planning for environmental change · 1.green infrastructure is accessible for all and is situated...
Post on 09-Oct-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Planning for
environmental change
Prof Alister Scott BA PhD
MRTPI
Pr
1. What are the key
planning issues
relating to
environmental
change?
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
But
2. Why are we stuck in
our professional and
disciplinary silos?
300000
3. How do we break out
of silos?
24
25
26
The 25 Year Environment
Plan should be placed on a
statutory footing and
progress should be subject
to independent scrutiny
Natural Capital Committee
2017 4th report
27
28
Embedding a concept, idea or knowledge
from one policy domain.
Translating it into daily practice and
systems of multiple audiences and decision
makers in other policy domains
mainstreaming
nature
Retrofit Incremental Challenge led Systemic
Mainstreaming modes
31
• “Parks and green spaces are treasured assets and are often central to the lives of their communities. They provide opportunities for leisure, relaxation and exercise, but are also fundamental to community cohesion, physical and mental health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and local economic growth.
33
• London’s public parks
have a gross asset
value in excess of
£91 billion.
• For each £1 spent by
local authorities and
their partners on
public parks,
Londoners enjoy at
least £27 in value.
• Londoners avoid
£950 million per year
in health costs due to
public parks.
Green Living Spaces Plan
4. How can we apply this
thinking to UK government
departments?
I want to be very clear - it is
my ambition and it’s my
department’s vision to be
the first generation to leave
our environment better than
we found it since the
industrial revolution.
36
Working at the HM Government
environmental interface
Finding the common vocabulary
1. Natural Capital Approach (taken into
account)
2. Nature as an asset (net gain)
3. Healthier environment
4. Risk
5. Viability
38
5. Case studies
mainstreaming
environmental change
Case Study Birmingham
Case Study Birmingham
Introducing a Natural Capital Planning tool
The NCPT can be applied at different scales and different
stages of the planning process .
It assesses the impact of land use changes on 10
ecosystem services:
•Harvested products
•Biodiversity
•Aesthetic values & sense of place
•Recreation
•Water quality regulation
•Flood risk regulation
•Air quality regulation
•Local climate regulation (climate change adaptation)
•Global climate regulation (climate change mitigation)
•Soil contamination
Ecosystem Service
Unadj.
Scores
1. Harvested Products -5.0
2. Biodiversity +0.8
3. Aesthetic Values -0.1
4. Recreation +1.0
5. Water Quality Regulation +0.0
6. Flood Risk Regulation -0.0
7. Air Quality Regulation +0.3
8. Local Climate Regulation -0.0
9. Global Climate Regulation -0.8
10. Soil Contamination +0.0
-0.4
Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare
Adjusted
Scores
-5.0
+0.8
-0.1
+1.0
+0.0
+0.0
+0.3
-0.0
-0.8
-0.4Development Impact Score
+0.0
Birmingham Case Study
So Different designs were developed:
Eg Green Neighbourhoods
Scenario:
• Increased green space in residential
areas: added woodlands (parks),
hedgerows
• Increased green space in school
areas: added woodlands, allotments,
hedgerows
• Green features on local streets
• Some green roof areas in residential
and school zones
• Woodland buffer around sports
facilities
Central Bedfordshire Case Study
• Key policy priority on environmental
enhancement – looking for a net gain
Central Bedfordshire Case Study
Test 1: Is it a good site?
• Could development
significantly
harm/benefit natural
capital?
• Looking at theoretical
min/max possible
scores gives an
indication of the
potential of the site
Ecosystem ServiceM ax
Possible
M in
Possible
Unadj.
Scores Ecosystem ServiceM ax
Possible
M in
Possible
Unadj.
Scores
1. Harvested Products +0.4 -3.0 -2.0 1. Harvested Products +24.1 -200.3 -130.4
2. Biodiversity +4.6 -0.4 +0.2 2. Biodiversity +305.2 -28.7 +14.8
3. Aesthetic Values +2.6 -1.4 +0.1 3. Aesthetic Values +174.3 -92.8 +7.4
4. Recreation +4.0 +0.0 +1.5 4. Recreation +267.1 +0.0 +98.9
5. Water Quality Regulation +2.0 -2.1 -0.2 5. Water Quality Regulation +136.3 -139.3 -14.1
6. Flood Risk Regulation +6.0 -0.0 +1.6 6. Flood Risk Regulation +397.7 -2.9 +109.0
7. Air Quality Regulation +2.4 -1.2 +0.4 7. Air Quality Regulation +160.2 -80.1 +30.0
8. Local Climate Regulation +3.6 -1.8 +0.7 8. Local Climate Regulation +238.2 -120.2 +44.0
9. Global Climate Regulation +4.0 -1.0 -0.4 9. Global Climate Regulation +266.7 -67.1 -24.6
10. Soil Contamination +0.0 10. Soil Contamination +0.0
+2.0 +135.1Development Impact Score Development Impact Score
-24.6-0.37
+0.0
+135.1+2.02
+0.00
-14.1
+109.0
+30.0
+44.0
Adjusted
Scores
-1.95
+0.22
+0.11
+1.48
-0.21
+1.63
+0.45
+0.66
Adjusted
Scores
-130.4
+14.8
+7.4
+98.9
Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare
Development Impact ScoreTotal for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes
Central Bedfordshire Case Study
Test 2: Is it a good
design?
• Is the plan working as
hard as it could for
natural capital?
• Look at the actual scores
and where they fall within
the range
• Case study: Net positive
impact but could do a lot
more for some
ecosystem services
Ecosystem ServiceM ax
Possible
M in
Possible
Unadj.
Scores Ecosystem ServiceM ax
Possible
M in
Possible
Unadj.
Scores
1. Harvested Products +0.4 -3.0 -2.0 1. Harvested Products +24.1 -200.3 -130.4
2. Biodiversity +4.6 -0.4 +0.2 2. Biodiversity +305.2 -28.7 +14.8
3. Aesthetic Values +2.6 -1.4 +0.1 3. Aesthetic Values +174.3 -92.8 +7.4
4. Recreation +4.0 +0.0 +1.5 4. Recreation +267.1 +0.0 +98.9
5. Water Quality Regulation +2.0 -2.1 -0.2 5. Water Quality Regulation +136.3 -139.3 -14.1
6. Flood Risk Regulation +6.0 -0.0 +1.6 6. Flood Risk Regulation +397.7 -2.9 +109.0
7. Air Quality Regulation +2.4 -1.2 +0.4 7. Air Quality Regulation +160.2 -80.1 +30.0
8. Local Climate Regulation +3.6 -1.8 +0.7 8. Local Climate Regulation +238.2 -120.2 +44.0
9. Global Climate Regulation +4.0 -1.0 -0.4 9. Global Climate Regulation +266.7 -67.1 -24.6
10. Soil Contamination +0.0 10. Soil Contamination +0.0
+2.0 +135.1Development Impact Score Development Impact Score
-24.6-0.37
+0.0
+135.1+2.02
+0.00
-14.1
+109.0
+30.0
+44.0
Adjusted
Scores
-1.95
+0.22
+0.11
+1.48
-0.21
+1.63
+0.45
+0.66
Adjusted
Scores
-130.4
+14.8
+7.4
+98.9
Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare
Development Impact ScoreTotal for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes
Environmental Standards
50
51
1.Green infrastructure forms a multifunctional network, operating at a landscape scale.2.Green infrastructure reflects and enhances the character of the local environment.3.The type, quality and function of green infrastructure responds to the local policy context.4.Green infrastructure is resilient to climate change and enhances environmental quality.5.Provision is made for long-term management and maintenance of green infrastructure.
Core Principles
52
1.Green infrastructure is accessible for all and is situated close to where people live.2.All people are encouraged to use and enjoy green infrastructure.3.Green infrastructure is designed to be accessible at all times of year.4.Green infrastructure supports the reduction and/or prevention of health inequalities.5.Green infrastructure promotes socially sustainable communities and community cohesion.6.Green infrastructure is integral to the distinctiveness of place
Wellbeing
53
Wildlife
1.Green infrastructure positively contributes to biodiversity targets and landscape-scale conservation priorities.2.Green infrastructure creates linkages between habitats within the boundary of the scheme.3.Green infrastructure positively contributes to the target conservation status of key species.4.Green infrastructure includes features around and within the built environment.5.Green infrastructure plays a role in restoring and sustaining wider ecological networks.6.Green infrastructure secures biodiversity measures in all stages of implementation, and across multiple phases of development.
54
NPPF
Viability par173
Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and
the scale of development identified in the plan should
not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy
burdens that their ability to be developed viably is
threatened
• HOW DO YOU MEASURE VIABILITY
• HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE VIABILITY
55
Location determined by Market values only:
food + timber (i.e. ignoring externalities)
What is viable? New Forests
56
Cost benefit value: - £66million p.a.
Source Bateman Church and Fish 2014
57
Location determined by Market + Non-Market Values
food + timber+ greenhouse gases + recreation + water quality improvement+ biodiversity improvement
Valuing ecosystem services
Cost benefit value: + £546million p.a.
Omitting non-market goods
Including non-market goods
58
Summary
• Let’s get out of ALL our silos
• Let’s rethink how we value land
• Let’s mainstream environment
• Let’s put back the quality into
planning
59
@profalister
Alister.scott@Northumbria.
ac.uk
https://mainstreaminggreen
infrastructure.com/
60
top related