A framework for assessing the quality of green infrastructure in the built environment in the UK

Jerome, Gemma; Sinnett, Danielle; Burgess, Sarah; Calvert, Tom; Mortlock, Roger

doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.001

Cited by 50 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our paper addresses this challenge explicitly through the development and application of a GI policy assessment tool that evaluates how well GI policies cover the priority multiple functions that GI performs (Hansen, Olafsson, Alexander, Rall, & Pauliet, 2019: Jerome et al, 2019, together with an assessment of the strength of policy wording (McWilliam et al, 2015). To date, there have been limited assessments of the effectiveness of GI policies in development plans with most attention focussed on planning case studies; albeit with some notable exceptions (Lennon, 2015 (Ireland); (Mell, Allin, Reimer, & Wilker, 2017) (Germany and UK); (Johns, 2019) (USA); (McWilliam et al, 2015) (Canada); (Jerome et al, 2019) (UK)). Here, Roe and Mell (2013, p. 655) highlight the key role played by policy in the delivery of GI, in particular through the "optioneering of GI development".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK

Hislop¹,

Scott

Corbett³

2019

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops and tests a new self-assessment policy tool that illuminates the quality of planning policy for green infrastructure (GI). Working with 19 local planning authorities within the UK Central Scotland Green Network area (CSGN), the multi-functional coverage and strength of GI policies in statutory development plans were assessed. The tool was built from fusing two existing but unrelated initiatives addressing GI standards; Building with Nature and Integrating Green Infrastructure (IGI). The results reveal surprising variation across the functional coverage of GI-related policy and strength of associated policy wording, suggesting a significant vulnerability for how GI is mainstreamed in decision-making processes. To address this knowledge exchange deficit, the best performing policies were captured and adapted to inform a suite of model policies with global application. Significantly, the policies champion the different functions performed by GI and stress the need for early and ongoing involvement throughout any development process with funding for long-term stewardship post-development. The results serve as a catalyst for improved dialogue and social learning across planning, and wider built/natural environment teams and professions to plug identified policy gaps. In particular, there is recognition of the need for planning policy responses to move outside their usual environmental remit and engage with other policy sectors using more holistic policy hooks such as placemaking, placekeeping and the climate emergency. We argue that this tool has universal applicability in many planning systems for improving the policy response and imperative for GI, thereby increasing the potential for better spatial planning delivery.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK

Hislop¹,

Scott

Corbett³

2019

Planning Theory & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more recent scholarly work, Jerome et al (2019) present a framework for the delivery of high-quality GI in the built environment of the UK [60]. The framework presented 23 principles for delivering GI, based on a review of both literature and interview.…”

Section: Literature Review and Research Gapmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While they are measured by the level of providing recreational activities and space richness, with assessable times of a year and with improvements of health and wellbeing for all people. Hence, the activities richness focus on tow corn principles of the high-quality GI, which are: 1) all people are encouraged to use and enjoy the GI, especially young children, the old people and the disabled; 2) GI is designed to be assessable at all times of a year, especially the hot summer days and cold winter day, as well as the raining day, due to the case study area, Jiangnan water town area is a typical climate area with hot summer and cold winter also more than one third of days of a year are raining days [60] In addition, to maximising the beneficial outcomes from GI, the level of providing recreational activities richness also linked to following three main kinds of wellbeing benefits: 1) improving physical wellbeing through physical outdoor activity; 2) improving social wellbeing through social interaction; and 3) improving mental wellbeing through reduced depression and anxiety, recovery from stress and positive emotions etc. [107].…”

Section: Kpis For Social-cultural and Wellbeing Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, biodiversity as KPI for habitats supporting function, linkage network, which means being part of a bigger scale ecological network, is critical to delivering high-quality GI for sustainability. Hence, biodiversity is important for this neighbourhood scale case[60] [109].In addition, biodiversity and the linkage network are even more important for the bigger scale GI, which should be continue researched and discussed in the future study of bigger scale long-term GI planning for Liangnong case.The level of recreational and wellbeing improvements for all people, KPI D15, emphasize the landscape ecosystem services that ultimately improve health and wellbeing for all people. In recent years, health and wellbeing for all people dimension have attracted increasing concerns from academia and different stakeholders [60] [63] [90] [91].…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Green Infrastructure Practice and a Sustainability Key Performance Indicators Framework for Neighbourhood-Level Construction of Sponge City Programme

Sun¹,

Cheshmehzangi²,

Wang³

2020

JEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the Sponge City program (SCP) of China, as a sustainable stormwater management approach, has been strengthened as a national strategic level program. The Green Infrastructure (GI), due to its multi-objective and multi-benefits, has been adopted as an important measure of this new nationwide initiative. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive quantitative evaluation system for neighbourhood scale SCP. Hence, in the process of GI plan optimization, selection of implementation methods to balance its multi-benefits has become one of the key obstacles in the practice of SCP. To support robust decision making on multi-objective GI planning and comprehensive assessment, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used as a structural and systematic technique. In addition, a set of sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) including requisite dimensions is the foundation for neighbourhood scale sustainability. Hence, AHP-based evaluation system including selection, weighting and ranking of the KPIs, is defined as a key performance indicator framework (KPIF), which is still in need for further development. Taking the GI planning for the Liangnong, Siming Lake sponge node restoration as an example, this paper develops KPIF with a comprehensive evaluation system for high-quality "Sponge Node" transitional construction. This KPIF consists of three basic criteria:

show abstract

“…Yet despite these efforts, the implementation of GI has been surprisingly slow (Matthews et al 2015). Worse, as Jerome et al (2019) lament, examples of high-quality GI are still the exception rather than the norm. This is unsurprising given the existing literature on challenges to GI implementation (O'Donnell et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“It’s on the ‘nice to have’ pile”: Potential principles to improve the implementation of socially inclusive Green Infrastructure

Fisher

Blackstock

Irvine

2020

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green Infrastructure (GI) research tends to focus on the need for GI to enhance ecological processes, its potential to provide health and economic benefits, and on the barriers preventing its uptake. Yet there has been inadequate focus on the social aspects of GI. In the United Kingdom (UK) the need for GI is well established, such that policymakers and planners are now turning to the question of how GI should be implemented. Drawing on a mixed method research approach centring on practitioner experience, this paper identifies potential social principles that underpin GI and questions the extent to which these are being implemented in the UK. Results highlight the hitherto unexplored complexities of GI maintenance, the effects of austerity politics, and the role of local-level power dynamics on the implementation of GI. Findings have implications for international literature on GI as well as nature-based solutions more broadly.

show abstract

A framework for assessing the quality of green infrastructure in the built environment in the UK

Cited by 50 publications

References 31 publications

What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK

What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK

Green Infrastructure Practice and a Sustainability Key Performance Indicators Framework for Neighbourhood-Level Construction of Sponge City Programme

“It’s on the ‘nice to have’ pile”: Potential principles to improve the implementation of socially inclusive Green Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About