Financing Green Infrastructure in times of austerity: The case of Liverpool (original) (raw)
Related papers
Blame it on austerity? Examining the impetus behind London's changing green space governance
People, Place and Policy, 2019
Urban green spaces play a critical role in the economic, environmental and social sustainability of cities, including London, where 47 per cent of the city is considered green. Yet, a dedicated, sustainable stream of funding for green space does not exist. Cyclical funding and underfunding over the past several decades demonstrate the vulnerability of these non-statutory spaces to changing budgets and government policies. Recent austerity measures are blamed for a decline in green spaces. However, this overlooks urban socioeconomic processes already in motion, particularly relating to a growing and aging population. To counter green space cuts, local authorities are turning to local community organisations-namely, friends groups-to take on green space management. Yet, while these local organisations can fill a gap left by councils, they are not a panacea, and challenges remain for ensuring the long-term, strategic viability of London's urban green spaces.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 2021
Green infrastructure (GI) research has grown in prominence as planners, politicians and environmental specialists have promoted its socioeconomic and ecological value in urban environments. However, as the pace of growth has continued so has the exploration of how GI can mitigate the impacts of poor air and water quality, promote improved quality of place and support economic prosperity. Unfortunately, investments can be undermined by weak organisational understandings of the financial and societal value of GI. Consequently, we identify a historical reluctance by decision-makers and developers to support GI, partially based on the outdated appreciation of economic-ecological value compared to other built infrastructure. To examine how cities respond this paper discusses GI as a 'boundary object' aligning divergent understandings of the ongoing challenges and responsibility for GI funding. Using an examination of public, private and environment sector practice in London (UK), the paper argues that opportunities exist to align alternative funding mechanisms using 'GI' to promote cooperation between economically and socio-ecologically focussed stakeholders.
Establishing the value of urban green infrastructure resources draws on a complex evaluation of social, economic and ecological influences. As a result planners have found it difficult to develop robust economic arguments to promote investments in urban greening. The Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) project facilitated a trans-national programme of investigations to establish economic values for a range of green infrastructure investments. This paper presents the results of a large-scale willingness to pay (WTP) survey (N: 510) for investments on Blonk Street, The Wicker, Sheffield. Using 3D visualisations of three alternative urban greening scenarios the research addressed the influence of green infrastructure on aesthetic quality, functionality and amenity. The evidence suggests that participants were WTP up to £10.56 or 2% more in monthly rent or additional mortgage payments to live in locations that have a high quality green infrastructure environment. The survey also examined the relationships between a range of socio-economic factors and WTP for green infrastructure (GI). WTP more rent was associated particularly with those in younger age groups and those with lower educational attainment. The paper concludes that investment in urban GI that is visibly greener, that facilitates access to GI and other amenities, and that is perceived to promote multiple functions and benefits on a single site (i.e. multi-functionality) generate higher WTP values. The findings of the study support the wider literature evaluating the economic value of GI which argues that investment in urban greenspace can have a significant impact on local housing and commercial markets where it produces more attractive and functional landscapes.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2013
The attribution of economic value to landscape resources is fraught with technical and methodological difficulties. Little is mandated in UK planning policy explaining how economic value should be established. As a result landscape resources have been undervalued, underfunded and marginalised in favour of larger grey infrastructure development. The UK NEA however outlined for the first time a national scale economic evaluation of environmental resources. The Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE) Interreg IVB project examined this issue by establishing a toolkit of economic evaluation methodologies for green investments across North-West Europe. Focussing on the returns that investments in green infrastructure can deliver to cities and city-regions, the VALUE project identified economic values that can be used to influence future policy-making. This paper presents an analysis of VALUE street tree investments in Manchester, UK. Using a contingent valuation survey preferences for green investments and associated willingness to pay (WTP) for them were generated. Analysis suggests that willingness to pay is directly related to the size and greenness of the proposed investment and participant perceptions of added value. 75% of respondents were WTP for investments in green infra-structure. Analysis indicates increased WTP and a marked preference for larger and physically greener investments. Payment values ranged from £1.46 to 2.33, a 59.5% variance, between the preferred investment option and the status quo. The paper concludes that although green investments vary in size and function, respondents consider the specific and wider value of green infrastructure resources when asked how much they willing to pay to fund and maintain such investments.
People, Place and Policy Online, 2018
The ongoing austerity programme of the current UK government is placing stresses on Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), as they attempt to deliver statutory and discretionary services. As a discretionary service, green space provision has been identified as a service that can be cut to balance the accounts of many LPAs. The following article assesses local government, business and residential communities, and environmental stakeholder responses to green infrastructure funding. It comments upon the politicisation of landscape management, and illustrates the mechanisms available to advocates to adopt alternative approaches to financing. Reflecting on a series of case studies from England the article examines innovative practice, as well as identifying where conflicts remain. The article concludes that rethinking existing funding mechanisms is essential to establish a viable economic model for funding green spaces in the future.
Briefing Paper: Green Infrastructure in practice: Cambridgeshire case study
The development of a Green Infrastructure (GI) approach to planning in the UK has gained increasing momentum over the last five years. Support from central government, Natural England and a large proportion of regional and local authorities have enabled this somewhat vague and disparate planning process to become one of the primary objectives currently associated with landscape planning. Political support has been coupled with an increase in funding for GI projects and strategies. All of which has enabled planners and landscape managers to propose more expansive programmes of enhancement and investments. Based on a assumption that GI can promote increased access, better connectivity, multi-functionality, a wide range of ecological, economic and social benefits, and long term sustainable management of landscape resources, practitioners have been able to promote a number of diverse objectives using GI as a catalyst for change.
Green Society: Policies to improve the UK’s green spaces
2014
Local authorities should consider rewarding people who volunteer their time to clean up and maintain their local parks, allotments and cemeteries with council tax rebates. Our report highlights the importance of parks and other urban green spaces to the social and economic wellbeing of the country. Providing free outdoor space for exercise, socialising and relaxation, parks can benefit both physical and mental health. However, on average local authority spending on open spaces was cut by 10.5% between 2010/11 and 2012/13 and there is no ring-fence protecting the budget spent on maintaining green spaces. Combined with the increasing demand for housing and other urban development there is a risk that the UK’s parks will deteriorate or become spaces that are the preserve of the wealthy. The paper suggests a wide range of proposals to improve local green spaces including the idea of a full or partial council tax rebate for local residents who join civil or community groups and volunteer to maintain and improve nearby green spaces. The rebate could be worth as much as £1,500 a year, the average amount of council tax paid by people across the country. Local authorities could set the discount rate themselves, basing it on hours spent volunteering or setting a minimum number of hours necessary for volunteers to qualify for the rebate. This would not only provide a solution to the declining number of park rangers but would encourage people of all ages, backgrounds and income groups to become actively engaged in their local communities. The report suggests a number of other innovative ways to protect and improve the UK’s urban green spaces at a time of squeezed local authority budgets.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 2017
Green infrastructure (GI) is an increasingly conventional approach to increasing quality of life and decreasing the cost of infrastructure in cities around the world. It has been proposed for purposes as broad as addressing urban shrinkage, promoting resilience in the face of climate change, alleviating urban poverty, and promoting health in urban areas. The Handbook on Green Infrastructure, edited by Danielle Sinnett, Nick Smith, and Sarah Burgess, is a strong contribution to the practice of, and research into, GI. It goes beyond firstgeneration GI textbooks because its chapters, for the most part, assume that the benefits of GI are real and established. This is not to say that the validation of GI is ignored; the first section of the book dedicates five chapters to reviewing scientific evidence that supports the value of GI. However, the pervading sense, found throughout older texts in the field, that there is a pressing need to justify the field's existence and value is no longer here. Though GI may still be defined differently by researchers and practitioners in the field, this volume demonstrates that it has otherwise coalesced around a distinct set of values, practices, methods, and beliefs. This book contains 23 chapters that have been consigned to four main sections: "The Role of Green Infrastructure in the Urban Environment," "Strategic Planning for Green Infrastructure," "Designing Green Infrastructure for All," and "Implementation and Management of Green Infrastructure." A fifth section, "Looking Forward," includes a single chapter "The Future of Green Infrastructure." The Handbook's first section is perhaps the strongest and covers a standard range of topics in a book on the benefits of GI. With individual chapters dedicated to GI's impact on health, air quality, water management, economic valuation, and biodiversity, this section succinctly and coherently makes the case for GI. Exploring historical trends, recent data and research results, and case studies of projects implementing GI, these chapters provide valuable and accessible resources for both GI practitioners and students in the field. The second section, consisting of six chapters on the general topic of planning for GI, begins with an introductory chapter by Ian Mell, who argues that currently GI is in stage 3, "a more refined approach to policy-making, drawing heavily on the decade of green infrastructure evidence" (p. 107). The five subsequent chapters (planning GI on a landscape scale in both England and Portugal, GI planning in the United States and United Kingdom, GI planning in metropolitan landscapes, and GI planning for inclusivity) support Mell's assertion that GI planning increasingly does not follow a one-size-fits-all approach. As a result, the case studies included in this section may be useful resource guides for those studying similar problems, but the generalizability of their findings will be limited as GI researchers and practitioners strive for ever-more-individualized policies and designs. Another challenge to the general applicability of the Handbook, particularly from the U.S. perspective, is the degree to which these chapters are written from a distinctly European and/or UK perspective. Some chapters, largely those located in the planning section, are more successful at transcending the cultural and administrative differences between the United States and Europe. Carla Goncalves and Paulo Silva's "Planning Green Infrastructure from a Landscape Perspective" suggests a methodology for articulating and integrating landscape quality objectives using a Portuguese case study that would be easy to translate to similarly scaled and situated landscapes elsewhere. Nick Smith's chapter, "Delivering Green Infrastructure Through Strategic Development: Some Reflections From Cambridge, UK and Cambridge, USA," relates and contrasts the two JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS
A REVIEW ON CRITERIA FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE ADOPTED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
2014
Green infrastructure planning has grown in prominence since it was first discussed in the late 1990's. Since the President's Council on Sustainable Development discussed the concept researchers and academics from across the globe, though predominantly the UK, Western Europe and North America, have won the process. However, green infrastructure is an important trust in National Landscape Policy (NLP). At the