ABSTRACT
Greenspace (including parks and wildspaces) in urban areas are the places where people have the contact with nature that is important for well-being and quality of life (Rohde and Kendle 1997; Douglas 2008; Maller et al. 2008; see also Chapters 32 and 33 this volume). Therefore, ensuring adequate opportunities for people to come into contact with nature in their everyday lives should result in direct benefits to their health and happiness and hard evidence for this is becoming available (Fuller et al. 2007; Pretty et al. 2007; Mitchell and Popham 2008). High urban land values require a significant commitment by the landowner for land where the primary function is nature conservation. It is unusual for a private landowner to set aside land for wildlife purposes due to the high value of urban land and, therefore, most urban natural greenspaces to which the public have access are found on land owned by a public body such as a local authority or local council or a voluntary organisation such as a wildlife trust. But much can be achieved for wildlife and people through the promotion of multifunctional urban greenspace where multiple land uses are recognised (Barker 1997; Commission for the Built Environment (CABE) 2004). The value of such multifunctional urban greenspaces can therefore be costed in terms of environmental services (e.g. flood regulation, air quality amelioration), thus increasing the notional or theoretical land value of a given urban greenspace. An excellent example of the results of costing the environmental services provided by greenspace in an urban area has been set out in the pioneering open space and environmental services plans for Durban in South Africa, the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (or D’MOSS) (1999); eThekwini Environmental Services Management Plan (2001, 2003); eThekwini Municipality and Local Action for Biodiversity (2007)]. Urban greenspace provision is usually seen in terms of quantitative standards (unit area of greenspace per resident or household), or accessibility standards (set areas of greenspace within set distances from every resident). For example, the 31 largest towns and cities in the Netherlands have agreed on a guideline of 75 m2 green space per dwelling (van Egmond and Vonk 2007). Aarhus, the second largest city in Denmark, set a standard defined in the Green Structure Plan that no dwelling should be more than 500 m from a green area of at least 6,000 m2 (reported in
CABE 2004: 25). However, quantity and accessibility are not the whole story because the quality of the resource is also significant in terms of the benefits derived by the public. For example, research for the Scottish government into minimum standards for open space has proposed that open space standards should address a qualitative standard as well as a quantitative standard and an accessibility standard (Ironside Farrar Ltd 2005). Aspirational open space standards are commonplace in strategies, plans and frameworks for guiding the spatial planning of towns, cities and regions. Standards and targets for urban greenspace are ideal for the initial stages of planning large-scale development at a regional or sub-regional scale which incorporates green networks and green infrastructure (TCPA 2004). Examples include the Green Network of Telford in the West Midlands of England (Box et al. 2001), the East London Green Grid Framework (Greater London Authority 2008), and the Green Space Plan 2000 for Tokyo (CABE 2004: 16). The implementation of such open space standards may be planned and strategic or be opportunistic and piecemeal – or some combination of the two depending on circumstances. What is less commonly undertaken are studies of the results of the incorporation of such standards into spatial plans or strategies. The lack of mechanisms for sharing information on implementation is recognised as a weakness by the research undertaken by CABE Space into the experiences in urban greenspace management of eleven cities across the world (CABE 2004: 90). This chapter examines the evolution of a set of standards for the provision of natural urban greenspace in towns and cities in England and assesses one of them – the supply of designated
nature reserves by local authorities – to see how effective it has been over the period from 1993 to 2006.
