Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

The German way to greenways and habitat networks

Christina von Haaren , Michael Reich1
Institute for Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation, University of Hannover, Herrenhauser Str. 2, 30419 Hannover, Germany
Available online 8 December 2004

Abstract
A prospective strategy is necessary to mitigate the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation in Germany. The traditional
concept of protecting isolated remnants of endangered habitats as nature reserves could not stop the continuing decline of
endangered species and the regional losses in biodiversity sufficiently. During the last century, different approaches to protect
open space, species, and habitats have been developed. Based on a literature review, an analysis of the legal framework and a
representative case study, this paper tries to characterise the development of greenways and habitat networks in Germany and to
discuss the general possibilities and limitations in an European context. In Germany, greenways were first established to prevent
urban sprawl, to separate settlements, to provide recreational opportunities and to improve air quality in industrialised urban
areas. The increased relevance of nature conservation has led to the development of new types of habitat networks in addition
to the greenway concept since 1980. Species-oriented habitat networks focus on the specific requirements of target species,
while multifunctional habitat networks try to address many landscape functions when reconnecting the remnant habitats. The
Kronsberg Project is an example of a local, multifunctional habitat network. It illustrates some of the implementation difficulties
resulting from conflicting interests of the various user groups. In addition, the need became obvious to plan multifunctional
networks which allow for spatial separation of conflicting site related objectives. The legal framework for habitat networks in
Germany is, in principle, a sound legislation which requires that habitat networks cover a minimum of 10% of the total land area
of the German states. The conceptualisation of the networks must not be restricted to the boundaries of the individual German
states because the networks should have an interstate character and also contribute to the European network of Natura 2000.
However, this national and European network cannot be presently implemented by the German national authorities. Instead,
the framework legislation must be passed as nature conservation laws at the state level, while concrete implementation takes
place at the regional and local levels. There the implementation is hampered primarily by property ownership considerations or
conflicting interests of landowners. This situation hinders the implementation of national and European objectives for habitat
networks. In order to create a forward looking network strategy for Germany, more authority should be transferred to the national
level. In addition, a stronger link between the scientific and conceptual basis of habitat networks is needed. Prioritising landscape
functions and the selection of target species require better coordination. Economic incentives could be used to reduce the conflicts
with landowners. Hopefully, a change in the EU-agricultural policy will facilitate this development.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multifunctional greenway networks; Target species; Open space protection; Multi-regional environmental planning

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 511 762 2652; fax: +49 511 762 3791.
E-mail addresses: haaren@land.uni-hannover.de (C. von Haaren), reich@land.uni-hannover.de (M. Reich).
Tel.: +49 511 762 4442.

0169-2046/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

1. Introduction
With 230 inhabitants/km2 Germany, together with
Belgium, The Netherlands and the UK, belongs to the
countries with the highest population density in the
European Union (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 2002).
Industrial areas, residential areas and transportation
networks cover more than 12% of the German landscape (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2004). In 2003, settlements and transportation networks expanded at a rate
of approximately 105 ha/day (Statistisches Bundesamt,
2003). More than 624,000 km of roads (Bundesamt
fur Naturschutz, 1999), 44,300 km of railroad tracks
and 7500 km of waterways crisscross the German landscape (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2004). Especially, the
road network plays a major role in fragmenting natural and semi-natural habitats. The average roadway
density ranges from 0.70 km/km2 in western Germany
to 0.49 km/km2 in eastern Germany (Senger, 2000).
During the last decades, there has been a major decline in large areas of contiguous land (>100 km2 ) that
are not dissected by busy roads (>1000 cars/day). Today, only 22% of the total area of Germany belongs
to this category (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 2002).
This negative trend continues: the Federal Transport Programme plans an increase in roadway density (both highways and country roads) of 15% by
2012 (Bundesministerium fur Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, 2003).
Habitat loss caused by expanding settlements and
transportation networks is one of the major reasons
for the increased number of endangered species in
Germany today (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 1999).
The remnant habitats are not only fragmented and
isolated, but they also suffer from increased boundary
effects, which are especially evident in small island
habitats. Today, many animal and plant populations are
too small and too isolated to survive. Consequently,
the risk of extinction of local populations is increasing
and the colonisation and recolonisation processes are
becoming more restricted. In our traditional cultural
landscapes, as in natural landscapes, the various habitat
types display a characteristic spatial and functional
complexity which is crucial for many species (Settele
et al., 1996). The segregation effects of intensive
farming and forest management in areas surrounding
these ecological networks intensifies the fragmentation.

If the traditional concept of protecting small and

isolated remnants of endangered habitats as nature
reserves is followed, only approximately 3040% of
our species can be protected by nature conservation
(Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 2003). Therefore, future
biodiversity conservation requires a prospective strategy, especially for the mitigation of impacts which
cause habitat fragmentation. Conservation and development of habitat networks play a crucial role in this
strategy. Although habitat networks have been discussed in German nature conservation for 25 years,
scientific and implementation deficits still exist. Especially, the transfer of scientific findings to applied planning and the development of hierarchical concepts for
different planning scales need to be addressed. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to characterise the
German approach to greenway and habitat network development by:

reviewing the history of the concept;

analysing the present goals and approaches;
presenting the legal framework;
analysing the instruments for implementation;
discussing the general possibilities and limitations of
German nature conservation in an European context.

The findings of this paper are based on a review

of current literature, an analysis of the legal framework
and an examination of the current application of habitat
network concepts.

2. The history of greenways and habitat

networks in Germany
German greenway and habitat network practices are
based on the two fundamental concepts of:
multifunctional greenways (Grunzuge) which are
developed by spatial and landscape planning;
habitat networks (Biotopverbund) which are developed by nature conservation.
2.1. Greenways
The tradition of greenways (Grunzuge) in Germany goes back to the beginning of the 20th century
when Schmidt (1912, cited in Runge, 1990, p. 9)
published his dissertation about spatial planning in the

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Ruhr Region. Seeing the problems of the industrialised

urban areas, he recognised the need for a network of
green spaces that would separate the settlements, serve
as recreational areas and improve air quality. Through
his pioneering work, Schmidt became the father of
organised spatial planning in Germany. Today, the
term Grunzuge (multifunctional greenways) is used
as an official planning category (of town and country
planning) which is mainly used at the regional level.
The landscape of greenways offers ecological, social
and psychological benefits, goods and services for
regeneration and compensation of the ecological problems in areas of dynamic urbanisation or industrialised
and densely populated areas. Greenways usually link
settled areas to the open landscape, which promotes
recreation, air regeneration and animal and plant migration. Land uses that impact the beneficial ecological
and social functions of the greenways are forbidden.
Especially, expanding residential areas present a threat
to greenways that often act as Grunzasuren (green
divides) between municipalities, preventing them
from growing together like the urban separators
in US growth management plans (Ryder, 1995).
This separation is important in order to protect local
landscape amenities and the city identity (Ministerium
fur Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Wurttemberg, 2003).
Ultimately, greenways form a landscape network
that provides functions for: habitat and species
conservation, local or regional climate, recreation,
agriculture and forestry. The Stuttgart Region is an
example of this concept. In this densely populated area,
9800 ha have been designated as regional greenways
(Fig. 1).
Usually, suitable areas for greenways are identified in the regional landscape plan (Landschaftsrahmenplan). After an evaluation and weighting process, which takes other existing or planned land uses
into account, the designated greenway is integrated
into the regional plan. Thus, its preservation and development becomes a mandatory objective for local
authorities and other administrative bodies. Greenways are often coordinated with other planning features and purposes. For example, large cities often
integrate greenway concepts and the development
of a green belt, thus forming a green structure in
and around the city that allows movement in different directions. In post-industrial landscapes, greenways are used to redefine the whole landscape char-

acter. This concept is demonstrated not only in the

outstanding IBA-Emscher Park in the Ruhr Region
(Dettmar and Ganser, 1999), but also in the nature
conservation program of the Aachener Revier (Stadt
Baesweiler, 2003). The nature conservation program
attempts to develop the natural ecosystem function
of the Aachen Region and to promote the development of a habitat network and to link communities
along the greenways to encourage recreational use.
The redevelopment concept takes into account that the
landscape is dominated by the aftermath of mining
and focuses on an appropriate visual quality for the
area (Stadt Baesweiler, 2003). Some regional greenways are coordinated with important bird habitats (e.g.
Planungsregion Oberlausitz-Niederschlesien, 2002), a
concept that underlines the multifunctional character
of regional greenways and emphasizes the close connection to habitat networks.
2.2. Habitat networks
During the last decades, nature conservation in
Germany, as in many other European countries (see
Jongman and Smith, 2000), shifted from single site
protection towards ecological networks. Most probably MacArthur and Wilsons (1967) theory of island biogeography inspired this shift. Other ecologists
tried to apply this concept to the cultural landscapes
in Germany. For example, Mader (1980, 1981) studied the effects of roadways on the mobility and dispersal pattern of small mammals and ground beetles.
Heydemann (1980) analysed the reasons for the increase of endangered species with respect to habitat
fragmentation and the isolation of local populations. He
recognised the need for improved connectivity between
natural and semi-natural habitats in intensively used
and managed landscapes. Drachenfels (1983) compiled
fauna based criteria to develop habitat networks, and
Bielefeld (1984) tried to develop a habitat network concept for calcareous grasslands in Rhineland-Palatine. In
early habitat network concepts, the objective of habitat
corridors and stepping stones was generally to maintain
genetic connectivity between local populations (Kaule,
1986).
Hovestadt et al. (1991) and other scientists introduced the concept of minimum viable populations
(Diamond, 1978; Shaffer, 1981) to nature conservation
in Germany. This concept exposed the need for more

10

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Fig. 1. Map of the network of regional greenways and green divides for part of the Stuttgart Region (Verband Region Stuttgart, 1998).

ecological background information in order to understand how to protect species and populations. Considerations such as minimum population size, effects of
inbreeding and genetic drift, extinction risk or dispersal strategies became increasingly important in applied
ecological research (e.g. Settele et al., 1996). In Germany, habitat network plans first attempted to counteract fragmentation by creating habitat corridors and
stepping stones to prevent local extinction. The natural
dynamics of extinction and recolonisation were disregarded in these plans until the metapopulation concept
(e.g. Hanski, 1982; Hanski and Gilpin, 1997) shed a
new light on these considerations (Reich and Grimm,
1996; Settele, 1998).

Today, there exists an immense number of papers addressing habitat networks in Germany. Our analysis of
the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation database
(www.bfn.de), carried out in September 2003, found
427 scientific papers dealing with general or specific
aspects of habitat networks in Germany. The earliest
papers were published at the beginning of the 1980s,
but the majority of papers (61%) had been published
between 1995 and 2003. A majority of 258 papers addressed actual planning situations, predominantly on
the local level (community and county) (66%), followed by the regional (19%) and state (11%) levels. National and international aspects of the habitat networks
played a minor role (4%) in the literature and were usu-

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

ally related to Natura 2000 and the Habitats Directive

of the EU. The remaining papers focused on specific
ecological, conceptual or legal aspects, or discussed
public relations work and environmental education related to the implementation of habitat networks. This
quantitative analysis already illustrates the minor role
of the supra regional planning level in habitat network
conceptualisation in Germany. The following chapters
give a more detailed interpretation of this database focussing on the goals and approaches, the legislation
about habitat networks and its implementation.
3. Current goals and approaches of habitat
networks in Germany
3.1. Goals
To guarantee the survival of a significant number of our native species, it is essential to establish a suitable environment outside the nature reserves, especially in areas of intensive farming and
forestry. Suitable conditions for the migration or the
dispersal of species must also be secured. Therefore, the following goals of a habitat network concept can be identified based on: the aims and principles set up in the Federal Nature Conservation Act
(BNatSchG, 2002), the Strategy on Sustainable Development of the Federal Government (Bundesregierung,
2002), the CBD (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp)
and the European Habitats Directive (EU, 1992):
to protect natural and semi-natural habitats and their
species communities;
to protect and develop the spatial and functional
complexity of the landscape;
to ensure the genetic exchange between local populations;
to enable species access to different habitats during
their life cycle;
to facilitate the colonisation of new habitats as well
as the recolonisation of empty habitats.
3.2. Approaches
Generally, the published planning approaches
to conserve biodiversity can be divided into four
categories:

11

Species-oriented habitat networks.

Multifunctional habitat networks.
The integration of nature conservation goals into
land use practices.
Measures to reduce barrier effects.
3.2.1. Species-oriented habitat networks
This approach combines the protection of core areas
with the development of corridors and stepping stones
that fulfill the requirements of selected species (target species). The majority of these projects addresses
the local level, i.e. habitat networks designed for endangered species, and target species are often invertebrates such as butterflies (Huebner, 2002). Projects
which address the regional or national level are, for
the most part, developed for endangered vertebrates
such as the otter Lutra lutra (Reuther and Roy, 2001).
A good example of a habitat network that addresses
special species communities is the Bavarian-SandAxis (Weinbrecht and Konopka, 2002). Within a region of 2000 km2 , administrated by seven counties
and five large cites, three non-governmental organisations (NGOs) planned a habitat network which protects
and connects plant and animal communities of habitats characterised by dry and sandy soils and a sparse
vegetation cover. The diverse network includes natural habitats such as sand dunes and sand bars along
streams, as well as a broad range of man-made habitats
including: extensively grazed grasslands, sun-exposed
margins of dry pine forests, extensively managed field
margins, sand pits, and sand-dominated verges of highways and railroad tracks. Within the framework of
this regional network plan, local authorities and nongovernmental organisations show great initiative and
begin to implement individual portions of this network.
3.2.2. Multifunctional habitat networks
In contrast to the species-oriented networks, multifunctional habitat networks do not focus on specific
species. Core areas, corridors and stepping stones are
protected and developed in a broader, multifunctional
approach. The basic concept is to reconnect the remnant
habitats with areas of greater importance for nature
conservation, such as nature reserves, by protecting
or restoring natural and semi-natural habitats. Corridors are often planned along linear structures such as
streams, floodplains, and mountain fringes. Often step-

12

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Fig. 2. The Bavarian state habitat network. Black: core areas of the habitat network with very good prerequisites for habitats and species. Grey:
developmental zones with functional importance for the state habitat network (from Sachteleben and Schlapp, 2003).

ping stones are developed in the form of hedgerows,

field and forest margins. Generally, this approach uses
standards for minimum sizes or densities of habitat
structures. These standards have been generated from a
compilation of research about the spatial requirements
of various species (e.g. Riedel et al., 1994; Walter
et al., 1998). Most regional and statewide plans are such
multifunctional networks, for example the Bavarian
statewide habitat network (Sachteleben and Schlapp,
2003) (Fig. 2). Within the general framework of the
Bavarian statewide network, more than 200 local networks have been implemented and another 100 are in
the planning stage (Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur
Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen, 2003).

3.2.3. The integration of nature conservation

goals into land use practices
The impact of land uses that surround the core areas, corridors and stepping stones must also be considered in the protection of species-oriented and for multifunctional habitat networks. There should be minimum
nature conservation standards for agriculture, forestry,
and recreation. A higher permeability of the managed
landscape (fields, forests, but also urban areas) generally contributes to improved connectivity between local populations. In addition, efforts are being made to
improve the overall habitat quality by altering agricultural practices, i.e. minimizing the use of pesticides and
fertilizers in areas between habitat islands. The Ger-

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

man national sustainability strategy (Bundesregierung,

2002) targets an increase of organic farming in agricultural area by 20% by the year 2020.
3.2.4. Measures to reduce barrier effects
Within habitat networks, individual measures are
undertaken to avoid or to mitigate the impacts caused
by man made barriers. Examples are green bridges
and tunnels across roads or fish ladders and fish passes
along streams. Waterway management is the only field
where habitat networks have been considerably improved. During the last decade, stream connectivity has
been increased by building fish passages at a significant number of weirs. However, in comparison to other
European countries, little attention has been paid to
green bridges over roads (Kramer-Rowold and Rowold,
2001). Unlike the other EU-members, Germany did
not sign the COST-action 341 (Habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure; EUREKA/COST), which
addresses the effects and possible measures of fragmentation caused by transportation networks in the EU.
Tunnel measures are more common in Germany, especially for migration of amphibians under roads. These
tunnels can be used also by small mammals and some
invertebrate species. Nevertheless, their effectiveness
is strongly dependent on proper design and maintenance (Podloucky, 1990; Oord, 1995). For economic
reasons, the retrofitting of existing roads with green
bridges or tunnels is not a current consideration in
Germany. These measures are only implemented in the
construction of new roads or the expansion of existing
highways.

4. The legislation on habitat networks and

ways of implementation
4.1. The nature conservation law
The 16 federal states (Lander) are the dominant
players in the implementation of nature conservation in
Germany, whereas the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is restricted to the framework legislation. In
order to become mandatory, the content of the framework legislation must be implemented by the states in
their nature conservation laws. This explains why some
states have already passed special legislation about
habitat networks (e.g. Bavaria), even though the Ger-

13

man government first introduced this objective into the

Federal Nature Conservation Act in 2002 (BNatSchG,
2002). Objectives of habitat networks have been anchored in this law in two ways: first, the regulations
about mandatory good agricultural practice in the law
now require farming, forestry and fishing to maintain
and proliferate landscape elements which function as
components of a habitat network. Second, a special
article (BNatSchG, 2002, 3) is devoted to the development of habitat networks. This may have been, in
part, a response to the Habitats Directive of the European Union. However, the new German legislation goes
beyond the European requirements and demands new
standards also at the state level. The new article concerning a national habitat network (BNatSchG, 2002,
3), requires that habitat networks cover a minimum of
10% of the total land area in Germany. The conceptualisation of the networks should have an interstate character, unrestricted by individual state boundaries, and
contribute to the European network of Natura 2000.
The network components are: core elements, connecting corridors and stepping stones. These features
should contribute to: the conservation of native species,
their populations and habitats as well as the conservation and development of ecosystem processes. It is important that the network components be protected as
nature or landscape reserves.
The German legislation offers a wide variety of
protection categories, each offering different levels of
mandatory protection standards. Regional and town
planning also provide instruments for protection, e.g. as
a regional greenway or by contracts with landowners.
Until now, the implementation of these general goals
is still under discussion. However, a working group
formed by the state nature conservation agencies and
the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation has developed a set of criteria to identify those sites that can
be included in a habitat network system (Burkhardt
et al., 2003). According to these criteria, the existing
characteristic landscape features and the potential of
the landscape should form the basis for any habitat
network concept, which require the development of
appropriate concepts at all planning levels. On an international scale, it is important to plan for migrating
species and species which require large-scale habitats.
Both the international and national networks should focus on big river systems, large-scale woodland ecosystems and larger, thinly populated, semi-natural areas.

14

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

The national habitat network is intended to serve as an

efficient instrument which supports planning on a national scale. For example, it assesses the national transportation plan based on nature conservation goals and
determines the fragmentation impacts of such plans.
On the regional scale, the focus should be on the general permeability of landscape and the development of
regional corridors, whereas the development of habitat complexes and the connection of habitats for relevant target species with limited spatial requirements
are more important on the local scale.
Core areas of the habitat network and other important habitats of national or regional relevance are essential to the goals of the EU Habitats Directive in that they
provide native species with either existing or potential
permanent habitats, and accordingly, they should be
protected as reserves. Consequently, the requirements
of the individual species and their populations should
determine the size and type of core areas. In addition,
the core areas should be surrounded by buffer zones that
protect against the impacts of intensive land uses. Connecting corridors or habitat elements is crucial in order
to guarantee the genetic exchange between animal and
plant populations of the core areas and to support migration, dispersal, colonisation and recolonisation processes. The German states are now facing the task of
developing 10% of state land as network components.
This is considered a minimum standard; experts postulate that 15% is a more accurate proportion (SRU,
2002).
4.2. Implementation
The plans and concepts necessary for the implementation of the European Habitat Directive (EU, 1992) are
primarily a product of landscape planning (BNatSchG,
2002, 14 (1) 4.c; von Haaren, 2002, 2004), which
has recently been strengthened by the new law. Landscape planning is present on every tier of spatial planning except at the national level. The lack of a national
landscape plan considerably hinders the implementation of a national habitat network. Irrespective of the
planning tier, the realisation of habitat networks can be
supported by several instruments. These instruments
can be divided into four categories:
legal instruments with mandatory character, such as
differentiated standards for nature reserve classifica-

tion, impact regulation under nature protection law,

consolidation of farmland as supported by a special
federal law;
planning instruments used to restrict housing or industrial development, such as spatial planning specifications and regulations effective on all planning
levels;
finance instruments for the purchase of land (most
German land is in private ownership) and the restoration of suitable components of a habitat network often has to be combined with the purchase of land;
persuasive strategies and participation to achieve
support and acceptance by landowners, land users
and the public.
The environmental impact regulation (Eingriffsregelung), which is a legal instrument distinct to Germany, aims at avoiding, mitigating and compensating
any impact on ecological and aesthetic landscape functions. Its first objective is to prevent deterioration of
ecosystem functionality, while allowing some flexibility in the implementation. Compensation for the loss
of certain natural assets that support the natural functions is permissible under certain circumstances. This
offers many opportunities, especially at the local planning level, to use compensation measures to develop a
habitat network, e.g. as compensation for the impacts
caused by housing development. The environmental
impact regulation also lays the groundwork for the implementation of green bridgesin order to compensate
for habitat fragmentation resulting from transportation
routes.
The most important planning instruments have already been mentioned (town and country planning,
landscape planning, planning for the European network Natura 2000 in accordance with the Habitats and
Birds Directives (EU, 1979, 1992), environmental impact regulation). In addition, the new European Water
Framework Directive (EU, 2000) can potentially support the implementation of aquatic habitat networks.
Beyond that, a precautionary effect for the protection
of existing structures should come from the environmental impact assessment and the strategic impact assessment, both of which are required by European directives.
Instruments to finance the implementation are numerous. They include EU funds for rural development,
land allotment funds, state programs and funding by

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

local authorities or non-governmental organisations.

An outstanding amount of money is spent on agroenvironmental schemes that are co-financed by the EU,
the states and partly by the German government. These
schemes offer some programs which are designed
to promote habitat networks, for example, programs
which establish field margins and hedgerows or designate fallow fields for a period of 20 years. In addition,
a wide variety of measures to promote extensive farming practices is available, which if applied, supports
the general landscape permeability. Even though much
money is spent on the agro-environmental schemes,
their effectiveness in achieving nature conservation objectives is judged to be insufficient (SRU, 2002). This
is due to two reasons.
Firstly, the amount of money spent on agroenvironmental schemes is low in comparison to other
agrarian subsidies which have, in part, negative effects
on the environment. (In the EU, an average of only
10% of the entire agrarian budget is spent on development of rural areas. In Germany, only 7.55% of subsidies budgeted for rural development is spent on agroenvironmental schemes (SRU, 2002).)
Secondly, the improvements in habitat conservation,
which the agro-environmental programs facilitate, do
not live up to the projected objectives. Most of the
programs, usually directed by the state ministries of
agriculture, propose rather unambitious requirements
for nature conservation. More demanding programs of
land use change, usually directed by the state ministries of environment, are less popular with farmers
and receive a much smaller budget. Generally, they finance only about 20% of the expenditures for agroenvironmental schemes, paying on average 810 D /ha
farmland in Germany (SRU, 2002).
This situation illustrates the need for a new orientation in agricultural politics, based on effective nature
conservation (SRU, 2002). Agricultural policy must
promote an implementation of habitat networks that
is integrated into the overall landscape development.
4.3. Initiators of implementation
Since the 1980s, a wide variety of stakeholders and
groups in the society have acted to initiate the implementation of habitat network projects. Nature conservation NGOs naturally played a dominant role in these
activities. Das Grune Band (the green ribbon) is an

15

outstanding example of a project initiated and significantly financed by such an organisation. This project
transformed the former border between East and West
Germany into an inter-regional habitat corridor nearly
1400 km in length (Frobel, 1998). In addition, local networks have been initiated by important landowners in
Germany and various interest groups such as: land consolidation institutions, hunters and the two major state
churches (for examples see Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen,
2003). In the course of the implementation of the new
legislation, one can expect that these haphazard activities will be augmented by an increase of state activities
which promote the landscape planning concept.

5. The Kronsberg in Hannovera case study

for a multifunctional local network
5.1. Concept and implementation
The Kronsberg area is part of the greenbelt surrounding Hannover (in Lower Saxony). Intensive agriculture was the dominant land use in an area of about
12 km2 until the end of the 1980s. Natural or seminatural habitats were extremely rare. Today, the Kronsberg must fulfil several purposes: recreational and
climatic functions for the nearby housing area, habitat
functions for general nature conservation and several
rare or endangered species as well as farming. Therefore, the main objective of the Kronsberg Project is
to counteract further loss of open spaces by developing
a concept for integrated or multifunctional land use
and by forging a coalition among nature conservation,
recreation and agriculture. Enhancing the local biodiversity and creating a multifunctional habitat network
is the main conservation issue of the project (Brenken
et al., 2003).
The project was executed by the council and the
administration of the city of Hannover, initiated by
local NGOs. A general problem of greenway planning in urban fringe towns is a lack of involvement of
farmers (Ryan and Hansel Walker, 2004). Therefore,
the process has been accompanied by extensive citizen participation. The realisation of the project was
made possible through financing from organisations
such as the Federal Ministry of Environment, the city
of Hannover and a private investor. In addition, agro-

16

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Fig. 3. The Kronsberg area with the new structures and habitats (modified from Brenken et al., 2003).

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

17

Fig. 4. An overview of the Kronsberg area looking towards the city of Hannover, showing a new path, parts of the common land, and several
afforestations.

environmental schemes and the environmental impact

regulation played and important role in the implementation of the concept. Part of the land necessary for the
implementation was owned by the city of Hannover.
Another part was purchased, and still another part was
acquired through a land survey that re-established official boundary lines, regaining public land that had
been illegally converted to private farmland. After a
thorough analysis of the existing habitats, species and
potential of the different locations for habitat development, new network structures and habitats were established from 1998 to 2001 (Figs. 3 and 4):
In 1987, the forest service began reforesting the Kronsberg ridge with 70 ha of deciduous forest. An additional 15 ha was planted between 1998 and 2001.
In the transition zone between the housing area and
the farmland, a common land (Allmende) was established on 40 ha of abandoned farmland. During
the first 2 years, the common was mown annually.
The objective was to develop a pasture, now grazed
by sheep, not only as a valuable semi-natural habitat,
but also for different kinds of recreation.
Soil and bedrock from the housing excavation were
used to create two new hills, each about 1214 m
high. The hills offered a solution for the deposition of the marl soil from the excavation and a

recreational feature, providing pedestrians with a

panoramic view of the surrounding landscape. Moreover, the marl hills represent dry, calcareous, but nutrient poor sites which could provide habitats for endangered species. To trigger vegetation development
on the bare soil, hay from calcareous grasslands of
similar habitats in the region was applied in the first
year.
Along more than 15 km of field tracks, field margins
were laid out to facilitate recreation, to form a habitat
network and to increase biodiversity. These margins
have a width of at least 5 m on each side of the path
(Figs. 5 and 6). In some of the margins, hedgerows,
trees and shrubs have been planted mainly for aesthetical reasons. In addition, field borders are farmed
without using pesticides and fertilizer in order to promote a special field weed flora.
Organic farming was established on about 120 ha of
farmland.
5.2. Evaluation
The effects of the changes which have taken place
since 2000 have been evaluated (Brenken et al., 2003),
focusing primarily on the pros and cons of the multifunctional concept which was implemented here in

18

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Fig. 5. New paths (P) with intensively maintained edge zones (M(i)) and a wide, only annually mowed margin (M(a)) (from Brenken et al.,
2003).

an extensive way (von Haaren, 2002). The evaluation

started in the year 2000 and will last until 2004. It
comprised research about the vegetation, fauna (selected groups), recreation and the agro-economic situation. Some significant trends have become recognizable.
The man made hills have developed very satisfactorily with regard to the nature conservation goals. A
diverse vegetation has developed that is characteris-

tic of the natural soil conditions and includes many

endangered species. In addition, the hills are one of
the most frequented attractions for visitors to the area.
The network of field margins has also lived up to the
expectations of nature conservationists. Despite the
disturbance created by people, cars and agricultural
machines, in the final analysis the network function
is successful. A diverse vegetation, characteristic for
the location invaded spontaneously, and the develop-

Fig. 6. A typical field margin of the Kronsberg area (see also Fig. 5).

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

mental trend substantiates the original objectives of reestablishing a characteristic grassland habitat. Probably sheep, agricultural machines and people functioned
as vectors for a successful seed dispersal from other
areas. Places where grass seeds had been applied manually have not developed as well. The proportion of
flowering plants, also valuable for landscape aesthetics,
is much smaller on the sites where there is little succession and few characteristic or endangered species.
The field borders, that are farmed without using pesticides and fertilizer have developed a very rich and valuable flora containing many endangered species, some
of which have not been found in the region for over
40 years. Obviously the favourable preconditions of
the calcareous soil and the existing seed bank were the
most important factors for this success. The new forest
on the Kronsberg ridge has not yet developed a characteristic vegetation structure and is still dominated by
ruderal weeds in the understory. Furthermore, the reforestation, which was executed by the forest service,
included non-native species, which were not proposed
for the site. Central to the whole concept is the idea that
multifunctional objectives demand a compromise with
respect to the optimal implementation of individual objectives of different interest groups. The common, for
example, was established on abandoned arable fields.
However, intensive sheep grazing started immediately,
before suitable vegetation could develop. This was a
concession to the farmer that hindered the development of an optimal habitat network. Furthermore, it
was not optimal for nature conservation that 15 km of
new field tracks, which are a source of disturbance for
fauna and flora, were created when the field margins
were established (Figs. 3 and 6). The decision about
the optimum distribution of the extensively farmed field
borders favoured a comprehensive network on suitable
locations, instead of a layout that facilitated farming
and maintenance.
The evaluation shows that multifunctional objectives of a habitat network are, in principle, a successful
model from which different landscape functions and
users can benefit. In some cases, it can lead to optimal
solutions for all interests involved. However, the special objectives of species conservation often cannot be
optimised when other interests, such as recreation, require too many compromises. In these cases, therefore,
a partial segregation of landscape functions is more effective.

19

6. Conclusions
In contrast to other countries, where greenways
and habitat networks are usually based on multifunctional concepts (e.g. Fabos, 1995; Fabos, 2004),
Germany uses differentiated approaches. For the
greenway systems, recreational and climatic functions
are the primary objectives, and species and habitat
conservation are usually addressed only in a general
way. The species-oriented habitat networks focus
predominantly on species and habitat conservation.
The positive effects of recreation or climate control are
addressed but not considered objectives. In contrast
to the United States (Fabos, 2004), the connection of
historical heritage or cultural values is no specific goal
in both approaches. For the multifunctional habitat
networks, we found discrepancy between the scientific
methodology and its practical application. The limits
of multifunctionality are the cause of these fundamental difficulties. Often the special requirements of
specific species can only be satisfied in segregated sites
or structures with appropriate management measures.
In Germany, as elsewhere (Opdam et al., 2002), there
is a gap between scientific knowledge and practical
implementation. Scientific findings about the optimal
design of habitat networks, i.e. the number and size
of habitats, the length of the corridors or the degree of
connectivity, are discussed by the scientific community (Bueno et al., 1995; Dawson, 1995; McGuckin
and Brown, 1995; Opdam et al., 2003; Tischendorf and
Wissel, 1997). However, in Germany, they play a minor
role in practice. The structure of landownership in Germany is probably one of the major reasons. Publicly
owned land is scarce and, especially in West Germany,
the size of privately owned properties is small. Therefore, in order to accomplish their objectives, nature
conservationists must negotiate with many private
landowners, who have no choice except to use their
land intensely in order to survive economically. The
implementation of habitat networks is, therefore, very
often guided by the availability of land and not by the
scientifically based requirements of individual species.
The species or ecological functions that can actually be
supported by habitat networks are therefore very often
defined (or limited) by pragmatic considerations like in
many other European countries (Jongman et al., 2004).
A common problem in German is the implementation of large-scale concepts, such as national con-

20

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

cepts or the Natura 2000 Habitat Network, which are

hindered by political structures. The 16 federal states
have either developed independent, unrelated concepts,
which were initiated at different times or they have ignored the issue completely. From a scientific point of
view, it would have made more sense to develop a general framework for a habitat network at the national
level, allowing the specifics to be clarified at the state
level. The failure of the national concept can be contributed to the lack of national authority to provide and
implement regional nature conservation targets and to
the landownership structure in Germany. Nature conservation is so weak at the national level that until now,
it has not even been possible to align the different state
habitat classifications or to provide a satisfactory national information system. According to the principles
of the German constitution, Nature conservation is the
responsibility state within the boundaries of the federal
framework law. The federal states who fear loosing
their power in this politically sensitive area still adhere
to this principle. However, it discourages interstate nature and water conservation because ecologically defined landscape units like flood plains or watersheds obviously do not conform to state boundary lines. It also
hampers the implementation of national park plans and
nationwide standards in landscape planning and environmental impact regulation.
The state responsibility for nature conservation explains why Germany has the worst record in the EU
for identifying and notifying the sites which fulfil the
Habitats Directive. The identification of the habitats
has taken years and is still not yet complete (Natura
barometer, 2003) because the states were reluctant to
tackle the conflicts with landowners and development
interests. Only after receiving pressure from the EU
Commission, which threatened to deny financial support in other areas of regional development, did the
German states identify the relevant habitat sites. The
next task is to connect the habitats of European relevance into a coherent network which includes corridors
and stepping stones, and this will presumably be even
more difficult. When the federal law goes into effect
in 2005, the new nature conservation legislation may
answer this problem by requiring each state to develop
a habitat network. However, it will not support interstate coordination sufficiently to implement a national
or European network, where cross-border co-operation
is also not well developed (Jongman et al., 2004).

Considering these reasons for the unsatisfactory

habitat network in Germany, future solutions should
focus on the legal and political framework. On the national level, lawmakers are beginning to discuss a new
division of legal responsibilities. But transferring portions of the state responsibilities to the national level
meets a great deal of political resistance by the states.
Before this long-term strategy might be achieved, the
federal government is forced to use soft measures to
promote the coordination of the states. A spatially explicit national habitat network should be developed as
the basis for such soft strategies. Examples for such soft
strategies are: to promote and moderate the communication between the states, provide expert information
about trans-boundary corridors and finance the implementation of model networks.
In addition to promoting political solutions on the
national level, more emphasis should be given to the
linking of the scientific basis and the conceptualisation of habitat networks. Prioritising landscape functions and selecting target species need more attention
and coordination. The problems caused by property
structures may be overcome by establishing more economic incentives that may improve the economic attractions of nature conservation in the eyes of many
landowners. Hopefully, the proceedings of an altered
EU-agricultural policy will facilitate this relationship.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Barty Warren-Kretzschmar
and Michaela Hannig who improved the manuscript
through helpful comments.

References
Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen, 2003. http://www.umweltministerium.bayern.de/bereiche/natur/verbund/verbund.htm.
Bielefeld, U., 1984. Trocken- und Halbtrockenrasen in RheinlandPfalz. In: Ministerium fur Soziales, Gesundheit und Umwelt
Rheinland-Pfalz (Ed.), Arten- und Biotopschutz, Aufbau eines
vernetzten Biotopsystems, Mainz, pp. 2129.
BNatSchG, 2002. Gesetz u ber Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege.
Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 2002, Teil 1, Nr. 22, 1193 pp.
Brenken, H., Brink, A., Forster, A., von Haaren, C., Klaffke, K.,
Rode, M., Tessin, W., 2003. Naturschut, Naherholung und Landwirtschaft am Stadtrand. Integrierte Landnutzung als Konzept

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

suburbaner Landschaftsentwicklung am Beispiel HannoverKronsberg. Angewandte Landschaftsokologie 57, 1152.
Bueno, J.A., Tsihrintzis, V.A., Alvarez, L., 1995. South Florida
greenways: a conceptual framework for the ecological reconnectivity of the region. Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 247266.
Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 1999. Daten zur Natur 1999. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Munster.
Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 2002. Daten zur Natur. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Munster.
Bundesamt fur Naturschutz, 2003. http://www.bfn.de/03/.
Bundesministerium fur Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen, 2003.
Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003. Bonn.
Bundesregierung, 2002. Perspektiven fur Deutschland. Unsere
Strategie fur eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bundeskanzleramt,
Berlin. Internet: http://www.dialog-nachhaltigkeit.de.
Burkhardt, R., Baier, H., Bendzko, U., et al., 2003. Naturschutzfachliche Kriterien zur Umsetzung des 3 BNatSchG. Natur und
Landschaft 78, 418426.
Dawson, K.J., 1995. A comprehensive conservation strategy for
Georgias greenways. Urban Landscape Plan. 33, 2743.
Dettmar, J., Ganser, K., 1999. Industrie-Natur. Oekologie und
Gartenkunst im Emscher Park. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Diamond, J.M., 1978. Critical areas for maintaining viable populations of species. In: Holdgate, M., Woodman, M.J. (Eds.), Breakdown and Restoration of Ecosystems. Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 2740.
Drachenfels, O., 1983. Tierokologische Kriterien fur die Sicherung
und Entwicklung von vernetzten Biotopsystemen. Pilotstudie
Landesamt fur Umweltschutz Rheinland-Pfalz.
EU, 1979. EU Birds Directive. Directive 79/409/EEC of the European Council on the conservation of wild birds.
EU, 1992. European Habitat Directive. Directive 92/43EEC of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L
206 of 22.07.199292/43/EEC.
EU, 2000. EU Water Framework Directive. Directive 2000/60/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
framework for the Community action in the field of water policy.
Official Journal L 327 on 22 December 2000.
Fabos, J.G., 1995. Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landscape Urban Plan.
33, 113.
Fabos, J.G., 2004. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 321
342.
Frobel, K., 1998. Vom Todesstreifen zur Lebenslinie: Das Grune
Band vor der Zerreissprobe. Nationalpark, Heft 3, 1015.
Hanski, I., 1982. Dynamics of regional distributions: the core and
the satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38, 210221.
Hanski, I., Gilpin, M.E. (Eds.), 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution. Academic Press, San Diego.
Heydemann, B., 1980. Die Bedeutung von Tier- und Pflanzenarten

in Okosystemen,
ihre Gefahrdung und ihr Schutz. Jahrbuch fur
Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege 30, 1587.
Hovestadt, T., Roeser, J., Muhlenberg, M., 1991. Flachenbedarf von
Tierpopulationen. Berichte aus der o kologischen Forschung 1,
1277.

21

Huebner, G., 2002. Widderchen im Trockenbiotopverbund: Praxisbeispiel zur Erfolgskontrolle in einem ABSP-Umsetzungsprojekt. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 34, 189190.
Jongman, R.H., Smith, D., 2000. The European experience: from
site protection to ecological networks. In: Sanderson, J., Harris,
L.D. (Eds.), Landscape Ecology: A Top-Down Approach. Lewis,
Boca Raton, pp. 157182.
Jongman, R.H., Kulvik, M., Kristiansen, I., 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 68,
305319.
Kaule, G., 1986. Arten- und Biotopschutz. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Kramer-Rowold, E.M., Rowold, W.A., 2001. Zur Effizienz von
Wilddurchlassen an Straen und Bahnlinien. Informationsdienst
Naturschutz Niedersachsen 21, 258.
MacArthur, R.H., Wilson, E.O., 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press.
Mader, H.J., 1980. Die Verinselung der Landschaft aus
tierokologischer Sicht. Natur und Landschaft 55, 9196.
Mader, H.J., 1981. Untersuchungen zum Einflu der Flachengroe
von Inselbiotopen auf deren Funktion als Trittstein oder
Refugium. Natur und Landschaft 56, 235242.
McGuckin, C.P., Brown, R.D., 1995. A landscape ecological model
for wildlife enhancement of stormwater management practices
in urban greenways. Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 227246.
Ministerium fur Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Wurttemberg, 2003.
Regionale Grunzuge. http://www.uvm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/
nafaweb/berichte/plpw 02/gloss93.htm.
Natura barometer, 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
nature/barometer/barometer.htm.
Oord, J.G., 1995. Handreiking maatregelen voor de fauna langs weg
en water. Rijkswaterstaat, Dienst Wegen Waterbouwkunde &
Dienst Landinrichting en Beheer Landbowgronden (Eds.), Delft
and Utrecht.
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Vos, C., 2002. Bridging the gap between
ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape
Ecol. 16, 767779.
Opdam, P., Verboom, J., Pouwels, R., 2003. Landscape cohesion: an
index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecol. 18, 113126.
Planungsregion Oberlausitz-Niederschlesien, 2002. Regionalplan,
Planungsregion Oberlausitz-Niederschlesien, Bautzen.
Podloucky, R., 1990. Amphibienschutz an Strassen. Informationsdienst Naturschutz Niedersachsen 10, 111.
Reich, M., Grimm, V., 1996. Das Metapopulationskonzept in

Okologie
und Naturschutz. Zeitschrift Okologie
und Naturschutz
5, 123139.
Reuther, C., Roy, A., 2001. Some results of the 1991 and 1999 otter
(Lutra lutra) surveys in the River Ise catchment, Lower Saxony, Germany. IUCN Otter Specialist Group Bulletin 18, 28
40.
Riedel, B., Pirkl, A., Theuerer, R., 1994. Planung von lokalen
Biotopverbundsystemen. Band 1Grundlagen und Methoden. In: Bayerisches Staatsministerium fur Ernahrung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (Ed.), Landliche Entwicklung in Bayern,
Materialien 31, Munchen.
Runge, K., 1990. Die Entwicklung der Landschaftsplanung in ihrer
Konstitutionsphase 19351973. Schriftenreihe des Fachbereichs

22

C. von Haaren, M. Reich / Landscape and Urban Planning 76 (2006) 722

Landschaftsentwicklung der TU Berlin: Landschaftsentwicklung

und Umweltforschung 73.
Ryan, R.L., Hansel Walker, J.T., 2004. Protecting and managing private farmland and public greenways in the urban fringe. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 183198.
Ryder, B.A., 1995. Greenway planning and growth management:
partners in conservation? Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 417
432.
Sachteleben, J., Schlapp, G., 2003. Die Rolle der Naturschutzgebiete im Biotopverbund. Bayer. Landesamt fur Umweltschutz
(Ed.), Naturschutzgebietezwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Augsburg, pp. 6572.
Senger, S., 2000. Straenversiegelung in Deutschland und ihre
Beeinflussung der Umwelt im Vergleich mit anderen OECD
Landern. Z. Umweltchem. Okotox.
12, 221223.
Settele, J., 1998. Metapopulationsanalyse auf Rasterdatenbasis:
Moglichkeiten des Modelleinsatzes und der Ergebnisumsetzung
im Landschaftsmastab am Beispiel von Tagfaltern. Teubner,
Stuttgart.
Settele, J., Margules, C., Poschlod, P., Henle, K. (Eds.), 1996. Species
Survival in Fragmented Landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Shaffer, M.L., 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31, 131134.
SRU (Der Rat von Sachverstandigen fur Umweltfragen), 2002.
Fur eine Starkung und Neuorientierung des Naturschutzes
Sondergutachten. Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart (English version
of the abstract: www.sru.de).
Stadt Baesweiler, 2003. Reginale Grunzuge. http://www.baesweiler.
de/tb/reggruenzuege.asp.
Statistisches Bundesamt, 2003. Development of built-up and traffic area in Germany, 19932001. In: Paper prepared for the
London Group Meeting, Rome, 2003 (http://www.destatis.
de/allg/d/veroe/proser4fumw d.htm).
Statistisches Bundesamt, 2004. Land use statistics. http://www.
destatis.de/d home.htm.
Tischendorf, L., Wissel, C., 1997. Corridors as conduits for small
animals: attainable distances depending on movement pattern,
boundary reaction and corridor width. Oikos 79, 603611.
Verband Region Stuttgart, 1998. Regionalplanung in der Region
Stuttgart, Stuttgart.

von Haaren, C., 2002. Landscape planning facing the challenge of

the development of cultural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan.
60, 7380.
von Haaren, C., 2004. Landschaftsplanung. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Walter, R., Reck, H., Kaule, G., Kammle, M., Osinski, E., Heinl,
T., 1998. Regionalisierte Qualitatsziele, Standards und Indikatoren fur die Belange des Arten-, und Biotopschutzes in BadenWurttemberg. Das Zielartenkonzeptein Beitrag zum Landschaftsprogramm des Landes Baden-Wurttemberg. Natur und
Landschaft 73, 925.
Weinbrecht, B., Konopka, T., 2002. Die SandAchse Franken Ein
Biotopverbund von Sandlebensraumen zwischen Weienburg
und Bamberg. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 34, 9092.
Christina von Haaren is a professor and head of the Institute for
Landscape Planning and Nature Conservation at the University of
Hannover. Previously, she taught at the University of Kassel (D) and
as an assistant in Hannover. In addition, she has worked in two landscape planning and consulting firms on projects throughout West
Germany. Since 1986, she is a founding partner of the environmental planning firm ARUM in Hannover. She studied landscape architecture and environmental planning at the Technical University of
Hannover (Diploma) where she also gained her doctoral degree. At
present, she is a member of the German Counsel of Environmental
Advisers. Her special professional interests are in the fields of landscape planning (she recently published a book Landschaftsplanung
(Ulmer Verlag, 2004)), the implementation of nature protection goals
especially in the field of agriculture and the use of new technologies
in landscape planning.
Michael Reich is a professor at the Institute for Landscape Planning
and Nature Conservation, University of Hannover, Germany where
he teaches courses in landscape ecology and conservation biology.
He holds a diploma in biology, a doctoral degree in ecology from
the University of Ulm, and a habilitation degree in ecology and nature conservation from the University of Marburg. His research has
focused on the linkage between landscape dynamics, landscape connectivity and related metapopulation structures, especially in floodplains. Presently, he is working on stream restoration projects and is
co-director of a national research project on interstate corridors of
habitat networks in Germany.