Brownfield regeneration to greenspace: Delivery of project objectives for social and environmental gain

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.04.002Get rights and content

Abstract

In Europe and North America regeneration of brownfield land is an important objective of government policy. Regeneration to greenspace in particular, has been used to help reverse social and environmental decline, with typical benefits including increased flood retention capacity, temperature regulation, habitat for wildlife, building communities, encouraging local engagement and providing space for play and recreation.

Regeneration project objectives are set to maximise the benefits of greenspace creation for a given location; setting the right objectives is critical to lever funding required to pump-prime activity. However, opportunities to heighten benefits delivered through the process of regeneration can be overlooked. This research identified that there was a disconnect between practices required to meet the defined objectives for a specific site and regeneration activity. This was often due to gaps in the project delivery plans: tasks which are important to realise improvement were missing. Emphasis was often found to be on site delivery, with a benign assumption that the benefits will arise as a result of project completion. Although there are some examples of practices to optimise benefits, a lack of consistency indicates scope for improvement.

A logic model was co-produced with practitioners in a bid to address this issue and support project delivery planning. The model maps the social and environmental objectives for a site against specific project delivery stages. The model was refined through a workshop exercise involving discussion with practitioners who were planning new urban greenspaces on brownfield land.

This paper presents the logic model to demonstrate what needs to be considered to improve the project delivery planning process, signposting the steps required to translate project objectives into outcomes, to optimise social and environmental benefits delivered during and after regeneration. The model could support those involved in project delivery planning and help raise the overall quality of new greenspace.

Introduction

In the UK brownfield land is often referred to as ‘previously used land’ (ODPM, 2006) within which there is a subset of ‘derelict land’. A sizable proportion of this subset, some 14,000 ha in England alone, has been earmarked as suitable for open space end-use (HCA, 2010). The regeneration of these sites could make a significant contribution to targets to create greenspace and, in doing so, deliver multiple benefits. These sites have the potential to become important places for communities and habitats for wildlife (CLG, 2006) if included in a regeneration programme. Such programmes are often led primarily by public bodies. As such, intervention is required to accelerate regeneration and address the risk of historical contamination exposure. The government defines regeneration as “a set of activities that reverse economic, social and physical decline in areas where market forces will not do this without support from government” (CLG, 2009). It is evident, however, that following project delivery, a number of sites may still fail to realise the social and environmental benefits aspired to (Sellers et al., 2006).

Greenspace and green infrastructure are recognised in literature and government documents for a range of benefits they deliver to society and the environment. Evidence presented by O’Brien (2005) has demonstrated that trees, woodland and greenspace make an important contribution to people's quality of life, their physical, psychological and social wellbeing. Greenspace, for example, is good for exchange between ethnic communities, can improve social relations and trigger social interaction and a sense of belonging (Peters et al., 2010). Aesthetic appearance and ecological value of greenspace are important to society. Raising awareness of the importance of greenspace can help engender community pride. Social benefits associated with regenerated brownfield land also include ‘enjoyment of people’ and ‘quiet recreation’; opportunities to walk and cycle (Doick and Hutchings, 2007) and for experiencing nature (Herbst and Herbst, 2006). Situating new greenspace on brownfield can help to ensure urban residents have access to natural greenspace close to their residence (Stubbs, 2008). Regenerating a brownfield site to greenspace will bring the land back into use and community woodland may prove mutually compatible alongside other end-use options, such as play areas and community gardens (where the site can be deemed safe for such activity). This can increase ecosystem service provision, such as temperature regulation (e.g. urban cooling) and increase the overall surface area percentage of vegetation. Most sites aspire to multiple benefits and short-term efforts to create greenspace on brownfield can lead to prolonged benefits, as the site matures and more people start to use it (Rall and Haase, 2011).

There are however, limitations with regenerating brownfield to greenspace. The majority of projects are designed to serve the public, not to generate private revenue (De Sousa, 2003) and therefore it is necessary to justify expenditure of public money; demonstrating significant overall social gain is imperative to pump-prime regeneration activity. Furthermore, urban greenspace has been described as an ‘imperfect local public good’ because it is generally not possible to charge people for its use (Choumert and Salanié, 2008) and regeneration can require significant sums of money and involve lengthy time periods to raise site quality to the standard required for public use. Even after regeneration, it may take time for the public to start using the site as previous uses of the land can cause real and imaginary public concern, for example around issues of health and safety (Rall and Haase, 2011).

Some sites will support vegetation without intervention (Bradshaw, 1979, Moffat and McNeill, 1994). Left to regenerate unaided, vegetation will often endure a long establishment time and mask risk to human health and the environment. In light of these issues, environmental improvement is another common objective cited as justification for undertaking regeneration activity (HCA, 2010). However, such project objectives tend to be written as ‘outcomes’ not ‘outputs’ (Doick, 2010). For example, to “deliver climate change adaptation benefits” (outcome) as opposed to “establish woodland suitable to accommodate future climate conditions” (output). An outcome focus can result in the full contribution of the project to delivering specific government aims and objectives being overlooked. Furthermore, focusing on outcomes rather than outputs may make it harder for the project team to identify what needs to be done to deliver against project aims, and objectives.

The aim of this research was to explore how the application of a logic model could inform the practices required to meet defined project objectives. In this paper we present the logic model and show how it supports a stepwise progression between the inputs, outputs and desired outcomes of regeneration, thereby helping practitioners to deliver successful brownfield greening projects. A more informed practice being one of a number of potential improvements to the delivery of regeneration programmes. The research also set out to develop an understanding of the practices required to meet project objectives and through co-production with practitioners to refine the model to meet their needs.

Section snippets

Methods

This research involved three linked components: a literature review and collation of existing case study data, a practitioner workshop exercise and modelling. Logic modelling was undertaken prior to the workshop, informed through literature and case study data and subsequently refined after the workshop to incorporate input from practitioners. The literature review of social and environmental benefits and brownfield greening was performed via internet and publication searches of ‘brownfield,

Mapping benefit in the process of regeneration to greenspace

A review of literature and project delivery planning documents target social and environmental benefits and when, typically, the benefit could commence. The benefits were categorised into (i) social outputs (i.e. the benefits delivered), (ii) social outcomes (i.e. the result or effect of brownfield regeneration to greenspace), (iii) environmental outputs and (iv) environmental outcomes and are presented in Table 1. The opportunities to plan for the delivery of social and environmental benefit

Discussion

Aspirations to achieve multiple objectives through regeneration are embedded in government policy and regeneration literature, as well as in project delivery plans. Previous research has brought forward evidence from case study examples to demonstrate that regeneration projects set out to deliver multiple benefits (Westphal, 2003, O’Brien et al., 2007, Jones, 2010) and yet, as Westphal (2003) explains, there are both true and false claims for such delivery and who the beneficiaries might be.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the EPSRC (Grant No. GR/T18905/0) and Forest Research for funding this research and reviewers for their supportive comments.

References (36)

  • J. Choumert et al.

    Provision of urban green spaces: some insights from economics

    Landscape Research

    (2008)
  • CLG

    Effectiveness of Aftercare Provisions for Minerals Workings

    (2006)
  • CLG

    Transforming Places; Changing Lives: Taking Forward the Regeneration Framework

    (2009)
  • Defra

    Joint Code of Practice for Research (JCoPR)

    (2012)
  • I. Dey

    Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists

    (1993)
  • Dobson, M.C., Moffat, A.J., 1995. Site capability assessment for woodland creation on landfills. Research Information...
  • K.J. Doick

    Learning lessons in monitoring brownfield land regeneration to greenspace through logic modelling

  • Doick, K.J., Hutchings, T., 2007. Greenspace establishment on brownfield land: the site selection and investigation...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text