Urban Networks for People and Biodiversity

Urban Networks for People and Biodiversity – Form and Function
UEUB01
May 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background to research
The development of habitat networks is widely seen as a key mechanism for reversing the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity while delivering a range of other social and environmental benefits such as enhancement of local landscape character and greater opportunities for public access and recreational use. Tools to address habitat fragmentation have evolved from landscape ecology principles examining the metapopulation theory, landscape metrics and focal species modelling. There is growing interest in applying these concepts to planning and management of peri-urban and urban areas. A challenge is to integrate such concepts with other long-established views on the value of greenspaces within urban areas.

The concept of Urban Networks for People and Biodiversity provides a framework for addressing the multiple needs for public health, education, biodiversity, and ecosystem functions. At the landscape scale, encouraging people and communities to link with greenspace issues has often been implemented by identifying and protecting greenspace for people to appreciate and use (as retreat from the ‘hustle and bustle’ of urban life, for walking and cycling, for outdoor activities including education, etc.). Enhanced engagement can contribute to transformation in environmental quality (real and perceived) and ultimately achieve the renewal of run down urban areas, with an increase in the economic value of the area and a stimulation of economic activity and investment (Anon, 2005).

Development of networks into integrated long-term spatial planning is evolving, for example in the Netherlands with the interaction of greenspace and water system qualities forming the basis for the Twente Urban Network (Vandentop, 2006). Networks can enlarge and reconnect elements of greenspace by spatially targeting opportunities to address fragmentation caused by reduction in the size, and increased distance between, greenspace patches in the landscape. Greenspace restoration and expansion suggested by the network analysis can inform a variety of planning including Structure plans and Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Although appealing, the application of network concepts to people and biodiversity is challenging, and forms the research question:

Is it possible to integrate the needs of people and wildlife in green networks within urban environments, in other words to deliver multifunctional green networks ?

To address this research question there is a need to identify and review relevant tools and applications/approaches and assess the usefulness of existing social and environmental data in helping to map and analyse multifunctional green networks in the Scottish urban environment.

Objectives of research

Review recent approaches to the identification and analysis of habitat networks and examine opportunities to apply these to urban areas
Explore methods for identifying and assessing the value of green networks for people
Identify relevant social, and environmental datasets that could be linked to green network data to investigate the potential for planning green networks with multiple functions
Recommend a methodological approach for the mapping and analysis of multifunctional green networks, highlighting any critical data or knowledge gaps

Key findings

The review informed the basis for examining opportunities to apply these approaches to urban areas, recommending ways in which information on green networks can be used to examine their current functions, and identifying opportunities to enhance this functionality to achieve a range of social and environmental benefits.

It is suggested that the least-cost focal species approach be adopted as a way of mapping and analysing urban networks. This approach negates the need to carry out a vast number of individual species analyses, which is particularly important as data regarding species habitat requirements and dispersal through greenspace is lacking. However, it is recognised that the use of a focal species approach to modelling people networks is a new venture and relatively untested.

The most novel aspect of the project involved the development of people as a focal species by creating three profiles to represent: people who are currently less likely to engage with greenspace; confident people who readily use a range of greenspace types; and ‘average’ users. These profiles were applied in the modelling process to express the types of greenspace different people are likely to use and how the people may move through the intervening areas.

Areas of greenspace for people were identified using OS MasterMap PAN65 typologies, City of Edinburgh Council Significant Open Spaces and their associated access points. Analyses were run across a range of scenarios to demonstrate current network extent for each user group, and potential network extent if a larger number of suitable greenspace areas were made available to the different users.

The biodiversity assessment investigated whether the Lothian Wildlife Information Centre (LWIC) Local Biodiversity Site Assessment Methodology could be used to assess the biodiversity value of greenspace. This methodology provides a biodiversity rating for sites, using biodiversity assessment utilised greenspace data as criteria. Whilst this approach helped to identify areas with potentially high biodiversity quality, the size of the assessment units and the proximity of areas with high biodiversity may result in an overrepresentation of biodiversity quality. The range of Phase 1 habitat types within each biodiversity site can be used to sub-divide the greenspace units into ‘excellent’, ‘above average’, and ‘average’ components.

The approach expressed the current and potential networks for both people and for biodiversity, using a range of user types and biodiversity groups. The networks indicate that, whilst the greenspace areas are accessible to confident users, other user types, particularly those who are limited in range or may lack access as they do not have (or are unwilling to get to) nearby greenspace. The networks provided an indication how the model outputs could be used to spatially target greenspace improvements so as to meet a range of social and environmental policy objectives, such as those relating to Physical Activity and Open Space, social inclusion, Biodiversity Action Plans, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and sustainable transport.

It was recognised that strategies to improve urban green networks for people and biodiversity will inevitably involve some compromises. Social needs are often the major driver for greenspace development in urban areas, but it is important that such development is undertaken as sensitively as possible. This may involve a balancing act to recognise the requirements needed to promote social use whilst trying to maintain as high biodiversity as possible. Trade-offs may need to be made, particularly where areas of higher biodiversity overlap with areas with greater potential for social benefit.

Recommendations

Applicability of a multifunctional green network approach

Multifunctional green networks should be used within the planning process to ensure that greenspace creation and management in spatially targeted to achieve optimum gains for social, environmental and economic development.
A least-cost focal species approach is employed to integrate people as focal species with biodiversity classes.

Greenspace management and accessibility

Greenspace needs to be made more accessible, both physically and socially. The approach described here has indicated that the more confident members of society are already likely to have access to greenspace; it is those that fall into the limited range category that need to be targeted. These may include, for example, people who do not have peers who use greenspace or have sedentary lifestyles and those that may feel socially excluded within low-income groups, ethnic minorities or disabled people. There is a requirement to raise awareness of the benefits of greenspace use, particularly for these groups and this may be facilitated by providing more entrances, signage, paths, facilities, increasing safety and attractiveness, and developing outreach activities with local communities. The collection and use of better data (as detailed above) would aid the strategic improvement of urban green networks.
Improvement of networks through management or creation of new habitats needs to reflect and complement the types of habitat contained, requiring a site survey to determine which indigenous species are suited to the site conditions.
Thought should be given to visual use when considering improvement of greenspace networks, ensuring areas relate to the local landscape character. This approach should be undertaken using Landscape Character Assessment; further research is required to investigate how to implement multifunctional green networks to maximise visual enhancement and usability.

Integration into planning system

Relevant planning policies e.g. NPPG 14, SPP11, PAN65, Nature Conservation Act, and the National Planning Framework (NPF and NPF2) should be fully considered in relation to a multifunctional urban green network approach to ensure compatibility with other planning tools.
Discussions with stakeholders indicated that land use planners already have a number of tools and the experience to direct greenspace planning. However, the approach investigated here can be used as part of a more integrated decision-making process to spatially direct greenspace management, or the creation of new areas of greenspace. There may also be potential to integrate such a model with other systems, such as the public benefit recording system or Social outcomes through Investment in Forestry Tools (SIFT).
Whilst recognising the importance of identifying where effort needs to be directed to improve urban green networks, the approach should not be overly prescriptive; the key is to provide users with an approach that allows a degree of flexibility for integration into the planning system.
It would be useful to test the methodology within areas with strategic plans for greenspace development and/or across different local authority areas. This would enable the methodology to be explored in places which have more land and resources available to increase the extent of multifunctional greenspace networks and to enable greenspace planning to extend across local and regional authority boundaries. The urban green networks model can be used at different levels, requiring use at the correct scale:

Macro (digital) – for strategic use, unitary authorities, Structure Plan
Meso (demonstration) – facilitate discussions, Master Plan
Micro (paper maps) – local users, case studies

Data

There is a need for integration of current biodiversity assessment data into a format more compatible with OS MasterMap. Local Biodiversity Site Assessments and Phase 1 habitat data can provide detailed information, but may have poor spatial representation. Future collection of greenspace biodiversity data should endeavour to work with the OS MasterMap, but also recognise the diversity of types, and qualities, of landcover within each site. The auditing of greenspace should follow guidance detailed in ‘Delivering Quality Greenspace: A Guide to Better Greenspace’ (Anon, 2007a) and Greenspace Scotland’s (Anon, 2007b) Greenspace Mapping and Characterisation: Use and Application. Some areas may require additional digitising if the variability in landcover types, e.g. from Phase 1 habitat surveys, are to be recognised.
Phase 1 habitat data provides the most detailed source of habitat information, yet there remain many areas of Scotland where these data have yet to be digitised and this lack is identified as of high priority. These data should be checked to ensure they are up-to-date and areas of greenspace where data is lacking should be surveyed.
A measure of garden antiquity may provide a better indication of the biodiversity value of gardens than garden size; further studies could also incorporate house age.
The stakeholder workshop indicated that the absence of social data required the development of a robust methodology based on sound assumptions, which can be refined once these data become available. There is a need for the development of social data sets about use of urban greenspace, for example, on motivations for using greenspace and patterns of use. The use of GIS technology is increasing, with more spatial datasets becoming available in a readily usable format. This will require regular updating of an urban green network model to take account of new data and developing concepts and theories.
Environmental datasets need to be made available in a GIS format, such as SUDS, and air and water quality. These can aid in the spatial targeting of greenspace improvement to increase the connectivity of multifunctional urban green networks.

Refinement and implementation

Further workshops and dissemination to elicit views from stakeholders would allow refinement of the approach and assumption within it. This would aid understanding of the planning process within which the model could be applied.
Link with other relevant current research such as SNIFFER project UEUB02 ‘Review of the impact of urbanisation and associated trends on biodiversity’ to inform the likely effects of urban green network management.

Key words: [urban green networks, biodiversity, people, multifunctional, integrated]

Copies of this report are available from the Foundation, in electronic format on CDRom at £20.00 + VAT or hard copy at £25.00, less 20% to FWR members.

N.B. The report is available for download from the SNIFFER Website