financing green infrastructure in the uk in an era of competitive planning and fiscal austerity the...
TRANSCRIPT
Financing Green Infrastructure in the UK in an era of competitive planning and fiscal
austerity
The Sustainable Green Infrastructure Conference 2014, London
Dr. Ian Mell
Department of Geography & Planning
University of Liverpool
Tel: 0151 794 3262
Twitter: Mell_GIPlanning
London Wetlands Centre, LondonMillenium Park, Chicago
What is green infrastructure? What does it do? Where can it be delivered? Who pays for it?
Framing the debate
- What are we trying to finance and why?
- Who is involved in this process?
- Are there supporting policy structures – if not why not?
- What scale of investment and financing is available?
- How does this impact on what is being developed?
Links, hubs and nodes in the Cambridgeshire GI Strategy
JFK Boulevard Greenway, Boston
Howard’s conceptualisation of the
‘Garden City’
(Cambridgeshire Horizons, 2011; Fábos, 2004; Howard, 1985; Farina, 2006)
Defining the spatial context for Green Infrastructure
Situating GI as essential infrastructure
- Not something nice to have – it is an essential infrastructure – as we build from its foundations in most development contexts
- Difficult to align with water, power, sewage and transport infrastructure but anecdotally, and in the academic/practitioner research, GI makes a significant contribution to quality of life/place
- The financial values of GI are becoming clearer – illustrating the multiplier effect of investment in the environment (potentially shaky economics but sound rationale on returns)
- All the world’s more liveable and prosperous cities have major GI sites and are investing in them (cf. London, NY, Paris, possible exceptions Mumbai and Tokyo)
Financing the tangible and intangible
WTP: Willingness to PayL: LocationT: (GI) TreatmentPG: Perceived greennessSE: Socio-economic variablesR/T: Existing rent/mortgage/taxesBI: Existing built infrastructure
Can GI valuation be broken down into a simple equation?
Mell & Allin (2014) Evaluating the role of high quality 3D-visualisations in establishing economic valuations for urban green infrastructure investments. envecon 2014: Applied Environmental Economics
What are we actually financing?
How do we manage the variations between economic vs. socio-environmental valuation?
-Parks, gardens and playing fields
-Green walls and roofs
-Greenways and sustainable transport routes
-Urban greening/beautification activities
-Flood plain management and protection
-Urban waterways
-Woods and forest
-Business parks and gated communities
Each of these types of spaces can be interpreted as requiring public-private integration, as well as, needing to discuss large/small scale issues
How do we interpret value between these resources?
Funding mechanisms
LPA/Policy led - S106/CIL (including Neighbourhood contributions)- Centralised referendums and financing mechanism (Paris €20 million)- Allocation/proportion of Council Tax (VALUE)
Government led - Government incentive taxes/HGF/Garden Cities
Developer/development led - Large-scale investment with GI components (Olympic Park)- More Public-Private-Partnerships- Business taxes in BIDs for green sites
ENGO/Advocacy led - Large-scale GI investment (Garden Bridge)- Additional luxury taxes for homes with GI around them (Policy Exchange)- 3rd party management agreements (i.e. Land Trust and Community Forest sites) - Payments for ecosystem services and - Biodiversity off-setting (polluter pays, valuation, analysis and payment/tax)
Chavasse Park, Liverpool ONE (Liverpool, UK)
Funding mechanisms:
-Development part-funded through a long-lease from LCC to Grosvenor Development Group as part of master planning of Liverpool ONE.
-Part-funded by Liverpool ONE car park underneath the park.
-Awarded Green Flag status – requires additional forms of management to maintain
Wicken Fen NNR (Cambridgeshire, UK)
Funding mechanism:
-National Trust membership, visitor donations/payments and subscriptions -Heritage Lottery Funding -Housing Growth Funds-Strategic investment funds (national and European)-Planting Parishes/Woodland Trust Awards-Corporate sponsorships (i.e. Cadburys or Virgin) -European environment/agricultural stewardship/schemes
Bankside Urban Forest (London, UK)
‘It is unlikely that the Bankside Urban Forest will capture large scale main stream regeneration funding. To ensure that the strategic vision is achieved, and sufficient resources are identified, requires a more complex approach involving Better Bankside’s own resources, Transport for London’s annual spending programme, S106 contributions and monies from Southwark’s Capital Programme (see cost analysis pp. 77-80)’
Range of funding mechanisms
- Crowd sourcing/funding
- LPA (London Borough of Southwark Capital Programme) and London Development Agency
- P-P-P with big names i.e. Tate
- Section 106 Contributions (major development sites in area Tate and Southwark Street)
- Transport for London (TFL) - Local Transport Programme
- Competitive funding mechanisms – i.e. Heritage Lottery Funding
Use of ‘meanwhile spaces’ i.e. on Union Street to form an urban orchard and improve the proportion of urban greening.
Long-term viability of Green Infrastructure financing
- There is a fluidity in all financing approaches/mechanisms – one model does not fit all and should not be applied as such
- One ‘size’ for funding won’t work either – the landscape needs to be considered in two ways: in its entirety and as its component parts
- Growing understanding of GI value (economic as well as socio-economic) that is beginning to be reflected in policy terms
- Growing/continued advocacy of the S/E/E benefits of GI in practitioner/advocate evidence
- Movement towards discussion/acceptance of GI as an essential form of infrastructure
- Potentially less reliance on the use of economic models and an acceptance of GI’s value (although these will still be used)
- There needs to be an engagement with the tangible and the intangible