Changes of multifunctionality in the past twenty years

Fig 5.3. 9 The Greenbelt Leisure Maps, in 1992 the first version (Left) and in 2011 the latest version (right), reproduced by author based on original files from Frankfurt Institute of Urban History.

Fig 5.3. 10 The land use changes, land use status 2011(1992), draw by author based on Greenbelt Leisure Map 2011 and 1992.

Land convert from small gardens to agricultural use has been the most common type of land use change. A typical location of such changes lies in the Lohrberg (Fig 5.3.11-a), which has been a favorable location for the view of the whole city because these area has a generally higher altitude with the highest point of 212 m. The open spaces in the north-east of the Seckbach district used to be vast stretches of small gardens arranged along the contour lines, with the Lohrpark in the center and top of the small hill. In the map of 2011, most of the small gardens become large scale agricultural area, left only two small patches in the down hills. In the mean time, the “Main Appel Haus” opened for the recreational picking of apples and fruits, as well as for educational purpose to families and schools. The non-vehicle connections for pedestrian and bikers also improved due to the map.

Another obvious change is the grassland, especially in the Schwanheimer Dune (Fig 5.3.11-b). In 1992, only the center of this particular landscape is included in the National Reservation Area (NSG).

In 2011 map, the protected area as FFH has increased more than three times to include a large pond inside the area. The whole place, whose vast area were agricultural land before, is now fenced for better protection, but it remained open to the public through a special wooden route in order to keep the historical dune and pine forest intact. Small gardens and parking lot also appeared near the location and provide better facilities for the area. Other converting into grassland are generally much smaller, some are the protective green lawn under the huge road intersections.

In Bonames, the north-west park along the river Nidda, there is a small changed grassland of about 5.6 ha (Fig 5.3.11-c). It was the old airfield of American army but was long abandoned in the 1990s, so was generally counted as agricultural land with its surrounding farm land in the 1992 map.

After the reconstruction project stared in 2004, the whole area has become a public space with the return of vegetation and small animals. It was not quite specific to include the area as grassland, since its characteristics have attracted massive visitors and functions even more than normal parks.

A critical but easily ignored change of grassland could be found in the north river bend of Main in Fechenheimer (Fig 5.3.11-d). Due to the large curve of the river flow around the area, this place has a unique view but also endangered with flood. Basically the whole area was agricultural land according to the 1992 map, with only a small strip of sport area in the west. In the 2011 map, the area along the water course became grassland with a width varied from 30 m to 170 m. According to the new plan, this area was furtherly redesigned to suit the flooding scenario and provide better landscape view for the historical route along the river.

Other land use changes are even more scattered and less obvious than these ones, however, all these gradual incremental changes have the potential to alter the micro environment step by step so as to have influences for the whole area in the long run. Nevertheless, considering the time span of 20 years, these changes on land use, which in total counted for less than 8% of the Greenbelt, seems to be too small. Especially some changes like the ones between agriculture and small gardens, are not fundamental turns. Evaluated from their contributions on the ES, both these two types have higher provisioning services, limited regulating and habitat functions and don’t perform well in cultural

services since such areas are exclusive to the non-members. In a word, the changes of land use based on the 1992 and 2011 leisure maps have some shining points but in general quite limited.

Fig 5.3. 11 The typical changing spots in Greenbelt, by author.

5.3.3.3 Changes in the distribution of ES

Besides the tangible changes on land use types, the no-material changes on policy and planning also have considerable influences on the usage and maintenance of a certain space. Comparing on the new-added policies and measurements in Greenbelt from the four categories of ES, the most affected aspect is the cultural services, while the intended efforts on regulating services seems to be the least.

The Greenbelt Plan and implementation has limited power on the provisioning of food and ornamental resources due to the private land ownership. However, a critical act is taken for the fresh water provision, that is the definition of Groundwater Protected Area in urban forest which went in operation since Nov. 17^th 1997. According to the guideline of protection, many actions like the overuse of fertilizer is prohibited in the area and some precautions are specially taken to prevent any potential damage, for example, the zone I area is normally fenced and off limits to visitors.

The FFH and the Protection Area for birds (Vogelschutzgebiet) are similar protection and definition approach taken after the 1991 Greenbelt Plan. These areas contain species and habitat types that are particularly vulnerable, for which special protection measurements need to be taken. The FFH areas are compiled primarily under the criterion of protections for the species and habitats follow the Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG). Moreover, all the FFH areas are included in the project

“Natura 2000”, which is a European network of coherent protected areas. There are in total 10 such areas in Frankfurt, and seven of them site inside the Greenbelt (Fig 5.3.12). These areas are rounded by fence or wall in order to keep human intervention completely out during certain time period in the year, and some also in the night.

Fig 5.3. 12 The FFH areas in Frankfurt and within Greenbelt, re-edit by author based on document from Stadt Frankfut am Main.

Much more works were done through the Greenbelt project in the shaping of this huge open space, from some distant urban outskirt into a continuous urban green space for public activities. The building of a green image full of possibilities has been a main approach. For instance, on urban level, about 60 destinations were defined and marked on the Greenbelt Leisure Map by the project group to emphasis potential sites of aesthetic appreciation and recreation for citizens (Fig 5.3.13). Two full round routes for pedestrian and cyclists are high lightened and partially reconstructed for recreational purpose. The Educational Program “Discover, research and learn in Greenbelt” has push forward this effort to a new level. Families and small children, who are the future users of Greenbelt, are presented by experts with the beauty of nature and the landscapes of cultural and historical meanings. The intangible value of Greenbelt is thus being greatly spread and comprehended, which is not possible with the beautiful scenery alone. Furthermore, numerous signs, instructions and benches with Greenbelt logo have been added into the area along the years to enhance the integrality of Greenbelt. Comparing the ways of drawing the Greenbelt Leisure Map in 1992 and 2011 (Fig 5.3.9), the clear message of Greenbelt as a whole is much better delivered in the latter map.

Despite the limitation of the data being compared, the changes of Greenbelt in its two decades of development could be preliminarily captured. Changes on the land use and land cover are scattering mainly in the west and east part of Greenbelt. They are small in scale and lack of traceable connections, however, some of the small changes are critical for the wellbeing of its located area. Changes on the non-material aspects of the Greenbelt centered in cultural services and aims at reshaping the image of Greenbelt as a whole, on the contrary, legal protections on the natural resources of Greenbelt are relatively loose and lack of joint efforts with the cultural aspects. In general, the physical and non-material changes in Greenbelt during these 20 years are small, fragmented and isolated with each other, with the only exception of the intangible ones. But the latter aspects are hard to measure and could also be difficult to describe without subjective judgments.

Fig.5.3. 1 The destinations of Greenbelt, from Umweltamt Frankfurt.