Planning for resilient communities and landscapes in challenging times Claudia Carter, Nicki Schiessel & Alister Scott Birmingham City University

Mark Reed, Peter Larkham, Karen Leach, Nick Morton, Rachel Curzon, David Jarvis, Andrew Hearle, Mark Middleton, Bob Forster, Ruth Waters, David Collier, Chris Crean, Miriam Kennet, Richard Coles and Ben Stonyer

RURAL-URBAN FRINGE (RUF) project

July 2010 – December 2011 funded under the Research Councils’ RELU programme

Planning Research Conference - Birmingham - 13th September 2011

Defining the Rural-Urban Fringe (RUF)

The fuzzy and dynamic space where town and countryside uses, interests and ideas meet.

Directly adjacent to town/city or in countryside where it is dominated by urban interests.

Research and insights from a practice-led rural-urban fringe (RUF) project

Why RUF?

neglected in planning (> green belt)

diverse competing needs/interests

variety and complexity of ‘place’

the RUF as a laboratory

Photo: Val Vannet

The potential of the ecosystem approach and spatial (landscape-scale) planning to transform culture and practice of planning

Planning policy & practice: now – where next?

SP and EA divide

What can we learn from spatial planning (SP) concept?

What can the ecosystem approach (EA) add to planning processes and outcomes?

EA – SP compatibilities, possibilities, challenges

Current planning policy…

• Sector-based perspectives

• Separate planning departments

• Zones, boundaries

• Control and restraint

• Definitions, objectives

• ‘of material consideration’

• Quest for spatial order limits innovation

• Environment as add-on

• Participation as add-on

• Politics and policy-practice disjuncture

… planning culture, governance

SP – EA Divide

CLG* and Defra** divide reflects planning and environment divide

Spatial planning superficial cover in National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) (2/6/2011)

Ecosystem approach / NEA superficial cover in Draft Planning Framework for England (28/7/2011)

* Department for Communities and Local Government

** Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Influence of SP Theory … what is considered relevant is changing

Past Present

• Separate planning systems: Town and Country Planning & Resource Planning

• Sectoral

• Bounded

• Control and restraint

• Policy-practice disjuncture

• Definitions, regulation

• Environment: add-on

Future

• Integrated policies (horizontal and vertical): e.g. Green Infrastructure

• Cross-sectoral

• Fuzzy, messy

• Pro-active, enabling

• Networks, connections

• Principles and guidance

• Embed env. consciousness

Reconnect with the interdisciplinary roots of UK planning - PRATICE

Spatial Planning Framework

EUROCITIES (2004) The Pegasus files: a practical guide to integrated area-based urban planning

EUROCITIES, Brussels

“Collective place shaping efforts aimed to improve the qualities and connectivities of places into the future for the benefit of present and future publics and their potential values”

Healey 2008: 3

Ecosystem approach

"the Ecosystem Approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way“

(Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 7 Decision VII/11)

beyond biodiversity

beyond ‘environmental’

humans inherently part of nature

Ecosystem approach Structure/Factors

e.g.

Climate

Topography

Rock, Soil

Water

Biota

Processes/Services:

e.g.

Air pollution ‘filter’

Recreational resource

Waste receptor / neutraliser

Carbon storage

Flood protection

Landscape diversity

Natural

factors e.g. extreme

weather

events;

geological

events

Human

factors e.g. pollution;

deforestation;

urban

development

Ecosystem Approach: Respect for and being mindful of whole system

Ecosystem Services: Anthropocentric; economic framing common

“… we must learn to apply an adaptive ecosystem approach to ecological planning. This will allow us to deal with the thorny issues of sustainability, itself taken complexly in regional and urban planning, in novel and ultimately more realistic ways.”

Vasishth 2008: 101

Vasishth, A. (2008) ‘A scale-hierarchic ecosystem approach to integrative ecological planning’, Progress in Planning 70: 99-132.

“The ecosystem approach may represent a paradigm shift. A fundamental change in the way we manage, value and pay for our natural environment. Implemented successfully, it will mainstream the environment across all decisions”

Head of Ecosystem Approach, Natural England (2010)

SP and EA Compatibilities

Holistic frameworks

Cross-sectoral

Multi-scalar

Negotiating

Enabling

Long term perspective

Connectivity

Governance

Equity goals

Regulatory

Market-orientated

Link to Wellbeing (also in PLANNING)

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington: Island Press.

Ecosystem approach in planning

Integrative perspective beyond ‘sectors’

Context and consequence co-evolve*

holistic perspective (wider context)

trace consequence in the decision/planning process

‘Resilience’, ‘Sustainability’

* Kay. J., Regier, H., Boyle, M. and Francis, G. (1999) ‘An Ecosystem Approach for

Sustainability: Addressing the Challenge of Complexity’, Futures 31(7): 721-742.

Possibilities

Reconceptualise SP and EA:

Values

Time

Connections

Values

habitat(s) - biodiversity

recreation

health & wellbeing

pollution buffer/filter

GREENSPACE

climate change - C sequestration

flood alleviation/buffer

barriers

accessibility,

freedom to roam?

HOUSING

Get away from

pollution (but noise,

heat, exhausts, CO2)

barriers

Transition space

GREENSPACE – ‘natural’

low quality – lacks diversity

but good for children to play?

views

Section 106: community

provisions?

community fragmentation?

Time

habitat(s) - biodiversity

recreation

health & wellbeing

transport? fewer cars?

GREENSPACE

more trees - C sequestration

flood alleviation

barrier to species migration

HOUSING (natural materials,

better thermal properties)

use of alternative

energy sources (wind, solar, fuel cell)

barriers for wildlife

GREENSPACE

views across landscape / to hills

RE-DEVELOPMENT

rain & grey water collection and reuse

administrative boundaries/barriers

mini habitats: e.g. green roofs; garden; allotments

‘economic goods: food, timber, fuel

recreation and play

Connectivity

habitat network

Integrated transport system (public)

Streams & rivers

HOUSING (suit range of social, economic and cultural needs)

– COMMUNITY development

With Birmingham?

Worcester? Warwick?

Motorways & big roads: barrier for some

wildlife species and pedestrians but

connection for many people (e.g. car

owners) – Small roads & paths: vice versa

Green infrastructure

Views to and from

Historical and

cultural heritage

Permeable surfaces

Link: Green Infrastructure

Challenges, as both SP and EA …

Creeping incrementalism Conditional and restricted inter-disciplinarity Vague Disjuncture between theory and practice Complex jargon Used uncritically Value what is measured Idealistic goals crossing a legal and

institutional / administrative minefield

So…

Embedding – innovative ways of research and working: Research – Policy – Practice

Interdisciplinary working with complexity requires experimentation and adaptation

SP and EA not separate add-ons, but fundamental change required: mind-set – policies –

institutions – governance – adaptive management

For more information visit:

http://www.bcu.ac.uk/research/-centres-of-excellence/centre-for-environment-and-society

http://twitter.com/#!/reluruf