbanan was to

occur, then the smaller children, the most vulnerable with the least crisis management ability are

likely to be the ones most exposed to the danger. There are no other options for accessing enough

greenery due to the high rate of exploitation. The P&N mentioned in the interview that “In

Karlastaden, buildings have been prioritised above all“ (see section 4.2.3), and considering that

the only space they have set available for greenery is an area with an explosion risk, that statement

could be seen as confirmed.

5.1.2 Götaverksgatan

The Götaverksgatan detailed development plan was adopted in 2013. However, the RiverCity

vision, adopted in 2012, is not mentioned at all in the document and there are no direct connections

to it. Though, in the plan the meeting and embracing of the water is emphasised through measures

to make it more accessible in the planned quayside passage, which is in line with the RiverCity

vision. A continuous focus on achieving a green city is however lacking and the planned park is

not described at all as thoroughly as the quayside. The park is expected to fill several purposes;

extra outdoor space for the nearby preschool, taking care of stormwater and being a passage for

walking- and bike lanes. Due to that, the use is expected to be great, and so is the wear and tear.

The fact that the park is also planned to take care of stormwater will likely decrease the useful

surface area and thereby further increase the wear and tear. This co-utilisation of the park was

criticised by both the CBO and the P&N during the interviews. The P&N especially pointed out

the problems with using an area both for e.g. playgrounds and stormwater management.

Considering the lack of other areas for stormwater management, the park at Götaverksgatan might

have to handle large amounts of water, leading to it being in the risk of becoming a very wet and

muddy park area. That the courtyards are expected to be green areas with trees and act as a

complement to the overloaded park is an advantage for the plan, but is it enough? Courtyards and

potential green roofs are not publicly available in the same way as the park. Especially since such

a large part of people moving around on Lindholmen are visiting or working there, a large

proportion are not expected to have access to these areas with a more private character.

Nearby green areas are too entrusted to satisfy the need of green space within the detailed

development plan area. For example, the fact that Ramberget can be seen from the Götaverksgatan

area is mentioned as an opportunity for play and recreation, although a view hardly increases the

possibility for play and recreation within the area. The RiverCity’s clear goal of being "a green

city at the water's edge" can hardly be considered being achieved since greenery is not mentioned

more than necessary. Instead of contributing to a green city by the water, Götaverksgatan risks

being only by the water.

27

5.2 Guidelines

Today, Lindholmen does not meet the Park requirements set by Gothenburg City (see section

4.2.2). When it comes to public parks of at least 0.2 ha within 300 m of residences, so called Park

near residences, only the area close to Slottsberget has access to parks which meet the

requirements. These can be found in Figure 3 and Appendix C. Considering that the national

guidelines of Boverket have even stricter recommendations; one park within 50 m from the

residence and another within 200 m, makes the situation on Lindholmen feel even less acceptable.

Lindholmen also lacks a district park in the area, as stated in the interview with P&N (see 4.2.2).

The planned green space near Hamnbanan was at first intended to be the district park on

Lindholmen, but due to the explosive risk from the railway, it was not suitable. Though, even if

the risk did not exist, the green area would still not fill the size requirement, since the minimum

for a district park is 2 ha and the green area will be approximately 1.2 ha.

When it comes to green area per resident, the P&N is experimenting with the goal of 6 m2 on

Lindholmen. According to another study conducted in the area (Gothenburg City, 2017A) there is

currently only 2.2 m2 park space per resident on Lindholmen. Though this calculation only include

parks which follows the requirements set by the municipality (public and municipally-owned park

over 0.2 ha). As stated in section 4.3.1, if all green areas deemed Usable in this study, which can

be both private and smaller areas than 0.3 ha, was included in the calculation the distribution would

be 6.4 m2 per resident. When adding the future planned green area deemed Usable, near

Götaverksgatan, while also considering the future population increase, the value will go down to

4 m2. Meaning that even with the addition of a park it is still not enough to match the increasing

population and the densification of Lindholmen. When only counting green areas following the

requirements set by the municipality, while considering the future population increase, then the

value would be even less; 1.6 m2 per resident. That is a very low value which do not comply with

the goal of a green and sustainable city. Even if the big new green area near Hamnbanan was

included, the value would still only be 3.3 m2 per resident.

5.3 Distribution of Green Space

As can be seen in section 4.3.1, the analysis stems from GIS analyses, and shows that in the future

the amount of green area per person has reduced, both when counting all green areas, as well as

only the areas deemed Usable, despite the latter actually increasing in surface area (see Figure 3-

6). This is in part due to the projected increase in population Lindholmen will go through in the

coming years (see section 3.3.1). Given this population increase (Göteborgs Stad, 2017A), the

future distribution of green spaces will not be enough. For the year 2021, the prognosis for the

future population of Lindholmen is approximately 6 840 people, up from the current 3 542. If the

goal is to supply each individual with at least 6 m2, then the upper limit Lindholmen can provide

for is 4 600 people. If the population increase prognosis is upheld, then Lindholmen needs to

increase its Usable greenery up to 41 052 m2, up from 27 516 m2.

28

In a similar vein, as the GFt goes down in the future is partly due to a decrease in green space as

well as an increase in the area of buildings, despite an increase in number of trees. As is seen in

Figure 2, the buildings do not contribute at all in the calculations for GFt. Additionally, the GFt

may not be suited to evaluate an area of this size, and may be better suited to conduct in sections

of a grid, or an area by area basis. Furthermore, the water is not included in the calculations

conducted, but are a valid thing to include in the calculations (Göteborgs Stad, 2017B).

Furthermore, the GFt as a compensation measure has its faults; for example, a park or open green

space can in theory be replaced by a number of trees; which while offering the same GFt, does

miss out on other values intrinsic to a park or green space.

Following this, the tree density stills leaves a large surface not covered by any trees, even in the

future. Furthermore, as can be seen in Appendix C, Lindholmen is not very well covered by parks

near residences, green spaces above 0.2 ha. When removing the requirement of 0.2 ha, all of

Lindholmen has less than 300 m to a green area; though, these areas lack the capacity to hold

enough people.

5.4 Sustainable Development and Requirements

5.4.1 Sustainable Development as Considered by the Municipality

In the Green Strategy for a Dense and Green City, the city of Gothenburg claims to aim for

becoming a green, dense and sustainable city. In the document there are two goals, one social and

one ecological, and through the progress with these, the city is claiming to contribute to an an

economically sustainable city as well (Göteborgs stad, 2014A). Having the social and ecological

sustainability as the outset and the economy as a subset to them agrees with the nested view on

sustainability (as in Giddings et al, 2002, see section 2.2.1). However, this does not seem to be

how it works in reality. According to the interview results, the economy seems to be prioritised

before the social and ecological aspects in many cases (see section 4.2.1). The CBO mentions that

the economy tends to be of greater importance the further building project have progressed, leading

to the amount of park areas being reduced. The P&N claims that the Green strategy is supposed to

have the same status as other planning strategies, but that it does not. Considering the planned

future greenery, which is visualised in figure 5, it is clear that this is the case, that the greenery has

not been prioritised. The amount of green space per inhabitant has decreased even more in the

future visualisation, in comparison with the current amount. This is not in line with their thoughts

on sustainability, where a better economic sustainability is supposed to come as a result from

working with ecological and social sustainability.

5.4.2 Sustainable Development Goals

The lack of current and planned greenery on Lindholmen is not contributing to the fulfilment of

the SDG:s. To be able to combat problems such as mental health issues, green areas are an

important element to consider, even in a smaller area such as Lindholmen. When preparing for the

29

emerging climate change in such exposed areas as Lindholmens, with higher water levels and more

troublesome weather awaiting, it is important for the city of Gothenburg to take as much advantage

as possible from ecosystem services. Ineffectiveness for example in taking care of stormwater will

not be an advantageous property for the coastal area. Planning for climate change in an early stage

sets the standard for future development projects and can help prevent future damages. In a dense

city environment, space must be set aside for areas that maintain both mental and physical health,

as well as environmental functions.

5.4.3 Relation to Requirements

One of the local goals for Gothenburg is that water and greenery should be accessible to everyone.

With the park near Hamnbanan being in the risk zone for explosion, the distance and steepness to

Ramberget and the lack of other green spaces one could claim that this will not be the case on

Lindholmen. Considering the current plans for the area, the park on Götaverksgatan will be the

most accessible park. If the entire of Lindholmen would have to use that one park, it would

definitely be a victim of overuse.

The overall focus on sustainable development that is pervading the comprehensive plan for

Gothenburg and the Green strategy, and that is further emphasised in the RiverCity vision and the

Karlastaden website, suddenly seems to go missing in the detailed development plans that have

been looked into in this study. The comprehensive plans’ view of greenery as a resource available

to everyone appears on the detailed level to have turned into an unwanted requirement that is put

as little effort as possible into.

It is advantageous that there is such a high ambition and a lot of work going on within the city

regarding urban greenery, considering both the new tools for implementing urban greenery and

the strategy for nature care. These will be important instruments for ensuring the access to greenery

for citizens in future planning areas. Though, for Lindholmen they do not seem to have affected

the planning process noticeable. The implemented compensation measures were not considered

necessary for either of the detailed development plans which confirms that the measures are not

enough. Specifically, in cases as Lindholmen, which has little greenery to begin with, the

compensation tool misses its point of contributing to a green city.

Both the documents mentioned above, as well as the law, deem greenery and ecosystem services

important. The Swedish Environmental Code (1998:808) states in chapter 3, 6 § that; ”The need

for green areas in urban areas and nearby urban areas should be taken into account in

particular.” Thus, the role of greenery and its ecosystem services needs to be put in the center, as

the importance of human well-being and biological diversity are not something which can be

downplayed in the face of economic growth, as it is dependent on those.

In the detailed development plans, the regulations regarding compensation measures and closeness

to parks have been utilised and almost reached. Going by Appendix C, most of Lindholmen will

in the future have green areas in close proximity to residences. Though, problems arise with the

30

increased population density when a large number of people will have to share a small green area

close to their residence. This means that the green areas will likely get overused due to the small

amount of greenery person. The regulation suggested by the P&N, a set area of green space per

person living in the area, is thus deemed important. Though, a problem with this regulation is that

it does not include the people who only visit Lindholmen in the calculations of green space,

resulting in an overall lack of green space for all. Optimally, the regulation would take into account

both the residents as well as an estimated amount of visitors.

5.5 Group Work

This study has been conducted in a group setting. In general, group work does offer its pros and

cons. The basis of group work is that work tasks can be delegated among members. While this

delegation of tasks does reduce the workload for each individual member, equal commitment is

expected as to finish their tasks, and to do so in close communication with the others. If done

correctly, group work has the potential to elevate works above what individual authors can create,

at the risk of creating a work filled with individual parts, rather than the sections making up parts

of a whole.

Graduating from being a group to a team is a process which develops through time. During the

initial stages of group work, the group is heavily dependent upon a leader figure to advance. In

this case, no clear leader figure stepped forward, the role was shouldered by part of the group.

While this may have resulted in an initial lack of structure, it did transform into a dynamic

delegation of tasks, based upon each member’s expertise.

31

6. Conclusions

Today, Lindholmen does not live up to the current requirements on greenery near residences set

by the city of Gothenburg. The area is currently undergoing major developments with the

RiverCity vision to create a green and sustainable city. There are a few new green areas included

in the detailed development plans, the two largest being a green area near Karlastaden and a park

near Götaverksgatan. Although these green areas will contribute to an increased amount of usable

public green space on Lindholmen, the total amount of green area will decrease due to the high

level of construction in the area.

Even though the importance of greenery is well known among responsible stakeholders, it

obviously has been de-prioritised in favour of economic development on Lindholmen. This de-

prioritisation stresses the need for new guidelines regarding greenery, for instance in the form of

a minimum amount of green area per resident. Adding to that, the expected increase in population

and the lack of current and planned green areas will decrease the amount of green space per

resident considerably. Considering the number of people visiting from outside of Lindholmen, the

guideline should preferably also take visitors into account.

In the detailed development plans, the greenery has not been prioritised and Lindholmen will not

by any means be as green as the vision wishes. Since greenery is a prerequisite for fighting effects

of climate change and creating a sustainable city, this is nothing that can be downplayed.

32

References

Abraham, A., Sommehalder, K. & Abel, T. (2010) Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on

the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. International Journal of Public health.

55:1. 59-69.

Andersson-Sköld, Y., Thorsson, S., Rayner, D., Lindberg, F., Janhäll, S., Jonsson, A., …

Granberg, M. (2015). An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and adaptation

alternatives in urban areas. Climate Risk Management, 7, 31–50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.01.003

Azevedo J.A., Chapman L., Muller C.L. 2016. Quantifying the Daytime and Night-Time Urban

Heat Island in Birmingham, UK: A Comparison of Satellite Derived Land Surface Temperature

and High Resolution Air Temperature Observations. School of Geography, Earth and

Environmental Science, University of Birmingham BT15 2 TT, UK.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Bolund, & Hunhammar. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics,

29(2), 293-301.

Boverket (2007) Bostadsnära natur - inspiration & vägledning. Karlskrona: Boverket

https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2007/bostadsnara_natur.pdf

Boverket (2017) Klimatanpassning http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-

sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in

psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Chiesura, A. (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban

planning. 68:1. 129-138.

Chiu, R.L.H. (2003) Social Sustainability, sustainable development and housing development. t.

In: FORREST, R. & LEE, J. (eds.) Housing and Social Change. London: Routledge.

Dinnie, E., Brown, K. & Morris, S. (2013) Community, cooperation and conflict: Negotiating the

social well-being benefits of urban greenspace experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning.

111. 1-9.criti

European Union. (2010). Making our cities attractive and sustainable. Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union.

https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2007/bostadsnara_natur.pdfhttp://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/sa-planeras-sverige/halsa-och-klimat-i-samhallsplaneringen/klimatanpassning/

33

Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G. (2002) Envi