Green Infrastructure

How we design, develop, and manage our cities has changed as a direct reaction to the diversifying needs of society, the economy and the environment. As a consequence, greater attention has been called for reflecting on whether, and if so, how the physical environment can meet the aspirations of planners, architects, and economists, and their aim to maximize the value of urban areas. Within this debate we can identity a concern from the environment sector that a concentration on economic returns, urban branding, and human activity has undermined the effective management of ecological resources (Benedict and McMahon 2006). This has led to the development of alternative approaches to urban planning with Green Infrastructure, hereafter GI, being one of most prominent options discussed in the academic and practice-based literature addressing this imbalance. Although GI is not a new approach to ecological planning, it could be considered as a contemporary articulation: “new wine in old bottles” (Davies et al. 2006), it does offer powerful insights into how environmental management can be aligned more effectively with economic and sociocultural needs. Looking at GI as a “go-to” approach to urban development provides a suite of options to support the creation of more socioeconomically sustainable and ecologically resilient places (Meerow and Newell 2017). To better understand the added value that GI can provide in urban planning the following examines its development and use within policy and practice illustrating examples of good practice. By assessing how GI has been integrated into decision-making at both a strategic and local level the chapter argues that GI, in its myriad forms, is being used because of its spatial, geographic, and disciplinary flexibility that can help deliver a range of benefits (Mell and Clement 2020). The chapter goes on to discuss how issues of multi-functionality, scale, access, and funding all influence what is delivered, and proposes how different locations can learn to structure investment around a GI-led form of planning

Examining the role of Green Infrastructure as an advocate for regeneration

The alignment of Green Infrastructure (GI) planning principles with urban regeneration mandates can have a significant impact on the long-term socio-economic and ecological functionality of an area. As a mechanism to address landscape dereliction GI has been promoted as offering a suite of options to revitalise denuded spaces. This can take many forms including tree planting, waterfront redevelopment, the regeneration of former industrial sites, and a rethinking of spaces to make them more ecologically diverse. However, the successes seen in GI-led regeneration need to be considered in terms of the geographical, political, and socioeconomic context. The following provides a review of regeneration projects that have integrated GI into development principles, examining whether these have led to positive change. Through a reflection on the scale, focus and location of these projects we discuss the factors that have shaped investment before identifying key factors that influence the inclusion of GI in regeneration works. The paper concludes that we have a growing catalogue of projects that can be used as a ‘green print’ to align GI with regeneration to successfully delivery landscape rehabilitation and socio-economic revitalisation

After All, What Is GI?

Green Infrastructure is discussed to mean different things in alternative geographical, ecological and socio-economic contexts. However, the growing literature focussing on what Green Infrastructure is, what it does and how it should be delivered provides a baseline set of principles that help to situate the concept in academic and practice-based debates. The promotion of connected landscapes that are multi-functional that provide access to nature at the local, city and regional scale is central to Green Infrastructure thinking. Moreover, the need to integrate socio-economic and ecological perspectives into political decision-making has been repeatedly outlined as a key variable to successful policy creation and subsequent implementation. It is also important to align current Green Infrastructure thinking with the historical antecedents of greenspace planning to examine where complementarities can be identified between the past and the present. Overall, this introductory chapter sets out the principles and history of Green Infrastructure planning illustrating the nexus of people, policy and practice that permeates through the following chapters. It also outlines the broader parameters of the debates to come and grounds them in accepted principles of existing Green Infrastructure thinking. Since the introduction of Green Infrastructure as a concept, many things have changed in how territories and city organisations use it within the context of planning. One of the remaining unresolved issues is its relationship with the landscape. To some extent, ‘landscape’ was the instrument that spatial planning used to introduce ecological elements that may otherwise have been difficult to embed within planning. When additional instruments emerged, such as Green Infrastructure, which was considered to be focussed on ecological issues, greater difficulties in implementation began. Through this paper, we will always capitalise both – ‘Green Infrastructure’ and ‘landscape’ – in order to use them as terms of reference, both to complement each other and to juxtapose them. It is understood that the expression Green Infrastructure also covers Blue Infrastructure, i.e. aquatic ecosystems

Is Liverpool (UK) Ready to Embrace Green InfIrastructure and Greenway Practices? Rethinking the Funding, Management and Spatial Distribution of City’s Greenspace Network in an Era of Austerity.

Changes in government in 2010 placed additional economic pressures on the funding of urban greenspaces. These changes have led Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to make difficult choices over what services they are legally required to provide. Potentially the biggest loser in this process has been the funding for greenspaces. Although many cities have felt the impacts of fiscal austerity, Liverpool has been one of the city’s hardest hit. As a consequence, Liverpool City Council (LCC) is being forced to make decisions over how it will maintain the city’s landscape post 2016/17. Partially this reflects the fragmented nature and historical distribution of greenspaces in Liverpool but also its development context. Moreover, disparity in the distribution of the quality/quantity of green space is evident with a clear northsouth divide (Sykes et al., 2013). The growing rhetoric presented by LCC relating to funding discretionary service, including landscape planning, has been presented as further evidence of its lack of foresight in how it manages its environment. To address this a series of greenways2, labelled as ‘green corridors’ throughout the paper, are proposed as a financially viable and spatially diverse mechanism to improve the spatial distribution of green infrastructure (GI) across the city. Using a city-wide analysis of existing green spaces, the proposed green corridors aim to link Liverpool’s Victorian parks (hubs) with linear green spaces (links) to form a city-scale network. However, despite local support for the protection of green spaces, as observed in the Liverpool City Council Green & Open Space Review (LG&OSR), there is a reticence in some political circles to support such a programme of investment. Moreover, by assessing existing barriers to funding investment in Liverpool’s green corridors it is possible to identify broader institutional problems with the financing, management and long-term development of green space. However, within LCC there appears to be a lack of clarity of the socio-economic and ecological value of the city’s green spaces, which is limiting discussions of how best to protect it. Green corridors are therefore proposed as a form of investment that can facilitate spatial equity of green spaces to communities in Liverpool. How LCC, and the city as a whole, approach the use of green corridors as a part of its GI network remains open to interpretation. The identification of possible locations for new corridors is the first stage in generating political/public support for investment

Selling Nature: Aligning Green Infrastructure Principles with the Funding of Urban Landscapes

As the allocation of funding for urban greening continues to diminish planners, landscape professionals and environmental advocates are increasingly turning to the \u27valuing of nature\u27 as a mechanism to address these shortfalls. Whilst consensus exists that urban nature holds a critical role in promoting ecological sustainability and liveability, there is a less established understanding of how we translate these ideas into funding. Such variation in landscape valuation practices leading to significant disparity between how cities support their natural environment. In turn this has led to a growing reflection on how we can valorise the environment to ensure it is attributed with the same value as other built infrastructure. By increasing the proportion, diversity and functionality of urban areas it is possible to examine how city governments, developers, and the environment sector have utilised green infrastructure to generate institutional and financial buy-in for investment in nature-based interventions. Through an assessment of the implementation, management and funding of green infrastructure, with specific reference to London, this paper discusses the nuances of valuing nature to identify barriers and successes to investment in urban nature. It goes on to reflect on who, how and where resources are being delivered, enhanced or downgraded and asks how the nuances of value can be used to shift the understanding of stakeholders towards a more nature-based mind-set for development