Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247830988

Definingthesustainabilityobjectivesofbrownfieldregenerationtogreenspace

ARTICLEinINTERNATIONALJOURNALOFMANAGEMENTANDDECISIONMAKING·MAY2009

DOI:10.1504/IJMDM.2009.024994

CITATIONS

9

READS

86

4AUTHORS:

KieronJ.Doick

ForestResearch-ForestryCommissionUK

35PUBLICATIONS1,036CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

KalliopePediaditi

www.kpenvironment.com

25PUBLICATIONS108CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AndyJMoffat

UniversityofReading

159PUBLICATIONS961CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

TonyHutchings

ForestResearch-ForestryCommissionUK

64PUBLICATIONS512CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:KalliopePediaditi

Retrievedon:03February2016

282 Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 3/4, 2009

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration to greenspace

Kieron J. Doick* Land Regeneration and Urban Greening Research Group, Environmental and Human Sciences Division, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UK Fax: +44-0-1420-23653 E-mail: kieron.doick@forestry.gsi.gov.uk *Corresponding author

Kalliope Pediaditi Department of Environmental Management, Mediterranean Agronomic Institute Chania (MAICh), Alsylleion Agrokepion, Chania, Crete 73100, Greece Fax: +30-28210-35001

Centre for Environmental Strategy, School of Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK E-mail: kalliapediaditi@yahoo.co.uk

Andrew J. Moffat and Tony R. Hutchings Land Regeneration and Urban Greening Research Group, Environmental and Human Sciences Division, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UK Fax: +44-0-1420-23653 E-mail: andy.moffat@forestry.gsi.gov.uk E-mail: tony.hutchings@forestry.gsi.gov.uk

Abstract: This paper considers projects involving greenspace establishment on brownfield land, and proposes objectives which such projects should meet in order for them to be considered as sustainable. A brief review of the policy context illustrates that brownfield regeneration to greenspace projects are usually branded as inherently sustainable, an assumption that is challenged. The authors accept the value-based nature of sustainability, and examine the brownfield greening procedure in the UK including different stakeholders involved in order to establish the components which influence the sustainability of such projects. Results of interviews with a range of stakeholders are

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 283

presented which show that a stakeholder’s profession capacity in decision making strongly influences their perception of sustainability. This consequently affects the priorities placed on objectives that greenspace is expected to achieve. Fragmentation in responsibilities and a lack of continuity during greenspace creation are revealed as major obstacles in achieving long-term site sustainability. Further fragmentation was observed between objectives stated by policy and management personnel and in the understanding of how these can be fulfilled. Recommendations for designing sites to achieve specific functionality using participatory, context specific methods are made and a standard set of sustainability objectives are proposed. These could be used to design brownfield greenspace, and followed through to implementation, management and long-term monitoring.

Keywords: land regeneration; environmental policy; planning; community participation; multifunction land use; sustainability objectives; greenspace.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Doick, K.J., Pediaditi, K., Moffat, A.J. and Hutchings, T.R. (2009) ‘Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration to greenspace’, Int. J. Management and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 3/4, pp.282–302.

Biographical notes: Kieron J. Doick is a Project Leader at Forest Research, the research agency for the UK Forestry Commission that undertakes forestry related research ranging from silviculture through to urban regeneration and climate change. He has a background in Environmental Science with Chemistry (BSc Hons and MRes) and a PhD from Lancaster University, England, in Environmental Chemistry with Microbiology. His thesis considered the bioavailability of organic contaminants in soil, implications for contaminated land remediation. He has research interests in the impacts of brownfield land regeneration to soft-end uses, site investigation and restoration protocol, the development of best practice guidance and, systemically, the sustainability of regenerated greenspaces.

Kalliope Pediaditi is a Research Fellow and a Lecturer at the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (MAICh) and is currently involved in a number of EU projects developing common methodologies for protected area sustainability evaluation and monitoring as well as for transboundary risk assessment and management. She has a BSc in Environmental Science and an MSc in Tourism and Environmental Management, and completed her PhD in Brownfield redevelopment project sustainability evaluation at Surrey University. She has worked as part of the Sustainable Urban Brownfield Redevelopment Integrated Management (SUBR:IM) research consortium. Her research interests are in participatory sustainability evaluation and the study of decision making and planning processes.

Andrew J. Moffat is the Head of Environmental and Human Sciences Division in Forest Research. He has a significant research career in land reclamation and soil sustainability, and has been author of several publications giving government guidance on these subjects. He is also author of over 170 scientific papers or articles related to the sustainable use of soil in the context of urban and conventional forestry. He was a Member of the Sustainable Urban Brownfield Redevelopment Integrated Management (SUBR:IM) research consortium Executive Board and a principal investigator in four SUBR:IM Work Packages. He is a Visiting Professor in the School of Human and Environmental Sciences at the University of Reading.

Tony R. Hutchings is the Head of the Land Regeneration and Urban Greenspace Research Group in Forest Research. The Group performs research on urban greenspace establishment, design, use and sustainability, produces

284 K.J. Doick et al.

national guidance on greenspace establishment, monitoring the outcomes of urban greenspaces, the health and value of urban trees and land remediation and reclamation for greenspace. He has published over 30 articles as papers, articles and book chapters. He is a Principle Investigator for the Forestry Commission research programme evaluating the impacts of environmental, social and economic outcomes of greenspace creation, a CL:AIRE project developing biological indicators of contaminant availability and toxicity, a DTi Technologies Programme project developing a novel land remediation technique, and within both the EPSRC funded Pollutants in Urban Environments (PUrE) and SUBR:IM research consortia.

1 Introduction

Urban greenspace fulfils a variety of environmental, social and economic roles, including: attenuating pollution (e.g. noise and atmospheric gaseous and particulate pollutants), providing wildlife habitat; supporting healthy living, fostering neighbourhood pride and community cohesion, providing jobs and conserving energy through cooling and shading (Kenney, 2003). However, there is an ongoing debate about the economic value of greenspace which centres on whether it is the most economically productive use for a site (Lerner and Poole, 1999). Some economic development officials view the development of parks negatively as they require large investment and maintenance resources. At the same time, they take land away from potential development of housing or business premises, their associated job creation, and contribute to realisable tax revenues. However, there is sufficient evidence from both Europe and USA which promotes the value of greenspace in terms of its multiple roles and functions, bringing the concept of multifunctional greenspace development to the fore (Groundwork, 2005; Lerner and Poole, 1999; van Leeuwan et al., 2002).

In the UK, there are specific Government policies to support urban renaissance, sustainable communities and the quality of urban living. Multifunctional greenspace and its creation through the regeneration of brownfield land is now considered an essential component of the urban landscape, integral to the wider public space network (CABE Space, 2006; ODPM, 2002a,b) and an essential component in the delivery of the sustainability agenda (DEFRA, 2005; ODPM, 2003). However, Pediaditi et al. (2005) identified that the regeneration of brownfield land is not always sustainable as traditionally defined (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), where, for example, a project demands unacceptable financial resources or poses an unacceptable environmental hazard. Regeneration of brownfields has a life cycle (Pediaditi et al., 2005) which includes (for brownfield greening) design planning remediation, reclamation and restoration, vegetation establishment and site management (Figure 1). A weakness in any one of these life cycle stages can lead to unsustainable greenspace and failure (Sellers et al., 2006; Villella et al., 2006). Success should be judged on a long-term scale and against the brownfield greening project’s objectives. However, Sellers et al. (2006) identified that despite obvious brownfield greenspace failures there is little effort being made to evaluate such projects systematically. Project failure (in this case greening brownfield land) can often be the result of the following:

• lack of funder’s commitment to project objectives (e.g. they may lack project delivery specific knowledge)

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 285

• lack of clearly defined strategic visions and objectives, or diverse, disparate and indistinct project aims and objectives

• incomplete project scope (e.g. no clear definition of the project’s benefits and the deliverables which will produce them)

• insufficient funding or incorrect budgeting (particularly regarding ongoing maintenance)

• lack of application of best practice, where available

• lack of review to determine lessons learned and reference compilation for future application

• lack of staff and stakeholder engagement which may hinder long-term commitment to projects.

Figure 1 Illustration of the four overarching steps of regenerating a brownfield to greenspace

Source: Adapted from Pediaditi et al. (2005).

From the above, the importance of defining brownfield greening project objectives and communicating them clearly to stakeholders throughout the project life cycle becomes paramount. Equally, without an ability to define regeneration success there may be little or no appreciation of it, even where it has occurred. Without objectives for success or failure being established, for example by evaluation against agreed criteria, the sustainability of a brownfield greening project simply cannot be determined. The continued absence of common greenspace sustainability objectives and of a formal monitoring and evaluation procedure as part of most greenspace projects means that the following questions still remain: to what extent are greenspaces established on reclaimed brownfields fulfilling the many functions they are purported to? To what extent have project objectives actually been met? And, can greenspace establishment on regenerated brownfield realistically embody sustainability principles?

286 K.J. Doick et al.

The aims of this research were to examine the ways in which important regeneration stakeholders currently view the concept of sustainability when applied to greenspace creation, and how their perceptions can affect greenspace sustainability. This understanding is crucial for the development of methodologies to evaluate and improve greenspace sustainability.

2 Brownfield greening

Excepting sites where natural colonisation is allowed to ‘green’ a site, the establishment of greenspace on brownfield land occurs through dedicated greenspace creation initiatives or as a result of private sector development and planning agreements. Greenspace projects include those for stimulating regional economic growth, social inclusion, habitat provision or for the purpose of reestablishing a former land use (e.g. forestry or agriculture) following the cessation of mineral extraction or landfill operations. Greening via the development sector often includes the conversion of brownfield land into industrial, commercial land or to housing with a component of greenspace, usually for landscaping. Figure 1 presents an illustration of four overarching steps and component parts in the regeneration of brownfield land to greenspace. Site identification, planning, design and delivery are common to both specific greenspace establishment projects and private sector developments. Nevertheless, there are differences, particularly with regard to the different actors involved and the instruments available to ensure that brownfield greening is sustainable. In the next section, we describe the two main routes of brownfield greening and consider the key drivers for and against the establishment of sustainable greenspaces inherent to each.

2.1 Public sector brownfield greening

The conversion of brownfield land into greenspace in the UK has roots in the restoration of former mineral extraction sites to a ‘soft’ end use. As early as the 1890s in South Wales, colliery spoil and overburden tips were being afforested (Bending et al., 1999). Subsequently, closed landfill sites were considered suitable for conversion to amenity woodland. These actions supported the UK Government’s drive to reverse the decline in the nation’s tree cover and provide a sustainable national wood resource. In the 1990s, the increasing tree cover agenda was redefined to combat biodiversity and habitat loss and encourage outdoor physical activity. Most recently, the positive impacts of greenspace on people, communities and neighbourhoods has seen the greening agenda acquire economic, as well previously established social and environmental, favour.

Across Europe, the greening of brownfield land has arisen from comprehensive programmes for derelict land reclamation, through strategies for economic revitalisation and, less directly, via the support of natural colonisation. For example, triggered by increased awareness of the negative ecological and economic effects of dereliction, Germany, France and the UK adopted programmes of redevelopment and land ‘recycling’ funded by the taxpayer (Grimski and Ferber, 2001). In Northern France, for instance, the priority was to restore attractive appearances to urban outskirts, whereas in the Ruhr area of Germany the focus was primarily on ecological rehabilitation (Grimski and Ferber, 2001). Indeed, making the most of ‘industry forest’ continues to draw support from Germany’s national conservation bureau (see Bundesamt fur

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 287

Naturschutz, 2007). Similarly, in Austria the redevelopment of brownfield sites is seen as a route to attain more than one policy objective – whilst the focus is more on avoiding loss of greenfield sites than converting brownfield into green space, the increasing reuse of brownfield sites can meet both national and international environmental policy aims (Egger et al., 2004).

During the early days of brownfield regeneration in the UK, variability in approach to reclamation stemmed as much from a genuine lack of expertise as to site specific demand and financial constraints. Site failure and inappropriate practice catalysed the publication of academic but accessible textbooks on land reclamation for greenspace establishment (e.g. Bradshaw and Chadwick, 1980) and a range of government best practice guidance (e.g. DoE, 1989). However, putting theory into practice inevitably varies between practitioners, even between delivery teams belonging to the same corporation, and experience has shown that best practice is still inconsistently applied. A single approach to regeneration is not practical due to site specificity, but application of the available standards within each of the four steps (Figure 1) will help to minimise failure and improve the long-term success of a greening project. For example, a shared understanding of common objectives would help to prevent regeneration without provision of a budget for the long-term management and maintenance needs of a site (Sellers et al., 2006).

2.2 Private sector brownfield greening

In the UK, the role and responsibilities of the private development industry in public greenspace provision stem from policies such as Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17 on planning for open space, sport and recreation (ODPM, 2002b) and Planning Obligations such as Circular 05/05 (ODPM, 2005). These policies push strongly for brownfield redevelopment and greenspace provision, and thus opportunities are increasing for greenspace development on brownfield sites as part of private redevelopment projects. However, providing sustainable greenspace through this planning mechanism may prove challenging, as summarised below.

For a privately funded brownfield development requiring planning permission, the provision of greenspace is only one of the competing policy priorities for which planning agreements are compiled (Campbell and Henneberry, 2001). For example, for single developments a planning obligation may request money towards schools, roads, infrastructure and/or greenspace provision. Thus, the focus is not entirely on greenspace and if it is to be sustainable a management and maintenance component will require resourcing (e.g. via a revenue stream or a maintenance dowry) (Figure 1). However, the long-term dimension is rarely taken into account and the build-and-forget culture of the development industry is widely acknowledged (Dixon et al., 2007); in this similar scenario, a plant-and-forget culture may be developing. Although maintenance payments can be achieved through planning obligations, these tend to be for limited 5–15 year commitments. When ownership and managerial responsibilities are transferred after a greenspace site has been regenerated, there may be serious repercussions regarding its sustainability. For example, tree and shrub species selection that was based upon improving site appearance with a view to increasing immediate property sales may not take into account their requirement for water and nutrients or tolerance to, and effect on subsurface contamination and, thus, their survival. These issues are likely to arise once the developer is out of the picture, leaving the new owner or the local authority with the

288 K.J. Doick et al.

liability, management and/or economic consequences. Furthermore, fragmentation in responsibilities between the stakeholders directly involved in a regeneration project can hinder the achievement of sustainability. For example, this may occur where different agents are involved in project delivery and in post-regeneration site management. Consequently, there is often disparity between setting site objectives and site delivery such that those objectives are met suboptimally. Site objectives are usually defined in terms of project management and economic deliverables, and not in terms of defined sustainability objectives. The economics of regeneration are undoubtedly important, but the absence of a set of defined sustainability objectives compromises the possibility of establishing sustainable greenspace routinely. The long-term success of the overall site development is subsequently brought into question.

It can therefore be seen that although there is a policy push for sustainable brownfield greening, this is not always met with appropriate measures. There is clearly a need to define more precisely what sustainability means for brownfield greening projects and the objectives such projects should aim to fulfil. However, it is also widely accepted that sustainability is a value-based concept (Bell and Morse, 2003; Ukaga and Maser, 2004) and that its definition and subsequently its implementation is affected by stakeholder perceptions of what sustainability means in the specific context.

3 Existing impressions of sustainability objectives

Silverthorne (2006) argued that for a brownfield regeneration project to be considered sustainable it must be robust in the long term, it must improve the local environment and address local community needs. Pediaditi et al. (2005) considered that sustainable regeneration can only occur if carefully planned and designed with sustainability in mind. However, both studies focused on the regeneration of brownfield land to hard, rather than soft-end uses and demonstrated that it is necessary to carefully marry project and sustainability objectives in order for the project to even strive towards being sustainable. Unlike for soft-end uses, a list of social, environmental and economic objectives pertinent to ensuring the sustainability of a brownfield regeneration project to a hard-end use (Table 1) can be derived from the literature (e.g. Dair and Williams, 2004; RESCUE, 2005).

Although sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects have not been defined, a concept increasingly associated with sustainable land use and brownfield greening projects is multifunctionality (Selman, 2000). Multifunctionality has conceptual roots deeply established in sustainable living, with its emphasis towards community engagement, integrated land use and planning, sustainable development and cleaner-safer-greener communities. However, the Countryside Agency’s definition of multifunctionality objectives (Table 1) reveals a strong orientation towards social demands as well as objectives which are inherently competitive, for example, the juxtaposition of ‘productive landscapes’ and ‘a nature reserve’ (Groundwork, 2005). Where trade-offs in land use or management are made at the expense of one of the pillars of sustainability then a divergence in multifunctionality and sustainability can emerge.

Despite abundant literature and guidelines on how to green brownfield land, a set of sustainability objectives that can be used to plan, implement and manage brownfield greenspace and evaluate site sustainability is not available. The elevation of sustainability

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 289

within the decision-making process by greenspace stakeholders seems to be important. Therefore, this research focused on identifying which stakeholders can and do influence greenspace sustainability and what sustainability objectives they think greenspace should achieve.

Table 1 Definitions of objectives pertinent to the sustainability of brownfield land regeneration project to a hard-end use and to multifunctional land use

Source Economic objectives Social objectives Environmental objectives

Enable businesses to be efficient and competitive

Provide adequate local services to serve the development

Minimise the use of resources

Provide employment opportunities

Provide a safe environment for people to work and live in

Minimise pollution and remediate existing contamination

Promote the local economy

Provide housing to meet needs

Protect biodiversity and the natural environment

Provide transport infrastructure to meet business needs

Integrate the development within the locality

Protect the landscape

Hard-end use regenerationists (Dair and Williams (2004)

Support local business diversity

Provide good accessibility for all

Protect heritage and historic buildings

Productive landscapes

A bridge to the countryside

A gate to the town

A nature reserve

An engine for regeneration

A place for sustainable living

A centre for enhancing the environment

A health centre

A class room

Multifunctionality literature

(Groundwork, 2005)

A centre for recycling and renewable energy

A cultural legacy

4 Methodology

The methodological approach adopted for this research was qualitative in nature utilising a range of techniques to obtain information such as interviews, e-mail questionnaires and workshops with brownfield regeneration stakeholders, subsequently increasing the robustness of the research design through triangulation.

From the onset, an indicative list of key UK stakeholder groups pertinent to each of the various stages of a brownfield greening project was developed, based upon author experience and a review of the literature (Alker et al., 2000; Bartsch, 2003; Pediaditi et al., 2006) (Table 2). The data collection strategy (sampling and methods) for this research was subsequently based on Table 2. The sampling strategy was purposive combined with snowball sampling technique (Heckathorn, 1997), whereby further

290 K.J. Doick et al.

interviews were sought based on recommended interviewee contacts until no new perspectives were being generated by any one stakeholder category. The sample focuses on decision-making stakeholder groups rather than interest groups because of their direct role in brownfield greening. The total number of stakeholders interviewed was 58 (Table 3). Semi-structured interviews and an e-mail survey using open ended questions (Box 1) were conducted in order to determine:

• how the decision-making stakeholder groups defined sustainability within the context of a brownfield regeneration project

• to what extent they perceived they could influence the sustainability of brownfield regeneration projects.

The range of stakeholders interviewed and their job specific interest in regeneration is presented in Table 3. Of the 58 stakeholders, 23 dealt specifically with brownfield greening projects. A simple yet effective method of interviewing the 23 stakeholders was adopted: key questions (Box 1) were e-mailed to the stakeholders, followed up with direct questioning to provide clarity, where required. The remaining 35 stakeholders involved indirectly in greenspace creation through brownfield redevelopment projects incorporating greenspace provision were formally interviewed. Although the sample was determined using combined purposive and snowball sampling techniques, it is not exhaustive. However, the sample offers definitions from stakeholders representing the full range of the regeneration life cycle (Table 3). Bias towards stakeholders involved in site identification and planning was not considered to significantly affect this investigative analysis as it follows. Pediaditi (2006) who found that stakeholders involved in decision-making processes up to the planning stages had the greatest levels of influence over project sustainability.

Box 1: Specific questions made to different interviewees

Q1: Can you provide a brief description of your job? (n = 58)

Q2: If we are to classify brownfield regeneration projects in the following life cycle stages (policy and strategic guidance, site identification and funding, planning and design, implementation and delivery and finally management and maintenance) which ones do you think your profession is/are involved in? (n = 58)

Q3: How would you define sustainability within the context of a brownfield regenerated site? (n = 35)

Q3a: How would you define sustainability within the context of brownfield regenerated to greenspace? (n = 23)

Q4: Bearing in mind the nature of your job, to what extent do you think you can influence the sustainability of a brownfield regeneration project? (n = 35)

Q4a: Bearing in mind the nature of your job, how and to what extent do you think you can influence the sustainability of a greenspace (or greenspace establishment project)? (n = 23)

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 291

Table 2 An indicative list of the range of UK stakeholders engaged in brownfield greening projects

292 K.J. Doick et al.

Table 2 An indicative list of the range of UK stakeholders engaged in brownfield greening projects

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 293

Table 3 The range and categorisation of the stakeholders groups interviewed

Stakeholder Policy and strategic guidance

Site identification and funding

Planning design implementation

and delivery

Management and maintenance

National 9 1

Regional 1 7 6 2

Public bodies

Local 2 2 6 4

Developer 10 Private

Contractor/consultant

8

(Total = 58) 12 19 21 6

Data from interviewees were transcribed and combined with e-mail responses and a qualitative deductive content analysis was carried out. Separate analysis of definitions from the 23 stakeholders engaged directly with brownfield greening projects was conducted to determine trends in priorities and emphasis in specific sustainability objectives, and sustainability pillars. For the deductive content analysis, categorisation matrices were developed, in which coded responses were classified according to stakeholder category, emphasis on specific sustainability objectives and, at a more aggregated level, according to a particular pillar of sustainability (social, environmental and economic). This analysis was designed in such a way as to establish whether stakeholder involvement in a particular life cycle stage influenced their perception of sustainable greenspace and whether any one of the three pillars of sustainability was given more emphasis. Emphasis was determined and weighted using frequency of appearance counts as well as intensity and prominence (Sarantakos, 1993). This subset was used because the results obtained by the remaining interviewees (involved in ancillary greenspace creation through hard-end use redevelopments) did not refer to greenspace creation in particular (i.e. it was not their core expertise). Finally, total scores per pillar per project life cycle stage were normalised to allow for the unbalanced numbers of definitions collected. The main analysis was done by the first two authors. The last two authors read the interview and e-mail response transcripts, cointerpreted the codes into categories and validated the analyses; thereby strengthening the dependability of the study (Hamberg et al., 1994; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For the other questions asked to all stakeholders a standardised descriptive analysis was carried out, focusing on commonalities in perspectives between stakeholder categories and differences between professions. The results of the analysis to determine if stakeholder association to a particular life cycle stage influenced their perception of what is meant by sustainable greenspace is presented in Table 4 and discussed in Section 5.

In order to develop the overarching aim of the project – the development of a common set of sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects – a one day facilitated workshop was carried out which involved 39 public body brownfield greening stakeholders representing the different life cycle stage interests. Again the sample was purposive, not exhaustive and limited by time and funding constraints. The workshop utilised a number of common facilitation techniques such as Nominal Group Technique and Prioritisation, using sticky dots. Based on the literature and results of the interviews an initial list of objectives was developed and presented to workshop participants for

294 K.J. Doick et al.

review. The workshop participants were asked to refine and prioritise objectives, whilst paying attention to achieving an equal balance between all three pillars of sustainability. The results of this process are presented in Table 5 and discussed in Section 6.

Table 4 Matrix analysis of the definitions of sustainable greenspace, comparing prioritisation of sustainability pillar and stakeholder categorisation

Environmental Social Economic

Policy and strategic guidance (n = 8) 1.8 2.9 1.1

Site identification and funding (n = 5) 1.2 2.2 1.8

Planning, design, implementation and delivery (n = 5)

2.2 2.2 1.2

Management and maintenance (n = 5) 1.8 1.6 2.4

(n = 23) 7.0 8.9 6.5

Note: Values are normalised according to the number of definitions collected.

Table 5 Proposed list of sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects

Economic objectives Social objectives Environmental objectives

Be economically efficient and self-supporting

Encourage social inclusion and cohesion

Minimise the use of unrecycled resources

Provide employment opportunities

Promote health and well-being Promote land, water, soil and air quality

Promote local and regional economic regeneration

Provide good accessibility for all to greenspace and local facilities

Protect biodiversity and the natural environment

Promote attractive, functional landscapes

Facilitate education Conserve natural and cultural heritage

Promote local affluence and community prosperity

Reduce crime and antisocial behaviour

Combat the impacts of climate change

5 Brownfield greening stakeholders: perceptions and capacity to influence sustainability

The broad range of stakeholder groups involved in brownfield greening projects in the UK, categorised according to the stage of the project life cycle they are involved in and, thus, their ability to influence project sustainability is presented in Table 2. The central role of Local Authorities throughout the brownfield greening life cycle is evident, but also the fragmentation of responsibilities and the lack of continuity of some key stakeholders in the brownfield greening process. For example, involvement of national level stakeholders engaged in policy development, and regional level stakeholders engaged in identification of sites for funding, typically does not extend beyond the planning and design stage. This in turn carries with it a lack of association and accountability towards the regeneration project (identified as one of the key reasons of project failure, see Section 1) and infers a short-term focus with a significant risk to sustainability. This was confirmed in interview responses from greenspace policy stakeholders who perceived their ability to influence brownfield greening project sustainability as limited. For example:

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 295

“Personally and realistically… I cannot influence the sustainability of greenspace development at all. Theoretically, I perceive local authorities (planners), developers (i.e. private sector) and environmental consultancies (i.e. those that conduct EIAs/SIAs for developers) to be the real holders of power (i.e. those able to ‘have an effect’) in the majority of greenspace development projects, especially in the brownfield context.”

And: “For a specific bit of land – very little. I am a national level policy advisor, I don’t actually deliver anything”.

There was a general consensus by all stakeholders questioned (n = 58) that people involved in project planning and implementation, and in particular planners and developers, had the greatest capacity to influence a project’s sustainability. One developer stated: “All decisions pass by me so …yes I can say I have a big influence in making my development sustainable”. And a development control planner commented: “I suppose we bring all consultees views together and have the task of negotiating with developers so we try our best to achieve as sustainable an outcome as possible.”

Stakeholders involved in the site identification and funding as well as management and maintenance life cycle stages felt that although they had the means to affect sustainability they depended on planners and project managers, which they try to influence. For example:

“During the establishment of new greenspace the extent to which I am able to influence sustainability depends greatly upon the views of those leading the project. In the later, establishment years, the amount of influence is much greater, although the availability of staff time is a major factor in determining how far you go to achieving sustainability.”

Table 2 also illustrates that where involvement extends further, it is within organisations orientated towards greenspace establishment. Here there is potential for ensuring that sustainability issues extend throughout the whole life cycle. However, in national bodies delivery and management is rarely undertaken by the same department as the policy and strategic guidance component. A common understanding and commitment to sustainability throughout the organisation and its universal translation into effective and realistic (achievable) sustainability objectives is required.

The extent to which fragmentation of responsibilities is a problem in achieving sustainable greenspace depends on the variability in definition and perceptions of sustainability between stakeholders. Analysis of the 58 stakeholder’s definitions of sustainability within the context of brownfield regeneration (Table 3) is, therefore, very relevant and is discussed below.

Some interviewee interpretations of sustainability were almost word-for-word quotes of the Brundtland definition and whilst no two definitions were the same, many expressed quite different focal points or concepts of understanding. Different stakeholder’s definitions of sustainability strongly reflected the interviewee’s professional role or field of expertise. For example, one architect stated: “sustainability means designing an attractive, distinctive place to live with good accessibility to facilities”. Local authority environmental health inspectors and private company reclamation contractors defined sustainability with reference to contamination; an illustrative example being: “ensuring a site or a development is safe from a human health perspective”. A local authority access officer defined sustainability as “having [a] functioning public transport service as well as a good network of cycle ways and footpaths”. Stakeholders responsible for the management and maintenance of established greenspace mentioned the social and environmental sustainability dimensions of

296 K.J. Doick et al.

greenspaces but emphasised in their statements the financial dimension, specifically the constraints (reflecting the daily pressures of their jobs), for example:

“a sustainable greenspace is one that can be managed to deliver its identified objectives (whether they be public access, conservation, heritage etc) as effectively as possible within the available budgets for the foreseeable future.”

The vaguest definitions were provided by developers, in many cases expressing cynicism over the meaning of sustainability, for example, “in my opinion it means anything you want it to mean”. This finding is in accordance with Ball (1999) who concluded that most developers did not have or did not want an understanding of what sustainability meant or how to operationalise it. Considering that developers were perceived as one of the most influential stakeholders with the greatest power to influence a greening project’s sustainability, this finding is of concern.

Another point which emerged from public body interviewees concerned long-term sustainability. These views were expressed as “the need for self sustained green space” or “the need for long term management and maintenance”. They were not mirrored in interviews with developers who talked about considerations up to development sign off by local authorities or up to the sale of properties. This short-term vision of sustainability by the private development industry should be addressed via improvements in policy drivers as it jeopardises the sustainability of privately developed brownfield greenspace during the fourth stage of the life cycle – management and maintenance.

Our study has shown that different types of stakeholder view sustainability in a specific, but fragmented, manner which focuses on specific sustainability objectives relevant to their profession. Carley and Christie (1992), who investigated public sector sustainability delivery in general, elaborated upon this issue, describing a phenomenon of silo thinking and decision making even within different local authority and government departments. Nevertheless, the different views of sustainability between stakeholders should not be considered entirely negatively because responses typically encompassed several sustainability objectives and, collectively, encapsulated the very essence of sustainability – integrated thinking. For example, as summarised by one policy interviewee:

“Sustainability cannot be considered as a mere add up of … social, economic, environmental. ...actually sustainability goes beyond that. Sustainability requires the simultaneous definition of all the criteria (which are relevant and why and which are not) and, in that sense, the process of achieving those criteria is the crucial part.”

From our research, it can be seen that there are a range of objectives that stakeholders apply to greenspace and that these objectives tended to vary between stakeholders involved in the various different stages of brownfield greening, rather than between geographically distinct regions. Blanket application of homogenised objectives is not desirable, practical or achievable. However, brownfield greening objectives should be defined at the beginning of each project and this process may be supported by selection against a core list of sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects. Furthermore, the process of allocation of project objectives and delivery responsibility must be participatory to ensure that objectives are considered holistically and deliberated by stakeholders of different professions. Participation through interdisciplinary stakeholder deliberation is of particular relevance for brownfield greening projects within the private sector, given that greenspace provision is competing with other policy priorities for which planning agreements are being sought.

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 297

5.1 Public body brownfield greening stakeholder perceptions of sustainability

The results of the trends and priorities analysis of the public body brownfield greening project stakeholders are summarised in Table 4.

Public sector brownfield greening is purposefully undertaken for the positive social impacts that are expected from it (see Section 2). Although performed on the environmental medium, it is the local and regional economic impacts that arise from neighbourhood renewal and regeneration that are usually the incentive for the investment. In other words, although it is the environment that is being altered, environmental gain is not the priority outcome and the longevity of the environmental gain is secondary to the finances required to support land management. Table 4 demonstrates that social gain is the project priority throughout policy/guidance, site selection, design and delivery. The irony is that without appropriate maintenance revenue, the site may have to close or be management shifted to different objectives, weakening or making obsolete the original social and environmental gains sought. Furthermore, although economic aspects were identified as important in supporting the concept of sustainability, it was evident that most interviewees were not concerned with greening objectives such as generation of employment opportunities but rather to operational issues such as whether the sites would be financially self-sustaining. ‘Economics’ as a key driver in sustainability featured more highly in the definitions of those stakeholders engaged in site management and maintenance than anywhere else in the project life cycle. This finding may suggest a disparity between those trying to manage sites sustainably and those (funding bodies/managers) who state a desire for sustainable sites but are unaware or uncommitted to the resource requirement for such an end. The absence of long-term management and maintenance funding frequently leads to site failure in the UK and should be addressed by reference to experience in other parts of the world. For example, urban green policy in Paris is defined exclusively by the city’s mayor for approval by the council; the primary source of funding for metropolitan parks in Australia is a parks charge levied on domestic, commercial and industrial properties; in Malmö, Sweden, the city planning authority has ensured that private developers take responsibility for managing and maintaining green spaces in new areas of residential development through endowments as also advocated by the UK’s Land Restoration Trust and the Corporation of London and finally, in New York, USA, the not-for-profit Central Park Conservancy raises funds from individuals, corporations and foundations to fund day-to-day maintenance and capital improvements (CABE Space, 2006).

Table 4 illustrates that stakeholders in both policy and site identification gave emphasis to the achievement of greenspace social objectives. This reflects the strong social focus, particularly at the policy and strategic guidance level, of the UK Government agenda of sustainable communities and a commitment to achieving these agendas through localised and regional regeneration schemes. It is evident that the social element also persists in site selection, so localities where social need is greatest (e.g. areas with a high deprivation index) are more likely to see the regeneration (brownfield greening) required to potentially catalyse change. Though commendable in principle, the absence of consideration of greenspace environmental objectives in site selection and funding is concerning. For example, ecological representativeness and ecosystem

298 K.J. Doick et al.

connectivity in identifying brownfield sites for regeneration was not mentioned during stakeholder interviews, indicating a potential imbalance in decision-making criteria towards social priorities.

So what dangers emerge from our results for the sustainability of greenspace? The illustrated imbalance (Table 4) in the three pillars may demonstrate in definitional terms alone that brownfield regenerated greenspaces are not strictly sustainable. However, given that each site is always going to face subtly different priorities, a pragmatic approach to sustainability might be to focus on achieving objectives of one pillar without delivering significant negative impacts to the other pillars, following a compatibility analysis. However, issues commonly encountered as a consequence of a social-first agenda include planting of species not suitable to the locality in order to promote high visitor numbers yet jeopardising biodiversity, or strict adherence to the use of vegetation of local providence over consideration of resilience to the effects of climate change. Care is needed in developing sustainability tools or procedures so environmental considerations are not undervalued (Sheate, 2002).

6 A common set of sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects

The second part of this study consisted of a one day facilitated workshop (see Section 4). During the objective prioritisation exercise, participants considered different perceptions of a sustainable greenspace, the range of objectives that have been associated with brownfield greening projects and the growing emphasis on social issues. The topics were discussed in the plenary. Originally, institutional/governance objectives were developed and proposed for inclusion as a fourth pillar of sustainability (HM Government, 2005). However, these objectives are inherently procedural with their evaluation process based and differing in structure and criteria between each stakeholder group and institution (Patton, 1997). Furthermore, Vatn (2005) argues that institutions (as ‘conventions’, ‘norms’ and ‘sanctioned rules’) are merely subcategorisations of society. A premise of this research was that the aim of defining brownfield to greenspace sustainability objectives would improve governance and decision making by establishing a basis on which to perform a sustainability outcome evaluation of social, environmental and economic objectives achievement. Therefore, an institutional/governance pillar of sustainability was not considered separately.

Following analysis of the results obtained from the interview process and the workshop, the stated objectives of sustainable greenspace were compared with sustainability and multifunctionality objectives previously identified (see Table 1) in order to derive a list of sustainability objectives for brownfield greening projects. The criteria guiding this selection were that the list should: be balanced across the three pillars, incorporate immediate as well as long-term principles, reflect the principles of multifunctionality, be relevant to brownfield greening projects and greenspaces alike, and take into account national and local level issues of sustainability. The list of sustainability objectives proposed for brownfield greening projects are presented in Table 5.

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 299

6.1 How to use the brownfield greening sustainability objectives

Brownfield sites have a complex history, chemical and physical status and local and regional land and policy pressure. Consequently, all brownfield greening projects face some degree of site and context specificity, but at the same time there is an overriding need to ensure that one sustainability pillar is not ignored at the expense of another. A brownfield greening project may not be able to (or in some cases should not) achieve all of the sustainability objectives listed in Table 5. What we propose, however, is the use of these objectives in participatory processes as a basis for transparent deliberation and decision making with the aim of determining the objectives which a specific brownfield greening project should achieve within a given context. This is a similar process to options appraisal within Strategic Environmental Assessment (Therivel, 2004). Such participatory processes exist for hard-end use regeneration projects (see Pediaditi et al. 2006) and these can easily be modified for application for soft-end use projects. The purpose of using a list of objectives in decision making is the achievement of clarity and transparency regarding what a brownfield greening project is aiming to achieve and what it is not. By having objectives clearly defined at the onset, it will facilitate consistent project justification and funding and the potential for sustainable management at each life cycle stage. This can include the capacity to monitor and demonstrate whether these objectives were actually met.

In order to agree the sustainable context of an individual site, the research supports the need for participatory decision making. However, this must operate within the constraints posed by particular legislative requirements, for example, with respect to land contamination and site design which are intimately linked. Further limitations of participatory approaches in defining sustainability objectives include the preference by local stakeholders for visual and immediate issues, rather than national priorities such a climate change or biodiversity loss, and these must be recognised and factored into the process (Burningham and Thrush, 2001; Fenwick and Elcock, 2004). The objectives proposed in this paper are recommended as a starting point for stakeholder deliberation in brownfield greening project objective setting.

7 Conclusions and ‘What does the future hold?’

The concept of sustainability as it relates to the creation of urban greenspace remains vulnerable to personal interpretation. Whilst academics find the time to consider it, there appears to be a smaller understanding and subsequent commitment to the principle within regional and local stakeholder groups through whom it is applied (Selman, 2000).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, definition and interpretation of sustainability reflects the professional capacity of the stakeholder, but there remain no easily usable tools to integrate the aspects of sustainability so that trade-offs between conflicting demands can be analysed and holistic decisions made. We have argued that this is, at least in part, a consequence of the absence of appreciable sustainability objectives for greenspace. Thus, greenspace projects have continued to suffer from subjective interpretation and from reaching their potential (Moffat and Hutchings, 2007). This indicates the need for the stipulation of brownfield greening objectives which address in a balanced manner all three dimensions of sustainability.

300 K.J. Doick et al.

Greenspace sustainability objectives are therefore proposed to be used as a common platform of understanding for decision making by stakeholders from both the private as well as public sector involved in all life cycle stages. Their use is proposed to be combined with participatory approaches like those described in Pediaditi et al. (2006) and followed up with systematic monitoring and information gathering mechanisms which can determine whether the defined objectives have in fact been achieved. A monitoring and evaluation programme designed to evaluate the success of a brownfield greening project with respect to its stated aims, objectives and sustainability is, therefore, also required.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the UK Forestry Commission and of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant GR/S148809/01, through the SUBR:IM (Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration: Integrated Management) research consortium, Walter Wehrmeyer and Kate Burningham of CES, University of Surrey and the reviewers.

References Alker, S., Joy, V., Roberts, P. and Smith, N. (2000) ‘The definition of brownfield’, Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp.49–69.

Ball, R. (1999) ‘Developers, regeneration and sustainability issues in the reuse of vacant industrial buildings’, Building Research Information, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.140–148.

Bartsch, C. (2003) Community Involvement in Brownfield Redevelopment, Washington, DC: Northeast Midwest Institute.

Bell, S. and Morse, S. (2003) Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing, London: Earthscan.

Bending, N.A.D., McRae, S.G. and Moffat, A.J. (1999) Soil-Forming Materials: Their Use in Land Reclamation, London: The Stationery Office.

Bradshaw, A.D. and Chadwick, M.J. (1980) The Restoration of Land, Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Bundesamt fur Naturschutz (2007) ‘Urbane/industrielle landschaften’, Available at: http://www.idee-natur.de/urban.html, Accessed on 21 April 2008.

Burningham, K. and Thrush, D. (2001) Rainforests are a Long Way from Here. The Environmental Concerns of Disadvantaged Groups, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

CABE Space (2006) Paying for Parks: Eight Models for Funding Green Space, London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).

Campbell, H. and Henneberry, J. (2001) Planning obligations and the mediation of development’, Research Report 4 (3), Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), London.

Carley, M. and Christie, I. (1992) Managing Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan.

Dair, C. and Williams, K. (2004) ‘Sustainable land re-use: the influence of different stakeholders in achieving brownfield land development in England’, Brownfield Research Paper, No. 1, Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development.

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2005) Securing the Future - UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy: The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, London: The Stationery Office, p.186.

Dixon, T., Raco, M., Catney, P. and Lerner, D.L. (Eds) (2007) Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration, Liveable Places from Problem Spaces, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration 301

DoE (Department for the Environment) (1989) Minerals Planning Guidance: The Reclamation of Mineral Workings, London: HMSO.

Egger, K., et al. (2004) Industrielle Brachflächen in Österreich. Wiedernutzungspotenzial, Wien, 04/2004. Diverse Publikationen, Band 106.

Fenwick, J. and Elcock, H. (2004) ‘The new political management in local government: public engagement or public indifference?’ Local Government Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.519–537.

Grimski, D. and Ferber, U. (2001) ‘Urban brownfields in Europe’, Land Contamination and Reclamation, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.143–148.

Groundwork and The Countryside Agency (2005) The Countryside in and Around Towns: A Vision for Connecting Town and Country in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development, Wetherby, England: The Countryside Agency, pp.25.

Hamberg, K., Johansson, E., Lindgren, G. and Westman, G. (1994) ‘Scientific rigour in qualitative research – examples from a study of women’s health in family practice’, Family Practice, Vol. 11, pp.176–181.

Heckathorn, D.D. (1997) ‘Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations’, Social Problems, Vol. 44, pp.174–199.

HM Government (2005) The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future, London: HM Stationery Office.

Kenney, W.A. (2003) ‘A strategy for Canada’s urban forests’, The Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp.785–789.

Lerner, S. and Poole, W. (1999) The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space, Washington: The Trust for Public Land.

Lincoln, L.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, CA: Sage.

Moffat, A.J. and Hutchings, T.R. (2007) ‘Greening brownfield land’, in T. Dixon, M. Raco, P. Catney and D.N. Lerner (Eds). Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: Liveable Places from Problem Spaces, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.143–176.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2002a) Living Places. Cleaner, Safer, Greener, London: ODPM.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2002b) Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, London: The Stationery Office.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003) Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, London: ODPM.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2005) Planning Obligations. Circular 05, London: The Stationery Office.

Patton, M.Q. (1997) Utilization Focused Evaluation, The New Century Text, 3rd edition, London: Sage Publications.

Pediaditi, K. (2006) ‘Evaluating the sustainability of brownfield redevelopment projects: the redevelopment assessment framework (RAF)’, Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, UK, p.468.

Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer, W. and Chenoweth, J. (2005) ‘Monitoring the sustainability of brownfield redevelopment projects: the redevelopment assessment framework’, Land Contamination and Reclamation, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.173–183.

Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer, W. and Chenoweth, J. (2006) ‘Sustainability evaluation for brownfield redevelopment’, Engineering Sustainability, Vol. 159, pp.3–10.

RESCUE (2005) Best Practice Guidance for Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration, Nottingham: Land Quality Press on behalf of the RESCUE consortium.

Sarantakos, S. (1993) Social Research, Australia: Macmillan Education.

Sellers, G., Hutchings, T.R. and Moffat, A.J. (2006) ‘Learning from experience: creating sustainable urban greenspaces from brownfield sites’, in C.A. Brebbia and U. Mander (Eds). Brownfields III. Prevention, Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development of Brownfield Sites, Southampton: WIT Press, pp.163–172.

302 K.J. Doick et al.

Selman, P. (2000) Environmental Planning: The Conservation and Development of Biophysical Resources, London: Sage Publications.

Sheate, W.R. (2002) ‘Conference report: workshop on linking impact assessment and management tools’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.465–474.

Silverthorne, T. (2006) ‘What constitutes success in brownfield redevelopment? A review’, in C.A. Brebbia and U. Mander (Eds). Brownfields III. Prevention, Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development of Brownfield Sites, Southampton: WIT Press, pp.39–49.

Therivel, R. (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, London: Earthscan.

Ukaga, O. and Maser, C. (2004) Evaluating Sustainable Development: Giving People a Voice in their Destiny, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

van Leeuwan, E., Rodenburg, C.A. and Nijkamp, P. (2002) ‘Urban green and integrative urban sustainability: concepts and relevance for Dutch cities’, No. 26, Series Research Memoranda, Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.

Vatn, A. (2005) Institutions: Coordination and Conflict (Chapter 3), In: Institutions and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Villella, J., Sellers, G., Moffat, A.J. and Hutchings, T.R. (2006) ‘From contaminated site to premier urban greenspace: investigating the success of Thames Barrier Park, London’, in C.A. Brebbia and U. Mander (Eds). Brownfields III. Prevention, Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development of Brownfield Sites, Southampton: WIT Press, pp.153–162.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.