Advertisement

Towards a Spatial Planning Framework for the Re-naturing of Cities

  • Fabiano Lemes de OliveiraEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

Abstract

This chapter presents a framework for the spatial planning of re-naturing cities. There is today a lively debate about re-naturing cities, since it can address multiple societal challenges and generate benefits such as the enhancement of health and wellbeing, sustainable urbanisation, ecosystems and their services and resilience to climate change. Yet, further consideration of the roles that positive spatial planning and planning models in particular have to play in fostering the integration of urbanisation with nature is needed. This chapter, thus, focuses on representative models with such potential, including the grid, the linear, the concentric and the radial. Initially, it identifies major principles for the spatial re-naturing of cities. Secondly, it analyses the main characteristics of each of the four models, concentrating in particular on their suitability to deliver on the re-naturing principles discussed previously. The chapter then centres on how a hybrid approach can maximise the systemic integration of natural and urban systems. Finally, the conclusions offer insights into the potentialities of planning models in bridging the city–nature dichotomy and potential future directions of development.

References

  1. Amati M (2008) Urban green belts in the twenty-first century. Ashgate, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatley T (2000) Green urbanism learning from European citiesGoogle Scholar
  3. Beatley T (2011) Biophilic cities: integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedict MA, McMahon E (2006) Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg Mvd, Wendel-Vos W, Poppel Mv, Kemper H, Mechelen Wv, Maa J (2015) Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: a systematic review of epidemiological studies urban forestry & urban greening.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008%3c/doi>
  6. Burgess S (2015) Multifunctional green infrastructure: a typology. In: Sinnett D, Smith N, Burgess S (eds) Handbook on green infrastructure: planning, design and implementation. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke G (1966) Greenheart metropolis: planning the Western Netherlands. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caspersen O, Konijnendijk C, Olafsson A (2006) Green space planning and land use: an assessment of urban regional and green structure planning in Greater Copenhagen Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish. J Geogr 106:7–20Google Scholar
  9. Choay F (1997) The rule and the model: on the theory of architecture and urbanism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  10. Choay F, Bratton D (1997) The rule and the model: on the theory of architecture and urbanism. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. City of Helsinki (2015) Urban plan—Helsinki city plan draft—Helsinki plans 2015:1. Helsinki City Planning Department, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciucci G (1988) The American city. Gustavo Gili, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  13. Connop S, Vandergert P, Eisenberg B, Collier MJ, Nash C, Clough J, Newport D (2016) Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environ Sci Policy 62:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dümpelmann S (2005) The park international: park system planning as an international phenomenon at the beginning of the twentieth century. GHI Bull 75–86Google Scholar
  15. EEA (2014) Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe. European Environment Agency, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  16. Erixon H, Borgström S, Andersson E (2013) Challenging dichotomies – exploring resilience as an integrative and operative conceptual framework for large-scale urban green structures. Plann Theory Pract 14:349–372.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2013.813960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature based solutions and re-naturing cities’. LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans C, Freestone R (2010) From green belt to green web: regional open space planning in Sydney, 1948–1963. Plann Pract Res 25:223–240.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31:437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forman RTT (2014) Urban ecology: science of cities. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Giedion S (1942) City planning in the nineteenth century (Chap. 3). In: Space, time and architecture: the growth of a new tradition. Harvard University Press, New York, pp 609–679Google Scholar
  23. Gobster PH (1995) Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landsc Urban Plann 33:401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UA (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Green 2:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greater London Authority (2012) Green infrastructure and open environments: the all London green grid SPG. Greater London Authority, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison PA et al (2014) Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review ecosystem services 9:191–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hellmund PC, Smith DS (2006) Designing greenways: sustainable landscapes for nature and people. Island Press, Washington, D.C, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard E (1902) Garden cities of to-morrow. Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Ignatieva M, Stewart G, Meurk C (2011) Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape Ecol Eng 7:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0143-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jabareen YR (2006) Sustainable urban forms: their typologies, models and concepts. J Plann Educ Res 38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson MTJ, Munshi-South J (2017) Evolution of life in urban environments Science 358.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The Experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Kühn M (2003) Greenbelt and green heart: separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions. Landsc Urban Plann 64:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00198-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lemes de Oliveira F (2013) Ecocities: the role of networks of green and blue spaces. In: Pardalos SRP (ed) Cities for smart environmental and energy futures. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–176Google Scholar
  35. Lemes de Oliveira F (2014) Green wedges: origins and development in Britain. Plann Perspect 29:357–379.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.824369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lemes de Oliveira F (2015) Abercrombie’s green-wedge vision for London: the County of London Plan 1943 and the Greater London Plan 1944. Town Plann Rev 86:495–518.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2015.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemes de Oliveira F (2017a) Green wedge urbanism: history, theory and contemporary practice. Bloomsbury, London/New York. http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/green-wedge-urbanism-9781474229203/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lemes de Oliveira F (2017b) Re-naturing cities: theories, strategies and methodologiesGoogle Scholar
  39. Lennon M, Scott M (2014) Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning: reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green infrastructure approach. Town Plann Rev 85:563–587.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2014.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc Urban Plann 84:7–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthews T, Lo AY, Byrne JA (2015) Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc Urban Plann 138:155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mell I (2010) Green infrastructure: concepts, perceptions and its use in spatial planning. Newcastle University, NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  43. More T (2012) Utopia. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Morrison N (2010) A green belt under pressure: the case of Cambridge. Engl Plann Pract Res 25:157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Natural England (2010a) Green belts: a green future. A report by natural England and the campaign to protect rural England. Natural England, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  46. Natural England (2010b) Nature nearby: Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance. Natural EnglandGoogle Scholar
  47. Nature English (1995) Accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities: a review of appropriate size and distance criteria. English Nature, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Nielsen TS, Hansen KB (2007) Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health Place 13:839–850.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. NSW Government (2014) A plan for growing Sydney. NSW Government, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  50. Olmsted FL (1870) Public parks and the enlargement of towns. Paper presented at the American Social Science AssociationGoogle Scholar
  51. Park RE, Burgess EW, McKenzie RD (1925) The city. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Pauleit S, Slinn P, Handley J, Lindley S (2003) Promoting the natural greenstructure of towns and cities: english nature’s “Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards” model. Built Environ 29:157–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Priemus H (1998) The Randstad and the Central Netherlands urban ring: planners waver between two concepts. Eur Plan Stud 6:443–455.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319808720473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prior A, Raemaekers J (2007) Is green belt fit for purpose in a post-fordist landscape? Plann Pract Res 22:579–599.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701770100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenau H (1974) The ideal city: its architectural evolution, 2nd edn. Studio Vista, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Schorske C (1980) Fin-de-siècle Vienna: politics and culture. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Science for Environment Policy (2015) Ecosystem services and biodiversity. Eur Comm Bristol.  https://doi.org/10.2779/57695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scotland Health (2009) Health impact assessment of greenspace: a guide. Greenspace Scotland, StirlingGoogle Scholar
  59. Scott M, Lennon M, Haase D, Kazmierczak A, Clabby G, Beatley T (2016) Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city/re-naturing the city/reflections on urban landscapes, ecosystems services and nature-based solutions in cities/multifunctional green infrastructure and climate change adaptation: brownfield greening as an adaptation strategy for vulnerable communities?/delivering green infrastructure through planning: insights from practice in Fingal, Ireland/planning for biophilic cities: from theory to practice. Plann Theory Pract 17:267–300.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1158907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith DS, Hellmund PC (1993) Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  61. Stadt Freiburg IB (2016) Perspektiveplan. http://www.perspektivplan-freiburg.de/. Accessed 5 Aug 2016
  62. Sugiyama T, Francis J, Middleton NJ, Owen N, Giles-Corti B (2010) Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. Am J Publ Health 100:1752–1757.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.182006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomas K, Littlewood S (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Plann Pract Res 25:203–222.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tseira M, Irit A-C (2007) Open space planning models: a review of approaches and methods. Landsc Urban Plann 81:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weber M (1958) The city. The Free Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. Wood L, Hooper P, Foster S, Bull F (2017) Public green spaces and positive mental health—investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health Place 48:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. WWF (2016) Living planet report: risk and resilience in a new eraGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Portsmouth School of ArchitectureUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations