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

Evaluating the demands of Green Infrastructure Development: People, Policy and Practice

The past decade has seen major development in green infrastructure research and planning practice. The principles of green infrastructure, first articulated by Benedict & McMahon (2006), have permeated into landscape planning in the UK prompting responses from national, regional and local government to the desire for more sustainable and multi-functional landscapes. However, in England, problems are still apparent in determining the focus for green infrastructure planning in particular contexts. There is considerable difficulty in relation to the existing restrictions of landscape policy and legislation. National landscape designation, including SSSI’s (Sites of Special Scientific Interest), is one area that lacks flexibility and places restrictions on landscape change in order to protect the status quo of sites. The need to devise evaluation approaches to help resolve this situation will form the main argument of this paper. Using the example of green infrastructure planning in England this paper will use a model developed in the north-east of England to evaluate a case in Cambridgeshire. The levels of negotiation and compromise needed to develop green infrastructure will be discussed. The pressures placed upon landscapes from a planning, development, and conservation perspective are often contradictory; issues of appropriateness and project focus are of key importance. A collaborative approach and considerable compromise may be necessary in order to promote the multiple benefits of green infrastructure development and in order to allow implementation to take place

Rethinking Urban Nature: The Rise and Value of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in Europe

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) have been proposed by the European Union as the most contemporary approach to delivering resilient cities in Europe. Through official guidance and funded projects, the Horizon 2020 programme, the EU has positioned nature at the centre of landscape and urban planning debates. However, there remains a scepticism regarding whether the support of NBS as an alternative to green infrastructure (GI) planning is meaningful and appropriate or damaging to existing practices. Furthermore, the framing of NBS does not, to date, extend the conceptual, practical or political parameters of ‘green space’ planning beyond terminological changes. Its most significant contribution to urban planning is the emphasis it places on urban ecology as a foundational principle of all development. To assess the added value of NBS in the planning and management of urban landscapes the paper reflects on the academic discussions surrounding the approach. This examines how NBS are being used to shape support for investment in urban nature but also argues that it potentially creates a schism between advocates of existing green space terminology and approaches. It concludes by setting the parameters for further analysis of how NBS are being, and may be used, going forward to socio-economic and ecological agendas in the EU

Novel Solutions or Rebranded Approaches: Evaluating the use of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in Europe

The Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) concept is the most recent entry to discussions around how “nature” can be mobilized to render urban areas more resilient to the threat of climate change. The concept has been championed by the European Commission (EC) as a tool that can transform contemporary environmental, social and economic challenges into opportunities for innovation, bolstering Europe's position as a leader in climate change mitigation and adaptation. With its current research and innovation programme—Horizon 2020—the EC looks to position itself as the global NBS frontrunner, providing funding to cities to act as NBS demonstrator projects across the continent. These are expected to provide best-practice examples that can be replicated globally. This paper focuses on three Horizon 2020-funded NBS demonstrator projects: Connecting Nature, URBAN GreenUP and Grow Green, each of which brings together a suite of urban partners from both within and outside the European Union (EU). It examines the internal “politics” i.e., the aims and internal governance and implementation issues associated with these projects, and analyses how partners perceive the NBS concept. To engage with these aims, interviews were conducted with a diverse set of NBS “practitioners” working within the three projects. Analysis showed that the projects aim to influence climate-change resilient and sustainable urbanism through the process of retrofitting cities with small-scale green and blue interventions, as well as help the EU secure stronger diplomatic relations with neighboring non-EU countries and key international trade partners. It also illustrated that for many project partners, NBS is perceived to be a novel concept, because it re-frames pre-existing terms such as Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) and Ecosystem Services (ES) in a way that makes principles of urban greening more understandable to lay audiences and more politically palatable for urban governments. However, partners also warn that this framing of NBS has led to a narrow and idealized representation of nature; one that simultaneously undervalues biodiversity and oversells the capacity of natural processes to provide “solutions” to urban climate vulnerability and broader patterns of unsustainable urbanism.</jats:p

Beyond the ‘wow factor’? Climate resilient green infrastructure for people and wildlife

Covid-19 and COP26 both amplified calls from the environment sector for greater support for greenspace management globally. As the future of our planet and population is threatened by a global pandemic, escalating mental health challenges and the interrelated climate and biodiversity crises, there is a growing awareness of the potential for the intersecting roles of greenspace (GS), green infrastructure (GI) and nature-based solutions (NBS) to meet the myriad socio-economic and ecological of modern society (Frantzeskaki, 2019; Venkataramanan et al., 2020). Unfortunately, their potential to address these challenges remains undervalued by many, and thus underfunded, (Mell, 2021). Presenting examples of ‘research into action’, we advocate greenspace management to maximise benefits for people and wildlife. We draw on research from UK to consider how and why different people react to landscapes of varying aesthetic and biodiversity quality (Hoyle et al. 2017a), proposing an alternative approach to biodiversity-friendly greenspace management under austerity. Next, we emphasise the urgency of ‘futureproofing’ places to adapt to changing climate, demonstrating the public acceptability of climate-ready urban GI (Hoyle, 2021). Finally, we discuss how socio-cultural variables and values impact on preferences. We illustrate the benefits of co-creating local NBS with reference to ‘Futureproofing Luton’, a live project engaging diverse partners in the co-production of an educational arboretum-meadow. We propose alternative options open to all natural and built environment and public health professionals to support knowledge exchange promoting more sustainable forms of urban development. Although framed within a UK context, the processes of engagement, best practice exchange, and more effective dialogue, are meaningful across Europe and beyond