Search results

In the past century, European agriculture has undergone profound changes. Through technical advances and structural changes, productivity is snowballing while farmland ecosystems are increasingly affected. These changes are taking place not only at the field scale through increased inputs and outputs, but also at the landscape scale through landscape simplification, with ecological effects being attributable to changes at both scales. While the decline of many farmland organisms in response to agricultural intensification is the most apparent effect, many of the biological functions provided by the systems biodiversity (so called ecosystem services such as pollination, nutrient cycling etc.) are also threatened, which could have great economical implications. To counter negative effects of agricultural intensification, EU Member States are using agri-environmental schemes (AESs) to incite farmers to use environmentally friendly practices. However, the effects of these schemes have been questioned both on the uncertain effects on biodiversity and on farmers' reluctance to participate. Many studies have tried to relate AES participation to characteristics of schemes, or demographics of farms and farmers including attitudes. Farmers seem to prefer schemes with flexible contract terms that only infer small changes in farm management. However, linking AES participation to farm characteristics is problematic, and studies often reach opposing results. Regarding ecological effects, lack of clearly stated objectives and the low scientific quality of the CMEF evaluations cloud the assessment of measures. Further, the effects of AESs have been found to vary with landscape composition (cleared/complex) and between taxa. With a deeper understanding of how AES effects interact with the landscape and how farmers relate to conservation initiatives, there are opportunities to improve scheme design. Collection of baseline data, evidence‐based measures and result-­based payments are examples of ways to advance AESs. To increase farmer engagement in AESs, participatory approaches play an important part in bridging the attitudinal gap between conservationists, legislation and farmers.

The aim of this thesis paper is to integrate three important thematic aspects i.e., improve qualities in the urban ecological situation, provide ideas for handling stormwater flooding and ideas to improve socio-economic aspects for inhabitants. The integration of ideas is illustrated in a masterplan program-sketch in three phases. Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh. Dhaka is a densely populated fast developing city. The chronological changes of the natural setting due to rapid growth of urbanization in Dhaka city creates an imbalance with nature and disrupts urban ecology. The green and blue structures are replaced with built areas and hard surfaces. The situation for urban ecology in the city of Dhaka affects storm water flooding and social wellbeing. The methods used for background knowledge to this proposal are literature reviews, document searches, interviews, GIS analysis and a study of role models from different countries and contexts where a variety of solutions, proposals and functions inspired me in my own sketching. The methods and the background for this thesis were used to formulate guidelines to support the overall program-sketch for the three phases in a masterplan. The first phase program-sketch includes redesigning the informal settlements in Karail into better living conditions for the dwellers according to Patrick Geddes theories by keeping the overall road- and block structure and provide new shelter, job opportunities and adding recreational values to the area. The second phase concentrated on re-establishing of water streams in a green park according to the philosophy of Fredrick Law Olmsted, and in the third phase the former airport Tejgaon to become a large green area for social meetings, recreation activities for the Dhaka city inhabitants and provide job opportunities for the informal dwellers. The discussion on strengths, limitations, challenges, and further development ends with a conclusion that it is of great importance to work integrated with the three thematic aspects urban ecology, storm water flooding and social wellbeing on an overall level and with understanding of the issues among both specialists, politicians, and inhabitants to be able to implement necessary change towards sustainability.