Table 2. The table summarizes findings, their effects on current governance, and recommendations for improvements.

Analysis Description
Findings from
1. Management is formally divided between separate sectors, state agencies, and municipalities, and is based upon preserving certain user-classified values rather than on sustaining ecosystem processes in the landscape.
2. Many urban green areas are ecologically undervalued due to a narrow definition of “green area”, especially allotment gardens, golf courses, and private home gardens are classified as “developed land”.
3. Actor groups from civil society with capacities for management and protection of local green areas are not sufficiently acknowledged, nor engaged with, by state agencies. The few examples of engagement that exist are made on an ad hoc basis.
4. Some social networks span across space, but tend to stretch only within the same actor group (e.g., cemetery managers do not communicate with allotment gardeners).
5. At least three relevant ecological spatial scales of importance for governance were identified: local scale green areas, city scale green networks, and the regional scale green infrastructure. City scale green networks are defined as sets of local green areas and their dispersal corridors.
Effects on current governance 1. The midscale of city scale green networks is not addressed by any actor group, and cross-scale dynamics are missed due to: (a) a lack of information flows between actor groups engaged at different spatial scales, and (b) a general lack of awareness of the importance of ecological cross-scale dynamics.
2. Low flexibility for adapting to changes in ecosystems due to: (a) rigid sector divisions and strong administrative borders hampering cross-border cooperation between municipalities, and (b) poor communication between most actors, which undermines social learning and collective action in response to rapid changes.
Suggestions for improved governance 1. Align governance along three spatial scales—local scale green areas, city scale green networks, and regional scale green infrastructure—and let the generation of ecosystem services be a more pronounced goal in green area management.
2. (a) Include local actor groups from civil society, and (b) introduce scale-dependent responsibilities for all actor groups, while (c) appointing/nurturing midscale managers responsible for the governance of city scale green networks.
3. Facilitate for certain actors to gain the network position of scale-crossing broker. It is necessary for these actors to hold a holistic landscape view and knowledge of ecological processes. The strategy of a scale-crossing broker would be to: (a) link disconnected actor groups on multiple spatial scales, (b) sustain and support local actor groups (i.e., sustain network diversity), and (c) coordinate collaborative action across scales for social learning and in response to disturbance.