Global Green Infrastructure: Lessons for successful policy-making, investment and management [1° ed.] 1138854646, 9781138854642

Citation preview

www.ebook3000.com

Global Green Infrastructure

Over the last decade, research exploring green infrastructure planning has burgeoned. Transferable green infrastructure messages between locations, though, are less well established and there remains a visible gap between the conceptual understanding of green infrastructure and its application in practice. Drawing together evaluations of green infrastructure policy-making and practice from across the world, Global Green Infrastructure illustrates where successful practices can be identified. Examples from major green infrastructure development areas in the UK, Europe and the USA highlight the variety of investment options that can deliver socio-economic benefits, whilst there is also a growing awareness of the added value of landscape planning in the rapidly developing cities of India and China. Reflecting on ten international case studies, Global Green Infrastructure highlights the ways that ecological and engineered solutions can deliver successful urban development. Based on in situ research with the growing community of green infrastructure researchers and practitioners, Global Green Infrastructure looks at the contradictions, consensus and expanding evidence base of successful investments. This book also presents an in-depth commentary on the contemporary approaches to investment in urban greening and green infrastructure, and draws on the lessons we have learnt from a decade of experimentation, delivery and reflection. Ian Mell is a Lecturer in Planning & Civic Design at the University of Liverpool. He teaches and researches green infrastructure and planning issues across the world, evaluating the opportunities and disconnects between landscape planning strategy, policy and practice.

‘This book is a rich source for anyone interested in environmental planning. It brims over with the author’s natural enthusiasm and provides many opportunities to consider the potentials of green infrastructure. It is the first text that provides a full picture of the growth, present situation and future possibilities for green infrastructure planning plus the theoretical background. It gives useful contextual summaries of the antecedents of the concept and comments on the varying shades of green in related planning approaches, policies and methods. It is persuasive in the way it addresses economic, stakeholder engagement and policy issues through the case study analyses. This is not just an ideas book or an analysis of past achievements. Through reflection on the global situation and extensive personal experience on the subject, Ian Mell gives a clear vision of the benefits and adaptability of a green infrastructure approach and its role as a natural successor to sustainability thinking in landscape planning’. Maggie Roe, Newcastle University, UK

www.ebook3000.com

Global Green Infrastructure Lessons for successful policy-making, investment and management

Ian Mell

First published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2016 Ian Mell The right of Ian Mell to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Mell, Ian, author.Title: Global green infrastructure : lessons for successful policy-making, investment and management / Ian Mell.Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2015035054| ISBN 9781138854642 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315720968 (ebook)Subjects: LCSH: Landscape protection. | Greenways. | Natural areas. | Human ecology. | Regional planning—Environmental aspects. | City planning— Environmental aspects. | Ecosystem services.Classification: LCC QH75 .M387 2016 | DDC 333.73—dc23LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015035054 ISBN: 978-1-138-85464-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-72096-8 (ebk) Typeset in Frutiger by Keystroke, Station Road, Codsall, Wolverhampton

www.ebook3000.com

Contents

Preface Acknowledgements Acronyms

vii ix xi

1

Introduction: green infrastructure: what, where and why?

2

The antecedents of green infrastructure: Olmsted, Howard and beyond

17

3

Green infrastructure: linking concepts with practice

42

4

The USA: water management in Chicago and the Atlanta Beltline development

59

UK: Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy and the London Olympic Park

86

5 6 7 8 9

1

Europe: green infrastructure development in Paris (France) and Milan (Italy)

108

India: lessons in innovative green infrastructure planning in New Delhi and Ahmedabad

131

China: evaluating the value of green infrastructure planning in Shanghai and Suzhou

154

Global reflections of green infrastructure investment: successes and barriers

171

Bibliography Index

191 206

This page intentionally left blank

www.ebook3000.com

Preface

The evolution of green infrastructure has been quite a personal one for me. I was born in the smallish town of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, where Sandal Castle was the majestic landscape of my early childhood. We then moved to north Lincolnshire in 1989–90 and the arable landscapes of the east of England became home. While we played in fields and along the river bank, it never occurred to me that the difference between the urbanity of Wakefield and the rurality of Lincolnshire was one of multi-functional green infrastructure. My friends and I played, walked, talked and explored the landscape that offered almost unlimited opportunities to interact with nature (Richard Louv would be proud). Now, of course, this is clearly framed as a broader understanding of the affordances offered by a diverse environment. And then I went to university. Moving to Newcastle to study Geography and Environmental Management provided me with new insights into how people, place and landscapes interact. Furthermore, the coastline of Tyneside, the Northumbrian hills and, most importantly, the cultural heritage of Hadrian’s Wall all brought to the fore the value of landscape: socially, economically and ecologically. If we move forward 20 years I sit in an office overlooking Liverpool’s two cathedrals and a minute from Abercrombie Square at the centre of the University of Liverpool campus. Again, landscapes imbued with social and ecological meanings. I also look at the images in Fig. 1.1 on my office wall: landscapes. For better or worse, green infrastructure has influenced my research, hence this book, my teaching and my hobbies. Understanding what motivates us to use and value landscapes, as well as the more technical and bureaucratic nuances of green infrastructure planning, are therefore at the centre of this, and at the heart of this book. Throughout it reflects on over two decades of landscape and urban greening and includes over ten years of my own work in the field. On occasions this presents more individual assessments of practice based on my own interactions with planners, politicians and developers, while in other places we hear from respected commentators in the field (pun intended). Over the last decade research exploring green infrastructure planning has burgeoned. Globally, there is a growing consensus of what, where and how investment in green infrastructure should be implemented, which is, in many locations, supported by an innovative and integrated policy-making and advocacy arena. Green infrastructure can therefore be considered the ‘go-to’ approach to contemporary landscape planning as it holistically addresses climate change, social development and economic valuation simultaneously.

viii

Preface Transferable green infrastructure messages between locations are less well established. Moreover, there is a visible gap between the conceptual understanding of green infrastructure and its application in practice. This, partially, reflects the versatility of the concept to meet a number of landscape planning objectives simultaneously, but also illustrates the variability in policy and practice across the world. As a result there has been, to date, no global synthesis of green infrastructure policy and planning which draws on case study material from more than one location. A number of authors (Austin, 2014; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Beatley, 2000) all contextualised their understanding of green infrastructure in a single location, be it at a city or continental scale. This book aims to be the first to comprehensively draw together primary assessments and evaluations of green infrastructure policy-making and practice in its major development areas (the UK, Europe and the USA). It will also be the first to explore the growing value of green infrastructure in expanding regions such as India and China, highlighting the value of green infrastructure as a multi-functional and integrated approach to urban development and management. The following book presents evidence from across the globe, examining the development, role and utility of green infrastructure in urban landscape management. By drawing on a discussion of a number of key thematic principles (multi-functionality, scale, temporal change, investment policy formation/structures, and delivery focus) it evaluates each, debating the ex-ante opportunities, as well as the ex-post successes, that green infrastructure offers to local-, regional- and national-level planners. Based on in situ research undertaken with the growing green infrastructure community of researchers and practitioners in the UK, USA, Europe, India and China, the book looks at the contradictions, consensus, expanding evidence base and benefits proposed for green infrastructure planning. This presents the first in-depth and comprehensive commentary on the contemporary approaches to investment in urban greening/green infrastructure, where innovations have proved successful, but will also draw on the lessons we have learnt from investment over the previous decade. Overall, the book offers insights into how green infrastructure is and can be developed in different locations. By drawing together case studies from around the world, the following chapters ask the big questions: who is developing green infrastructure, why, and how? Ian Mell December 2015

www.ebook3000.com

Acknowledgements

Many people should take credit for this book. Since 2005 I have had the incredible support of a number of amazingly insightful people who have helped to shape my understanding of green infrastructure. These include colleagues in academia, planning practice and local government; but also family and friends who have pushed me all the way to presenting these ideas. I would first like to thank Maggie Roe at Newcastle University, without whom none of this would have been possible; also in Newcastle, Geoff Vigar, Clive Davies and Rob MacFarlane for their initial and ongoing support. The support provided by the University of Massachusetts and Jack Ahern was also invaluable in helping me get to where I am today. I’d like to thank John Henneberry and the team at the University of Sheffield for the opportunities they provided on the VALUE project, and in particular Berna Keskin for being a rare thing: a great colleague and friend. In local authority in the UK, all the people at East Cambridgeshire District Council who worked on the Ely Country Park and Planting Parishes projects, particularly Julie Cornwell; green infrastructure really did turn out to be a ‘win–win’ situation. Also, everyone who worked on the second Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy in local government and local environmental sector. Moreover, everyone in the community forest sector in the North-West and North-East (Pete Stringer, Paul Nolan, Chris McGloin, Donna Murphy, among others), who have been a massive help, and still are. Many people have also been crucial in helping put this book together around the world. In India, Manoj Dabas (Aravali Foundation & Centre for Urban Green Spaces, New Delhi); Surman Rai (Life and Leaf, Darjeeling), Saswat Bandyopadhyay and Sejal Patel (CEPT University, Ahmebadad), and all those people who were interviewed or took part in research activities, thank you all. In the USA my thanks go to the staff and students in Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning at the University of Massachusetts, the EPC and Parks & Recreation Department in New York, Abby Cristimoso formerly of Metro Planning, Louise Young at CMAP, Cathy Geraghty at Wilderness, Deborah Shore at the Chicago MWRD, Nancy Williamson with the Illinois DNR, Harriet Festing at the Center for Neighborhoods, and Tom Price with Conservation Design Forum and others all in Chicago. Erica Davies, Catherine Owen, Lee Harrop, Paul Morris and Kevin Burke at the Atlanta Beltline and Robby Bryant of HDC Inc. in Atlanta for their insights into the development of the Beltline.

x

Acknowledgements In the UK, Peter Massini at the GLA (and formerly Natural England), the various environmental agencies in London, David Bethall (formerly of Cambridgeshire County Council) and the other Cambridgeshire green infrastructure people, Liz McClelland at the Woodland Trust, and the various community forest partnerships who’ve forced green infrastructure planning in government policy. And in Europe, colleagues in Italy, Sweden and Germany: Giovanni Sanesi, Enrico Calvo, Benedetto Selleri, Cecil Konijnendijk van der Bosch, and Stephan Pauleit. There are also a number of people a little closer to home that need thanking. My family, who have provided support, critiques and anecdotes to make this book possible, I’ll be forever grateful. John Sturzaker who has dealt with a decade of me talking about trees and grass and stuff, you’ve been a massive help and a great friend; John – where is Wye? And finally, Alice, who’d have thought we’d be here now (apart from you, obviously)? We’ve made this happen. Funding for this work was made available from the Urban Knowledge Network Asia (UKNA, 2014), an ESRC CASE Award (2005–2009) and University of Liverpool Pump Priming and Start-up funding (2013–2015). Finally, I’d like to thank all those at Routledge, especially Louise Fox and Sade Lee, for their support in making this happen, I couldn’t have done it without you.

www.ebook3000.com

Acronyms

AMC ANGSt ARUR AUDA BAP BJP BLF CCC CEMDE CIAT CIL CMAP CNT CSL DCLG DCMS DDA DNR DoE DoT ELC ENGO EPA ERSAF GIS GLA HGF IGIA LDF LI LLDC LOCOG LPA MARTA

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Accessible Natural Green Space Standards Plan Local d’Urbanisme Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Biodiversity Action Plan Bharatiya Janata Party Big Lottery Fund Cambridgeshire County Council Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems Countryside In and Around Towns Community Infrastructure Levy Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Center for Neighborhood Technology (Chicago) Commission for a Sustainable London Department for Communities and Local Government Department of Culture, Media and Sport Delhi Development Authority Illinois Department for Natural Resources Department of Environment (Chicago) Department of Transport (Chicago) European Landscape Convention Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation US Environmental Protection Agency Ente Regionale Per I Servizi All’Agricoltura e Alle Foreste Geographical Information Systems Greater London Authority Housing Growth Funding Indira Gandhi International Airport Local Development Framework Landscape Institute London Legacy Development Corporation London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games Local Planning Authority Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transport Authority

xii

Acronyms MoU MWRD NCR NDD NGO NHS NITI NLUD NPPF ODA ODPM OPDC OPLC PPP PPS/PPG QUANGO RDA RoW RSS RTPI S106 SCDC SEMAEST SIP SPA SRFDCL SSSI SUDS SWAT TCPA TCPO TPS UDPFI VALUE WFD XJTLU ZAC

Memorandum of Understanding Municipal Water Reclamation District (Chicago) National Capital Region (New Delhi) nature-deficit disorder non-governmental organisation National Health Service National Institution for Transforming India National Land Use Data National Planning Policy Framework Olympic Development Authority Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Olympic Park Development Corporation Olympic Park Legacy Corporation public–private partnership Planning Policy Statement/Guidance Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation Regional Development Agency rights of way Regional Spatial Strategy Royal Town Planning Institute Section 106 Planning Obligation South Cambridgeshire District Council Société d’économie mixte d’aménagement de l’Est Parisien Singapore Industrial Park School of Planning and Architecture (New Delhi) Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation site of specific scientific interest sustainable urban drainage system Strategic Water Analysis Town & Country Planning Association Town & Country Planning Organisation Town Planning Scheme Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy Water Framework Directive Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University Zones d’Aménagement Concreté

www.ebook3000.com

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Green infrastructure: what, where and why?

This book opens with two thoughts that will help focus the following discussion of green infrastructure. The first is an anecdote and the second relates to Fig. 1.1. Both, I would argue, illustrate that we need to take a much broader view on how we value the landscapes around us and how this should influence the ways in which we manage them. While each thought is, of and in itself self-contained, they do highlight some of the issues of focus, terminology, scale and valuation that will be discussed in more depth throughout the following chapters. It is envisaged that these thoughts will act as a starting point for the much deeper conversation presented in this book and assist in tying together the myriad aspects of green infrastructure planning.

Figure 1.1 Office landscape photographs, Liverpool (UK).

2

Introduction The first thought relates to a conversation that occurred in 2006 when I was asked to explain what green infrastructure was by a family member. I proceeded to spend the next 30 minutes discussing the various principles, benefits and locations in which green infrastructure could be found. In reply I heard: ‘So green infrastructure can be my garden?’. Yes, I replied, but then went on to explain that it could also be a whole range of landscape features including woodlands, water resources and some built environment infrastructure (e.g. cycle paths). Moving forward to 2014 and I was once again asked what green infrastructure is by the same family member. She had heard news reporters talking about ‘infrastructure’ (in relation to transport and housing development) and wanted to know whether there was any connection to green infrastructure. Yes, I replied, there are elements of green infrastructure thinking embedded in other forms of urban and landscape planning. What we have to remember, though, is that the context of an investment is central to the benefits they can deliver. Talking on this again, on 7 June 2014, I was watching BBC World News in Ahmedabad, a location in India that will be discussed in Chapter 7, and an item on climate change was being discussed. The reporter was discussing how businesses in the UK were redesigning parking areas using porous pavements, bioswales and filtration traps to make economic savings. Finally, green infrastructure seems to be penetrating the mainstream! In the eight years between these two conversations the principle uses of green infrastructure have developed extensively within landscape and urban planning (Allen III, 2012; Beatley, 2012; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Mell, 2010). The level of debate discussing its values has extended from a small number of research clusters in the UK and USA into a global exploration of the value of green infrastructure, which has become embedded in the scoping, planning and management of landscape resources

Figure 1.2 Urban green infrastructure, Vancouver (Canada).

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction

3 Figure 1.3 Forestry Commission GI Guidance (UK).

(Beatley, 2000; Davies et al., 2006; Weber & Wolf, 2000; Williamson, 2003). Although research from the UK and USA is still at the forefront of this process, there is a growing literature in Europe and increasingly in Asia, reviewing the opportunities green infrastructure provides to address socio-economic and sustainability issues (Boyle et al., 2013; Lemma & Overseas Development Agency, 2012). We can therefore argue that expansion has brought landscape back into the mainstream discussions of development, providing it with a greater visibility, and vis-à-vis, integrity. Over the same timescale we have also seen green infrastructure filter through into university teaching curriculums, watched the creation of an increasing number of strategies and guidance documents and witnessed green infrastructure being embedded within international (e.g. European Union), national (e.g. the UK) and sub-national policy (e.g. Cambridgeshire, UK). Moreover, in spite of the variation evident in the details of how and why green infrastructure is being developed between locations, there is a positive association between the discussions of its value and its development within policy and practice (Landscape Institute, 2013; Lerner & Allen, 2012; Hostetler et al., 2011; Roe & Mell, 2008). However, although there is a growing understanding of what green infrastructure is, how it can be used and what social, ecological and economic value it can deliver, there is still a lack of consensus regarding how these various elements of landscape and green infrastructure should be addressed (Mell, 2013a). This is not, in many cases, a negative, because as landscape planners continue to plan more sustainable places, such variation can provide alternative approaches for development that instil a more appropriate focus for investment (Wright, 2011). The second thought relates to Fig. 1.1. This photograph was taken in January 2015 in my office in the oldest Planning School in the UK, at the University of Liverpool. It is presented as it represents, to me at least, a number of the key issues

4

Introduction we deal with when we discuss green infrastructure. Fig. 1.1 shows a number of photographs used in my teaching and research materials that, like many academics, were taken on holiday. They show a number of landscapes in Canada, mainly in Vancouver and Vancouver Island, which have meanings to me as an individual. Academically they highlight the range of activities and landscape types that can be considered green infrastructure. They also illustrate, again to me, some of the most fundamental issues in green infrastructure research that will populate this book: perceptions, scale, focus and multi-functionality. The images help to tell the story of our cultural and industrial relationships with the landscape; they show the wonder and awe that trees can promote; and they highlight that each of us will find value in different aspects of a given landscape. Our understanding of these issues, and the ways in which they interact, therefore frames how we address the scoping, design, implementation and management of the landscape. To address these issues, this book sets out a systematic exploration of these issues focused on a decade of evidence gathering and analysis of green infrastructure research. Using examples of investment from a number of locations across the globe, both established and growing, the following examines the focus, value and opportunities for investment in green infrastructure. Each example illustrates how a nuanced understanding of the local landscape context is needed if planners are to promote an appropriate set of parameters for development. Drawing on interactions and a dialogue with a range of stakeholders (academics, policy-makers, practitioners and user groups) the following chapters explore how green infrastructure can be used to create valuable assets in urban areas and how they can tackle the key landscape issues of climate change, water management, ecological capacity, and socio-economic growth. The book also presents a personal milestone. Since 2005 I have worked extensively on green infrastructure planning. I have been lucky enough to work with incredibly dedicated and insightful people to help develop the academic debates of its meaning (Mell, 2013a, 2010, 2008); I was part of the team who scoped, consulted, wrote and supported the second Green Infrastructure Strategy (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011). I have also stood in muddy fields on cold mid-winter mornings discussing the best forms of biodiversity management, recreational improvements and accessibility needed within a range of green infrastructure projects. I have seen how green infrastructure discussions become both increasingly vague yet simultaneously nuanced when explored in international forums. As a consequence, green infrastructure has shaped a significant proportion of my working life. The following book is therefore populated with professional commentary, but is supported by additional personal insights into the development of green infrastructure in a number of these different locations.

1.1 Why green infrastructure and why now? Over the last decade, research exploring green infrastructure planning has burgeoned (Boyle et al., 2013). Globally, there is a growing consensus of what, where and how investment in green infrastructure should be implemented, which is, in many locations, supported by an integrated policy-making and advocacy arena (Benedict &

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction

5

McMahon, 2002; Goode, 2006; Lennon, 2014a). Green infrastructure can therefore be considered as having positioned itself as a ‘go-to’ approach in contemporary landscape planning, as it holistically addresses climate change, social development and economic valuation simultaneously (Mell, 2010). Transferable green infrastructure messages between locations are less well established. Moreover, there is a visible gap between the conceptual understanding of green infrastructure – the what is it questions, and its application in practice – the so what questions (Vandermeulen et al., 2011). This, partially, reflects the versatility of the concept to meet a number of planning objectives simultaneously, but also illustrates the variability in planning policy and practice across the world. As a result there has been, to date, no accepted single global synthesis of green infrastructure which draws on case study material from more than one location. A number of authors, including Austin (2014), Gill et al. (2007) and Rouse & Bunster-Ossa (2013), have though each contextualised their understanding of green infrastructure in a single location. To date, Mell’s (2010) is one of the few evaluations which attempts to find a common narrative across a number of locations; in this case the UK, USA and Western Europe. The following discussions aim to be one of the first, if not the first, to comprehensively draw together primary in-depth assessments and evaluations of the development, role and utility of green infrastructure in policy-making and practice in each of its major development areas (UK, Europe and USA). It will also be the first to explore the growing value of green infrastructure in expanding regions, such as India and China, to highlight the value of green infrastructure as a multifunctional and integrated approach to urban planning. By drawing on a discussion of a number of key thematic principles – multi-functionality, scale, temporal change, investment policy formation/structures and delivery focus – the following evaluates how we can debate ex-ante opportunities, as well as the ex-post successes of green infrastructure which can offer local-, regional- and national-level planners an insight into the benefits associated with investment in urban greening (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012; Town & Country Planning

Figure 1.4 Street trees in Ahmedabad, India.

6

Introduction

Figure 1.5 Promenade Planteé, Paris, France.

Figure 1.6 Locals playing Mahjong and cards in a public green space in Shanghai, China.

Association, 2012a). Based on in situ research undertaken with the growing green infrastructure community of researchers and practitioners in the UK, USA, Europe, India and China, the following looks at the contradictions, consensus, expanding evidence base and benefits being proposed for green infrastructure planning. This presents a comprehensive commentary on the contemporary approaches to green infrastructure investment, assessment, and where innovations have proved successful, but will also draw on the less successful lessons we have learnt from investment over the previous decade.

1.2 What is green infrastructure? Green infrastructure is simultaneously a simple yet very complex approach to landscape planning. At its core are a small number of accepted characteristics that have

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction been discussed within the academic and practitioner literature since it was first discussed in the late 1990s (Williamson, 2003). These principles, based on notions of connectivity between people, places and resources, accessibility to the landscape and the delivery of a range of benefits within an integrated approach to urban-landscape development, are all key ideas within the green infrastructure literature, all of which are focused on the assumption that green infrastructure can, and does, promote landscape multi-functionality. Subsequently, green infrastructure has been reported as supporting ecological functions, social needs and economic improvements (Austin, 2014; Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Davies et al., 2006; Mell, 2010; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Weber et al., 2006). Since its first use in the late 1990s (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013) the ways in which green infrastructure has developed also illustrates that this set of assumptions have become normative. For example, in the UK, green infrastructure planning has taken a more holistic approach to the integration of socio-economic and environmental influences compared to the water-centric approach popularised in the USA (Mell, 2012; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). Therefore, although the focus of application may differ, within these discussions the principles noted above have been repeatedly discussed to form the conceptual framework for green infrastructure planning. Taking a synthesis of the existing research as a starting point, this book views green infrastructure in the following way: GI includes the network of green spaces and other natural elements such as rivers and lakes that are interspersed between and connect villages, towns and cities. Individually these elements are GI assets and the roles that these assets play are GI functions. When appropriately planned, designed and managed, these assets and functions have the potential to deliver a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits (Landscape Institute, 2009: 4) The Landscape Institute and others (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; England’s Community Forests & Forestry Commission, 2012; Mell, 2012; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Sandström, 2002) presented a number of key characteristics, which they suggest are central to our understanding of green infrastructure. These include: establishing connected landscapes, promoting multi-functionality, supporting the management of a range of green infrastructure assets and integrating the development of more liveable/sustainable places with policy. All of these reflect upon the proclamation of Benedict and McMahon (2006), who emotively proposed that green infrastructure is the life support system of our landscapes and needs to be considered as a series of interactions between socio-economic and environmental factors. The following chapters use these key principles to frame the discussion of green infrastructure in each case study. The final chapter extends these discussions to show where best practice is visible, but also where opportunities lie for the development of further innovations in green infrastructure thinking, policy and practice. However, it is also important to identify at the outset what landscape resources constitute green infrastructure before moving on to a discussion of why it’s important.

7

8

Introduction Green infrastructure, as noted at the start of this chapter, is a dichotomous concept. Fundamentally it is a very simple idea, yet in practice the range of resources which illustrate either the physical or conceptual principles of green infrastructure is much wider. In basic terms green infrastructure is the natural or landscape resources that we see in our environments. However, if we can delve deeper and begin to apply different typologies of spatial restrictions to green infrastructure, we start to see a more fluid interpretation of how planners and practitioners categorise these resources. A range of academics, government offices and practitioners have attempted to find a common thread between these two positions, which has met with limited success (Ahern, 2007; Kousky et al., 2013; Madureira et al., 2011; Mell, 2007; Schilling & Logan, 2008). We have also seen a number of attempts led by national agencies in the UK and USA to produce guidance on what actually constitutes green infrastructure. From a UK perspective the guidance produced by Natural England and Landuse Consultants (2009) was one of the first instances of an agency identifying a specific set of characteristics to ground green infrastructure thinking. They proposed five such categorisations (see Table 1.1), through which they have subsequently developed guidance for scoping projects, allocating funding and establishing management programmes. Natural England’s typology is not exhaustive. It does, however, illustrate the variability in what they constitute a green infrastructure resource to be. Such variation is a positive for green infrastructure policy-makers and practitioners, as it provides them with a number of alternative delivery options. This can also be described as a potential hindrance, as it provides too great a diversity for the same planners and policy-makers, which in turn can limit the development of consensus for investment (Mell, 2013a; Wright, 2011). One benefit of the Natural England typology, as well as those produced by the Conservation Fund (Benedict & McMahon, 2006) and the Town & Country Planning Association (Town & Country Planning Association, 2004),

Table 1.1 Natural England green infrastructure typology Classification

Resources

Parks and gardens

Urban parks, country and regional parks, formal gardens

Amenity greenspace

Informal recreation spaces, housing green spaces, domestic gardens, village greens, urban commons, other incidental space, green roofs

Natural and semi-natural urban greenspaces

Woodland and scrub, grassland (e.g. downland and meadow), heath or moor, wetlands, open and running water, wastelands and disturbed ground), bare rock habitats (e.g. cliffs and quarries)

Green corridors

Rivers and canals including their banks, road and rail corridors, cycling routes, pedestrian paths, and rights of way

Other

Allotments, community gardens, city farms, cemeteries and churchyards

Source: adapted from Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009.

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction though, is that it promotes a national-level discussion of what green infrastructure is and isn’t. In his initial scoping study Mell (2010) attempted to address the complexities of this process, stating that green infrastructure could be understood if the ‘Grey–Green Continuum’ developed by Davies et al. (2006) was utilised. They both went on to discuss how as planners and practitioners we can identify the value in a number of different landscape resources moving from more engineered and grey (i.e. built) forms to increasingly more identifiably green ones (i.e. trees and grasses). The continuum therefore implies that green infrastructure represents natural or ecological resources, as shown in the Natural England research, but also supports the application of sustainable/green ideas such as cycle paths. The continuum thus provides options for green infrastructure practitioners to deliver a diverse range of benefits to a range of development issues including roadside verges (Marcucci & Jordan, 2013), effective water management (Philadelphia Water Department, 2011), climate change (Gill et al., 2007; Goode, 2006) or meeting public health needs (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012b). Green infrastructure can, as a consequence, be described as everything and nothing. It also provides opportunities for planners, developers and practitioners to look at urban and landscape issues from alternative perspectives, which can be considered a positive process. One further issue that requires a brief reflection at this juncture is the use of green infrastructure terminology. Green infrastructure draws on ideas and language from a number of disciplines (e.g. landscape ecology, geography and planning), and as a consequence utilises a range of synonyms to describe what it is. This includes the use of urban greening, urban green spaces, green spaces and to a lesser extent ecosystems and ecosystem services (Mell, 2010). All of these have specific meanings other than those addressed specifically within the green infrastructure literature. However, in the same manner that greenways and garden cities (see Chapter 2) are examined, each of these terms has helped to frame our interpretations of green infrastructure thinking. For example, in India the use of green infrastructure is still embryonic. As an alternative the Indian government and practitioners use green space as their key term for describing green infrastructure practice (Nagendra et al., 2010). Likewise, in North America the focus on water management, stormwater retention and mitigation installs green infrastructure with a set of water-centric/engineered terminology. Finally, in continental Europe the use of green structure planning and not green infrastructure still dominates in some locations, e.g. Germany (European Commission, 2012; Liebenath et al., 2010). Each of these alternative understandings can be described as focusing on the broader process of investment and discussion of green infrastructure development. Therefore, although green infrastructure will be used most frequently to describe these practices, other terms, such as those mentioned above, will also appear within the text.

1.3 Why is green infrastructure development important? The rapidity of urban development has meant that landscape professionals have, in many locations, acted reactively to manage change. With an increasing understanding of the drivers and impacts of climate change, landscape planners have

9

10

Introduction looked to alternative solutions to establish more sustainable landscape practice. The rise of green infrastructure has coincided with this process, helping its advocates to establish the concept as a ‘go-to’ process (Mell, 2014). One key assumption in this process is the notion that there is a flexibility to green infrastructure planning that enables its users to address a range of development scenarios simultaneously (Ahern, 2013; Horwood, 2011; Wright, 2011). Water management, biodiversity conservation, health inequalities, as well as climate change, are all areas where a green infrastructure approach has been successfully applied (Boyle et al., 2013). The flexibility of green infrastructure, therefore, reduces the reliance on a small number of established investment options, providing landscape planners with versatility often unseen in development (Mell, 2013a). Green infrastructure planning can also be applied at a number of scales, and thus offers a flexible approach to investment; promoting cross-boundary collaboration aids the establishment of multi-functional landscape resources. International policy, such as the Water Framework Directive, is one example of this where green infrastructure practitioners have made extensive use of spatial characteristics to strategically scope management at a regional and landscape scale (Ahern, 2007; Hering et al., 2010). Due to the versatility that is explicit within green infrastructure planning it can (and has) provide opportunities for planners at a local, metropolitan and subregional scale to work effectively across administrative and legal boundaries (Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Tzoulas et al., 2007). In such cases green infrastructure investments can be presented as an approach to landscape resource management that promotes the use of landscape networks, thus, saving time and money for the developers and the public through an integrated approach to investment (Boyle et al., 2013; Roe & Mell, 2013). Policy focused on green infrastructure also draws on a number of established green space planning ideas. The integration of landscape ecology principles (networks, capacity building), greenways (connectivity, multiple benefits) and garden cities (integrated planning, urban greening) – all of which are discussed further in

Figure 1.7 Landscape-scale green infrastructure, Vancouver Island, Canada.

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction

11 Figure 1.8 Town Moor, public green space, Newcastle, UK.

Chapter 2 – provide green infrastructure with its conceptual foundation. They also embed within green infrastructure thinking a set of established delivery practices that can be drawn upon to promote the delivery of multi-functional landscape investment (Ahern, 1995; Fábos, 2004; Forman, 1995; Howard, 2009). An analysis of greenways and garden cities also illustrates that the principles of green infrastructure may not be new, but presents a cyclical re-evaluation of the notions of integrated and sustainable approaches to planning (Davies et al., 2006; Mell, 2010). Green infrastructure planning is therefore a contemporary form of landscape planning that works within the parameters of existing approaches but reframes them to address more contemporary issues.

1.4 Who is leading the development and management of green infrastructure? One of the central questions discussed in green infrastructure research is who is involved with the visioning, development and management of investments? Across the world we see a range of stakeholders drawn from government, non-governmental practice, academia and the general public involved in the development of green infrastructure (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Invariably this leads to a complex interplay of investment agendas and perspectives, which has, at times, led to disjointed implementation. In each of the geographical areas discussed in this book, a broad set of actors holds important roles in the promotion and management of green infrastructure; some at a national scale, e.g. in the USA, others at a city scale, e.g. Paris and Milan (Beatley, 2000; Hansen et al., 2015). In each case study the mechanisms that facilitate engagement with green infrastructure are discussed, highlighting the specific responsibilities that actors have in promoting policy formation and implementation (Horwood, 2011; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Mazza et al., 2011). What is clear within each example is that involvement with green infrastructure planning is a

12

Introduction fluid process that explicitly requires trans-disciplinary working in order to explore the most cost-effective and positive socio-ecological outcomes of development. For instance, in the UK green infrastructure was initially promoted at the subregional level by local planning authorities (LPAs), England’s Community Forests and the Countryside Agency, who established the initial tentative framework for investment (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; Countryside Agency & Groundwork, 2005). In subsequent years, changes in central government funding, revocation of landscape policy and a movement towards a more ‘localised’ approach to green infrastructure has seen the number of engaged stakeholders diversify. Currently, in 2014/15, Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the National Health Service (NHS) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG – the government department tasked with managing planning) are all actively discussing the value of green infrastructure. We can therefore ask how such national-scale bodies are integrated into the development and delivery of policy when practice varies so dramatically between locations. What we can suggest is that to effectively manage development there is a need for greater levels of cooperation, by all bodies, and at a number of scales (Abbott, 2012; Allen III, 2012). Furthermore, despite the influence of the bodies and other professional/campaigning agencies in the UK, including the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), the Landscape Institute (LI) and the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA), successful green infrastructure projects appear to retain a sub-national focus. In two of the case studies presented – Cambridgeshire and the London 2012 Olympic Games site – this process has been key to the successful investment in green infrastructure. Both involved a number of similar stakeholders – LPAs, key environment agencies (e.g. Natural England or Environment Agency) – yet the development of the delivery objectives was structured to meet different needs. As a consequence, the involvement of private investors in London helped to shape the development of the Olympic Park in a different way to the publically funded scoping and delivery of green infrastructure in Cambridgeshire. Establishing an understanding of who is

Figure 1.9 Green–blue infrastructure, Belfast (UK).

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction

Figure 1.10 Bryant Park, New York (USA).

Figure 1.11 Cyclepath, Kings Cross London (UK).

involved, as well as their primary motivations for investing in green infrastructure, provides us with a more in-depth knowledge of why certain companies or agencies align themselves with investment in urban greening (Town & Country Planning Organisation & Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, 2014). We must also be prepared to accept that the process of investment in green infrastructure does not follow a linear trajectory. Due to the variation in administrative and legislative responsibility, the development of green infrastructure shows subtle but distinctive differences between locations (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Mell, 2009; TEP, 2005). Even within a single county, for instance the USA, the process of policy-making and implementation shows a level of fluidity that some say may undermine the rationale for investment (Mell, 2014). However, despite such variation in the interpretation of what, how and why green infrastructure is needed, the case study chapters illustrate how the support of a strong, and in many cases politically influential, advocacy arena help to equalise the disparity between focus and implementation.

1.5 Structure of the book Each of the issues noted in the previous sections will be addressed throughout the following chapters, framing the way the book is presented, which is set out in three sections. First, the initial chapters present an overview of what green infrastructure is, how it is being developed and where the concept has come from. This will explore the

13

14

Introduction development of a number of key green infrastructure principles: connectivity, sustainable landscape planning, multi-functionality, integrated and proactive development management, and how these have been embedded within landscape management debates. It also reflects on how the political, legislative and economic structures of a location influence how green infrastructure is discussed. Chapter 3 presents the conceptual framework that underpins the evaluation of case study materials. The framework sets out why the case studies were selected, how each example is evaluated and how we identify successful investment in green infrastructure. To achieve this, the development context of the case studies is described, identifying the range of green infrastructure resources utilised in each location, and makes judgements on the delivery of a broad range of multi-functional benefits. Second, the socio-economic context is assessed to highlight the main drivers of change in each area. This reflects upon how green infrastructure is presented as a delivery objective in the investment priorities of an area. Such an analysis contextualises the decisions made by local government in terms of what investment is promoted, and makes judgements of what the longer-term impacts of such opportunities are. Third, the socio-economic and environmental factors which influence development in each location are reviewed against the normative approaches to landscape planning. This illustrates how green infrastructure investment is presented within the political actions (and policy) of each case study location, assessing the impact this has on the form, focus and success of development. For example, in the USA there is a predominant process of water-centric green infrastructure investment, framed within US governmental and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, which influences the focus of delivery. These processes will be discussed, highlighting the complexity of situating investment for green infrastructure in a variable socio-political environment. Each of the case studies presented draws on a number of policy/guidance sources, as well as evidence from delivery organisations to illustrate what investment has taken place, and whether or not it should be considered successful. In each example the three aspects of physical, socio-economic and political influence are reflected upon to evaluate how the context (size and location), the investment/development programme (stakeholders, policy/guidance, budget) and the challenges of investing in green infrastructure are subject to a number of explicit and implicit planning constraints. Running through each case study are a series of reflective questions that will be used to assess the value of investment in green infrastructure. These include: • Why and what green infrastructure is being developed? • What is the value of green infrastructure development in this location? • Which stakeholders are engaged in the process of green infrastructure development and why? • What funding is being used to support investment in green infrastructure? • What has worked and what can be improved? Each question provides a lens through which best practice in green infrastructure delivery can be highlighted. It also provides continuity between the case studies by

www.ebook3000.com

Introduction illustrating whether specific development and management factors can be considered transferable between scales and locations. This is an important issue, as although green infrastructure has a set of grounded principles, there is less certainty on how these ideas can be delivered. The analysis presented in each case study and in the concluding summary goes on to identify what and how investment in green infrastructure can be considered to be globally successful. The second half of the book presents a series of case studies examining the development and value of green infrastructure across the world. Using evidence of government policy formation and action, as well as non-governmental agency investments in green infrastructure, the case studies look at the nuanced forms that green infrastructure development takes. This extends the thematic approach outlined in Chapter 3, highlighting how geographically specific green infrastructure practices reflect the wider socio-political nature of each site. This includes a discussion of the political structures which support its use, the funding mechanisms used to achieve these goals, and the actual focus of delivery to highlight whether transferable practices can be identified. The case studies have been selected based on their alternative approaches to investment in green infrastructure. A number of these locations have been reported as leading the global discussion on investment in green infrastructure, e.g. Chicago (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014), and have reported innovative delivery programmes explaining how this should be approached. Examples have been selected from regions with longer histories of green infrastructure practice (UK, USA and Europe), as well as from those regions where the development of urban greening is more recent (India and China). Each case study also highlights the complexities that exist for landscape managers who are investing in green infrastructure. For example, in the UK, Cambridgeshire was a leading region which developed green infrastructure policy in the mid-2000s, while the London 2012 Olympic Games provided the city with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to invest in an internationally important green infrastructure project. In the USA, Chicago’s approach to a metropolitan (and peri-metropolitan) green infrastructure/greenways development is looking at the wider implications of effective water/urban greening management. European examples offer greater insights into the interactivity of historical investments in green infrastructure with more contemporary forms of urban landscape management. Each example highlights the variation in the form that green infrastructure takes, which is particularly relevant when the density and space constraints of European cities are considered. The Asian cities presented highlight the growing value of green infrastructure in rapidly developing locations. In New Delhi and the National Capital Territory (NCT), the rate of expansion is placing exhaustive pressures on the capacity of the environment to remain environmentally sustainable. In contrast, Ahmedabad is a smaller, less expansive and newer city where growth is less aggressive. This case study discusses how green infrastructure is being used to provide a platform for long-term sustainable landscape planning. The case study from Shanghai–Suzhou brings together each of the factors illustrated in Europe, the USA and India, where growth, socio-economic development and environmental-political interactions with the landscape hold a central role in the development of green infrastructure.

15

16

Introduction The final section draws together the key messages of each case study to explore how green infrastructure planning can continue to develop. This section presents examples of where green infrastructure has been successfully implemented, highlighting practices which could be considered as internationally transferable. It also includes a discussion of which physical characteristics are important, how socioeconomic variables can be managed and how both of these issues can be moderated within the politicised arena of landscape planning. One further aspect of this process will be a reflection on how practice can inform the continuing evolution of green infrastructure as a conceptual approach to landscape planning. This draws on the case study material to identify whether modifications to the key principles and approaches to green infrastructure are needed. In summary, the following book presents a synthesis of a decade of global green infrastructure discussion illustrating where progress has been made in how and why we use the concept, and where future opportunities for investment lie.

www.ebook3000.com

CHAPTER 2

The antecedents of green infrastructure Olmsted, Howard and beyond

In 2006 Davies et al. (2006: 5) suggested that green infrastructure might be simply old wine in a new bottle. The suggestion that green infrastructure is nothing new has never really prompted much of a response from its advocates. They simply highlight that it re-interprets the most appropriate elements of different green space planning techniques, reframing them as the integrated approach known as green infrastructure. Green infrastructure is therefore not revolutionary and it has not developed out of the blue. What it is, though, is a more nuanced form of understanding between people, place and the environment, which helps its advocates to view development (and management) through a more holistic perspective (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Duly, green infrastructure could be seen as a chameleon within planning, which enables its user to diversify its emphasis to suit the context of a specific development. Should this be considered a problem? At its very essence, planning – and within the context of green infrastructure, landscape planning – is a process of evolution, not stagnation (Isserman, 2014). Any debate of green infrastructure thus reflects, at least in part, the antecedents that have supported its development. The following chapter draws on this rich history1 to illustrate where a number of the key conceptual principles supporting green infrastructure have been adapted from. This covers green space planning discussions in the UK, North America and Europe, illustrating the complexity faced by the early green infrastructure researchers as they attempted to find a common lineage between diverse places, alternative approaches to delivery, historical antecedents and the fluency of planning policy-implementation systems around the world. Examples from the UK cities are discussed to show how our current reflections on society and place were developed (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a), reviewing the value of garden cities and green belt designations and their influence on the spatial form of green infrastructure (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). From North America the work of Frederick Law Olmsted is presented, highlighting how the ‘greenway’ movement promoted landscape connectivity, increasing access and multi-functionality in cities (Ahern, 1995; Fábos, 2004). This chapter also briefly introduces how the reconstruction of some of Europe’s cities have more recently utilised various aspects of what we now call ‘green infrastructure’ as a sign of public responsibility to promote livability and urban sustainability. All of which leads us to the present-day musings on the development of sustainable communities in the UK, USA and further afield in places like India, and the rise of green

18

The antecedents of green infrastructure urbanism as a form of environmental management (Beatley, 2000; Benton-Short & Short, 2007; Lehmann, 2011). These discussions are supported by a review of biodiversity planning, landscape ecology and ecosystem services approaches to environmental management that have been embedded into green infrastructure. This provides its advocates with a set of spatial principles to guide their understanding of green infrastructure and the delivery of multiple benefits across landscape boundaries (Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Young, 2010). One further dimension that is integrated into these discussions is an understanding of water within green infrastructure thinking. The following discusses how water is explored in different green infrastructure arenas, highlighting its influence on landscape planning. This is of significant relevance in the USA, where water-centric investment in urban greening is the most frequently applied form of green infrastructure (Ahern, 2007; Hansen, 2013). What each of these approaches brings to this book is an insight into how green space planning has changed over time. They also hint at the links between historic approaches to green space management and more recent practices, such as community forestry and green urbanism, in the shaping of green infrastructure (Mell, 2010). Just as landscape architects, like Olmsted, and philanthropists such as Howard endeavoured to rethink how we envision, develop and manage our cities, green infrastructure thinking has provided us with an ability to rethink our relationship and the value we find in landscapes (Davies, 2014; Herrington, 2009). Green infrastructure researchers have therefore mined planning history to highlight the positive aspects of these approaches, which have subsequently been engaged with by green infrastructure advocates. Such a process of evaluation that meets the needs of specific locations has thus provided green infrastructure planners with a versatility, as noted by Wright (2011) and Mell (2011a; 2013a), that can be considered as one of the most important aspects of its use. This chapter returns to this issue at regular junctures, assessing how various green space approaches have been reimagined as the basis for green infrastructure planning. Each of the green infrastructure principles or antecedents presented in this chapter also highlights the complexity associated with developing landscapes. Due to the variability of understanding between academics, policy-makers and practitioners there has not been, to date, a unified consensus developed for how we should plan for landscape resources. We therefore need to debate green infrastructure as both a sum of its parts and as an inherently context-specific approach (Wright, 2011). As a consequence, the ambition discussed by Mell (2010) to create consensus for green infrastructure between disciplines and locations is often fraught with ambiguity and subtleties, which have proved difficult to mitigate. One example of this is shown in Table 2.1, where a range of constraints influencing green infrastructure planning in the UK and USA are highlighted (Mell, 2014). These suggest that although there is a level of consistency to green infrastructure discussions in different locations, there are nuanced understandings or applications of the concepts and principles in different locales. This also reflects the variation in project/delivery focus, support and outputs that green infrastructure has been imbued with in different contexts. Our understanding of these subtleties has changed as we become more aware of the influence that historical planning discussions have on current policy-practice discourse (McHarg, 1969; Selman, 2009). This is a recurring theme throughout as the

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure Table 2.1 Barriers to green infrastructure development Constraint

Focus

UK

USA

Funding

Financial





Policy formation

Political





Policy application

Political/financial

Political support

Political/financial

Support of other sectors (i.e. transport, sanitation or housing)

Political/financial

Delivery expertise/capacity

Financial/political



Capacity of resource base to accept/ support development

Environmental





Public responses to development

Political/financial





 

 

Source: adapted from Mell, 2014. Based on: Lennon, 2014a; Roe & Mell, 2013; Boyle et al., 2013; Mell, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013a; Lerner & Allen, 2012; Byrne, Lo & Jianjun 2015; South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012; Allen III, 2012; Siemens AG, 2011; UNEP-WCMC, 2011; Horwood, 2011; Wright, 2011; Beatley, 2000; 2009; Natural England and Landuse Consultants, 2009; Schilling & Logan, 2008; Tzoulas et al., 2007; Ahern, 2007; Gill et al., 2007; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Weber et al., 2006; Benedict & McMahon, 2002; 2006; Hellmund & Smith, 2006; Little, 1990.

evidence of green infrastructure development is contextualised alongside planning praxis. The following sections trace the lineages of green infrastructure, providing a historical context to its development and use in landscape planning.

2.1 Parkways and greenways One of the most instrumental approaches that shaped green infrastructure was the development of parkways and greenways. Greenways are linear features, predominately constructed of environmental features (e.g. trails) that originally aimed to facilitate movement from urban areas into the wider landscapes and countryside (Fábos, 2004). Developed first in the USA, they have subsequently been utilised around the world. The continued use of greenways as a cost-effective approach to landscape management reflects the growing calls for increased accessibility to nature by urban dwellers from the late 1800s onwards (Little, 1990). Greenways, therefore, keyed into a widening participation or interactivity with the landscape that was being requested as leisure time and access to transport made distance less onerous for urban populations. As a consequence, people were able to explore the countryside more easily, especially where accessible nature was located in close proximity to urban centres, required less of a pioneering spirit to visit and was facilitated by the implementation of organised trails (Little, 1990). The development of these landscape features has been described as occurring in two eras: first, an era of expansion focusing on the development of boulevards and

19

20

The antecedents of green infrastructure parkways, which was followed by a second era that aimed to establish trail-oriented recreational greenways (Fábos, 2004). The current use of greenways extended these objectives to develop multi-functional networks promoting a range of recreational, economic and environmental benefits (Lindsey et al., 2001). Potentially the most famous greenway development presented in the literature was constructed in Boston

Figure 2.1a Boston Common, Boston (USA).

Figure 2.1b Boston Back Bay Fens, Boston (USA).

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure by Frederick Law Olmsted to aid the city’s adaption to its specific New England climate. Boston’s Emerald Necklace covers an area of over 1,100 acres (4.5 km2) and was designed, in part, to manage the ice/snow melt of the Charles River, which led to annual flooding (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). The success of this investment helped the city of Boston to limit some of the negative impacts of urbanisation through the development of a constructed wetland system. The investment also brought extensive socio-economic benefits to the city, with Boston Common acting as a hub for community activities, which is still the case today (Fábos, 2004). Following the success of Boston’s investment, a number of North American cities, including Indianapolis (Lindsey et al., 2001), Toronto (Macdonald & Keil, 2012) and Montreal (Taylor et al., 1995) all benefited from greenway-led regeneration. Moreover, in Vancouver the staging of the Expo ’86 and the Winter Olympics in 2010 enabled the city to work with local communities to revitalise the inner harbour area, utilising linear parks and cycle/walking paths linking downtown with the wider metropolitan area (Fábos, 1995; Holden et al., 2008). Each of these cities has, however, approached the development and management of greenways in different ways. This reflects the inherent variation visible in greenway design and, as Little (1990) proposed, they fall into five distinct categories of investment, namely: Urban–riparian corridors, recreational greenways, ecological corridors, scenic and historic routes and comprehensive networks, a number of which will be discussed in Chapter 4’s discussion on Atlanta. Each of these classifications can be identified in the literature as providing alternative outcomes for greenway planning (Hellmund & Smith, 2006). Therefore, although Little’s prescriptive system offers an insight into how greenways were historically developed, we can assume that contemporary investments utilise more than one type. Moreover, in areas where greenways have a shorter history, this pattern becomes increasingly evident – for example in China (C. Xu et al., 2011), the UK (Walmsley, 2006) and Europe (Beatley, 2012; Haaland & Gyllin, 2009), where researchers and planners discussed the variations they have experienced when working across disciplinary boundaries to achieve investment. It may be prudent to move beyond Little’s classification and promote the use of a ‘features-led’ understanding of greenways, which may indicate a greater relevance to green infrastructure planning. Within the contemporary greenways literature the following principles have been used to extend Little’s discussion, as well as those by Ahern (1995) and Jongman and Pungetti (2004): linear features that are spatially applied at different scales, which promote connectivity between people and place, and support a wide range of socio-economic and ecological benefits (Taylor et al., 1995; Hellmund & Smith, 2006; Ryan et al., 2006). Each has been used to promote a deeper understanding of greenways and identify the key elements, e.g. connectivity, that are integrated into green infrastructure planning.

2.2 Garden cities and sustainable communities While greenways can be seen as a key precursor to green infrastructure planning in North America, they have been less significant in the UK. Alternatively, UK planners have drawn more frequently on the principles of the garden cities movement to

21

22

The antecedents of green infrastructure frame these debates. The relationship between garden cities and green infrastructure has been explored extensively by the Town & Country Planning Association (TCPA) (see Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a; 2012b). The principles proposed by Ebenezer Howard, the instigator of the garden cities movement, reflected the civic need to address a range of socio-economic and health and well-being issues in the late 1800s (Howard, 2009). He went further and advocated for the development of a large number of smaller and more compact cities close to large urban centres, which he called garden cities. Howard’s development of the garden cities principles offered a ‘peaceful path to social reform’ (Fishman, 1982: 32) that attempted to place social equity at the centre of urban development. His ‘threemagnets’2 approach to integrating the civic duties of the town with the accessibility and amenity value of the county restructured the ways that urban areas could be built (Hall, 2002). The vision for Howard’s garden cities therefore aimed to reinstall the critical link between health and well-being and human–environment interactivity (Howard, 2009). Howard’s vision echoed the design principles of Olmsted in Boston and New York, where Olmsted had wanted ‘a ground to which people may easily go after their day’s work is done’ (Olmsted quoted in Hiss 1990: 44). Howard’s three magnets presents a key indicator of how he envisaged linking people, place (socio-economic) and the landscape (environmental) in his vision. This highlights both the positive and negative attributes of urban and rural life, promoting a view that by integrating the urban and the rural simultaneously, the benefits would outweigh the problems of moving away from large urban centres (Howard, 2009). Howard thus aimed to incorporate the functional elements of urban and rural landscapes into his designs to achieve greater liveability and multi-functionality. Unfortunately, only a small number of Garden Cities were realised, with Letchworth and Welwyn being the first developments which were specifically planned to integrate Howard’s principles (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a). Both cities were designed to strategically invest in accessible public space close to homes and centres of employment. This, as Howard observed, provided the physical/landscape framework of spaces that would, through proximity and accessibility, encourage people to spend more time in public green spaces. Howard’s proposals also promoted a preventive approach to public health which addressed the need to provide a high-quality public realm alongside adequate housing provision to minimise the risk of spreading communicable disease (Hall, 2002; Howard, 2009). Current development policies in the UK are now revisiting Howard’s garden cities ideals.3 Strong advocacy from the TCPA has informed government that the principles proposed by Howard (Fishman, 1982) are as relevant today as they were in 1898 (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a). Evidence from the health literature, and in particular the research investigating obesogenic environments, reinforces these messages, highlighting that the form of the built environment directly influences the ways people interact with it (Booth et al., 2005; Lake & Townshend, 2006). The provision of spaces that promote outdoor living, social interaction and an interest in the natural environment are becoming increasingly grounded and support positive interpretations of the relationship between green infrastructure and health (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012c).

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure While the debates supporting garden cities are ongoing in the UK, there has been a further, if limited, evolution of these ideas within the sustainable communities literature. Promoted extensively during the New Labour (1997–2010) administration in the UK, sustainable communities were proposed as a contemporary application of Howard’s garden cities (Urban Task Force, 1999). Sustainable communities were proposed as a policy mechanism addressing a wide range of socio-economic and ecological problems in the UK’s urban areas. Barton (2000) supported this assessment, noting that before development can be undertaken a review of communities’ needs must be conducted to understand how best to sustain a community in the long term. Through a more directed engagement with communities, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) proposed to improve social cohesion through the delivery of more appropriate forms of public investment (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003; 2002a). This included improving participation in development, the delivery of more efficient services and the promotion of a multi-functional urban landscape (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005a, 2005b). The role of green infrastructure in this process was to facilitate a more inviting and interactive landscape that people could use as quotidian space. The ODPM viewed the poor quality of the urban fabric of the UK as undermining the prospects for growth and thus worked to re-establish a sense of value and pride in these places (Raco, 2005). The outcomes of the programme, however, were relatively short-lived. With the election of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Government in 2010, funding for the programme was cut. Moreover, although elements of the programme remain embedded within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2012), the breadth of the delivery objectives has been minimised.

2.3 Green belts While current reflections on the delivery of sustainable communities may limit the inclusion of green infrastructure, there is a far more vocal discussion concerning green belts. As a mechanism to slow coalescence, they were first used in the UK after the Second World War to ensure that the expansion and redevelopment of London did not subsume the greater South-east of England (Hall & Tewdwr-Jones, 2010). At the centre of green belt discussions is a notion that they provide policy-makers with a simple and discreet form of environmental protection that provides spatial clarity to what can and cannot be developed (Rydin, 2003). Alongside the defence of London, a programme of green belt designations was created that provided further protection for a number of cities, including Oxford, Cambridge and Birmingham, as well as along the Liverpool–Manchester–Leeds corridor. These designations provided spatially significant reserves of greenfield and agricultural land from development to ensure that ‘town’ and ‘county’ remained distinguishable (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). In terms of green infrastructure planning, green belts, along with National Park designations in the UK, offer the most significant protection to landscape resources in the country. Green belts are, as a consequence, considered sacrosanct to many in the UK, promoting a policy framework that ensures that perceived environmental integrity of the countryside remains visible, but raises a number of dilemmas for green infrastructure planners.

23

24

The antecedents of green infrastructure

Figure 2.2 Green belt in Merseyside (UK).

First, they are landscape-scale resources which offer a contiguous form of green infrastructure around our major cities. Given the promotion of the Countryside In and Around Towns (CIAT) agenda by Countryside Agency and Groundwork (2005) in the early to mid 2000s, green belts were seen as an essential stepping-stone providing protection from development (Rydin, 2003). However, the location of these resources and their ecological and social value is contested (Gallent et al., 2008). We therefore need to consider whether mono-functional green belt land is valuable. The arguments for and against green belts though are not this simple, yet the issue of spatial distribution and retention remain central to green belt discussions. A second issue relates to the rate of proposed housing development in the UK versus the availability of high-quality or locationally appropriate land, which is seen to be out of balance (Morrison, 2010). There have been several calls (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006; Gallent et al., 2008; Gilg, 1996) to relax the green belt designations to free up land for housing. However, this can be considered as a very simplistic argument given that developers are selling the value of green infrastructure as a ‘green and pleasant’ living environment (Rydin, 2003). Furthermore, from a green infrastructure perspective there is an issue over the conversion of green spaces (including agricultural land) to housing, unless there is sufficient compensation or off-setting of the negative change in land use. Third, green belts have not always been managed effectively as multi-functional green infrastructure. As noted above, many fail to fully understand the lack of ecosystem or human value visible in these locations (Amati & Taylor, 2010). As a consequence, although environmental agencies including Natural England and the Wildlife Trust are attempting to improve the functionality of green belt areas, there is still an established level of opposition to such uses (see Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009). Each of these issues raises doubts over whether green belts are an effective form of green infrastructure investment and management. Although they are similar conceptually (and in a sense spatially) to greenways, there is a greater scrutiny of the activities undertaken in green belts, potentially limiting their capacity to act as multifunctional resources. Therefore, although the spatial distribution of green belts in

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure the UK provides a protected resource within the UK landscape (approximately 13 per cent of land cover), their functional value could be contested (Cullingworth & Nadin, 2006). However, despite the issues and ongoing discussions of the suitability of green belts, they are still in force in the UK and other locations. In Ahmedabad (India), the city’s green belt was used to ensure that agricultural land is not converted to residential or industrial uses. This policy was rescinded in the most recent development plan as it had been suggested by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) that its enforcement was unmanageable (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013). More positively, the Canadian capital, Ottawa, has a long-established green belt around the city, while the Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula have placed an emphasis on managing the Golden Horseshoe green belt (Fitzsimons et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 1995). The European Union is also attempting to develop a pan-European network of linear green belts running north–south and east–west across its member states to ensure environmental resources are protected (European Commission, 2013; Terry et al., 2006). One of the central issues to remember within this process is the notion that landscape-scale linear or circular green infrastructure resources should be designated and protected to maintain a significant proportion of the landscape from development (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Davies et al., 2006).

2.4 Community forestry in England The foundations of greenways, garden cities and green belts are at the centre of how green infrastructure is developed spatially. Each of these approaches also supports a number of the key principles underpinning the development of landscape and urban greening, such as connectivity. They have, however, been applied in a number of different ways to meet localised needs. In the UK the main driver of this process has been the Community Forest Partnerships. Green infrastructure in the UK was, and is, indebted to England’s Community Forest Partnerships for their endeavours to develop the concept from the mid-2000s onwards (Mell, 2011b). From its initial conception, the Community Forest Partnerships have been the most actively engaged advocacy body working to establish green infrastructure. Their role was one of exploration and development. Working under contract to the Countryside Agency (now Natural England) and a number of local government bodies, they took the initial steps in identifying the main principles of green infrastructure. They produced evidence of how green infrastructure could act as a connective network of spaces promoting multi-functionality across urban and rural landscapes (see Davies et al., 2006), and responded to the discussion of the CIAT (Countryside Agency & Groundwork, 2005) and the Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (ANGSt) agenda (Pauleit et al., 2003). They also built on the work of English Nature and Natural England, reviewing how proximity and accessibility are essential elements of multi-functional green spaces (Mell, 2010; Schrijnen, 2000). One important facet of their role has been evidence gathering. From 2004 to 2010 the community forests worked with the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England to provide a rationale for investment in green infrastructure through the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) process (Mell, 2011b; 2010). Following the change of government in the UK in 2010, the RSS framework (and their strategic policy

25

26

The antecedents of green infrastructure

Figure 2.3 Herrington Country Park, Sunderland (UK).

objectives) was revoked, yet the community forests maintained their research/delivery functions to ensure that green infrastructure remained in the political spotlight. The most successful partnership in this process has been the Mersey Forest, who have sustained their relationship with green infrastructure development throughout this period. While other forest partnerships (e.g. North-East Community Forest) have either ceased to trade or been forced to diversify, the Mersey Forest has remained a resolute force (Mell, 2011b; Mersey Forest, 2013a). Other partnerships, including the South Yorkshire Forest Partnership and the Red Rose Forest, have also been successful in promoting green infrastructure, although they could be considered to have been less successful in positioning themselves as key policy-practice delivery agents compared to the Mersey Forest. Both were involved with the Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) programme, which produced a set of proposals for the economic valuation of green infrastructure; work which has subsequently been promoted at a national and EU level (Mell et al., 2013; South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012). Over the course of the last decade (2005–2015), England’s community forests could be considered to have established themselves as the main agents supporting the conceptual development and delivery of green infrastructure in the UK.

2.5 Green urbanism and biophilia As green infrastructure thinking has developed, its application has taken on the principles of a number of additional approaches to landscape planning. Jack Ahern of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst, USA) was one such innovator who engaged the principles of green urbanism with research on green infrastructure. He, and others such as Rob Ryan (also of the University of Massachusetts) and Maggie Roe (Newcastle University, UK), have therefore worked to extend the evolution of the concept into its current form.

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure

27

Although green urbanism ideas have been predominately associated with the work of Beatley (2012, 2009, 2000) and Lehmann (2011), the principles they propose are also relevant to green infrastructure debates. Green urbanism promotes the notion that urban areas should attempt to moderate their behaviour to reduce the negative impacts on their ecological footprint, while acknowledging the interactivity of different human–environment activities within urban ecosystems. This view has been extended to support the notion that cities should be designed to function in ways analogous to nature; a view historically represented by McHarg (1969). These discussions go further by suggesting that the principles of green urbanism can be used to propose a more circular form of development that incorporate ecological networks and ecosystem services thinking as key elements of its symbiotic relationship between people and the landscape (Beatley, 2012; Mell, 2010). Finally, both Beatley and Lehmann stress the need to facilitate health lifestyles through accessible and multi-functional green infrastructure investment, which in turn helps create a better quality of life, place and environment. The main argument proposed within green urbanism is, therefore, one of circularity between people and place to ensure that an integrated and sustainable form of landscape planning is possible (Beatley, 2000).

Figure 2.4 Frederiksberg green space map, Copenhagen (Denmark).

28

The antecedents of green infrastructure The theory of biophilia extends the principles of green urbanism by placing a much greater emphasis on ecological perspectives of landscape planning. Building on the conceptual ideas of Wilson (1990), a biophilic analysis looks at how ecological resources can help create more liveable places. It also promotes the view that humans have an inherent or instinctive bond with the landscape, such as those proposed by Louv (2005), and places an emphasis on the maintenance of a continued relationship between them. This suggests that urban environments should be developed with a high proportion of green infrastructure to ensure that this association is maintained in perpetuity (Beatley, 2010).

2.6 Landscape ecology and ecosystem services The spatial principles of green infrastructure have been shown to support the ideas of greenway planning, but they can also be seen in the central tenants of landscape ecology. Landscape ecology, as a discipline, proposes that environments are made up of connected, and in some cases fragmented, networks of ecological resources (Forman, 1995). It looks at how landscapes are shaped by the interaction of different ecological resources, and is explicitly a spatial process. Using the notion that landscapes are made up of a number of elements – hubs, links and nodes – landscape ecology proposes that environments which are multi-functional are able to utilise each to support ecological stability (Farina, 2006). In urban areas this can be achieved through the networking of habitats to allow the movement of biodiversity, as well as the flow of people (Breuste et al., 2008; Jim & Chen, 2003). Landscape ecology

Figure 2.5 Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire (UK).

Figure 2.6 The High Line, New York (USA).

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure thus provides the spatial framework for green infrastructure planning that enables its advocates to think strategically and across boundaries, to deliver effective green space management. Developing these ideas has aided the growth of an ecosystem services approach to green infrastructure planning built upon the promotion of a strong ecological focus to frame investment opportunities. Based on the notion that landscape resources support four key functions – supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural – ecosystem services have been proposed as offering a more rigorously scientific approach to understanding the interactivity of green infrastructure resources (Gill et al., 2007; Tzoulas et al., 2007). An ecosystem services approach to landscape planning, like landscape ecology, implies an inherent connectivity between resources, which are used to create equilibrium between use and management (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Ecosystem services also provide scope to address the interactivity of environmental systems, an important aspect of green infrastructure thinking. By addressing how water, ecological and climatic systems interact, a discussion of ecosystem services can be used to address where dislocations in environmental networks are visible. It can, subsequently, offer solutions (using the services aspect of the concept) to propose alternative forms of management (James et al., 2009; Young, 2010). An ecosystem services approach to green infrastructure could also be described as offering a more prescriptive or mechanistic form of management (Hansen & Pauleit, 2014). Using the four services noted above, this approach looks at the synergies between resources to identify potential interactivities. To achieve this, ecosystem services advocates utilise complex evaluation techniques to understand the nuances of environmental relationships (Jongman & Pungetti, 2004). Therefore, while this approach offers a framework to assess the interactions of different environmental resources, it could be argued that it denies advocates the use of some of the more ephemeral or intangible actions of landscape resources (Andersson et al., 2014). Although ecosystem services promote an understanding of cultural services, these appear to be the least well-formed. As a consequence, addressing green infrastructure issues from an ecosystem services perspective could be considered to be more closely aligned to environmental impact assessment or more traditional ecology practices to fully utilise the principles of green infrastructure (Mazza et al., 2011). However, there is evidence that illustrates the value of establishing landscape classifications, as they provide a baseline for resource management (Mell, 2008). We could therefore suggest that rather than creating a separate line of academic argument for ecosystem services, they should be viewed as part of the toolkit of approaches that support green infrastructure. As a result, green infrastructure can incorporate the more culturally conscious debates of Lowenthal (1985), Tuan (1990) and Nassauer (1995) alongside the more formal ecological empiricism of Jongman and Pungetti (2004) and Farina (2006), as well as the evaluative approaches which underpin ecosystem services (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Young, 2010).

29

30

The antecedents of green infrastructure

2.7 Water-sensitive design and blue infrastructure management For a number of years during the initial conceptualisation of green infrastructure, water was, at times, considered to be underrepresented (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). However, this did vary spatially, with some regions such as the USA heavily emphasising the role of water resource management in the discussions of green infrastructure (Ahern, 2007; Philadelphia Water Department, 2011). Our understanding of the role played by water in the presentation of green infrastructure could be considered to be less well established compared to discussions reflecting other terrestrial resources. Moreover, while the initial assessments of green infrastructure focused on identifying the functional value of different land use types and their potential functionality, water was often considered to be outside the remit of practitioners. Moreover, in some of the earliest summaries of green infrastructure (see Davies et al. 2006; Mell 2010) water is reported but not debated with the same significance as trees, grasses or biodiversity. Consequently, the application of green infrastructure varied in how it approached the management of water resources. As a mechanism to raise the visibility of urban greening, water-centric discussions have potentially been the most successful advocacy approach used by its supporters (Mell, 2014). This has been particularly noticeable in the USA, where the engineered management of water is of national importance (Ahern, 2007; Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Practitioners in North America are simply the most vocal in their use of water-centric green infrastructure development when contrasted to their UK and European counterparts (New York City Environmental Protection, 2010; Philadelphia Water Department, 2011). One possible reason is the increased level of control the government and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have on water management in the USA (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013). This allows these agencies (and their subsidiaries) to instigate and manage water-focused green infrastructure projects more directly

Figure 2.7 Water-sensitive green infrastructure design, Chicago (USA).

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure

than those with predominately biodiversity or socio-economic benefits (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Furthermore, the cost of supplying potable water (and maintaining supplies) is a key investment issue in the USA. The experiences of maintaining an adequate supply has led to major changes in the ways in which New York City and New York State approach the management of the Catskill watershed (Austin, 2014). Unfortunately, the economic influence of New York makes it a relatively delicate case in terms of balancing supply, demand and quality; other locations across continental North America (e.g. Phoenix or Portland, OR) are engaged with similar issues (Beatley, 2010). Notwithstanding how the USA dominates the discussions of water-focused green infrastructure research, there has been a growing exploration of similar issues in Europe (Gill et al., 2013; Hering et al., 2010). Many cities in the former industrial heartland of central and northern Europe in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany have been at the forefront of this, examining ways to re-establish value in polluted and derelict water bodies (Hellmund & Smith, 2006; Liebenath et al., 2010). Furthermore, while some nations have attempted to address national- or international-scale green–blue infrastructure needs, especially those engaged with the European Union WFD (Forest Research, 2010), a greater number of city-scale investments are beginning to address water-based green infrastructure investment (Howes, 2008). Cities such as Malmö and Helsinki have been subject to water-based design problems, which have required a nuanced application of green infrastructure to meet both local and more strategic needs (Jaakkola, 2012; Lehmann, 2011). Each of these examples highlights an inherent variability in terms of addressing watercentric green infrastructure issues. Even though in some locations there is continuity in terms of the policy-delivery environment, e.g. through the EPA Memorandum

31

Figure 2.8 Sabarmati waterfront re-development, Ahmedabad (India).

32

The antecedents of green infrastructure of Understanding (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014), there is still extensive variability in how water resources are conceptualised and managed. The diversity of investment does though provide practitioners with a toolbox of approaches to deal with the issues of water supply, quality and maintenance. If each of these variables can be integrated into a spatially appropriate management plan then the long-term sustainability of these resources can support more successful interventions in green infrastructure delivery (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013).

2.8 The development of green infrastructure policy and advocacy While the academic literature has debated what green infrastructure is, how it should be used and what benefits it can deliver, it has fallen to practitioners to push these messages into practice. Throughout the advancements made in green infrastructure thinking, the role of advocates drawn from government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), developers, community groups and the public have been critical (Lennon, 2014a; Wright, 2011). Although there may be a lack of consensus between how each group interacts with (a) each other and (b) green infrastructure, each of these stakeholder groups have helped to shape the policy and practice of green infrastructure investment (Mell, 2010). In terms of the most frequently discussed arenas of green infrastructure, the following snapshots from the UK and the USA illustrate the fluid nature of whom and how different agencies have been involved in the concept’s development. In the UK, green infrastructure advocacy was initially led by England’s Community Forests Partnerships and the Countryside Agency. Although there were geographical differences in the extent to which green infrastructure was discussed (Mell, 2010), there was a visibly growing use of the term in policy (see Countryside Agency & Groundwork 2005), in scoping studies (Bedfordshire & Luton Green Infrastructure Consortium, 2007; Davies et al., 2006) and in strategic guidance (Greater London Authority, 2012; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009). Over time the influence of the Countryside Agency changed as they evolved into Natural England; in their current form Natural England are the UK government’s lead agency supporting green infrastructure planning. Furthermore, in parallel with the changing structures and authority of Natural England, the Community Forest Partnerships solidified their role as the most prominent advocates for green infrastructure. In spite of the changing policy environment, they have remained central to the delivery of green spaces across a majority of northern England (Mell 2015a; 2016). However, due to changing funding structures it has not always been possible to ensure the longevity of all 12 partnerships, with the eight which remain having repositioned themselves to remain at the centre of green infrastructure planning (Mell, 2011b). More recently, a broader range of advocates has begun to engage more frequently with green infrastructure. In Forest Research (2010), the Town & Country Planning Association (2012a) and various local planning authorities (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011; Green Infrastructure North West, 2010; Mersey Forest, 2013a), green infrastructure has found a voice in policy-practice arenas helping it to evolve further.

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure The growth of green infrastructure planning was also associated with a specific policy arena in England throughout the 2000s. The process of plan-making in England prior to 20104 provided scope for regional advocates to work more directly with the production of RSSs, which set out the development goals of each of its regions (Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). The RSSs provided a platform for advocates to engage policy-makers in green infrastructure discussion with a view to embedding its principles into the RSSs. Green infrastructure in England was thus provided with a welcoming platform from which to report the benefits of the concept to a range of key policy-makers. However, post-2010 the UK government revoked RSSs, thus limiting the dialogue and reporting avenues between advocates and policy-making. Although the momentum witnessed in the RSS process was not lost, as advocates turned to sub-regional policy to promote its inclusion in policy (Mell 2010). In parallel with the rise of green infrastructure in the UK, the Conservation Fund were leading its development conceptually, and in practice, in the USA. As discussed previously, the research of Benedict and McMahon (2006) was influential in shaping how the concept was, and is still viewed in the USA. Their work with the Conservation Fund across the USA, and in particular in Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (Weber & Wolf, 2000; Weber et al., 2006) provided valuable insights into how it could be used to address natural resource management issues. The EPA has also held an important role in monitoring the development of green infrastructure through a series of memoranda aimed at providing delivery guidance for practitioners (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Following on from the Conservation Fund’s and the EPA’s promotion of green infrastructure, academics at the University of Massachusetts (Ahern, 2013; 2007; Ryan et al., 2006) and the University of Washington (Wolf & Forest Resources, 2003) have continued to support its evolution with the University of Massachusetts organising the second and third editions of the Fábos Landscape & Greenways Planning Conference in Amherst (USA) and Budapest (Hungary), respectively, to disseminate the most contemporary research and practice on green infrastructure. As the visibility of green infrastructure has increased, there has also been a corresponding development of city-scale strategies. Boston, New York and Philadelphia can be considered to have led this process, with the city government’s signing into law legislation to protect, and in some cases enhance, the urban green space resource base (Fábos, 2004; New York City Environmental Protection, 2010; Philadelphia Water Department, 2011). As elsewhere, though, the uptake of these ideas has not been universal, with many cities failing to engage with green infrastructure as it is not seen as a planning priority (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). The variability of advocate and stakeholder engagement seen in the UK and USA is also evident in Europe. Each member state of the European Union has taken a locally specific approach to developing green infrastructure, leading to varied discussions of whether they can be compared. In Belgium and Germany the regional development agencies (VLM – De Vlaamse Landmaatschappij in Belgium; VRS – Verband Region Stuttgart in Germany) have acted as key advocates developing green infrastructure policies (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012), while in Paris the city government (Mairie de Paris) has recently offered the city’s citizens an opportunity to allocate a proportion of €20 million for green infrastructure projects

33

34

The antecedents of green infrastructure (Willsher, 2014). City administrations and regional bodies in Europe thus appear to be replicating England’s Community Forests, and the Conservation Fund in the USA, as leading the continued evolution of green infrastructure thinking (Beatley, 2000).5 The function of advocates is changing, however. As research begins to be reported from China and India, we are beginning to see the development of more practice/ developer-led discussions of urban greening linked to economic development. The research of Jim and Chen (2006a, 2003) in China and Hong Kong has highlighted how financial valuations of green infrastructure are being undertaken to estimate the economic potential of green spaces to property developers. Furthermore, in New Delhi the city’s administration have started to align effective environmental management with economic growth in the city’s development master plan (Delhi Development Authority, 2007). In the Arabian Gulf the role of green space is one of aesthetic beautification, where green infrastructure is used by developers to sell homes and a lifestyle (Kenworthy, 2006). All of this highlights the growing variability within development debates asking whether investing in green infrastructure is economically viable. The evidence from China, Europe and the USA suggests that economic returns can outweigh the costs of investment, and that green infrastructure can be used to promote quality of place and liveability indicators (Siemens AG, 2011; South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012; Tyrväinen, 2001; Vandermeulen et al., 2011).

2.9 Three eras of green infrastructure development: exploration, expansion and consolidation As green infrastructure evolved as a concept from the late 1990s onwards, it is possible to identify a number of specific periods of its development. Pre-1999, apart from its use by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1999), which addressed green space and landscape issues, the use of green infrastructure terminology was extremely varied. Although the classic texts of McHarg (1969) and Little (1990) proposed the concepts of landscape integration and connectivity, it has taken time to reframe these principles into the green infrastructure policy-practice we are now increasingly aware of. Therefore, despite the rise of the environmental movement in the USA from the 1960s onwards, which debated the need to think more holistically and sustainably about our environment (Pepper, 1996), these issues were not necessarily considered universally important in planning. The lack of a coherent narrative for green space planning has been a key aspect of developing the green infrastructure rhetoric we currently see. All of this helped the Conservation Fund in the USA and the Countryside Agency (Countryside Agency & Groundwork, 2005) in the UK to shape the initial conceptualisations of green infrastructure. The development of green infrastructure could therefore be considered as being placed into three distinct periods: exploration, expansion and consolidation.

2.9.1 Exploration (1995–2005) The initial discussions of green infrastructure, the exploration phase, looked to establish what the concept was, which landscape elements should be considered as green

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure

35

infrastructure and how it could be mapped using existing data sources (e.g. National Land Use Data – NLUD, in the UK). Green infrastructure debates at this time would now be considered limited; they also found it difficult to establish its value in policy discussions, which constrained the reporting of its benefits to policy-makers. Moving this process forward, the Conservation Fund was the first agency to extend the visibility of green infrastructure beyond a handful of practitioners. The research of Mark Benedict and Ed McMahon (2006, 2002) was pivotal, as they aligned green infrastructure planning with smart conservation at a number of scales in the USA. Most, if not all, subsequent research into green infrastructure takes its basic principles from their work. From this point onwards, research and practitioner reports started to use the term green infrastructure to frame conservation discussions at both a local and a strategic scale (McDonald et al., 2005; Weber & Wolf, 2000). Over time an acceptance of green infrastructure terminology, and the ways in which it could be applied to landscape planning and conservation, have become increasingly visible (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). The initial uptake of green infrastructure steadily engaged European academics and practitioners from the late 1990s onwards. Evidence of this process was reported by Sandström (2002), discussing the value of green infrastructure to Swedish planning debates, while Beatley (2000) debated comparable principles in his green urbanist assessment of Europe. In the UK, England’s Community Forest Partnerships (2004) and the programmes of Countryside Agency & Groundwork (2005) helped to focus discussions on a number of key ideas: connectivity, multi-functionality, interrelated and supportive benefits and systems and a systematic (i.e. strategic) approach to landscape management in the mid-2000s. Each of these principles was used to shape how environmental NGOs (ENGOs) and local government approached the development, and in many cases redevelopment, of landscapes across the UK. They also laid the groundwork for further investigations into site-specific applications of

Small number of ideas and focused GI evaluations Widening scope of GI research/delivery which potentially diluted and/or strengthened its position

Stage 1 (1998–2005)

Stage 2 (2005–2010)

Greater focus, application and evaluation working within policy and practice

Stage 3 (2010–?)

Figure 2.9 The three eras of green infrastructure development (scale, depth and focus).

36

The antecedents of green infrastructure green infrastructure, as well as the development of strategic policy based on the growing consensus of what it should deliver (Mell, 2010). The initial exploration phase of green infrastructure enabled researchers to debate the ways in which it could be developed using alternative thematic interpretations. During this period researchers debated the value of green infrastructure to meet climate change, health and biodiversity/conservation, and other issues (see Gill et al. 2007; Mell 2007; Hostetler et al. 2011). Each subsequent discussion extended the initial conceptualisations of green infrastructure to illustrate how it could be used as an effective form of landscape and urban planning. Key references include Tzoulas et al.’s (2007) review of the proposed health benefits of green space, which helped to shape the way these issues are currently considered (Pretty et al., 2007; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012c). Gill et al. (2007) and Goode (2006) gave assessments of how green infrastructure proposed methods of helping cities adapt to climate change. Weber and the Conservation Fund’s work in Maryland was highly influential in promoting links between investment and the conservation of ecological networks, and has been used to frame some of the contemporary ecosystem services debates (Weber & Wolf, 2000; Weber, 2007; Weber et al., 2006). The work of each of these authors provided green infrastructure advocates with a number of avenues to explore, all of which are relevant in current policy discussions, as they promote a more detailed appreciation of socio-economic and ecological benefits, and make significant contributions to how we should manage the environment. Kambites and Owen (2006) extended a number of these arguments, looking at how green infrastructure could engage planning policy debates. They offered one of the first and, along with Lennon’s (2014a, 2014b) recent discussions, potentially still most relevant assessments of the processes that green infrastructure needed to address if it was to become a grounded approach to planning. Subsequent research has shown that the proposals outlined by Kambites and Owen were used to shape green infrastructure thinking in the second stage: expansion.

2.9.2 Expansion (2005–2010) The expansion phase reflected an increase in the number of academic, government and practitioners working with green infrastructure and the significant rise in discussions, policy guidance and research projects looking at the value of developing green infrastructure. In England this was strongly linked to the inclusion of the concept in the RSS process, where advocates used the growing body of research to relate the values of green infrastructure to regional government (Horwood, 2011; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). The success of the RSS, though, was variable, with specific regions (the East of England, North-west and the North-east) being the most proactive advocates of investment in green space (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; North West Green Infrastructure Think Tank, 2006). Through the RSS, green infrastructure was inculcated within local government discussions because of the discursive depth and breadth of evidence presented by environmental and local government advocates. A comparable process of praxis was also witnessed in the USA, where the continued influence of the Conservation Fund, and the release of Benedict and McMahon’s seminal book (Benedict & McMahon, 2006), ensured the concept remained visible

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure in development debates. One of the key factors contributing to this process was the geographical scope of the Conservation Fund, which has regional chapters, to engage GI debates at a national, regional and sub-regional level. More recently, as an emphasis on stormwater and water catchment dynamic has been mainstreamed in green infrastructure debates, there has been an increasing engagement by the EPA with this process. They have supported its use through a series of prescribed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) explaining how it should be used to manage water resources (Dunn, 2010; Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). This reflected the historic engineered approach to investment in water management, but can also be presented more holistically by reflecting on how soft- or greenengineering can be used to promote more sustainable forms of investment (Ahern, 2007; Mell, 2013a). The second period of GI development also saw a growing regional dialogue for the concept. The research and ‘grey’ literature6 saw a broadening of how green infrastructure was planned through strategic documents, and where investments were taking place at a site, city and sub-regional scale (Mell, 2010). The number of strategies in the UK increased greatly during this period, with a similar process being witnessed across the USA, where major cities including New York, Chicago and Philadelphia started to explore the possibilities of green infrastructure as an effective approach to land management (Mell, 2014). Schilling and Logan (2008) explored this value of green infrastructure in the ‘rust belt’ of the USA, while Young (2010) and Dunn (2010) both addressed city-scale processes of interventions advocating for sub-regional investment. This period thus witnessed the beginnings of a more refined approach to green infrastructure that examined its value as a planning process using a set of nuanced thematic approaches. It differed from the initial stage, as the principles being used to guide GI were, by this stage, starting to show a level of consensus amongst advocates (Beer, 2010; Mell, 2010, 2008). This shift would be further exacerbated in the third phase: consolidation.

2.9.3 Consolidation (2010 onwards) The current phase of green infrastructure research could be considered one of consolidation, as we now have a relatively grounded consensus discussing what green infrastructure is and how it should be developed (Mell, 2014, 2013a; Wright, 2011). This has been supported by the year-on-year growth of specific green infrastructure investment strategies, as well as an increasing awareness of its value to a number of thematic planning agendas (e.g. climate change). Therefore, while green infrastructure in the expansion period looked to assess how, where and why it was a relevant form of investment, the move towards consolidation developed a more detailed, grounded and robust evidence base to support development. One factor influencing this process has been the growing realisation, especially at a global scale, of the economic, ecological and social value that green infrastructure can help deliver (Siemens AG, 2011). Beatley’s (2009; 2000) research in Europe and Australasia showed this broadening trend, as did the consultation and adoption of green infrastructure strategies in the cities of New York (New York City Environmental Protection, 2010), Philadelphia (Philadelphia Water Department,

37

38

The antecedents of green infrastructure 2011) and London (Greater London Authority, 2012). Further guidance has also been produced by Merk et al. (2012) and Siemens AG (2011) reflecting the opportunities for green infrastructure investment in Asia, examining the cost–benefit balance of greener and more sustainable cities. What each of these strategies and guidance documents illustrated was the ways green infrastructure is now seen as a nuanced approach to urban landscape management compared to other forms of development (Mell, 2014). Green infrastructure is thus being linked to greener, smarter and more efficient methods of urban development, which make connections between business, community and environmental needs (Austin, 2014; Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Jones & Somper, 2014). Furthermore, as guidance at a number of scales, i.e. city and national/international, has been developed to frame green infrastructure investment (European Commission, 2013), there has been a corresponding refinement of how specific thematic applications of the concept are utilised. Austin (2014) discussed this process by assessing the potential applications of biodiversity and ecosystems in North America and Sweden, while Rouse and Bunster-Ossa (2013) addressed the continuing reflection on grey vs. green water sensitive management in the USA. While both of these authors reflected more broadly on how green infrastructure could be implemented, such discussions have been supplemented by more detailed studies of how the concept can address financial concerns in North-west Europe (Mell et al., 2013; Vandermeulen et al., 2011; Wilker & Rusche, 2013), conservation and ecosystem services benefits in urban and suburban areas in the USA (Hostetler et al., 2011; Young, 2010) and the need to develop an evidence base for politicians that emphasises the role of green infrastructure in addressing the adaptation of urban areas to climate change (Ahern, 2013; Carter & Fowler, 2008; Madureira et al., 2011). The rise in research focusing on the economic evaluation of green infrastructure, the benefits of ecosystem services and its links to health have been three of the most significant areas of development during this period. All of this suggests that the discussions of green infrastructure planning and its values are progressive as there has been a continuing engagement with it in urban and landscape planning. This also identifies an increasing refinement as practitioners become more adept at implementing its key principles. Throughout each of these three periods there has needed to be a consistent process of validation of, and a return to, a continuing referral to a number of established principles, each of which has been used to frame the development of green infrastructure around the world. Mell (2010) summarised this discussion, noting that: multi-functionality, connectivity, accessibility (and location/size of a resource), a scaled and strategic approach to investment, were all key aspects of an integrated approach to strategic and local green infrastructure policy-making. In subsequent research these principles have been utilised to shape how green infrastructure has been debated by planners, developers and practitioners. Therefore, although we have moved through three transitional periods, we can reflect on how each period has built on and refined a more subtle understanding of what green infrastructure is, and how it can be used. One further aspect of green infrastructure thinking that remains crucial to our understanding of its value in landscape and urban planning is that regardless of what form of investment green infrastructure takes, we must consider it to be context

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure specific. The big questions of: who, what, where, when, why and how may change; however, it remains important to reflect on the location and the socio-economic and political factors that influence development when discussing green infrastructure investments. Furthermore, although we can identify a consensus of which of its principles are considered to be accepted in each of the major green infrastructure planning arenas (see Mell 2014), there is still scope to highlight the differences between locations.

2.10 The geographical rise of green infrastructure thinking and planning Throughout this chapter references have been made to green infrastructure development in the UK, Europe and the USA, with some of the additional discussions focusing on Asia and Australasia. Since the initial discussions of green infrastructure in the UK by Davies et al. (2006) and the Countryside Agency & Groundwork (2005), and by Benedict and McMahon (2006), Beatley (2000) and Sandström (2002) in the USA and Europe, engagement with the concept has increased. This reflects the geographical diversity of discussions, but also illustrates how the initial conceptualisations of green infrastructure are evolving geographically. More recently this focus has shifted to include the growing discussion of green infrastructure in China, South-east Asia and, increasingly, India (Balooni et al., 2011; Town and Country Planning Organisation & Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, 2014). The rise of green infrastructure in these locations is illustrative of how a set of comparable principles to those used in the USA and Europe is becoming visible across Asia. Issues of urban expansion, population change and an overreliance on the environment are all influencing how governments and practitioners are engaging with green infrastructure. Most noticeably, green infrastructure has been linked to evaluations of real estate and landscape perceptions in China (Jim & Chen, 2006b; 2003; X. Xu et al., 2011), while in South and South-east Asia (Balooni et al., 2011; Mansor & Said, 2008; Sonak et al., 2008) research has more directly addressed climate change. Moreover, research examining the value of green infrastructure in India and Pakistan discusses how the delivery of urban greening projects can address issues of social change, environmental capacity and balancing of socio-ecological needs with economic development (see Zérah 2007; Chaturvedi et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2010; Nagendra et al. 2012; Mell 2013b; Qureshi et al., 2013; 2010). An analysis of the research being reported in each of these geographical locations indicates that we are, potentially, seeing the beginnings of a truly global debate for green infrastructure. No longer is the concept confined geographically to Europe and North America, as it is showing that it can meet the development needs of a number of alternative locations. Mell (2014) reported that a meta-level consensus was visible in Europe and North America. He went on to note that despite the lag time for development, green infrastructure discussions in Asia and Australasia were starting to explore comparable issues to those seen in Europe. This suggests that green infrastructure has established itself as a planning approach that can address a wide range of development issues. It also highlights a need for a compendium

39

40

The antecedents of green infrastructure of research discussing green infrastructure development in a global context using examples from established and new development areas.

2.11 Summary This chapter illustrated how a number of thematically, as well as spatially, different approaches to green space planning have been used to define the principles of green infrastructure. Each of the ideas presented in the discussions of greenways, garden cities and green urbanism highlighted how landscape planning is constantly evolving to ensure that economic, environmental and social needs are met. Table 2.2 outlines how this commentary manifests itself in green infrastructure planning in different locations. It also illustrates the complexity of trying to define consensus between green infrastructure advocates as to what, why and how it should be planned. The discussion presented in this chapter also reflects upon how temporal change, as well as spatial challenges in addressing expansion, occurs and continues to place additional, and in many cases excessive, stresses on environmental capacity. All of which have a noticeable impact on the form that green infrastructure takes, and how it is discussed in praxis. Throughout, the chapter has reflected on a number of key principles which are now deemed to be established within green infrastructure thinking, namely: connectivity, linearity and networks, integrated approaches to landscape and socioeconomic development, and the assumption that green infrastructure planning promotes an inherent multi-functionality in a given location. What the discussion of these principles suggested is that it is possible to redefine how we view our relationship with the landscape if we accept that human–environment interactions form a central tenant of their functionality. The value of such a reflection is to ensure that our understanding of the hows and whys of investment can be identified within the broader literature of green space and landscape planning.

Table 2.2 Focus of green infrastructure planning: 2005–2009 UK

North America

Europe

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) Climate change adaptation (2) Micro-climate control in urban areas (3) Biodiversity conservation and assessments (4) Sustainable urban design (5) Sustainable drainage systems (6) Smart growth (7) Water resource management

(1) High-density urban development (2) Mobility (3) Climate change mitigation and adaption (4) Sustainable urban design

Community forestry Sustainable urban design Urban renaissance Sustainable communities Climate change adaptation Healthy lifestyles and landscapes (7) Biodiversity and conservation

Source: Mell, 2011b.

www.ebook3000.com

The antecedents of green infrastructure

Notes 1

2 3

4

5

6

While the chapter does not reflect on green space management or practices in Asia, it does acknowledge that specific forms of urban green space development are synonymous with the Persian Gulf, India, China and Japan. These locations were not, though, used extensively to centre the debates of green infrastructure in its initial stages. The ‘three-magnets’ are town, country, and town and country. Howard’s garden cities would utilise a town and country approach to integrate nature into urban centres. Although Howard’s work has subsequently been critiqued as failing to adapt or predict the speed of changes in class structures, transport needs and employment patterns, the principle of developing connected urban green space networks is still viable (Cervero, 1995; Sarkissen, 1976). In 2010 a new Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government was elected in the UK. One of their first acts of government was to revoke the regional tier of planning, and with it RSSs, which removed the most prominent platform for green infrastructure debates/development in England (European Commission, 2013). The issue of which public or private bodies are currently leading green infrastructure development will be returned to in each of the case study chapters. This section is indicative of the variation in the administration of green infrastructure in different locations. The ‘grey’ literature is considered as the practitioner and policy literature developed by government and advocacy organisations. This research is often presented in the form of policy and guidance documents and is less likely to appear within the academic literature.

41

CHAPTER 3

Green infrastructure Linking concepts with practice

The previous two chapters outlined how green infrastructure has developed as a concept and as an approach to planning over the past 15 years. Each highlighted a number of the key geo-spatial differences inherent to green infrastructure, as well as illustrating where areas of consensus exist. The following chapter acts as a conduit between these discussions and the case study chapters to come by framing these conceptual debates into an evaluative framework to blend the breadth of green infrastructure policy and decision-making with assessments of how green and blue spaces are being delivered around the world. The central aim of this chapter is to set out the structure that the remainder of the book will follow. It presents the main thematic principles that are used to explore each of the subsequent case studies, and illustrates how the varying approaches to investment in green infrastructure can be used to highlight both the complexity and interactivity of these characteristics. Furthermore, a number of the areas of green space planning presented in Chapter 2 are used to discuss the relative merits, and where applicable, the barriers to the successful delivery of green infrastructure in the UK, Europe, the USA, India and China. Although each of the following five chapters present locationally specific evaluations of green infrastructure, they also reflect the wider discussions of urban greening and green space planning presented in the academic and grey literature. Following the discussions of the USA (Chapter 4), the UK (Chapter 5), Europe (Chapter 6), India and China (Chapters 7 and 8, respectively), Chapter 9 presents a synthesis of the main processes, concepts and approaches debating the characteristics of successful investments in green infrastructure. To achieve this, each of the case studies are investigated using a standardised evaluation process. This is based upon an engagement with the development, framing and implementation of green infrastructure policy and practice in each location, and draws on stakeholders and green infrastructure advocate commentary in each city/area. The presentation of these discussions informed the development of the conceptual framework for this book, which can be assessed in each of these places, and subsequently ex-post in other locations. Policy-making and practitioner analysis is reviewed to highlight the key factors and influences which impact upon the creation of green infrastructure policy at a regional, city and local scale, and how these processes impact on the subsequent investment in urban greening. To ensure that continuity is maintained between the case studies the process of evaluation addresses the following:

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice 1 The policy environment influencing green infrastructure development. 2 The actors and/or stakeholder engaged with the development of green infrastructure policy and practice. 3 Assessments of the scalar differences in green infrastructure investment in each location and the influence this has on the spatial distribution of resources. 4 Evaluations of the temporal changes in the production of green infrastructure policy and its subsequent delivery. The following chapter outlines how each of these factors influences the development of green infrastructure. These questions are asked as they frame the latter chapters, which reflect more directly on the changing policy mechanisms/structures, and how they interact with the politicised context of investment to shape the implementation of green infrastructure. The following chapter, and each of the subsequent case studies, also addresses the variation in the delivery of green infrastructure based on our spatial and temporal understanding of its utility, asking what practices, and why, are important to successful green space planning. This draws on discussions of the policy context of each area, and reflects the policy objectives of each location to evaluate the impact this has on green infrastructure development. The framework is presented to highlight whether a level of comparability exists between the different case studies to illustrate where transferable development opportunities and practices, as well as constraints, can be identified.

3.1 The policy environment influencing green infrastructure development The development of green infrastructure, as noted in Chapter 2, has been shaped by a series of eras. Each of the three stages presented previously correspond to discussions of the concept within planning policy, highlighting the trends and themes used to support its use in landscape planning. However, throughout this process green infrastructure has remained relatively fluid in terms of how, where and why it was used (Wright, 2011). Each of the main green infrastructure arenas – North America, the UK and Europe, and increasingly in South and East Asia – have all witnessed this process as policy has gradually been developed promoting a rethinking of green space planning. Furthermore, it has brought about a more defined policy environment that has established a rationale for green infrastructure in a number of contexts. One key aspect of this process has been the championing role of environmental advocates who, as noted in Chapter 2, explored the meanings of green infrastructure in its infancy, as well as reporting its value in policy-making discussions such the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs) in the UK (Mell, 2015a), through Conservation Fund guidance and educational programmes in the USA (Benedict & McMahon, 2006) or within Indian government green space planning policy (Town and Country Planning Organisation & Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, 2014). For example, in the UK, green infrastructure policy was initially aligned with the Planning Policy Statements/Guidance notes (PPSs/PPGs) developed under the New

43

44

Linking concepts with practice Labour government (1997–2010). These policy statements outlined a mechanistic (and very detailed) approach to planning, highlighting the areas of policy into which green infrastructure could be integrated – i.e. PPS1 Planning for Sustainable Development (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005a, 2005b); PPS9 Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2006); and PPG17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002b). These policies, among others, provided advocates with a policy framework through which they could continue to evolve green infrastructure thinking. This was supported further within the development, consultation and adaptation of the RSS in England, which has since, unfortunately, been revoked (Mell, 2015a). The structures of regional policy-making under New Labour enabled planners in England to prepare strategic guidance for the delivery of infrastructure at a broader landscape scale (Marshall, 2009; Tewdwr-Jones, 2012). This provided advocates with an opportunity to promote the connective and multi-functional characteristics of the concept within a spatially specific forum. As a result of advocate engagement with the RSS, green infrastructure developed a more robust evidence base, which has been used to frame policy. However, each of the English regions promoted a different interpretation of green infrastructure, leading to a somewhat fragmented approach to its development (Horwood, 2011; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). Unfortunately, post-2010, with the election of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government the structures supporting green infrastructure have been diluted. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2012) has replaced PPSs/PPGs and makes only three oblique references to green infrastructure. Furthermore, in December 2014 the UK government archived its main green infrastructure policy, Natural England’s Guidance (2009), which could suggest that their mandate of economic growth through sustainable development was further marginalising landscape issues. However, although commentators have suggested that this is a retrograde step for landscape planning (Marshall, 2009; Pearce & Ayres, 2012), there remains a clear drive within the UK’s environmental sector to promote green infrastructure in praxis (Mell, 2014). As reported in Chapter 2, England’s Community Forests have been pivotal in ensuring that urban greening remains on the government’s agenda. Moreover, Natural England, the Forestry Commission, and more recently the National Health Service (NHS), have all released guidance or position papers situating their support for green infrastructure as a positive (and cost-effective) mechanism for delivering sustainable or liveable places (Forest Research, 2010; Mersey Forest, 2013b). Therefore, although there have been a number of major changes in how green infrastructure is presented within policy, there is still evidently visible support for its use by some government agencies and other stakeholders. Compared to the UK’s variable approach to the formation of green infrastructure policy, its development in the USA has followed a more linear process. This suggests that the discussions of urban greening, and in the case of the USA stormwater management, flow from the federal government through state administrations to county and metropolitan decision-makers (Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013). While this policy formation–delivery structure provides an idealised framework for implementation, the

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice reality can be considered to be very different. As Mell (2014) argued, the communication between policy-makers at different scales in the USA is somewhat fraught with dissenting views on how landscape resources should be used. As a consequence, the development of green infrastructure policy, although positive and on an upward trajectory, varies between administrations. Chapter 4 discusses these differences, examining how they lead to a variety of approaches to investment (and associated policy). All of which can undermine the production of a cohesive and strategic process of green infrastructure delivery. Despite the complexities of framing green infrastructure in policy by public administrations, there is a more distinctive engagement from the advocacy sector with the concept (Austin, 2014). Historically, the Conservation Fund led the evolution of green infrastructure conceptually and in practice, and have continued to play a key role in this process. However, as discussed by Mell (2014), as well as by Lerner and Allen III (2012), Hostetler et al. (2011) and Schilling & Logan (2008), over time a number of additional government agencies and NGOs have started to engage more directly with the concept. This was linked to larger ecological issues in the early discussions of green infrastructure use, e.g. the remediation and pollution control of the Chesapeake Bay (see Weber & Wolf 2000; Weber et al., 2006), but over time has addressed the needs of developers to add value to the delivery of residential development and climate change (Williamson, 2003). More recently the US EPA and a number of city administrations, including New York (New York City Environmental Protection, 2010) and Philadelphia (Philadelphia Water Department, 2011), have released memoranda and guidance on how they envisage green infrastructure developing in the future. However, while the EPA documentation focuses most frequently on the management of water resources at a catchment and/or metropolitan scale, they present more integrated assessments of how green infrastructure can be used to support urban systems. This illustrates the dynamism visible in sub-national landscape management in the USA, raising three key questions: 1 Who controls the production of green infrastructure strategies/guidance? 2 Can such a dynamic process promote an integrated approach to the implementation of green infrastructure? 3 Can green infrastructure be developed to address a number of socio-environmental issues and not just water/stormwater issues? The increasing number of strategies addressing green infrastructure in the USA suggests that these questions, and others, can be addressed. The plurality of these discussions also promotes the view that diversity may, as Wright (2011) and Mell (2013a) argued, provide greater scope to align green infrastructure with more localised landscape discussions. As a consequence, although there may be a lack of consistency in how green infrastructure is being discussed by government (at all scales), the debates about its use and value are increasing. In Paris, the mayor of the city has used a recent participatory referendum to increase the visibility of green infrastructure within the public and political imagination (Mairie de Paris, 2014). This has seen a renewal of conversations exploring the value of the city’s green spaces, culturally, economically and ecologically. It has also

45

46

Linking concepts with practice provided added emphasis to the value already exhibited in the city’s green spaces where, under successive governments, new parks and gardens have been developed across Paris (Gey, 2014; Laurian, 2012). Chapter 6 will go into more detail about this process. The fluidity of approaches to green infrastructure that can be identified in the scale, focus and location of project work bares little similarity to the more restrictive process of landscape planning in Germany. Currently, the central government planning structures ensure that investments in landscape enhancement reflect the development priorities of the centre (Albert & Von Haaren, 2014). However, the Länder and metropolitan-level planning authorities have been more flexible in their approaches to the development of green infrastructure, as they hold a greater flexibility in terms of policy and practice. The redevelopment of the Ruhr region is a good example of where a re-imagination of post-industrial landscapes can be considered to integrate green infrastructure principles at the centre of the regeneration process (Franz et al., 2008) The policy environment in India appears to be even more fragmented and subject to regional variations compared to the other case study areas. While Indian nationals have a constitutional right to utilise landscape resources to meet their needs, this has led to companies and developers using this provenance to exploit landscape resources. Consequently, development on greenfield sites is rife in India (Zérah, 2007). While it proves constitutionally and legally difficult to protect resources, efforts have been made by the national and various state governments to install an increased value onto landscape planning (Nagendra et al., 2012). The current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led government, like those in the UK, USA and China, have viewed the environment as a resource whose primary value is in supporting economic growth. They, like the Congress coalition government before them, have placed less value on the preservation of green infrastructure, except in cases where there is an explicit economic, cultural-religious or nationally/globally important ecological benefit associated with them. Thus, when policy is created, such as the Urban Greening Guidelines (Town and Country Planning Organisation & Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, 2014), the ability of planners to deliver these directives can be compromised by the growth-first rhetoric of the government. Examples of this process include the changing development context of the ‘garden city’ of Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore), where the rapid expansion of transport, housing and commercial infrastructure has compromised the city’s ecological resource base (Sudha & Ravindranath, 2000). This has decreased the city’s liveability, as well as the viability of the city as an investment centre, to the point where its government has modified its policy mandates and begun to allocate funding to reinstate the city’s green infrastructure network. The result of this has been a cleaning of the city’s water bodies, increased investment in the maintenance for the city’s park and a greater integration of urban greening within built infrastructure development (Nagendra et al., 2012; Sudha & Ravindranath, 2000). Chinese development shows similarities to the processes witnessed in India. The main difference is the framing of development and pace of investment. As development is contracted out by the state, there are fewer well defined regulations to limit what can be built, and where (Wu, 2015). However, as the value of the landscape to real-estate prices and notions of urban liveability have increased, the inclusion of green

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice

47

infrastructure in urban developments has become more prominent (Jim et al., 2015; Li et al., 2005). Unfortunately, the lack of a robust form of environmental management, despite the Chinese government’s support for ‘eco-cities’ and ‘sponge-cities’ like Tianjin, means that the policy landscape does not necessarily lead to investments in multi-functional landscapes (X. Xu et al., 2011). However, as India continues to position itself in global development narratives it has started to think more critically about the value of its urban green spaces. The Asian Green City Index (Siemens AG, 2011), the Asian Development Bank’s Green Urbanization programme (Asian Development Bank, 2012), as well as the McKinsey growth agendas (McKinsey Global Institute, 2010), all stated that green infrastructure is an important facet in developing world-class cities. The reinvestment in landscape resource management in Bengaluru is just one example of a city government attempting to establish an ecologically functional landscape to facilitate continued growth. All of this highlights the fluidity of discussions surrounding green infrastructure policy-making. It also illustrates that a number of factors need to be addressed in each of the case studies to ensure that the evaluation of the green infrastructure

Figure 3.1 MG Road Metroline (Bengaluru, India).

48

Linking concepts with practice investment is grounded in robust evidence-based policy and practice. The following chapters will, therefore, debate the following: • Which government offices/department, organisations and stakeholders are engaged with the development of green infrastructure policy? • How have these agencies been shaping the delivery of green infrastructure at a number of scales? • What outcomes does this process deliver in terms of policy, implementation plans and delivery? • What barriers exist to the effective development of green infrastructure policy and delivery in each of the case study locations?

3.2 Stakeholder engagement with the development of green infrastructure policy and practice1 The previous section outlined the variability of policy production across the geographical regions that the following case study chapters are drawn from. Variation is also evident in the diversity of stakeholders who choose to engage with green infrastructure in different locations. From a review of the academic, government and practitioner literature, it can be argued that the following five groups of stakeholders/actors are more frequently involved in the development of green infrastructure.

3.2.1 Government department and officers at the national, regional and sub-regional scale Government at a central, regional and local scale have the most prominent influence on green infrastructure development. They act as conduits for evidence gathering, strategic appraisals of investment, and are responsible, in many cases, for the delivery and maintenance of green infrastructure post-investment (Dempsey et al., 2014). Assessing the role of government therefore allows us to think more broadly about the spatial influence of green infrastructure planning. Local authorities and governments, though, work within confined legislative and administrative boundaries, and because these vary in scale from the neighbourhood/ward level to regional or national, there are often disagreements between governments over who should fund delivery. It has, thus, proved difficult in a number of locations to align government responses to urban greening issues because of the variation in their outlook and spatial distribution (Mell, 2014; 2010).

3.2.2 Quasi-government organisations In the USA there is a sub-level of agencies which are technically government employees but are not categorised in the same manner as those in central government positions. The EPA and National Parks Service are two such agencies who wield power to enforce environmental regulations but are sometimes considered ‘largely ineffective and peripheral to the decision-making process’ (Mell, 2014: 615) because

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice

49

they are not always aligned with the policy mandates of the federal government in the USA. Furthermore, there are often difficulties in how they work with sub-national local planning authorities (LPAs) to enact legislative control. In such cases LPAs have attempted to countermand EPA legislation if they feel that their mandates are too restrictive (Austin, 2014).

3.2.3 Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) Along with national and sub-national government, the most influential stakeholders in green infrastructure development are NGOs and ENGOs. Across the world ENGO advocacy groups have lobbied government and developers to implement green infrastructure programmes, with Natural England and TCPA (Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a) being particularly strong in this role in the UK. Advocates are thus in an enviable position because they are not necessarily accountable to the public, although they may be to their membership (e.g. the Sierra Club in the USA or the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England in the UK). They have, as a result, been able to position themselves as conduits of information, promoting themselves as lobbyists to government who steadily grow in authority. ENGOs have also been able to collect data and engage with decision-makers through a number of policy structures, such as the RSSs in England, to deliver evidence to key stakeholders. The level of engagement afforded to ENGOs and other NGO advocates, though, is variable and is dependent on the policy–practice framework in each location (Allen III, 2012; Tewdwr-Jones, 2012). Where this process has been successful, we see a more engaged advocacy– government environment; however, in many cases this is the exception rather than the norm (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). What is clear, though, is that where a strong advocacy arena exists, the level of engagement and discussion surrounding green infrastructure increases (Mell, 2014; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013).

Figure 3.2 Sefton Park Meadows.

50

Linking concepts with practice

3.2.4 Other advocacy agents and the public (e.g. local interest groups) While the discussions of government and advocates have been the main drivers of green infrastructure, there is an increasingly visible lobby of more localised advocates working to ensure landscape resources are protected. In locations across the UK and USA such groups are extremely important in the discussion of small-scale or localised landscape issues. One example from Liverpool (UK) highlights the additional vibrancy, and in many cases clarity, that local interest groups add to green infrastructure discussions. The ‘Save Sefton Park Meadows’ campaign reflects a local neighbourhood group trying to halt the sale of an area of grassland in the south of the city. The campaign is led by local residents who do not wish for their local green space to be converted into housing. The group have petitioned the LPA (Liverpool City Council), and have made a concerted effort to engage local politicians, the developers and the media in their protection campaign, all of which has raised the profile of the site, leading to a partial rethink from the LPA regarding its value to the city, and its long-term sale. Localised advocacy agencies, therefore, seem to be more adept at identifying ways to raise the profile of green infrastructure to preserve their local landscapes and are often heavily influential in local decision-making.

3.2.5 Developers Developers provide an alternative perspective to the use and value of green infrastructure, namely profit. Whereas campaign groups may be interested in protecting what Mell (2013c) discussed as the ‘greater good’, developers are subject to shareholder scrutiny regarding the economic returns on investment. As such, developers in the UK, China and the USA look to maximise their returns on investment in the shortest time period (Shepard, 2015). One option to achieve this has historically been to reduce the quality and quantity of green space in developments, thus minimising spending on extraneous amenities. However, as Payne (2013) discussed, green infrastructure has a visible role in marketing property and can lead to higher sale values. It can therefore be promoted as minimising the economic risk of development as it helps to create a stronger selling market based on a greener form of housing/commercial investment (Jim & Chen, 2009; 2006b). The economics of this process also promote the integration of green infrastructure in development. According to recent research by the Landscape Institute (2014), developers in the UK would be willing to pay on average 3 per cent more for the acquisition of land located near to high-quality green infrastructure resources, as they expect to see a 15–20 per cent premium placed on sale and rental values. Furthermore, evidence presented by CABE Space (2005), again in the UK, argued that property values could increase by up to 34 per cent (with the average being 5–7 per cent) when situated in greener and more multi-functional landscapes. Each of the stakeholder groups discussed above influence how green infrastructure policy is developed and how its principles are applied in practice. There is, though, no consensus between these groups over who has what rights in this process. In practice this can lead to problems in the scoping and consultation of green infrastructure planning, which has led to conflicts over the best use of resources. A reading of Figure 1 in Mell (2014: 614) takes these issues into account and

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice

presents Mell’s (2010) idealised dialogue for green infrastructure planning, highlighting a process whereby each of the above stakeholders can be integrated into a cyclical development discussion. What this does not highlight, though, are the fractures between stakeholders at each level, which leads to a range of green infrastructure outcomes (Mell, 2014). Each of the case study chapters discuss this, examining how different actors influence this process, and what this means for delivery. Such discussions are often dominated by a small number of actors, such as the LPA or a lead conservation agency, however, the interesting aspects of this are when additional stakeholders start to exhibit greater influence on the process. Thus, while green infrastructure planning purports to be collaborative, there are often visible contestations between LPAs, environmentalists, developers and people (Baud & Dhanalakshmi, 2007; Morrison, 2010). Throughout Chapter 2, and in the previous section of this chapter, the influence of each of these stakeholder groups has been visible on the development of green infrastructure. The following case study chapters are populated with commentary from prominent actors involved in green infrastructure praxis debating their interactions with its development. This, along with the discussions of the structures of policy formation, will be used to contextualise how green space planning policy is developing in each location. From this discussion the variations and similarities in approaches between locations can be identified, indicating whether comparable practices are evident in the delivery of green infrastructure around the world.

51

Figure 3.3 Real-estate advertising, Bengaluru, India.

52

Linking concepts with practice

3.3 Scalar differences in specific location One of the key principles of green infrastructure outlined in Chapter 2 was connectivity and accessibility to and between landscape resources. Based on the foundations of landscape ecology and its promotion of network connections, green infrastructure planning has an intrinsic spatial and scalar dimension, which is assessed in each of the following case studies. The selection of each case study location reflects the different approaches to green infrastructure as they represent city-scale investments, sub-regional LPA/legislative areas and wider city-region areas, all of which highlight the complexities of applying green infrastructure characteristics in practice. Chapter 2 drew extensively on the international literature supporting green space planning to illustrate the varying spatial and scalar natures of the concept. Several key green infrastructure texts directly address this issue, with Weber et al. (2006) and Benedict and McMahon (2006) making initial considerations of whether it could be applied at a landscape scale. Their work, and that of others in the USA, such as Young and McPherson (2013), Macdonald and Keil (2012) and Safransky (2014), all subsequently explored the fluidity of green infrastructure as an appropriate delivery mechanism addressing socio-economic and ecological issues across urban–rural landscape boundaries. Their work corresponds with the historical interpretations of environmental management in North America, where landscape-scale and engineered water solutions have been a dominant practice (Ahern, 2007). Evidence from the greenway developments in Indianapolis (Lindsey et al., 2001) and the Toronto metropolitan area in Canada (Taylor et al., 1995) highlight the prominence of such multi-scaled, and by extension cross-boundary, investment in green infrastructure. While there is a lineage between scaled landscape investment and policy in North America, the same has not been witnessed as extensively in Europe. In spite of the prominence of landscape ecology thinking in Europe, the application of its principles, i.e. connectivity, have been confined to more traditional ecological research (see Farina, 2006) than in other geographical regions (Mell, 2010). Recently, however, this has changed as the signing into law of the European Landscape Convention (ELC) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have required planners to think about environmental resources from a multi-scaled perspective (Roe & Taylor, 2014). These two European-level policies set out a legal framework for politicians and landscape managers to assess the value of all landscapes, be they exceptional or quotidian, at a number of scales. The outcomes of this (a) ensure that all landscapes, and not just protected designations, are managed effectively; and (b) ensure that landscape practices take into account the cascading impact of resource management on ecological (and socio-economic) systems in a number of locations. Roe and Taylor (2014:1) used their discussions of the ELC to raise an important issue in landscape planning: ascribing into law the need to view the landscape as a multitude of resources, processes and interactions moving away from the more traditional view of the environment as a singular and cohesive resource. One direct outcome of these Europe-level policies has been the promotion of a more holistic understanding of green infrastructure components, and how they support each other at a number of landscape scales. This has, in the longer term, led to more

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice

53

appropriate forms of management (Andersson et al., 2014; Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Mell, 2014). To support our understanding of the interactivity of resources at the larger landscape scale we must also address the implications of these processes at the local. While it may be relatively easy to identify the multi-functional nature of landscape-scale resources, it is often more difficult to do the same at the local level. Subsequently, it is important for green infrastructure planners to review the specific functions they are planning for at the local level to ensure the greatest benefits are delivered to the widest population. Sites such as Hyde Park in London or the Ridge Area of New Delhi may be viewed as internationally important green spaces as they have been considered to be best-practice examples of effective green infrastructure development (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). However, they may not be seen as being as significant to the functionality of a location as the High Line in New York (USA), Chavasse Park in Liverpool Figure 3.4 Waterfront redevelopment (Bordeaux, France).

Figure 3.5 Urban greening (Bryant Park, New York).

54

Linking concepts with practice (UK) and Park Güell in Barcelona (Spain). Size therefore does not necessarily equate to value, but can act as an indicator of where city-scale or wider multi-functionality can, and is, being developed. The regenerated riverfront in Bordeaux, smaller pocket parks in New York, e.g. Bryant Park, and locations like Ely Country Park in Cambridgeshire can all be viewed as providing examples of this, and raise the question of how we assess cumulatively value compared to actual size (Mell, 2010).

3.4 Temporal differences in specific locations Section 2.9 presented a timeline for the development of green infrastructure, tracing its evolution from 1998 to 2014. Within these three stages of exploration, expansion and consolidation, green infrastructure thinking was discussed highlighting alternative geographical and thematic influences on the concept (Mell, 2015a). Extending this debate embeds within the discussions of green infrastructure development a clear temporal element. Its development as a concept, a policy mandate and as an approach to landscape planning therefore needs to be taken into account in explorations of successful green space planning. Such an approach enables this book, and other green infrastructure research, to locate the evolution of specific ideas, spatial dynamics or barriers to urban greening within this timeframe. Section 2.9 also proposed that green infrastructure was explored, expanded upon and consolidated, and the following chapters trace the development and use of the concept. However, the value in this analysis is in identifying where and how these similarities or differences have impacted the use of green infrastructure in each location.

3.5 Thematic differences in specific locations While each of the case studies presented in this book draws on the wider understanding of green infrastructure theory and practice, each can also be considered to apply one or more specific thematic approaches to the development of policy and subsequent investment. Which thematic approach is applied varies between locations, as should be expected from four very different geographical regions, but in the majority of cases these discussions reflect the normative approaches to urban planning and green space management in that location. However, the development of green infrastructure is also caveated as being shaped by a much broader integration of socio-political influences. Comparable practices may therefore be noticeable between locations, especially where they are clustered spatially, e.g. Shanghai and Suzhou. However, within each case study there is a nuanced application of green infrastructure within policy and practice. These differences provide each chapter with a distinctive presentation of how green infrastructure is being discussed, mandated and managed. Where successful delivery of green infrastructure can be noted, these positive aspects are synthesised in Chapter 9. Moreover, where barriers to investment are discussed, these issues are used to highlight how alternative approaches to green infrastructure can, and should, be developed. Table 3.1 outlines the main thematic approaches in each of the case study locations. It also provides a presentation of the most relevant strategic policy and/or

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice

55

Table 3.1 Case study locations and thematic use of green infrastructure Location

Main green infrastructure theme

Published green infrastructure strategy or policy

London Olympic Park

Large-scale green infrastructure investment; major stakeholder involvement, master planning and funding; varied green infrastructure activities and approaches drawing on a range of expertise; problems with a lack of a management plan in the first instance

(Mayor of London, 2014; Commission for a Sustainable London, 2011; 2012a; 2012b)

Cambridgeshire

Leading area for green infrastructure policy innovation; collaboration and focus of policy; identification of investment sites and barriers to implementation; strategic vs. local investment

(Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011; 2006)

Ahmedabad

Investment in strategic green infrastructure networks based on four main green infrastructure approaches; strong leadership, commitment and funding; complex socio-economic barriers and resistance to development; water- and tree-centric

(Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013)

New Delhi

Landscape-scale policy; lack of data at the micro and inability (Delhi Development to manage development process; encroachment vs. traditional Authority, 2007) use vs. private investment for private communities; changing policy environment

Chicago

Water-centric approaches to urban development and control; climate control; service and quality provision; liveability

(Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014)

Atlanta

Large-scale green infrastructure investment; renewal and connectivity/linearity; policy and funding implications

(Atlanta Beltline Inc, n.d.)

Paris

Old vs. new green infrastructure; location and integration within city spatial plan; diversity of distribution and range of green infrastructure types; management of high quality; public–private

(Mairie de Paris, 2014)

Milan

Liveability; climate change; policy and practice responses; funding for green infrastructure in difficult locations (economically and socially/politically)

Metropolitan Milano (in development)

Shanghai/Suzhou Green infrastructure investment and management in a rapidly developing city; traditional vs. new forms of green infrastructure design/investment; political support-funding and application

N/A

56

Linking concepts with practice guidance which are used to frame the discussions of investment. A reading of Table 3.1 suggests that complementary processes can be identified in different locations to support green infrastructure development. They also illustrate, however, that there is a lack of continuity between applications of urban greening, suggesting that investment in green infrastructure is localised as a policy, and delivery mechanism has to be considered as context-specific (Mell, 2013a; Wright, 2011).

3.6 Evaluation methodology The following five chapters analyse how green infrastructure is being conceptualised and delivered in landscape and urban development, providing an assessment of the policy, funding and implementation activities being undertaken, asking whether investment in green infrastructure is meeting the socio-economic needs of the resident populations or the ecological needs of the surrounding landscapes. Each case study draws extensively on a number of key green infrastructure themes, e.g. water, policy, people-place making, biodiversity or climatic variation, to illustrate the geopolitical and spatial complexities that lead to variation in its use. This assessment is shaped by discussions of the policy context that green infrastructure is being developed within. Assessing what policy is used to support green infrastructure planners allows each chapter to evaluate the influence of the various stakeholders who control the development and implementation of policy, and the form it takes (e.g. guidance or strategic investment). In the subsequent synthesis chapter this analysis is used to explore where successful green infrastructure policy-making is visible and what barriers may be hindering this process. Where gaps in policy-making are evident, the case studies will examine how alternative stakeholder and advocate influence have attempted to address this void. To ensure that a level of depth is achieved in each of these discussions, a number of sources will be engaged to develop appropriate data. Three main methods of data collection will be used in this process: 1 Interviews and discussions with practitioners, academics and LPAs highlighting the different views and ways of dealing with green infrastructure; 2 Policy analysis of development plans, strategies and green infrastructure guidance for each location; 3 On-site and city-wide observations of how the investment and subsequent management of green infrastructure is occurring in each case study area. The interviews and discussions draw on ten years of engagement with the green infrastructure planning community by the author and those commentators discussed. This includes working with and for LPAs and research groups, and researching and teaching the values of green infrastructure in collaboration with LPAs, ENGOs and academic partners. While this process undoubtedly installs the analysis with a partial perspective, these discussions are balanced from additional commentary from practitioners and policy-makers. For example, in the Cambridgeshire case study discussions with LPA officers, key land owners (e.g. the National Trust) and local campaign groups (e.g. Ely Wildspace in Cambridgeshire) are used to frame the valuations of green infrastructure development.

www.ebook3000.com

Linking concepts with practice In Ahmedabad the evaluation draws on commentary from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA), as well as local academics and practitioners, providing the case study with a broad range of voices to discuss urban greening. The aim of this process is to provide a multitude of views of how green infrastructure has been developed in each location, and to explore the potential values of such investment. Within each of these discussions, issues of scale, thematic applications of green infrastructure and the evolution of concepts are discussed to highlight the wider narratives of its use. The second process used to gather data is a documentary analysis of the planning, guidance and strategic investment documents used to support green infrastructure in different locations. Documentary analysis has been used in a number of previous studies (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Boyle et al., 2013; Mell, 2014; Siemens AG, 2011; Tzoulas et al., 2007) to discuss the thematic development of green infrastructure. The approach taken in this book extends the process undertaken by Mell (2010), whereby the use and framing of the principles of green infrastructure are assessed. These will be debated in conjunction with an analysis of the spatial application of green infrastructure principles, the timing of investment/implementation, and the changing narratives of policy to highlight whether there has been an evolution of the arguments supporting investment in green space. The framing of green infrastructure within these documents provides a platform to assess the transition of discussions into implementation. In a number of the case study locations, e.g. Ahmedabad, this assesses how the city’s Development Plan (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013) is programming investment to address landscape and socio-economic needs. Moreover, in Chicago policy developed to manage the city’s (and wider catchment area’s) water resources will be evaluated alongside practitioner commentary to illustrate the interactivity of policy– practice relationships (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014). Assessing the debates surrounding green infrastructure development within each of these locations provides a clearer appreciation of what investment is deemed financially viable and what is socially acceptable. It also highlights whether, and if so how, the key principles of green infrastructure, i.e. connectivity and multi-functionality, are being engaged with by policy-makers. The third approach evaluates the nature of green infrastructure investment in each of the case study locations, and is potentially the least scientific. Extended periods of time have been spent in each case study location to assess the nature of green infrastructure investment and examine whether practice mirrors the policy mandates for each area. This also draws on the author’s own experiences of green infrastructure investment, exploring how the politics of investment can (and have) modify this process. A range of additional sources, mainly visual, will be used to supplement these discussions, with photographs and maps being used to populate the commentary. Although this process does not profess to offer an immersive approach to observation, it is viewed as providing a useful addition to the professional commentary of landscape professionals and the policy they produce.

57

58

Linking concepts with practice

3.7 Summary The proceeding chapter outlined the evaluative framework developed for the following chapters and a number of the thematic approaches that are used to shape the following case studies. It noted that discussions of green infrastructure can be viewed as a complex interplay of socio-economic, environmental and political influences, all of which are assessed in each of the case study chapters. It also illustrated how a number of cross-cutting themes can be identified, unifying some of the approaches to policy-making and investment in green infrastructure; each of which will be explored further in each subsequent chapter. The following five chapters present geographically specific evaluations of green infrastructure practices. Each draws on commentary from local stakeholders, as well as highlighting the key policy drivers that support the use of green infrastructure. While each chapter is self-contained, parallels between case studies are inevitable and will be reflected upon in Chapter 9.

Note 1

A range of stakeholders views are used to facilitate the reporting of green infrastructure investments in each location. The author has used an existing network of contacts (academics, researchers and practitioners) who have been engaged to provide context and technical information.

www.ebook3000.com

CHAPTER 4

The USA Water management in Chicago and the Atlanta Beltline development

Green infrastructure development in the USA, as noted in Chapter 2, has historically taken a water-centric approach. This is visible in the city-wide investment programmes in New York and Philadelphia, which framed their recent approaches to urban greening (Austin, 2014), but also highlights the links between landmark projects, such as the Emerald Necklace in Boston, and the influence of water management on green infrastructure planning (Fábos, 2004). Partially, this reflects the role that engineers and engineered solutions have played in landscape resource management, but may also illustrate a lack of cooperation between agencies, with the exception of some water-based projects, that has limited the effectiveness of landscape management practices (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Extending this view to current practice suggests that advocates in the USA now have a clearer perspective on what they consider green infrastructure to mean. Recent investment programmes focused on a rethinking of engineered solutions using green infrastructure, placing greatest emphasis on the control, management and quality of stormwater. How additional socio-economic and other ecological factors are brought into these discussions therefore varies. Furthermore, although we can argue that green infrastructure planning is becoming a more integrative process in its application, it retains a water-centric focus (Jaffe, 2010). This, in and of itself, is not a negative, as water management, especially in cities, is a crucial administrative, legislative and political issue. However, working from such a narrow perspective potentially limits the capabilities of city administrations, and the environment sector to effectively manage green infrastructure. In spite of the perceived rigidity of green infrastructure planning in the USA, this has not limited its innovation in practice (Mell, 2014). A number of the most progressive forms of green space planning have come from the USA, including ecological greenway planning, and the rise of green roof technology and the promotion of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDSs) in cities like Portland and Seattle (Ahern, 2013; Lerner & Allen, 2012; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013). All of which suggests that although American green infrastructure focuses mainly on water-sensitive issues, they have been able to think strategically about how these issues can be diversified. This chapter extends this debate with an assessment of the investment programmes currently being undertaken in Chicago (Illinois) and Atlanta (Georgia). These two sites have been selected as they offer insights into how urban green space can be designed, delivered and managed. It examines how green infrastructure is

60

USA: Chicago and Atlanta being developed in areas with different development histories, discussing whether the variation in application affects the long-term functionality of the resource base. Chicago is discussed as it has engaged with a major programme of water-based green infrastructure that is integrating innovative responses to a number of socioeconomic and political issues through landscape-based schemes. It has also been subject to fluctuating employment and economic stresses, which has impacted upon the city government’s use of urban greening projects. Atlanta is presented as the city which has recently invested in a large-scale (city-wide) green infrastructure project, the Atlanta Belt Line, to facilitate an improved quality of life, as well as to enhance access to recreational and ecological resources. The scale of the Belt Line indicates a commitment from the city to invest in larger-scale urban greening, which can facilitate successful public–private partnerships (PPPs) for green infrastructure; a process which has not been witnessed in many cities in the USA. Both Chicago and Atlanta have taken cues from other US and Canadian cities (e.g. Boston and Toronto) to frame how they approach investment in urban greening.

Figure 4.1 Chicago green infrastructure map.

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

4.1 Chicago: green infrastructure and watershed management in a high-density/high-need location The city of Chicago is known for its weather. The misnomer that its location off Lake Michigan makes it the ‘windy city’ may be an urban myth, but the weather in the form of wind, rain and snow does shape how the city’s administration manages its landscape. This is evident in the reporting of localised flooding by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) in Chicago, which argues that individual homes are becoming increasingly vulnerable to stormwater and snowmelt events (Center for Neighborhood Technology, n.d.). The CNT also proposed that increased vulnerability to stormwater events is aligned with socio-economic disparities, where areas of deprivation are proportionally more likely to suffer flooding. This has been exacerbated as Chicago has been subject to periods of suburbanisation and urban contraction, leaving tracts of land open for development at risk of surface water flooding (Wise, 2008). One reaction by local practitioners and government agencies has been to re-evaluate where development occurs, asking how the city can promote a more sustainable form of landscape management. Flying into O’Hare International Airport over Lake Michigan illustrates this issue. The city’s shoreline dominates its landscape, but what is also noticeable are the large number of sports fields and cemeteries that cover the northern and western sectors of the city. Large tracts of Chicago have thus been given over to active and passive activities which require green infrastructure support, yet there seems to be a smaller number of neighbourhood parks or green spaces. To address the distribution and functionality of green infrastructure in the city, a number of projects have been implemented, with noticeable investment in 95,000 urban street trees across the city (McPherson et al., 1997), the high-profile installation of a green roof on City Hall and the redevelopment of Grant Park, Millennium Park and the Maggie Daley Park complex. However, it is the city’s approach to the delivery of coordinated stormwater and water quality management that have most frequently framed its approach to green infrastructure planning. The preparation of this has been identified as one of the key reasons why Chicago is seen as a national leader in the USA for investment in green infrastructure planning (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014). Like New York, Boston and Philadelphia, Chicago has a history of developing green infrastructure compared to comparably sized cities in the USA. As a consequence, Chicago is viewed by many as a forward-thinking and progressive location where cost-effective investment that addresses localised needs is discussed, ensuring that the landscape is not compromised to meet development objectives (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). It has, however, been suggested by a former Chicago planner that its successes have been relative to the lack of green infrastructure investment in other locations, and may not be as groundbreaking as they appear. The distribution of Chicago’s green infrastructure resource is, however, more spatially diverse compared to other North American cities and is framed in the east of the city by Lake Michigan: a water resource that spans over 22,300 km2. One of the consequences of such a vast resource is that the corresponding terrestrial green spaces can seem insignificant in comparison. The layout of Chicago’s green spaces

61

62

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

Figure 4.2 Millennium Park, Chicago.

Figure 4.3 Maggie Daley Park, Chicago.

suggest that a series of prominent green corridors can be seen extending from the city’s core and can be identified as a key ecological network. However, the extent of these resources is only really evident when reviewed at a metro or sub-regional scale. Within the city limits there are a limited number of green infrastructure resources, which are predominately large city-scale parks, congregated along linear routes at the city limits, the shoreline or associated city-scale institutions such as the University of Chicago. At the neighbourhood level the location and functionality of green infrastructure is more variable, suggesting that access could be a significant issue in the promotion of use. Furthermore, although the network of green spaces at a metro and sub-regional scale provides a counterpoint to this, access to multi-functional spaces within the city remains somewhat restricted.

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

4.1.1 Green infrastructure governance and management in the Chicago area Green infrastructure investment in the Chicago area (and that of the wider Chicago Wilderness area) is managed by a number of government bodies. These are aligned with the existing tiers of landscape and urban planning and illustrate how federal, state, county, metropolitan and neighbourhood governance influence green infrastructure development (Mell, 2014). The current structure in the Chicago area identifies four main tiers of government: the federal, linking the mandates of the US EPA and other government agencies; the state, the state of Illinois, as well as neighbouring Wisconsin and Indiana are key administrative and legislative leaders for the area and the Chicago Wilderness project; the regional with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (SMAP) working with local government in the seven counties and 284 municipalities of the region. Each has a direct influence on how green infrastructure, and especially stormwater and flooding, are managed in the area. Additional agencies also hold important roles in developing strategic green infrastructure investment in Chicago; these include the Illinois Department for Natural Resources (DNR), the county-level forest preserves (e.g. Lake County Forest Preserve), as well as school and health districts. The interaction of these agencies with the various tiers of government has generated a very fluid policy and governance environment within Chicago. While the Illinois DNR holds an overarching coordinating (and in some senses funding) role, it requires extensive support and collaboration from county and city agencies to create its strategic vision for the area. In some areas this has provided a fruitful relationship, as in the majority of areas in the Chicago Wilderness location. However, due to competing administrative and financial constraints there have been divergences in how different municipalities and county-level authorities deal with green infrastructure. For example, there are significant differences in how the administrations in Kane, DuPage and Cook County support green infrastructure. As a consequence, although Chicago has seen the publication of a range of policies and guidance documents discussing the value of green infrastructure development, there has been a more dynamic form of engagement from local planning authorities (LPAs) within some of the broader water and green space objectives proposed. However, documents such as the Biodiversity Recovery Plan (Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, 1999) for the Chicago Wilderness area, the 100-year vision for green and open space management in Lake County (Lake County Forest Preserve Department, 2014) and CMAP’s GOTO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan for the Chicago metropolitan area (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014) could all be viewed as (a) positively framing the development of green infrastructure; (b) outlining a strategic investment programme for stormwater investment; and (c) management of additional green infrastructure resources. Assisting this process has been a federal decree from the US EPA allocating funding to state and metropolitan authorities, enabling them to invest in green infrastructure oriented stormwater management. This decree provided a catalyst for planning agencies to rethink their investment strategies, providing a platform for organisations like Chicago Wilderness to integrate ecological conservation priorities

63

64

USA: Chicago and Atlanta such as ‘forest preserves’ into investment plans. Such a repositioning of approach has occurred because of the integration of environmental knowledge at the stakeholder level by agencies such as the Natural Land Institute based in Rockford (Illinois), the Lake County Forest Preserve or the City of Crystal Lake, with an alignment of engineering expertise to facilitate a more environmental direction to water management. As the Commissioner of Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) stated, this has allowed engineers to ‘tiptoe into green infrastructure’ and meet CMAP’s proposal to diversify their approaches to environmental planning as ‘a one size process of investment in green infrastructure does not fit all’. Furthermore, as green infrastructure has increased in visibility in policy and research there has been a corresponding uptake of its principles by environmental delivery agents. For example, following a merger of the Department of Environment (DoE) into the Department of Transport (DoT) in 2005 there has been greater emphasis placed on the role of CMAP to act as a conduit for green infrastructure advocacy. By working with the seven counties located around Chicago,1 the relevant city administrations including the DoT and the Chicago Wilderness network have been able to promote liveability through increased water efficiency, increased investment in parks and open space, increased energy efficiency (including stormwater issues) and the generation of urban agriculture/food projects (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014). CMAPs development of a broad range of green infrastructure priorities help them to establish a forum to work more effectively with partners to assess local, community and city-scale benefits from a range of landscape projects. This has been successful because they have been able to effectively integrate the mandates of key delivery agencies, e.g. the Chicago MWRD, with the expertise of ecologists, landscape planners and engineers. As a consequence of this softening of approach, CMAP and its partners have achieved a much broader innovation towards green infrastructure and stormwater management that moves away from the existing concretisation of landscapes. Alternatively, they have approached investment through a more integrative approach to ecologically focused urban/water management, targeting investment at a landscape scale. They have also promoted a collaborative and multi-faceted integration of stakeholders which has seen the GOTO 2040 vision be supported by a cross-section of political and delivery focused agencies. Table 4.1 Green infrastructure stakeholders in Chicago and the wider Illinois area Scale

Example

Federal

USA Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers

State

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Metropolitan/county

CMAP, Chicago MWRD, Cook County Forest Preserve

Municipality/district/ neighbourhood

Schools districts, City of Crystal Lake

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

4.1.2 Green infrastructure policy and practice Despite its location on Lake Michigan, and unbeknownst to me until 2015, flooding dominates both planning and green infrastructure discussions in Chicago. Localised flooding, as a consequence of the city’s inability to manage stormwater events, is seen by many green infrastructure practitioners as its most pressing environmental issue. Therefore, although Chicago is considered by many to be ahead of the curve in terms of investing in more efficient stormwater management, this is due to necessity, not necessarily proactive investment. The issue of stormwater is complicated by a divide in personal understandings of flooding compared to wider Chicago– Illinois narratives. Herein lays a central issue in management – who is responsible for identifying both the problems and solutions for stormwater management, and any subsequent investment in green infrastructure? At the state level, Chicago Wilderness are the responsible agency tasked with producing guidance on water management and the conservation of biodiversity, and have focused investments, at least in part, on the enhancement of their regional-scale forest preserves. Chicago Wilderness is a regional alliance of over 300 community, public and private organisations that collaborate to enhance the connections between people, local places and the wider landscape. This extends to over 580 municipalities in the Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana area. Since their formation they have worked strategically to address the following objectives: to restore nature to health, to protect green infrastructure, to mitigate climate change and to leave no child inside (Chicago Wilderness, n.d.). Working at a strategic scale provides Chicago Wilderness and its affiliates with a range of delivery options to address green infrastructure issues. For example, they have been successful in working with local communities and municipalities in Cook County to preserve forest remnants in carbon storage and water management sites through their Forest Preserves programme (The Next Century Conservation Plan Commission, 2014). This programme was considered by the Commissioner of the Chicago MWRD as one of the most important, which has engaged engineers by linking the systems thinking inherent in that discipline with the wider network capabilities of green infrastructure. They have also worked with the Illinois DNR and private consultants to develop the Midlothian Creek Green Infrastructure mapping exercise, which aims to facilitate a programme of retrofitted stormwater management within a reassessment of transport-oriented mobility issues. Using a variety of SUDS, the partnership has looked to integrate major transport agencies (both rail and air) with alternative stormwater management practices to mitigate the potential flooding impacts of concretised landscapes. This plan is attempting to align the economic interests of businesses, particularly logistics companies (e.g. UPS), with greener forms of development and landscape management. It also aims to meet FEMA and MWRD stormwater requirements and has drawn down corresponding federal funding to facilitate investment. Furthermore, the Kishwaukee River Corridor Green Infrastructure Plan is planning for river corridor restoration at the landscape scale, and for urban sustainable drainage at the street/neighbourhood scale, to reduce pluvial flooding and decrease the costs to home owners and city officials in Rockford of such events.

65

66

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

Table 4.2 Green Infrastructure agencies and responsibilities in Chicago Agency

Responsibility

Chicago Wilderness

Strategic planning and cooperation between legally responsible authorities (city and county government) in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin (545,000 acres of protected land and ten million inhabitants, 21 municipalities, federal/state/ planning agencies and 326 member organisations).

CMAP (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning)

Metro planning agency working with the city and seven counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will) to develop a strategic investment framework ‘GOTO 2040 Comprehensive Plan’ for green infrastructure. Its key objectives are to increase water efficiency, more parks and open space, improved health and availability of local food and increased energy efficiency. The plan also proposes to preserve 250,000 acres of green space or extend/provide it to cover 400,000 acres by 2040. The plan also calls for an increase in accessibility to green space for residents from 49 per cent to 70 per cent.*

Metropolitan Water Reclamation Districts (MWRD)

Responsible for storm water management across the metropolitan area with a storage capacity of 18.25 billion gallons. They are key stakeholders in developing a range of water management projects including three reservoirs and the Deep Tunnel initiative, which promotes green infrastructure as part of the solution of hard/soft engineering (green roofs, permeable pavement, and vegetated swales at the roadsides, rain gardens and rain barrels). To do this they work with the Army Corps of Engineers, land owners and communities. They have also managed Watershed Management Ordinances (WMOs) from 2007 onwards, which aim to mitigate extreme weather events.

Note: * Accessibility is defined by CMAP as the availability of a ten-acre site for every 1,000 people.

Each of the above projects illustrates, at least in part, how green infrastructure can be integrated in large-scale water management schemes. Moreover, Chicago Wilderness have stated that such projects (and the wider Wilderness Plan) presents an ambitious vision to increase the land cover of green infrastructure in the area by 1.5 million acres, and includes a key shift from impermeable water management practices to more permeable and greener approaches. While Chicago Wilderness has worked extensively with stakeholders across a regionally significant spatial area, CMAP works more discreetly at a community level. The GOTO 2040 Plan (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014) does, however, cover the City of Chicago and the neighbouring seven counties. They therefore have the responsibility to plan for a population of 8.6 million, which is expected to grow to 11 million by 2040, drawn from 284 communities. One of the primary objectives of the GOTO 2040 Plan is to increase the level of green infrastructure provision to all residents across the CMAP area, proposing ‘a green infrastructure network that follows waterway corridors, expands existing preserves and creates new preserves in the region’ (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014: 43).

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta To ensure that green infrastructure is developed effectively, Chicago Wilderness have established a network of stakeholders to facilitate debate and delivery. One example is Strategic Water Analysis (SWAT), coordinated by Chicago Wilderness, where they have worked with the MWRD to model water catchment dynamics using a combination of green infrastructure and engineered solutions. Furthermore, CMAP have continued to work with the DoT and other agencies to address flooding at a city and sub-regional level, with the aim of increasing urban resilience. To achieve this they have engaged local technical assistance to develop watershed and comprehensive plans with local communities that identify strategies and investments for stormwater infrastructure, to support local governments in their attempts to attract funding and to offer guidance on how to direct investments in green infrastructure to support the environmental capacity of the area’s river network. CMAPs role is therefore strategic in nature. However, this has enabled them to work with a range of stakeholders to influence the form that green infrastructure planning takes. It has also allowed them to link investments to the wider green space and water management issues of the wider Chicago area. Moving from a strategic to a more urban-centred approach to green infrastructure investment, the Chicago MWRD acts as a conduit for engineers working with green space planning solutions. The MWRD work with a myriad, and often fractured, set of stakeholders to generate cost-effective and ecologically appropriate forms of water management.2 Using a combination of large-scale engineered solutions, such as reservoirs, they manage 18 billion gallons of water in the region. However, following the EPA and federal decree that made it legal for funding to be allocated to green infrastructure, they have looked to more innovative solutions to address stormwater issues. Consequently, the MWRD have been able to promote green infrastructure investment in schools using SUDS, increased green space provision and urban agriculture programmes (e.g. Space to Grow). They have also worked with Chicago’s DoT to instigate a permeable alleyways programme, and have been one of the lead agencies promoting Cook County’s Forest Preserve programme.3 The reported benefits of these programmes are being cheaper and more cost-effective compared to hard-engineering programmes. Finally, the role of the MWRD has been as an advocate of a cultural shift in sectoral behaviour. They have worked extensively with engineers (including the US Army Corps) to negotiate a more positive dialogue between investments in ecological infrastructure and more traditional engineered solutions.

4.1.3 Stormwater/water resource management From discussions with representatives of the Chicago Wilderness, CMAP and MWRD, it is clear that stormwater management is the main green infrastructure issue in Chicago. In 2013–14 the city developed and released the Five-Year Storm Water Plan which advocates for investment in parkways, street bioswales and low-level/-intensity green infrastructure as a reaction to localised flooding. With funds from the EPA, this was one of the first coordinated efforts to strategically plan green infrastructure across the city. Previously each district had developed their own stormwater plan, leading to a disjointed and in many cases personalised approach to management

67

68

USA: Chicago and Atlanta that failed to (a) understand the value of cooperation and (b) to coordinate between areas that are essential in water management. The scalar delivery of this programme can be identified across the wider CMAP GOTO 2040 plan area. Evidence of the shift in emphasis can be seen in a number of the business parks, schools and redevelopment of hospital complexes in the Chicago area. For example, the retrofitting of the Advocate Lutheran General Hospital Patient Tower saw an increase in water capture and retention through the creation of bioswales, rain chains and the use of extensive and semi-intensive green roofs. These investments were complemented with new gardens and publically accessible landscapes to facilitate a sense of ‘peaceful respite for staff, patients, and family’. This was achieved through the design of ornamental rain gardens and a cascading water runnel leading to a public sculpture garden. Each of these investments are supported with signage that aims to raise people’s awareness of the links

Figure 4.4 Advocate Lutheran General Hospital Patient Tower (Park Ridge, Illinois).

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

69

between natural processes (rainfall) and landscaping functions (Conservation Design Forum, n.d.a). A second example is the redevelopment of the AMCOL Corporate Headquarters, which led to the award of an LEED Silver Award for innovative landscape design and stormwater management systems. The site’s design altered stormwater routes onsite and specifically looked at integrating permeable paving throughout the parking lot to aid the distribution of excess water through pavement/sidewalk cut-throughs into bioswales and a managed wetland/prairie system. To ensure that the site is able to adapt to the climatic variations of Illinois, native species were used which can withstand seasonal changes. In addition, the site has attempted to highlight the movement of water on-site to increase employee awareness of environmental resources, especially where it feeds into rain gardens and green roofs (Conservation Design Forum, n.d.b).

Figure 4.5 AMCOL International Corporate Headquarters (Hoffman Estates, Illinois).

70

USA: Chicago and Atlanta Both of these developments saw landscape architects draw extensively on the use of SUDS in the form of porous pavements, bioswales and the creation of wetlands to manage the stormwater and snowmelt in largely concretised areas. The designs of both of these examples were developed to mimic environmental systems by controlling the flow of excess water generated through winter and extreme weather events and releasing it systematically into the water system through rain gardens and wetlands. This required the use of a network of native grasses, gabions and water channels to ensure a regulated flow of water could be managed that would not exceed the capacity of the local hardscaping. The analysis of these projects undertaken by the Conservation Design Forum also suggested that the cost of implementation and maintenance was significantly lower than the associated costs of repairing built landscapes. Moreover, due to the dynamic nature of the installed environmental systems the landscaping also required less maintenance following its first year of installation. The investments noted above highlight that with innovative design, green infrastructure can be successfully integrated into urban areas. Two additional examples highlight further opportunities that can be used to promote urban greening. First, the CNT ‘RainReady Homes’ and ‘RainReady Communities’ programmes; and second, the ‘Space to Grow’ schools programme. All are being implemented in Chicago, and are in many cases delivering extensive benefits in locations of socio-economic inequality, where access to high-quality green infrastructure is limited. The ‘RainReady Homes’ and ‘RainReady Communities’ programmes work with communities to assess how individual homes, and more recently, small communities (i.e. street level) can retrofit their property with small-scale green infrastructure to manage excess stormwater. The programme is coordinated by the CNT, who have undertaken an extensive process of consultation and engagement with communities to identify where and how flooding occurs. Following these initial discussions the CNT offers practical (and cost-effective) solutions to localised flooding at the scale of an individual home. This has enabled homeowners to become aware of how the impermeable surfaces of their homes and the current regime of water capture can be improved. The costs of investment in ‘RainReady’ practices compares favourably to those calculated through formal insurance assessments (ex-post flood events) and they have been shown by the CNT to be cost-effective and protect against long-term and repetitive flooding. A key component of the ‘RainReady’ programme is the identification of smallscale green infrastructure that all households can utilise. Part of the CNT remit is to raise awareness and provide education of simple techniques which can be employed by non-stormwater experts. These include a multi-faceted approach to water management utilising natural and engineered ideas: tree planting and planting of native species,4 the creation of rain gardens, yard-level swales and retention areas, and also rain barrels, permeable paving and green roofs, as well as a checklist for home buyers to make their property RainReady (Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2015). Each of these investments is viewed by the CNT as improving the process of capture and allows homeowners to control the flow of stormwater on their property. The programme has been reported by the CNT as successfully helping homeowners to manage flooding and is now being extended to additional communities as they

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

71 Figure 4.6 Space to Grow, Schmid Elementary School, Chicago.

Figure 4.7 Space to Grow, Schmid Elementary School, Chicago.

are made aware of their influence on local water cycles. The CNT also report that with an active process of engagement, the sharing of expertise and a more strategic approach to evaluation, small-scale stormwater management can be up-scaled to the city level (Center for Neighborhood Technology, n.d.). In contrast to the ‘RainReady’ programme, the ‘Space to Grow’ campaign has been developed to address health, well-being and stormwater issues across Chicago, and focuses investment at the community scale. The project is working with a small number of pilot schools to re-evaluate how they manage stormwater and landscape resources on site. Funded by the MWRD and the Chicago Department of Water Management (CDWM), the programme works with public bodies (e.g. Healthy Schools Campaign and Department of Water), Chicago public schools, local communities and design specialists to integrate green infrastructure into building designs, both new and retrofitted, and grounds management.

72

USA: Chicago and Atlanta The programme’s central aim was to address the continued use of impermeable surfaces found in elementary school grounds. The projects utilise a mixture of water management, on-site planting, channelization into bioswales and retention ponds and ground/low-level planters to promote an understanding of healthy living, water systems, outdoor activity and small-scale responses to flooding. The programme has received strong support from local communities, which was shown in the level of engagement from local communities through the consultation regarding the design, implementation and management of the programme. The outcome was an integrated approach to stormwater management, led by the Conservation Design Forum, who redesigned the hard surfaces of the school parking lot, yard and playing fields/courts to act as water retention basins. Theophilus Schmid Elementary School was one of the pilot projects for the programme. Located in south Chicago in an area of moderate deprivation, Theophilus Schmid Elementary used the ‘Space to Grow’ programme to rethink how their school yard, car parks and wider landscape could be made ecologically resilient. The Conservation Design Forum stated the design the school aimed to adapt: The ‘green’ approaches to stormwater runoff help to address recurring neighborhood flooding, combined sewer overflows, and the load on water reclamation facilities, while providing students with new opportunities for outdoor recreation and physical fitness. (Conservation Design Forum, n.d.c) To achieve this they redesigned the hard surfaces of the school and replaced them with pervious asphalt areas and rubber playing courts to enable greater filtration and retention of stormwater. The design integrated the construction of porous paving/ gravel beds in the parking lots and the laying of a permeable rubber play surface allowing stormwater to leach into the gravel substrate. Stormwater is captured and retained on-site and released at a later, non-peak time, and subsequently transferred using bioretention rain gardens and naturalised channelling into a planted area populated with native hardy perennials. Moreover, to ensure that local children and members of the community engaged with the project the school allowed the construction of planters to be used to promote locally grown food production that could be eaten by the school’s children (Conservation Design Forum, n.d.c) Finally, the grassed playing field of the school was redesigned to act as a retention pond during heavy rain events. The design of this illustrates where the rain is coming from, as it is fed by a visible drainage channel, how it can aid the local landscape and what seasonal changes could be expected from the landscape (through the use of sign boards). All of this has been reported in feedback to the school as increasing the understanding of the power of water, how it can be managed and a greater ownership of the site by local communities. One of the main reasons for the initial success of the programme has been the readiness of local communities to work with school districts and the City of Chicago to test the possibilities of integrated stormwater management. While the initial demonstration sites have been located in areas of moderate deprivation (which is linked directly to increased incidences of localised flooding), they are viewed as

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta being translatable to the wider Chicago area. The projects have also been deemed successful as they provide investments considered to be more attractive, simple to understand, localised in scale (but provide insights into larger flooding problems), have a local value for children and the community, and garner strong community support. Teachers at the school have also noted that they ‘have more people coming to events and helping at the school…it brings the community together’, as the investments reinforce the links between people and the schools and each other through an increased understanding of flooding and mitigation processes.

4.1.4 Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park In contrast to the localised application of the ‘RainReady’ and ‘Space to Grow’ programme, the redevelopment of the Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park area has seen a major rethinking of how green infrastructure can be integrated into core urban areas. Covering an area of 24.5 and 20 square acres, respectively, the two sites created a high-quality and publically accessible green space in the city centre. The redeveloped play park in the Maggie Daley Park highlights how a high-quality and dynamic environment can be created that integrates the multi-functionality of green infrastructure at the centre of the design process. Although it was developed at a cost of $60 million, the park facilitates movement and interaction with a variety of green spaces, and passive and formal play. It is also managed to a high level and has been planned to evolve over time as the greening, in the form of trees, shrubs and flowers, becomes established. The activity-led nature of this site contrasts starkly with the Lake Shore Driveway, which frames the park to the east. The park therefore has a clearly defined boundary that situates its users within the space. This unfortunately means that movement between the park and the more formal lake shore parks is limited and undermines, to some extent, the connectivity of the site to Chicago’s other green infrastructure resources. To the west of Maggie Daley Park is Millennium Park, which until the late 1990s was an underused railroad site which was underutilised to the extent that other parks, e.g. Grant Park, was built around the site. From 1997 onwards, Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley led the redevelopment of the site into a park designed by Frank Gehry. On-site construction commenced in October 1998, with the site being officially opened in July 2004 at a cost of $475 million. It was originally estimated to cost $150 million. In 2009 the park was awarded the Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence and remains one of the city’s most visited green infrastructure assets. Part of the park’s value is the variation of landscapes embedded within its design. The site has a number of formal gardens planted with a range of native species to ensure the site evolves with the city’s climate. These include the Lurie Garden, which was designed to act as a sensory garden for visitors, the formal gardens of Wrigley Square and the AT&T Plaza and Cloud Gate, which blends hard surfaces, public sculpture and urban greening to promote a diverse range of formal and informal uses. The variation of spaces on-site provides visitors with a constantly evolving experience in which green infrastructure is used as both a guide and as a barrier to movement. Millennium Park is connected to the Maggie Daley Park by the BP Pedestrian Bridge, providing a key link between these two sites. Despite criticisms of

73

74

USA: Chicago and Atlanta the site’s cost, location and corporate sponsorship, it continues to be very well-used. Its locations next to the Art Institute of Chicago, Maggie Daley Park and the lake shoreline make it a successful example of how accessibility and multi-functionality can be integrated into the design of a park.

4.2 Atlanta Beltline: linear green infrastructure at a city scale The city of Atlanta is the economic centre of the State of Georgia. It developed due to its strategic location as a railhead, and although the railroads are no longer the main economic driver of the city it remains home to a number of multinational corporations including Coca-Cola and Home Depot. The city has a high-density core but has also witnessed rapid suburbanisation. The city is therefore characterised by suburbanised housing and transport networks with a small number of green spaces. Environmentally it has a number of historical parks located around the city, but lacks the links to form a connective network. Furthermore, although the 1996 Summer Olympic Games led to the establishment of Centennial Park, there was little permanent green infrastructure developed.5 The Atlanta Beltline development proposed to harmonise the lack of connectivity between the city’s green spaces and its 45 neighbourhoods. As a result, the project is approaching investment in green infrastructure in a number of innovative ways to enhance the city’s landscape. The Beltline is a 22-mile long investment utilising existing remnants of the city’s railroad infrastructure to form a circular greenway

Figure 4.8 Atlanta Beltline and green infrastructure map.

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

75 Figure 4.9 Atlanta Centennial Park.

encompassing the downtown area, and is managed by Atlanta Beltline Inc., a quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation (QUANGO). The incorporated company was established in 2004/05 to act as the development manager of the project and was supported by the then mayor of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, and a strong ‘Friends of’ group. The incorporated company was purposefully set up as a QUANGO to ensure it had apolitical authority to deliver the project’s objectives, minimising the potential influence of the city’s politicians. To date, Atlanta Beltline representatives have worked extensively with communities, businesses and the City of Atlanta to ensure the project’s strategic objectives are implemented. These include: • Create and connect 1,300 acres of the city of Atlanta’s green space through an integrated approach to greenway development (an increase of 40 per cent from the existing designation). • Create and enhance a core 22-mile trail and multi-user linear feature and a wider 33-mile network of trails with the potential to extend this to a wider metropolitan scale of 45 miles in conjunction with the Atlanta Regional Commission. • Improve and connect 22 miles of pedestrian-friendly rail transport with the existing MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) network. • Deliver over 5,600 units of affordable housing over the project’s 25-year lifespan (as of 2015, $8.8 million of funding has been used to fund development through Invest Atlanta). • Create and maintain a network of spaces that promote the installation of public art, sculpture and event spaces across the Beltline network. (Atlanta Beltline Inc., n.d.) To achieve these goals the Atlanta Beltline Inc. proposed an ambitious 22-mile circular greenway that connects existing public open space and parks with proposed new investments in segregated paths/cyclepaths. This aims to provide access to

76

USA: Chicago and Atlanta linear features throughout the urban and urban-fringe area of downtown Atlanta in the form of a city-scale connective network. This has been programmed in four distinctive sections, one each in the north, east, south and west of the city, linking historic green infrastructure sites such as Piedmont Park on the Eastside Trail, as well as being framed by the location and extent of the industrial rail heritage of Atlanta. The Beltline has been strategically conceptualised into ten sections to allow the project to proceed incrementally and to address location-specific environmental issues as they arise. The dereliction of the city’s rail infrastructure caused by the development of interstate-centred development frames the spatial delivery of the Atlanta Beltline, as it left the city with a circular network of spaces which could be classified as green or semiecological corridors which were underused and undervalued. One of the key aims of the project was, therefore, to repurpose derelict spaces into a multi-functional greenway. These spaces were also located in relatively close proximity to both the downtown area and a large number of residential neighbourhoods. The combination of existing infrastructure and the location of property led a Georgia Tech student, Ryan Gravel, to hypothesise that an investment in a circular greenway utilising these spaces could lead to significant social, economic and ecological improvements to the city (Atlanta Beltline Inc, n.d.). The development of the Atlanta Beltline master plan was therefore the first comprehensive approach to landscape enhancement in the history of Atlanta in terms of the scale of the investment (15,000 acres), the joint focus of ecological improvements and economic development (to the scale of $10 billion), and the level of buy-in from local businesses, politicians and communities; a process which has since been replicated in other cities in the USA6 and globally. However, as the Atlanta Beltline proposes to deliver a number of objectives across a wide spatial area, they have been required to consolidate their objectives into a more holistic single development programme. To ensure the project remains deliverable it has been, and needs to be, broken down into a series of smaller projects, which each deliver the wider environmental vision of the strategy. Managing the development in sections provides the Atlanta Beltline Inc. with an investment programme which (a) they can deliver in stages, (b) enables them to work with a rolling programme of sites and (c) provides scope to engage in an ongoing process of consultation and to (d) address the restrictions of negotiating land acquisition and delayed development. This ensures that the project has a dynamism and flexibility in how it consults and delivers its strategic objectives compared to other projects. It also supports the view that the project benefits from being able to key into bigger development (and therefore funding and political) debates to deliver the ‘vision’. The Atlanta Beltline Inc. also stated that having the authority to work on a number of the project sections simultaneously allows them to engage more directly, more frequently and more visibly with local communities. Thus, they are working ‘in a way that is respectful to businesses and homeowners but is getting the job done’ as local communities view the Beltline as their neighbours for the long term. There has also been a discussion of whether to widen the inclusivity of the process to the broader Atlanta region to enable neighbouring administrations to become linked conceptually and spatially to the Beltline through the extension of a wider 45-mile network of trails.

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

77

4.2.1 Focus and design The design of the Atlanta Beltline was framed by the desire to reconnect the derelict and undervalued railroad spaces of the city and repurpose them as multi-functional public green spaces and accessible linear routes. This is being achieved through the development of a spatially diverse network of spaces, as different sectors of the Beltline use the industrial remnants of the city in alternative ways to facilitate activities and provide the Beltline with a dynamic landscape that links urban and urban–fringe landscapes with nature. The differences in both form and function of the trails provide the project with a range of alternative landscaping options which are being implemented throughout the city. For example, the Eastside Trail was designed to allow mass movement by foot and by bicycle – hence its heavy use. It also links a series of parks/resources including the Historic Fourth District Park and a Tony Hawkes-supported skate park to local communities through linear connections. In contrast, the Westside Trail is being implemented to make the most of the natural environment and will not have the same level of paved infrastructure as the Eastside Trail. Alternatively, it is being developed as a natural urban corridor lined with mature/semi-mature trees, and is envisaged as a more ecologically focused resource compared to the Eastside Trail. However, the Westside Trail also has sections which are characterised by onstreet landscapes which make use of segregated walking/cycling infrastructure. This is due to the variation in landform and ownership of the trail, as some sections are located along existing highways, although they are intersected by a series of parks, e.g. Gordon-White Park. The on-street sections are in stark contrast to the predominately ecological nature of the Westside Trail. Between the design of the Eastside and Westside Trails, Atlanta Beltline Inc. have attempted to balance the overarching ideals of the project – i.e. mobility, accessibility and functionality – with an understanding of the existing infrastructure of the city. Moreover, newer sections utilise profiled ramps to allow access for partially-abled and wheelchair users onto and

Figure 4.10 Construction of the Westside Trail.

78

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

Figure 4.11 Eastside Trail.

from the Beltline, meeting Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) regulations. One unfortunate consequence of this is that access to the Beltline will be staggered, with sections being accessible only from specific points. The design of the network also has minimum standards in terms of access and width, with the trail being a minimum of 60 feet wide for two-way movement (approximately 18 metres), which allows a multitude of users to access the site simultaneously.7 The differences in the design of the Beltline are highlighted by the completed Eastside Trail and the Westside Trail which is currently under construction. Both trails are located in areas of relatively high-density housing and are linked to the downtown area of Atlanta by main roads and MARTA stations.8 The main two-mile section of the Eastside Trail was completed in October 2012 and is located in close proximity to the affluent Virginia Heights area. The trail runs from Piedmont Park in the north to the historic Martin Luther King Jnr. neighbourhood

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

79

in the south. It comprises a linear trail formed from concrete slab paving with investments in native flora and fauna framing the route. As you move along the trail you reach the renovated Historic Fourth Ward Park, which reopened in 2011, bringing 17 acres of green infrastructure back into functional use, as well as acting as a key water/ stormwater management resource for the area. A number of condominium projects have been developed along the Beltline route since its inception, and house prices in the area continue to rise, illustrating some of the $750 million investment in the quarter-mile around the Beltline. The main green infrastructure element of the trail consists of a continually evolving landscape of native grasses, shrubs and trees. Trees Atlanta have worked with the Beltline to create the Atlanta Beltline Arboretum, investing in eight key species9 and spotlight trees (with associated signage), which change approximately every quarter-mile. A number of native species are used and provide the route with a constantly diversifying landscape due to species richness, as well as seasonal changes. Along the route there are corresponding information boards to educate users about the different species, their ecological properties and their value to the quality of life of people using and living around the Beltline. The Eastside Trail is also home to a number of ‘Art on the Atlanta Beltline’ projects, which attempt to embed further socio-cultural value into the area. Such cultural values are also evident in the programme of public exercise classes and sporting events (e.g. Eastside 10K run and weekly fitness classes) held on the site. In contrast, the Westside Trail is more diverse in terms of its ecological composition as it has been specifically designed to make the best use of the existing landscape resource base. It has fewer concrete sections/paving and when completed will have a higher proportion of gravel and grassed sections. Although the trails retain sections that are on-street – e.g. around West End MARTA station – the route will adopt a more informal and natural aesthetic that works with the changes in topography and elevation to link pocket parks (e.g. Enota Park), large parks (e.g. Washington Park) and neighbourhood green spaces across the Westside of Atlanta.

Figure 4.12 Entrance to the Eastside Trail.

80

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

Figure 4.13 Westside Trail, White Street.

The landscaping of the Westside Trail will also retain the majority of existing trees and grasses10 and will form a green valley that directly links transit with the trail (e.g. West End and Ashby MARTA stations). The integration of ‘transit and trail’ is one of the Beltline’s key delivery principles and aims to promote increased activity on the network by engaging people with alternative forms of transport as Atlanta is one of the most car-dependent cities in the USA. There is also a pervasive view that the city’s bus and rail network are limited in terms of their spatial distribution and frequency and that the Beltline will provide additional connections between the north–south/east–west axes of the city’s 45 neighbourhoods.

4.2.2 Funding To fund such a large and diverse project, the Atlanta Beltline Inc. was established to ensure that the project was not constrained by the politics of being a City of Atlanta project or a fully private organisation. As a QUANGO it has worked with the city and private enterprises to leverage financial support from a range of sources. The most successful mechanism used to fund the project was the innovative approach taken to property tax, developed by the former mayor, Shirley Franklin (2002–10), and continued by the current mayor, Kasim Reed. Under both administrations the city placed a 25-year freeze on the collection of new property taxes through the creation of the Atlanta Beltline Tax Allocation District,11 providing additional property taxes to the Beltline project for the first 25 years of its development cycle. Being a long-term programme provides Atlanta Beltline Inc. with the financial security to deliver the implementation programme, and is less likely to be adversely influenced by changes in the city’s administration. Atlanta Beltline’s status as a QUANGO has also meant that it has to think creatively about how it draws down funding from other public and private sources. For example, transport funding can be obtained from the City of Atlanta or from an

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta $18 million federal grant, but can only be spent on transport infrastructure and cannot support construction of the trail itself. Furthermore, since 2007 $400 million of public investment has been made in the Beltline which has attracted an additional $2.4 billion from PPPs. One of the main reasons given for this is the economic returns associated with the project. For example, since the Eastside Trail was completed there has been an additional $750 million of private investment in the local area, as it becomes economically viable to build apartments and open businesses in the area. Over the lifespan of the project the Atlanta Beltline Inc. predict that it will encourage a further $20 billion in commercial and property uplift for the city. The prospect of such returns has enabled the Beltline to develop one of the most effective forms of PPP in the USA, which has seen them engage the main multinational corporations in Atlanta – Coca-Cola, CNN, UPS and Home Depot – to provide financial support for the project. Such high-profile commercial buy-in has positioned the Beltline as a civic/philanthropic investment, enabling it to promote itself more extensively. Subsequently, there has been a willingness to collaborate with or fund the project because businesses gain positive publicity from being associated with the project. A further benefit of this process has been the creation of a form of corporate peer-pressure led by these organisations. If organisations in Atlanta want to gain access or influence in the city’s business community then there is a pervasive view that corporate philanthropy in the form of financial support for the Beltline is needed. Buy-in to the project has since extended to company foundations, such as the Arthur Blank Foundation, which is supported by Home Depot, who have made significant donations to the project, as have employee foundations. The adaptive nature of the Beltline’s funding has enabled them to incorporate sponsorship and philanthropic donations with public funding from property tax, and regional and federal financing, e.g. from start-up funding from the Path Foundation. The redevelopment of the Historic Fourth Ward Park is one example of this. The City of Atlanta allocated $40 million to address combined surface water/sewage problems in the Fourth Ward district and intended to provide more traditional engineered solutions. As an alternative, the Atlanta Beltline, along with architects HDR Inc., proposed SUDS-based solutions of retention and the creation of a wetland lake to meet these needs. This has now been developed and is working effectively to manage stormwater in the area and has saved the city $15 million, as the project only cost $25 million. One of the most impressive aspects of this has been the Atlanta Beltline’s understanding that a single funding model is insufficient to meet the needs of (a) such a spatially diverse project and (b) its long-term vision.

4.2.3 Collaboration, partnership and engagement The breadth of the investment portfolio for the Beltline has led them to develop a broad approach to collaboration and partnership. While their status as a QUANGO provides scope to work with various partners, they are still required to approach consultation at a number of scales to ensure buy-in and cooperation from regional, city and local partners. Over its first nine years the Atlanta Beltline has been successful in developing long-term partnerships with communities and professional

81

82

USA: Chicago and Atlanta engineering, ecology, arborial, planning and community engagement specialists. They have also successfully managed relationships with key regional funding and management agencies including the Path Foundation, Trust for Public Land, Trees Atlanta and MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transport Authority). However, the process has not been completely straightforward, with conflicts arising with some partners as they try to embed competing objectives into the development process. One of the key successes of Beltline officers has therefore been to find a balance between alternative investment goals to ensure that the overarching vision for the project is delivered. In some locations, such as the Eastside Trail, this is clearly visible as businesses, local residents and planner/green space practitioners have worked in collaboration to frame the trail’s delivery. However, on the Westside Trail this has been more dynamic as competing real-estate objectives, designs and local safety concerns have led to delays in implementation. The Atlanta Beltline has thus been able to create an innovative and unique development framework for civic and professional engagement that has since been used by other cities to improve their consultation and participation processes. This was developed at the outset of the master planning process and has been used throughout the implementation of the programme to ensure that community, business and political support is maintained throughout the lifetime of the project. The consultation framework developed aimed to ensure that: the activities of the Atlanta Beltline are consistently in the public eye; the development proposals are discussed in local media, political circles and within communities; the objectives (and the reasons for them) are transparent; and the financial support is understood by all. The framework is also used to show that the company are not the City and thus that they are not imbued with the same level of mistrust or antagonism. This has been needed as the Beltline has attempted to coordinate its engagement uniformly across the city’s 45 different communities to ensure that each area receives the same level of information, detail and dialogue. This has also been used to engage with a range of service providers, infrastructure agencies (e.g. transport) and other interested partners/land owners. All of which has been proposed as a mechanism to ensure that the project retains a level of transparency to its public and private stakeholders to ensure longer-term support.

4.2.4 Activities To ensure that local communities and businesses develop a sense of ownership of each section of project, the Atlanta Beltline Inc. have developed a programme of activities that promote both active and passive uses of the site. They have developed a programme of weekday and weekend exercise classes that utilise the project’s trails and parks, promoting outdoor fitness. These smaller-scale activities are supplemented by formal activities such as running events, for example the Eastside 10k run. As well as promoting fitness, the Beltline also hosts cycling tours, a lantern parade, community play days and environmental volunteering programmes. Although these activities vary in their focus, they aim to use the project’s green infrastructure resources as a conduit to improved health, well-being and social interaction, and the design of the Beltline has also been created to reflect these differing uses. Sections of the Eastside Trail have been designed to promote effective movement between

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta

83 Figure 4.14 Signboard on the Westside Trail.

parks, while on the Westside Trail the natural/ecological nature of the investment helps people to spend time in nature; both of which aim to create a bond between people and the Beltline to ensure long-term use and ownership. This is supported through the environmental outreach programme developed for the Beltline. Along a number of its sections there are educational signboards and information about the flora and fauna used in the project. These highlight the value of different species and illustrate how different ecological habitats can enhance the biodiversity of the area, as well as its aesthetic qualities. The planting of specimen trees by Trees Atlanta to create the Beltline Arboretum shows the value of native species in urban habitats, for climate mitigation and to improve the quality of place. The outcome of this process has been and extensive interaction with the Beltline by local communities, visitors and businesses (who can rent spaces for corporate events). Furthermore, in its first year of opening the Eastside Trail received over 1.2 million visitors, which the Atlanta Beltline Inc. expect to be replicated across the other sections of the project once they are complete.

4.2.5 Barriers and constraints Although the development of the Beltline has been relatively rapid, a number of issues have been identified as slowing the pace of investment. These relate to the views of the city and the residents of the neighbourhoods located adjacent to the Beltline, the lack of awareness of how the utilities within the city are laid (and where they are), the impacts of the 2008 economic recession and scepticism over whether the Beltline will actually improve the economic viability of the city, and a pervasive view that it simply will not be delivered. A number of these issues are longstanding and relate to historical problems with the delivery of infrastructure across the city. As noted previously, the location of the MARTA subway system is spatially limited but has periodically been subject to expansion discussions. However, the delivery of new stations has not occurred, weakening local support for large-scale infrastructure projects. The nature of the Beltline development is starting to address such scepticism, but there remains reluctance in some

84

USA: Chicago and Atlanta lower-income communities to support the project. This has been exacerbated by a changing understanding of the demographic composition of the city, especially in those areas located next to the Beltline. For example, on the Westside Trail, investment in the Beltline is being reflected in increased house prices, changing community structures and concerns between the longstanding communities and newer members who aspire for the development of different community assets. The changing demographics of some of the Westside neighbourhoods have also seen the acquisition of land for the project becoming more expensive. This in turn is slowing investment as developers and individuals continue to acquire parcels of land with the view of benefiting financially in the long term from its proximity to the Beltline. In the nine years since it was formally started the project has taken ownership of 40 per cent of the land needed to implement the programme. The remaining 60 per cent remains in private ownership, which has had some impact on the delivery timeframe. The housing market crash of 2008 (in part facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sub-prime mortgages) also influenced these changes. With the increased number of property foreclosures in the area some houses were being sold at auction for under $30,000, which led to a undervaluing of the market, causing increased resentment from some residents. Furthermore, because of the manner in which properties are sold (they are not subject to the same level of property surveys/searches), new owners have seen easements on their ‘property’ that consent a proportion of their land to the Beltline. Some commentators have also reported that nimbyism (not in my back yard) appears to be visible in some neighbourhoods, where residents have questioned whether the Beltline will lead to increased instances of crime. The rationale for this reflects the spatial distribution of the project and the potential for a more transient population of the site’s users. However, criminal activity is taken seriously by the Atlanta Beltline (who have a security detail) and by the Atlanta Police Department, who ensure that the route remains inclusive and accessible to all. A further issue is the location and extent to which utility infrastructure is located along the length of the Beltline. It has been reported by Atlanta Beltline Inc. that the City of Atlanta, utilities companies and transport organisations do not have a firm grasp on where service infrastructure cables/pipes are laid. This has a direct impact on the investment programme, as the Beltline delivery team have to work extensively with utilities companies to identify where construction can and cannot take place.

4.3 Summary Green infrastructure investment in Chicago and Atlanta take very different forms, and the discussion of what they focus on presents alternative conceptualisations of how green space should be developed and managed. However, both cities are attempting to integrate innovative forms of environmental investment through an extensive approach to engagement and consultation. They have also worked extensively to integrate an understanding of the benefits of implementing scaled investment in their delivery programmes. While Chicago has looked at ‘RainReady’ homes and communities and the promotion of ‘Spaces to Grow’, they have also attempted to map and plan strategically for the wider Chicago Wilderness area. In Atlanta we see

www.ebook3000.com

USA: Chicago and Atlanta similar processes at work with the Atlanta Beltline, where the overarching development of the 22-mile loop is being supported by officers delivering smaller sections of the project simultaneously. Both cities, though, indicate that success in green infrastructure development relies on a supportive political and financial environment with the foresight to engage with alternative softer approaches to urban development. They also illustrate how a multi-scaled approach to local, neighbourhood, city and sub-regional investment in green infrastructure can deliver a much wider set of benefits than developing single projects. Finally, green infrastructure practitioners in Chicago and Atlanta all discussed the value of effective communication. In Atlanta the process of consultation has been a key factor in engaging companies and the public with the development of the Beltline, while in Chicago the advocacy work of Chicago Wilderness and the Chicago MWRD have seen a more fluid discussion of engineered and ecological solutions being discussed. Chicago and Atlanta are by no means perfect examples of how to invest in green infrastructure; they do, however, highlight that with flexibility in approach, scale and objectives, urban greening and retrofitting of green spaces can have a significant impact on local landscapes.

Notes 1 These counties are: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will. 2 Chicago now employs a key stakeholder who developed the New York Green Infrastructure Plan to adapt successful stormwater projects in Chicago. 3 Cook County’s Forest Preserve covers 11 per cent of the county’s land but captures up to 80 per cent of urban stormwater of the Chicago area. 4 The CNT have identified 14 species of tree native to the Midwest that they promote the planting of to increase the benefits to wildlife and that are tolerant of most soils; these include serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and blackhaw (Vibernum prunifolium). 5 The investment in the Atlanta Olympic Park is in stark contrast to Chapter 5’s discussion of the London Olympic Park, which viewed landscape and green infrastructure as one of the key delivery legacies. 6 The Atlanta Beltline has also been used as a best practice example for investment in green infrastructure, with visitors from across the USA and other nations visiting to learn from the project. The Atlanta Beltline Inc. do acknowledge their own use of stormwater management from other cities, such as Portland and Chicago, illustrating the transferability of a number of development options. 7 The width of the Beltline ranges from 40ft to 200ft. 8 The Eastside Trail is characterised by apartment buildings and redeveloped warehouse buildings; the Westside Trail is located in an area of largely single-dwelling homes. 9 These are: the prairie (native plants including back-eyed susan, coneflower and butterfly weed), Blackgum (Nyssa), oaks (Quercus), sassafras collection, magnolia, longleaf pines, viburnums and witch hazel. 10 Although some removal may be required to allow construction to occur, ecological off-setting and replacement of resources are programmed into the development should this happen. 11 As property values increased, homeowners would normally pay a proportionally higher level of tax to fund public services. Reed’s administration froze the level of tax in the early 2000s and stated that any difference in the uplift in property value would not be retained by the city but would go to the Atlanta Beltline development.

85

CHAPTER 5

UK Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy and the London Olympic Park

Unlike its uses in the USA, green infrastructure planning in the UK developed through a more holistic approach to landscape planning (Mell, 2010; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009). Its development, as discussed in Chapter 2, was closely linked with the broadening environmental sustainability agenda of the New Labour government, and was, in its initial stages, developed at a subregional level by advocates and environmental agencies. Due to the operational breadth of agencies, including the Countryside Agency, Groundwork, English Nature and the Forestry Commission, green infrastructure advocates were able to conceptualise its use in a number of alternative landscape issues (Blackman & Thackray, 2007). The result was a burgeoning of green infrastructure thinking across the UK, although such diversity also led to a myriad of implementation options being developed. Over subsequent years the political and policy structures which supported the development of green infrastructure have changed. A number of the agencies investigating its value have merged, been renamed or ceased to exist; however, there is a collective will that has been retained within the environmental sector which still pursues innovative green space planning (Countryside Agency & Groundwork, 2005; Mell, 2010). The following chapter presents two different approaches to green infrastructure planning, which vary in their visibility, scale and political support. Both case studies highlight important shifts in how green infrastructure is viewed in the UK, with the Olympic Games development offering a global perspective on what urban greening can deliver, while the Cambridgeshire green infrastructure work was one of the initial forerunners of the concept, playing a major role in the concept’s development and application. In the initial conception stages of green infrastructure, advocates in Cambridgeshire were front runners in developing sub-regional policy and a programme of investment in urban and landscape projects, all of which was reported in the Cambridgeshire Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (Jones & Somper, 2014; Mell, 2013a). Along with the parallel development of green infrastructure by the spatially different Community Forest Partnerships in the North-East and NorthWest of England, Cambridgeshire established some of the pioneering strategic delivery objectives for green infrastructure planning. They were also the first area to renew their strategy (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2006) in line with the subsequent development of the concept (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011). Cambridgeshire was also identified as a strategic government growth area where green infrastructure was

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London used within planning negotiations (Section 106 and now Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL, financing) to facilitate a more responsive and sustainable environment. The second case study examines the rhetoric and realities of the green infrastructure investment associated with the London 2012 Olympic Park site. The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, as it has been renamed, was the largest green infrastructure investment in Europe, at over 250 hectares (London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2012). The Olympic Park site was identified as a global-scale investment project that attracted over £9 billion of public and private investment, and was seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rejuvenate the area in and around Stratford and East London. The scale, focus and visibility of the Olympic Park investment provides scope to address how green infrastructure was used to improve the physical composition of the site, what design principles were used to achieve a more functional and sustainable site, and examines the management arrangements for the site used to secure a sustainable future for the landscape. In contrast to the evaluation of green infrastructure development in Cambridgeshire, the Olympic Park reflects a national and international scale of strategic investment which can be used to address a much broader range of socio-economic and ecological issues. Furthermore, although the spatial distribution of the site may be limited to the local area, the visibility of its success outweighs its physical size. Therefore, while investment in Cambridgeshire addresses a wider range of green infrastructure issues, the financial and political support allocated to landscape planning in Cambridgeshire is more variable than in London. These contrasts allow the various influences seen in green infrastructure planning to be analysed, illustrating where successes and weaknesses are visible.

5.1 Green infrastructure development in Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire, as noted previously, was one of a small number of areas in the UK leading the development of green infrastructure from approximately 2004 onwards. It was also the first region to scope, consult and publish an investment strategy that covered a significant spatial area.1 While other areas had produced scoping strategies, the Cambridgeshire work was more spatially diverse in terms of its geographical reach across the Cambridgeshire sub-region. However, it could be argued that the coverage of the Cambridgeshire sub-region rather than the wider county area of Cambridgeshire2 limited the breadth and inclusion of parts of the district of Fenland. The spatial coverage of the first and second iterations of the strategy promoted Cambridgeshire as a location of forward thinking and as a strategically progressive advocate of green infrastructure; a view that was reinforced through the urban- and landscape-scale greening programmes delivered post-2006 (Roe & Mell, 2013). The starting point for the strategic working group of the first version of the strategy was, like the majority of early strategies, to identify the existing resource base from which they could develop their implementation plans (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2006). This process was led by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) and Cambridgeshire Horizons,3 who worked extensively with stakeholders to shape green infrastructure investment in the area. CCC was the statutory manager of strategic development, while Cambridgeshire Horizons acted as a conduit assisting

87

88

UK: Cambridgeshire and London this process. CCC was therefore charged with the role of aligning the proposals of each partner with the still ‘live’ objectives of the former East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). They were also tasked with ensuring that continuity was promoted between the proposed green infrastructure actions and the developing Local Development Framework (LDF) of each LPA. Cambridgeshire Horizons, in contrast, worked as a quasi-governmental agency (QUANGO) overseeing the everyday development of the first and second iterations of the strategy. They also worked with national consultants, LPAs and other environmental partners such as the Wildlife Trust and Natural England to shape the size, location and function of each of the proposed investments. The first version of the strategy included a spatial analysis of all sub-regional, district and city-scale environmental infrastructure. This provided CCC and Cambridgeshire Horizons with a baseline from which to conserve, enhance and extend the strategies resource base. Resources were reviewed in terms of landscape connectivity, access and functionality. This was undertaken using geographical information systems (GIS) to examine the spatial extent and potential links between existing wildlife corridors, water bodies and green hubs. The outcome was the creation of a tiered investment strategy which identified strategic area-based green infrastructure projects that were integrated into an enhancement programme for the sub-regions’ green network. The proposals outlined in the strategy included the enhancement of water corridors such as the Rivers Cam and Ouse, as well as outlining funding for major landscapescale investments such as the Great Fen and Wicken Fen. On its release the strategy proposed 16 green corridor initiatives and 25 site/area-based projects, forming the basis of the Cambridgeshire investment programme. The diversity of investment outlined in the first strategy allowed the working group to identify both thematic and spatially diverse landscape projects. It also visualised the connective nature of resources across landscape and administrative boundaries, providing a rationale for partners to lobby LPAs to support investment in sub-regionally significant projects. Agencies including the Wildlife Trust and National Trust were also able to use the strategy as a non-statutory supplementary planning document (SPD) to apply for funding. This was particularly important in the western areas of Cambridgeshire, where chalk and limestone grassland conservation projects were proposed. The spatial distribution of projects, although considered somewhat political in nature – each district had at least one major investment site – also provided a useful visual tool for LPA officers to highlight both the connective nature of investment and the broader socio-economic value of green infrastructure projects. This was achieved through discussions of the interactivity of social, economic and ecological benefits that could be delivered by green infrastructure at a number of scales. To strengthen its deliverability the strategy was also one of the first which attempted to identify mechanisms to fund investment in green infrastructure. It presented a broad assessment of existing funding mechanisms within planning development control (Section 106 developer contributions and planning gain supplements), and identified a number of public–private partnership (PPP) opportunities drawn from the environmental, development and third sectors. The strategy extended this discussion by reviewing the potential value of existing environmental

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

89

stewardship schemes (e.g. UK and European agri-environmental schemes) which funded, in part, major green infrastructure investments such as the Great Fen project. All of this provided a much stronger business case for LPA officers in their attempts to deliver the strategy’s objectives. One further area which assisted the development of the Cambridgeshire strategy, and its subsequent delivery, was the financial support it received from the UK government in the form of the Strategic Housing Growth Funding (HGF). This fund was allocated to regions deemed to be investing in the delivery of strategically

Figure 5.1 First Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategic network.

Figure 5.2 Second Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategic network.

90

UK: Cambridgeshire and London important housing supply (particularly in the South-east) (Rydin, 2003). Compared to other sources of funding, HGF provided significant financial incentives for LPA to grant planning permission. HGF was administered by CCC in conjunction with Cambridgeshire Horizons. They used the first strategy to identify projects and allocate funds to LPAs, e.g. approximately £400,000 for East Cambridgeshire District Council to develop Ely Country Park, who then used the funding to invest in green infrastructure projects of district or sub-regional scale. Examples of projects that were recipients of HGF include Ely Country Park in East Cambridgeshire and Trumpington Meadows in South Cambridgeshire.

5.1.1 Second Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy The second iteration of the Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy once again led the UK in being the first such plan to be revised following the initial period of implementation. Like the first version, it took a spatially distinctive approach to green infrastructure by assessing the existing resources base, green space needs and opportunities for investment at a county scale. It also extended the physical scale of the strategic investment area to include all areas of the county, not just a sub-region. This reflected the greater buy-in from LPAs to the strategy and the changing nature of inclusive local authority politics towards environmental sustainability between the release and the first and second strategies (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011). The second strategy also extended the number of partners engaged with the process from the original core of LPA and environmental groups to a wider range of interested advocates. One of the most positive outcomes of the second strategy was knowledge exchange between a much broader range of environmental NGOs (ENGOs), advocacy groups and each LPA in the scoping/consultation process. The outcome was a longer, more detailed and more refined approach to the strategic investment of green infrastructure. Facilitating this process was a combination of officers within Cambridgeshire Horizons who coordinated each of the project’s partners, and a leading UK planning consultancy (LDA Design) to produce the strategy. The consultants helped to shape the sometimes disparate views of partners into a coherent, spatially connective and socio-economically rational strategy. They proved to be vital in two ways. First, they were deemed to be impartial in their approach to understanding the green infrastructure needs of partners and therefore were not subject to the same political pressures as LPA officers. Second, they were better able to take the conceptual notions of multi-functionality and connectivity and visualise them than were the LPA officers. However, due to the range of inputs collated for the strategy, the timeframe for development and subsequent adoption by each LPA was extensive.4 One of the contributing factors to the extended development/publication phase was the need to conduct two separate rounds of public consultation. These were two distinct periods of reflection where the public, elected officials and stakeholders were asked to comment on drafts of the plan prior to publication. As a consequence, the framing of green infrastructure, which projects were highlighted or promoted, and how development was proposed across boundaries changed depending on these

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London periods of reflection. From personal experience the consultation proved difficult in a number of ways. First, it was difficult to extrapolate consensus when some consultation events attracted very low attendees. This was not universal, as in Cambridge, Camborne and Huntingdon the public took a strong interest in how their local environments would be developed. This was favourable compared to the two people who attended the event in Soham in January 2010. Second, the ability of the strategy to translate the conceptual principles of green infrastructure into an understandable investment plan was considered abstract to some consultees. Moreover, at a number of events other local issues, e.g. household waste collection, were deemed to be more important topics of discussion than the strategy’s guidance on environmental enhancement projects. All of this meant that the strategy’s authors spent more time reflecting on the nature of the commentary and how they could be taken forward. The outcome of the process could be described as positive, as it focused on the delivery of four thematic objectives: (1) reversing the decline in biodiversity, (2) mitigating and adapting to climate change; (3) the promotion of sustainable growth and economic development; and (4) supporting healthy living and wellbeing (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011: 12). Each objective was presented in an integrated manner to meeting a number of socio-economic and environment targets outlined in the Cambridgeshire Charter for Quality Growth and Cambridgeshire’s Vision 2007–2021 (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2008). The exploration of each of these objectives was then aligned with one of eight delivery themes: biodiversity, climate change, green infrastructure gateways, heritage, landscape, publically accessible open space, rights of way (RoW) and other influencing factors, e.g. health, economic development and water management. This enabled the strategy to propose a matrix of investment opportunities that were (a) related to key thematic objectives but (b) could be applied through one or a number of delivery themes. The second strategy was far more prescribed in detailing a tiered set of projects for each of these strategic investment areas. In each location at least one investment of regional/district significance was proposed, which was then supported by a number of smaller delivery options. For example, the East Cambridgeshire Strategic Area 4: Eastern Fens and Towns outlined a series of investments in the three main towns of the area – Ely, Soham and Littleport – and a wider landscape initiative on the River Ouse. These four investment areas included a series of opportunities that were identified as meeting local needs.5 Following the identification of projects there were discussions of how these projects could make a contribution to the wider green infrastructure of Cambridgeshire. For example, projects in Ely promoted the investment of new woodland creation, green space investment in the North Ely expansion area, SUDS investment on the River Ouse and more sustainable walking and cycling access to the A10 road. Each of these projects was discussed as providing options for the LPA, parish councils and local communities to discuss how they could help deliver green space enhancements locally. Moreover, where strategic investments were proposed – e.g. the A10 improvements and River Ouse SUDS – these were linked to broader delivery discussions being developing in collaboration with the UK Highways Agency and the Environment Agency, respectively.

91

92

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

Figure 5.3 Strategic Area 4 Eastern Fens and Towns. Source: adapted from Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011:102).

Linked to the identification of both strategic and more localised projects, the second green infrastructure strategy also extended the first’s discussion of funding. In the introduction to the funding section, the strategy proposes that ‘when delivering a project it is important that the long-term management and maintenance of Green Infrastructure is planned from the start’ (p. 151). The strategy goes on to state that in an era of reduced funding from government, financing the document’s strategic network will require innovation on behalf of LPA officers, environmental organisations and advocates. By looking beyond traditional public sources to secure economic support, the strategy proposed more secure sources of medium- to long-term funding. The principal funding priority outlined in the document was thus to establish a viable strategy highlighting the range and focus of funding options available. The strategy concluded that a range of funding mechanisms need to be adopted if the transition from policy to practice is to be successful. Unlike in the first edition, the second strategy does not assign specific funding streams to individual projects. Alternatively, the strategy outlines a range of public and private sources of funding, some of which will not be applicable for all projects,

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London Table 5.1 Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy funding mechanisms Source

Funding mechanism

Government and LPA funding

S106/CI, tax increment funding, LPA capital and revenue programmes

International funding

Agri-environmental/land management schemes

Public funding

Lottery funds

Private funding

Corporate sponsorship from local businesses/organisations, habitat banking/carbon offsetting

In-kind funding

Third-sector funding and in-kind funding

Other funding bodies/schemes

Endowments, charitable donations

Source: adapted from Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011.

e.g. agri-environmental stewardship schemes or Biffa Awards, but from which LPAs and development agencies can select. With the publication of the first strategy in 2006, the identification of funding sources was seen as an important part of selecting the most appropriate project to achieve successful delivery. From 2011 onwards, LPAs in Cambridgeshire became increasingly strategic in how they approached funding using the green infrastructure strategy as a tool to support business cases for investment.

5.1.2 Ely Country Park As part of the investment programme of both the first and second versions of the strategy, Ely Country Park was proposed as the most significant LPA-led project in East Cambridgeshire. It was argued that the site, on the urban-fringe of the City of Ely, was a key component in enhancing the green network of Cambridgeshire, as it met deficits in formal and informal green space across the district. Investment in this project was also proposed to meet the following strategic objectives: • Improve social engagement, ownership and promote a long-term appreciation of green infrastructure, open space and the wider countryside of East Cambridgeshire. • Develop a network of functional green infrastructure links that promote a better quality of life, place and environment for East Cambridgeshire. • Promote a district-wide initiative to increase woodland creation and outdoor recreation. Furthermore, the second edition of the strategy also stated that the site could act as a key space linking the strategic development planning priorities of the LPA by providing opportunities for socio-economic, health and well-being, climate change and biodiversity improvements (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011). Ely Country Park was considered as a pivotal project that would conserve, protect and enhance the ecological character of the area while enhancing the historical and

93

94

UK: Cambridgeshire and London socio-economic setting of the cathedral city. Its design vision was to create a park that could act as an interface between the urban area of Ely and the wider agricultural landscape of the Cambridgeshire Fens. Over the course of a number of years (2007 onwards) the park has been developed incrementally, subject to political support, local needs and the availability of funding for investment. It has been largely well received by local residents; however, there have been a series of administrative, social and financial constraints placed upon the site’s development. Composed of a number of land units under multiple ownership, the site is an amalgam of landscape types. The site covers 78 hectares comprising open agricultural land with public access, a semi-formal park, a large lake, a public common/ wildflower meadow, a small area of woodland and flood fields; approximately 80 per cent of the park is also publically accessible via RoW and public ownership. Developing the design concept, and its subsequent delivery, was complicated by onsite landscape protections overseen by Natural England. The Ely Pitts and Meadows complex is classified as a site of specific scientific interest (SSSI) and is one of the small number of sites that can support nesting sites for booming bitterns (Botaurus stelleris), which limited the level and scope of development. To ensure delivery of the project, funding was sought and allocated from a range of sources. The most significant source of financial support was HGF, which was administered by CCC. Approximately £400,000 was received from this fund and was used to conduct environmental assessment/surveying work, capital investment in access provision, and the selection, planting and management of landscape enhancement works. In addition, funding for additional tree planting was received from the ECDC/Woodland Trust coordinated ‘Planting Parishes’ project. Funding was also received from the Big Lottery Fund (BLF) and the UK government Department

Figure 5.4 Ely Country Park, Ely (Cambridgeshire).

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which was used, along with additional NHS finances, to buy and install a range of play (and associated safety) equipment to encourage outdoor activity. However, throughout its conception there were obvious differences between how the community, the LPA and environmental advocates viewed the project. While it had been identified as a project of sub-regional, and latterly of regional, significance in both Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategies (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011; 2006) and in the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan (East Cambridgeshire District Council, 2009), there were clear objections about the need, and indeed the focus, for the park. One local environmental group petitioned local communities, as well as environmental agencies including Natural England and the LPA, to modify the development to protect the SSSI from encroachment. This process was played out in the local print media, ECDC Planning/Community Services committee meetings and in correspondence with advocacy groups. However, in spite of these challenges, the ECDC, supported by CCC, moved in consultation with other environmental advocates from a design to implementation with the appointment of a Green Infrastructure Development Officer in 2009, who coordinated the investment programme and negotiated with stakeholders to ensure appropriate investment. The design of the park aimed to improve access in and around the site and from Ely into the wider countryside through investment in footpaths, RoW clearances and the creation of new signage. This was used to raise awareness of the different flora and fauna on site and to educate users about the area’s ecological sensitivity. Along with improved access the site was developed to increase functionality and use. Previously the area had been used predominately by dog walkers but few other people. With an investment in seating, signage, adventure play equipment and litter and dog foul bins the site was reimagined as a communal space where families, groups of children and dog walkers could interact. This was supported through investment in biodiversity projects in the planting of a wildflower meadow, hedgerow creation and the planting of a small area of woodland. Each of these projects was undertaken in consultation with the Woodland Trust, Wildlife Trust or Natural England to ensure that the ecological integrity of the site was unharmed. Using locally sourced trees6 and nationally important wildflower mixtures, the pocket park and Ely Common/Meadows sites were enhanced to support existing flora and fauna but also to encourage new wildlife into the park. While the park’s design aimed to enhance the ecological capacity of the area through investment in supporting ecosystem services, it was mirrored by a need to improve its functionality for local communities. The project’s long-term vision was therefore to use the funding allocated from HGF and S106 planning obligations to support a phased investment in the area. Over the course of its evolution from 2009 onwards the site has continued to evolve, and in 2013 was awarded Green Flag status. A key influence on this process has been a constant engagement with local stakeholders as they provided a local context to the development, and although the process has not always been straightforward, the negotiations between ECDC and local environmentalists has ensured the LPA retains an awareness of its duty to protect the SSSI designation, while also encouraging people to use the site.

95

96

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

Table 5.2 Development visions and proposals for Ely Country Park Public objectives and visions

Detailed planned physical outputs

• Identify conservation and strategic management • Ely Common – creation and management of a zones. species-rich wildflower meadow. • Improve movement of people within and around • Roswell Pits – maintenance of the the Park, Ely and the wider fenland landscape. geomorphological exposure of Kimmeridge Clay. • Develop facilities that promote local interaction Protection of the wetland habitat supporting the with the site and provide a long-term and rare Botaurus stellaris (great/booming bittern) sustainable use of the site by local people and population, maintenance of habitat for other visitors. rare wildfowl covering a 25ha or a wider 85ha • Protect and enhance the historic nature of Ely complex. and develop more direct links between the socio- • Cresswells Pocket Park – provision of improved ecological history of the park area and the Fens. habitat at the site’s margins; installation and • Increase access to a range of high-quality green appropriate management of fenland plant infrastructure resources. species; protection of existing sites for bird and bat nesting; provision of play/recreation/leisure facilities. • Flood meadows – maintenance of existing habitats; continued support of the stewardship management scheme providing public access and grazing areas; floodplain management. • Fishing lake – improved access and construction of new fishing platforms. Source: adapted from Roe & Mell, 2013: 664.

In summary the Ely Country Park investment should be considered as a successful investment in green infrastructure. The implementation of a range of biodiversity-, access- and awareness-raising projects has aided the park in establishing itself as a well-used and valued urban green space – a view supported by the Green Flag Award. However, the process of funding the park and the complications of local opposition to some elements of the design made the delivery of the project more difficult. Over time, though, ECDC officers along with other stakeholders were able to agree on a programme of investment that protected the ecological sensitivity of the site. They have achieved this while ensuring the continued access and use by local people. Moreover, the site’s promotion of biodiversity, flood protection and improvements to health and well-being illustrate that the core principles of both green infrastructure strategies were being embedded in the design, construction and management of the Ely Country Park site.

5.2 The London 2012 Olympic Park The development of the London 2012 Olympic Park was seen by many commentators as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a globally significant investment

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London in green infrastructure (Davies, 2011; London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013). The confluence of a derelict, underprivileged and deprived area of East London with an internationally important sporting event provided the impetus for the UK government, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and other advocates to reimagine East London as a sustainable destination. The scoping and design stages promoted the integration of green infrastructure and water management with social needs and economic renewal to create a globally successful urban regeneration project. Post-Games the site has been transformed further into a signature space. This is supported by the development of diverse types of housing, the relocation of businesses to the site, and the establishment of the Northern Park and the Southern Plaza areas. Although the site blends a myriad of activities, textures and buildings/ landscapes, the overarching design principles draw on connectivity and access to promote multi-functionality. One important aspect of this was the UK government’s drive to ensure that the funding allocated to the site, which was drawn from private and public sources, delivered added-value to the site, to London and in some aspects to the UK economy. The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) proposed that the Olympic Park would have an immediate and longer-term impact, arguing that: After the games the Olympic Park will be transformed from a centrepiece for the games to an integrated landscaped park serving surrounding urban neighbourhoods. The park will have numerous complex legacy functions to perform; from acting as a ‘green lung’ for new and existing communities . . . to providing a connective highway between Stratford and Hackney Wick along with hosting a significant ecological reserve. The lush green setting will also help to drive land values and investor interest in development sites that bound the Olympic Park. (London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2009: 41) Discussions of the Olympic Park were heavily imbued with a need to promote a legacy of long-term investment and landscape improvement in East London. Within this debate the Olympic Park was presented as a catalyst for social improvement and economic growth, but also, and potentially most importantly, in terms of this discussion it was conceptualised as a nationally important urban park that would attract visitors and users from across the UK and the world. The size, composition, and diversity of landscapes developed within the Olympic Park provide it with a breadth of opportunities to meet these targets. This is being achieved through the transformational work undertaken by the Olympic Park Legacy Corporation (OPLC), who are overseeing the transition from sporting venue to a community. Embedded within this transitional process is a requirement to conserve the existing on-site biodiversity, while also attempting to extend the breadth of species. The park’s managers are currently also targeting Nature-deficit disorder (NDD) in the host boroughs by engaging local stakeholders to ensure that the site is well used. Furthermore, due to the fluctuating nature of the area’s water systems, the site has been designed to act as a city-scale SUDS, making use of floodplain restoration techniques to manage

97

98

UK: Cambridgeshire and London the lower Lea Valley catchment area. Each of these individual projects illustrates the variability of investment taking place in the Olympic Park. To ensure that the site performs its socio-economic and ecological functions, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has taken over from the GLA and the Commission for a Sustainable London in shaping the park. Prior to the games the environmental context of the site was published in a number of documents by the Commission for a Sustainable London (2011) and LOCOG (2009). However, within the scope of these documents a number of the environmental and green infrastructure legacy issues lacked firm details of the long-term benefits that would be delivered. This, though, was not considered as a major issue as even in more recent publications such as that of the Mayor of London (2014) in the London Infrastructure Plan, it has been argued that the site offered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in a nationally significant process of sustainable landscape improvement. How we arrived at this point was therefore not as significant as the actual process of change; a view presented by a number of local environmental agency officers prior to the commencement of the Games. Although some commentators felt that the process of investment was undermining the legacy claims being made by LOCOG, including this author, the post-Games transformation has started to allay these fears. From an environmental perspective the design of the Olympic Park was driven by a number of key ecological ideals which focused on a ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity habitat, function or species. As an alternative the site aimed to reinstate, where appropriate, natural habitats to increase the ecological value of the site and meet local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets. This has included the creation (and/or enhancement) of 45 ha of wildlife-supporting habitat that enhanced the existing ecological functionality of the park (Goode, 2014).

Figure 5.5 London green infrastructure network.

Figure 5.6 London Olympic Park green infrastructure network.

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London Likewise, the subsequent investment in the Olympic Village to ensure that it acts as a focal point of sustainable practices and community interactions has been assisted through the installation of green roofs, green walls and small pocket parks.

5.2.1 Consultation and green infrastructure in the Olympic Park Due to the scale of investment proposed for the Olympic Park, the process of consultation was extensive in its timescale but also in the number of stakeholders who were invited to be involved. In addition to the statutory government bodies, such as the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the DCMS, there were non-governmental agencies including Natural England and the Environment Agency, and LPAs. A wide range of specialist professionals – e.g. architects, engineers, ecologists and planners – were also consulted, as were communities in the host boroughs. Furthermore, to ensure buy-in was achieved the business community was engaged to promote PPP and funding for the project. All of this meant that the process of consultation was extended over a longer time period than other projects. In practice the scale of the consultation was valuable as it provided stakeholders with opportunities to address the key sustainability themes proposed for the project’s legacy: 1 People enabled to live sustainable, low carbon, resource efficient and healthy lives. 2 Places that sustain parkland, waterways and walkable neighbourhoods, preparing for a changing climate. 3 Performance based on sustainable procurement and long-term environmental management. (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013: 160) The process of consultation, and subsequent development, was extended from 2005 (when the Games were awarded to London) to its current form in 2015 due to the nature of the existing site, which was highly contaminated, underused, undervalued and lacking in investment. The Olympic legacy was one of the most prominent aspects of the development process as it justified the level of investment in the site. Moreover, the proposed investment period – up to 2030 for the site – provided an extended timeframe that the OPDC could work towards in a phased process of investment. Such an investment period was proposed by the developers as an opportunity to integrate the site’s landscape inheritance to ensure that the cultural and industrial heritage of the area was not lost. Although some commentators proposed that the compulsory purchase of land and the evictions of long-term tenants ran counter to this view, LOCOG and now the OPDC have attempted to incorporate, in a holistic manner, the landscape into their development plans (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013). This was all outlined by the OPDC in the site’s key principles: People, Places and Performance (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2012), where they aimed to make the Olympic Park a multi-functional, high-quality and live–work–leisure community.

99

100

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

Figure 5.7 London Olympic Park, London (Olympic Park Development Offices, Stratford, London).

Figure 5.8 London Olympic Park development ethos (Olympic Park Development Offices, Stratford, London).

5.2.2 Design, development and functionality An extensive process of master planning was undertaken to facilitate the allocation of green–blue infrastructure and public open space across the Olympic Park. The designs aimed to provide an integrative landscape where people and the environment could foster equilibrium to support ecological sustainability, economic growth and human interaction. This includes links into and across the Lower Lea Valley, Hackney Wick and into Stratford City via extensive footpaths and cyclepaths, which had a dual aim of increasing the distribution of green infrastructure as a visible green grid intersected by blue river/marsh corridors. LOCOG and the ODA also drew heavily on the connective principles of green infrastructure within the design stage by promoting movement, multifunctionality and a greater sense of accessibility and inclusion as key delivery priorities. The Olympic site itself includes 6.5 km of waterways or ‘blue ribbons’ (London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2007), and is part of

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London a connected 35 km green corridor linking the park to the Lower Lea Valley and the wider Thames Gateway Green Grid. Such a network was designed to provide a substantial area of new or enhanced wildlife habitat, as well as to act as a more effective flood mitigation project in an area prone to seasonal flooding (London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2011). Natural England and other agencies, i.e. the Environment Agency and the Wildlife Trust, supported this process, as they felt the park was an appropriate green infrastructure resource in size and scope to promote extensive habitat conservation, grasslands development and managed public green/open spaces. The designs of the park have attempted to invest heavily, in terms of land allocation, in the development of green infrastructure. The ongoing transition from the staging of the Olympic Games to a full park has started to establish 45 hectares of habitat to improve/enhance biodiversity.7 The landscaping also includes the planting of over 2,000 semi-mature trees, 60,000 plants and 60,000 bulbs.8 Further greening will be implemented with the conversion of the Olympic Village to private homes, including a 15,000 m2 living/green roof (approximately 40 per cent coverage), that will conform to Code 4 on the Sustainable Homes Code (Commission for a Sustainable London, 2012). These installations aim to achieve ecological continuity across the site through a blended process of hard and softer landscaping. Furthermore, a number of ecologically sensitive areas have been integrated into the design that will remain closed to the public to ensure that a proportion of undisturbed habitat provides resources for endangered or reclusive wildlife. These spaces have been designed to act as stepping stones or connective landscape elements to link the Olympic Park to the East London Green Grid. There is also an intention to ensure that this ecological network, within and outside of the park, remains secured against future development (London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2007).

Table 5.3 LOCOG objectives Ecological Increase participation in sports and physical activity

Economic

Social



 

Promote community engagement Establish a lasting and useful legacy for the Olympic Park after the Games







Inspire more sustainable ways of living, working and movement







Source: LOCOG, 2009.

101

102

UK: Cambridgeshire and London Table 5.4 LOCOG/ODA Olympic legacy objectives Ecological

Economic

Social

Increase available housing stock and increase level of affordable housing





Promote/create opportunities for work and employment in and around Olympic Park and Stratford







Create vibrant communities Create and manage vibrant open spaces and waterways



Establish the Olympic Park as a global attraction (by 2020 it should be one of the top five visitor attractions in the city)





Create and promote links within and across the city and encourage sustainable or personal transport options other than motorised







Develop a location that is fit for the twenty-first century in terms of housing, employment, green infrastructure and transport infrastructure provision based on community cohesion, affordable and sufficient housing and enterprise and innovation







Source: adapted from LOCOG, 2009.

5.2.3 Conversion and long-term management of the site The post-Games period is potentially the most interesting and significant period of the investment. While commentators expressed positive support when London was given the opportunity to regenerate such a large tract of land, the transformation post-Games, and the longer-term monitoring of the investment, will tell us whether the investment in this green infrastructure legacy was successful. This rhetoric of legacy and urban regeneration, though, has been articulated under the pretext of addressing sustainability issues. However, some commentators would argue, as they have with former Olympic sites, that there was a lack of specific investment or management/monitoring programmes identified in the documentation (Oxford Brookes University, 2010). The transition from hosting the event to ensuring a longterm legacy of green infrastructure investment is therefore still open to discussion. The delivery of a sustainable socio-ecological legacy is now being delivered. The transition process to remove the hardscaping, install further environmental features,

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London convert the stadia and redevelop the site’s housing is now, in 2015, well underway. People are living in the park’s residential areas and the site is well used for recreation and by local schools. This is an ongoing process. New businesses are scheduled to move onto the site, including museums and one of London’s largest universities, all of which means that the site will continue to evolve up until its 2030 delivery date. Further investment in social and communal facilities such as the park’s play areas and café will also start to open up the site to further investors and encourage a broader range of users to visit the site. The longer-term transition thus aims to ensure that the park provides added value to East London. This has been discussed by LOCOG, the UK government and OPDA/OPLC, who all stated their desire to see the site become a destination within London’s offer of living, working and leisure opportunities. As a consequence some of the decisions made, e.g. the sale of the Olympic Village to one developer, was justified as it kept the housing stock in one piece, thus ensuring continuity in ownership. This business will work with the park’s managers to ensure the legacy of the site is maintained. The park will be used to stimulate economic growth and people are encouraged to use the site to promote awareness and stewardship. Such a timescale is not problematic for landscape development. The SUDS installed on-site will take time to establish themselves, while the changes to the River Lea waterway will also require a period of time to stabilise. The site’s trees and plants will also mature over the coming period of development, with the area’s meadows creating new landscape mosaics and habitats as species colonisation and migration occurs. They will also offer a more refined and discreet understanding of the site as smaller spaces are integrated into the housing conversions, such as smaller parks, gardens and trees, that will be integrated into the site’s green network. Although some users may feel that the site is currently unfinished during the construction and transformation phase, it will provide the park with a unique evolutionary story. However, prior to the completion of the site, concerns were raised over the management of the site, as LOCOG, the CSL and the UK government had not finalised the environmental management practices that would shape the park. Interviews undertaken with environmental sector officers in 2011–12 discussed how the site would be managed. This reflected on the lack of formal guidance on how the site’s landscape would be managed in terms of the production of biodiversity targets/ plans/management schemes. Furthermore, there was a lack of discussion and policy/ guidance being presented by LOCOG and the GLA, which was picked up by Natural England, Defra and the London Wildlife Trust as a potential problem in delivering the park’s environmental legacy. This has subsequently been addressed through the transitional programme coordinated by LLDC, who provided a structured management programme that aligns itself with the broader environmental programmes of the surrounding LPAs. Concerns were raised, though, about the level of transparency in this process from commentators as they felt that the expertise available from the environmental sector in London was underused compared to that held in-house by the GLA or contracted out by the OPDA. One key issue here was the lack of an environmental steering group for the site, which was viewed as an oversight given the magnitude of the site. These ongoing discussions have also highlighted the lack of detail from where the funding for the long-term management would be allocated.

103

104

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

Figure 5.9 Multi-use space in the London Olympic Park, London.

Figure 5.10 Sensory Garden, London Olympic Park, London.

Funding has been received from the GLA, some of the LPAs that are classed as host Olympic Borough and on-site rents, while charges/land leases have also been used to support the management of the site. In the build-up to the Olympic Games this position was not 100 per cent clear. Now, however, the LLDC are the responsible body working with a team of rangers/landscapers (and landscape designers) to ensure the ecological benefits of the site are maintained. They are also working to phase-in growth and succession into the site with strategic planting, cutbacks and management of certain areas of the northern parkland. Over time the Northern Parkland is envisaged to be wilder and more open to change than the Southern Plaza, and has been allowed to diversify (although this is carefully managed). The transition of the Southern Plaza has been longer and more directed. The public spaces appear visibly managed and are more decorative (compared to other areas), although they are still biodiverse. This is part of the park’s ethos – ensuring variety and diversity, although it appears pristine. It also

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London

105 Figure 5.11 Sustainable floodplain drainage system, London Olympic Park.

Figure 5.12 Biodiversity planting and café in London Olympic Park, London.

illustrates the strategic nature of the site to influence how people are encouraged to interact with space formally/informally and emically/etically. While some of these concerns remain, the role of the LLDC appears to have addressed a number of the management, development and funding issues proposed by environmental advocates. How this process is managed in the coming years will provide an indication of whether the site can be considered to have invested effectively in a large-scale and sustainable green infrastructure project. Finally, I would like to offer a personal evaluation of the site. I visited the site during its construction and a number of times since the park was opened to the public, and I would now argue that the transition is going well. For a number of years I was dismissive of the environmental legacy being proposed by LOCOG, but having seen the site and witnessed its use, I am happy to acknowledge that I was mistaken in my reservations. The investments made in the Northern Park and the Southern Plaza have ensured they are destinations that people want to visit to see

106

UK: Cambridgeshire and London the Olympic Park, but also to play, relax and look at the wildlife. The blending of the natural and semi-natural with public areas, the mixture of refuge and play and the breadth of opportunity the site holds for interactions with nature is beyond my expectations. Moreover, having spent time with the management team on-site in November 2014, there is a strong sense of purpose in how the park is being managed. There is also a clear vision being translated from the ecologists who designed the planting, employed through the architectural layout, and finally realised by the landscaping team in the area. As a long-term legacy of the Games the landscaping and breadth of interactivity between people and the environment offered by the park’s design provide opportunities for a range of people to enjoy the site.

5.3 Summary The two case studies presented in this chapter illustrate that although there are similarities in how people view green infrastructure in the UK, how these ideas manifest themselves in delivery differs dramatically. In the analysis of both Cambridgeshire and the Olympic Park we have seen a variety of principles being integrated to ensure that people, the landscape and the built environment promote multi-functional green infrastructure. In London this has been delivered through the investment in an internationally significant regeneration of East London, which has supported additional commercial and residential development, but is framed by an extensive reimagining of the landscape. The adaptation of the landscape to climate change, the promotion of biodiversity and investments in floodplain management, are therefore key areas addressed within the Olympic Park. However, they have not been conceived in isolation from the needs of London or its population. Thus people, movement and multi-functional spaces are at the heart of the park’s design. Similarly in Cambridgeshire, the translation of the green infrastructure strategies has striven to deliver biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and health and well-being benefits through a variety of landscape and urban green space projects. In Cambridgeshire the scope of the investment programme enabled stakeholders to invest in projects ranging from landscape to the neighbourhood scale. Thus LPAs and advocates have been able to deliver green infrastructure across the region to meet a broad set of socio-economic and ecological needs. However, both projects have also been subject to both positive and negative press. The cost of the Olympic Park raised questions over whether the site was providing sufficient added-value on investment. In Cambridgeshire the proposals for investment in landscape-scale water management and increased access to sensitive areas raised doubts over the viability of the investment programme. To address these issues investments in green infrastructure have been controlled by a strong advocacy arena, which ensured that the projects retained a positive green infrastructure outcome. Although the scale of this differed between sites, the need to obtain funding from a range of sources, the collaborative nature of investment and the long-term visions make green infrastructure implementation in Cambridgeshire and London positive. From the discussion of the Olympic Park and the development of both green infrastructure strategies in Cambridgeshire, we can identity a number of key issues that have influenced the successful delivery of landscape enhancement.

www.ebook3000.com

UK: Cambridgeshire and London First, both had structurally effective leadership from a number of strong partners. In London this was LOCOG and the UK government, while in Cambridgeshire the County Council and Cambridgeshire Horizons led this process. Due to the strength of these agencies they were able to leverage political support and identify a range of funding mechanisms that have been used to support investment. The design of the Olympic Park and the breadth of the projects proposed (and subsequently delivered) in Cambridgeshire also highlight the value of complementary investment. In both locations the variability in the focus of projects provided a much richer depth to the green infrastructure developed, especially in terms of how these resources work as an integrated network. Finally, the development and delivery of green infrastructure reflected scalar and temporal changes. In Cambridgeshire the longevity of the strategies and the development of the second iteration led to a much broader spatial discussion of green infrastructure and provided partners with a timeframe to report progress and successful delivery. The Olympic Park also had a significant lead in time, and although some commentators queried the readiness of the environmental management practices envisaged for the site, we have seen the delivery of a diverse and ecological interesting green space. Each of these issues could be considered to aid the development of successful investments in green infrastructure. However, each is also subject to a number of limitations and barriers. To ensure implementation is positive, we need to reflect on how these issues interact and what influences the transition from design to delivery.

Notes 1 2

3 4

5

6 7

8

This is in comparison to a smaller number of sub-district or site-specific strategies which were produced at a similar time, e.g. Luton and Bedfordshire. The wider Cambridgeshire county area comprises the city of Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, East Cambridgeshire and Fenland. The sub-region only covers some areas of Fenland and Huntingdonshire. The working group consisted of LPAs, ENGOs and planning/development advocates. In March 2011, when I left East Cambridgeshire District Council, the council’s Planning Committee had not adopted the findings of the strategy despite it being in development since the spring of 2009. Local needs were drawn from strategic investment options proposed by elected officials and LPA officers, environmental agencies working in each area, and from the public consultations. The trees were grown less than five miles away from the Ely Country Park site. 42.47 ha of land classified as biologically diverse was identified on site before development. The majority of this area, however, was not accessible or in an improved condition. Redevelopment of the site provided the opportunity to increase the value and accessibility of green infrastructure across the site. Delivery was undertaken in two stages: (1) 24.91 ha to stage the Olympic Games; and (2) the remaining 20.09 ha after – to allow hardstanding for the Games to be removed. The scale of investment though is outweighed by the scale of the Olympic site (250 ha). 2000 trees on such a large site is not a significant investment in terms of coverage and could lead to the placement of single trees rather than of continuous wooded enclaves or areas.

107

CHAPTER 6

Europe Green infrastructure development in Paris (France) and Milan (Italy)

The breadth of approaches taken to investment in green infrastructure planning in Europe raises the question of whether such a concept can be successfully integrated within so many alternative planning cultures. However, despite the variation in praxis we can identify a number of locations, such as Copenhagen (Denmark), Malmö (Sweden) or Berlin (Germany), where the principles of green infrastructure have been used to support government-led, as well as locally defined, investment in landscape projects (Andersson et al., 2014; Beatley, 2000; Lachmund, 2013; Sandström, 2002). A review of how green infrastructure is planned across Europe highlights how planners have blended contemporary design with more traditional approaches to landscape and urban planning. Therefore, through a series of city-wide assessments, including the meta-level European-scale evaluations such as COST Action C11 (Werquin et al., 2005) and the recent Green Surge review of 20 European cities (Hansen et al., 2015), we can illustrate how green infrastructure projects have been implemented to address climate change mitigation, sustainable transport initiatives, more innovative urban design and socio-economic needs across urban areas (Beatley, 2012; European Commission, 2011; South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012; Zmelik et al., 2011). The case studies discussed in the following chapters present an assessment of how some of these issues, along with other locally specific ones, are being planned for in a French and Italian context. The selection of case studies illustrates how planners and developers are combining their existing understanding of the sociocultural and political understanding and interactions with landscape planning to develop strategies for the delivery of more sustainable urban areas. Both case studies highlight how local administrations, as well as advocates, have attempted to align planning for changing environmental conditions with innovative landscape designs to support diverse responses to the implementation of greener urban environments. Green infrastructure projects in both Paris (France) and Milan (Italy) are evaluated to understand how the principles of ecological networks, connectivity and multifunctionality feed into the development of green infrastructure in both locations. This chapter also discusses how the design of these spaces influences how people interact with them, and how such interactivity helps to shape interpretations of landscape value. The two case studies presented are: Paris, the capital city of France, and Milan, the financial and cultural capital of the Lombardy Region in Italy. Both have distinctive

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

109 Figure 6.1 Paris green infrastructure network.

planning systems that support a diverse range of approaches to landscape and urban planning, but also have, in their own ways, engaged formally (through policy) and informally (through localised actions) with the principles and terminology of green infrastructure (Gey, 2014; Spanò et al., 2015). Historically, and more recently, sites in Paris and Milan have illustrated a shifting emphasis as planners and landscape advocates have attempted to achieve a balance between socio-economic and environmental needs through the delivery of attractive and functional urban greening. However, while both locations highlight context-specific forms of planning based on territorial and legislative structures, they also show a number of similarities. Paris, a metropolitan centre of commerce and government developed through a series of eras reflecting the dominant government of the time (Frampton, 1992). It has been subject to a forcible restructuring of its physical environment due to conflict, and in its socio-economic form due to migration and economic growth/decline. Therefore, although Paris may be considered by some authors as a ‘finished city’, it could be thought of as being in a state of almost continual transformation (Gey, 2014; Schenker, 1995). Milan, like Paris, is a major urban settlement, but is also part of one of the most populated metropolitan regions in Europe (along with Turin and Genoa). It has been established as Italy’s de facto financial capital, and although Italy’s economy has contracted, the shape of the city has been subject to a process of urban renewal over the last 15 years. It is also the incubation city of Italy’s growing research into urban forestry, an issue the chapter will return to. Therefore, while other major conurbations in Italy, such as Rome or Turin, may have struggled to mitigate the loss of green infrastructure, Milan has taken strategic steps to ensure that it can address these localised landscape issues, as well as assessing the contribution they can make to the region’s landscape performance (Spanò et al., 2015).

6.1 Paris: green infrastructure development – traditional to contemporary Paris is known as the city of love (Bell & De-Shalit, 2013); however, it can also be considered as a landscaped city; a city that embraces Haussmann’s revision of the city; a place that includes grand green avenues and boulevards; a city built on a

110

Europe: Paris and Milan network of public plazas, greenways and green spaces; and most importantly a city centred on the River Seine. Such variation in the landscape of Paris enables its users to develop a multiplicity of interpretations of the city, which, at least in part, reflect the changing physical and social dynamics of its population and political makeup (Gey, 2014; Strohmayer, 2006). Paris could, therefore, be described as evoking emotions for residents and visitors alike in a way that integrates perceptions of a romantic ideal with the physical form of the city and its sub-divisions (arrondissements). Paris should also be thought of as a city of change.1 Over its history Paris has expanded and evolved due to its increased legislative role internally in France and internationally, which has seen corresponding changes to the city’s form, function and the ways that people interact with its green and open spaces (Foster, 2014). The city itself is home to approximately 2.3 million people with over 12 million people residing within the wider Parisian Metropolitan region (Cohen et al., 2012). The population is split across the city in 20 arrondissements (or wards/districts) and is governed by a mayor (mairie in French). As a city, Paris has the highest population density in Europe at 24,000 people per square kilometre, but has one of the lowest quantities of green space per person at 13 m2 – London, by way of comparison, has 45 m2 (Devereux, 2010).2 The city also houses over 500,000 street/park trees, 478 public green spaces and 16 large parks, and from 2001 to 2008 increased the proportion of green space in the city by 32 ha (Laurian, 2012). Thus, from the 1970s onwards it has been argued that the value of urban greening increased as people, including planners, became increasingly aware of the need to include green infrastructure in the everyday spaces to increase liveability (Heathcott, 2013; van der Velde & de Wit, 2015). The planning of green infrastructure in Paris also has a long and supported history. Currently, this is being extended through the Plan d’Occupation des Sols, which has identified sites for green and open space investments across the city, and has coincided with the devolution of a number of development powers from the president of France to the mairie. However, although the central government is still involved in developing nationally significant projects, the mairie is using Zones d’Aménagement Concreté (ZAC) to increase the number and type of green infrastructure across the city. The Plan Local d’Urbanisme (ARUR) has extended elements of the ZAC in an attempt to integrate gardens, parks and public space into the majority of new, as well as redeveloped, spaces (Devereux, 2010). The mayor’s office also has legislative power to approve growth and has in recent years led calls for greater investment in green infrastructure. Most recently this was witnessed in the participatory budget referendum held in 2014 in which the city announced it would allocate up to €20 million to public projects including green infrastructure. Such a shift in government promoting civic engagement could be viewed as illustrating their progressive view on the economic and social value of the city’s landscape, and the role it plays in the lives of residents (Harrison Plesse, 2014). The outcomes of the ballot included funding for green wall and roof projects across the city. Moreover, a further 23 projects were identified in 2013/14 with the ‘Reinventer Paris’ programme, where collaborative planning/development is proposed to shape the future of the metropolis. Again, this placed investment in green infrastructure at the centre of development proposals (Mairie de Paris, 2014). Both examples

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

111

highlight the progressive nature of green infrastructure planning in Paris, as well as the positive support it has received from government. However, it is also important to place these contemporary green space developments in the context of the historical investment in the city’s landscape. Historically, Paris has seen what Rogers (2001) described as a socialisation of space, as publically accessible green spaces have been developed under successive administrations. This has embedded within Paris a view that parks and gardens are a functional everyday element of the landscape, which are of value to residents of all socio-economic standings (van der Velde & de Wit, 2015). However, it has been suggested that the location, size and quality of the urban landscape vary depending on the affluence of each arrondissement (Cohen et al., 2012). The location of green infrastructure in or near residential areas has though facilitated greater interactions with the city’s landscape and helped to increase the value placed on these spaces. Taking a longer-term view of how the city has developed its landscape in the sixteenth century during the reign of Henry IV (1572–1610), a programme of development for parks, gardens and ‘alleys’ of trees was implemented to improve the liveability of the city (Ignatieva et al., 2010). Moreover, investment in green infrastructure was extended during the eighteenth century as the Baroque ideal was applied to the design of the city’s parks and gardens (jardins). Within this the aesthetic quality of the landscape was paramount, with radials, connective axes and spatially linked boulevards being used to frame the interactions of residents with the city’s landscape. This was extended during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, especially following Haussmann’s redevelopment of the city. Haussmann’s use of boulevards linked by radials and linear features created a city-wide Parisian greenway that is still evident today, in what Schenker (1995) described as an opportunistic approach to investment in green space. Within the Artists Plan of 1797 Haussmann proposed to redevelop the city through investment in wider boulevards, while also restricting the height of buildings (Hall, 2002). Partly this was undertaken to meet medical needs: two outbreaks of cholera

Figure 6.2 Île aux Cygnes, Paris.

112

Europe: Paris and Milan

Figure 6.3 Urban greening on the Promenade Plantée.

had been recorded prior to Haussmann’s plan, with investment in urban design being viewed as a more effective form of fresh water delivery and waste management. Haussmann’s tenure in the city saw the implementation of 137 km of new treelined boulevards, as he and engineers Eugène Belgrand and Jean-Charles Alphand ventilated the city through city-scale public green spaces (e.g. Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes). All of which positions Paris as an interesting urban laboratory for green infrastructure, as it is an amalgamation of historical and contemporary approaches to green space planning. The following sections offer further examples of how Paris has, and is, investing in green infrastructure.

6.1.1 Promenade Plantée The Promenade Plantée is a 4.7 km linear corridor running from Place de la Bastille to the Bois de Vincennes in the eastern district of central Paris. Located on the site of a former railway line, the Promenade was the inspiration for the High Line development in New York. With the development and extension of the regional and national railway network from the Gare de Lyon, the original railway became redundant and lacked value until residents of the twelfth arrondissement started to push for redevelopment. Using the Société d’économie mixte d’aménagement de l’Est Parisien (SEMAEST) they were able to instigate investment through the mayoral development programme (ZAC). The ZAC programme brought together a range of public and private stakeholders to reimagine the value of the viaduct from 1983 onwards. One key aspect of this process was a shift in emphasis to promote the need for investment in community-scale urban greening that would help equalise the lack of balance between city-scale investments in other sections of the city. The design of the promenade also made use of its linear nature to integrate a more dynamic form of planting and landscaping to offer visitors an evolving experience of the landscape. Furthermore, throughout its length the Promenade’s designers, Patrick Berger, Jacques Vergely and Philippe Matthieu, utilised the French horticultural approach of préverdissement by planting a range of species that would diversify over time, and

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan by season, as the site becomes established. This was seen as a key design principle allowing the site to transform itself from a redundant former-industrialised space into a dynamic ecological habitat. The designers also proclaimed that the project was a unique opportunity to retrofit a large section of the city as green infrastructure, which they may not have had if the site was being master-planned anew. Heathcott also suggested that ‘the Promenade in general and the Jardin de Reuilly in particular have added substantially to the city’s fund of green infrastructure’ (2013: 289). The design of the Promenade comprises a series of distinct sections. First, the site is entered from the west via a narrow garden where planting, arbours and community spaces are interspersed. The initial section is elevated and leads users into the site, providing them with a sense of being among nature (in a densely populated area) but away from street-level noise and traffic. The site then opens out into the Jardin de Reuilly, the location of the former railyard and turning circle, elements which have been integrated into the site’s design. This section of the greenway is a blend of formal planting and ecological diversity due to the integration of flora and fauna, and open parkland and playground spaces aimed at providing an interactive interface with the site’s amenities. The final section of the Promenade returns to a linear corridor as it moves eastwards towards the Bois de Vincennes. The site thus promotes connectivity between key tourist sites, i.e. the Bastille, and larger urbanfringe green infrastructure sites. It has also been designed to facilitate a range of complementary activities which utilise the changing physical form of the Promenade. As a result the site offers an accessible and dynamic site within the centre of Paris that allows personal and communal use simultaneously.

6.1.2 Parc de la Villette The Parc de la Villette is located in the north-east of the city in the nineteenth arrondissement on the site of a former abattoir and meat market. Although the area developed in the post-Second World War era, in 1974 the market closed and the site was left derelict. It was subsequently announced by the Valéry Giscard d’Estaing Government that the site would be redeveloped to house the Museum of Science, an auditorium and a park (Tate, 2015). However, in the 1980s, under Francois Mitterrand’s ‘Grande Projects’ programme, these principles were reconsidered to provide socio-cultural space that linked the arts with a modernist approach to landscape design (van der Velde & de Wit, 2015). Within the designation and subsequent development of the Parc de Villette the site was seen as a key ‘transition zone’ between the urban core, its outer arrondissements and the urban periphery of the city. As a result the site provides a connective linearity that makes use of the area’s existing canal system to transport people by bicycle or on foot from the city centre. The redevelopment of the site was overseen by the Establissement Public de Parc de la Villette (EPPV), which subsequently became the Establissement Public de Parc et de la Grande Halle de la Villette (EPPGHV). These two agencies were funded by the state and have since used rents and revenues from on-site activities to fund the maintenance of the site’s green and blue infrastructure (Tate, 2015). The site’s designer, Bernard Tschumi, attempted to facilitate a shift in how people view, value and interact with the landscape of the park. Using a modernist approach

113

114

Europe: Paris and Milan to landscape detailing, the site is an amalgamation of spaces which in part appear unrelated, but in reality take many of the ten million visitors each year on a journey through different geographical regions due to the diverse planting schemes. This is supported by the site’s use of focal points of specific interest, such as the site’s bridges and the field of mirrors in addition to the varied planting, all of which aid the flow of people around the site. It also makes use of the dynamic range of surfaces to make the area more tactile compared to other, more formal parks. The site succeeds in blending the contemporary landscape architecture of Tschumi’s design with multi-functional spaces as it provides the affordances that Louv (2005) described as enabling visitors to engage in passive and formal ways with grassed and vegetated space. The compartmentalised design also adds a sense of adventure and discovery to the site, which can feel both isolated and integrated within the surrounding neighbourhoods. All of this increases the functionality of the Parc de la Villette; compared to other neighbourhood-scale spaces, such as the Parc de Luxembourg as the site offers a greater variety of options to interact with the landscape.

Figure 6.4 Parc de la Villette.

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

115

Figure 6.5 Contemporary landscape design, Parc André Citroën.

116

Europe: Paris and Milan

Figure 6.6 Maintenance and construction works, Bois de Boulogne.

6.1.3 Parc André Citroën and Bois de Boulogne The Parc André Citroën is located alongside the River Seine in the south-west of Paris, whereas the Bois de Boulogne sits to the west of the river and is technically outside of the city. While both sites vary dramatically in their size and function, they could be considered to be an important part of the green corridor network that links central Paris through a series of green space to the Bois ‘green lungs’ of the city. Parc André Citroën is a formal park designed by Allain Provost with Jean-Paul Viguier, Jan-François Jodry and Gilles Clément, based on a two-parks ethos: a northern park which houses the conservatory, play areas, formal orchards and water features; and the southern park which made use of withdrawn gardens to offer more personal interactions with the natural environment (van der Velde & de Wit, 2015). The design of the site provides visitors with a broad range of options for use, which are not always possible in some of the more established gardens in Paris. The distinctive nature of the southern park, with its series of themed gardens and ‘wilder’ areas, offers refuge from the heat of the Parisian climate and provides spaces for quiet or group reflection and relaxation. They are also ecologically diverse, with planting being designed with specific themes, e.g. the Serial Gardens and the Jardin en Mouvement. Although these gardens are located approximately 10–15 metres from the main lawn area, they retain a sense of separation and tranquillity. This is in stark contrast to the northern park, with its large grassed lawn, hot-air balloon feature and plazas. The landscaping of the northern park is more formal and less dynamic but provides a location where office workers eat lunch, children play and learn in an outdoor classroom, and where people play sports. All of this seems to present a form of cultural appropriation of green spaces supporting a multitude of interactive experiences rather than simply promoting aesthetic qualities. The landscaping of the area and the use of water features gives the site a sense of grandeur, and is potentially one of the reasons for its popularity. The park has also been designed to interact with the built infrastructure surrounding it. It lies to the south-east of a mainline train track which is screened through tree planting, while the noise of the trains is countered by a large cascading water feature. All of

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan this provides the park with both a blended formal–informal feel, providing sufficient space for multiple activities to be undertaken simultaneously. The landscaping has also been designed to make the exploration of the site an interesting activity. Compared to the Parc André Citroën, the Bois de Boulogne is a green infrastructure resource of a very different nature. The Bois covers 845 ha and is the second largest green space in Paris, after the Bois de Vincennes in the east of the city at 955 ha. Due to its size the Bois de Boulogne has been called one of the ‘green lungs’ of Paris. However, its location at an entry point to Paris makes its design rather unusual, as it has a major highway running south-west to north-east through the centre of the site. While in some locations such a piece of built infrastructure would be a nuisance, it merely provides a formal intersection between different parts of the area: namely east–west circulation. Within its design the Bois has a range of spaces including a race course, large boating lake, a number of walking and hiking trails and more formal park/grassland spaces. The site is also criss-crossed with an extensive cyclepath network. Such variety is necessary because of the scale of the site, however, such forward-thinking designs are not always forthcoming. The variety of activities, both passive and formal, available in the Bois de Boulogne makes it an attractive location for families, recreational sports teams and for people wishing to enjoy ‘countryside’ in the city. As a consequence it has a different feel to the other green infrastructure sites in Paris, as it provides open vistas and sufficient space to hold a large capacity of users without compromising the experience of the site.

6.1.4 Parc de Bercy The Parc de Bercy located close to the Gare de Lyon, the Promenade Plantée and the River Seine provides an amalgam of a number of the design and functionality features already discussed. The site is split into three distinct parts: the meadows, a grassed and open area with trees, benches and places for social interactions; the flowerbeds, composed of formal planting and delineated space between areas for nature and those for patrons; and the romantic gardens, which include the pond and more scenic planting. The site is also split north–south by the Rue Joseph Kessel, which makes movement from the flowerbeds to the romantic gardens a journey, as you have to use footbridges to navigate the road. The three sections of the park enable users to engage in a number of activities ranging from formal sports to more passive relaxation. The design of the three spaces also provides scope for people to interact with the site through community gardening and botanical signage in visible and more reserved ways. The site is also popular with lunchtime sleepers. The park’s location near Gare de Lyon and next to the Bercy Arena (which holds sports and entertainment events), and the Ministère de l’Economie de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi ensure that the site has a large and regular user base. Adding further green infrastructure to the area, the Bercy Arena was also going through a process of refurbishment in 2015, which saw the implementation of a large-scale green wall across the building’s exterior. It could be argued that the Parc de Bercy, like the Parc de la Villette, are blending more contemporary designs in park development that complement the more traditional landscaped forms (e.g. the flowerbeds), to provide sites that deliver aesthetic and functionality benefits.

117

118

Europe: Paris and Milan

Figure 6.7 Jardin Vilemin, Paris.

Figure 6.8 Greenwall SNCF building, Gare de l’Est.

Figure 6.9 Street greening in central Paris.

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

119

6.2 Milan: the growth of urban forestry and contemporary landscape architecture In many ways Milan and Paris are similar in their position on green infrastructure. As the economic hub (along with Turin) of northern Italy, Milan holds a position of national importance. This can be traced in the expansion of its boundaries beyond the initial walled city and the growing number of radial ring roads. As a historical city Milan is somewhat constrained in how it’s urban form develops. While the periphery of the city is more permeable and has witnessed expansion, contraction and a growing coalescence with surrounding towns, the city’s core is more restricted. As a consequence, Milan’s approach to green infrastructure, and in particular urban forestry, should be viewed as providing opportunities to increase the proportion of green and open space across the city. Urban forestry, social allotments and apartment/home greening are all significant forms of urban greening practised in Milan. The visibility of these varied approaches to green infrastructure provides Milan with a network of smaller apartment- and/or neighbourhood-level resources. Unfortunately, because of its built form these resources can appear to be spatially isolated, limiting the formation of a cohesive green network. The city is, however, attempting to think more innovatively about how it protects, and in many places enhances, its green infrastructure resource base to improve its liveability. A key strategic aspect of this has been the promotion of a regional approach to investment in green infrastructure under the Metropolitan Milano project, which is attempting to link landscape resources controlled by a number of administrations. This is being proposed as a rethinking of how the city can extend its green network within the city boundaries through the development of connective ecological corridors and green space hubs. The Ente Regionale Per I Servizi All’Agricoltura e Alle Foreste (ERSAF) are leading the development of a more integrated approach for green infrastructure at a city-regional scale, and act as the

Figure 6.10 Regional green infrastructure network for Milan.

120

Europe: Paris and Milan coordinator between strategic partners. How the city and regional partners engage with this process is therefore of paramount importance if Milan is to create a more ecologically resilient and functional landscape. It does, though, appear from discussions with ERSAF, as well as staff at Parco Nord Milano and architects involved with the design and implementation of the Milano Expo 2015, that the principles of green infrastructure are being integrated into landscape planning in Milan. The development of the emerging Metropolitan Milano programme and the focus of the Expo site both show the support that investment in green and open spaces, as well as green technology, are receiving in the city and regionally.

6.2.1 Milano Expo 2015 The Milan Expo site is located in the north-west of the city, next to an area of railway and road infrastructure. As in Shanghai (discussed in Chapter 8), Milan is using the Expo as an opportunity to engage planners, architects, the public and green infrastructure advocates in a debate about the city’s future. Central to this is the promotion of investment in landscape resources, including more effective water management systems and increased green and open space to promote Milan as a more sustainable city. The Expo is trying to establish the notion of re-establishing the links between human behaviour, and our understanding of the landscape, with nature as a key component for future development. The site’s landscape architects argue that the Expo aims to mimic nature within its built infrastructure, illustrating the potential that green buildings and green infrastructure offer to urban planners (see also Zagari & Selleri, 2015). Their view is that the Expo site offers a testing ground for different approaches to urban forestry and small-scale urban greening (including SUDS) that they suggest could have a significant positive impact on the city’s climate. It has also been suggested that the high-profile nature of the Expo will provide traction for ERSAF and other stakeholders to invest in green infrastructure as they are receiving additional political and financial support due to the exposure gained from the Expo. The design of the site has been structured to make extensive use of trees to create urban woodlands on-site. Over 12,000 trees were planted for the Expo, mostly drawn from native Italian species. One of the key design features was to integrate larger and more mature trees into the site which were not uniform in their look. The landscape architects thus planted older trees with character to highlight the diversity and evolving nature of the landscape to visitors to the Expo. Urban forests were integrated into the site to act as green wedges, as well as providing a visibly porous boundary to the neighbouring areas, replicating existing resources in Milan. The design also promoted the notion of a ‘moving forest’ that included communities of trees which would develop as the site matured. In the short-term they also provide people with an attractive backdrop to their visit of the Expo site. The architectural vision was therefore to ensure that people were aware that ‘the forest brings life’ and is linked to the form of the city of Milan, its functionality as a working landscape, and the promotion of liveability. An excellent example of this was the Austrian Pavilion, which had recreated an alpine forest loaded with messages of how to achieve urban sustainability through investment in urban greening.

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

121

Figure 6.11 Expo Milano 2015.

122

Europe: Paris and Milan The site’s architects were able to enhance the green infrastructure further through the integration of a large-scale SUDS network. Using a series of canals and retention/detention ponds, the site aims to remediate and redistribute a proportion of the site’s grey water back into the water system. These ponds use various water plants to extract pollutants and filter waste water back into the site’s system. Across the site, water features are also used to promote the aesthetic quality of the landscape, highlighting the designer’s complementary understanding of Milan’s canal network, reiterating the link between the ecological and cultural landscape of the city. Critiques of the site’s green infrastructure resource have been made, however, focusing most frequently on the cost of establishing the green credentials of the site, the ongoing costs of maintenance during the Expo and the post-Expo use of the site. The costs of maintaining the visual and ecological value of the site are, according to commentators, significant. This has been exacerbated by the unusually hot weather in Milan throughout the summer of 2015. Moreover, the long-term maintenance of the site is still open to discussion. To date no organisation has been found to move

Figure 6.12 Parco Nord Milano and social allotments within the site.

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan into the site after its closure in October 2015, although there is the potential for the University of Milan to take up residency in the future. This places the longevity of the green infrastructure resource in doubt, as without an appropriate management and funding structure the site will not be maintained to its current level.

6.2.2 Metropolitan Milano The largest and most spatially ambitious green infrastructure project being developed in Milan is the regional-scale attempt to create a ‘green system’ or green belt around the city that links existing parks, green spaces and water features, as well as investing in new resources to link areas of deficit. Metropolitan Milano is being administered by ESRAF in conjunction with the regional government of Lombardy and other city administrations. Working at this scale is proposed by ESRAF as providing the project with greater financial and legislative support. The project will also be able to draw on a wider range of expertise, as its stakeholders will bring with them planning, development, agricultural and economic skills. It is envisaged that the project will raise awareness of the value of the region’s landscape to improve the quality of life and the economic prospects of the region. ERSAF stated that the Metropolitan Milano project aims to deliver green infrastructure that places ecological connectivity at the centre of future landscape and urban development. They also discussed how the changing nature of the region’s urban form is influencing the ability of the landscape to cope with change. Although a large proportion of the region is agricultural, increased urbanisation has forced the region’s planners to reconsider how they approach more sustainable forms of landscape management. With the development of a regional-level structure for landscape management, ERSAF and other partners are hopeful that they can install a set of long-term ecological objectives within the area’s development. The creation of a regionally significant green belt promoting cross-boundary links between the landscape and administrative responsibility of a number of LPAs/administrations is seen as an effective mechanism to achieve this goal. Investing in such a large-scale project has required ERSAF to work extensively with other stakeholders to ensure connectivity between landscape features, the planning and the legal/administrative duties of management. Although ERSAF are coordinating the process, they are working closely with local government in Varese, Como, Monza, Bergamo, Cremona, Lodi and Pavia to ensure that the most appropriate knowledge and data are integrated into the development process. Furthermore, additional stakeholder engagement with the environment sector is being used to ensure that the landscape ecology and green infrastructure principles of connectivity and multifunctionality are delivered by the project. One successful example of this process is the number of projects currently being delivered – to date more than 40 in the west of Milan, a number which is also being replicated in other areas. ERSAF state that through an alignment of local landscape knowledge with LPA assessments of socio-economic and ecological needs, the value of green infrastructure, in the form of a green belt, can be realised by a larger group of stakeholders. Thus, by working with farmers and local landowners they are ensuring that green infrastructure planning is based on a robust understanding of the environmental context of Milan and Lombardy.

123

124

Europe: Paris and Milan Although the project aims to deliver green infrastructure at a strategic landscapescale, it is being supplemented by a series of additional projects at a local scale. One of the key projects for Milan is the development of a city-scale connective corridor linking the Parco Nord Milano and the Parco Agricolo Sud Milano (Rural Park South Milan). The location of both sites makes it strategically opportune to link these sites: the Parco Nord Milano covers 640 ha2 and is located in the north-east of Milan, while the Parco Agricolo Sud Milano is approximately 46,000 ha2 and was designated to safeguard the landscape of the Po Valley from development. Extending these greenway features through investment in parkland and urban forests is viewed as the most appropriate mechanism to join these two parks. ERSAF are, though, aware that extending the current green network has to occur incrementally. Moreover, as the sites become available for purchase the coalition of stakeholders will look to make strategic investments in the green network. To finance investment, ERSAF are working with planning authorities at the city, province and regional scale to develop a tax-allocation mechanism for the project. This comes in the form of a contribution from existing corporation and land taxes which are allocated to local government. Further funding has been sought from the Italian government and from larger EU funding streams. Due to the scale of the project, applying for European- and national-level funding could be considered a more appropriate source of financial support as it enables ERSAF to promote regionally significant investment objectives. The scale of investment has also allowed ERSAF to deliver aspects of the project more quickly, although resistance to development has been reported by some LPAs. A process of compensation has therefore been interwoven into the development programme. Where green infrastructure resources are lost due to development, these losses must be compensated for either on-site or with the Metropolitan Milano area. Given the role that urban forests have played in the development of the green space in Lombardy, investment in tree planting is viewed as one of the most successful delivery options which meets a number of socio-economic and ecological needs.

6.2.3 Parco Nord Milano The Parco Nord Milano is the largest green infrastructure resource within the city of Milan. Its location at the periphery of the city’s north-east boundary makes it a key hub in connecting people with the wider Metropolitan Milano landscape; it is also a prominent ecological reservoir for wildlife. The site covers an area of 640 ha, of which 400 ha is categorised as green infrastructure. It was established in 1975 to redevelop former light-industrial land, which was considered to have little or no social value. Since that time, and specifically from 1983 onwards, the park’s managers have delivered year-on-year extensions of its forest cover, grassland, planting and more recently have improved connectivity across the site by investing in a series of ‘green’ pedestrian and cycling bridges. With a budget of €4 million per year, the site is well financed compared to other parks; however, with continued cuts in local government budgets the park’s director is now required to consider more efficient ways to maintain the current management regime. In line with Milan’s urban forestry rhetoric, each year since 1983 the park has extended its tree cover, planting between 2 and 30 hectares of forest. More recently

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

125

the proportion of new woodland planting has decreased as the availability of land for planting has been reduced. The maturation of the site has also made large-scale planting less essential as the park’s environment has improved with grasslands, lakes and canals, and sports fields that are well used by patrons. The lower levels of tree planting have also seen a growing diversity in the design of the site. From the 1990s onwards the use of formal avenues of trees decreased as more ‘natural’ forms of tree planting were instigated. This was supported by a growing diversity in the range of grasses, shrubs and plants used to populate the site. All of this provides the site with variation in both its physical and visual form. Moreover, as noted by the director of the Parco Nord Milano, ‘the park is not a project it’s a process’ that will continue to evolve as the landscape and user needs diversify. This is viewed as a positive, as it provides the park’s director and other stakeholders with a platform to increase the size of the park and for it to become linked to the other green spaces/parks in the region. A further example of the park’s evolving understanding of its users is the value placed on allotments. Thirteen ‘social allotments’ are located within the park and are used by approximately 600 subscription members who pay €25 per year to cultivate. However, unlike allotments in other countries, such as the UK, the users must follow a number of guidelines, including planting 20 per cent of their plots with flowers to improve the aesthetic quality of the park, agree not to use pesticides and to use organic matter where possible. All members are of retirement age (60+ years), which helps to bring older people into the site. The allotment users are also thought of as ‘sentinels’ for the site, providing an additional level of guardianship to help the site’s 100 volunteer security guards. The director of the park stated that the allotments were a key component in promoting the site’s use to a wider range of user groups. However, there is some concern that users do not have sufficient influence over how the site develops. Although the park has a ‘park life’ officer who engages with different user groups, including the allotment holders, they are not formally consulted on the future development of the park. The apparent dislocation between the day-to-day management of the park and its users could be exacerbated as the Metropolitan Milano project develops further. The

Figure 6.13 Parco Siempione, central Milan.

126

Europe: Paris and Milan

Figure 6.14 Bosco Verticale.

regional government has given a consortium of stakeholders, including the director of the Parco Nord Milano, 18 months (June 2015–December 2016) to clarify the future management, administrative and financial structure of the proposed regional park. At the centre of this process is the future development of the park, which is viewed by its director as follows: ‘Parco Nord Milano is the green foundations for the development of the wider Metropolitan Milano green infrastructure network.’ Both the Parco Nord and the Parco Sud have therefore been proposed as the most significant resources in the development of a regional Milan green infrastructure

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan

127

network. Fortunately for the Parco Nord, their existing collaborative structure with local and regional administrations make them well placed to promote the multifunctionality of the park and its wider cumulative value to a regional-scale green belt. How this process develops will become clear over the coming two years; however, the Parco Nord Milano’s existing position as a strategically important green infrastructure resource (politically and financially), should be extended in the future.

6.2.4 Bosco Verticale The Bosco Verticale is potentially one of the most iconic contemporary buildings in Milan. Located to the west of the city’s financial district near a number of major company buildings, including AXA Insurance, the Bosco Verticale is strikingly green in nature. Designed by the architects Stefano Boeri, Gianandrea Barreca and Giovanni La Varra, the site comprises one 26-storey and one 18-storey building, which has

Figure 6.15 Street greening in central Milan.

128

Europe: Paris and Milan been designed to integrate green infrastructure into the heart of the development in the form of balcony trees and planting on each floor of both apartment blocks. The design extends Milan’s development of urban forestry by using the height of each building to promote a vertical forest in the urban core. It has also made use of an innovative water system to ensure that the water needed for healthy vegetation is maintained on-site. Eight-hundred trees have been integrated into the project, as well as 5,000 shrubs and 11,000 vine and perennial plants. The scale of the project is estimated to be the equivalent of 7,000 m2 of forestland at ground level. One of the most successful elements of the Bosco Verticale is its replication of the wider use of balcony and apartment greening, only on a grander and more architecturally bold scale. Across the surrounding neighbourhoods, and indeed Milan, balcony trees and plants are ever-present, suggesting that an understanding exists of the positive relationship between people and natural landscapes. This link between people and nature, and in many ways the city’s climate, is also visible in the wider regeneration of the neighbourhood around the Bosco Verticale. Adding further green credentials to the site is the wider neighbourhood development occurring in the area named MiCOLTIVO – the Green Circle. The premise of this investment is to integrate la biodiversità urbana (urban biodiversity) into the core of Milan. This is being achieved through the creation of a greener urban district that is linked at an individual scale by green walkways and public parks. These have been designed to link the main subway and suburban railway station of Milano Porta Garibaldi, with apartments and a series of regenerated shopping streets. Adding further relevance to the Italian notion of working with the land, the design also incorporates ‘social allotments’ and a farmers’ market to promote an awareness of urban agriculture. The development of the Bosco Verticale could therefore be seen as a key driving force behind the greening of the area. Using this flagship investment as a starting point for the redevelopment of the area, local planners, developers and landscape architects have taken cues from the added social, economic and ecological value of integrating ‘forestry’ into urban areas to create a more attractive, interactive and multi-functional landscape. Although the construction of the neighbourhood is ongoing, the current level of investment suggests that urban greening is being successfully embedded within the fabric of the overarching design.

6.3 Summary The examples discussed from Paris and Milan highlight that investment in green infrastructure can, and does, take many forms. Although there is, in part, a continuation of the classical forms of parks and gardens in each city, both have looked to adapt more contemporary styles when developing urban greening projects. Sites such as the Parc de la Villette and Expo Milano illustrate where a blend of contemporary and established landscape design attitudes have been used to create multi-functional spaces. The Bosco Verticale could be considered as the most recent extension of this process, blending the established understandings of urban forests in Milan with contemporary architectural design. However, despite the differences in the form of the green infrastructure in both cities they share the commonality of achieving multifunctionality. The parks of Paris and Milan support a range of uses and provide sites

www.ebook3000.com

Europe: Paris and Milan where alternative activities can be undertaken without conflict. Partially this reflects the design of the parks, as shown in the Parc André Citroën and Parco Nord Milano, but also reflects the normative use of green spaces in both locations. Exercise, relaxing and social interactions are common to both cities and the green infrastructure resource base of each provides affordances for such activities. One of the key differences between the use of green infrastructure in Paris and Milan is, however, scale. Although Paris gains extensive benefits from its ‘green lungs’ of the Bois de Vincennes and Bois de Boulogne, the majority of its investments are at a neighbourhood scale. In Milan the opposite appears true, as the Metropolitan Milano project is attempting to think more strategically at a regional scale. By developing a green belt around Milan, ERSAF are promoting the extension of the landscape’s capacity to support long-term improvements in socio-economic and ecological functionality. These different scalar narratives provide an insight into how both cities are developing. A temporal understanding of this process is also important in both cities. The redevelopment of Paris and the influence of Haussmann, as well as subsequent landscape architects, can be felt across the city, while in Milan the need to regenerate areas of urban-fringe post-industrial decline has seen its green infrastructure evolve accordingly. We could also argue that the nature of park development and retrofitting highlights a process of inward-facing green infrastructure, which aims to improve the quality of the city of Paris. In Milan we could suggest that the broader regional outlook is attempting to mitigate larger-scale development issues by encouraging green infrastructure investment at the landscape scale. Investment in landscape projects in Milan and Paris can be considered as implementing the principles of green infrastructure by promoting connectivity, accessibility and multi-functionality. They also illustrate how a supportive political environment, in the form of mayoral and/ or regional government, can aid planners and developers in delivering interesting, socially appropriate and architecturally attractive places.

Notes 1 2

Lucie Laurian’s (2012) history of Paris provides a comprehensive resource of the geo-political changes witnessed in Paris. This figure decreases to 2.5 m2 if the Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes are removed from the equations, as they both lie outside of the 20 arrondissements of Paris (Laurian, 2012). These two sites support 25–50 per cent of all visits to woodlands in all of France.

129

CHAPTER 7

India Lessons in innovative green infrastructure planning in New Delhi and Ahmedabad

Unlike its development in other locations, the rise of green infrastructure in India is less well established. Where the principles of urban greening and green space planning have been utilised in India they have normally been associated with other issues such as water pollution, protests against the over-consumption of environmental resources or a lack of integration of sustainable development in urban expansion practices (Datta, 2012; McKinsey Global Institute, 2010; Sridhar, 2007). At present there is little written in the academic or practitioner literature focusing directly on ‘green infrastructure’, although the roles of green space and urban trees are discussed to a far greater extent by a number of Indian and international authors and agencies (Balooni et al., 2011; Mell, 2013b; Nagendra et al., 2012; Siemens AG, 2011). However, despite this seeming lack of green infrastructure discussion, there is a voluble presence of green space planning research that is becoming increasingly visible across India and the wider Indian-subcontinent (Chaturvedi et al., 2013; Khera et al., 2009; Nagendra & Gopal, 2010). Noticeable examples include campaigns to plant more trees, save water and conserve natural resources, which have been reported in the Indian media as important urban development issues (Nandi, 2014; Times of India, 2015). While campaigns may raise awareness of the values that green infrastructure can deliver, the extent to which this occurs is still limited. It does not hinder the ongoing assessment of where and how green infrastructure principles are being applied or how campaign groups such as Greenpeace India are presenting them in public discourses. A number of locations provide insights into this process, however, in Chapter 2 reference was made to the changing designation of green belt land in Ahmedabad and the rhetoric surrounding the ‘garden city’ of Bengaluru, both of which illustrate that although green infrastructure debates are ongoing in India, they are often subsumed within broader expansion debates. Highlighting this view, G.V. Sugar of the Karnatakan Forest Department reported at the Urban Futures 2014 Conference in Bengaluru that the city’s green infrastructure resource has diminished from 68 per cent of the urban area in 1973 to 23 per cent in 2014. As a consequence of the evolving nature of green infrastructure in India, this chapter presents a discussion of how the vagueness and variation in approaches attributed to the concept are being implemented in practice. Two case studies are used to show the complexity of these debates. First, investment in green infrastructure and green/blue spaces in New Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR)

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

131 Figure 7.1 Tree campaign in New Delhi.

is presented, where the rate of growth is forcing the city’s authorities, developers and the public to reconsider the value of the city’s landscape, as it continues to expand and, in the reporting of some authors, struggle to cope with expansion (Delhi Development Authority, 2007). This is followed by a discussion of the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, which reviews the greening of the city through the city’s Comprehensive Development Plan (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013; Kalia, 2004). The aim of these evaluations is to highlight the influence of various stakeholders, as well as the barriers they present to landscape enhancement in a rapidly developing urban context. This discusses how environmental sustainability principles are being integrated with competing development needs to address the widening problems of social inequality and rapid urban and grey infrastructure development. To ensure that a clearer understanding of both the process and practice of investment in green infrastructure are made, the following chapter explores the interactivity of a range of socio-economic and geo-political factors which influence the development, management and value of landscape and urban green space resources in India. Both case studies reflect the increasing fluidity of political support for landscape planning, and the subsequent impacts this has on city and local investment in urban greening. The two case studies have been chosen to highlight these difficulties as, although they offer very different perspectives on how urban green space is being planned and managed, they are both major urban areas: New Delhi and the NCR has a population of approximately 17.8 million according to the 2014 census; Ahmedabad, the largest city in Gujarat, has a city population of 5.1 million and a metropolitan population of 6.3 million (Adhvaryu, 2011a; Delhi Development Authority, 2007). Each city is expanding rapidly with areas in the New Delhi NCR (including Dwarka Sub City, Ghaziabad, Gurgaon and Noida) growing at some of the fastest rates in the world, while the southwards and westwards expansion of Ahmedabad doubled the physical footprint of the city between 1989 and 2012 (Mell, 2013b). Furthermore, in terms of their environmental resource bases, both are served by regionally significant

132

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

Figure 7.2 New Delhi and NCR Green Network.

rivers – the Yamuna in Delhi and the Sabarmati in Ahmedabad. Both cities are also located within semi-arid locations which rely, to some extent, on the monsoon rains to balance their ecosystems. Both have substantial land which could be considered as green belt, with the Delhi Ridge framing New Delhi and the NCR, while the western extensions of Ahmedabad are abutted to the green ring of the city. Each city also has a spatially diverse set of existing green and blue infrastructure resources which can be considered to form a green network. Both locations thus provide insights into where, how and why green infrastructure is being developed in India. As noted above, the complexity of balancing the needs and aspirations of stakeholders potentially makes any reflection of urban greening in India more dynamic than in other geographical areas, e.g. Europe.

7.1 New Delhi and the National Capital Region New Delhi and the surrounding NCR have expanded since it was named as the capital city of British India in 1911, when the capital was moved from Calcutta (now Kolkata). The city was inaugurated as New Delhi in 1931 and was officially named as the capital city of the Republic of India in 1947. Over the course of the late twentieth century New Delhi became a key location for migrants looking to establish an economic and socio-political standing in India (Hall, 2002). As a consequence, the physical limits of New Delhi have been extending year-on-year as new housing, transport and commercial infrastructure has been built. Balancing the capacity of the city’s infrastructure to cope with growth, while retaining its ecological functionality, has been a prominent discourse within the development rhetoric of Delhi and the NCR. Unfortunately there is an ongoing discussion

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad debating the negative consequences of this process, focusing on the limitations of the city to support a high quality of life across its physical boundaries. Pollution in the forms of industrial and transport emissions, effluent leaching and being expelled in river courses and the lack of adequate sanitation facilities have all placed additional pressures on the city’s ecological resources base (Nallathiga, 2010). In an attempt to ensure that the city is planning strategically for expansion, its responsible planning agency – the Delhi Development Authority – have produced a series of investment plans outlining the rate and type of development the city will permit (Delhi Development Authority, 2007). Unfortunately, in some cases this has been undermined by political and economic interests who envisage a much broader development discourse for the city’s administration. Consequently, one of the key green infrastructure development issues visible in New Delhi is how to ensure that sufficient protection is afforded to the city’s green spaces and waterways. The urban extension of Dwarka in western Delhi and the expansions of once smaller settlements such as Noida and Gurgaon are illustrative of this process.

7.1.1 Development planning and administration The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has responsibility for overseeing development in New Delhi. Through consultation within government and with the public they create strategic development plans for the city and parts of the NCR. Within their plans the DDA attempt to promote the strategic objectives of the National Green Cabinet/Tribunal and the green space guidelines produced by the Town & Country Planning Organisation (TCPO) arm of the Ministry of Urban Development. Therefore, although the DDA has responsibility for the nature of strategic investment in the city, they are accountable to other government bodies. At the national scale the Ministry of Urban Development and the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog (formerly the Planning Commission), the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and to a lesser extent the National Sustainable Habitat Mission hold some influence on the development process. Each of these agencies provides guidance for the expansion of Indian cities which along with financial and political influences shape the form that policy takes in New Delhi. Some commentators, especially those campaigning for green space protection, have questioned the transparency of such influences and the impacts this has on the nature of development. This has led the faculty at the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) in New Delhi to suggest that although the DDA worked within a tiered policy framework developing strategic investment objectives for New Delhi and the metro region, they have been constrained by a diffuse and disengaged form of government and planning. Adding further complexity to this process is the development and ratification by the Indian government of planning policy that attempts to link the value of green spaces with the need for continuing growth. Although policy has been developed that openly relates the value of green space management with flood control, climate change and liveability, there is still a level of vagueness to the phrases and legal implications of these mandates which can undermine delivery. The use of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (2013) is one policy that has been enacted as the city has looked to modify land-use classifications to allow

133

134

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad development zoning in areas which were previously protected. This is a departure from the Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) developed by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (1996), which attempted to ensure that protection and management of green space was debated alongside other built infrastructure. As a consequence of working within these legislative structures the DDA commentators from the TCPO in New Delhi stated that the city had struggled to ensure that green infrastructure was integrated into planning practices. They noted, as did faculty from SPA, that although the DDA stated that the percentage of the city classified as green infrastructure had increased between the production of each Development Plan, there was little corroborating evidence to support this claim. Thus the reported proportion of green space in New Delhi, approximately 19 per cent, was contested because of the rate of expansion and the encroachment into existing green spaces. This has been blamed on the lack of formal discussions of green infrastructure by the New Delhi government and the DDA. Although green spaces are noted as making an important contribution to the city’s liveability, the latest Development Plan offers less detail on green space delivery, compared to the Urban Greening Guidelines published by the TCPO and Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development (2014). However, there has been a noticeable shift in the focus of policy over the last decade as government, developers and planning advocates have started to engage more directly with the issues of climate change, water management and social needs within government mandates. This also offers a reflection of the wider narratives brought into Indian planning discussions as expansion and urban extensions have become increasingly rapid.

7.1.2 Green infrastructure investment In spite of the difficulties faced by the DDA in producing strategic guidance for green infrastructure there has been a debate of its value in parts of academic and practitioner discussions. This has attempted to map the location and functionality of green spaces in New Delhi and the NCR to establish its ecological capabilities. Unfortunately, despite such mapping work being presented in the latest New Delhi Development Plan (Delhi Development Authority, 2007), the process of calculating functionality is still somewhat theoretical. Therefore, although the DDA and other institutions, such as the University of Delhi, have started to capture the spatial distribution of the city and NCR’s spatial distribution as a network, they lack the mechanisms to translate it into action. The identification of the network was described by SPA and the TCPO as forming the basis for future discussions of what resources are located in the area, what functions they have and how/whether they should be protected. Extending this discussion into a strategic policy with an associated implementation plan would, however, require a re-engineering of the relationship between people, place and government, which is often partial, fragmented and lacking in transparency. These issues may therefore prove to be too engrained within Indian development narratives to allow for a more holistic and integrated approach to green infrastructure planning to be developed. Critics of this process also suggest that, because there appear

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad to be a range of agendas present in how green space is discussed in planning, the nuances of specific sites or thematic green infrastructure approaches are often lost in translation. Therefore, larger and regionally significant green spaces are most often discussed as being essential elements of the region’s green space network. The River Yamuna and the Ridge are two examples which are frequently described as forming the majority of the 19 per cent green space. Moreover, although the city’s green space guidance outlines a tiered approach to urban greening which reflects regional, city, district and community spaces, the latter two are offered less attention within the Development Plan. This could be interpreted as the city placing less value on smaller green spaces – a notion that runs counter to Mell’s discussion of size and cumulative value where he states that smaller neighbourhood spaces may have a much greater benefit for local communities than city-scale investments (Mell, 2010). By focusing on larger spaces we could propose that the city is becoming over-reliant on a small number of resources to the detriment of more localised needs. This raises the question of whether the protection afforded to these areas is actually working, as the Ridge and Yamuna floodplain are subject to continuing development despite being outside of agreed development zones. Such a dependence on a number of green spaces exposes existing resources to overuse but changes the relationships and understanding that citizens and planning have with them. If larger spaces are deemed to require protection yet are continually developed, this raises a dilemma over how the landscape should be managed. As a consequence, development could be considered to undermine the sustainable rhetoric being promoted by the DDA, as well as the ecological functionality of the city’s landscape. The politics of planning, the location and perceived size/function of resources and different planning policies all influence the development and subsequent management of green spaces in the city. Moreover, although there appears to be a level of continuity, however complex, in the strategic nature of this process, there is a far greater variability in the development of sites and green spaces throughout the area. In early 2015 these issues were once again making headline news in India, as Greenpeace India and the Times of India newspaper launched their ‘Let Delhi Breath’ campaign. As part of the campaign Greenpeace India highlighted that approximately 20 per cent of the city’s landscape is woodlands/forests but are classified as ‘open forests’.1 Their desire is to see investment in green infrastructure through afforestation programmes to increase the density of the environmental resource, and therefore its capacity to act as an interceptor of pollutants (especially vehicular particulates) and as a moderator of the city’s climate (Times of India, 2015).

7.1.3 River Yamuna riverfront The politicised nature of development in New Delhi is potentially most noticeable in the approach to the River Yamuna. The area is not classified within the New Delhi Development Plan as an investment or development zone and has as a consequence been identified as a protected ecological/riparian zone (Baviskar, 2011). However, given its strategic nature, size and relatively underdeveloped state, the area is increasingly being identified as a location for housing and other socio-economic infrastructure (i.e. Commonwealth Games infrastructure or the Akshardham Temple

135

136

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad on the eastern banks of the river). Furthermore, commentators in government and planning practice in New Delhi noted that these investments were not sanctioned in the city’s Development Plan, and that they presented an unwanted precedent for future incursions on riverfront area. The establishment of a Yamuna River Development Authority by the Indian Prime Minister’s Office in 2007 could be considered to be the first stage of this process. The proposals to invest in development along the riverfront have been met with concerns, with a number who question the need to Gujartize the Yamuna to replicate the redevelopment of the Sabarmati River in Ahmedabad (Pradhan, 2014). Furthermore, fears that construction on the floodplain would ‘kill the river’ were made by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the National Green Tribunal in 2014,2 but were largely ignored by the central government who have continued to promote the implementation of the Yamuna Riverfront Development Scheme. However, with the election of Narendra Modi to the Prime Minister’s Office in 2015 these concerns have been, to some extent, side-lined as investment in the Yamuna has become increasingly visible as one of Modi’s personal development mandates. While the process of change along the Yamuna has caused many commentators to question the need to build on a seasonal floodplain, there have been attempts by the DDA to mitigate some of these concerns. As part of their formal appraisals for the area’s development the DDA has attempted to integrate an ecological perspective to the redevelopment of the area, proposing for consultation the following design principles: • Conservation of natural areas like swamps, marshes and special aggregation of flora and fauna through the designed biodiversity zones. • Varying hierarchy of city-level greens to be developed along with city-level recreational facilities. • Renewal/modification of certain existing uses to improve their impact on the surrounding environment. • Organic farming or agriculture to be proposed in a limited way. However, the nature of development of the Yamuna does appear to undermine the inclusion of these principles in design guidance and implementation in the area. Attempts by the DDA to establish an ecological rationale are, however, subject to a number of constraints and should therefore be considered as overtly politicised. This runs counter to the official forms and processes for zoning in the city, potentially displaces communities who have little official tenure to make way for more luxury infrastructure, and negatively impacts on the capacity of the established ecosystems to function or for the river channel to cope with seasonal fluctuations in rainfall (i.e. pluvial flooding). Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of transparency in how existing development of the area is viewed compared to further investment. The Akshardham Temple, CWG Village and Delhi Secretariat have all been developed on the floodplain and it has been suggested within the wider Yamuna development agenda that they be classified as ‘special development zones’ outside of the protection of the site (Nandi, 2014). All of which raises questions over how and what kinds of development can occur along the Yamuna, suggesting that those projects with

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad national support (or of international significance) can be considered as being exempt from the constraints of the DDA’s Development Plan.

7.1.4 The New Delhi Ridge As noted previously, the Ridge area of New Delhi is considered as one of the most important green infrastructure elements of the city. Due to its spatial distribution to the north, west and south of the city, the Ridge forms a barrier to further expansion. It also acts as an essential component of Delhi’s green network, as it provides an ecological habitat for wildlife and a series of linear spaces that form an accessible greenway. Unfortunately, due to the rate of growth visible in Delhi, the Ridge is coming under increasing pressure from informal development. As N.K. Krishna Kumar of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (an autonomous organisation but within the Ministry of Agriculture) stated at the Urban Futures Conference in Bengaluru in 2014, there is increasing blurring of urban and rural that is being played out in this area. Due to the scale of the Ridge area, the resource base is seen as being sufficient to support development, even though the DDA Development Plan has not zoned any areas for development. However, developers and individuals have started to encroach on the Ridge through informal development of homes, businesses and other built infrastructure. Krishna Kumar reports that this is negatively impacting upon the functionality of the ecosystems in the area and leading to environmental degradation. As a result, the proportion of tree cover is being reduced, which in turn has decreased the supporting ecosystems and habitat located within the area. Furthermore, although development in these areas is not permitted, there has been a limited response from the DDA and the city’s administration, in part, because of a lack of capacity within these agencies to protect the sites and the timescales and financial costs of legal proceedings. The outcome of this has been an ongoing discussion within Delhi asking how the area can be protected in the long term when there appears to be apathy among the responsible agencies to manage encroachment.

Figure 7.3 India Gate and the Secretariat.

137

138

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

7.1.5 New Delhi’s biodiversity parks While other areas of the Indian capital and the NCR are facing pressures to convert ecological resources into built infrastructure, there are projects which are attempting to redress this issue. New Delhi’s biodiversity parks are proposed as one way of increasing the capacity of the urban landscape to respond to change. They are also being used to promote a more integrated approach to the management of water and green space resources. The development of these sites in New Delhi is also one of the first attempts to create ecological, cultural and educational sites in India, highlighting an interesting collaborative approach to management as the sites are jointly owned by the DDA and Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems (CEMDE) at the University of Delhi. This provides the biodiversity parks with a supportive political arm within the city and a research and educational role for the University of Delhi. In total there are six Biodiversity Parks in New Delhi, ranging in size, location and function. They are the Aravalli Biodiversity Park (692 acres near Jawaharlal Nehru University), Yamuna (457 acres near Wazirabad in northern extension), Aravalli, Neela Hauz (3.9 ha in South Central Ridge), Kamala Nehru Ridge (97 ha near Delhi University), Tilpath Valley (70 ha southern Delhi near Sainik Farms) and Yamuna Riverfront (977 ha). Each of the parks utilises the existing natural processes located in each site, e.g. natural floodplain dynamics, to help create extended wetlands and ecosystems in the urban landscape. The long-term aim of these sites is to create self-sustaining ecosystems to support the diminishing network of green infrastructure that is developed upon in New Delhi. This is being aided by the collaborative nature of the site as the Delhi University are overseeing the design and implementation of a set of integrative landscape characteristics on each site, led by Emeritus Professor C.R. Babu.3 Under Babu’s tutelage New Delhi’s biodiversity parks have been extended physically in regards to their size and location, but also in terms of their focus. The two most advanced examples are the Aravalli Biodiversity Park and the Yamuna Biodiversity Park. The Aravalli Biodiversity Park covers an area of approximately 692 square acres in the south-central region of New Delhi and has restored 1,000 species into 30 distinct communities. This has been achieved through a process of on-site zoning to enable biodiversity investment, colonisation and dispersal of species across the site and beyond. The site has also seen major investment in forests and woodlands over a ten-year period of landscape restoration. Moreover, to ensure that there is an educational and awareness-raising aspect to the site there are visitor facilities but there is segregation of people and some of the more ecologically sensitive areas. The development of the Yamuna Biodiversity Park has taken a different form to the Aravalli site. It covers an area of approximately 457 square acres and is split between distinct visitor and biodiversity zones. The site is designed around ten distinct mounds to represent the different Indian landscape character types (e.g. alternative flora, fauna and biodiversity). It also supports six different forest/woodland areas which house a range of species and wildlife to form a mosaic habitat. The on-site diversity is used to promote ecological sustainability and helps to raise awareness of landscape issues through environmental education, and is used as a cultivation and experimentation lab by Delhi University. The link between the university and the site is a key

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

139 Figure 7.4 Green infrastructure in New Delhi.

element of its success as over 15,000 students visit the park each year to take part in educational and ecological activities. While the Yamuna and Aravalli sites are more established, the Hauz Kaus Lake has undergone a more recent process of restoration (2002–2007) funded by the Braj Foundation and DDA. This saw large-scale investment to address pollution (and lack of biodiversity issues). Following the completion of the works the site has been reimagined as a stepping-stone landscape between sites in south Delhi, promoting ecological and socio-economic connectivity. As a consequence it has been considered by some commentators to have developed into a thriving water/terrestrial habitat. The growth of New Delhi’s biodiversity parks illustrates how smaller-scale investments can generate a greater cumulative value in terms of connectivity, environmental education/awareness raising, and landscape restoration. It could also be argued that they highlight how effective partnerships can facilitate a more holistic and thoughtful approach to development in rapidly urbanising environments.

7.1.6 Green infrastructure investment in NCR One of the most pressing issues in New Delhi is the development of former green spaces and agricultural lands into NCR urban extensions. The extent of this process is visible if we reflect on the drive from Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGIA) to the centre of New Delhi. Since 2001 the area has been considered part of the Southwest District of the city and forms an almost continuous conurbation to Gurgaon. This has been exacerbated by the city’s central administration and the transport authority programme of expansion which has seen the extension of the New Delhi metro system into the east, west and south of the city to service Dwarka, IGIA, Gurgaon/HUDA City, Noida and Vaishali. To ensure the success of these projects, agricultural land has been converted to the built infrastructure of the raised metro line and associated service facilities and roads. The Metroline extension has, according to the New Delhi media, removed 21,000 trees,4 and although off-setting and compensatory allocations are not uncommon per se, where compensatory habitat

140

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad has been created it is not necessarily of high quality (Siddiqui Zaman, 2014; Singh, 2013). Furthermore, a major programme of highway development has been undertaken to provide links between the main NCR cities/towns and New Delhi. This has led to the creation of new motorways between Noida and Gurgaon and the city centre, which have also led to changes in the function and use of land in the NCR. Ironically, post-opening the increased capacity of the new roads has led to an increase in traffic and associated pollution as Delhiites moved from public transport to private cars/motorbikes as a primary form of movement. As a consequence this compounded the negative aspects of the changes in land use as the climatic and pollution processes which green infrastructure in the area performed have been interrupted and/or diminished. From a sustainability and ecological perspective the development of new transport infrastructure appears short-sighted. Therefore, although the redevelopment of green spaces and the removal (without replacement or off-setting) of street trees has had a negative impact on the New Delhi/NCR climate (Siddiqui Zaman, 2014), it may represent planning for a greater need. It is difficult to reconcile the landscapescale change in land use and functionality brought on by the development of the NCR. However, although changing land use is common, and in many cases essential to meet needs, there are instances where a lack of forethought is evident in the execution of development. Commentators from the Aravalli Foundation/Centre for Urban Green Spaces and from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in Dwarka (western Delhi) highlight this process. They note that there is a lack of legal provision for the supply of water to new buildings in development legislation. This results in the construction of homes and offices that have to buy in water. There is hope, though, that this is changing and that connections to the city’s water and sanitation systems will be incorporated into the city’s bylaws. Even in the satellite cities of Noida and Gurgaon, where green infrastructure is used extensively to sell a greener and luxury lifestyle, the level of investment in urban greening is still limited. For instance, it has been reported that the land use of Noida is approximately 50 per cent green infrastructure. Unfortunately, a reasonably high proportion of this is privately owned and located within gated communities. Furthermore, although street trees are used to frame urban development, especially in and around gated communities, transport interchanges and commercial centres, there is a lack of vision or dynamism to these investments. The visibility of ‘green’ infrastructure therefore seems to outweigh the ecological or socio-economic functionality of these resources and the benefits they can deliver. This has been exacerbated over the last ten years as the satellite towns have seen an increase in the level of mixed-use development that looks to maximise the returns on investment. This has, in some places, meant that the physical landscape is used solely for commercial profits rather than for the retention of a functional landscape. Therefore, although the DDA and the administrations of the NCR promote a long-term sustainable rhetoric for a more appropriate form of landscape management, this is often undermined by economic growth and overt political influence on the process.

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

7.2 Ahmedabad Although Ahmedabad cannot be considered to be as influential as New Delhi on a national scale, it is the most significant city in Gujarat, and is key development centre for the western states of India. As the largest city in Gujarat with a population of over five million people (and over six million in the metropolitan area) Ahmedabad is classified as the economic and educational hub of the state. Historically, Ahmedabad was one of the main cotton-producing locations in India and was home to Mahatma Gandhi’s Independence. Over the course of the last 50 years Ahmedabad has expanded progressively to the north, south and west as new waves of industry and technology have drawn migrants from Gujarat and surrounding states to the city. Ahmedabad also lies at the nexus of a number of major transport routes within the state and to Rajasthan, Maharashtra, the Punjab and New Delhi, and therefore acts as a key regional centre. The city’s development has historically been linked to the growth of the textile industry. As industry grew, the areas east of the Sabarmati River developed – the area considered as the oldest parts of the city. With further economic development the city continued to expand to the south, and subsequently to the west of the Sabarmati River (Adhvaryu, 2011a). This was followed in the twentieth century by three further periods of growth: 1932–1949, 1976–1996 and 1996 onwards. The first period reflected the city’s continuing importance as a textiles hub, linked to Gandhi’s Swadeshi movement, which promoted the purchase of Indian goods. This led to changes in the urban form due to rural–urban migration and the shifting development objectives of the city’s government (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013; Dutta, 2000). Ahmedabad developed further as a strategic investment location following the bifurcation of the State of Bombay in 1960, when the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra were formed. A second period of development occurred post-1976 when the first Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act was passed (Dholakia, 2000). The Act mandated for the expansion of infrastructure across the city to meet housing, essential services and transport needs. This preceded the major period of investment from 1996 onwards, when the city and state government rescinded several land-use restrictions, enabling development to meet socio-economic needs. One outcome was the revocation of the Ahmedabad Green Belt policy (established in 1967), to facilitate a westward expansion of the city outside of the existing radial transport routes (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013). Changes to planning restrictions have also been reported as a response to the downsizing of the city’s textile industry and the move to expand economic development through commercial and knowledge industries (Adhvaryu, 2011b). As is evident in a number of urban areas (cf. Kundu, 2001), the city administrators of Ahmedabad attempted to streamline development within their Second Development Plan.5 This was achieved through the promotion of a refined number of development goals promoting the city as a liveable (e.g. improvements in quality of life), environmentally sustainable and economically efficient location for investment (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013). While each of these development goals is given significant emphasis, the plan could be considered to

141

142

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

Figure 7.5 Ahmedabad green infrastructure network.

focus predominately on economic development framed within the promotion of a more liveable and green city form. In the interim period between the adoption of the second and the release of the draft Third Development Plan, Ahmedabad continued to expand as the main location for investment in Gujarat. Chief Minister Narendra Modi oversaw this and established clear economically centred development goals to strengthen the investment environment of Ahmedabad (Desai, 2012; Dutta, 2000).

7.2.1 Development planning and administration In Ahmedabad the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) controls strategic and development planning in the urban core, while the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) undertakes the same processes within the wider metropolitan region. Each agency has the responsibility to develop strategic policy to oversee urban development. Strategic planning for Ahmedabad is outlined in the Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021 (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013). The Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021 was a revision of the original one produced in 1987. The second iteration expanded on the key development issues noted in 1987 (reservation of land in the green belt, reservation of land in the AMC area for public purposes, addressing traffic/transport issues and housing issues through the Gujarat Housing Board), but extended its thinking to identify: established zones for residential development; de-reservation of land which has subsequently been made available for Town Planning Schemes (TPS); further planning to meet city and regional traffic issues, as well as green infrastructure issues. Within the latest Development Plan AUDA make a clear statement of intention to ensure:

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

143

Ahmedabad – [is] a liveable, environmentally sustainable and efficient city for all its citizens; a city with robust social and physical infrastructure, vibrant economy and a distinct identity; a globally preferred investment destination. To achieve this, AUDA strategise that the investment must be considered within a tiered development framework that addresses regional, city and neighbourhood issues. Within the Development Plan they outline how they propose to integrate regional- and city-level investment policies to ensure continuity to expansion that provides the greatest cost–benefit for the city. Ahmedabad is therefore approaching development management from a network perspective to ensure that key services and infrastructure (i.e. housing, transport and water) are strategically networked across the city. Given the historical expansion of the AMC area westwards, this process indicates that AUDA consider the long-term (or strategic) nature of expansion to the north, west and south connecting the five6 main polycentric nodes as key development priorities. Within the current Development Plan AUDA and the AMC proposed a series of investment options for the city’s use and implementation of green infrastructure. These projects were presented as a hierarchy addressing: 1 development of a network of regional, city and local/site green infrastructure resources including investment in public parks, the Sabarmati Riverfront and neighbourhood/community green infrastructure;

Figure 7.6 Green infrastructure investments at Kankaria Lake, Ahmedabad.

144

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad 2 investment in lake, river and canal front redevelopment including the Sabarmati Riverfront and Kankaria and Vastrapur Lakes; 3 extension of existing ‘green streets’ investment on all major transport routes in the AMC area, with significant additional investment for smaller roads; 4 investment in ‘urban groves’ and ‘meanwhile spaces’7 to increase the proportion of green infrastructure visible/accessible across the city. Each of these investment objectives have been framed by the AMC and AUDA to deliver high-quality green infrastructure across the urban extent of Ahmedabad. However, there are very clear differences between the formulation, design and implementation of each within the city, which illustrates the complexity of managing development while also facilitating economic growth.

7.2.2 Ahmedabad’s green infrastructure network As noted previously, the development of green infrastructure in Ahmedabad varies in its location, its proposed functions and its integration into the wider green network of the city. Within the city’s Development Plan there is a directed discussion of how AUDA and the AMC view the growth of Ahmedabad, with green infrastructure being a key component of this process. The city’s authorities presented their investment plan as a tiered approach to urban greening that aims to ensure that green infrastructure (of some form) is developed in each sector of the city. Unlike other Indian cities, for instance Hyderabad, Ahmedabad has an existing network of green and open spaces which formed the baseline for further development. Fig. 7.5 illustrates the spatial distribution of the city’s existing green space network which highlights key green infrastructure sites. Furthermore, while the Sabarmati River is the most prominent environmental feature dominating the city’s landscape, it also provides scope to make ecological links between terrestrial and water based resources. The city’s green infrastructure network is centred on the interlinkages of the Sabarmati River, the city’s lake system and its existing parks. However, in the eastern areas of the city, the old city, we see a clustering of community-scale spaces located within areas of high population density. These sites, although small, make a significant contribution to the quantity and use of green space, as access to larger green infrastructure sites such as Kankaria Lake may be restricted. The eastern districts of the city also highlight the dominance of Kankaria Lake and Chandola Lake in the urban landscape. Both lakes have been recipients of funding from the AMC, AUDA and the Gujarat state government and act as district- and city-scale green infrastructure resources. However, although it is important for the city to focus its funding and management skills on larger sites, this can – and has in the case of Ahmedabad – be at the expense of other green infrastructure resources. The remaining green spaces east of the Sabarmati, with the exception of the new Sabarmati Riverfront Park in the north of the city, are smaller and simpler in form. Smaller sites are well used for recreational activities, especially during the summer months as they offer some of the only consistent urban shade. West of the Sabarmati River there are a much greater number of green spaces forming the city’s green network. Located along the radial/main roads through the

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

145

west of the city the majority of sites are again neighbourhood-scale parks and urban groves. These, along with the more extensive coverage of street trees, form a semicircular set of accessible parks. A series of additional larger sites such as Paramal Gardens and the Law Gardens form a further network which is used extensively. Evidence from on-site observations highlights the multi-functional nature of Paramal Gardens, for instance, which is used by hundreds of people for walking, running and yoga/exercise classes between 6 and 8 a.m., by people relaxing in the afternoon and again in the evenings when people congregate to socialise and exercise.8 These sites, like their counterparts in the east of the city, though, are closely managed to meet specific aesthetic qualities proposed by the AMC. Therefore, within the environment

Figure 7.7 Sabarmati Riverfront.

146

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad sector these sites may not be considered to be ecologically valuable or to provide opportunities for a diversification of activities or species to evolve. The western sector of the city also houses Ahmedabad’s main educational institutions. This inflates the proportion of green infrastructure shown on Fig. 7.5 as CEPT University, Gujarat College, Ahmedabad University and IIM Ahmedabad all have grounds which can be classified as green infrastructure. While the pre-existing green network can be said to follow the main road network in the western extension (into green belt) there has not been the same level of investment in green infrastructure. As a consequence, neighbourhood green spaces are less well established and the proportion of green space developed within private housing complexes (a) has restricted access and (b) is smaller in size than publically funded spaces. The AMC’s response to this process has been to highlight the functionality of its major sites such as Kankaria Lake and the Law Gardens as meeting the needs of the local population. They also highlight the development of new green spaces along the Sabarmati River as extending the city’s green network. Less well supported is the view that green space needs can and are being met by private development. Although new apartments and commercial buildings may be designed to include efficient use of green space and green technology (e.g. better water management systems) the outcomes are not necessarily providing additional value for the city. There have been, as a consequence, competing interpretations in Ahmedabad relating to the functionality and socio-economic and ecological value of the city’s green infrastructure network.

Sabarmati Riverfront The current development of the Sabarmati Riverfront has wide ranging consequences for green infrastructure planning in Ahmedabad and further afield in India. The political and financial support allocated to the development from the former chief minister of Gujarat (and now prime minister of India), Narendra Modi, promotes the view that regardless of the ecological value of the project, it was, and remains, the largest investment in green infrastructure in Gujarat. Ahmedabad’s development clearly delineates the potential value of this project to the city’s economy and highlights the positive cascading effect it will have on the quality of local life. Subsequent evidence presented in the documentation of the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation (SRFDCL) and in interviews with their officers states that the riverfront development will provide Ahmedabad with an investment of state-level significance that will raise the visibility of Ahmedabad regionally and nationally. The SRFDCL also suggest that the combination of a formal promenade, associated gardens and public GI developed in conjunction with new housing and commercial properties will provide a much stronger public realm for the city. The scale of the investment (11 km in length and 16 km2 in reclaimed land) makes it the most spatially significant project in the city. This led the Gujarat government to gift the land adjacent to the river, now reclaimed, with no compensation fee for the transfer of land being paid. Having state support for the project enabled AUDA and the AMC to work more effectively to scope, consult and begin delivering the project compared to other projects, which are subject to greater administrative scrutiny.

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

147

While the size of the Sabarmati investment marks it out as a state-scale project, the application of actual green infrastructure investment is less well defined. Although the development prioritises investment in a tree-lined promenade and in two new public parks (see Fig. 7.7), the scope of investment in green space development could be considered disproportionate to the actual size of the investment. It could be argued that the manicured design of the promenade has restricted the ecological functionality of the on-site green infrastructure as a regimented management programme limits the potential for ecological diversification to occur. Furthermore, while the SRFDCL have stated that the 16 km2 of land has been reclaimed and will be used, at least in part for green infrastructure, the public presentation of the area’s design lacks specific delivery details.9 Where investments in green infrastructure have been made, funding has tended to be allocated to formal green spaces such as the two riverside parks, with few opportunities being proposed for smaller or community-led projects. According to the AMC the development of new formal green spaces has been designed to provide a range of controlled on-site activities (e.g. walking or community participation), to be aesthetically pleasing and to introduce a managed form of ecological resource base to the riverfront. They have thus not been envisaged as places where solitary activities or ecological diversity is expected. The managed nature of these sites means that the ecological value of investment could be challenged as neither extending nor maintaining the previous biological regime, while the use of additional water to manage these spaces was proposed as an unsustainable activity. It has also been suggested by academics in Ahmedabad that the removal of the existing ecological resource base (including trees, grasses and shrubs) has actually led to greater ecosystem damage than the replacement green infrastructure development will deliver. The added value of green infrastructure investment along the riverfront is also being called into question due to the changes being made to the river channel ecosystems. There has also been further criticism of this investment in formal parks, focusing on the requirement of an entrance fee to be paid, thus

Figure 7.8 Paramal Gardens.

148

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad marginalising access of these resources to a section of the city’s population. Therefore, despite the promotion of the on-site ecological and socio-economic benefits by the AMC and AUDA, there are those who question the validity of the scale, focus and management of the riverfront investment programme. The same commentators also raised doubts about the legitimacy of the investment process, as they suggest that there has been a lack of transparency in the scoping, consultation and development of the site. All of which challenged the AMC’s and AUDA’s proposals that the riverfront green infrastructure investment has been a wholly successful intervention.

Street trees Alongside the riverfront development the AMC/AUDA investment programme for street trees provides the most spatially distinctive form of green infrastructure implementation in Ahmedabad. The significance of the street trees project is that it recognises the growing population of the city and their associated infrastructure needs, which directly influences the short and long-term changes in the city’s climate. Commentators from two of the city’s universities, CEPT University and IIM Ahmedabad, state that the Development Plan argues that the expansion of roads and housing was compromising the proportion of tree cover in the city. As a

Figure 7.9 Street trees on SM Road, Ahmedabad.

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad consequence the liveability of the city was being compromised due to pollution, excessive storm and heatwave events. Investing in a systematic planting of trees along major roads provides the city with a more efficient approach to investment that moves beyond discussions of the viability of planting in specific sectors. Alternatively, investment is located on the principle arterial roads throughout the city, as well as in residential and suburban areas to help establish and subsequently enhance the city’s green infrastructure network. Both the AMC and AUDA argue that such a spatial distribution allows the city’s roads to act as a multi-purpose ecological network to address climatic variation and the pollution associated with industry/traffic, to improve the quality of the city’s environment. Investments in street trees highlight the AMC’s and AUDA’s commitment to improving the quality of the environment in the city ecologically/climatically, as well as socio-economically. AMC and AUDA staff also discussed the role of street trees in promoting urban cooling and rainfall interception, noting a corresponding impact on improvements in quality of life post-investment. City officials are thus reporting that street trees play a major role in controlling climatic fluctuations and, as a consequence, have been promoted as a key green infrastructure investment. Furthermore, AMC officials stated that even where roads required widening to meet the growing need for highway/carriageway space, that any trees removed were being replaced at the new road edge/boundary. Investments in grey infrastructure were therefore not considered to contribute to a decrease in the overall trees or green space coverage of the city. Alternatively, further investment in street trees is considered to have an enhancing effect on the aesthetic and social value people place on the city’s landscape.

Urban groves and meanwhile space Investment in the riverfront, street trees and a small number of the city’s lakes thus highlights an understanding of the needs of the city politically and socially by increasing access to high-quality environmental features. Potentially, though, the most innovative programme proposed in the Development Plan is the creation of urban groves and the development of green infrastructure on ‘meanwhile spaces’. Urban groves are discussed in the strategy as a mechanism that can be used to ensure smaller spaces are not left vacant pre- or post-planning consent. Instead, AUDA and the AMC mandate that they should be used to plant small woodlands/groves to maintain and/or increase the GI functionally in the interim period post-approval and prior to on-site investment/development. To ensure that this process is achieved, the AMC and AUDA are working with developers to promote a scenario where groves are planted as an interim requirement for obtaining planning permission. This is applied on sites of 100 m2 or over and requires the planting of one tree per 10 m2. Furthermore, the AMC indicated that post-development they require the additional growth in trees, grasses or plants to be maintained on-site. However, despite assurances from the AMC that yearly site surveys will be undertaken to assess compliance, there is uncertainty for some commentators as to the longevity of this practice. The overarching strategy for green infrastructure investment in Ahmedabad is to secure a broad spatial distribution of ecological resources in order to facilitate a

149

150

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad range of socio-economic and environmental benefits. The proposed network outlined by the AMC and AUDA in the Development Plan indicates that they appear to be promoting investment in a more connective and functional resource base. The discussion of street trees and the canal/waterways highlights this, suggesting that the city authorities have analysed the current ecological resource base against the proposed plans to formulate the network outlined in the Third Development Plan. While a number of commentators at CEPT University and IIM Ahmedabad questioned this approach, specifically identifying the socio-economic and environmental issues of the relocation of communities from the riverfront as a key objection to the Development Plan, the approach taken by the AMC and AUDA is spatially attuned within the expansion plans for the city. It also reflects the existing resource base (and wider ecological network), and proposes that a more in-depth engagement with the complexity of green infrastructure development is visible in Ahmedabad. Where commentaries have been less supportive of the green space components of the Development Plan, their concerns have focused predominately on the perceived lack of consultation and doubts over the transparency of the process. Although planners, academics and practitioners in the city saw value in the spatial distribution of GI, they questioned the rationale of the riverfront development, and whether the AMC/AUDA could effectively supervise the management/monitoring process of the city’s GI resource base.

7.3 Summary Investment in green infrastructure in Ahmedabad and New Delhi varies in size, location and function; however, there are also similarities between the development of policy and the implementation of green space investments. Such commonalities may reflect the influence of the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, who has governed each city, especially with regards to riverfront development. There is, though, a much longer history of landscape enhancement and change in each city which has been influenced by a series of political, social and cultural changes. These influences have allowed planners, architects and developers to shape the green infrastructure of Ahmedabad and New Delhi, offering insights into the complexities of meeting development needs while attempting to retain ecological functionality. Strong leadership is thus a key aspect of successful and strategic investment in green infrastructure. Under Modi the AMC and AUDA shaped the development of Ahmedabad by utilising green/blue spaces as a basis for promoting the city’s economy. This is reflected in the level of funding allocated to the Sabarmati and Kankaria investments and in the continued support provided by the city and the State of Gujarat to these projects. The AMC and AUDA therefore created a supportive investment landscape that brings together public–private partners to deliver urban greening projects. This is replicated in New Delhi where the DDA, despite its critics, used the most recent Development Plan to identify where future green infrastructure developments will occur. Like the AMC and AUDA, the DDA have generated political will within New Delhi and the NCR’s administrations to promote ecological projects. However, in some locations, such as Gurgaon and the Ridge area, the strength of the DDA is questioned as expansion is deemed to be visibly degrading

www.ebook3000.com

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad the area’s green space resources. The increasing role of civic protest and campaigns such as those led by Greenpeace India and the Times of India are starting to illustrate how political support for green infrastructure can be developed. It will therefore be interesting to follow the development of the Sabarmati and Yamuna investments to examine whether political support for the projects changes over time. The development plans of both cities also appear to favour investment in large city/national-scale projects. Critics have suggested that there is potentially an over-reliance on developing such projects, but the AMC/AUDA and the DDA have continued to focus their investment plans on riverfront developments. The politics of this process may be contested, but it can be argued that projects with greater impact attract funding and political support. Both the Sabarmati and Yamuna developments illustrate this. Furthermore, the proposals for city-wide street tree planting schemes have been discussed as holding the greatest potential to integrate green infrastructure into the urban landscape. In Ahmedabad the planting of street trees on all main roads has had a positive social, economic and ecological impact on the attractiveness of the city. In Delhi, however, we see that there is greater fluidity in how street trees are used and the value placed on them by some businesses (e.g. the New Delhi Metro). We can suggest that physically larger and spatially diverse green infrastructure projects may potentially be more successful. Extending this view further, Ahmedabad and New Delhi do appear to be working towards the creation and/or enhancement of a connected and multi-functional green network. In New Delhi, larger sites, e.g. the Ridge and Yamuna, frame this process, while in Ahmedabad the Sabarmati and the clustering of parks form a network of green spaces that link the river to communities and commercial areas. The development of biodiversity parks in New Delhi is a further example of how planners and green infrastructure advocates are attempting to identify and fill-in the gaps in the network. Finally, the responsible planning authorities in Ahmedabad and New Delhi have both evolved their thinking on green infrastructure between development plans. The latest iterations of each city’s plan illustrate a greater awareness of environmental quality and capacity that is then developed further in the identification of a deliverable green infrastructure investment programme. While the focus of this discussion may not be advocating for significant delivery at the local level, the AMC and AUDA and the DDA are engaging in the delivery of connective, hierarchal and multi-functionality agendas that green infrastructure promotes. However, to ensure that delivery is successful, strong leadership, sufficient funding and a range of investment opportunities need to be identified that meet the needs of the development context (Mell, 2015b).

Notes 1 2 3

Open forests are classified as covering 10–40 per cent per hectare of land cover and are a mixture of trees, shrubs and grasses. In 2014 the National Green Tribunal recommended that a 52 km stretch of the river in New Delhi and Uttar Pradesh should be reclassified as a ‘conservation zone’. Professor Babu was also involved in the presentations to the National Green Tribunal by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in 2014, supporting greater investment

151

152

India: New Delhi and Ahmedabad

4

5

6 7

8

9

and protection of New Delhi’s urban green spaces. He was also one of the speakers at the Urban Futures Conference in Bengaluru in November 2014 which discussed how urban greening and new forms of green space management could lead to more effective landscape protection. The number of trees felled varies between reports due to the nature of data collection and the identification of tree numbers cleared for different phases of the metro extension process. The First Development Plan was released in 1987 and focused on protecting Ahmedabad’s green belt, improving transport provision and nodes and delivering more housing. The Second Development Plan rescinded the green belt designation and placed far greater emphasis on meeting economic, transport and housing issues. These nodes are Kalol, Sanand, Bareja, Mehmedabad and Dehgam. Meanwhile spaces are classified as those locations where development has been approved or is proposed but construction has not yet begun. Due to this status these locations are often left abandoned until development commences. The AMC and AUDA have proposed that during this interim stage, urban groves planting occurs to improve the ecological value of the site prior to development. During the three months I worked in Ahmedabad I spent a lot of time in Paramal gardens walking and running and it always made me smile how many older people (50+ years) were exercising at 7 a.m. They seemed to be enjoying their exercise more than I was as I was running in 40 oC heat. The documentation of the SRFDCL presents illustrative proposals for the area but, to date (September 2014), no detailed investment programme has been consulted upon or released for public assessment.

www.ebook3000.com

CHAPTER 8

China Evaluating the value of green infrastructure planning in Shanghai

One of the most striking things about China is the sheer scale of everything. Travelling from Pudong Airport into the centre of Shanghai (a journey of around 45 km) or from downtown to the city of Suzhou, some 100 km west, you notice the almost ceaseless continuity of the urban form. Although urban areas evolve and morph in relation to changing densities and the scale of development, the extent to which people become subordinate to the city is immediately visible. Such growth coupled with the pace of housing and built infrastructure development puts discussions of urban green spaces into a slightly different context to other locations. In particular, it questions the notion of ‘value’, as well as access and functionality in a nation where expansion is normative (Byrne et al., 2015). Even when compared to urban growth in India, the geographical scope of expansion in Chinese cities brings to the fore significant additional restrictions illustrating the problems of balancing land rights, development objectives and management of green infrastructure. This chapter discusses the development of green infrastructure in Shanghai, a city with an ever-changing urban fabric framed by its position as China’s financial hub and its population of 24 million, and the city of Suzhou, a historical tourist destination due to the World Heritage status of its UNESCO Classical Gardens, and latterly the expansion of the Singapore Industrial Park (SIP). Both locations illustrate the variability in green infrastructure investment, some positive, some less so, but highlight how the context of urban development shapes the size, location and form that urban greening takes in this part of China. This includes reflections of the shifting focus of green space planning and the associated movement from classical aesthetic appreciations of the landscape to a more inclusive and multi-functional approach to investment in green infrastructure. Contemporary green space planning in China may therefore be viewed as attempting to balance the aspirations of modernity with the traditional classicism of historical landscape planning, especially in the investments in Pudong in Shanghai and in the old City of Suzhou. One of the key questions to consider when discussing green infrastructure in China is therefore why people use these spaces. Unlike in Europe, North America or even in India, there does not appear to be the same kind of use or appreciation of green spaces as locations of everyday activities. While some city parks, such as Suzhou Park in Suzhou and Gucheng Park in Shanghai, are well-used social spaces, there is an increased variability in how people use these and other sites. Culturally there appear to be very specific uses for public green spaces which are

154

China: Shanghai and Suzhou constrained by the location, availability of amenities and physical barriers to access, such as gated entrances and guards. In such locations, as the following discussion of Suzhou’s Classical Gardens will explore, green infrastructure appears to be used as an education tool or as a physical barrier that is more aesthetic than functional. This potentially reflects the commentary of Walmsley (2006), who discussed how green infrastructure was still considered as an optional extra that was nice to have once the real business of built infrastructure development had occurred. All of this influences the relationship people have with green infrastructure as their affordances change in response to green space designs, reflecting how these resources are valued within the rapidly expanding development context of Shanghai and Suzhou (Louv, 2005). Using these questions, this chapter discusses green infrastructure investment in Shanghai and Suzhou, addressing how the development and management of urban green spaces influences the relationship between people and places in terms of their functionality. This reflects how normative cultural interactions with garden and green space design impacts on their use and perceived value. Second, it explores how green infrastructure is being used as both a coercive barrier to access, and in some cases as a designed feature leading to landscape exclusivity. This makes reference to how traditional green spaces, such as the Classical Gardens of Suzhou, differ in their form and function from more contemporary developments, including Century Park in Pudong. Finally, the chapter will debate whether normative cultural perceptions of green infrastructure functionality influence how people interact with these spaces. To contextualise these issues it is important to discuss the wider development context of Shanghai. Using the Urban Planning Exhibition as this staring point the following sections presents a historical narrative to investment over a 15-year period, which is subsequently explored further.

Figure 8.1 Shanghai green infrastructure.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

Figure 8.2 Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition.

Figure 8.3 People’s Park, Shanghai.

8.1 Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition The Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition set out the history and range of development proposals for the future of the city in early 2000. Reviewing the exhibition illustrates how the city’s planners attempted to integrate green infrastructure across the city. One of its aims was to establish ‘a theme of harmonious co-existence between man and nature’ that provides an understanding of the interactivity of human behaviour, ecological functionality and urban morphology. This ethos was extended within the exhibits, which proposed to ‘green every possible place’ within the city ‘conducting greening in a well-planned fashion’. All of this has reportedly seen the city’s green infrastructure resource base increase from 12.4 per cent to 20.34 per cent by 1999, and to 35.18 per cent in 2003. These figures have since been revised and Shanghai is now proposed to have approximately 38 per cent green space or 12.5 m2 per person. According to the exhibition publicity, this exceeds the standard set for National Garden City status by the Ministry of Construction (van Dijk, 2011; Zhao, 2011). It was also estimated that by 2010 Shanghai would have at least 40 per cent green infrastructure cover, which would place it in the upper echelons of urban green space globally. The exhibition therefore envisaged the development of Shanghai as a patchwork of green and grey (built) infrastructure resources, some large and some small, which could be integrated into a cohesive and supportive city-scale network. To achieve this the Shanghai government developed ‘A Systematic Planning of Shanghai’s Greening’, which was approved by Shanghai’s People’s Government in 2002 to progress Shanghai’s attempts to become a global yet distinctively green city (Zhang & Xu, 2013). While the development scenario proposed by the Exhibition promoted a strategic approach to investment in green space that particularly aimed to invest in a city-wide

155

156

China: Shanghai and Suzhou network of green infrastructure, in reality this ambition may not have been fully realised. Although the proposals included the development of new parks, neighbourhood urban greening projects, the greening of transport infrastructure and new riverfront options, there is a significant and ongoing issue of competitiveness (and need) between investment in green spaces and that for residential and built infrastructure. The outcome of this has invariably seen green infrastructure planning being considered as a secondary investment option compared to other built environment needs. Therefore, although the development of Shanghai aimed to ‘joint [sic] hands together to protect the ecological environment where we live, and to dedicate to building Shanghai into a beautiful and harmonious ecological metropolis with blue sky, clean water and green space’, this has proved to be somewhat unrealistic because of the economic viability of investment in green infrastructure development compared to commercial/residential development. As part of Shanghai’s attempt to achieve a status as a ‘global green city’ the exhibition proposed that development in urban green infrastructure would take one of five main forms: rings, wedges (or pegs), corridors, parks/gardens and forests. Each of these five investment options, as characterised in Table 8.1, provides the city

Table 8.1 Shanghai green infrastructure investment options Name

Characteristics

Examples

Wedges/pegs

Proposed to provide key integers into the city core from the Intersection of North suburbs and outer districts to help mitigate the urban heat island Chengdu Road and effect. These resources are especially used outside the downtown Middle Yan’an Road area

Corridors

Proposed to run along streets, urban transport routes and urban water systems (i.e. canals/creeks) to provide climatic and environmental protection (i.e. pollution, rainfall and urban heat island effect)

Suzhou Creek restoration, Yanzhong Square Park, Yan’an East Road

Parks

Parks are a specific designation and constitute formal green spaces that are managed for recreation. Those green spaces labelled as ‘parks’ do not include meanwhile spaces or corridors, which are not developed or planned as a cohesive network (unlike corridors). Parks form a large percentage of the city’s green infrastructure network

Century Park, Luxun Park, People’s Park, Xujiahui Park

Forests

Composed of large wooded areas outside the urban core/ downtown. These are made up of large patch forests, large forest belts, ecological reserves and tourism areas and covered approximately 671 km2 in 2000

Shanghai Binjiang Forest Park, Gongqing Forest Park

Rings (loop)

Denote green belt around the urban core and then further rings around Shanghai’s urban extensions. This includes a 23 m wide green belt inside the outer ringroad and 500 m wide forest buffer outside of approximately 62 km2.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou government of Shanghai, as well as developers, with a range of delivery options that can be adapted to respond to the city’s complex and rapid expansion. In addition, two further options were discussed as supporting green infrastructure investment in Shanghai: ‘porch greening’, which is an extension of the corridors category – i.e. roads and carriageways on highways (estimated as 320 km2 across the city of which 186 km2 will be formed by the Suzhou Creek restoration work) – and ‘garden greening’, which is small-scale greening of local/community residential and commercial property, including downtown park greenlands, suburban park greenlands and township greenlands on the outskirts. These are more localised and community based and are estimated to cover 221 km2 in total. Fifteen years on from the opening of the exhibition, Shanghai has changed significantly. The density of the urban core has increased dramatically, as has the suburban extensions of the city. As a consequence the scale of green infrastructure development has become an increasingly isolated subject of discussion in some parts of Shanghai, where green and incidental spaces have been redeveloped into built infrastructure.1 The city has countered this process by retaining a number of large/ city-scale green infrastructure sites, such as Changfeng Park; however, there still exists a form of spatial isolation that fragments the development of green corridors across the city. More recently, investment in street trees has been a key delivery mechanism used to provide functional community-scale green infrastructure in a number of sections of the city. Alternatively, and perhaps somewhat unfortunately, there is a preference for formal, gated or controlled public spaces that offer limited options for activity but are aesthetically rewarding compared to the multi-functionality seen in other places. All of which suggests that the development profile in Shanghai takes a culturally specific approach to investment in public green and open space. Thus the role of visual attractiveness may be the decisive factor in establishing value for investment in urban green infrastructure.

8.1.1 Pudong: riverfront, skywalk and Century Park One of the most significant areas where investment in green infrastructure can be seen is in the area east of the Huángpu¯ River in Pudong. This area has grown as Shanghai’s financial centre and has an urban form structured around multi-lane highways, globally renowned skyscrapers and high-rise and high-end apartment buildings. However, this built infrastructure is supported with major investment in green infrastructure along the Huángpu¯ riverfront, in the landscaping of office and hotel developments, the design of new parks and the construction of a series of elevated walkways (Shanghai’s own High Line or skywalk). Each of these developments has extended the proportion of green infrastructure in Pudong in an attempt to address liveability, real estate and ecological needs. Moving around Pudong on foot can be daunting because of the scale of the road network that links businesses, recreational spaces and transport hubs. To address this the layout of Pudong incorporates an elevated walkway at a first-storey height, enabling people to move freely around the area without the inconvenience of dealing with the area’s traffic. This has a number of benefits, including an increased ease of movement, as well as providing opportunities to increase the proportion

157

158

China: Shanghai and Suzhou of green infrastructure via tree planting and the extensive use of planters on the elevated walkway. Moreover, the main roads in Pudong are framed by street trees and hedges that integrate ecological resources within transport corridors. These are complemented with the addition of hundreds of shrub planters along the route of the elevated walkway which provide a cooling aspect against the area’s summer heat and humidity and a more aesthetically pleasing environment. A further positive element of the walkway is its route. It links the main Shanghai Metro station of Lujiazui with the financial district and the area’s riverfront promenade and Lujiazui Central Green Space. This provides users with accessible routes to high-quality green spaces laid out as linear connective features (the riverfront) and green infrastructure hubs (Lujiazui Central Green Space). Although the walkway could be improved with more diverse planting or a greater proportion of ecological resources, it does provide a ‘greener’ counterpoint to Pudong’s concrete and glass infrastructure. The elevated walkway is also free to use, making it a key network feature for the area. Although the elevated walkway provides important connective elements for Pudong, the lack of ecologically varied planting does limit its ability to diversify and adapt to the local environment. This appears planned, as it ensures the area can be managed to a higher specification and provides the site with visual and ecological continuity. While the elevated walkway enables people to move more freely around the commercial district of Pudong, the development of Century Park has attempted to encourage the use of a multi-functional and city-scale green infrastructure resource. Century Park is the biggest formal park in Shanghai at approximately 140 ha2. It has gated access at a cost of ¥10 (approximately £1.00 GBP), but unlike several other sites in Shanghai offers a broad range of formal and informal opportunities to interact with the landscape. This includes the integration of a series of alternative areas, such as the ecological/nature area and the amenity grassland area, which promote personal and communal interactions with the site, which are not based simply on aesthetic qualities. The park has also been designed to provide (a) sufficient space and (b) sufficient complexity to the landscape to encourage a series of activities that can be undertaken simultaneously, leading to less conflicts over the rights to use space. This includes the provision of walking routes, a variety of social spaces, locations for formal activities, as well as toilets, restaurants, sports facilities (including the Shanghai 2000 football team training facility) and fishing lakes and leisure/rowing boat hire. Unlike other parks in Shanghai, the open design of Century Park allows users a more nuanced and interactive experience of the site because it is not as rigidly segregated into themed sectors. This provides the site with a more European or North American feel compared to other parks in Shanghai due to the inclusion of accessible ‘amenity grassland’ areas which are open for public use.2 It does, however, retain a number of classical garden design features in terms of the pagodas, social spaces and the planting along footpaths. Such a blend of classical design features provide the site with a level of familiarity for users, but the site extends these with more contemporary activities such as a fun fair. Moreover, the site is located in close proximity to high-end residential apartment buildings and the main commercial/ financial district of Pudong, and as a consequence the real-estate values of apartments overlooking the park are higher than those facing away from the site or more than one block away, as they are marketed as having ‘green’ or park views.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

159 Figure 8.4 Elevated walkway, Pudong.

Figure 8.5 Century Park, Shanghai.

Figure 8.6 Riverfront promenade, Pudong.

160

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

8.1.2 ‘The Bund’, Gucheng Park/Yuyuan Gadens and Changfeng Park and ecological business areas Shanghai’s downtown urban development is framed by ‘the Bund’. The former location of international banks, commodities and trading houses, it is now home to high-end restaurants, hotels and a 4 km promenade running north–south along the Huángpu¯ River. The Bund acts as a major focal point for public gathering, social activity and special events in Shanghai and is viewed by many as one of the city’s key tourist sites. The Bund itself is a linear corridor located between the Huángpu¯ River and East Zhongshan No. 1 Road and measures, on average, approximately 25 m in width. The Bund is characterised by a paved promenade interspersed with raised flora and grass planting, street trees and small pocket parks, e.g. Huángpu¯ Park, along its route. The western edge of the Bund is constrained by East Zhongshan No. 1 Road, which uses street greening in the form of street trees as a semi-permeable barrier as the Bund’s plaza landscape abuts the road. The Bund’s popularity lies partially in its location but also in its aesthetic quality. Although the majority of the Bund has been designed as a paved promenade, this is intersected with split-level plazas and small garden areas which provide the site with a visual and functional variability. One of its main advantages compared to other green infrastructure resources in Shanghai, and indeed the comparable riverfront walkway in Pudong, is that the Bund does not have restricted access. Along its entire length the promenade is open 24 hours a day and is not gated. The main boundaries used in the design are of street trees and boxed planting, which signal where the entrance/exit steps are located. Such accessibility provides the Bund with a more fluid use for local people and visitors to Shanghai. Furthermore, where small parks are located along its length, e.g. the Huángpu¯ Park to the north of the site, they provide additional locations for social interactions with people participating in dancing, martial arts and card games. All of this provides the Bund with a constantly changing set of uses, and although it may not appear very ‘green’, the area makes use of its accessibility, connective nature and multi-functional affordances to increase its value. The Bund, therefore, has an openness which is not characterised by the majority of Chinese parks and gardens. However, there has been a growing consensus in Shanghai whereby other parks are attempting to integrate these principles into their design. Located west of the Bund and next to the historical Yuyuan Gardens in central Shanghai, Gucheng Park reflects a subtle shift in garden design, potentially to a more inclusive style of investment. Although the site is gated on its southern and eastern perimeter it is visibly more open when approached from the Bund. The site also seems to have been designed to promote greater interactions between site patrons and the landscape, with cultural areas for games such as Mah-jong and cards co-located next to a traditional tea garden. However, the site also has large grassed areas which could be used for recreational purposes. These areas are not split up into smaller sections through planting, but offer larger amenity areas which are somewhat uncommon in Chinese gardens. Unfortunately, there are signposts indicating that these areas are not meant to be walked or sat on. Gucheng Gardens thus appears to offer a more contemporary counterpoint to the nearby Yuyuan

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou Gardens, which were designed in the classical style and are set in walled gardens. There is also a clear difference in the patronage of the gardens, with more tourists using Yuyuan Gardens as a centre for shopping compared to local (and in the most part) older people using Gucheng Park for social activities. The variability in the use of both sites, like that of the Bund, potentially highlights a different emphasis or understanding in how public open spaces can be used in China. Changfeng Park, located along the Suzhou Creek and in close proximity to East China Normal University in western Shanghai, is a further example of a park trying to marry traditional forms of garden designs with a move towards increased functionality. Changfeng Park is a district/city-scale site that houses a number of attractions (including Oceanworld and its whale show), and is designed as a collective series of spaces that offer a range of alternative activities on a single site. The inclusion of amenity spaces alongside more traditional or regulated seating and games areas provides the site with a multi-functional design. This is developed further through the integration of a more ecologically diverse landscape compared to some of the more traditional sites in Shanghai. However, throughout the site there is still a clear level of control over access and use of the green spaces based on gated entry and the formal layout (and boundaries) of the park’s paths. One of the key design elements of the site is the inclusion of prominent water features in the form of two interconnected lakes and the associated activities that these offer. The inclusion of such amenities, as in Century Park, shows a clear lineage with the more traditional classical garden forms and highlights a level of continuity between the expectations people have for parks and what new activities are needed to attract and maintain new users (e.g. bicycle hire for school children on fieldtrips). Located approximately ten minutes’ walk from Changfeng Park and situated alongside the Suzhou Creek are Changfeng Ecology Business Areas No. 1. and No. 2. These are two new parks that have been developed to service new commercial and office space, as well as new high-end hotels. Both parks are small compared to Changfeng Park, but have attempted to integrate the structure of classical garden design and its key components of water and walking with designs that encourage some more informal use of the spaces. The location of the Suzhou Creek is central to both parks’ designs as it frames the physical location, and in terms of Area No. 1 offers a physical extension of the on-site lake into the designs. Unfortunately, the design of the gardens seems to override its amenity value. Both areas offer pleasant walks around the sites but do not provide many further opportunities to interact with nature. Although there are a number of public social spaces (with decking or paving) which can be accessed via a network of different paths, there is little opportunity to engage in more active pursuits across the sites. Furthermore, both sites are gated and guarded, although admittedly the fences are smaller compared to other sites, but this still means that access is limited to specific opening times. The main success of these two sites has been their location. They have been developed to service the needs of local high-tech and high-end businesses and are therefore maintained to a high standard. However, there are lower-income communities within a five-minute walk of the sites which seem to be, at least in part, physically and socially excluded from the sites. As a consequence, although these sites are designed to a high standard, it could be argued that they are not ‘ecological business areas’ in

161

162

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

Figure 8.7 Green wall and promenade investment on the Bund, Shanghai.

Figure 8.8 Changfeng Park and Ecological Business Area No. 1.

a European or North American sense. Rather, they are ecological on the basis that they are constituted of trees and plants rather than offering sites that are highly biodiverse. Alternatively, they have been developed with a specific purpose of servicing the requirements of local businesses and, potentially, not as a wider public amenity.

8.2 Suzhou Chinese Garden City The city of Suzhou lies 100 km west of Shanghai, in Jiangsu Province. It is a Prefecturelevel city of over 4.33 million people, with an estimated 10.58 million people living in the wider municipal/administrative region. Suzhou, as a city, has developed rapidly since the late 1970s due to the economic reforms instigated by the Chinese government.3 Furthermore, post-1994 the city began the implementation of the SIP, which now houses universities and other businesses (Shen, 2013). Over the past 20 years several parts of Suzhou, and specifically the SIP area, have been re-zoned from rural

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou to urban. As a consequence, the land-use activities of many residents have changed. How people interact with and value the landscape of Suzhou thus depends, at least in part, on their tenure in the city, their occupation and how they view the development of the city and the SIP.4 Contrasting the rapidity of Suzhou’s development is the tradition of landscape management in the form of classical gardens. Suzhou is home to a UNESCO World Heritage Site for four of its gardens: the Humble Administrator’s Garden (Ming), Lingering Garden (Qing), Canglang Pavilion (Song) and Lion Forest Garden (Yuan), which have been defined by UNESCO as offering some of the ‘most refined’ examples of classical Chinese gardens in the country. The city also has a further 69 preserved gardens which are classified as natural heritage sites. Suzhou thus benefits from a network of green infrastructure resources in the form of gardens supported by canals and lakes which populate the city. These resources have been key elements in the branding of Suzhou as a ‘Venice of the East’ and have been used to shape investment in the city’s lakes. To ensure the gardens are maintained to a UNESCO standard a comprehensive monitoring/development plan has been developed by the city, managed by Suzhou Municipal Garden and Landscape Administration Bureau. These plans fall in line with the processes and procedures outlined in the national-level policy of ‘Laws of People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Cultural Relics’ and ensures that the physical characteristics, as well as the ecological composition of the gardens, remain coherent. The gardens show the value placed on precision/high-quality landscapes in historical urban development in China. The fact that they are UNESCO World Heritage Sites provides them with a level of security to maintain their quality, allowing the city’s garden managers to control access and movement of people in/around the site. It should be noted that the number of visitors increases significantly at weekends, meaning that quiet or solitary enjoyment of the gardens becomes somewhat difficult. One of the key drivers of their ongoing popularity is that the gardens provide a cultural reference point to more traditional forms of landscape management. Given the propensity of classical gardens in Suzhou, and the complementary nature of other sites in gardens in Shanghai and across China, classical gardens retain their historical, social and ecological value but also now have a clear economic value. Having the gardens in Suzhou also provides an impetus for the city government to ensure that the city’s landscape is also maintained to a high standard. The development of street greening in the form of street trees, segregated cycle/motorbike lanes with hedges and roadside greening is an important form of investment that is used to make the city look greener by extending the application of green infrastructure beyond the gardens. Furthermore, the relationship between the city, the canal system and the area’s lakes ensure that the landscape (and its changing patterns and reactions to people, development and weather) is central to how people perceive the city. Furthermore, the canal system that circles the old city, especially around Pingjiang Road, has been used in conjunction with the city’s gardens to rekindle the ‘Venice of the East’ branding attributed to Suzhou. Green infrastructure could be considered to be presented as holding a primary aesthetic quality in the gardens of Suzhou. It is something to look at rather than to

163

164

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

Figure 8.9 Suzhou green and blue infrastructure.

interact with. The gardens may therefore act as a form of landscape control, where people can be guided around the landscape but can only interact with it in a very passive way, e.g. taking selfies and learning about the history of the site. As a consequence there are limited opportunities to interact with the site. While the gardens are an economically vital component of the city’s economy, they provide a lower level of amenities than other parks in Suzhou. The manicured nature of the sites also means they are labour-intensive to maintain and do not readily allow for species diversification, thus limiting the ecological variability of some sites. Furthermore, as each of the gardens has an entrance fee, some of which are quite large at 70 RMB (approximately £7.50 GBP), these locations are exclusionary to some members of society.

Figure 8.10 Humble Administrator’s Garden, Suzhou.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

165 Figure 8.11 Lion Forest Garden, Suzhou.

8.2.1 Suzhou Park and Dushu Park While the classical gardens dominate the landscape of Suzhou, there are an increasing number of investments in green infrastructure which are free to access and more contemporary in their design. Two examples of this diversity are Suzhou Park in the downtown area of the city and Dushu Park, located on Dushu Lake. While both sites illustrate traits of classical design in terms of the blend of flora and fauna and guided access/movement, they also exhibit greater fluidity in terms of the formal and informal activities encouraged there. Suzhou Park is located in close proximity to a series of apartment blocks housing former rural landowners and lower-income families, and is the largest park in the centre of the city. Unlike the classical gardens, Suzhou Park has a more open layout, which allows for a more diverse range of activities to take place simultaneously. Although the park is divided into sections, which are clearly demarcated by landscaped boundaries such as paths, hedges and walkways, there is an open and flexible feel to the site. These barriers also provide a wide-ranging ecological context to the site, allowing the site managers to integrate a number of alternative plant and animal species. This provides the site with a level of diversity not possible in the management regimes of the classical gardens of Suzhou, which are constrained by their heritage status. However, despite the added flexibility in the layout of the site, it still has a series of boundaries which limit, to some extent, the interactivity of different areas of the site. This conforms to the more ridged approach to landscape architecture of China. The site’s functionality is not, however, compromised as a range of activities including Mah-jong, card games, square dancing and open air opera all occur simultaneously. In some cases this leads to competition between visual, physical and aural activities. The value of Suzhou Park therefore lies in its accessibility5 to the wider population, especially older people who use the site for a range of activities on a regular basis,6 and for residents with less disposable income. Moreover, its location next to newer apartments housing residents with lower incomes is seen as one of the main factors influencing a positive engagement with the park. Such

166

China: Shanghai and Suzhou populations may also be in the greatest need to accessible local green space as they do not have homes with large allocations of green space.7 In contrast to Suzhou Park, the new public green space at Dushu Lake is located next to high-rise and high-end apartments and commercial buildings. Although the site shows similarities to other parks in Suzhou, being highly manicured, there is a more diverse approach to integrating nature and ecological variation compared to other sites. Using Dushu Lake as a point of reflection, the site has embedded smaller ponds and wetlands into the site, as well as improving the circularity of the site through a variety of different formal and semi-formal walkways. This, once again, promotes promenading and walking (two of the main activities on the site), along with people taking wedding pictures, which leaves less space for social gatherings, games or other active activities on site. However, the location and focus of the site,

Figure 8.12 Open air opera in Suzhou Park, Suzhou.

Figure 8.13 Wedding photos near to Dushu Park, Suzhou.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou which is linear in nature, provides an attractive location for local apartments to look onto. The passive nature of park use may also provide meaning to the range of green meanwhile spaces located in the same area. Next to Dushu Park lies a large area of green space which would be widely used for sport and relaxation in other countries. In Suzhou, however, the area has been turfed and is being left vacant until it is needed to accommodate new housing development in the form of high-rise apartments in the area. Currently, the site is used, as with many other open spaces in Suzhou, for taking wedding pictures, but potentially illustrates the lack of long-term value placed upon green infrastructure. This site may be seen as being mono-functional in its current state, and although it acts as a ‘green space’ in its composition it is also viewed as a convenient and cost-effective management strategy for the site prior to future development.

8.2.2 Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) Campus The development Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU) campus can be seen as an extension of this process. Whereas Suzhou and Dushu Parks show historical links to classical garden forms, the XJTLU looked more globally to design its campus. The XJTLU site is located on the SIP in the east of Suzhou. It was designed by Perkins + Will architects/consultants, although the landmark library and administration buildings were designed by Aedas, and was conceived as a more European or North American form of university. The most striking difference between XJTLU and other Chinese universities, e.g. Suzhou University, is the openness of the campus. Unlike traditional Chinese universities the XJTLU campus is not gated or enclosed by a formal perimeter wall. Alternatively, the campus uses low-level green infrastructure in the form of street trees, hedges and lawns to act as the informal boundary between the site and the main boulevards of the SIP. This is a significant step change in the design of the campus as it promotes permeability and movement for students, staff and other visitors across the site. It also makes the site more attractive, as the distinctive greening and building design can be seen from within and outside of the campus. While the XJTLU campus uses green infrastructure as an external boundary for the site, as many of the businesses in SIP do, these natural resources also act as a link between the external areas of the campus and its internal form. Each of the entrances to the site is marked with street trees and intersected by lawns and plantings (located in the centre of roads). This provides each road and thoroughfare with a greater proportion of green infrastructure compared to other areas of Suzhou. Green infrastructure is also integrated into the built form of the campus. Due to the extreme climatic variations of Suzhou, where temperatures exceed 30 °C in the summer months with additional annual monsoonal rains, the site makes extensive use of green wall, green roof and porous pavement technologies. Each of the surface-level carparks has been constructed with permeable surfaces to limit surface water runoff and flooding. Moreover, several of the main administration and teaching buildings have been developed with green roofs and/or walls to provide additional climatic control to the internal temperature of the buildings. All of this is an attempt to limit the climatic extremes witnessed in Suzhou. This is supported by the development of additional green spaces in the form of lawns, urban groves of trees and flower

167

168

China: Shanghai and Suzhou beds which have been planted to provide locations where people can gain natural respite from the weather. The XJTLU campus also makes use of water in terms of ponds and sustainable drainage systems which are used to intercept rainfall, retain it on-site and release it into the water system (and Dushu Lake) at an appropriate time. All of this suggests that the administrators and designers of XJTLU have taken positive steps to integrate green infrastructure into the centre of the campus design. However, despite the positive outcomes of this process there are areas which could be improved. For example, the street trees and manicured nature of the green spaces on campus ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing, but the location of these resources does not always provide the most appropriate form of greening for people. The trees planted along the side and in the central reservations of the roads do not necessarily provide shade as they do not overlook accessible walkways/sidewalks. Furthermore, around the library and foundation buildings the layout of the green spaces provides

Figure 8.14 Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University campus, Suzhou.

www.ebook3000.com

China: Shanghai and Suzhou

169 Figure 8.15 Main university plaza, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University campus, Suzhou.

clear indications of how people should move through the spaces, but does not necessarily facilitate a prolonged stay in them. There is also little green infrastructure which could be classified as amenity space; rather, the campus green spaces are used to frame the site aesthetically. Therefore they may not actually promote multi-functional engagement for the people using the area. This highlights one of the fundamental design issues of green spaces in China: aesthetics vs. functionality. However, to compensate, the campus also has areas for formal recreation in the form of sports pitches in both the north and south areas of the site, and as a consequence the designers of the site may not have found it necessary to provide further social spaces on-site.

8.3 Summary Green infrastructure development in China is a complex amalgam of historical precedents, contemporary land ownership and development objectives, and a reaction to the needs (perceived and real) of urban expansion. In some locations, such as Suzhou, the historical value of green infrastructure is being used to ensure its legacy in the long-term. The designation of Suzhou’s Classical Gardens as a UNESCO World Heritage site is one mechanism that is being used effectively to ensure longevity for green infrastructure resources. However, in other parts of Suzhou and Pudong we are witnessing an alternative approach to investment in green infrastructure. The SIP is making extensive use of green infrastructure to develop greener and more attractive locations for investment. However, much of the investment in urban green space could be considered as fulfilling Newman’s (1973) defensible space mandate as it creates permeable yet clear boundaries between sites. In Pudong we are seeing evidence of this whereby the riverfront promenade is framed by fenced and walled boundaries with access limited to specific locations. Therefore, although the investment is a major hub of commercial and social activity, it remains somewhat exclusionary. Furthermore, across Pudong the majority of businesses and apartment complexes have associated green infrastructure surrounding their buildings, which

170

China: Shanghai and Suzhou are attractive yet act as a barrier to entry. Only in the design of Lujiazui Park and the elevated walkway around the downtown area of Pudong do we start to see a more permeable and open form of green infrastructure. These two examples illustrate the value of providing amenity spaces for people to use which are not necessarily constrained by normative perceptions of how people are supposed to interact with spaces. However, while there is a debate to make regarding the passive vs. active interactions with green spaces, in China we can identify a number of key activities that these spaces support. We may be able to argue that the design and functionality of green spaces is socially constructed around the notion of passive enjoyment of parks and gardens. The notion of active or dynamic use of grassed areas or parklands lack social acceptance, and as a consequence the guided nature of use, for instance in the Humble Administrator’s Garden, is a normative (and accepted) form of use. In both Shanghai and Suzhou parks, open spaces and gardens support physical activity in the forms of calisthenics and walking; most also support groups of older ladies square dancing; and in some locations public spaces are used for more esoteric activities such as open-air opera. The likelihood of witnessing these activities is circumscribed by the location of the green space, its size and whether there is an entrance fee. Investment in green infrastructure in both Shanghai and Suzhou appears to be making attempts to integrate elements of the traditional with contemporary understandings of the potential functionality of urban green spaces. While this process is far from perfect it illustrates how alternative approaches to the promotion of interactivity with the landscape can facilitate nuanced appreciation of the value of green infrastructure in urban areas.

Notes 1

2

3 4

5

6 7

The notion of ‘meanwhile spaces’ as understood in a European or North American context invariably cannot be applied in China (or India, to a lesser extent) as the pace of growth often leads to a quicker turnaround in redevelopment, thus minimising the opportunities for temporary land uses or ecological colonisation to occur. In a number of parks in Shanghai (and across China) lawns and grassland areas are designed and managed to be ornamental rather than interactive locations, leading to culturally constructed restrictions on use. This suggests that Suzhou has had an approximate rate of expansion of 14 per cent since 1978. While the development of the SIP displaced thousands of people from their homes and land, they were rehoused in apartment blocks. Farmers and residents were provided with between 1–5 apartments to compensate for the loss of land, many of which are now leased to new residents in the area. Although the site does not have an entrance fee and is open every day, there are restrictions on when the site is open; it is guarded by gates on each side of the site. As in many parks in China, access is free to all but is framed by a controlled and supervised interpretation of open access. The open-air opera singers and bands have regular audiences who visit and listen every day they are playing in the parks. High-rise apartment blocks are ubiquitous in Suzhou, as in much of China. Access to green infrastructure in many apartments is therefore limited as there is little or no formal green space designed into apartment sites. Apartments with gardens, easy access to open space or views of parks are therefore a valued commodity in China.

www.ebook3000.com

CHAPTER 9

Global reflections of green infrastructure investment Successes and barriers

The previous eight chapters established a rationale for why we invest in green infrastructure before examining how green space is developed and managed in ten locations across the globe. This chapter reflects upon the main thematic, spatial and political issues discussed in these case studies, drawing together the evidence presented in each to highlight the variability of investment in green infrastructure, the positive socio-economic benefits it delivers, and even where consensus on what it is and how it should be delivered is visible. The chapter therefore acts as a bridge, synthesising the differences seen in policy discussions and the subsequent application of green infrastructure, illustrating where investments show similarities and where differences occur, and where novel approaches to investment have led to successful implementation. It also draws together a number of the problems associated with legal, financial and political barriers which preclude advocates from delivering projects. The outcome is the production of a set of characteristics which could (a) be considered influential to successful implementation and (b) promote transferable practices. The evaluations presented in the proceeding five chapters should be considered as an indicative evidence-base of the mechanisms available to planners, landscape architects and designers to implement innovative urban greening. However, one note of caution needs to be made at this juncture. Despite the confluence of design principles, development objectives and implementation structures presented throughout these pages, and in the research literature, green infrastructure remains steadfastly contextual (Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Weber & Wolf, 2000; Wolf & Forest Resources, 2003). Localised applications of landscape and urban green space planning must be considered as a foundational point from which implementation occurs. If we retain this knowledge we can, as shown in the proceeding chapters, formulate and deliver appropriate development that helps to establish multi-functional green infrastructure resources. Chapter 3 outlined five key areas of consideration when developing green infrastructure. These were: the contextual policy environment; the role of stakeholders and their engagement; scalar differences in the design and implementation of green infrastructure projects; the changes in focus over time (temporal shifts); and localised thematic interpretations of urban greening, e.g. water-centric development in the USA. Reviewing the case study chapters, there is a clear case suggesting that each of these issues is visible. Although the scope of each differs – with some having a

172

Global reflections of green infrastructure

Figure 9.1 Abercromby Square, Liverpool and Suzhou.

minimal impact on investment – all are part of the ongoing conversation reflecting how best to invest, manage and maintain green infrastructure resources (Ahern, 2013). While these five areas offered an overarching framework to discuss green infrastructure, the Landscape Institute (2009) proposed seven further contextual issues which urban greening advocates should also take into consideration. These are harnessing nature, making the most of the land, creating multi-functional networks, local decision-making, planning effective/appropriate green infrastructure, building on our green legacy and delivering green infrastructure. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 illustrate how each case study compares to the influences discussed by the Landscape Institute and outlined in Chapter 3. This suggests that

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

173

although each of the case studies is locally contextualised, there are similarities in terms of policy support, decision-making and the delivery of green infrastructure projects. This indicates that successful investment in green infrastructure cannot be defined by a simple set of principles but should, potentially, be considered as a conversation between the factors raised in Chapter 3 and the characteristics of effective implementation drawn from the literature (see Beatley, 2000; Benedict Table 9.1 Case study reflections on policy, engagement, scale and temporal and thematic differences Location

Supporting policy

Stakeholder engagement

Scalar differences

Temporal changes

Thematic approaches

Chicago









water-centric

Atlanta Beltline







connectivity/MF

Paris



N/A





access, aesthetics and amenities

Milan



 (professionals)





connectivity, ecological networks, MF

London Olympic Park 



N/A



access, amenities, ecological capacity, economic growth, health

Cambridgeshire







 (first/second strategies)

biodiversity, climate change, economic development, health, connectivity

Ahmedabad



N/A





water-centric, ecological networks, climate

New Delhi



X





aesthetics, climate change, access, amenities, water

Shanghai

N/A

X





aesthetics, economic growth, climate change

Suzhou



 (professionals)





aesthetics, economic growth, climate change

174

Global reflections of green infrastructure

Table 9.2 Case studies compared to Landscape Institute criteria Location

Harnessing Making nature the most of the land

Multifunctional networks

Local decisionmaking

Planning appropriate investment

Building Delivering a green green legacy infrastructure

Chicago















Atlanta Beltline















Paris

–



–





–



Milan















London Olympic  Park





–







Cambridgeshire



–







–



Ahmedabad

–

–





–





New Delhi

–

–





–





Shanghai

–



–





–



Suzhou

–

–

–





–



& McMahon, 2006; Mell, 2010; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Siemens AG, 2011). A further set of characteristics were proposed by Mell (2010), which were subsequently debated in the literature; however, there is a need to retain an ‘on the ground’ understanding of context to ensure successful delivery. It is also worth noting that the case studies are a snapshot of investment in urban greening and can be contextualised further if discussed alongside other examples. Therefore, if we look more closely at how the factors presented above influence the development of green infrastructure we can begin to see if, and if so, where transferable approaches can be identified.

9.1 Spatial variation Throughout the case studies it has become apparent that the scale of a resource base and any proposed investment in green infrastructure is of significant importance. Milan, for example, is attempting to implement a strategic regional green belt using the Metropolitan Milano project to gain political and financial traction for investment. In Atlanta, the Beltline is being developed to provide a city-scale greenway that links neighbourhoods with commercial and recreational amenities, and is being supported by local and multi-national businesses. In Cambridgeshire, Ely Country Park is providing a socio-ecological link between the smallest city in England (approximate population 16,000) and the wider countryside. Each of these examples, as with the other projects discussed, has attempted to rationalise the value of planning green infrastructure at different scales. This is a significant issue as scale, and by extension connectivity and accessibility, has been discussed within the literature as a key

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

175

delivery principle of urban greening (Lindsey et al., 2001; Pauleit et al., 2003). Moreover, as new greenway projects are implemented, such as those in Toronto (Fitzsimons et al., 2012), Ahmedabad (Mell, 2015b) or London (Greater London Authority, 2012), we also see the promotion of accessibility through the development of connected and integrated networks of green and blue space in our cities. Further examples can be identified which have also raised the awareness of accessibility and connectivity. For instance, if we reflect upon the development of the High Line in New York we see how the vision of landscape architects to integrate scale and movement is part of its successful development. That project, as with its predecessor – the Promenade Plantée in Paris – uses linear features to create connective networks within urban areas that purposefully cross administrative and/ or neighbourhood boundaries (Tate, 2015). We can scale up such processes and see how wider landscape projects such as Metropolitan Milano, the development of a green infrastructure network in Suzhou or even the establishment of green belts in the UK utilise comparable practices to promote connectivity (Cullingworth et al., 2015). Furthermore, in the USA the EPA developed policy aimed to address conservation and water-centric management at a landscape-scale; the discussion of Chicago presented in Chapter 4 illustrates this. Moreover, in Europe the development and (varied) compliance with the European Landscape Convention (ELC) and Water Framework Directive (WFD) illustrates that the value of the landscape can be raised in government, advocacy and citizen forums through more innovative development and interactive governance (Hering et al., 2010). There is a further benefit to having effective reporting mechanisms, such as those in the European Union, as they help to ensure that best-practice is discussed and made available to advocates (European Commission, 2013; Roe et al., 2009). We therefore need to acknowledge that scalar differences are inherent in green infrastructure thinking. This should not be a difficult position for its advocates, as the concept draws on the literature of landscape ecology and greenways to ground its principles in praxis (Ahern, 1995; Fábos,

Figure 9.2 The New York High Line.

176

Global reflections of green infrastructure 1995; Farina, 2006; Hellmund & Smith, 2006; Jongman & Pungetti, 2004; Little, 1990). Approaching investment in green infrastructure as a process of scaled investment also enables planners to respond to a range of issues within a broader green space network. For example, in Ahmedabad the Development Plan promoted the redevelopment of the Sabarmati River as its principal investment objective. However, the supporting financing of other lakes and canals, such as Kankaria, as well as the implementation of street trees, enabled AUDA and the AMC to address localised and city-scale landscape issues simultaneously (Adhvaryu, 2011b; Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, 2013). The discussion of water-centric green infrastructure development in Chicago also highlights how the practices of the ‘RainReady’ campaign complements the work of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago and the wider objectives of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Wilderness project (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014; Chicago Wilderness, n.d.). Although these projects work at a household-, district-, city- and county-scale, respectively, the nature of water management makes it possible to align the actions of the individual with that of the city and even the state. Assessing the potential of a green infrastructure system to work at different scales can therefore assist planners to mitigate landscape problems such as climatic change, while the Center for Neighborhood Technology have raised awareness of the ecological value of rain gardens at a micro-scale. We should also note that a scaled approach to investment in green infrastructure allows us to plan landscape management more strategically to ensure that we develop complementary spaces that support the ecological and socio-economic capacity of a wider network. For example, in New York we can identify a green urban spine running north–south through Manhattan. While some observers may only see or value Central Park, as you move south you encounter Bryant Park, Washington Square Park and Battery Park, before reaching the riverfront. This network provides important climatic, social and economic benefits to New York, and as Tate (2015) discussed, they provide a more attractive and functional setting for the city’s residents and visitors. Likewise in Copenhagen, the unofficial ‘finger plan’, as described by Beatley (2000), integrates local- and city-scale resources into a connected multi-functional green space system. Although different spaces may be imbued with alternative meanings depending on their design and location, Copenhagen is widely considered to be at the forefront of successful integration of a green space network into its urban form (Hansen et al., 2015). Cities with networks of green spaces that include local pocket parks, neighbourhood sites and city-scale resources, but which also link wider landscape features, should be considered to be more ecological, functional, socially attractive and economically supportive (Ignatieva et al., 2010; Schrijnen, 2000). This, as Mell (2010) stated, helps to install a cumulative value in a range of spaces to meet alternative needs. Therefore, although we may criticise global cities such as London, Shanghai or Delhi for a lack of a truly accessible network of spaces, all have resources that could be considered to meet this proposition. Our understanding of green infrastructure is thus partially based on a spatial distribution of how it can be used to link people, places and ecological systems. By integrating the principles of landscape ecology into the design and management of projects, we can improve the connectivity, accessibility and invariably the functionality of a green space network.

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

177 Figure 9.3 Vancouver waterfront, Canada.

9.2 Thematic variation The second key principle consistently highlighted throughout the case studies was the different thematic approaches taken to investment in green infrastructure. In many cases this replicates the dominant investment narratives of a given location, e.g. the water-centric investment in Chicago and the wider use of green infrastructure in the USA (Ahern, 2007). However, in a number of locations we are witnessing a more integrated approach to landscape planning which is attempting to plan for multi-functionality through investment in socially, economically and ecologically sensitive development. This manifests itself in modifications of existing green infrastructure practice without fully reframing existing programmes. For example, although there remains water and ecologically focused use of green infrastructure in the USA, as reported in the research and practitioner literature (Marcucci & Jordan, 2013; New York City Environmental Protection, 2010), we are seeing a shift towards a more holistic interpretation of how people–environment interactions can be integrated into landscape management. The practice of the Chicago MWRD illustrates this, as they are working with engineers, water specialists and more recently also with ecologists to assess how green infrastructure can be utilised to manage the water environment of the Chicago metropolitan area. Furthermore, at a regional scale Chicago Wilderness

178

Global reflections of green infrastructure and the Illinois DNR are collaborating with municipalities to ensure that traditional engineered solutions to water management are being complemented through SUDS and small-scale approaches to adaptive urban development. Integrated water and ecological management in the City of Crystal Lake and the Lake County Forest Preserves (both Illinois) are two examples of a more holistic form of investment being successfully implemented (Lake County Forest Preserve Department, 2014). When compared to the development of green infrastructure in North America, its use in India and China is far more embryonic. Both countries utilise normative traditions to frame the use of urban green spaces; the older sections of Suzhou highlight this difference when compared to the SIP development (Wang et al., 2015). The growth narratives of India and China have therefore framed how, where and why green infrastructure is developed; however, as discussions of sustainable development and ecologically focused design have become more prevalent, the use of green infrastructure has grown in parallel. In China, investments in ‘eco-cities’, and more recently ‘sponge-cities’, has seen designers become more engaged with ecological principles; the newer parks of Pudong and the SIP area of Suzhou are examples. India has taken an alternative route, using large-scale government or privately backed projects as the major driver of green infrastructure investments. The development of India Gate in New Delhi shows the historical prominence of largescale projects in urban development (Hall, 2002). In recent years there has been a rise in waterfront development mirroring Western development. The current investment programmes in Ahmedabad and New Delhi highlight the perceived value of such projects. Unfortunately, the pace of development in India, and indeed in China, is over-extending the capacity of the environment to cope with growth. Research from Bengaluru discusses the problems faced by planners as the city’s green infrastructure resource base is being reduced to make way for residential, transport and commercial development (Nagendra & Gopal, 2010; Sudha & Ravindranath, 2000). One mechanism being used to mitigate this is to link economic growth with investment in urban green spaces. In India and China private financing of green infrastructure is also viewed as a successful model to attract investment and ensure development, especially when they benefit real estate/property value. The wider socio-economic outcomes of this may be debated (Manthur, 2012), but it does lead to rapid development of aesthetically attractive investment in urban greening (Jim & Chen, 2006b; Wang et al., 2015; Zhao, 2011). There are, however, ongoing concerns over the ecological quality of such developments which remain unanswered (Mell, 2015b). Compared to India and China, the evolution of green infrastructure in the UK has been discussed extensively in the research literature (Gill et al., 2007; Horwood, 2011; Jones & Somper, 2014; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010), although its use should be considered to still be developing. With the growing evidence base assessing how ecological, social and economic benefits can be derived from urban greening, we have witnessed, as Mell (2015b) described, a progression of research which has moved on from a disparate process of investigation to a more refined approach to green infrastructure. This incorporates a greater level of economic scrutiny for landscape improvements (Ecotec, 2012; Sutherland, 2012), social inclusion (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005a), ecosystem services (UNEP-WCMC, 2011), health (Mansor & Said, 2008) and has increased the visibility of green infrastructure in

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure development discussions. In a similar manner to the UK, European applications of green infrastructure have looked to explore multi-scaled and multi-thematic approaches to investment. Experiences from France and Italy suggest that there is a growing understanding of how urban greening can be linked to the provision of ecosystem services through wider ecological networks, as well as how more contemporary designs can promote urban climate control and promote landscape multi-functionality (Hansen et al., 2015; South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012). This is supported at a meta-European scale by the development of policy, e.g. the WFD, which addresses the need to invest in urban greening (European Commission, 2013; 2011a). It also calls for a more in-depth understanding of how best to manage the environment for the long-term benefit of society and the environment; a view which extends the proposed compliance with the ELC and other EU-level landscape policy mandates (Roe et al., 2009). All of this suggests that although we can see similarities in the uses of green infrastructure between locations, there remain specific thematically ‘localised’ interpretations of urban greening and green space management which influence its development (Mell, 2014; Siemens AG, 2011). As a consequence, although we can argue that a trans-national understanding of green infrastructure has evolved, the application of these discussions are still clearly contextualised. However, over time, these differences have become smaller, as a greater confluence of experience and evidence has been presented in green infrastructure discussions.

9.3 Collaboration, partnership and financial support How we appreciate the myriad of spatial and thematic approaches to green infrastructure development holds a significant influence on its delivery. However, there are additional factors which, potentially, have an equally important role to play in this process. Where there is a positive buy-in from key decision-makers, land owners or financial advocates, such as in Philadelphia (Philadelphia Water Department, 2011), New York (New York City Environmental Protection, 2010) or Milan, we can identify the creation of smarter and greener policy agendas. These invariably are based on the robust evidence of the added value that green infrastructure can deliver and are building on a decade of data collection illustrating its worth to local, city and regional bodies (Austin, 2014; Mell, 2016). This, however, is not always straightforward. Establishing a supportive policy-making environment is, therefore, just one stage of ensuring that green infrastructure projects are developed successfully. The discussion of the Chicago Wilderness and GOTO 2040 (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014) projects are illustrations of how effective collaboration can deliver meaningful and cost-effective investment in green infrastructure. Commentators from Chicago reported that the drive of a set of key individuals were able to generate momentum for a regional partnership (i.e. Chicago Wilderness), which has subsequently gained support from other state and local bodies. The most effective investment programmes in Chicago, and more widely, therefore appear to be those which are able to align the divergent interests of a wide range of stakeholders (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014; Liebenath et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006). The discussions of the Atlanta Beltline also highlight how

179

180

Global reflections of green infrastructure

Figure 9.4 Formal green infrastructure in central London.

collaborative peer pressure from corporate and real-estate companies can facilitate long-term financial support for investment in urban planning (Kirkman et al., 2012; Roy, 2015). Although Atlanta’s business community is quite unique in terms of how multi-national organisations are engaging with the Beltline’s development, it could be a model for investment in other locations, such as London and New Delhi. The success of the Atlanta Beltline and other city-wide investment programmes, e.g. the New York Green Infrastructure Plan (New York City Environmental Protection, 2010), suggests that political and collaborative support can be developed through a range of mechanisms. In some locations, such as London, the focus of the project garners support, while in other areas it may be the perceived added value that an investment may deliver, for instance in Suzhou or Bengaluru (Davies, 2011; Wang et al., 2015). What is important to remember, however, is that this is ongoing and requires a constant process of evaluation to ensure that the most appropriate forms of funding, management and decision-making are used to support investment in green infrastructure.

9.4 Green infrastructure: past, present and future Successful investment in green infrastructure reflects our appreciation of what we’ve done in the past, retaining the positives and adapting the negatives to facilitate more appropriate development. As David Lowenthal (1985) stated, the past is a foreign country, which we discuss to understand whether there is a confluence of political, social and economic support for landscape enhancement. For example, evidence from the redevelopment of green infrastructure in the Ruhr area show that future-oriented approaches are considered as positives, as they respect the historical practices of landscape management but allowed practitioners to meet the area’s current needs (Liebenath et al., 2010; Mertins & Paal, 2009). Each of the case studies presented in this book has reiterated what many green infrastructure commentators already know: that we have come a long way in a relatively short period in terms of explaining what it is and how it should be developed. Yet

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

181

there are still, and potentially always will be, geo-spatial differences in how green infrastructure investment is implemented around the world which reflect local planning conditions (Austin, 2014; Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Mell, 2010). However, despite this non-revelation we can identify within each example a number of complementary principles and practices that support successful investment in green infrastructure. These range in the terminology used, the thematic approaches taken for investment, the spatial distribution of new resources, as well as the economic and political support that green infrastructure receives. Such diversity could be seen as a distraction from the process of investment, as it provides too much scope for alternative views to be incorporated into green space planning (Wright, 2011). However, the counterargument insists that such fluidity allows green infrastructure advocates to be more flexible in how they approach landscape problems (Connelly, 2007; Swilling, 2011). To fully appreciate the value of successful investment in green infrastructure we have to acknowledge that a set of caveats exists whereby the socio-economic, political and ecological contexts of each development site need to be taken into consideration (Jim et al., 2015; Mell, 2014; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013). Therefore, for every positive question regarding whether an investment can be delivered there are inevitably potential barriers. For a number of years I was known in local government in East Cambridgeshire for the phrase ‘no, but. . .’, as I would invariably highlight the problems with a proposed green space investment but would offer an alternative option. Acknowledging the variability of opportunities inherent to green infrastructure builds on this premise, as if we understand the limitations of a given location (socio-economic and ecological) we can draw on our knowledge of what types of investment, at what scale and with what focus have worked elsewhere, to assess whether they could work in a given location. Green infrastructure practice, thus, needs to maintain its focus on the potential transferability of ideas between locations, scales and contexts. I would therefore contend that the following factors should be considered key characteristics of successful investment in green infrastructure.

Figure 9.5 Jardin de Majorelle, Marrakech (Morocco).

182

Global reflections of green infrastructure

9.4.1 Context matters Our understanding of local context, the needs of the population, the economy and the environment are central to how we plan and implement green infrastructure projects. As planners and landscape designers we need to be aware of what an investment is trying to achieve, what types of landscape resources are required in a given location (and why), and how we should approach investment (Lennon et al., 2015; Zmelik et al., 2011). Working within such a contextually driven process we invariably see more refined and focused investments in green infrastructure, for example in Berlin or Vancouver, that promotes the right project, in the right place, at the right time. Achieving successful implementation requires green infrastructure advocates to understand what people want, as well as what they need and what they will use. Furthermore, as the discussions of park use in Europe and China (Chapters 6 and 8) illustrate, people are culturally conditioned to use green infrastructure in different ways across the world. Therefore we must work from the starting point that development needs to be culturally, economically and ecologically appropriate if it’s to be successful (Austin, 2014; Lehmann, 2011).

9.4.2 One size does not fit all Although the case studies and discussions presented so far have argued that comparable practices can be applied between locations, this should be caveated with an understanding that one form of investment is not appropriate for all sites (Mell, 2013a; 2010). Each green infrastructure project therefore needs to take cues from the immediate context and use the suite of development options available to practitioners to ensure that an appropriate and functional form of implementation occurs. The range of investments proposed in the two Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategies highlight this view (Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011; Roe & Mell, 2013). Integrating expertise of different socio-economic and ecological systems into development should provide scope for investments to make best use of the most appropriate forms of green infrastructure investment (Benedict & McMahon, 2006).

9.4.3 Establishing multi-functionality through high-quality design, investment and management The process of designing, funding and managing green space investments is integral to the success of a green infrastructure project. With a coordinated and collaborative approach to development, new resources can meet the needs of a local community, a city and a wider landscape (Mell, 2011b; Ryan et al., 2006). Such benefits come in many forms and should address socio-cultural needs, such as health and wellbeing, economic development issues like those proposed in the Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) project, and ecological or ecosystem services provision (Vandermeulen et al., 2011; Wilker & Rusche, 2013). Through the development of multi-functional landscapes, for instance the Maggie Daley Park in Chicago or the neighbourhood surrounding the Bosco Verticale in Milan, positive socio-economic benefits can be accrued that increase the potential of an environ-

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

183

ment to become multi-functional. How, where, what and why we invest in green infrastructure thus needs to be embedded in the design of any new spaces to ensure that projects provide opportunities to interact with the landscape in a number of different, yet hopefully complementary ways (Netusil et al., 2014; Underwood, 2011). Thematic approaches to investment in green infrastructure, such as health, water management or biodiversity, may also offer planners a range of options to frame the delivery of added value in our landscapes.

9.4.4 Big projects In a number of locations – for example Ahmedabad, Shanghai and London – investment in large-scale or internationally focused green infrastructure projects can be considered to be successful. The riverfront development of the Sabarmati in Ahmedabad, the Bund and Pudong redevelopments in Shanghai and the Olympic Park in London are all considered to have successfully integrated green infrastructure into the heart of their designs. The promotion of large-scale greening that stimulates multi-functionality, access and connectivity, but also helps to mitigate climate change, and generates an economic income; are viewed as key elements in what we consider to be successful implementation (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Qureshi et al., 2010). Projects of this scale also benefit from the inclusion of a wider range of stakeholders who bring a plethora of experience to the design, construction and long-term management of city-scale investments. They may also, invariably, attract large-scale financial and political support due to the prestige associated with the development.

Figure 9.6 The Bund waterfront in Shanghai with Pudong in the background.

184

Global reflections of green infrastructure

Figure 9.7 Riverfront promenade – Ernakulum, Kerala (India).

9.4.5 Small projects have significant local value Although large-scale projects raise awareness of the value of green infrastructure, planners need to consider the significant cumulative value that smaller green spaces have on people’s quality of life, places and environment (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; Schmelzkopf, 2002). Integrated within strategic investment programmes, smaller-scale green infrastructure can hold a major role in promoting urban liveability (Carlet, 2015; Horwood, 2011). Smaller sites, such as pocket parks or university campuses, may have a greater influence on the use or lifestyle choices of a community because they offer greater accessibility due to their location. The development of the ‘RainReady’ project in Chicago and the greening of transport infrastructure in Shanghai highlight the added value that localised projects can have for individual people or communities.

9.4.6 Strong leadership With effective leadership from advocates, policy-makers and politicians, we witness the development of more innovative, thoughtfully designed and multi-functional green infrastructure resources. Although advocacy and political support may vary over time, this should not be viewed as negative; rather, it should be seen as part of an ongoing process of evidence gathering and consensus building (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014; London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, 2007). If this can be achieved it has been possible, as shown in Atlanta, London and Milan, to develop green infrastructure projects that offer both strategic and local benefits. They also facilitate an increased interaction and inclusion of professional expertise, which aids the development of appropriate investment objectives. Moreover, where strong leadership from government or state leaders exists, as in Ahmedabad, financial assistance can be generated to meet political, as well as socio-economic, objectives.

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure

9.4.7 Funding and institutional capacity To ensure that green infrastructure projects are successful they require an appropriate level of funding. Where this has been achieved, for example in India and China, we see rapid investment in urban green spaces. However, where funding is less readily available it becomes important for advocates to use their knowledge of alternative funding mechanisms and institutional capacity to develop projects, attract disparate forms of funding and manage the investment process (Siemens AG, 2011; TewdwrJones & McNeill, 2000). The discussion of Cambridgeshire (Chapter 5) illustrates how a multi-faceted approach to funding complemented by committed and experienced people can lead to successful investment (Roe & Mell, 2013).

9.4.8 Cooperation and collaboration The field of green infrastructure development has a wealth of knowledge and expertise which is drawn from engineering, planning, landscape architecture and the ecological sciences. It is therefore imperative that project teams are established which reflect the multi-disciplinary nature of landscape planning (Angelstam et al., 2013; Austin, 2014). This also promotes the view that planning for green infrastructure can be improved if it is developed across legislative boundaries, as it enables planners to work effectively with the range of ecological and socio-political systems simultaneously to influence investment (Beatley, 2000). This statement, though, is caveated, as an ever-increasing sets of stakeholders does not guarantee successful implementation. Projects require a core group of advocates with a broad range of skills who are able to draw on additional expertise where needed. More stakeholders do not, therefore, automatically mean a better project, as it can dilute the focus of an investment.

9.4.9 Integration of terrestrial and water-based landscape infrastructure Green infrastructure planning needs to include an understanding of water systems and their management. Working across landscape boundaries to enable effective delivery of environmental management is dependent on our knowledge of how ecological and water systems work and interact with human activities, and how best green infrastructure can be used to meet flooding and water quality/quantity issues (Cohen et al., 2012; Philadelphia Water Department, 2011). How planners engage with landscape and cross-boundary networks highlights, to some extent, their knowledge of how green infrastructure can facilitate connections and supporting systems to improve the management of the landscape.

9.4.10 Effective communication To ensure that green infrastructure is debated within the most effective development context, there is a requirement for practitioners, academics and advocates to report and communicate the successes of investment effectively. Working with local, regional and national bodies, the added-value established through the development

185

186

Global reflections of green infrastructure

Figure 9.8 Green/ blue infrastructure, Vancouver, Canada.

of green spaces can be debated in decision-making and financial spheres (Ahern, 1995; Albert & Von Haaren, 2014). This should not just fall to advocates working for ENGOs, but should be the responsibility of all green and open space advocates. Where this has been achieved, for instance through the Olympic Park in London, the High Line in New York or urban agriculture projects in Detroit, there has been a corresponding increase in positive discussions of the benefits of urban greening (London Legacy Development Corporation, 2013; New York City Environmental Protection, 2010; Safransky, 2014).

9.4.11 Transferability To ensure that the value of green infrastructure is understood in different contexts it is important to provide transferable examples to planners and developers across the world. The riverfront investments in Shanghai and Ahmedabad highlight how comparable design principles can be implemented in different planning contexts. Furthermore, if we reflect on the campus designs of the University of Liverpool and Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou we can identify a mirroring of landscape features of both sites. Developing evidence which allows advocates to promote designs based on successful interventions in different countries provides developers with greater choice of how and what forms of green space to invest in (Austin, 2014; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013; Siemens AG, 2011). What each of these 11 principles indicates is that successful investment in green infrastructure requires knowledge of the location, an integration of experience of green space planning and the selection of the most appropriate place for investment, which

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure complements the existing socio-ecological composition of an area. If the majority of these factors can be rationalised within a project then it should be possible to develop spatially and socio-ecologically appropriate green infrastructure projects. At a basic level we are looking at the integration of people, place and practice. Our knowledge of each is therefore critical to how we approach green infrastructure planning now and in the future. The proceeding chapters discussed the big green infrastructure questions. They explored what is being developed; they debated why the focus of investment in specific locations was appropriate; and they went into detail over the spatial variation (and associated value) of alternative approaches to implementation in different places. It is hoped that this discussion highlighted the positives associated with green infrastructure planning, but also where barriers were raised, and subsequently where solutions have been found. Reflecting on this highlights that although there is a growing realisation that green infrastructure is becoming a normalised process of landscape and urban planning, that variation is evident in where, how and why it is used. Moreover, although this may have been seen as a hindrance to its use (Mell, 2013a; Wright, 2011), it can also be seen as a positive, as it allows green infrastructure advocates to adopt its principles to meet specific contexts. Just as Davies et al. (2006) proclaimed that green infrastructure is not new, simply a new interpretation of existing ideas, i.e. garden cities or greenways, we can argue that although one form of investment is not appropriate for all locations, green infrastructure provides a suite of options for delivery (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a). Put simply, one size does not fit all. Each of the previous chapters made this point, illustrating the subtle use being applied in green infrastructure planning around the world. Such variation has built upon a decade of evidence gathering, discussion and delivery (Angelstam et al., 2013; Boyle et al., 2013; Carter & Fowler, 2008). Examining how we investigate these themes is a key element of our reflections on current and future trends in green infrastructure planning. As I teach students, ‘landscape is that part of the environment that is the human habitat, perceived and understood by us as through the medium of our perceptions’ (Bell, 1999: 66). Our understanding of green infrastructure planning is thus framed by our interpretation of context.

9.5 What next for green infrastructure planning? In 2010 I wrote that the future of green infrastructure planning lay in the passing into legislation of dedicated policy outlining how, where and why we should be investing in green infrastructure. Since then I have reconsidered this position. In the UK the revocation of the regional tier of planning policy limited the procession of evidence gathering and discussion between national and sub-national green infrastructure debates. Although the National Planning Policy Framework (Mell & Roe, 2010; 2007) mentions green infrastructure, it does not illustrate the versatility of its use or the complexity of landscape planning arguments. However, I do not necessarily see this as a major concern. While it limits the legislative backing of green infrastructure projects, there is a groundswell of support for its implementation from national and sub-national politicians, planning policy-makers and advocates that go beyond government policy in their backing. It could therefore be argued that the critical mass

187

188

Global reflections of green infrastructure needed to ensure green infrastructure planning continues to evolve is visible, and that any subsequent policy would merely be the icing on the cake. However, we are starting to see significant shifts in support for green infrastructure at a national and international scale. China is allocating increased resources into green or ‘eco-cities’, and the European Union has released a communiqué on how it believes green infrastructure should be delivered (European Commission, 2013, 2011b; C. Xu et al., 2011). In the UK and USA we are also seeing regional policies begin to take hold, helping to shape the ways in which green infrastructure is being planned for and delivered at a regional and sub-regional scale (England’s Community Forests, 2004; Weber et al., 2006). Furthermore, cities in India and Europe are developing spatially refined city-level green infrastructure policies that are applying the broader principles of connectivity, multi-functionality and the sustainable land-use concept at the local scale (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Davies et al., 2006; Williamson, 2003). All of this suggests there is scope to formulate and apply policy in a number of locations because growing political and economic support advocating for policy is just one avenue which needs to be considered when we assess the future of green infrastructure. However, given the implementation focus of landscape planning coupled with the human–environment centric processes that underpin it, it may be more beneficial to concentrate on the delivery and assessment of green infrastructure. We do, though, need to promote alternative practices for landscape resource management that do not simply replicate what we have done before. The growth of green infrastructure planning (and the supporting literature) has identified that alternative approaches to investment, including those focusing on health and ecosystem services, are occurring, which draw on the antecedents outlined in Chapter 2, but have extended these to address more contemporary issues (Albert & Von Haaren, 2014; Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012b). Moreover, it is essential that green infrastructure advocates refrain from rushing into green infrastructure investment. Ill-conceived or rushed investments

Figure 9.9 London Olympic Park.

www.ebook3000.com

Global reflections of green infrastructure lead to poor-quality projects that may subsequently require replacing as they lack a socio-economic focus or environmental quality. Getting the right project, in the right place and with the corresponding political support are therefore key principles in the successful delivery of urban greening. The process of collaboration and coordination shown in the London Olympic Park development and the Atlanta Beltline illustrate the potential of such an approach. There are numerous examples of projects, including ones I have personally managed in Cambridgeshire, which had limited political support, poor site selection or lacked an appropriate focus, which led to the creation of undervalued, underused and exclusionary spaces. Positive and long-term investment in green infrastructure thus relies on a combination of people with expertise, location and needs, and the design and objectives of the project. To ensure this occurs, and that there is a longevity to green infrastructure planning, landscape and green space resources need to be considered as essential or statutory infrastructure. If green infrastructure can be contextualised within development debates as a statutory development requirement from which investment can flow, we may not need to lobby or protect sites to the same extent as we currently do. Achieving this, though, is a complicated process that requires green infrastructure commentators and advocates in policy circles, in practice and in the academy to manage their relationships with investors/developers and the public more effectively. If this can be achieved then it may be possible for green infrastructure to be viewed as having a comparable value to housing or transport infrastructure (Walmsley, 2006; Zérah, 2007). The continued promotion of green infrastructure will invariably lead to the generation of further knowledge, greater experience of what works and what does not, and an increased foresight in how we address a range of issues associated with development. This is an ongoing process but one that I feel is being addressed by a range of committed and knowledgeable green infrastructure advocates.

9.6 Summary Green infrastructure remains clearly on the political, development and public radar. Its value, meanings and the evidence supporting its use have grown year-on-year since the 1990s, and continue to do so. Advocates in public and private guises, as well as politicians, decision-makers and local people, have become increasingly aware of the value, in all its myriad forms, of green infrastructure, and have, in many cases, tasked themselves with protecting green infrastructure resources (Beatley, 2000; Mell, 2010). From discussions with the practitioners, academics and users of green infrastructure presented in this book, this appears to be an ongoing and burgeoning process. All of which is a positive step towards a more in-depth understanding of how people interact with places and subsequently support the benefits that landscape planning can promote. From my own perspective the development of green infrastructure offers the most prescient form of environmental discussion since the establishment of sustainable development. Although ecosystem services and sustainable, eco- or smart-cities have been promoted, rethinking how we look at human–landscape interactions,

189

190

Global reflections of green infrastructure I feel it is green infrastructure which has best integrated these agenda. While politicians, at a number of scales, may still be wary of the concept or of allocating support for it (in kind or financial terms), people like Parris Glendenning or Ed McMahon have effectively positioned green space planning in national and international agendas (Mell, 2015a). For this we should be grateful, as we have subsequently seen the development of spaces that move beyond established green space ideas to encapsulate the landscape planning principles of McHarg (1969), Olmsted (Eisenman, 2013; Fábos, 2004) and Howard (2009; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012c) to deliver multi-functionality. Although it remains to be seen whether green infrastructure practice can continue to be rationalised across international boundaries or administrations – I believe it probably cannot due to sovereignty issues – we can identify existing best-practice that can be translated between locations. Therefore if we continue to address the big questions: what are we trying to do, why do we invest in green space, where should it be located, who will benefit, how can it be delivered and when is it needed, we can make meaningful quotidian green spaces that are multi-functional and sustainable. We are currently on a progressive upwards trajectory which addresses each of these questions; the next challenge is to ensure that we continue to act reflectively on what we’ve achieved to deliver high-quality spaces in the future. Green infrastructure is not the only answer to the needs of landscape and urban planning. However, the breadth of approaches it utilises and the ways in which it integrates scale, environmental processes and society allows it to address a broader range of issues than other forms of urban planning. If green infrastructure planning continues to evolve it will help to deliver innovation in a time when water, power, and social needs are constantly diversifying. We therefore stand at a precipice of a new era of landscape planning which allows us to actively engage with development, that should enable us to shape the ways in which investment in landscape projects occur in the future.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography

Abbott, J. (2012). Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Development in Africa. London: Routledge. Adhvaryu, B. (2011a). Analysing Evolution of Urban Spatial Structure: A Case Study of Ahmedabad, India. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(5), 850–863. Adhvaryu, B. (2011b). The Ahmedabad Urban Development Plan-Making Process: A Critical Review. Planning Practice and Research, 26(2), 229–250. Ahern, J. (1995). Greenways as a Planning Strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 131–155. Ahern, J. (2007). Planning and Design for Sustainable and Resilient Cities: Theories, Strategies and Best Practice for Green Infrastructure, in: Novotny, V., Ahern, J. & Brown, P. (eds), Water-Centric Sustainable Communities, (pp. 135–176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Ahern, J. (2013). Urban Landscape Sustainability and Resilience: The Promise and Challenges of Integrating Ecology with Urban Planning and Design. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203–1212. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. (2013). Draft Comprehensive Development Plan 2021 (Second Revised). Ahmedabad. Albert, C. & Von Haaren, C. (2014). Implications of Applying the Green Infrastructure Concept in Landscape Planning for Ecosystem Services in Peri-Urban Areas: An Expert Survey and Case Study. Planning Practice & Research, DOI: 10.1080/02697459. 2014.973683 Allen III, W. (2012). Advancing Green Infrastructure at All Scales: From Landscape to Site. Environmental Practice, 14(1), 17–25. Amati, M. & Taylor, L. (2010). From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. Planning Practice and Research, 25(2), 143–155. Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., et al. (2014). Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services. Ambio, 43(4), 445–453. Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Annerstedt, M., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Garrido, P., et al. (2013). Solving Problems in Social-Ecological Systems: Definition, Practice and Barriers of Transdisciplinary Research. Ambio, 42(2), 254–265. Asian Development Bank. (2012). Green Urbanization in Asia: Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2012, 43rd Edition. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Atlanta Beltline Inc. (n.d.) Atlanta Beltline Homepage. Retrieved 14 March 2013, from www.beltline.org Austin, G. (2014). Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human and Natural Systems. New York: Routledge.

192

Bibliography Balooni, K., Gangopadhyay, K. & Mohan Kumarm, B. (2011). Urban Sustainability and Changing Private Green Spaces: Some Insights from an Indian City. Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 169. Singapore. Barton, H. (ed.) (2000). Sustainable Communities: The Potential for EcoNeighbourhoods. London: Earthscan. Baud, I. & Dhanalakshmi, R. (2007). Governance in Urban Environmental Management: Comparing Accountability and Performance in Multi-Stakeholder Arrangements in South India. Cities, 24(2), 133–147. Baviskar, A. (2011). What the Eye Does Not See: The Yamuna in the Imagination of Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(50), 45–53. Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Beatley, T. (2009). Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in Australia. Washington, DC: Island Press. Beatley, T. (2010). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. Beatley, T. (ed.) (2012). Green Cities of Europe. Washington, DC: Island Press. Bedfordshire & Luton Green Infrastructure Consortium. (2007). Bedfordshire & Luton Strategic Green Infrastructure Plan. Luton: Bedfordshire & Luton Green Infrastructure Consortium. Beer, A.R. (2010). Greenspaces, Green Structure, and Green Infrastructure Planning, in: Aitkenhead-Peterson, J. & Volder, A. (eds), Urban Ecosystem Ecology (pp. 431– 448). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Bell, D.A. & De-Shalit, A. (2013). The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bell, S. (1999). Landscape: Patterns, Perception and Process. New York: Routledge. Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renewable Resources Journal, autumn, 12–17. Benedict, M.A. & McMahon, E.T. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Benton-Short, L. & Short, J.R. (2007). Cities and Nature. London: Routledge. Blackman, D. & Thackray, R. (2007). The Green Infrastructure of Sustainable Communities. North Allerton: England’s Community Forest Partnership. Booth, K.M., Pinkston, M.M. & Poston, W.S.C. (2005). Obesity and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(5 Suppl 1), S110–117. Boyle, C., Gamage, G., Burns, B., Fassman, E., Knight-Lenihan, S., Schwendenmann, L., et al. (2013). Greening Cities: A Review of Green Infrastructure. Auckland: Transforming Cities, Innovations for Sustainable Futures, University of Auckland. Breuste, J., Niemelä, J. & Snep, R.P.H. (2008). Applying Landscape Ecological Principles in Urban Environments. Landscape Ecology, 23(10), 1139–1142. Byrne, J.A., Lo, A.Y. & Jianjun, Y. (2015). Residents’ Understanding of the Role of Green Infrastructure for Climate Change Adaptation in Hangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 132–143. CABE Space. (2005). Does Money Grow on Trees? London: CABE Space. Cambridgeshire Horizons. (2006). Green Infrastructure Strategy: Quality of Life Programme. Cambridge. Cambridgeshire Horizons. (2008). Cambridgeshire Charter for Quality Growth and Cambridgeshire’s Vision 2007–2021. Cambridge. Cambridgeshire Horizons. (2011). Cambridgeshire Green Infrastructure Strategy. Cambridge.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Carlet, F. (2015). Understanding Attitudes Toward Adoption of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study of US Municipal Officials. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 65–76. Carter, T. & Fowler, L. (2008). Establishing Green Roof Infrastructure through Environmental Policy Instruments. Environmental Management, 42(1), 151–164. Center for Neighborhood Technology (n.d.). RainReady. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from http://rainready.org Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2015). Get RainReady with Native Plants. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from http://rainready.org/sites/default/files/factsheets/ RainReady Natives.pdf Cervero, R. (1995). Planned Communities, Self-Containment and Commuting: A Cross-National Perspective. Urban Studies, 32(7), 1135–1161. Chaturvedi, A., Kamble, R., Patil, N.G. & Chaturvedi, A. (2013). City–Forest Relationship in Nagpur: One of the Greenest Cities of India. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 79–87. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. (2014). GOTO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan. Chicago. Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. (1999). Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Chicago. Chicago Wilderness. (n.d.) Chicago Wilderness Homepage. Retrieved 1 September 2015, from www.chicagowilderness.org/index.php Cohen, M., Baudoin, R., Palibrk, M., Persyn, N. & Rhein, C. (2012). Urban Biodiversity and Social Inequalities in Built-up Cities: New Evidences, next Questions. The Example of Paris, France. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 277–287. Commission for a Sustainable London. (2011). Game Changing? Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 Annual Review 2010. London. Commission for a Sustainable London. (2012). Sustainable? Naturally . . . Executive Summary. London. Connelly, S. (2007). Mapping Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278. Conservation Design Forum. (n.d. a). Advocate Lutheran Hospital Patient Tower. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from www.cdfinc.com/Project?project_id=46 Conservation Design Forum. (n.d. b). AMCOL International Headquarters. Retrieved 27 May 2015, from www.cdfinc.com/Project?project_id=137 Conservation Design Forum. (n.d. c). Space to Grow: Greening Chicago Schoolyards. Retrieved 27 May 2015c, from www.cdfinc.com/Project?project_id=167 Countryside Agency & Groundwork. (2005). The Countryside in and around Towns: A Vision for Connecting Town and County in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development. Wetherby. Cullingworth, B. & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and Country Planning in the UK. London: Routledge. Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., Hart, T., Davoudi, S., Pendlebury, J., Vigar, G., et al. (2015). Town and Country Planning in the UK. London: Routledge. Datta, A. (2012). India’s Ecocity? Environment, Urbanisation, and Mobility in the Making of Lavasa. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, 982–996. Davies, C. (2014). Old Culture and Damaged Landscapes: The New Cultural Landscapes of Post-Industrial Sites in Britain, in: Roe, M.H. & Taylor, K. (eds), New Cultural Landscapes (pp. 41–58). London: Routledge. Davies, C., Macfarlane, R., McGloin, C. & Roe, M. (2006). Green Infrastructure Planning Guide. Annfield Plain. Davies, L.E. (2011). Using Sports Infrastructure to Deliver Economic and Social Change: Lessons for London beyond 2012. Local Economy, 26(4), 227–231. Delhi Development Authority. (2007). Master Plan for Delhi 2021. New Delhi.

193

194

Bibliography Dempsey, N., Smith, H. & Burton, M. (eds). (2014). Place-Keeping: Open Space Management in Practice. London: Routledge. Department of Communties and Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. London: DCLG. Desai, R. (2012). Governing the Urban Poor: Riverfront Development, Slum Resettlement and the Politics of Inclusion in Ahmedabad. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(2), 49–56. Devereux, M. (2010). The Changing Role of the Jardin Publique in the Planning of Paris. PROJECT: Journal of the Department of Planning and Architecture, 2, 66–69. Dholakia, R.H. (2000). Liberalisation in Gujarat: Review of Recent Experience. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(35–36), 3121–3124. van Dijk, M. (2011). Three Ecological Cities, Examples of Different Approaches in Asia and Europe, in: Woon, T.-C. & Yuen, B. (eds), Eco-city Planning: Policies, Practice and Design, (pp. 31–50). New York: Springer. Dunn, A.D. (2010). Siting Green Infrastructure: Legal and Public Solutions to Alleviate Urban Poverty and Promote Healthy Communities. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 37(41), 41–66. Dutta, S.S. (2000). Partnerships in Urban Development: A Review of Ahmedabad’s Experience. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), 13–26. East Cambridgeshire District Council. (2009). East Cambridgeshire District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Development Plan Document. Ely. Ecotec. (2012). The Economic Benefits of Green Infrastructure: Developing Key Tests for Evaluating the Benefits of Green Infrastructure. Report for The Mersey Forest & Natural Economy Northwest. Eisenman, T.S. (2013). Frederick Law Olmsted, Green Infrastructure, and the Evolving City. Journal of Planning History, 12(4), 287–311. England’s Community Forests. (2004). Quality of Place, Quality of Life. Newcastle. England’s Community Forests & Forestry Commission. (2012). Benefits to Health and Wellbeing of Trees and Green Spaces. Farnham. Retrieved 1 October 2015, from www.communityforest.org.uk/resources/case_study_health_and_wellbeing.pdf Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 4 July 2015, from www.epa.gov European Commission. (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. Brussels: EC. European Commission. (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital – An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Brussels: EC. European Commission. (2012). The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Brussels: EC. European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Brussels: EC. Fábos, J.G. (1995). Introduction and Overview: The Greenway Movement, Uses and Potentials of Greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 1–13. Fábos, J.G. (2004). Greenway Planning in the United States: Its Origins and Recent Case Studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2–3), 321–342. Farina, A. (2006). Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology: Towards a Science of the Landscape. London: Springer.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Fishman. (1982). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fitzsimons, J., Pearson, C.J., Lawson, C. & Hill, M.J. (2012). Evaluation of Land-Use Planning in Greenbelts Based on Intrinsic Characteristics and Stakeholder Values. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(1), 23–34. Forest Research. (2010). Benefits of Green Infrastructure: Report by Forest Research (WC0807). Farnham: Forest Research. Forman, R. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foster, J. (2014). Hiding in Plain View: Vacancy and Prospect in Paris’ Petite Ceinture. Cities, 40, 124–132. Frampton, K. (1992). Modern Architecture: A Critical History (3rd Edition). London: Thames & Hudson. Franz, M., Gules, O. & Prey, G. (2008). Place-Making and ‘Green’ Reuses of Brownfields in the Ruhr. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 99(3), 316–328. Gallent, N., Juntii, M., Kidd, S. & Shaw, D. (2008). Introduction to Rural Planning. London: Routledge. Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority. (n.d.). Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority. Retrieved 1 July 2014, from www.guda.gujarat.gov.in Gandhinagar Urban Development Authority. Gandhinagar Master Plan 2024. Gandhinagar. Gey, A. (2014). Urban–Nature Relationships in Urban Planning Foresight in Europe: Contributions from the Concours Internationale Du Grand Paris. Town Planning Review, 85(5), 589–616. Gilg, A. (1996). Countryside Planning: The First Half Century. London: Routledge. Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R. & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115–133. Gill, S.E., Rahman, M.A., Handley, J.F. & Ennos, A.R. (2013). Modelling Water Stress to Urban Amenity Grass in Manchester UK under Climate Change and its Potential Impacts in Reducing Urban Cooling. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), 350–358. Goode, D. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Report to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. London: Royal Commission Environmental Pollution. Goode, D. (2014). Nature in Towns and Cities. London: William Collins. Greater London Authority. (2012). Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: The All London Green Grid. Supplementary Planning Guidance, London Plan 2011 Implementation Framework. London: Greater London Authority. Green Infrastructure North West. (2010). Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy. Liverpool: Green Infrastructure North West. Haaland, C. & Gyllin, M. (2009). Butterflies and Bumblebees in Greenways and Sown Wildflower Strips in Southern Sweden. Journal of Insect Conservation, 14(2), 125–132. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century, 3rd Edition. Saffron Walden: Blackwell. Hall, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2010). Urban and Regional Planning. London: Routledge. Hansen, K.M. (2013). Green Infrastructure and the Law. Planning & Environmental Law, 65(8), 4–7. Hansen, R. & Pauleit, S. (2014). From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning for Urban Areas. Ambio, 43(4), 516–529. Hansen, R., Buizer, M., Rall, E., DeBellis, Y., Davies, C., Elands, B., et al. (2015). GREEN SURGE: Report of Case Study City Portraits. Appendix – GREEN SURGE

195

196

Bibliography Study on Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance in 20 European Case Studies. Copenhagen. Harrison Plesse, R. (2014). Parisians Have Their Say on City’s First €20m ‘Participatory Budget’. Guardian. Retrieved 8 October 2014, from www.theguardian.com/ cities/2014/oct/08/parisians-have-say-city-first-20m-participatory-budget Heathcott, J. (2013). The Promenade Plantee: Politics, Planning, and Urban Design in Postindustrial Paris. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(3), 280–291. Hellmund, P.C. & Smith, D.S. (2006). Designing Greenways: Sustainable Landscapes for Nature and People. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C.K., et al. (2010). The European Water Framework Directive at the Age of 10: A Critical Review of the Achievements with Recommendations for the Future. The Science of the Total Environment, 408(19), 4007–4019. Herrington, S. (2009). On Landscapes. New York: Routledge. Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience of Place. New York: Vintage Books. Holden, M., MacKenzie, J. & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Vancouver’s Promise of the World’s First Sustainable Olympic Games. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(5), 882–905. Horwood, K. (2011). Green Infrastructure: Reconciling Urban Green Space and Regional Economic Development – Lessons Learnt from Experience in Englands North-West Region. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 16(10), 37–41. Hostetler, M., Allen, W. & Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving Urban Biodiversity? Creating Green Infrastructure is Only the First Step. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 369–371. Howard, E. (2009). Garden Cities of To-Morrow (Illustrated Edition). Gloucester: Dodo Press. Howes, H. (2008). Strategic Planning for Water. London: Routledge. Ignatieva, M., Stewart, G.H. & Meurk, C. (2010). Planning and Design of Ecological Networks in Urban Areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(1), 17–25. Isserman, A. (2014). Dare to Plan: An Essay on the Role of the Future in Planning Practice and Education. Town Planning Review, 85(1), 9–18. Jaakkola, M. (2012). Helsinki, Finland: Greenness and Urban Form, in: Beatley, T. (ed.), Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism (pp. 109–128). Washington, DC: Island Press. Jaffe, M. (2010). Reflections on Green Infrastructure Economics. Environmental Practice, 12, 357–365. James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., et al. (2009). Towards an Integrated Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65–75. Jim, C. & Chen, S.S. (2003). Comprehensive Greenspace Planning Based on Landscape Ecology Principles in Compact Nanjing City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(3), 95–116. Jim, C.Y. & Chen, W.Y. (2006a). Recreation: Amenity Use and Contingent Valuation of Urban Greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1–2), 81–96. Jim, C.Y. & Chen, W.Y. (2006b). Impacts of Urban Environmental Elements on Residential Housing Prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 422–434. Jim, C.Y. & Chen, W.Y. (2009). Ecosystem Services and Valuation of Urban Forests in China. Cities, 26(4), 187–194.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Jim, C.Y., Lo, A.Y. & Byrne, J.A. (2015). Charting the Green and Climate-Adaptive City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 51–53. Jones, S. & Somper, C. (2014). The Role of Green Infrastructure in Climate Change Adaptation in London. The Geographical Journal, 180(2), 191–196. Jongman, R. & Pungetti, G. (eds) (2004). Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design and Implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalia, R. (2004). Gandhinagar: Building National Identity in Postcolonial India. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Kambites, C. & Owen, S. (2006). Renewed Prospects for Green Infrastructure Planning in the UK. Planning Practice and Research, 21(4), 483–496. Kenworthy, J.R. (2006). The Eco-City: Ten Key Transport and Planning Dimensions for Sustainable City Development. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 67–85. Khera, N., Mehta, V. & Sabata, B.C. (2009). Interrelationship of Birds and Habitat Features in Urban Greenspaces in Delhi, India. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(3), 187–196. Kirkman, R., Noonan, D.S. & Dunn, S.K. (2012). Urban Transformation and Individual Responsibility: The Atlanta BeltLine. Planning Theory, 11(4), 418–434. Konijnendijk, C.C. (2003). A Decade of Urban Forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(2), 173–186. Kousky, C., Olmstead, S.M., Walls, M.A. & Macauley, M. (2013). Strategically Placing Green Infrastructure: Cost-Effective Land Conservation in the Floodplain. Environmental Science Technology, 47(8), 3563–3570. Kundu, A. (2001). Institutional Innovations for Urban Infrastructural Development: The Indian Scenario. Development in Practice, 11(2–3), 174–189. Lachmund, J. (2013). Greening Berlin: The Co-Production of Science, Politics, and Urban Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lake, A. & Townshend, T. (2006). Obesogenic Environments: Exploring the Built and Food Environments. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(6), 262–267. Lake County Forest Preserve Department. (2014). 100-Year Vision for Lake County. Libertyville, IL. Landscape Institute. (2009). Green Infrastructure: Connected and Multifunctional Landscapes. Landscape Institute Position Statement. London. Landscape Institute. (2013). Green Infrastructure: An Integrated Approach to Land Use. Landscape Institute Position Statement. London. Landscape Institute. (2014). Profitable Places: Why Housebuilders Invest in Landscape. London. Laurian, L. (2012). Paris, France: A 21st Century Eco-City, in: Beatley, T. (ed.), Green Cities of Europe: Global Lessons on Green Urbanism, (pp. 29–64). Washington, DC: Island Press. Lehmann, S. (2011). The Principles of Green Urbanism: Transforming the City for Sustainability. London: Earthscan. Lemma, A. & Overseas Development Agency. (2012). Green Infrastructure in Fragile States. London: ODA. Lennon, M. (2014a). Green Infrastructure and Planning Policy: A Critical Assessment. Local Environment, 20(8), 957–980. Lennon, M. (2014b). Presentation and Persuasion: The Meaning of Evidence in Irish Green Infrastructure Policy. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10(2), 167–186. Lennon, M., Scott, M., Collier, M. & Foley, K. (2015). Developing Green Infrastructure ‘Thinking’: Devising and Applying an Interactive Group-Based Methodology

197

198

Bibliography for Practitioners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2015.1042152. Lerner, J. & Allen, W.L. (2012). Landscape-Scale Green Infrastructure Investments as a Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Case Example for the Midwest United States. Environmental Practice, 14(1), 45–56. Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J. & Liu, X. (2005). Comprehensive Concept Planning of Urban Greening Based on Ecological Principles: A Case Study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72(4), 325–336. Liebenath, M., Blum, A. & Sturzriemer, S. (2010). Transboundary Cooperation in Establishing Ecological Networks: The Case of Germany’s External Borders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(2), 84–93. Lindsey, G., Maraj, M. & Kuan, S. (2001). Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory Investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332–346. Little, C. (1990). Greenways for America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. London Legacy Development Corporation. (2012). Your Sustainability Guide to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park 2030. London: London Legacy Development Corporation. London Legacy Development Corporation. (2013). A Walk Around Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. London: London Legacy Development Corporation. London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2007). Design Principles for the Olympic Park. London: LOCOG. London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2009). Towards a One Planet 2012: Sustainability Plan, 2nd Edition. London: LOCOG. London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2011). A Blueprint for Change, Sustainability Report. London: LOCOG. London Organising Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. (2012). London 2012 Sustainability Report April 2011. London. Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel, Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macdonald, S. & Keil, R. (2012). The Ontario Greenbelt: Shifting the Scales of the Sustainability Fix? The Professional Geographer, 64(1), 125–145. Madureira, H., Andresen, T. & Monteiro, A. (2011). Green Structure and Planning Evolution in Porto. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 141–149. Mahadevia, D. (2011). Branded and Renewed? Policies, Politics and Processes of Urban Development in the Reform Era. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(31), 56–64. Mairie de Paris. (2014). Reinventer.paris. Retrieved 1 September 2015, from www. reinventer.paris/en Mansor, M. & Said, I. (2008). Green Infrastructure Network as Social Spaces for Well-Being of Urban Residents in Taiping, Malaysia. International Conference on Environmental Research and Technology (ICERT 2008), 28–30 May 2008. Parkroyal Penang, Malaysia. Manthur, N. (2012). On the Sabarmati Riverfront: Urban Planning as Totalitarian Government in Ahmedabad. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(47–48), 64–75. Marcucci, D.J. & Jordan, L.M. (2013). Benefits and Challenges of Linking Green Infrastructure and Highway Planning in the United States. Environmental Management, 51(1), 182–197. Marshall, T. (2009). Planning and New Labour in the UK. Planning Practice and Research, 24(1), 1–9. Mayor of London. (2014). London Infrastructure Plan 2050: A Consultation. London.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Mazza, L., Bennett, G., De Nocker, L., Gantioler, S., Losarcos, L., Margerison, C., et al. (2011). Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency. Institute for European Environmental Policy. McDonald, L., Allen, W., Benedict, M.A. & O’Connor, K. (2005). Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of Conservation Planning, 1(1), 12–43. McHarg, I.L. (1969). Design with Nature. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. McKinsey Global Institute. (2010). India’s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth. New Delhi. McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D., Heisler, G., Grimmond, S., Souch, C., Grant, R., et al. (1997). Quantifying Urban Forest Structure, Function, and Value: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems, 1(1), 49–61. Mell, I.C. (2007). Green Infrastructure Planning: What are the Costs for Health and Well-Being? The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 3(5), 117–124. Mell, I.C. (2008). Green Infrastructure: Concepts and Planning. FORUM: E-Journal, 8, 69–80. Mell, I.C. (2009). Can Green Infrastructure Promote Urban Sustainability? Proceedings of the ICE: Engineering Sustainability, 162(1), 23–34. Mell, I.C. (2010). Green Infrastructure: Concepts, Perceptions and Its Use in Spatial Planning. Thesis, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Newcastle University. Mell, I.C. (2011a). Green Infrastructure Planning: A Contemporary Approach for Innovative Interventions in Urban Landscape Management. Journal of Biourbanism, 1(1), 29–39. Mell, I.C. (2011b). The Changing Focus of England’s Community Forest Programme and Its Use of a Green Infrastructure Approach to Multi-Functional Landscape Planning. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 3(4), 431–446. Mell, I.C. (2013a). Can You Tell a Green Field from a Cold Steel Rail? Examining the ‘Green’ of Green Infrastructure Development. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 18(2), 37–41. Mell, I.C. (2013b). Managing India’s Urban Green Spaces: Translating Global Green Infrastructure Lessons to Indian Cities. urbaNature, 14–17. Mell, I.C. (2013c). The Greater Good. Town and Country Planning, 82(3), 143–145. Mell, I.C. (2014). Aligning Fragmented Planning Structures through a Green Infrastructure Approach to Urban Development in the UK and USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), 612–620. Mell, I.C. (2015a). Green Infrastructure Planning: Policy and Objectives, in: Sinnett, D., Burgess, S., & Smith, N. (eds), Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation (pp. 105–123). Farnham: Ashgate. Mell, I.C. (2015b). Establishing the Rationale for Green Infrastructure Investment in Indian Cities: Is the Mainstreaming of Urban Greening an Expanding or Diminishing Reality? AIMS Environmental Science, 2(2), 134–153. Mell, I.C. (2016) Public Health Promotion in England’s Community Forest Partnerships, in: Coutts, C. (ed.), Green Infrastructure and Public Health (pp. 245–268). Abingdon: Routledge. Mell, I.C. & Roe, M. (2007). Green Infrastructure: Innovative Landscape Planning for Multi-Functional Environments? Fábos Landscape Planning and Greenways Symposium, 31 March 2007, Amherst, MA. Mell, I. C. & Roe, M. (2010). Evaluating the Demands of Green Infrastructure Development: People, the Landscape and the Economy, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Fábos Conference (pp. 1–9). Mell, I.C., Henneberry, J., Hehl-Lange, S. & Keskin, B. (2013). Promoting Urban Greening: Valuing the Development of Green Infrastructure Investments in

199

200

Bibliography the Urban Core of Manchester, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), 296–306. Merk, O., Saussier, S., Staropoli, C., Slack, E. & Kim, J.-H. (2012). Financing Green Infrastructure: OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/10. London: OECD. Mersey Forest. (2013a). The Mersey Forest Plan: Final Draft, September 2013. Risley Moss. Mersey Forest. (2013b). Summary of Natural Choices for Health & Wellbeing Evaluation Report. Risley Moss. Mertins, G. & Paal, M. (2009). Regional Planning within the German Institutional Planning Framework: Instruments and Effectiveness. Investigación & Desarrollo, 17(2), 242–267. Morrison, N. (2010). A Green Belt Under Pressure: The Case of Cambridge, England. Planning Practice and Research, 25, 157–181. Nagendra, H. & Gopal, D. (2010). Street Trees in Bangalore: Density, Diversity, Composition and Distribution. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 129–137. Nagendra, H., Nagendran, S., Paul, S. & Pareeth, S. (2012). Graying, Greening and Fragmentation in the Rapidly Expanding Indian City of Bangalore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(4), 400–406. Nallathiga, R. (2010). India Infrastructure Report 2010: Infrastructure Development in a Low Carbon Economy, in: 3iNetwork (ed.), India Infrastructure Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 355–373. Nandi, J. (2014). Scrap Yamuna Riverfront Project, Panel Says. The Times of India. Retrieved 17 February 2015, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/ Scrap-Yamuna-riverfront-project-panel-says/articleshow/34215905.cms Nassauer, J. (1995). Culture and Changing Landscape Structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229–237. Natural England & Landuse Consultants. (2009). Green Infrastructure Guidance. Peterborough. Netusil, N.R., Levin, Z., Shandas, V. & Hart, T. (2014). Valuing Green Infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 14–21. New York City Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable Strategy for Clean Waterways. New York. Newman, O. (1973). Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press. North West Green Infrastructure Think Tank. (2006). North West Green Infrastructure Guide. Retrieved 1 October 2015, from www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/ resources/GIguide.pdf Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2002a). Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning. London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2002b). Planning Policy Guidance 17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation. London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005a). Creating Sustainable Communities: Greening the Gateway Implementation Plan. London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005b). Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. London. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2006). Planning Policy Statement 9: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice. London. Oxford Brookes University. (2010). Literature Review: Olympic Venues – Regeneration Legacy. London.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J. & Lindley, S. (2003). Promoting the Natural Greenstructure of Towns and Cities: English Nature’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards Model. Built Environment, 29(2), 157–170. Payne, S. (2013). Barratt Profits as Houses Shrink, but Don’t Blame the Builder. The Conversation. Retrieved 5 December 2014, from http://theconversation.com/ barratt-profits-as-houses-shrink-but-dont-blame-the-builder-20117 Pearce, G. & Ayres, S. (2012). Back to the Local? Recalibrating the Regional Tier of Governance in England. Regional & Federal Studies, 22(1), 1–24. Pepper, D. (1996). Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Philadelphia Water Department. (2011). Green City, Clean Waters: The City of Philadelphia’s Program for Combined Sewer Overflow Control. Philadelphia. Pradhan, A. (2014). Do We Really Need Gujarat’s Sabramati Model? India Together. Retrieved 17 February 2015, from http://indiatogether.org/gujarat-sabarmatiriverfront-development-model-for-ganga-yamuna-environment President’s Council on Sustainable Development. (1999). Towards a Sustainable America, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: US GPO. Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N. & Griffin, M. (2007). Green Exercise in the UK Countryside: Effects on Health and Psychological Well-Being, and Implications for Policy and Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 211–231. Qureshi, S., Breuste, J.H. & Lindley, S.J. (2010). Green Space Functionality Along an Urban Gradient in Karachi, Pakistan: A Socio-Ecological Study. Human Ecology, 38(2), 283–294. Qureshi, S., Breuste, J.H. & Jim, C.Y. (2013). Differential Community and the Perception of Urban Green Spaces and Their Contents in the Megacity of Karachi, Pakistan. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 853–870. Raco, M. (2005). A Step Change or a Step Back? The Thames Gateway and the Re-Birth of the Urban Development Corporations. Local Economy, 20(2), 141–153. Roe, M. and Mell, I. (2008). Green Infrastructure and Landscape Planning: Collaborative Projects in the North East of England, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Annual ECLAS Conference: Landscape Assessment – From Theory to Practice. Applications in Planning and Design. Belgrade: ECLAS. Roe, M. & Mell, I.C. (2013). Negotiating Value and Priorities: Evaluating the Demands of Green Infrastructure Development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 37–41. Roe, M.H. & Taylor, K. (eds). (2014). New Cultural Landscapes. London: Routledge. Roe, M., Selman, P., Mell, I., Jones, C. & Swanwick, C. (2009). Establishment of a Baseline for, and Monitoring of the Impact of, the European Landscape Convention in the UK. Defra Contract No. CR0401 (Comp. Code: WC0802). Bristol. Retrieved 1 June 2015, from http://landscapecharacter.org.uk/elc/baseline-monitoring-ELC Rogers, E.B. (2001). Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. New York: Harry H. Abrams, Inc. Rouse, D.C. & Bunster-Ossa, I. (2013). Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Approach. Chicago: APA Planners Press. Roy, P. (2015). Collaborative Planning: A Neoliberal Strategy? A Study of the Atlanta BeltLine. Cities, 43, 59–68. Ryan, R.L., Fábos, J.G. & Allan, J.J. (2006). Understanding Opportunities and Challenges for Collaborative Greenway Planning in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1–4), 172–191. Rydin, Y. (2003). Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

201

202

Bibliography Safransky, S. (2014). Greening the Urban Frontier: Race, Property, and Resettlement in Detroit. Geoforum, 56, 237–248. Sandström, U. (2002). Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), 37–41. Sarkissen, W. (1976). The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review. Urban Studies, 13(3), 231–246. Schenker, H.M. (1995). Parks and Politics During the Second Empire in Paris. Landscape Jrnl, 14(2), 201–219. Schilling, J. & Logan, J. (2008). Greening the Rust Belt: A Green Infrastructure Model for Right Sizing America’s Shrinking Cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 451–466. Schmelzkopf, K. (2002). Incommersurability, Land Use, and the Right to Space: Community Gardens in New York City. Urban Geography, 23(4), 323–343. Schrijnen, P.M. (2000). Infrastructure Networks and Red–Green Patterns in City Regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3–4), 191–204. Selman, P. (2009). Planning for Landscape Multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 5(2), 45–52. Shen, X. (2013). The Suzhou Landscape, in: Schöbel, S. & Czechowski, D. (eds), Urban Landscape Studies: Euphrogenic Landscapes (pp. 182–191). Munich: Fachgebiet für Landschaftsarchitektur regionaler Freiräume Technische Universität München. Shepard, W. (2015). Ghost Cities of China. London: Zed Books. Siddiqui Zaman, R. (2014). Delhi Metro Donating Cut Trees to Crematoriums. The Hindu. Retrieved 17 February 2015, from www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/ delhi-metro-donating-cut-trees-to-crematoriums/article5821978.ece Siemens AG. (2011). Asian Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Performance of Asia’s Major Cities. Munich. Singh, D. (2013). To Replant Trees, Metro to Get Land in East Delhi. Hindustan Times, New Delhi. Retrieved 17 February 2015, from www.hindustantimes.com/ newdelhi/to-replant-trees-metro-to-get-land-in-east-delhi/article1-1003590.aspx Singh, V.S., Pandey, D.N. & Chaudhry, P. (2010). Urban Forests and Open Green Spaces: Lessons from Jairpur, Rajasthan, India. RSPCB Occasional Paper No. 1/2010, Jaipur. Sonak, S., Pangam, P. & Giriyan, A. (2008). Green Reconstruction of the TsunamiAffected Areas in India Using the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Concept. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(1), 14–23. South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council. (2012). The VALUE Project: The Final Report. Sheffield. Spanò, M., DeBellis, Y., Sanesi, G. & Lafortezza, R. (2015). Green Surge: Milan, Italy. Case Study City Portrait; Part of a GREEN SURGE Study on Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance in 20 European Cities. Bari. Sridhar, K.S. (2007). Impact of Land Use Regulations: Evidence from India’s Cities. New Delhi: Institute for Social and Economic Change. Strohmayer, U. (2006). Urban Design and Civic Spaces: Nature at the Parc Des ButtesChaumont in Paris. Cultural Geographies, 13(4), 557–576. Sudha, P. & Ravindranath, N. (2000). A Study of Bangalore Urban Forest. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47(1–2), 47–63. Sutherland, T. (2012). Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment: Review. Natural England Research Reports, Number 33. Peterborough. Swilling, M. (2011). Reconceptualising Urbanism, Ecology and Networked Infrastructures. Social Dynamics, 37, 78–95.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Tate, A. (2015). Great City Parks, 2nd Edition (with Marcella Eaton). London: Routledge. Taylor, J., Paine, C. & FitzGibbon, J. (1995). From Greenbelt to Greenways: Four Canadian Case Studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 47–64. TEP. (2005). Advancing the Delivery of Green Infrastructure: Targeting Issues in England’s Northwest. Warrington. Terry, A., Ullrich, K. & Riecken, U. (2006). The Green Belt for Europe: From Vision to Reality. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2012). Spatial Planning and Governance: Understanding UK Planning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tewdwr-Jones, M. & McNeill, D. (2000). The Politics of City-Region Planning and Governance: Reconciling the National, Regional and Urban in the Competing Voices of Institutional Restructuring. European Urban and Regional Studies, 7(2), 119–134. The Next Century Conservation Plan Commission. (2014). Next Century Conservation Plan for the Forest Preserve of Cook County. Chicago, IL. Thomas, K. & Littlewood, S. (2010). From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure? The Evolution of a New Concept in the Emerging Soft Governance of Spatial Strategies. Planning Practice and Research, 25(2), 203–222. Times of India. (2015). Let Delhi Breath: Sign up to Save Delhi from Choking. Times of India online. Retrieved 17 February 2015, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes. com/campaignlanding/46108401.cms Town & Country Planning Association. (2004). Biodiversity by Design: Projects & Publications. London: Town & Country Planning Association. Town & Country Planning Association. (2012a). Planning for a Healthy Environment: Good Practice Guidance for Green Infrastructure. London: Town & Country Planning Association Town & Country Planning Association. (2012b). Reuniting Health with Planning: Healthier Homes, Healthier Communities. London: Town & Country Planning Association. Town & Country Planning Association. (2012c). Creating Garden Cities and Suburbs Today: Policies, Practices, Partnerships and Model Approaches – A Report of the Garden Cities and Suburbs Expert Group. London: Town & Country Planning Association. Town and Country Planning Organisation & Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development. (2014). Urban Greening Guidelines 2014. New Delhi. Tuan, Y. (1990). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values (New Edition). New York: Columbia University Press. Tyrväinen, L. (2001). Economic Valuation of Urban Forest Benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62(1), 75–92. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaz´mierczak, A., Niemela, J., et al. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. Underwood, J.G. (2011). Combining Landscape-Level Conservation Planning and Biodiversity Offset Programs: A Case Study. Environmental Management, 47(1), 121–129. UNEP-WCMC. (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Understanding Nature’s Value to Society. Synthesis of Key Findings. Cambridge: Information Press. Urban Task Force. (1999). Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance. London. Retrieved 1 October 2015, from www.urbantaskforce.org/UTF_final_report.pdf Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B., Van Huylenbroeck, G. & Gellynck, X. (2011). The Use of Economic Valuation to Create Public Support for Green

203

204

Bibliography Infrastructure Investments in Urban Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 198–206. van der Velde, R. & de Wit, S. (2015). Representing Nature: Late Twentieth Century Green Infrastructures in Paris, in: Nijhuis, S., Jauslin, D. & van der Hoeven, F. (eds), Flowscapes: Designing Infrastructure as Landscapes (pp. 205–228). Delft: TU Delft. Walmsley, A. (2006). Greenways: Multiplying and Diversifying in the 21st Century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1–4), 252–290. Wang, L., Shen, J. & Chung, C.K.L. (2015). City Profile: Suzhou – A Chinese City Under Transformation. Cities, 44, 60–72. Weber, T. (2007). Ecosystem Services in Cecil County’s Green Infrastructure. Technical Report for the Cecil County Green Infrastructure Plan. Weber, T. & Wolf, J. (2000). Maryland’s Green Infrastructure: Using Landscape Assessment Tools to Identify a Regional Conservation Strategy. Environmental Managment and Assessment, 63(1), 265–277. Weber, T., Sloan, A. & Wolf, J. (2006). Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment: Development of a Comprehensive Approach to Land Conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1–2), 94–110. Werquin, A.C., Duhem, B., Lindholm, G., Oppermann, B., Pauleit, S. & Tjallingii, S. (eds) (2005). Green Structure and Urban Plannng: Final Report. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Commission. Wilker, J. & Rusche, K. (2013). Economic Valuation as a Tool to Support DecisionMaking in Strategic Green Infrastructure Planning. Local Environment, 19(6), 702–713. Williamson, K.S. (2003). Growing with Green Infrastructure. Doylestown: Heritage Conservancy. Willsher, K. (2014). Paris Awaits Result of Referendum on How to Spend €20m of City Budget. Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ oct/01/paris-awaits-referendum-budget-results Wilson, E.O. (1990). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wise, B.S. (2008). Green Infrastructure Rising. Incentive, 74, 1–5. Wolf, K.L. & Forest Resources. (2003). Ergonomics of the City: Green Infrastructure and Social Benefits, in: Kollin, C. (ed.), Engineering Green Proceedings of the 2003 National Urban Forest Conference (p. 5). Washington, DC: American Forests. Wright, H. (2011). Understanding Green Infrastructure: The Development of a Contested Concept in England. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 16(10), 37–41. Wu, F. (2015). Planning for Growth: Urban and Regional Planning in China. The RTPI Library Series. London: Routledge. Xu, C., Ye, H. & Cao, S. (2011). Constructing China’s Greenways Naturally. Ecological Engineering, 37(3), 401–406. Xu, X., Duan, X., Sun, H. & Sun, Q. (2011). Green Space Changes and Planning in the Capital Region of China. Environmental Management, 47(3), 456–467. Young, R.F. (2010). Managing Municipal Green Space for Ecosystem Services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(4), 313–321. Young, R.F. & McPherson, E.G. (2013). Governing Metropolitan Green Infrastructure in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 67–75. Zagari, F. & Selleri, B. (2015). Moving Forest: Expo Milano 2015 Landscape. Melfi: Libria, maggio. Zérah, M. (2007). Conflict between Green Space Preservation and Housing Needs: The Case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. Cities, 24(2), 122–132.

www.ebook3000.com

Bibliography Zhang, L. & Xu, Y. (2013). A Study on Shanghai’s Practice Based on the Organic Evolution Theory of Urban Green Space System. Modern Landscape Architecture: Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Landscape Architecture, Nanjing, China, 17–19 November. Zmelik, K., Schindler, S. & Wrbka, T. (2011). The European Green Belt: International Collaboration in Biodiversity Research and Nature Conservation along the Former Iron Curtain. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 24(3), 273–294.

205

Index

Note: page numbers in italic type refer to Figures; those in bold type refer to Tables. accessibility 25, 38, 52, 175, 176 Advocate Lutheran General Hospital Patient Tower, Chicago, USA 68, 68–9 Ahern, Jack 26 Ahmedabad Development Plan 2021 142–4, 150 Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India 146 Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) 57, 142, 143–4, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 176 Ahmedabad, India, case study 15, 57, 131–2, 141–2, 142, 150–1, 173, 174, 178 development planning and administration 142–3 green belt 25 green infrastructure network 142, 144–50, 175 main theme 55 Sabarmati Riverfront development 31, 132, 136, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146–8, 150, 176, 183, 186 allotments, Milan, Italy 119, 125, 128 AMC (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation) 57, 142, 143–4, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 176 AMCOL Corporate Headquarters, Chicago, USA 69, 69 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) 78 ANGSt (Accessible Natural Green Space Standards), England 25 Aravali Biodiversity Park, Delhi, India 138 ARUR (Plan Locale d’Urbanisme), Paris, France 110 Asian Development Bank, Green Urbanization programme 47 Asian Green City Index 47 Atlanta Beltline Arboretum 79 Atlanta case study/Atlanta Beltline 60, 74–6, 84–5, 173, 174, 174

activities 82–3 barriers and constraints 83–4 collaboration, partnership and engagement 81–2, 179–80, 189 focus and design 77–80 funding 80–1 main theme 55 map 74 policy 37, 59–60 AUDA (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority) 57, 142, 143–4, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 176 Austin, G. 38 Babu, C.R. 138 Barton, H. 23 Beatley, T. 27, 35, 37, 39, 176 Benedict, M.A. 7, 33, 35, 36, 39, 52 Bengaluru ‘garden city,’ India 46, 47, 47, 51, 130, 178 Berlin, Germany 108 biodiversity planning 18, 91 Biodiversity Recovery Plan, Chicago 64 biophilia 28 bioswales 2 Chicago 68, 70 blue infrastructure management 30, 30–2, 31 see also water management Bois de Boulogne, Paris, France 116, 116, 117, 129 Bosco Verticale, Milan, Italy 126, 127–8, 183 Boston Back Bay Fens, Boston, USA 20 Boston Common, Boston, USA 20, 21 Boston, USA 33, 59 greenways 20, 20–1 Bryant Park, New York, USA 13, 53, 54 Bund, The, Shanghai, China 160, 162, 183, 183 Cambridgeshire case study 12, 15, 56, 87–90, 89, 106–7, 173, 174, 181, 185, 189 Ely Country Park, Cambridgeshire, UK 54, 90, 93–6, 94, 96, 174

www.ebook3000.com

Index Green Infrastructure Strategies 4, 86–7, 89, 90–3, 92, 93, 182 main theme 55 Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) 87, 88, 94, 95, 107 Cambridgeshire Horizons 87–8, 90 Canada: green belts 25 greenways 21, 25, 175 see also Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula, Canada; Vancouver/Vancouver Island, Canada Catskill watershed, USA 31 CCC (Cambridgeshire County Council) 87, 88, 94, 95, 107 CDWM (Chicago Department of Water Management) 71 CEMDE (Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems) 138 Centennial Park, Atlanta, USA 74, 75 Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), Chicago 61, 70–1, 176 Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems (CEMDE) 138 Century Park, Pudong, China 154, 158, 159 CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India 146, 148–9, 150 Changfeng Ecology Business Areas No. 1 and No. 2, Shanghai, China 161–2, 162 Changfeng Park, Shanghai, China 16, 157 Chavasse Park, Liverpool, UK 53–4 Chen, W.Y. 34 Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, USA 33, 45 Chicago Department of Water Management (CDWM) 71 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning see CMAP (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning) Chicago Wilderness Project 63–4, 65, 66, 66, 67, 84, 85, 176, 177–8, 179 Chicago, USA, case study 15, 57, 59–60, 61–2, 62, 84, 85, 173, 174, 175, 179 governance and management 63–4, 64 main theme 55 map 60 Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park 61, 62, 73–4, 183 MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District) 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 85, 176, 177 policy 30, 37, 65–7, 66 stormwater/water resource management 67–73, 68, 69, 71, 176, 177–8 China: green infrastructure policy 34, 39, 46–7, 188 see also Shanghai/Suzhou, China, case study

City of Crystal Lake, USA 64, 178 CMAP (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning) 63, 64, 66, 67 GOTO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan for Chicago 63, 64, 66, 68, 179 Commission for a Sustainable London (CSL) 98, 103 communication 185–6 Community Forest Partnerships, England 12, 25–6, 32, 35, 44, 86 comprehensive networks 21 Congress coalition government, India 46 connectivity 7, 14, 38, 52, 175, 176, 188 Conservation Design Forum 72 Conservation Fund, USA 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 43, 45 green infrastructure typology 8 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, UK 23, 41n4, 44 context, of green infrastructure policy environment 43–8, 171, 173, 182 Cook County, USA 65, 67 Copenhagen, Denmark 108, 176 Frederiksberg green space map 27 corridors, in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 156, 156–7 COST Action C11 108 Countryside Agency, England 12, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 39, 86 see also Natural England Countryside In and Around Towns (CIAT) agenda 24, 25 Davies, C. 9, 17, 39, 187 DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government), UK 12 DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport), UK 94–5, 99 DDA (Delhi Development Authority) 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 150, 151 De Vlaamse Landmaatschappij (VLM), Belgium 33 defensible spaces 169–70 Defra (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), UK 99, 103 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 140, 150, 151 Delhi Ridge, India 53, 132, 135, 137, 150, 151 Delhi Secretariat 138, 139 Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), UK 12 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK 99, 103 Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), UK 94–5, 99 developers 34, 50–1, 51 DNR (Illinois Department for Natural Resources) 63, 168 Dushu Park, Suzhou, China 166, 166–7

207

208

Index East Cambridgeshire Strategic Area 4: Eastern Fens and Towns 91, 92 East London see London Olympic Park case study East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 88 Eastside Trail, Atlanta, USA 77, 78, 78–9, 79, 82 ecological corridors (greenways) 21 ecosystem services 9, 18, 29, 36, 179 ELC (European Landscape Convention) 52–3, 175, 179 Ely Country Park, Cambridgeshire, UK 54, 90, 93–6, 94, 96, 174 Emerald Necklace, Boston, USA 21, 59 English Nature 86 ENGOs (environmental non-governmental organisations) 49, 90, 186 Ente Regionale Per I Servizi All’Agricoltura Alle Foreste (ERSAF), Milan, Italy 119–20, 123, 124, 129 Environment Agency, UK 91, 99, 101 environmental education: Atlanta, USA 82–3, 83 Cambridgeshire, UK 95 ‘Space to Grow’ schools programme, Chicago, USA 70, 71, 71–2, 84 environmental stewardship schemes, Cambridgeshire 88–9 EPA (Environment Protection Agency), USA 14, 30–1, 33, 37, 45, 48, 63–4, 175 EPPGHV (Establissement Public de Parc et de la Grande Halle de la Villette) 113 EPPV (Establissement Public de Parc de la Villette) 113 EU (European Union): ELC (European Landscape Convention) 52–3, 175, 179 green belts 25 green infrastructure policy 33–4, 188 WFD (Water Framework Directive) 10, 52, 175, 179 Europe: overview of green infrastructure 40, 108–9 see also EU (European Union); London Olympic Park case study; Milan, Italy, case study; Paris, France, case study European Landscape Convention (ELC) 52–3, 175, 179 Fábos Landscape and Greenways Planning Conferences 33 flooding: Chicago 61, 65 London Olympic Park 101 see also stormwater management Forestry Commission, UK 3, 12, 86 forests: in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 156, 156–7

urban forestry, Milan, Italy 109, 119, 120, 124–5, 128 see also trees Franklin, Shirley 75, 80 Frederiksberg green space map, Copenhagen, Denmark 27 funding 185 Cambridgeshire case study 92–3, 93, 94–6 London Olympic Park 103–5 Milan, Italy 124 garden cities: Bengaluru, India 46, 47, 47, 51, 130, 178 UK 9, 10–11, 17, 21–3 garden greening, in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 157 Germany 33, 46 GLA (Greater London Authority) 97, 98, 103, 104 Glendinning, Parris 190 Golden Horseshoe green belt, Canada 25 government departments and officers, engagement with green infrastructure policy 48 Great Fen, Cambridgeshire, UK 88, 89 Greater London Authority (GLA) 97, 98, 103, 104 Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula, Canada 25, 52 green belt: Ahmedabad, India 130, 141 Delhi, India 132 Greater Toronto Area and Niagara Peninsula, Canada 25 Milan, Italy 123 New York State, USA 31 UK 17, 23–5, 24, 175 green infrastructure: barriers to development 19 consolidation phase of development 37–9, 54 contextual policy environment 43–8, 171, 173 current status of 4–6 definition and description 6–9, 8, 35 development of policy and advocacy 32–4 economic value of 37–8 evaluation process 42–3 expansion phase of development 36–7, 54 exploration phase of development 34–6, 35, 54 future development 187–90 geographical rise of 39–40 importance of 9–11 leadership in 11–13, 184 overview of planning, 2005-2009 40

www.ebook3000.com

Index scalar differences 52–4, 53, 171, 173, 174–6 stakeholder engagement with 48–51, 171, 173 temporal differences 54, 171, 173 thematic differences 54, 55, 56, 171, 173, 177–9 green roofs 59 Chicago 61, 68, 69 XJTLU (Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University) Campus, Suzhou, China 167 green space planning 10–11 green urbanism 17, 26–7 Greenpeace India 130, 135, 151 greenways 9, 10–11, 19–20, 52, 59 Ahmedabad, India 175 Atlanta, USA 76 Boston, USA 20, 20–1 Canada 21, 25, 175 Indianapolis, USA 21, 52 London, UK 175 North America 17 Paris, France 111–12, 113 Grey-Green Continuum 9 Groundwork 24, 35, 39, 86 Gucheng Park, Shanghai, China 153, 160–1 Gurgaon, India 139, 140, 150 Haussmann, G.-E. 108, 111–12, 129 health 9 Cambridgeshire, UK 91 and garden cities 22 and green space 36 and green urbanism 27 Paris, France 111–12 Helsinki, Finland 31 HGF (Strategic Housing Growth Funding) 89–90, 94, 95 High Line, New York, USA 28, 53, 112, 175, 175, 186 Historic Fourth Ward Park, Atlanta, USA 77, 79, 81 Hong Kong, China 34 Howard, Ebenezer 22, 23, 190 Humble Administrators Garden, Suzhou, China 163, 164, 170 IIM Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India 146, 148–9, 150 Île aux Cygnes, Paris, France 111 India: green infrastructure, as a term 9 green space 9 policy 34, 39, 46, 47, 47, 130–2, 188 see also Ahmedabad, India, case study; New Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR), India, case study India Gate, Delhi, India 137, 178

Indiana, USA 63, 65 see also Chicago, USA, case study Indianapolis, USA 21, 52 Jardin de Reuilly, Paris, France 113 Jim, C.Y. 34 Jongman, R. 29 Kambites, C. 36 Kankaria Lake, Ahmedabad 143, 144, 146, 150, 176 Kishwaukee River Corridor Green Infrastructure Plan 65 Lake County, USA 63, 64, 178 Lake Shore Driveway, Chicago, USA 73 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, India 133–4 landscape ecology 10–11, 18, 28–9, 52, 176 Landscape Institute (LI) 7, 12, 50, 172, 174 Landuse Consultants 8, 8–9, 24 Law Gardens, Ahmedabad, India 145–6 Lea Valley, London, UK 98, 100, 101 leadership 1–13, 184 Letchworth Garden City, UK 22 Lingering Garden, Suzhou, China 163 Lions Forest Garden, Suzhou, China 163, 165 Little, C. 21, 34 Liverpool University: XJTLU (Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University) Campus, Suzhou, China 167–9, 168, 169, 186 Liverpool, UK 172 Chavasse Park 53–4 LLDC (London Legacy Development Corporation) 98, 99, 104, 105 LOCOG (London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games) 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107 London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) 98, 99, 104, 105 London Olympic Park case study 12, 15, 85n5, 86, 87, 96–9, 98, 106–7, 173, 174, 175, 183, 188 consultation and collaboration 99, 180, 186, 189 design, development and functionality 100, 100–1 green belt 23 LOCOG objectives 101, 102 main theme 55 site conversion and long-term management 102–6, 104, 105 London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107 London, UK 38, 110, 180 see also London Olympic Park case study Louv, R. 28, 114 Lowenthal, David 29, 180

209

210

Index Maggie Daley Park, Chicago 61, 62, 73, 74, 183 Malmö, Sweden 31, 108 McHarg, I.L. 27, 34, 190 McMahon, E.T. 7, 33, 35, 36, 39, 52 ‘meanwhile’ spaces 149, 170n1 Merseyside, UK 24 Mersey Forest 26 Metropolitan Milano project 119, 120, 123–4, 125, 174, 175 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD), Chicago, USA 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 85, 176, 177 Midlothian Creek Green Infrastructure mapping 65 Milan, Italy, case study 108–9, 119, 119–20, 128–9, 173, 174, 174, 179 Bosco Verticale 126, 127–8, 183 main theme 55 Metropolitan Milano project 119, 120, 123–4, 125, 129, 174, 175 Milano Expo 2015 120, 121, 122–3, 128 Parco Nord Milano 122, 124–7, 128 Millennium Park, Chicago 61, 62, 73–4 Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, India 133 Ministry of Urban Development, India 133, 134 Modi, Narendra 136, 142, 146, 150 multi-functionality 4, 7, 14, 38, 53, 177, 182–3, 188, 190 National Health Service (NHS), UK 12, 44 National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog 133 National Parks Service, USA 48–9 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), UK 23, 44, 187 National Sustainable Habitat Mission, India 133 Natural England 12, 24, 32, 44, 49, 94, 95, 99, 101, 103 green infrastructure typology 8, 8–9 see also Countryside Agency, England Natural Land Institute, USA 64 NDD (nature-deficit disorder) 97 New Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR), India, case study 15, 34, 53, 130–3, 131, 132, 150–1, 173, 174, 178 biodiversity parks 138–9 Delhi Ridge, India 53, 132, 135, 137, 150, 151 development planning and administration 133–4 green infrastructure investment 134–5, 139, 139–40 main theme 55 New Delhi Development Plan 134, 135, 136, 137 New Labour government, UK 23, 43–4, 86

New York City, USA: green infrastructure policy 31, 33, 37, 45, 59, 176 High Line 28, 53, 112, 175, 175, 186 NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog 133 nodes, in landscape ecology 28 Noida, India 139, 140 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 49 Northern Park, London Olympic Park 97, 104, 105–6 NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), UK 23, 44, 187 ODA (Olympic Development Authority) 100, 103 ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), UK 23 Olmsted, Frederick Law 17, 20–1, 22, 190 Olympic Development Authority (ODA) 100, 103 Olympic Park Legacy Corporation (OPLC) 97, 103 Olympic Park Development Corporation (OPDC) 99 OPDC (Olympic Park Development Corporation) 99 OPLC (Olympic Park Legacy Corporation) 97, 103 Paramal Gardens, Ahmedabad, India 145–6, 147, 152n8 Parc André Citröen, Paris, France 115, 116–17, 129 Parc de Bercy, Paris, France 117 Parc de la Villette, Paris, France 113–14, 114, 128 Parco Agricolo Sud Milano, Milan, Italy 124 Parco Nord Milano, Milan, Italy 122, 124–7, 129 Parco Siempione, Milan, Italy 125 Paris, France, case study 108–12, 109, 110, 118, 128–9, 173, 174 Bois de Boulogne 116, 116, 117, 129 green space per person 110 main theme 55 Parc André Citröen 115, 116–17, 129 Parc de Bercy 117 Parc de la Villette 113–14, 114, 129 policy 33–4, 45–6, 179 Promenade Planteé 6, 112, 112–13, 117, 175 parks/gardens, in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 156, 156–7 parkways 19, 20 People’s Park, Shanghai, China 155 Philadelphia, USA 37, 45, 59 Plan d’Occupation des Sols, Paris 110 Plan Locale d’Urbanisme (ARUR), Paris, France 110

www.ebook3000.com

Index Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs), UK 43–4 Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), UK 43–4 pocket parks 53, 54, 184 policy 32–3, 35–6 contextual environment 43–8, 171, 173, 182 porch greening, in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 157 porous pavements 2 Chicago 70 XJTLU (Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University) Campus, Suzhou, China 167 PPGs (Planning Policy Guidance notes), UK 43–4 PPPs (public-private partnerships): Atlanta 60, 81 Cambridgeshire 88 London Olympic Park 99 PPSs (Planning Policy Statements), UK 43–4 President’s Council on Sustainable Development 34 préverdissement 112–13 Promenade Planteé, Paris, France 6, 112, 112–13, 117, 175 Pudong, Shanghai, China 157–8, 159, 169–70, 178, 183 quasi-government organisations, engagement with green infrastructure policy 48–9 Queen Elizabeth Country Park see London Olympic Park case study railway sites, regeneration of: High Line, New York, USA 28, 53, 112, 175, 175, 186 Promenade Planteé, Paris, France 6, 112, 112–13 see also Atlanta case study/Atlanta Beltline rain chains/rain gardens, Chicago 68, 69 ‘RainReady’ homes and communities programme, Chicago, USA 70–1, 84, 176, 184 Red Rose Forest, UK 26 Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), England 25 Reinventer Paris programme 110–11 rings (loops), in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 156, 156–7 River Lea 98, 100, 101, 103 River Ouse 88, 91 Roe, M. 26, 52 RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy), England 25–6, 33, 36, 41n4, 43, 44 East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) 88 RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) 12

Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation (SRFDCL) 146, 147 Sabarmati Riverfront, Ahmedabad, India 31, 132, 136, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146–8, 150, 176, 183, 186 Sandström, U. 35, 39 scale, in green infrastructure 4, 38, 52–4, 53, 171, 173, 174–6 School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), India 133, 134 schools: ‘Space to Grow’ schools programme, Chicago, USA 70, 71, 71–2 Section 106 funding 87, 88, 95 Sefton Park Meadows, Liverpool, UK 49, 50 SEMAEST (Société d’économie mixte d’aménagement de l’Est Parisien) 112 Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition 154, 155, 155–7, 156, 159, 160–1, 161 Shanghai/Suzhou, China, case study 15, 153–4, 154, 169–70, 173, 174, 183, 183, 186 green space 6 main theme 55 Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition 154, 155, 155–7, 156, 159, 160–1, 161 Suzhou Chinese Garden City 153, 154, 162–9, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 175, 178 SIP (Singapore Industrial Park), Shanghai, China 153, 162–3, 167, 178 small projects, value of 184 social allotments, Milan, Italy 119, 125, 128 Société d’économie mixte d’aménagement de l’Est Parisien (SEMAEST) 112 South Yorkshire Forest Partnership, UK 26 Southern Plaza, London Olympic Park 97, 104, 105–6 ‘Space to Grow’ schools programme, Chicago, USA 70, 71, 71–2, 84 stakeholder engagement with green infrastructure 48–51, 171, 173, 179–80, 185 Cambridgeshire case study 90–1 Chicago case study 64, 64, 179 developers 50–1, 51 government departments and officers 48 local interest groups/public 50 London Olympic Park 99 NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and ENGOs (environmental nongovernmental organisations) 49 quasi-government organisations 48–9 stormwater management: Chicago 61, 65 see also flooding; water management Strategic Housing Growth Funding (HGF) 89–90, 94, 95 SUDS (sustainable urban drainage systems) 59

211

212

Index Chicago 70, 178 London Olympic Park 97–8, 103 Milan, Italy 120, 122 River Ouse 91 sustainable communities 7, 17, 23, 188 Cambridgeshire, UK 91 Suzhou Chinese Garden City 153, 154, 162–9, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 175, 178 Suzhou Park, Suzhou, China 153, 165–6, 166 Tate, A. 176 temporal differences in green infrastructure 54, 171, 173 thematic differences in green infrastructure policy 54, 55, 56, 171, 173, 177–9 Theophius Schmid Elementary School, Chicago, USA 71, 72 Times of India 135, 151 Toronto, Canada 21, 175 Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) 8, 12, 22, 32, 49 Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO), India 133, 134 transferability 15, 186–7 trees: Ahmedabad, India 5, 148, 148–9, 151 Atlanta Beltline Arboretum 79 Cambridgeshire, UK 94 Chicago, USA 61, 85n4 Forestry Commission guidance 3 India 130 London Olympic Park 101 New Delhi, India 131, 137, 139–40 Shanghai, China 157, 158 see also forests; urban forestry, Milan, Italy Tschumi, Bernard 113–14 UDPFI (Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation) 134 UK 12, 178–9 garden cities 9, 10–11, 17, 21–3 planning 7, 40, 86, 187 policy 32–3, 35–6, 43–4, 188 University of Massachusetts 26, 33 Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (UDPFI) 134 urban forestry, Milan, Italy 109, 119, 120, 124–5, 128 Urban Futures Conference, Bengaluru, 2014 130, 137, 152n3 Urban Greening Guidelines, India 46 urban groves, Ahmedabad, India 149–50

USA: policy 33, 36–7, 44–5, 188 quasi-government organisations 48–9 water-centric approach to landscape planning 14, 18, 30, 30–1, 37, 38, 59–60, 175 see also Chicago, USA, case study VALUE (Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy) programme, UK 26, 183 Vancouver, Vancouver Island, Canada 2, 4, 10, 21, 177, 186 Verband Region Stuttgart (VRS), Germany 33 VLM (De Vlaamse Landmaatschappij), Belgium 33 VRS (Verband Region Stuttgart), Germany 33 Water Framework Directive (WFD) 10, 52, 175, 179 water management 9, 18, 185 Chicago, USA 61, 62, 64, 67–73, 68, 69, 71, 176, 177–8 Milan, Italy 120, 122 New Delhi, India 138 water-sensitive green infrastructure design 30, 30–2, 31 XJTLU (Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University) Campus, Suzhou, China 167–8 Weber, T. 36, 52 wedges (pegs), in Shanghai’s green infrastructure planning 156, 156–7 Westside Trail, Atlanta, USA 77, 77–8, 79–80, 80, 82–3, 83, 84 Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire, UK 28, 88 Wildlife Trust, UK 88, 95, 101, 103 Wisconsin, USA 63, 65 see also Chicago, USA, case study Woodland Trust 94, 95 XJTLU (Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University) Campus, Suzhou, China 167–9, 168, 169, 186 Yamuna Biodiversity Park 138–9 Yamuna River Development Authority 136 Yamuna River, Delhi, India 16–137, 132, 135, 151 Yuyuan Gardens, Shanghai, China 160–1 ZAC (Zones d’Aménagement Concreté), Paris, France 110, 112

www.ebook3000.com