Page - 431 - in Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change

431 ‘Green Infrastructure Frameworks’ and ‘Green Infrastructure Strategies’ (for a com- prehensive overview on the political and neo-liberal background of this develop- ment see Hehn 2016). Green Infrastructure (GI) is “a network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environ- mental and quality of life benefits for local communities” (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012, p.  52). The respective definitions of GI can differ and include different types of ‘green’ (e.g. even light railway lines) or aquatic features such as rivers, canals and ponds (ibid.). GI strategies are prepared at a local level to establish, maintain and enhance a municipality’s GI, often not only to achieve ecological aims but also economic and social benefits (e.g. economic growth, property values, labor productivity, social cohesion, or quality of place) (Manchester City Council 2015). Many GI-strategies are explicitly aimed  – amongst other things  – at improving the health and well-being of residents. To some extent, aims or measures stated in GI strategies are incorporated into the Local Plans and/or Core Strategies and thereby influence official, legally binding plans. In the following sections we concentrate on Local Plans/Core Strategies and GI strategies, particu- larly regarding possible differences in how they tackle health issues. 19.3.3 Landscape Planning and  Health in  Germany As there is a certain ‘traditional’ (even if criticised and contested) emphasis on bio- diversity in landscape plans in Germany, human health has never been an important topic there. Although human health is mentioned in §1 BNatSchG as one reason for protecting nature, it doesn’t have the status of a ‘natural asset,’ which landscape planning is obliged to deal with. Consequently, considering health issues is a volun- tary task, unless landscape plans are subject to a SEA, as is the case in some federal states. In such a case, potential health impacts of the landscape plan have to be assessed and valued, but still no kind of ‘pro-active planning for health,’ especially regarding health promotion, is required. Furthermore, differentiated knowledge about health effects of biodiversity, landscape and green spaces is often lacking amongst conservationists and landscape planners, at least if it reaches beyond the general notion that ‘a good environmental condition is the basis of human life.’ At the same time, health authorities are seldom involved in planning decisions. Consequently, very few landscape plans explicitly and pro-actively refer to human health (Rittel et  al. 2016). Where this is done, it happens in the context of experienc- ing nature, urban green spaces and recreation, as in the local landscape plan of the city of Hohen Neuendorf (Stadt Hohen Neuendorf 2014) as an example. Nonetheless there are many links to health issues in landscape planning in gen- eral, but also in the respective single planning documents. Human health is often addressed implicitly, e.g. when dealing with ‘recreation,’ but also when dealing with other issues, such as air purification, groundwater protection, soil conservation, climate change, etc. (see examples in Sect. 19.2 and more comprehensively in Sect. 19.4). But these connections  – and therefore the relevance of conserving and 19 Linking Landscape Planning and  Health