Ian Mell

Negotiating value and priorities:: evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development

The potential of green infrastructure (GI) development has been recognised in a number of countries. In the UK, planning policy has identified GI and brought it into the legislative framework. It is assumed that it has a value for landscape enhancement for multifunctional aims: for increasing the adaptive capacity of the environment for climate change and long-term sustainability whilst protecting its ecological and social values. This paper uses an evaluative tool developed from a plan of action proposed in the early stages of GI thinking by applying it to a contemporary case study in England. This assessment reveals a mismatch between policy aims and the potential on the ground for creating GI. The study reveals ‘institutional schizophrenia’, a fragmented approach to the delivery of GI that affects stakeholder collaboration and confidence. The findings suggest a possible decrease in the level of GI creation because of restrictions placed upon local authorities and important repercussions for GI development and potential ecosystem services.

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of Green Infrastructure development

The rapid development of Green Infrastructure as an approach to planning has enabled landscape practitioners to implement a range of projects utilising its principles. Discussions though exist examining what Green Infrastructure is, how it should be planned, and whether it can be identified as only those elements of the landscape that are green. A further element of this argument examines the use of water within this process. Therefore, as planners, we can ask: can we tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Both may have a green or sustainable function with only the visual appearance differing. Debates, however, focus on practitioner selectivity of the interpretation of “green” infrastructure planning exploring whether physical landscape characteristics or the function of an investment is the main focus of discussion. Using the grey–green continuum developed by Davies et al. [2006. Green infrastructure planning guide project: Final report. Annfield Plain: NECF], this paper examines whether geographical differences exist in the application of the Green Infrastructure and examine how practitioners use the ambiguity of Green Infrastructure planning to guide investment. Drawing on academic and practitioner literature provides this paper with a balance of conceptual and process-based assessments evaluations of global Green Infrastructure focusing on the design and implementation of terrestrial and marine resources. This paper also examines whether the dominant landscape planning framework in each region could be considered contradictory to the wider application of Green Infrastructure principles.

Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis

When Lowenthal (1985) talked about the past being a foreign country, he discussed how our perceptions of the landscape were shaped by experience, by socio-cultural actions and by our changing commitment to ideas or causes. Similarly, when Benedict and McMahon (2006) emphasised that Green Infrastructure (GI) was, and is, our life-support system, they were reflecting on the growth of sustainability politics and a subsequent rethinking within the environment sector of how best to manage human–environmental interactions. Both Lowenthal and Benedict and McMahon explored the actions of the past to understand those currently visible in landscape planning. They also identified significant problems in how we deal with the landscapes around us and the impact this has on our ability to manage landscape resources sustainably. Neither offered a fool-proof answer to the questions of how we address this growing debate; Benedict and McMahon did, however, synthesise the ideas of parkways, greenways, environmental management and ecological conservation into a more holistic approach to landscape planning: what we now consider as a ‘GI’ approach. This special issue of Landscape Research takes this debate as a starting point to examine how planners, academics, practitioners and other stakeholders are utilising GI principles. The special issue call asked the growing GI community to examine whether it was a sufficiently developed concept, what best practice could be identified, and to explain the nuances embedded within its implementation in different locations. Taking an overtly broad approach, the special issue provided scope for papers to address a range of thematic, spatial, innovative and conceptual understandings of GI in praxis. We feel that the papers presented in this special issue successfully achieve this by exploring contemporary understandings of the financial, ecological, policy-practice and scalar uses of GI. This does, however, raise a dilemma that is explored through the research articles and doctoral position papers presented. How has GI developed to meet these challenges? Within this debate, a series of key ideas are presented, which have been established in the academic literature as shaping the ways in which we discuss, value,1 and utilise GI in alterative geo-political landscapes. The introduction draws together the historical discussions of GI to contextualise the papers presented in this special issue, which go on to explore the versatility of GI as an approach to landscape planning, and as a concept which can, as Benedict and McMahon remark, act as a life support system for human and ecological activities. Throughout this editorial, and the subsequent papers, the meaning of GI will be broadly framed by the definitions proposed by Benedict and McMahon (2006), Natural England (2009) and more recently the European Commission (2013). Each of these definitions utilises a range of socio-economic and ecological principles, landscape resources, and alternative approaches to landscape planning to frame what GI is, how it should be developed and what benefits it should deliver. The key principles within this process are the promotion of social, economic and environmental benefits within an integrated approach to planning that enables different stakeholders to shape the ways that they develop and manage the landscape. Furthermore, the principles of multi-functionality, connectivity and access to nature, supportive ecological networks, and establishing socio-economic values through awareness raising and stewardship are all presented as essential components of the promotion of GI praxis

Strategic green infrastructure planning in Germany and the UK: a transnational evaluation of the evolution of urban greening policy and practice

ABSTRACT The evolution of Green Infrastructure (GI) planning has varied dramatically between nations. Although a grounded set of principles are recognized globally, there is increasing variance in how these are implemented at a national and sub-national level. To investigate this the following paper presents an evaluation of how green infrastructure has been planned for in England and Germany illustrating how national policy structures facilitate variance in application. Adopting an evaluative framework linked to the identification of GI, its development and monitoring/feedback the paper questions the impacts on delivery of intersecting factors including terminology, spatial distribution and functionality on effective GI investment. This process reviews how changing policy structures have influenced the framing of green infrastructure policy, and subsequent impact this has on the delivery of green infrastructure projects.

Re-defining the characteristics of environmental volunteering: creating a typology of community-scale green infrastructure

Abstract One way to engage people with green infrastructure (GI) is as environmental volunteers. Previous studies explored the nature of such groups/projects in terms of the benefits they deliver such as their impact on levels of social capital within a pre‐defined community. However, existing literature contributes little to our understanding of the composition, characteristics and mechanisms used to form and maintain these groups. As such, it is difficult to establish the influencing factors determining the capacity of a group to sustain its provision over time. This paper serves to offer a more nuanced understanding of local‐scale environmental stewardship by outlining the diversity of volunteer‐led GI activities observed at the community‐scale. Evidence presented from a desk‐based examination of observable activity within The Mersey area Forest in North‐West England represents a re‐conceptualisation of existing definitions of Community‐Scale GI (CSGI). Using thematic criteria, the paper clusters characteristics into key classification affecting group dynamics, composition and objectives. Initial findings identified the following categories as being significant descriptors for community‐scale green infrastructure: status, location, timeframe, membership, activity focus, governance, resources and recognition, and communications. Thus, we classify four distinct types of group engaged in voluntary activity contributing to local level GI creation and long‐term management: ‘Formal Group (Active), Formal Group (Inactive), Formal Project and Informal Group. Creating a nuanced typology of CSGI provides further opportunities to analysis the creation and long‐term management of GI at a site, neighbourhood and city‐scale. In turn, this contributes to our understanding of how multiple actors remain engaged in the decision‐making processes of GI management and maintenance.

Sustainable urban development in tightly constrained areas: a case study of Darjeeling, India

The quantity of writing on sustainable urban development continues to expand. Much of this writing, whether using a theoretical or empirical focus (or both), takes a strongly normative tone, exhorting actors in locations across the globe to make greater efforts to move development trends in more sustainable directions. This normative work is, of course, of vital importance, but in this paper, we argue for more attention to the context within which development takes place, particularly where that context imposes severe, perhaps crippling, constraints on opportunities for path-breaking actions. To explore this issue, we introduce the case study of the Indian hill station town of Darjeeling. We assess the sustainability issues faced by the town (including rapid population growth, limited availability of land, dynamic development arena) and analyse the ongoing attempts by local governmental and non-governmental actors to deal with those issues, within constraints of physical location and an intensely contested politico-governance framework that we suggest are examples of intense contextual constraints.

Exploring the role of green infrastructure in the mitigation of climate change in the urban realm

Green infrastructures are resilient landscapes that support a multitude of ecological, economic and social functions without compromising the sustainability of a resource base. They may comprise a number of different landscape elements that vary in size, composition, and function. What characterises green infrastructure resources are their ability to meet a wide variety of needs – sometimes termed ‘ecosystem services in diverse urban, urban-fringe and rural locations. Green infrastructures have been proposed to promote access and connectivity, function sustainably across different spatial areas, be planned strategically and holistically, support diverse ecological, economic and social needs, and to promote a more holistic approach to landscape management (Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Davies et al., 2006; Kambites and Owen, 2007). Research into a green infrastructure approach to landscape management therefore highlights a number of areas where urban development can contribute to the assessment of strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper aims to review the impact of green infrastructure on urban climate control. Data will be used to assess how and where green infrastructure planning can be used as a method of controlling the effects of urban development. By reviewing the available data on water retention and release, air temperature, wind speeds, and personal health this paper will aim to highlight the positive effect green infrastructure holds in adapting urban micro-climates to the climatic variance caused by built landscape infrastructure (Kloss and Calarusse, 1995; Gill et al., 2007; Brown and Gillespie, 1995; Ekins, 2007). This paper will present a discussion of the following research questions: 1. To what extent green infrastructure can mitigate climatic change in the urban realm? 2. What kind of engineered or green infrastructures are needed to promote urban cooling and support more effective urban systems? 3. To what extent can buildings in the public realm contribute to climate control? A three-tiered analysis of green infrastructure research and its potential for adapting urban areas to climate change is presented. Firstly the paper outlines what green infrastructures are, and the roles they can play in promoting adaptive landscape management approaches. This review then examines the ways in which three main resource elements of ‘grey’ or built landscapes; water, land, and air can benefit from a green infrastructure planning process (Ahern, 2007). This review suggests that an integrative approach to landscape management that values each of these three elements can be developed using a green infrastructure approach (DCLG, 2005; Barton, 2000; Beatley, 2000), The paper goes on to assess how an adaptive use of green infrastructure thinking can improve the quality of these landscape elements and to explain how this can subsequently promote human physical and psychological health (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; de Hollander and Staatsen, 2003; Brown and Grant, 2005). The second section of this paper reviews a number of case studies currently using a green infrastructure planning approach to promote climate change adaptation. Although this review explores a number of case studies it focuses most frequently on the role of public buildings in the urban realm with particular reference to schools and the relationships people have with these built structures. Examples include Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and green building techniques which highlights where lineages can be seen between the structures of the landscape, its subsequent use, and meeting the challenges of a changing environment. Finally this paper outlines case studies reflecting on the relationship between human well-being and the landscapes around them. Assessments of health and well-being are made to highlight what landscapes or landscape features people feel most comfortable in. This examines how urban shading techniques, the use of water resources, and green building design techniques can be used to promote of idea of the landscape as a health centre, an office, and an outdoor living room to support a green infrastructure landscape management approach. Data will be presented from UK and European case studies to highlight how the climate in different countries (temperate and Mediterranean) affects the well-being of their populations. This data supports the hypothesis that effective green infrastructure planning can be integrated into existing and new urban developments to provide cross-cutting benefits to public health, educational achievement, and economic growth. The broad objective of this paper is therefore to suggest that a green infrastructure planning approach to combat climate change also offers an alternative approach to sustainable urban planning. There are positive benefits that can accrue from green infrastructure development and these relate directly to the links between human lives and the built environment. Through a number of case studies the view is presented that the cumulative affect of green infrastructure resources can have a proportionally Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 342029 doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/4/342029

Financing the future of green infrastructure planning: Alternatives and opportunities in the UK

Abstract With the formation of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010, the funding of local government in the UK changed fundamentally. Through an austerity approach to development, local planning authorities (LPAs) have been required to make significant budgetary savings, raising questions over what services are legally and morally dispensable. One service severely impacted has been green space (green infrastructure) management. In many locations, this has generated negative responses, as the proposed cuts are perceived as decreasing the liveability of urban areas. In response, LPAs are engaging in an examination of how they can manage development to more effectively fund green infrastructure provision. Such debates draw on a range of options from public, private and community funding sources, creating further complexity within LPA financing. To explore these options, this paper discusses the appropriateness of different funding mechanisms proposing a multi-option approach for the long-term management of green infrastructure.

Greening Ahmedabad—creating a resilient Indian city using a green infrastructure approach to investment

Abstract Ahmedabad is the commercial centre of the Indian state of Gujarat. With a population of 5.1 million, it is subject to a range of socio-economic and ecological pressures which influence how the city’s landscape is planned. In 2013, the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) released a second draft of the 3rd Development Plan for the city. This document outlined how the city plans to strategically deliver built infrastructure, as well as, enhance its landscape through green infrastructure (GI). Utilising ecological networks the plan explores the value of integrating landscape projects to facilitate a spatially functional landscape resource base. This paper evaluates the transition from the rhetoric of the Development Plan to delivery. Drawing on commentary from local stakeholders, it reflects on the form that GI is taking, and asks whether projects such as the Sabarmati Riverfront are meeting both the strategic, and more localised socio-environmental needs of the city.

The changing focus of England’s Community Forest programme and its use of a green infrastructure approach to multi-functional landscape planning

The role of England’s Community Forest programme has constantly diversified since its creation in 1990. Over the last decade, its role has extended from urban foresters to providers of multi-functional and connected spaces around post-industrial cities. The development of such a key role has allowed each community forest to influence the contemporary debates relating to green infrastructure. However, whether green infrastructure has had a beneficial impact on the long-term sustainability of community forestry in England is still open to question. This paper draws on research conducted with four of England’s Community Forests between 2005 and 2008. It assesses the development of community forestry and explores the dynamic role green infrastructure has played in this process. Through an examination of community forestry practice, this paper asks how green infrastructure has facilitated landscape scale development within a transient period of landscape policy change. Data from interviews and policy analysis undertaken with the North-East Community Forest (NECF) partnership, the Mersey Forest and Marston Vale Community Forest inform this argument assessing the value of green infrastructure in multi-functional forestry. This paper concludes that green infrastructure potentially holds both positive and negative outcomes for community forests. It argues that an over-reliance on green infrastructure in work programmes and funding applications may have led to a narrowing of community forest activities. It goes on to conclude that the broader objectives of England’s Community Forests may offer a more sustainable approach for landscape planning that incorporates green infrastructure as an element of community forestry development.