Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? more

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability 162 March 2009 Issue ES1 Pages 23–34 doi: 10.1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23 Paper 700034 Received 2/11/2007 Accepted 01/09/2008 Keywords: government/infrastructure planning/ sustainability Ian C. Mell PhD candidate, University of Newcastle, UK Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? I. C. Mell MSc be achieved using guidelines outlined in urban renaissance documents that constituted a number of ‘visions’ and utilised the fundamentals of regeneration and sustainability as a driving force behind urban renewal. The urban renaissance agenda also placed a high value on the development of appropriate infrastructures (ecological, financial and social) and noted that, to fulfil its aims (Ref. 2, p. 57) …[achieving] urban integration means thinking of urban open spaces not as an isolated unit—be it a street, park or a square—but as a vital part of the urban landscape with its own specific set of functions. In 2000, a UK government white paper promoted the prospect of an urban renaissance in the UK to be developed through a series of urban renewal initiatives to create better places for living, working and recreation. Eight years on, there continues to be a policy drive promoting better quality environments through integrative design, social inclusion and public participation. However, whether urban renewal can succeed without a progressive integration of multi-functional green spaces into the urban matrix is still uncertain. This paper proposes that green infrastructure can play a pivotal role in urban renaissance by providing a complementary green matrix of spaces that offer multi-level benefits for human populations. Green infrastructure can also be viewed as simultaneously providing natural resource sinks to assist urban climate control, water management and provide important green networks in an increasingly urbanised Britain. Due to the potential of green infrastructure to be ‘retrofitted’ into most environments, this paper argues that green infrastructures can be delivered across diverse urban environments in the UK to promote sustainable communities and landscape management. Overall, this paper will address how green infrastructure can be planned within urban environments to promote increased human integration, ecological sustainability and economic regeneration. Finally, it is suggested that the broader implications for climate control and economic regeneration delivered by green infrastructure integration will, in the long term, provide a base for a continued urban renaissance. 1. INTRODUCTION In 2000, the UK government department in charge of transport, social and environmental infrastructures—the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)—released its vision for the regeneration of urban areas. This urban renaissance1 was proposed as an agenda to create better places in which to live and work and for recreation. The primary focus of the DETR’s vision was to develop places that fulfilled the environmental, financial and social needs of the population and keyed into both the DETR and other government agendas by promoting urban areas in Britain as thriving and vibrant places. Consequently, the urban renaissance agenda outlined a set of implementation strategies aimed at developing a cohesive and structured urban living environment.1 These strategies were to Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 In order to deliver such an agenda, the DETR and more recently the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and its subsequent departmental successor the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) developed additional programmes based on comparable criteria to those outlined in the urban renaissance. With these additional initiatives, the ODPM and DCLG have reinforced the roles that social and environmental justice must play in developing better environments for people to live.3 The DETR and the DCLG both state that this shows a progression in government policy thinking towards a more holistic view of urban planning. However, this is not necessarily a universal view; some authors regard the visions of the urban renaissance as too little for areas of greatest social and economic deprivation. The progression of different areas of government thinking concerning urban renaissance has, however, promoted a number of other principles relating to collaborative development policy and practice. This process has been promoted as a way of translating the conceptual ideas behind the urban renaissance into deliverable implementation or development plans. Within the DETR’s work, the role of public participation, diverse landscape management practices and the development of partnerships were viewed as essential processes vital to the success of the urban renaissance agenda—policy ideas that have been expressed in other initiatives as an effective way of engaging the public with the complex issues of urban regeneration. Since its initial development, urban renaissance has been mirrored in other initiatives highlighting the role of developing multi-actor partnerships. Both the Thames Gateway developments and the Northern Way growth corridor project emphasised the role of public consultation and social interactions. Thus, by promoting multi-actor management partnerships, the DETR and other organisations (e.g. the Thames Gateway Development Corporation) have stated that towns and cities are Mell 23 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? able to develop sustainably and put in place mechanisms for the successful implementation of urban renewal.1 The role of integration in the development of appropriate and innovative urban green design will form one of the main arguments proposed in this paper. This will focus on how green infrastructure can be used to deliver the values of urban renaissance at a number of contrasting scales—from local streetlevel programmes to larger municipal or regional projects. Although the differences in delivery scale vary, this paper will suggest that green infrastructure offers a greater level of development flexibility to be retrofitted into existing spaces compared with other green space planning techniques and should be implemented as an integral part of new developments. The paper will go on to outline how green infrastructures are being discussed as a mechanism for social inclusion and combating the effects of climate change. However, the main focus of this paper will be to outline how, and indeed whether, green infrastructures can contribute positively to the urban renaissance agenda and create ‘public spaces [that] work best when they establish a direct relationship between the space and the people who live and work around it’ (Ref. 2, p. 57). This paper will attempt to highlight whether green infrastructure can promote urban sustainability and, if so, examine the best approaches for achieving this goal. 2. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY Throughout this paper, the terms green infrastructure and sustainability will be used to discuss the development of urban sustainability and the urban renaissance. Green infrastructure has been described as holding a number of overarching principles that have underpinned both its concept and practice. These principles have been drawn from landscape ecology, greenways and multi-functionality literature, as well as reviewing sustainable communities and green urban design. These sources have been used to promote the roles of access, connectivity, multi-functionality and strategic planning as essential elements of green infrastructure thinking. A review of the available literature on green infrastructure highlights the research of Benedict and McMahon,4,5 CABE Space,6 Davies et al.7 and Heritage Conservancy8 as leading figures in the concept development. One of the most recent attempts to review this literature was presented by the Countryside Agency9 who stated that green infrastructure comprises the provision of planned networks of linked multifunctional green spaces that contribute to protecting natural habitats and biodiversity, enable response to climate change and other biosphere changes, enable more sustainable and healthy lifestyles, enhance urban liveability and wellbeing, improve the accessibility of key recreational and green assets, support the urban and rural economy and assist in the better long-term planning and management of green spaces and corridors. promoting landscape connectivity, whilst enhancing the quality of life, place and the environment across different landscape boundaries. The role of green infrastructure planning therefore aims to act as a synthesis of a number of other areas of planning (greenways, green spaces, high-density planning) to promote a coherent discipline for future development. Due to the inclusionary focus of the green infrastructure concept, it provides opportunities to bring together a diverse range of knowledge, experience and information in order to develop best-practice techniques for development.10,11 Multi-actor partnerships and the delivery of multi-functional benefits are thus crucial components of a green infrastructure approach. This view also supports the role of green infrastructure as a facilitator for the provision of economic, recreational and social amenities for diverse demographic groups. Green infrastructure is therefore proposed as a landscape management process that can meet the diverse needs of different landscape planning scenarios.12 In conjunction with the use of green infrastructure terminology, the principles of sustainability will also be used throughout this paper. Historically, sustainability has been discussed (within similar parameters to green infrastructure) as a discipline that integrates ecological, economic and social influences within a process of equitable use.13,14 The diverse meaning attributed to sustainability has led to a range of principles being associated with the term in relation to landscape management. This paper will refer frequently to sustainability, and in particular landscape sustainability, using the DETR’s vision of sustainability as a framework for use. The DETR suggested that sustainability is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone—now and for generations to come.2 The role of sustainability as a facilitator for the use of more appropriate techniques of landscape development that are resilient to adverse ecological, economic and social change will be used throughout this paper.14 However, under the ‘global sustainability scenario’ outlined by Ekins,15 sustainability also relates to the ways in which people aspire to higher levels of welfare within their communities, more equal distribution of economic and social capitals, and an understanding of how human–environmental relationships affect the long-term sustainability of a resource. Consequently, this paper will outline how sustainability principles can be used to promote a multi-faceted approach to green infrastructure planning and examine how sustainable planning practices can meet a number of the most important issues in current planning—climate change, liveability and the development of sustainable spaces. Although the use of such a definition of sustainability bases its foundations in more traditional interpretations of sustainable development, the ideas are still valid in terms of green infrastructure development.4,8 By reviewing landscape change in terms of ecological, economic, political and social influences, it is possible to assess the factors under which green infrastructure can prosper as a coherent and adaptive planning process. Throughout this paper, questions will be raised regarding the value of green infrastructure planning as a process for meeting the changing needs of UK landscapes. Green infrastructure’s role in developing quality green spaces within the economic and social fabric will demonstrate how the regeneration of urban Mell The work9 outlines a number of key elements expressed in the green infrastructure literature and expresses the view that ecological, economic and social actors must be able to benefit from green space planning. Consequently, in this paper, green infrastructure will be used to outline an approach that focuses on supporting different interests by maintaining landscape resources across urban, urban-fringe and rural areas in order to develop resilient landscapes that support ecological, economic, and human interests by maintaining the integrity of, and 24 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? landscapes through the urban renaissance agenda can benefit from this planning approach. Through a review of how the conceptual ideas underpinning green infrastructure can be translated into actual planning practice, this paper will outline how green infrastructure can potentially be seen as holding the key to meet these challenges in planning policy and subsequent practice. 3. EIGHT YEARS ON: THE ROLE OF URBAN RENAISSANCE Eight years on from its initial presentation, the urban renaissance agenda still focuses policy on vital areas of urban planning. Since its release, the values of public participation, increased opportunities for sustainable living, and creating and sharing prosperity have been integrated in a number of other policies produced by the UK government and a number of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and delivery partners. Government departments like the DCLG, the Department of Health (DoH)16,17 and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)18 are utilising elements of the urban renaissance as a way of promoting better standards of living across the UK. The transition of DETR urban renaissance ideas into other policy areas has yielded a wider debate on sustainable land use. The roles of economic and social equity have been at the centre of this process and DoH and DCMS agendas have employed components of the urban renaissance to engage the public with issues relating to health, education, housing and employment. However, although the focus of these agendas may differ from those outlined in the urban renaissance, the issue that forms the basis for these polices is the need to develop functional and amenable landscapes. By utilising the principles outlined in urban renaissance—reviewing social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the development of well-kept cities—the DCLG has been able to develop its role as a delivery organisation for ‘cohesive communities that offer a safe, healthy and sustainable future’.19 This has been made possible by the UK government’s drive to develop communities that are socially and economically prosperous and provide more opportunities for social inclusion. Due to the broad scope of the urban renaissance initiative, it has been possible to adapt its visions into a number of high-profile urban renewal programmes. From the development of better quality homes to the provision of a higher standard of services, the ethos of the urban renaissance has been incorporated into contemporary planning policy by regional and national delivery agencies. With its focus on providing people with better quality environments, the urban renaissance has used the foci of community, opportunity and prosperity as a way of driving forward the sustainability agenda.1 Following publication and subsequent use of the urban renaissance agenda, it has possibly become more relevant because of a continued government drive to increase social inclusion and provide citizens with a better standard of living. Better urban design and the development of more efficient service infrastructures (e.g. schools, medical services, green spaces) have thus become of paramount importance in achieving these targets. This remit has also been written into other initiatives, including the sustainable communities agenda developed by the ODPM.20 The sustainable communities programme promotes several urban renaissance key issues and Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 looks to improve the sustainable relationship between people and the environment. ODPM literature states that sustainable communities are achievable through better understanding of the needs of their target populations. Thus, by balancing and integrating the economic, environmental and social components of communities’ needs, the aim is to create inclusive, safe, welldesigned and environmentally sound landscapes.21,22 Each of the three main pillars of sustainability (economy, environment and society) compares favourably with the visions set out in the urban renaissance agenda. Achieving them, however, is a more difficult process. Two projects that have looked at combining the policy focus of urban renaissance and sustainable communities with realistic delivery are the Northern Way growth corridor and the Thames Gateway. Both projects offer an insight into how pan-regional or multi-partner working partnerships can be developed to meet the ecological, economic and social needs of a spatially diverse landscape and a diverse range of populations. 3.1. The Thames Gateway The Thames Gateway has been described by the DCLG as holding enormous potential assets that, if developed appropriately, could bring the area up to the growth standards of the rest of SouthEast England.23 The programme provides a good example of how a multi-agency project can be run effectively to rejuvenate a region that has underperformed in an area of otherwise progressive economic performance. Within its remit, the project aims to enhance the existing infrastructures of the region by analysing the needs of local populations and increasing the area’s overall liveability.20 This is being achieved through a combination of integrative design, a balancing of environmental and ecological functions and an overall enhancement of the physical and social infrastructure.22 In short, the Thames Gateway Partnership has provided a set of visions promoting cooperation and integration at landscape scale to develop a more cohesive set of liveable places. It has also been argued that the Thames Gateway has the potential to become an important centre for international trade and enterprise and will provide multi-scaled economic benefits locally, regionally and nationally.24 Due to its location in the south-east growth area, the Thames Gateway has been the beneficiary of extensive central government funding and is more likely to achieve it renewal targets than other regions. The role of the Thames Gateway as an exemplar intensive regeneration initiative, however, does not necessarily mean that sustainability targets are being met. Although a strong governance framework that promotes a high level of policy and practice integration is in place for the Thames Gateway, the actual delivery of sustainable infrastructure is still contested.25 The development of new homes, transport links and service infrastructure is not universally noted as promoting sustainability targets because of the ecological costs involved. 3.2. The Northern Way growth corridor In contrast to the Thames Gateway, the Northern Way does not have the same level of government financial support, nor as strong a strategic policy framework to support urban renaissance. The Northern Way covers a geographically larger area that includes north-east England, north-west England, Yorkshire Mell 25 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? and Humberside, all of which are landscapes currently in different stages of post-industrial renewal. The overarching aim of the programme is to promote economic growth through a decentralised approach to regional planning.26 A subsidiary aim of the Northern Way is to rejuvenate the post-industrial cities of the region by promoting economic growth, attracting capital investment and encouraging people to settle in the region in the long term.26 It aims to achieve these goals through urban and economic renewal, both of which have been strongly emphasised in Northern Way documentation.27 However, whether these targets are achievable in such a diverse and potentially fragmented physical and social landscape is unclear. The Northern Way offers an example of a pan-regional approach to decentralised governance. By developing a regionally focused framework promoting economic development, regional development agencies (RDAs) have used the Northern Way as a way of redressing the disparity seen between local and regional development.28–30 Focusing social and economic progress on a geographical growth corridor, the Northern Way has been developed as a multi-scale, multiorganisation initiative working across both administrative and physical landscape boundaries to provide a forum for the discussion of local and wider territorial interests.26 Consequently, the Northern Way has allowed centralised spatial strategies to be interpreted through specific regional visions rather than as a broader top-down governmental agenda. The Northern Way initiative also offers a framework through which RDAs, the regional assembly and regional government offices can work collaboratively to promote a pan-regional agenda that can challenge the economic influence of the SouthEast. It may, therefore, be argued that the Northern Way can provide a greater level of support for policy implications because of the increased levels of cooperation, involvement and forethought in developing the North’s city regions and larger growth corridor.29 There is, however, the alternative view that such a disparate area as the Northern Way does not lend itself to the development of a functional and polycentric economic environment. Instead, as noted by Goodchild and Hickman,26 the Northern Way may be viewed as simply a reinforcement of previous RDA policy, leading to concentrated planning objectives promoting local authority agendas and not the broader aims of the Northern Way region. In terms of green infrastructure, the Northern Way does provide an indication that large-scale initiatives can work if every partner believes in the outcomes. The economic targets of both the Northern Way and the Thames Gateway rely on their ability to implement renewal through innovative landscape change. However, differences in political will, scale, funding and focus between the two projects suggest that, although they promote similar ideals, they cannot be seen as comparable. The Thames Gateway has political and financial support because of its geographical and economic importance to the growth of the South-East. The Northern Way relies more readily on regional cooperation and goodwill to improve the economy of the pan-regional area. It is hoped that the removal of barriers to development such as economic stagnation, social fragmentation or lack of capital funding in the case of the Northern Way will enable urban renewal to take place. Both programmes acknowledge that, in order to deliver their visions, 26 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 the lives of those who reside in the regions must be improved. Thus, to achieve these targets both the physical and social environment of an area must be considered to be of equal importance to its residents as they affect its economic growth and long-term liveability. 4. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIVEABLE SPACES Green infrastructures are the spaces in and around urban areas that provide ecological, economic and social benefits, promote sustainable living and support appropriate urban development.31 They offer spaces that hold multi-functional benefits for a broad range of demographic groups and can be located in all areas of the urban–rural matrix. However, there are a number of fundamental principles that underpin a green infrastructure planning approach. Authors including Benedict and McMahon4,5 have promoted the ecological function of green infrastructure as a tool supporting conservation goals and highlight its role as a connective ecological element. Heritage Conservancy8 notes the role green infrastructure can play in providing ecological sinks for the management of environmental resources such as water at a broader landscape scale. Both conservation and resource accumulation principles are important if long-term sustainable land use is to be promoted. Research in North America on green infrastructure has most frequently focused on the ecological functions of the landscape as its underlying principle.11,12 In contrast in the UK, Davies et al.,7 the ODPM32 and Green Infrastructure North West33 have placed a greater value on landscape multi-functionality and the use of green infrastructure as a way of connecting people with the environment by developing better access to green spaces across urban and urban-fringe areas. Davies et al.,7 the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)31 and Kambites and Owen34 assessed the work of the Countryside Agency and Groundwork35 and highlighted the potential that green infrastructure holds for providing a number of multi-scale benefits. It could therefore be suggested that the countryside in and around towns (CIAT) principles could underpin the development of guidance in terms of a green infrastructure typology. A typology of this nature could promote and emphasise the following principles outlined in the green infrastructure research: connectivity, access, strategic thinking and planning, appropriate scale, multi-functionality, and a holistic integration of ecological, economic and social influences.5,7,34,36 The utility of a green infrastructure typology would focus on its value to researchers and landscape managers as a principles checklist. A checklist approach could be used to assess the appropriateness of developments in terms of (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) access to green spaces developing places for exercise and recreation linking people to local heritage regeneration access to education social cohesion creating attractive places to live. This approach, which has been used in Sweden10 and is being developed in the UK, shows parallels with the systems underpinning the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Mell Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Design (Leed) and Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method (Breeam) standards in which a checklist approach has been successfully developed to assess the sustainable characteristics of buildings and developments.37–40 Each of these benefits complements the ideas outlined by the DoH,11 ODPM32 and DCMS18 where health, education and regeneration were all seen as elements supporting healthier living standards in relation to urban renaissance. The production of a green infrastructure checklist may therefore provide a feasible way of developing an overarching set of principles. At present, the fragmented nature of green infrastructure research in the UK, North America, Europe and even Asia does not provide a firm or static grounding.6,13,41 Although the need for a definition of green infrastructure has been discussed elsewhere, a set of principles would allow research to be guided more effectively. A typology approach based on a set of agreed principles covering as wide a range of green infrastructure types as possible (e.g. the UK national land-use database (NLUD)) would therefore provide a defined framework for future green infrastructure developments and research. The principles outlined earlier have been debated as holding key values in this process.7 If these are related to current typologies or hierarchal green space standards such as NLUD or English Nature’s accessible natural green space standards) then guidance on size, composition, function and location for green infrastructure development may become easier.42 Current research in Bedfordshire and Luton, the Tees Valley and the River Nene region have utilised this approach in an effort to develop their green infrastructure resource base. In practice, green infrastructures are being used in the UK, Europe and North America to fulfil a number of urban and ecological policies (e.g. smart growth or sustainable communities). Research by the TCPA and Community Forests Network in the UK has tried to synthesise conceptual and typology debates into a programme of deliverable and sustainable landscape management practices. England’s community forests have embraced green infrastructure not only as a way of further promoting core remits of participation, land care and urbanfringe renewal, but also as a mechanism for simultaneously addressing broad social and ecological change.43 In doing so, the Community Forests Network has been one of the main protagonists delivering the CIAT agenda as a way of developing multi-functional and accessible spaces. The Mersey Forest provides an example of how this process can be achieved. Alongside community forests, there have been a number of organisations attempting to deliver landscape diversification though innovative design.44 The work of the North East Community Forest (NECF) in conjunction with the Countryside Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and Groundwork is one such group where green infrastructure has been discussed as offering an innovative landscape management process to create diverse and inclusive landscape opportunities.7 NECF’s green infrastructure planning guide is the primary outcome of this research and focuses on providing guidance notes for landscape development to meet the complex planning of different landscapes. In contrast, research from the USA shows that green infrastructure is being developed to conserve and protect landscapes from overdevelopment and further landscape degradation.8 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Green infrastructure plans have been developed at different planning scales, from federal to county level. In Maryland, county-level programmes have been developed to promote a number of exemplar conservation and landscape assessments projects highlighting the sustainable benefits of green infrastructure.41 This multi-scaled approach has allowed active green infrastructure researchers to develop an evidence base that they have used to promote the concept to state and federal organisations. The role of evidence has since been relayed in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American Planning Association (APA) literature stating that the green light may now be on for state, metropolitan and county level green infrastructure developments.5,12 In light of these examples, if green infrastructure is to be regarded as a major contributor to urban renaissance, then the concept needs to be seen as of equal importance as housing, services or transport. The role of green infrastructure as a facilitator of increased mobility, health and education therefore needs to be central to this translation. By developing these values into existing or new policies, planning authorities at different scales would have a legal obligation to integrate green infrastructure principles within their urban renewal plans. Unfortunately, for those championing green infrastructure, there still appears to be a strong focus on landscape planning primarily for economic growth. This is viewed by some as decreasing the potential of regional and local level agents to deliver green infrastructures because they may not be viewed as economically viable.45 However, within the DETR’s initial urban renaissance document, it was stated that funding would be made available for alternative infrastructure projects. The DETR claims that 65% of transport infrastructure expenditure would be moved to fund projects that prioritise walking, cycling and public transport.1 Although this funding may not have been granted directly for green infrastructure projects, it is a move towards alternative planning scenarios that promote sustainable living—policies in which green infrastructure may play a major part. There thus appears to be a need in green space research to discuss the value of green infrastructure in terms of what developments need in relation to environmental and social sustainability. Many researchers argue that a proportional increase in green infrastructure resources would provide a proportionally larger number of ecological, economic and social benefits.7 However, there are issues of quality versus quantity of space. In terms of meeting the visions of urban renaissance, quality appears to be a more appropriate measure of sustainable landscape development. Consequently, the quality of a green infrastructure composition may meet the needs of space more appropriately than an increase in its actual size.6 The role of a green infrastructure development needs to fulfil the needs of the space itself and the wider needs of the overall landscape by providing appropriate opportunities for human–environment interactivity.34 This process has been viewed by the DCLG as a way of meeting the multi-scaled needs of a given landscape due to the flexible nature of green infrastructure to be retrofitted in diverse landscape contexts.20 Further research needs to focus on diversity of thinking within green infrastructure research as a way of meeting the needs of an ever-changing environment. A typology or checklist Mell 27 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? approach may therefore be a viable option. This view has been supported by Beatley13 who suggests that green infrastructure holds an important role at the interface between urban development and the acceptable level of green space people need to live comfortable or sustainable lives. Others46,47 have also proposed such an argument, stating that the proportional value of a green infrastructure far outweighs its actual size or cost as green spaces meet a broader number of needs than traditional grey infrastructure. 5. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLIMATE CONTROL As green infrastructure has gained support by being viewed as a multi-scale landscape management process, the concept has also been increasingly debated as holding a potential role in combating the effects of climate change. The work of Benedict and McMahon5 supports this view and highlights how green infrastructures can be developed as environmental sinks of ecologically important resources. These authors and Davies et al.7 note that the creation and maintenance of green spaces allow ecological resources to be maintained that provide ecological sinks to mitigate environmental change. This, they state, can be achieved by developing larger expanses of flora and fauna, water or green spaces, and also by developing pockets of ecologically important infrastructure within urbanised areas. Thus, trees, gardens, play areas and parks all potentially hold substantial ecological value. If discussed in terms of the broader green matrix of urban and urban-fringe landscapes, such resources highlight how creating and connecting green spaces can provide a level of compensation for some of the effects of climatic change.8 Highlighting the roles that urban, urban-fringe and rural landscapes have in combating climate change also suggests that a review of the causal nature between environmental change and human actions needs to be assessed. Consequently, the roles of housing, transport, agriculture and municipal infrastructure developments need to be assessed in order to review the extent to which human impacts may be mitigated by proportional increases in green infrastructure resources. Figure 1 highlights this process.8 Work by the Heritage Conservancy notes that development must be discussed in conjunction with environmental targets and information. Figure 1 also outlines how public service provision needs to work closely with ecological systems if a sustainable level of land use is to be achieved. Heritage Conservancy draws on landscape ecology by stating that a systems approach to climate change adaptation is one way of calibrating economic and social needs with available ecological resources. The systems approach to green infrastructure implies that there is an essential relationship between the value and utility of an ecological resource and the needs of human populations. By developing projects that maintain ecological resources while meeting human needs, Heritage Conservancy8 and others13,48 state that such a resource will have equal flows into and out of the overall system. Sustainable drainage systems (Suds) are one area where this process is visible. By developing systems that manage water resources, Suds allow a greater level of control over the ecological resource. Consequently, humans are able to adapt their own activities in tandem with Suds in order to manage excessive and low flows to maintain equilibrium.49–51 Heritage Conservancy adopts a systems approach as a way of STATE GAME LANDS HUB FORESTED HILL LANDSCAPE ENDANGERED SPECIES HUB ENDANGERED SPECIES HUB MAIN ST. CRE EK ACQUIRE LAND OR CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO PROTECT WILDLIFE ROUTE 10 CR EE K ACQUIRE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND IMPROVE CREEK BANKS CULTIVATED FARMLAND LANDSCAPE T L N T RIG H T S PME LO PRIME AGRICULTURAL E EVE SOILS HUB IDOR RR CO B ER EAT CR RAIL A IL T TR AN S F CORRIDOR ESTABUSH WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA ER D CLEAN WATER HUB CONNECT TO COUNTY TRAIL EAM STR RIDOR C OR DISTURBED VILLAGE LANDSCAPE CONVERT VACANT LOTS TO POCKET PARKS OR STRE KEY COR R RIDO Homes Public well E K C O R R E C LINK PARKS AND SCHOOLS WITH TRAIL AND CREEK TO CREATE A GREENWAY R PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS HUB N AM R ID EE BROWNFIELD Paint factory WETLANDS HUB Bridge RESTORE WETLANDS CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS WASTE TO ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT G TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ESTABLISH BACKYARD WILDLIFE PROGRAMME Store School Park Street trees IMPROVE STREETSCAPES Figure 1. Linking green infrastructure concepts with climate control (Source: Growing with Green Infrastructure E 2008 by Heritage Conservancy. All rights reserved) 28 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell 8 highlighting how the interactions of capitals (ecological, economic and social) have a cumulative impact on both landscape resources and opportunities afforded to human populations for development. By reviewing the value of ecological resources in this way, Heritage Conservancy proposes that green infrastructure resources have a relatively higher value in economic and social terms. Benedict and McMahon5 also state that the integration of a systems approach to conservation with a better understanding of environmental design would promote a more sustainable use of the resource base. By effectively reviewing the role ecological resources can play in urban developments, Heritage ´ Conservancy,8 Fabos,52 Ahern11 and Gill et al.53 all suggest that the resource itself has a greater proportional effect on climate change adaptation because it explicitly contrasts with more traditional impervious infrastructure. Handley54 supports this view, suggesting that sustainable land use can be achieved through green infrastructure development, especially when discussed in terms of scale, strategic focus and appropriate scenario development (p. 50). The work of Brown and Gillespie55 develops this view further; they outline how the use of pocket parks, street trees and urban greening projects in New York have stabilised or lowered the surrounding air temperatures. This effect has long been associated with the role of water resources, but Brown and Gillespie’s work highlights how green spaces or infrastructures of all sizes can provide climatic stability beyond their immediate boundaries. Brown and Gillespie’s work thus offers an indication of the broader value that a small area of green infrastructure can provide for its surrounding environment. By reviewing the potential cooling effects of trees and green spaces in terms of distance travelled and temperature lowered, their work highlights concentric cooling promoted by greenery.56 If this view is expanded to municipal or regional scale, then green infrastructures could be discussed as providing large-scale contributions to climate control.5 In areas such as London, urban renewal is becoming an increasingly important way of attempting to influence the liveability of urban environments. The integration of green infrastructure resources within developments such as the Thames Gateway is therefore being used in an attempt to balance the cumulative affects of development over time. London’s parks (e.g. Regents, Hyde, St James) provide spaces that accommodate a significant proportion of visible green spaces and thus play a key role in stabilising the temperature of the city and filtering excess pollution and rainfall that would otherwise cause increasingly negative climatic effects. Each of these spaces therefore provides areas where gardens, grass pitches, lakes and trees control the micro-climate of the increasingly polluted streets of London. However, they also provide spaces that can be viewed as part of the wider London green infrastructure matrix providing ecological sinks across the city and into the urban-fringes of Middlesex, Essex and Surrey. (A further example is the Thames Gateway green infrastructure network.33) This scaled cooling effect may thus potentially benefit a higher proportion of people than indicated by the actual size of the space itself. Green infrastructure subsequently provides a typology of landscape elements that can be Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 hierarchal in size and value with ecological benefits that can aid localised climate control.25 However, green infrastructure can also extend across wider municipal regions and mitigate against wider climatic issues such as flooding by working within a network of green infrastructures designed to cope with such environmental stresses. To meet the challenges of climate change, green space or green infrastructure strategies will require a suite of complimentary measures to realise their full adaptation potential. This is particularly important in relation to interception functions, e.g. flood control, stormwater storage, and infiltration and release systems.54 6. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE URBAN RENAISSANCE Research has highlighted some areas noted as being valuable outlets for green infrastructure planning. However, if green infrastructure is to be planned to enable increased human integration, ecological sustainability and economic regeneration, a broad range of ecological, political and social factors must be taken into account. Increased concentrated development of urban areas has given little consideration to thoughtful design and planning57 and the traditional value of cohesion and integration in some urban areas has been lost. Green infrastructure is potentially a process that can reinstate these values, in support of urban renaissance, by providing spaces that can promote communal inclusion and use. However, to be successfully integrated into urban land matrices, green infrastructures must firstly be planned with the functions they are to fulfil in mind. Designing landscapes that do not provide a number of beneficial functions for their target populations may hinder patronage and lead to the development of exclusionary spaces.35 Landscape functionality must therefore be seen as an essential component of development if people are to use a space. Green infrastructures may be a way of achieving this goal as they have the ability to provide a number of simultaneous functions (including health, recreation and general wellbeing) that promote social inclusion.37,58 Therefore, through a systematic approach to green infrastructure development, there is the potential to increase awareness, use and subsequent ownership of spaces and develop long-term sustainable use.59 This in turn promotes a number of the principal features of the urban renaissance—by increasing public use of green spaces and allowing people to feel part of a space’s wellbeing they make the spaces safer and more attractive to others.60 As mentioned in Section 4, green infrastructure also has a role to play in addressing issues of climate change. This process works in two ways. Firstly, it assumes that urban environments have an increasingly modified climate compared with urbanfringe or rural areas because of the composition of built infrastructure.13 Consequently, urban areas are assumed to have a lower tolerance to climate change because they are composed of a number of closed systems. Green infrastructure can thus offer microclimatic controls in urban areas by providing spaces that intercept rainfall, absorb solar radiation and increase the urban cooling effect.38 This is important in large cities and areas in arid or hot climates where shade has been shown to provide a better quality of life by relieving heat stress and fatigue.55 Secondly, at a broader scale, green infrastructures can act as ecosystem manager and natural resource sink. Green infraMell 29 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? structure acts as a buffer to climate change by increasing the proportion of ecological resource and providing spaces that can adapt or control extreme variations in climate such as flooding or drought.54 This can be achieved by providing spaces where excess rainwater can be stored and then dispersed (e.g. the proposed Airedale Nature Reserve, West Yorkshire). Within the context of current estimates that suggest that extreme weather conditions will increase, this makes large-scale green infrastructure projects more viable options for landscape managers.5 This level of landscape integration can be achieved by creating networks of spaces that allow the flow of energy (water or pollutants) to pass from different danger points into sink areas for storage, diffusion and release. The North East Strategy for the Environment heavily emphasises the role of ecosystem management as a way of developing the north-east to protect against climatic change through such a systems approach.61 Contextualising these two points of view against urban renaissance suggests that there is a strong link between potential climate change mitigation and green infrastructure. At micro (city) and macro (municipal) levels, green infrastructures can aid both small- and larger-scale climate control by providing landscape elements that provide a better quality of life. This can be achieved by relieving the stresses associated with temperature and humidity and also by using large-scale green infrastructure projects to manage climate change through natural green space functions. Green infrastructure also provides a process that can aid urban renaissance through economic renewal. As seen in the Northern Way growth corridor, landscape plays a major role in attracting business and economic renewal to regions in decline.26 The north-east RDA, One NorthEast, has been one of the main proponents of this process using iconic green infrastructure of the region as a main driver in promoting the region across the UK. The DETR has pointed out that attractive and well-designed spaces are able to attract business because people want to live in such areas.2 This view is strongly supported by the UK Community Forests Network—attractive places to live develop through a combination of better services, recreational facilities and attractive functional landscapes, and economic regeneration is a process linked directly to landscape. In previous generations this link was related to the value of natural resources, but contemporary research relates it to the quality of life people can expect in any given location.62 Likewise, in the Thames Gateway project, green infrastructure development has been seen as a vital part of achieving sustainable communities and promoting social inclusion.20 The focus of the DETR’s drive towards urban renaissance is shown in Figure 2,2 which highlights how green infrastructure can be developed in conjunction with transport and other ‘grey’ infrastructure to form a matrix of mixed-use, accessible spaces that offer different amenities and activities. It also shows that by using a hierarchy of spaces (local, neighbourhood, metropolitan), different spaces can provide different functions depending on what is needed by the local population. Figure 2 also shows that green infrastructure can be effectively integrated within a high-density mixed-use development. This is an important facet of green infrastructure research—in the reconstruction and redevelopment of spaces in post-industrial locations, green infrastructure is proposed as being a useful process to meet 30 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 different needs. The ability of green infrastructure to be retrofitted into existing landscapes therefore links with the ideals of urban renaissance as it provides scope for redeveloping spaces in a more sustainable manner. However, the development of green infrastructure is still in its formative stages and there needs to be a balance between its supporters and tangible or achievable benefits that can actually be delivered. The political climate of the UK still places much emphasis on the economic value of landscapes. Unfortunately, health benefits or physiological wellbeing are not readily seen to hold the same value as financial recuperations from housing development. All too often, landscapes and their ecological and social functions are underestimated compared with the economic incentives of development.45 A further problem is that there is still a lack of coherent dialogue between land managers and policy officials relating to green infrastructure. This has led to a number of contrasting policy streams being developed—from local authorities to government agencies.26 This in turn has meant that landscape developments do not always promote best land use, but potentially the best interests of developers. Therefore, dialogue between all stakeholders—including the public—is needed if, as the urban renaissance claims, people are to share the future.1 This is an important area for green infrastructure research. Through recognition of its values in planning policy, green infrastructure can become a mainstream landscape management process. Therefore, if green infrastructure is to be discussed as such a process, planners and developers need to review the longterm viability of developments. Large-scale municipal projects such as the Emerald Necklace in Boston or Central Park in New York have been viewed in terms of the broader benefits they can deliver across a number of scales.52,63 Both these projects viewed the city as a system with inputs and outputs and were developed as a way of providing environmental access for all. If green infrastructure is to succeed in the UK, it needs to be viewed by planners as a way of linking people and landscapes with the long-term aim of creating sustainable places. By engineering places in which people want to live, the visions of urban renaissance may be achievable. However, there are still questions of who is responsible for the management and financing of green infrastructure developments. With national planning policy starting to acknowledge green infrastructure values and its discussion within the latest round of regional spatial strategies, different planning scales are being engaged. This, however, does not necessarily constitute financial support for capital works or green infrastructure projects. Consequently, although green infrastructure has been proposed as a practical mechanism for supporting the strategic planning of sustainable spaces,7 there are still discussions over who will actual pay for such works. The costs of such works have been discussed45 as an area where investments in green infrastructure may falter. The UK sustainable transport charity Sustrans recently carried out cost– benefit analyses of several of its projects; it noted that the benefits of alternative transport routes provided a 20:1 benefit– cost ratio.64 The DoH has reported similar findings, stating that a proportional increase in green infrastructure development and use could save the National Health Service £8?2 billion annually.16,18 These figures place into context the value of green Mell Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Neighbourhood central square Rail/bus stop Local bus stop Pocket park with play Local links Local bus route Neighbourhood street Tr The local square am Local distributor segregated cycle and footpaths Access road combines cycle and paths Toddlers' greens Canal corridor Local links Local bus links Local links a re Neighbourhood road links Bus 500m ou ig hb rh o od a Shops Mixed working areas Local links Higher density housing and some working Neighbourhood to district links Primary school Places of worship Predominantly residential areas Community facilities such as – pub, crêche etc. Figure 2. Green infrastructure elements and their fit with urban renewals strategies.2 (Source: Andrew Wright Associates. Parliamentary material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO on behalf of Parliament) infrastructure to the UK economy. Financial support could be made available from central government for national, regional and local level developments if the emphasis is placed on the benefits rather than the costs of green development.36 7. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT With the rise in green infrastructure research, there has been an increase in the number of guidelines linking the concept with urban sustainability. A plethora of guidelines, toolkits and checklist approaches have been developed outlining requirements for measuring sustainable urban developments. These guidelines relate to a range of ecological, economic and social influences and propose a number of areas—including water retention, Suds, size and scale of resources, links to other related systems and the promotion of alternative transport techniques— where green infrastructure could be used to promote sustainability. The development of such guidelines aims to place the onus of more sustainable development on planners and developers by outlining systems or approaches where sustainable design and building status can only be attributed if specific criteria are met. Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Leed in North America and Breeam in the UK, as well as the NECF green infrastructure planning guide and the north-west green infrastructure guide all provide practical guidelines for assessing and developing sustainable places. These guidelines represent a contextualisation of the research into green infrastructure and propose a number of areas where it can be used. These checklists and guides outline how, where and what constitutes appropriate design and can be linked with the principles of urban renaissance to highlight what can be classed as inclusive, appropriate and sustainable. Consequently, by promoting a number of underlying sustainability principles, the use of a framework of development criteria can be utilised within a given development. The use of such guidelines emphasises that the development of sustainable places would fall on developers if they wish to have their work accredited with recognised sustainability targets. It may also allow planners to develop policies that provide guidance for green infrastructure developments based on the typologies proposed by Ahern,65 Davies et al.7 or in Section 4 of this paper. 8. CONCLUSION This paper has discussed green infrastructure as a provider of a Mell 31 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Provide good local facilities A vibrant mix of uses Ne Integrated transport systems An hierarchy of open space Tram/light rail or main bus route number of ecological, economic and social benefits by assessing how green infrastructure can meet spatial and planning policy considerations using a systems approach that supports the historical context of a space.57 This paper has suggested how green infrastructure can be viewed as a process through which adaptations to climate change can take place. It has also reviewed a number of practices for adaptation, all of which could provide multi-scale benefits depending on how climate change is strategically planned for. The paper also examined the broader social and economic benefits outlined in current government policy and how these relate to green space planning and urban renewal. Overall, the UK government’s urban renaissance agenda aimed to create places for sustainable living that allowed people to develop links with their environments and to create and share economic and social prosperity. Green infrastructure has been suggested as a delivery mechanism, with a number of appropriate foci that can aid this process but only if developed appropriately. Like many green space planning approaches, green infrastructure planning must take into account the needs of the environment in terms of social justice, exposure to innovative green spaces or simply the ability to move freely within and around the environment. Landscape managers and developers must therefore be careful when developing green infrastructure not to develop spaces that work within too confined a remit. When discussing urban design, Gehl66 noted ‘first life, then spaces, then buildings’, proposing that liveable spaces are at the heart of the acceptance and continued use of spaces. Thus, socially inclusive landscapes spaces cannot be retrofitted without appropriate public consultation to determine community wants and needs. In areas such as the Thames Gateway, this process has been adopted and subsequent development of housing, transport and green infrastructures has been implemented successfully and with local support.20 In terms of the Northern Way, there is still room for further development of these links. If urban renaissance is to be achieved alongside other programmes such as the sustainable communities agenda, the following should be considered. (a) Developments must take into account the different ecological, economic and social influences when decisions of appropriate design are being made. They must take the view that each of these areas are of equal importance in meeting the targets set by the DoH, the DCMS and the DCLG. If developers do not take health, social inclusion and service provision into account, the long-term viability of urban renewal may be an unrealistic goal. (b) As a mechanism for delivering these and other potential positive effects for climate change, green infrastructure must be developed at an appropriate scale and with a relevant focus. Any underestimation of the complexity of green spaces within the urban–rural matrix could undermine the value of the space itself and consequently hinder its function.6,59,67 Therefore, a strategic systems approach is proposed as an effective mechanism for a fuller understanding of the ecological interactions and functions of any given landscape. (c) As an appropriate mechanism for delivering urban renaissance, green infrastructure is not a quick-fix solution but 32 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 should be viewed as part of a long-term process of developing liveable spaces. Designed appropriately and developed with ecological, economic and social factors in mind, green infrastructure can be a valuable component of urban development for successful renewal. Finally, this paper proposed the question can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? In terms of promoting an integrated system of land use management, green infrastructure has been suggested as a mechanism for effecting positive environmental change and sustainable development. Green infrastructure has been linked with mitigating climate change effects, sustainable urban development and issues of social equity, all of which promote a number of the underlying principles of sustainability. However, these discussions can only progress the debate so far. There are still some who question whether green infrastructure thinking is an attempt to refocus land use issues in the UK rather than actually deal with them. This paper and the examples outlined within it have aimed to highlight some of the most recent green infrastructure research in order to answers these questions. There is, however, scope for more in-depth research to determine the role green infrastructure can play in promoting urban sustainability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research undertaken for this paper was funded by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) CASE studentship award in conjunction with North East Community Forests. REFERENCES 1. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS. Our Towns and Cities: Delivering the Urban Renaissance. DETR, Weatherby, 2000. 2. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS. Towards an Urban Renaissance. DETR, London, 1999. 3. FINCO A. and NIJKAMP P. Pathways to urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2001, 3, No. 4, 289–302. 4. BENEDICT M. A. and MCMAHON E. D. Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 2002, Autumn, 12–17. 5. BENEDICT M. A. and MCMAHON E. D. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2006. 6. CABE SPACE. Planning Green Infrastructure. CABE Space, London, 2003. 7. DAVIES C., MCGLOIN C., MACFARLANE R. and ROE M. Green Infrastructure Planning Guide Project: Final Report. NECF, Annfield Plain, 2006. 8. HERITAGE CONSERVANCY. Growing with Green Infrastructure. HC, Doylestown, PA, 2003, See www.heritageconservancy. org for further details. Accessed 01/01/2007. 9. COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY. Countryside In and Around Towns: The Green Infrastructure of Yorkshire and the Humber. CA, Leeds, 2006, p. 1. ¨ 10. SANDSTROM U. G. Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 2002, 17, No. 4, 373–385. 11. AHERN J. Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In Cities for the Future—Towards Integrated Sustainable Water and Landscape Management (NOVOTNY V. Mell Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? and BROWN P. (eds)). IWA Publishing, London, 2007, pp. 265–283. 12. DALPITO DUNN A. and STONER N. Green light for green infrastructure. The Environment Forum, 2007, May/June, i–iv. 13. BEATLEY T. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2000. 14. SELMAN P. Environmental Planning, 2nd edn. Sage, London, 2000. 15. EKINS P. Building economic and social information for examining the effects of climate change (BESEECH). In Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate: Collaborative Research to Understand and Adapt to the Impacts of Climate Change and Infrastructure, the Built Environment and Utilities (WALSH C. L. et al. (eds)). Newcastle University, Newcastle, 2007, pp. 14–21. 16. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Choosing Health? Choosing Activity: A Consultation on How to Increase Physical Activity. DoH, London, 2004. 17. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Choosing Activity: A Physical Activity Action Plan. DoH, London, 2005. 18. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT. Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government’s Sport and Physical Activity Objectives. DCMS London Strategy Unit, London, 2002. 19. See http://www.communities.gov.uk 20. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. Creating Sustainable Communities: Greening the Gateway Implementation Plan. ODPM, London, 2005. 21. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. What is a Sustainable Community? 2005. See http://www.communities. gov.uk/index.asp?id51139866 for further details. Accessed 01/01/2007. 22. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Thames Gateway Evidence Review: Executive Summary. DCLG, Weatherby, 2006. 23. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Thames Gateway Interim Plan: Key Points. DCLG, Weatherby, 2006. 24. RACO M. A step change or a step back? The Thames gateway and the re-birth of the urban development corporations. Local Economy, 2005, 20, No. 2, 141–153. 25. DIXON T. The property development industry and sustainable urban brownfield regeneration in England: an analysis of case studies in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester. Urban Studies, 2007, 44, No. 12, 2379–2400. 26. GOODCHILD B. and HICKMAN P. Towards a regional strategy for the North of England? An assessment of ‘The Northern Way’. Regional Studies, 2006, 40, No. 1, 121–133. 27. NORTHERN WAY STEERING GROUP. Moving Forward: The Northern Way—First Growth Strategy Report Summary. ONE NorthEast, Newcastle, 2004. 28. GIRARDET H. Creating Sustainable Cities. Schumacher Briefings No. 2. Green Books, Bristol, 1999. 29. TWEDYR-JONES M. and MCNEIL D. 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, 2000, 7, No. 2, 119–134. 30. RYDIN Y. The enabling local state and urban development: resources, rhetoric and planning in East London. Urban Studies, 1998, 35, No. 2, 175–191. 31. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION. Biodiversity by Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities. TCPA, London, 2004. 32. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. ODPM, London, 2003. 33. See http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/html/index. php?page5index 34. KAMBITES C. and OWEN S. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Planning Practice and Research, 2007, 21, No. 4, 483–496. 35. COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY/GROUNDWORK. The Countryside in and around Towns: A Vision for Connecting Town and Country in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development. CA, Wetherby, 2005. 36. MELL I. C. Green infrastructure planning: what are the costs for health and well-being? Journal of Environment, Culture, Economic and Social Sustainability, 2007, 3, No. 5, 117–124. 37. KLOSS C. and CALARUSSE C. Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer Outflows. Natural Defense Council, USA, 2006. 38. SCHEUER C. W. and KEOLEIAN G. A. Evaluation of LEEDTM Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2002. 39. VIJAYAN A. and KUMAR A. A review of tools to assess the sustainability in building construction. Environmental Progress, 2005, 24, No. 2, 125–132. 40. FARR D. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Wiley, New York, 2008. 41. WEBER T., SLOAN A. and WOLF J. Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006, 77, No. 1–2, 94–110. 42. PAULEIT S., SLINN P., HANDLEY J. and LINDLEY S. Promoting the natural greenstructures of towns and cities: English Nature’s accessible natural greenspace standards model. Built Environment, 2003, 29, No. 2, 157–170. 43. BLACKMAN D. and THACKRAY R. The Green Infrastructure of Sustainable Communities, England’s Community Forests, 2007. See www.roomfordesign.co.uk for further details. Accessed 01/01/2008. 44. ENGLAND’S COMMUNITY FORESTS. Quality of Place, Quality of Life. ECF, Newcastle, 2004. 45. ECOTEC. City Regions Green Infrastructure Strategic Planning: Raising the Quality of the North’s City Regions, Ecotec, Leeds, 2006. See www.ecotec.com for further details. Accessed 01/ 01/2007. 46. BENTON-RENNIE L. and RENNIE SHORT J. Cities and Nature. Routledge, New York, 2008. 47. BARTON H. (ed.) Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco-Neighbourhoods. Earthscan, London, 2000. 48. JONGMAN R. H. G. and PUNGETTI G. (eds). Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design and Implementation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. 49. FERGUSON B. K. Stormwater management and stormwater restoration. In Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design (FRANCE R. L. (ed.)). Lewis Publishing, New York, 2002, pp. 11–29. 50. PAUL M. J. and MEYER J. L. Stream in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 2001, 32, 333–365. 51. HOUGH M. Sharing common experiences: The Don River, Toronto, Canada. In Hydropolis: The Role of Water in Urban Planning. Proceedings of the International UNESCO-IHP Workshop (VAN ENGEN H., KAMPE D. and TJALLINGII S. (eds)). Backhuys, Leiden, 1995, pp. 68–81. Mell 33 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? ´ 52. FABOS J. G. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 68, No. 2–3, 321–342. 53. GILL S. E., HANDLEY J. F., ENNOS A. R. and PAULEIT S. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of green infrastructure. Climate Change and Cities, 2007, 33, No. 1, 115–133. 54. HANDLEY J. Adaptation strategies for climate change in the urban environment (ASCCUE) In Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate: Collaborative Research to Understand and Adapt to the Impacts of Climate Change and Infrastructure, the Built Environment and Utilities (WALSH C. L. et al. (eds)). Newcastle University, Newcastle, 2007, pp. 44–53. 55. BROWN R. D. and GILLESPIE T. J. Microclimatic Landscape Design: Creating Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency. Wiley, New York, 1995. 56. MCPHERSON E. G. and SIMPSON J. R. Potential energy savings in buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2003, 2, No. 2, 73–86. 57. THWAITES K., PORTA S., ROMICE O. and GREAVES M. Urban Sustainability through Environmental Design: Approaches to Time–People–Place Responsive Urban Spaces. Routledge, London, 2007. 58. SIBLEY D. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. Routledge, London, 1995. 59. CABE SPACE. Start with the Park: Creating Sustainable Urban Green Spaces in Areas of Housing Growth and Renewal. CABE Space, London, 2005. 60. BURGESS J., HARRISON C. M. and LIMB M. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies, 1988, 25, No. 6, 455– 473. 61. ENVIRONMENT FORUM NORTH EAST. North East Strategy for the Environment: Consultation Draft. Natural England, Newcastle, 2006. 62. BENNETT K., BEYNON H. and HUDSON R. Coalfield Regeneration: Dealing with the Consequences of Industrial Decline. Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol, 2000. 63. HISS T. The Experience of Place. Vintage Books, New York, 1991. 64. SUSTRANS. Economic Appraisal of Local Walking and Cycling Routes, 2004. See http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/ general/Economic%20appraisal%20of%20local%20walking %20and%20cycling%20routes%20-%20summary.pdf for further details. Accessed 01/01/2005. 65. AHERN J. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995, 33, No. 1–3, 131–155. 66. GEHL J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987. 67. CABE SPACE. What Are We Scared Of? The Value of Risk in Designing Public Space. CABE Space, London, 2005. What do you think? To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author guidelines and further details. 34 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell