Table 1. Analysis results for each green space in relation to the ecosystem management criteria (Christensen et al. 1996) and the analysis questions. The results are interpreted as indicating (+) or not indicating (-) criteria fulfillment. For case-specific references, see Append. 3. * indicates that the statement is only valid for some managers in the National Urban Park.

Ecosystem management criterion 1
Long-term sustainability is a fundamental value (Strategic scales)
Analysis questions

§ What is the main aim of management?
§ Is the goal of long-term sustainability explicit in the management documents?
+
-
National Urban Park
- to preserve natural, cultural, and recreational values in the vicinity of Stockholm within the legal framework of a National Urban Park
- explicit in some management documents (from 2/7 managers) *
- implicit in the formal protection as a National Urban Park
- the Municipalities use Agenda 21 sustainability framework for management *
- not explicit in most of the practical management documents (5/7) *
Stockholm Woodland Cemetery
- to preserve the design and functions of the cemetery in perpetuity, as a UNESCO World Heritage Area
- no
- preservation in perpetuity is an explicit goal in the World Heritage appointment
- not explicit in the practical management documents
Flaten Nature Reserve
- to restore and develop natural, recreational, and cultural values, using the legal framework of a nature reserve
- no
- implicit in the aim of preservation by protection as a nature reserve
- not explicit in the practical management documents
Tyresta Forest
- to preserve nature in its natural condition and facilitate public experiences, using the legal framework of a nature reserve and national park
- no
- implicit in the aim of preservation by protection as a national park and nature reserve
- not explicit in the practical management documents
Tyresån Watershed
- to preserve and develop the natural values despite urbanization in the watershed
-no
- implicit in the preservation aim of the project
- not explicit in the practical management documents
- no formal protection as a whole




Ecosystem management criterion 2
Attention to context and scale (Operational to strategic scales and their interactions)
Analysis questions

§ What levels of biological organization are managed?
§ How are the boundaries of the area decided upon?
§ What are the short-term goals?
§ What are the time perspectives in management?
§How is practical management evaluated?
§ Is management adjusted to management of neighboring areas and the regional context?
+
-
National Urban Park
- management levels: species (oaks), biotope, and landscape.*
- boundaries are decided by land ownership and administrative divisions
-examples of short-term goals are regeneration of oaks, leave forests for free development, garden management in the parks, improving water quality, and meadow restoration*
- practical management is on an annual basis* (not all managers have an active management)
- some management plans (from the 1990s) are under revision, whereas other managers are still developing their first plans*
- current management plans lack priorities in time.
- historical material is used in management planning*
- monitoring is very limited, except for the lake management*
- there is no evaluation of practical management in relation to the management plans, except for the lake management*
- neighboring formal stakeholders are part of the management cooperative forum.
- limited communication between managers within the area despite the existing cooperative forum (the lake manager is not part of the cooperative forum)
- the regional green structure is mentioned in some management plans*
- multiple biological levels are managed
- historical material is used in management planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- the practical lake management is connected to the management plan and long-term goals by continuous evaluation procedures
- neighboring managers are involved in management*
- the regional scale context is mentioned in plans*
- boundaries are not based on ecological considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the management plans*
- evaluation procedures are missing, indicating a potential gap between practical management and the management plan and long-term goals*
- limited communication between managers within the area
Stockholm Woodland Cemetery
- management levels: species (pines), biotope, and cemetery
- boundaries are decided by land ownership
- short-term goals concern satisfying the visitor’s expectations of the cemetery, e.g., watering lawns and cleaning dead wood from the area, and also regenerating the pine forest
- historical material is used in management planning
- practical management is on an annual basis
- the first plan from 1994 has not been revised and lacks priorities in time
- there is no monitoring
- there is no evaluation of practical management in relation to the management plan
- no communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the regional green structure is not mentioned in the management documents
- multiple biological levels are managed
- historical material is used in management planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- boundaries are not based on ecological considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the management plans
- evaluation procedures are missing, indicating a potential gap between practical management and the management plan and long-term goals
- no communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the regional scale context is not mentioned in the management plans
Flaten Nature Reserve
-management level: biotopes, e.g., forest, meadow, lake
- boundaries are decided by land ownership and administrative divisions
- short-term goals concern restoring meadows by clearing and grazing, leaving forests for free development, cleaning the nutrient-overloaded inflow to the lake, and developing public access
- historical material is used in management planning
- practical management is on an annual basis
- the first plan from late 1990s has not been revised and lacks priorities in time
- there is very limited monitoring in the terrestrial biotope
- the lake is monitored and evaluated by water quality indicators on an annual basis
- the terrestrial practical management is not evaluated in relation to the management plan
- very limited communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the managers are aware of the regional green structure but it’s not mentioned in the management documents
- historical material is used in management planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- the practical lake management is connected to the management plan and long-term goals by continuous evaluation procedures
- one biological level is managed
- boundaries are not based on ecological considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the management plans
- evaluation procedures are missing for the terrestrial management, indicating a potential gap between practical management and the management plan and long-term goals
- limited communication between managers in the area, e.g., division between meadow creation and lake management
- limited communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the regional-scale context is not mentioned in the management plans
Tyresta Forest
-management levels: species (endangered) and biotopes, e.g., forests and lakes
- boundaries are decided by land ownership for the forest as a whole, the division between the national park and the nature reserve has an ecological basis
- short-term goals concern enhancing accessibility, leaving the forest for free development and keeping the meadows open by clearing and grazing
- practical management is on an annual basis
- the first plans for the whole forest from 1993 have just been revised
- the current plan lacks priorities in time
- frequent monitoring, but not primary for management evaluation purposes
- there is an annual revision of the management in relation to the management plan
- limited communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the importance of the forest as a core area in relation to the regional green structure is mentioned in the management plans
- multiple biological levels are managed
- the inner boundaries of national park/nature reserve are based on ecological considerations
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- the practical management is connected to the management plan and long-term goals by continuous evaluation procedures
- the regional-scale context is mentioned in the plan
- no time priorities in the current plan
- the outer boundaries are not based on ecological considerations
- limited communication with neighboring stakeholders
Tyresån Watershed
- management levels: watershed and biotopes, e.g., lakes and forests
- boundaries are set by the watershed
- short-term goals concern gathering more knowledge, informing about the watershed and developing the cooperation between stakeholders
- historical material is used in management planning
- planning is done in 6-year periods, a new plan has recently been developed
- monitoring constitutes a large part of management for adaptation to current and potential status of the watershed
- the current management was evaluated during the creation of the new plan
- neighboring stakeholders are part of the project
- the starting point for the project is to manage a part of the regional blue structure
- multiple biological levels are managed
- ecological considerations are the basis for the boundaries
- historical material is used in management planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- the plan is divided into priorities in time.
- monitoring and evaluation is prioritized in management
- cooperation between stakeholders in and surrounding the watershed is one of the main goals of the project
- the regional scale constitutes the starting point for the project





Ecosystem management criteria 3 and 4
Management efforts recognize the complexity, interconnections, and dynamic character of ecological systems (Functional scales)
Analysis questions

§ What critical ecological processes and functions are recognized in management?
§ How are changes and disturbances handled?
§ Does management vary over the area?
§ Is management intensive?
+
-
National Urban Park
- recognized: clearing and grazing for meadow biodiversity, dead wood and tree age diversification as important for forests, and biochemical cycles as important in the lakes*
- ecological core areas and links are identified within and outside the area *
- in some parts no ecological functions and processes have been identified and aesthetical values are prioritized *
- management varies according to manager/biotope/use/value priorities *
- lake management is separated from other types of management
- management is intensive in some parts, e.g., in parks, gardens, meadows
- several processes and functions are identified by some managers and cover several scales *
- variation in management by biotope *
- some managers have not identified ecological processes and functions, e.g., removal of dead wood*
- the interactions of biotopes are not recognized, e.g., lakes with other areas in the watershed
- recognized processes and functions only at biotope scale, e.g., dead wood in forest biotopes *
Stockholm Woodland Cemetery
- recognized: age diversity of pine trees for long-term preservation, the importance of old pines (but dead wood is removed), the grass-covered ground and shade as problematic for regeneration of pines
- disturbances, e.g., thinning by storms and fires, are seen as part of the forest dynamics, but compromised by other (not strictly ecological) purposes of the area
- management is divided by and varies according to biotope
- management is intensive in some biotopes, e.g., grassland
- several processes and functions are identified and managed
- variation in management by biotope
- interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g., grassland and pine forest
- the recognized processes and functions concern only the pine forest
- compromises between values result in suppression of ecological functions, e.g., removal of dead wood
Flaten Nature Reserve
- recognized: the phosphorous cycle and the water inflow in the lake, clearing and grazing for sustained and enhanced meadow biodiversity, leaving dead wood for biodiversity
- algal blooms forced chemical treatment management of the sediments in the lake
- management is divided by and varies according to biotope, and is intensive at meadow restoration sites and in the lake
- several key processes and functions are identified and managed
- variation in management by biotope
-interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g., the lake, the meadows, and the forests
- recognized processes and functions only at biotope scale, e.g., lake management not watershed management
Tyresta Forest
- recognized: leaving dead wood as important for biodiversity, fires as part of the forest dynamics (but fighting large fires, e.g., 1999), clearing and grazing for sustained meadow biodiversity, and sustained pH levels in the lakes
- acidification and fires are seen as disturbances that are fought
- management is divided by and varies according to biotope, and is intensive in some biotopes, e.g., meadows and lakes
- several key processes and functions are identified and managed
- variation in management by biotope
-interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g., meadows and forests
- recognized processes and functions only at biotope scale, e.g, lake alkalinity but not watershed alkalinity
- compromises between values result in suppression of ecological functions, e.g., forest fires are suppressed
Tyresån Watershed
- hydrological and biochemical cycles and alkalinity are recognized as important processes
- water level variations are regulated to secure settlements and other land uses from flooding
- nutrient load is recognized as a disturbance to be fought
- the watershed is one management unit, besides the biotopes
- management varies according to biotope status, potential values, and anticipated impact in the rest of the watershed
- management is intensive at some biotopes, e.g., wetland restoration sites
- several processes and functions are identified and managed
- the watershed approach indicates a priority to cross-scale interactions
- compromises by multiple values result in suppression of ecological functions, e.g., water-level variations