relu special session bham planning conf_carter-schiessel-scott_13-09-2011
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Planning for resilient communities and landscapes in challenging timesClaudia Carter, Nicki Schiessel & Alister ScottBirmingham 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 2011funded 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 approachStructure/Factorse.g.ClimateTopographyRock, SoilWaterBiota
Processes/Services:e.g.Air pollution ‘filter’Recreational resourceWaste receptor / neutraliserCarbon storageFlood protectionLandscape 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?
HOUSINGGet away from pollution (but noise, heat, exhausts, CO2)
barriers
Transition spaceGREENSPACE – ‘natural’
low quality – lacks diversitybut good for children to play?
views
Section 106: community provisions?
community fragmentation?
Time
habitat(s) - biodiversityrecreation
health & wellbeingtransport? 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
low quality – lacks diversitybut good for kids to play?
views
Re-development
rain & grey water collection and reuse
administrative boundaries/barriers
Mini habitats: e.g. green roofs; garden; allotments
Economic: food, timber, fuel, recreation
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