Keywords

1 Introduction

Climate change and urbanisation put pressure on cities in terms of extreme weather events, deteriorated public health and wellbeing as well as loss of biodiversity (UN, 2015). Urban green and blue space (hereafter UGS) can provide many benefits (i.e. ecosystem services (ES)) to people (MEA, 2005), and ‘greening’ initiatives are considered as an important pathway to develop more sustainable cities (EC, 2015). Within urban planning, there has been an increased interest in greening initiatives, narrated through the uptake of a variety of so-called green space governance concepts (Hanson et al., 2020), including ES (Hansen et al., 2015; Nordin et al., 2017) and nature-based solutions (NBS) (Hanson et al., 2020). This uptake has been paralleled by an increasing attention from both science and practice towards UGS planning tools and frameworks (hereafter we only use UGS planning tools) (ranging from simple scoring tools, to infrastructures for big data collection) (Knobel et al., 2019) aiming to facilitate decisions in relation to where, what and how much UGS to preserve or create. Utilizing such UGS planning tools is relevant as researchers have highlighted the citizens’ UGS demand and provision (e.g. accessibility and quality of public green space) can be unevenly distributed in relation to socio-economic factors (Hughey et al., 2016; Sister et al., 2010). However, even though UGS planning tools can facilitate the inclusion of UGS in the planning process, they can also have potential implications for justice. This includes the risk that e.g. data availability, economic resources, and knowledge will steer the planning process towards certain types of UGS and/or ES provisioning (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017; Jacobs et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2020).

The aim of this study is to understand the link between UGS planning tools and environmental justice in relation to the distribution of UGS and urban ES. We define UGS planning tools as devises used to facilitate the assessment and implementation of UGS in the planning and building process. We use Sweden as a case, focusing on the city of Malmö and its neighbouring municipalities. Swedish municipalities have through the Swedish Planning and Building Act (2010:900) a ‘planning monopoly’, which gives them right to define its spatial planning unless appealed. The Planning and Building Act ensures that different perspectives are considered, including the interests of different societal groups, through a certain degree of public participation (consultation).

2 Theoretical Approach

The theoretical approach is grounded in the field of environmental justice, which has been described as “the intertwining of environment and social difference” (Walker, 2012, p. 14). Initially, environmental justice research focused on health impacts, caused by waste and industrial sites, on low-income and minority people (Downey & Hawkins, 2008; Schlosberg, 2004). Today, environmental justice research has a broader approach also including an unequal distribution of UGS and ES demand and provision (Wolch et al., 2014; Wüstemann et al., 2017).

Tools and frameworks used to assess the planning context can facilitate a more equal distribution of resources/ES by identifying areas/societal groups lacking them. However, imprudent assessments can render justice issues, for instance, when focussing on assessing nature only, potential social consequences may be overlooked. To analyse which potential justice issues may arise when tools are introduced in UGS planning, we adopted a three-dimensional justice structure, developed by, e.g., Alexander and Ruderman (1987) and Schlosberg (2004), and contextualized in relation to green space by, e.g., Low (2013) and Ernstson (2013). The first dimension, distributive justice, concerns the benefits or incurred costs and risks; whether material or non-material, objective or subjective, in a society (Walker, 2012). In relation to UGS planning, this justice dimension concerns the distribution of UGS and ES (quantity and quality) in relation to different societal groups (especially those categorised vulnerable). The second dimension, procedural justice concerns the fairness and inclusiveness of the processes used by those in power to reach specific outcomes or decisions (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Tyler, 1988). In relation to UGS planning, this justice dimension concerns how different stakeholders are included in decision-making processes on green space development. The third dimension, recognition justice, concerns the recognition given to different social and cultural values or identities, and to the societal groups who hold them, and has both a normative and a psychological dimension (Alexander & Lara, 1996; Honneth, 2004). In relation to UGS planning, this dimension concerns the acknowledgement of UGS and ES demands from all societal groups in the UGS planning process.

3 Methods

To answer our research aim, we collected data from semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops with actors involved in UGS planning and implementation, in Sweden. The data were collected over a time of 3 years from 2017 to 2020. Some stakeholders were both interviewees and workshop participants. Some stakeholders participated in multiple workshops. In total, the study included data from 32 individual stakeholders.

3.1 Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews (Bryman, 2016) were conducted with the aim to gain more insight into the use of UGS planning tools in urban development projects. Twelve stakeholders were interviewed, representing three different departments in the city of Malmö (7), two consultancy firms (2), one construction company (1) and the National Board of Housing and Building (2). The interviews followed an interview guide with four broad themes: (i) which tools and frameworks are used, (ii) and when in the planning process, (iii) what works and doesn’t work well and (iv) what is the future role of tools in urban development. Follow-up questions were employed to clarify or dig deeper into specific issues. The interviews were conducted in September and October 2018, and lasted about 60 min each. Most interviews were recorded and transcribed. For those not recorded, detailed notes were taken and compiled directly afterwards.

3.2 Workshops

In addition to the interviews, data were collected from four workshops, covering four different research projects, all within the frame of UGS planning. The first workshop (December 2017) focused on urban water retention modelling and the use of blue-green solutions. Ten stakeholders participated, representing two municipalities, the local water and sewage service company and two consultancy firms. The second workshop (April 2018) focused on UGS planning tools used in urban planning in Sweden. Seven stakeholders participated, representing five municipalities and one consultancy firm. The third workshop (September 2018) focused on identifying indicators of UGS planning tools. Eleven stakeholders participated, representing the city of Malmö, five consultancy firms, one construction company, and the Swedish Geological Institute. The fourth workshop (November 2020) focused on the need for UGS planning tools in urban planning. Five stakeholders participated, representing four municipalities and the Region of Skåne. From each workshop detailed notes were taken.

3.3 Data Analysis

Interview transcriptions and detailed workshop notes were coded in relation to the research aim. We first classified the mentioned UGS planning tools into three broad groups, based on our previous understanding of urban planning. (1) Process tools – tools used to structure and facilitate the municipal planning process. This included tools used within the municipal organisation, and tools used to engage with external actors (e.g. construction companies, citizens etc.). (2) Strategic plans – UGS/ES provision and demand analysis used as guidance in the planning process. (3) Counting tools – tools that provide numbers/values on how much and what type of UGS to implement. The tools presented in this chapter should be seen as examples of UGS planning tools used in a Swedish context, and not an exhaustive list. As a second step, we sorted the comments about the tools and analysed these findings in relation to the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural and recognition justice. Based on this, we identified a number of key issues that may either hamper or foster a just distribution of UGS and ES. In the result and discussion section, we present and reflect on these issues.

4 Results and Discussion

In the first section, we present the identified UGS planning tools used in municipal planning and building processes. Where necessary, we briefly explain the tool. In the second section, we use the three-dimensional justice framework and discuss how UGS planning tools may facilitate or hamper a just UGS and urban ES provision by providing examples (based on the empirical data) (Table 23.1).

Table 23.1 A brief description of how the three types of UGS planning tools may facilitate or hamper a just UGS provision in relation to the three-dimensional justice perspectives
Full size table

4.1 Tools Used in Urban Green Space Planning

The results of the study demonstrate that Swedish municipalities and businesses use a variety of UGS planning tools. The tools are used at different stages in the planning and building process and are grounded in different UGS planning ideas and principles (ES, environmental compensation, sustainable development etc.).

A majority of the respondents mentioned various types of process tools, including structures for, cross-departmental and municipal collaboration, municipal-developed checklists, guidelines used in the planning process, and lists of best practices. Also, present were formalised dialogue structures used to facilitate interactions between municipalities and construction companies, which included participatory approaches to explore the implications of new plans on the quality and quantity of UGS. Some actors also mentioned tools used to improve and facilitate stakeholder engagement, such as online GIS based-planning tools (e.g. CityPlanner) and surveys. These tools were mainly mentioned by municipalities, except for digital tools developed to facilitate stakeholder dialogues, which were mentioned by both municipalities and consultancy firms. Another type of tools used in municipal planning is strategic plans (e.g. the comprehensive plan and green-, tree-, biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation plans) used to guide the urban development process and to facilitate the development of detailed development plans. Strategic plans usually include different types of large-scale provision and demand analysis of e.g. the number of citizens within a certain distance to a park, the amount of green space per capita, or the capability to handle excess storm-water. These plans also include maps focusing on the spatial distribution of different types of UGS (trees, parks, urban gardens etc.). Strategic plans are developed by the municipalities, but consultancy firms are often involved in the development. The third type of tools, used by both municipalities and consultancy firms, is counting tools, used to provide fixed values on how much and what types of UGS to implement, often within a detailed development plan or a building plot. An example of such a tool, used by municipalities, is the mitigation hierarchy used to restore/compensate UGS/biodiversity/ES in relation to exploitation. Another example is the Biotope Area Factor, developed in Berlin, Germany in 1994, used to set a fixed amount of green space to be implemented in a given detailed development plan. A last example is, different types of ‘green point systems’ that summarize green space/ES loss and gains due to development, that are used in land allocation competitions between developers in order to improve greening and sustainability outcomes. Examples of counting tools used by developers and consultancy firms include the BREEM sustainability assessment method used to certify development projects and buildings, and different types of ES and biodiversity assessment methods developed by the individual consultancy firms. The Swedish housing company Riksbyggen point system (the ‘ecosystem service tool’) was also mentioned, which is used to balance the negative impacts on ES provision caused by exploitation. In relation to counting tools, several respondents mentioned interactions and involvements with transdisciplinary (research) projects, aiming at developing new ES/NBS mapping and assessment tools. For example, the ‘Urban Nature Navigator’ developed by the Horizon 2020 project NATURVATION, the ‘Eko-geokalkyl’ developed by the Swedish Geotechnical Institute, the Biotope Area Factor developed for public green space by the C/O City association and the ‘Alnarp tree model’ developed in a series of research projects conducted at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science.

4.2 Environmental Justice Issues

4.2.1 Distributive Justice

Distributive justice issues relate to the distribution of benefits or incurred costs and risks in the society. Strategic plans include UGS assessments and maps, but our findings from both workshops and interviews suggest that data availability, knowledge about how to perform an ES assessment, technical issues and economic and time resources influence the content and the depth of the plan. UGS analyses are often based on Geographical Information System (GIS) data, providing data on, for example, proximity and accessibility to UGS. However, to assess distributional differences, UGS analysis also needs to consider accessibility, quantity and quality across different socio-economic as well as vulnerable groups (e.g., minorities, children, teenagers, elderly as well as disabled persons) (Kabisch & Haase, 2014; Rigolon, 2017), which are more data and resource consuming assessments. Moreover, many counting tools identified in our study target green space development of smaller areas (e.g. detailed development plans or building plots), with limited acknowledgement of surrounding areas. However, any development will most likely have consequences outside a building plot. Such consequences could for instance be increased pressure on neighbouring green spaces or reduced access to green space due to road or building constructions. Greening as a part of urban regeneration projects can also spur gentrification processes, where the original population is replaced by more affluent inhabitants (Checker, 2011; Quastel, 2009). To counteract distributive injustice, we argue that there is a need to assess and compare the needs of different citizens’ groups. However, such assessments can easily become time-consuming and costly, as the data must cover the real needs and not only the presumed needs of an average citizen. One potential pathway is to work with process tools. Our empirical data suggest that municipalities to some extent use of different types or process tools, including dialogues with developers, to study plan implications in relation to sociocultural factors, as well as online GIS tools that facilitate citizens’ input in urban development projects. However, the use of process tools seems to rely on the engagement of individual champions that are willing/eager to test new methods. Such unstructured, non-mainstreamed work will most likely influence the result of the process, as it opens up for sincere influence by the individual civil servant.

4.2.2 Procedural Justice

Procedural justice issues relate to discrepancies regarding who is and who is not included in the decision-making process. The development of strategic plans, facilitates citizen engagement as it enables assessments across geographical and administrative levels, which opens up for citizens’ comments on how the plan can be improved to better meet personal or community needs. However, in relation to stakeholder engagement there are several procedural justice issues. One relates to the problem of getting stakeholder input at the ‘right stage’; i.e. at a stage where it is easier/possible to consider the input in the decision-making process. Another to the problem of reaching a diverse mix of stakeholders. From the interviews/workshops, it is clear that individual planners’ or project groups’ are testing new approaches to engage with stakeholders. Examples include both the use of online GIS-based planning tools aiming to facilitate citizen’s input on early planning stages, and developer dialogues. Such process tools have the potential to be an important support for more inclusive planning processes, even though previous research have shown that there is a lack of municipal understanding and organisational structures on how to organise participation (Olsson et al., 2020; Wamsler et al., 2019), that goes beyond “technocratic compromises” (Checker, 2011). Another procedural justice issue that concerns both strategic plans and counting tools relate to methodological constraints, which may influence which stakeholders/values that are included in decision-making processes, and which are not. Required tool input data are usually quantitative, or a combination of quantitative or qualitative data, which means that those that work with, or demand values/services assessed by qualitative methods (for example cultural ES), risk to be excluded or under-prioritized in decision making processes (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2017). Another methodological constrain relates to the understanding of the tool and who has knowledge about the methodological approach, and who has not. Indeed, the more complex a tool is, the higher is the risk that only a few will actually understand it, and hence able to identify and question potentially biased or erroneous results. This is especially the case for tools related to water modelling, which are mainly used by consultancy firms performing assessments for municipalities or urban developers in relation to strategic plans. For counting tools developed by consultancy firms, the problem may not necessarily be solely related to the complexity of the tool, but also to a lack of transparency (unwillingness to share the underlying assumptions and logic of the tool) due to business interests, making it difficult to question the results. A reflection that can be made in relation to the willingness to test new ideas is that it could increase the risk that counting tool developers with good connections and negotiation skills may disproportionately influence the outcomes of the planning processes, albeit within the public procurement rules. One of the interviewed planners with a long experience in urban planning argued that “they are just tools”; however, a planner with less experience or a planner in a municipality with less knowledge and lack of economic power may become compromised by tool developers.

4.2.3 Recognition Justice

Recognition justice issues relate to whose needs, rights and preferences that are included, or excluded, which is governed by internal and external power relations, as well as data, knowledge and resource availability (economic, personal, time). The study respondents’ indicated that different types of process tools are used to facilitate interactions between stakeholders involved in and/or affected by the planning process, increasing the potential that multiple perspective are considered in the decision-making process. Using strategic plans is another pathway to better include multiple perspectives over time as it contributes to a common understanding about whose needs and perspectives that are captured in the analysis. However, the increasing interest in counting tools, pose a risk that UGS planning becomes more in terms of as a ‘ticking the nature box’, with little consideration of creating a diverse UGS. Many of the respondents mentioned simple counting tools focusing on meeting fixed green targets (e.g. the Green Biotope Factor) and argued that these tools are easy to use in the practical planning context and in dialogues with developers. These tools, however, risk favouring simpler UGS structures that are ‘easy-to implement’ and/or economically favourable (in the developer’s point of view) over UGS structures that claims more surface or/and cost more (e.g. larger inner yards), but with higher qualities both for both nature and people living in the area. To reduce the risk of producing new development areas with a deficiency of qualitative UGS, any results delivered by a tool need to be interpreted in relation to local and societal needs. Nevertheless, the use of counting tools could also help to improve the planning process as it provides values/numbers that can help to facilitate discussions between, for example, planners and developers.

5 Conclusion

UGS planning tools come in a great diversity. Some may support distributive, procedural and recognition justice in relation to UGS planning and implementation, others may not. Process tools can facilitate stakeholder interactions to improve participation and capture plurality, but that implies organisational and communication structures that can handle the work, and capture the values. Strategic plans provide UGS and ES analysis across geographical and administrative level, but their quality depends on data availability knowledge, and capacity to make the assessments. Counting tools may facilitate dialogues with developers by providing value on how much green space to implement, but can also lead to UGS planning mainly focusing on fixed-targets overlooking local and societal needs. We argue that UGS planning tools can help to guide a just, diverse and sustainable UGS planning and implementation. However, for this to happen, we need data, knowledge about nature (ecosystem) and its processes, time and economic resources, as well as organisational structures enabling long-term stakeholder interactions.