No abstract

No abstract

We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.envpol.2009.05.005 Refereed: Yes This is a preprint of an article published in Environmental Pollution c 2009 ?copyright Elsevier?. Environmental Pollution is available online at: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journa Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. AbstractThe role of vegetation in mitigating the effects of PM 10 pollution has been highlighted as one potential benefit of urban greenspace. An integrated modelling approach is presented which utilises air dispersion (ADMS-Urban) and particulate interception (UFORE) to predict the PM 10 concentrations both before and after greenspace establishment, using a 10 x 10 km area of East London Green Grid (ELGG) as a case study. The corresponding health benefits, in terms of premature mortality and respiratory hospital admissions, as a result of the reduced exposure of the local population are also modelled. PM 10 capture from the scenario comprising 75 % grassland, 20 % sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) and 5 % Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) was estimated to be 90.41 t yr -1 , equating to 0.009 t ha -1 yr -1 over the whole study area. The human health modelling estimated that 2 deaths and 2 hospital admissions would be averted per year. CapsuleA combination of models can be used to estimate particulate matter concentrations before and after greenspace establishment and the resulting benefits to human health.

Current UK guidance suggests that a ‘rootable’ soil profile of at least 1.0 m depth should be sufficient to allow adequate rooting of the majority of tree species in a range of soil types and climatic conditions [Arboricultural Journal (1995) vol. 19, 19–27]. However, there is some uncertainty as to what constitutes a loosened soil profile in terms of penetration resistance. In this study the root development of Italian alder, Japanese larch, Corsican pine and birch was assessed after 5 years of tree growth. These data were compared to penetration resistance measured using both a cone penetrometer and a ‘lifting driving tool’ (dropping weight penetrometer). Tree root number and percentage were significantly reduced by increasing soil penetration resistance measured with both the cone penetrometer (P < 0.050) and the ‘lifting driving tool’ (P = 0.011 and 0.008 respectively). The vast majority of roots were recorded in soils with a penetration resistance of less than 3 MPa (90.7%) with a significant amount in the less than 2 MPa class (70.2%). Root development of Italian alder, Japanese larch and birch all showed a similar pattern, but Corsican pine appeared to be capable of rooting into more compact soils. The ‘lifting driving tool’ can be used as an alternative measure of soil penetration resistance. This equipment is more cost effective, easier to use and capable of measurements at a greater depth than the cone penetrometer. The majority of Japanese larch and birch roots (84.3%) were recorded in soils where it took less than 15 impacts to penetrate one 10 cm soil depth increment. The modelled data also suggest that a penetration resistance of 2 and 2.5 MPa relates to 10 and 15 impacts respectively.

We recommend you cite the published version. The publisher's URL is: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.009Refereed: Yes (no note) Disclaimer UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. This work examines the potential for resource recovery from metalliferous mine wastes in 19 south west England and Wales. It does this through an assessment of the physicochemical 20 composition of several key metalliferous legacy mine waste piles and an analysis of their co-21 location with key cultural, geological and ecological designations. Solid samples were taken 22 from 14 different sites and analysed for metal content, mineralogy, paste pH, particle size 23 distribution, total organic carbon and total inorganic carbon. The majority of sites contain 24 relatively high concentrations (in some cases up to several % by mass) of metals and metalloids, 25 including Cu, Zn, As, Pb, Ag and Sn, many of which exceed guideline concentrations. 26 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Physicochemical composition of wastes and co-located environmental designations atHowever, the economic value of metals in the waste could be used to offset rehabilitation costs. 27Spatial analysis of all metalliferous mine sites in south west England and Wales found that 28 around 70% are co-located with at least one cultural, geological and ecological designation. 29All 14 sites investigated are co-located with designations related to their mining activities, 30 either due to their historical significance (e.g. mining infrastructure), rare species assemblages 31 (e.g. lichens and bryophytes) or geological characteristics (e.g. mineralisation). This 32 demonstrates the need to consider the cultural and environmental impacts of rehabilitation and 33 resources recovery on such sites. Further work is required to identify non-invasive remediation 34 and resource recovery methodologies to allow sites to be rehabilitated at minimal cost and 35 disturbance. 36 37 Introduction 38There are few locations world-wide where historic metal mining is more evident than in 39 mainland Britain. Extensive mining of major ores for metals including copper, lead, tin and 40 zinc at locations such as the Devon Great Consols in south west Devon and Parys Mountain in 41 north west Wales fuelled profound societal and industrial change world-wide (particularly 42 during the Industrial Revolution) but as a consequence created a s...

No abstract

No abstract

Green infrastructure (GI) is globally recognised as an essential component of liveable and sustainable places. It is valued for its multifunctionality and the connectedness of the individual features to each other, the surrounding countryside and urban populations. It brings together many land uses (e.g. parks, gardens, cemeteries, allotments, nature reserves, surface water), urban design (e.g. street trees, landscaping) and functional features (e.g. sustainable urban drainage systems, green roofs) operating at differing spatial scales. It is widely acknowledged that GI is the primary mechanism for delivering ecosystem services in towns and cities, and there is a substantial body of research demonstrating the multiple benefits of GI to urban populations. Despite this evidence base, there is still considerable uncertainty about the best way to design, deliver and maintain GI. This paper presents an emerging benchmark that has been developed through a combination of literature review and engagement with key stakeholders. It provides a suite of standards that are flexible enough to be used across different spatial scales depending on the specific needs of the location, covering the form and function of GI including nature conservation, water management, health and well-being, environmental and design quality. It allows an assessment of GI policy, and the planning, design, delivery and long-term management of GI in new and existing places, ensuring that current good practice is adopted at all stages. The development of the benchmark to date is summarised along with the outcome of preliminary testing using the outline planning applications for two contrasting mixed-use developments. This found that the benchmark performed well, with standards set at a level to ensure that high-quality GI is rewarded but without requiring a level of GI provision and quality that would only be expected on truly exemplary developments. Plans for the future development and testing of the benchmark are provided.