Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda?

1,471

Published on

ACES seminar given by Alister Scott from Birmingham City University on 31 January 2011 at the University of Aberdeen

ACES seminar given by Alister Scott from Birmingham City University on 31 January 2011 at the University of Aberdeen

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,471
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. What a waste of space: Can spatial planning add value to managing the environmental change agenda? <br />Dr Alister Scott <br />
  • 2. Propositions <br />Institutional silos and past divides are hindering effective management of the natural environment <br />Current policy and academic reliance on the ecosystems approach are questionable. <br />Spatial planning has a contribution to managing environmental change <br />
  • 3. Talk outline: <br />The planning: environment divides <br />Critical review of spatial planning theory and practice <br />Planning peatlands (IUCN)<br /> Rural urban fringe (RELU)<br />A way forward: Adapting spatial planning practice <br />Reflections : reconnecting the divides; interdisciplinary work and social learning. <br />
  • 4. Planning and Environment: LURNing from past divides <br />Fragmented environmental governance<br />Urban vs Rural (Curry, 1994; 2008)<br />Landscape vs Nature Conservation (MacEwen +MacEwen 1982 <br />Institutional/professional separation: <br />Nature Conservancy vs National Parks Commission<br />DEFRA vs CLG <br />Academic <br />Separate paradigms to guide theory and practice <br />Limited communication and understanding across the divides <br />
  • 5. Planning views of the RUF? <br />Misunderstood space (Gallent et al 2006) <br />A transition phase/edge which is largely placeless? (Qvistrom, 2005)<br />Metaphor of the fringe as a ‘weed’ (Cresswell 1997)<br />Battleground between urban and rural uses (Hough, 1990) <br />“Landscape out of order” (Qvistrom 2007)<br />
  • 6. Planning views of peatlands <br />Misunderstood place<br /> Protected space: strong policies of restraint (Curry 1994) <br />Vulnerable spaces for recreation and tourism (Scott 1998) <br />Spaces requiring EU ‘appropriate assessments’ outside boundaries (Cannock Chase District Council 2010)<br />BUT potential resource for infrastructure <br />Landscape out of mind: limited planner education <br />
  • 7. Spatial planning unplugged (Biesbroke et al 2009) <br />
  • 8. Spatial Planning theory <br />As an active/driver agent of societal, economic and environmental change <br />(Albrechts 2004; Harris and Hooper, 2004; Tewdwr- Jones et al , 2010; Vigar, 2009).<br />From place to interactions and flows <br />From urban/rural to whole system interdependencies <br />From control/restraint of place to planning opportunity spaces <br />From top down to inclusive and participatory planning <br />
  • 9. Key ‘problem’ areas in SP practice <br />“The spatial planning project has failed” (Scott, 2010)<br />“Theory practice disjuncture” (Scott et al, 2009) <br />Uncertainty <br />Proactivity<br />Long Termism<br />Integration <br />Governance <br />Evidence <br />Transparency <br />
  • 10. Uncertainty <br />Planning for uncertain futures <br />Adaptive management <br />Role of learning from doing<br />Role of SEA : alternative approaches <br />Role of experiments and exemplars and pilots <br />
  • 11. Proactivity<br />FROM<br />Policies of environmental constraint unless economic and social considerations override<br />Development control as reactionary<br />Limited public involvement<br />Vulnerability of non designated space <br />Lack of positive management /planning<br />(Allemendinger and Haughton, 2009)<br />TO <br />Enable <br />Visions <br />Facilitate <br />Collaborate <br />Opportunity spaces <br />
  • 12. Long termism<br />Why cant planning embrace 100 year periods (Low 2002)<br />Environmental system rooted in long term processes <br />Planning system legally rooted in short term (eg EA)<br />Forsinard Reserve <br />Peatland restoration projects 1994-2006 LIFE <br />Strategy 2005-2015 <br />Birmingham Big City Plan<br />50 year vision <br />
  • 13. Integration <br />Spatial Planning <br />it is the desire for horizontal integration of public policy that has largely driven the concept of spatial planning in the UK<br />(Harris and Hooper, 2004). <br />BUT <br />Institutional myopia and sovereignty<br />Sectoral thinking <br />Comfort zones <br />Partnerships and power imbalances <br />(Keating and Stevenson, 2006)<br />
  • 14. Governance: making connections <br />Regulatory framework and legislation at international, national and regional and neighborhood levels<br />Transparent and open processes for decision-making, and should be based on scientific knowledge.<br />Voluntary mechanisms, for example, funds, certification, payments <br />
  • 15. BUT <br />Too many actors .......<br />Lengthening timescales<br />Lowest Common denominator approaches <br />Stifles innovation (congested state; Stoker 2002) + risk taking <br />Plethora of non statutory plans <br />
  • 16. Evidence <br />Planning on Presumption (Curry and Pack, 1992)<br />SEA and LDF requirements; questions of quality <br />void between ecological knowledge and spatial planning Opdam et al 2002)<br />Kettunenet al, (2007) more attention to the ecosystem wholeness of areas and aspects of ecological connectivity.<br />Need to use more perceptual/value laden data <br />
  • 17. Adapted ideas for RUF and Peat <br />Concept of betterment and compensation <br />Linking ideas of visitor payback, community infrastructure levy and habitat banking into ONE planning process.<br />Role of voluntary partnerships to support environmental projects<br />Link with business, visitors, environment and local communities <br />Provide a strategic reserve for funding needed activities. <br />Joint community understanding and prioritisation of needs (community strategies and parish plans) <br />Separation of planning development from payback type investments (eg limits of S106) . <br />
  • 18. Spatial Planning (CLG) MUST connect with Ecosystem Services (Defra)<br />Two paradigms of space management<br />Soup bowl not a salad bowl <br />Interdisciplinary opportunity spaces <br />
  • 19. Spatial Planning lens ?<br />“The fringe is not just the place where town meets country but a collection of dynamic and productive environments set in inspiring cultural landscapes, meeting the needs of both the present and helping to change the way we live in the future”. <br />Spedding 2004:1<br />
  • 20. Spatial planning lens <br />“Peatlands are a collection of dynamic and productive environments set in inspiring cultural landscapes, meeting the needs of both the present and helping to change the way we live in the future”. <br />Spedding2004:1 adapted <br />Evans et al 2010<br />
  • 21.
  • 22. Cannock Chase to Sutton Park<br />Formerly extensive area of heathland - 86% loss in last 200 years<br />Landscape shaped by extraction, manufacturing industries and agriculture <br />Landscape scale : remote rural -&gt; urban fringe -&gt; urban<br />Core areas<br />Cannock Chase SSSI &amp; SAC<br />AONB: 1.5 million visitors annually<br />Chasewater Heaths<br />250,000+ visitors annually<br />Sutton Park SSSI s35 NNR<br />2.5 million visitors annually<br />
  • 23. Cannock Chase to Sutton Park Project<br />4 years under development <br />Regional pilot to develop policy implementation and to provide demonstrations of good practice <br />Partnership between Natural England, Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council<br />Stakeholder Workshops - support for project objectives and development path<br />Decision rules (toolkit) for habitat creation developed <br />Shaping LDF policies through Local Planning Authority consultations<br />
  • 24. Critical Reflections <br />Interdisciplinary research/practice as new lens<br />Promoting exchange and doing joint working across all boundaries<br />Role of key individuals and buy in <br />Integrated packages linking people place environment and interactions <br />Learning from past and present practice to inform theory <br />Landscapes out of our order <br />

×