Richard Ashley, Louise Walker

Roger Nowell,

Berry Gersonius, Tim Evans

Speaker notes

Slide 1 This paper is based on a review of green infrastructure for surface water management carried out for the education and information exchange charity Foundation for Water Research.

Slide 3 I will talk about definitions of green infrastructure, how I see it in relation to water sensitive urban design, its multiple benefits to society and I’ll give some examples of UK case studies. I’ll also talk about the attitude towards green infrastructure for surface water management in England and why and how the economic argument for GI needs to be made, as well as giving some thoughts on the future of water sensitive urban design in the UK

Slide 5 UK and American definitions are given, four mention networks, one only a collection of natural assets, three mention water, one defines it in terms of stormwater management, two do not specifically mention water at all. GI is not well defined, it is not the same as WSUD, & different people talking about GI may mean different things. In the UK we also have SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) for surface water management, which may or may not be green (e.g. permeable paving is a SuD but is not an element of green infrastructure because it is not a living system). So not all SuDS are GI and not all GI can accommodate formal SuDS, but all GI does have value in water cycle management.

Slide 6 Water Sensitive Urban Design is defined as: “…the integrated design of the urban water cycle, incorporating water supply, wastewater, stormwater and groundwater management, urban design and environmental protection (Joint Steering Committee for Water Sensitive Cities, 2009). The requirements associated with diffuse pollution removal from urban surface runoff are yet to manifest themselves in policy within English authorities; where quality drivers are weak, and co-ordinated activity between water companies and local authorities is still rare in England Natural England is the government's advisor on the natural environment and is promoting the concept of Green Infrastructure as a way to deliver a wide range of benefits for people and the natural environment together. Green Infrastructure should be delivered via the spatial planning system, as an integral part of new development everywhere. It should also form a key part of proposals to regenerate existing urban areas. NE is working with partners in the Growth Areas, Growth Points and proposed Eco-towns to prepare and implement Green Infrastructure strategies and demonstrate good practice on the ground.

Slide 11 The multiple benefits of green infrastructure are generally well recognised. These are increased when green infrastructure is also used in surface water management. But when drainage options are considered, usually only the financial costs are calculated and many of these attributes are not fully taken into account in decision making.

Contents Land use – the focus The green infrastructure

movement Linkages to water management Multiple benefits of water

management Examples of practice The new sustainability: the

economic argument Making the economic argument The future in the UK

Urban space

Land use is at the heart

Doing more with less to deliver multifunctional use of land

4

Pleasant and efficient places to live

All forms of water are opportunities

Engaged comunities with

local responsibilities

Water institutions are partnering and working with others to bring multi-value

Centre for water sensitive cities

What is green infrastructure? The living network of green spaces, water and

environmental systems in, around and beyond urban areas (CABE)

Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features (Natural England)

A collection of natural assets which provide multiple functions and services to people, the economy and the environment (GINW)

An interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife (Benedict & McMahon)

Green infrastructure (GI) is a network of decentralized stormwater management practices, such as green roofs, trees, rain gardens and permeable pavement, that can capture and infiltrate rain where it falls, thus reducing stormwater runoff and improving the health of surrounding waterways (CNT)

It provides and benefits from ecosystem services

How is green infrastructure linked to water management?

Current initiatives in UK to promote use of green infrastructure (e.g. East London Green Grid, Natural England’s Environmental Character Assessment and Green Infrastructure North West’s GI toolkit)

By linking to stormwater system management a greater number of multiple benefits can accrue, but this is only a step towards integrated water management

In USA stormwater management is now termed GI (or GSI)

The GI movement CABE, Landscape

architects

GI Partnership

Scottish government

Different scales

The stormwater movement Centred on SuDS

In England NSS encourages but does not specify ‘green’

Multiple benefits of green infrastructure

Aesthetics / Quality of life

Amenity / recreation

Education / awareness

Reduction in urban heat island effect

Climate change mitigation/adaptation

Carbon sequestration

Air quality improvement

Property value

Wildlife habitats / corridors

Biodiversity

Reclamation of derelict land

Local food production

And in combination with stormwater management:

Increased permeable area

Reduction in flood risk

Improvement in receiving water quality

Reduction in flows to combined sewer

Hesketh et al, 2010

Multi-benefits

3/8/2012 12 Centre for neighborhood technology

Stephanie Morse, CNT

liveability What it may mean

3/8/2012 14

GI & stormwater - examples

Cambourne Cambridgeshire UK: GI in the estate’s design was adapted for water management with open spaces becoming detention areas receiving water from permeable paved areas and roofs. For conveyance linear green areas were utilised

Speaker notes

Slide 15 In 2006, having identified the need to provide at least 73,000 new homes over the next 20 years, Cambridgeshire County Council launched a green infrastructure strategy was launched in 2006 to lead the way in achieving sustainable housing growth.. To embed the non-statutory practice of implementing green infrastructure into the planning process, the strategy is being delivered in partnership with the Housing Growth Fund and individual stakeholders. Their combined approach has ensured that multi-functional green space is integrated into major development proposals. The benefits of green infrastructure and its objectives have been widely recognised, with strong political support and stakeholder buy-in in particular, given the role of the strategy in supporting the delivery of excellence in new housing developments. Cambourne demonstrates the importance of Green Infrastructure and shows that in order to create a sustainable development you need to do more than suggest a selection of green spaces. It identifies how integrated design and a philosophy of sustainability can shape an area and offer a range of benefits to the community it supports. It has also avoided the need to move 1.5 million cubic metres of soil and demolition waste off the site by accommodating it within the new landforms. The result has been that the system is able to take all of Cambourne‟s (4000 hectares) surface water and flood discharge, holding it back in open lakes after periods of heavy rainfall and letting it leave in a controlled way to the surrounding area. This flood control system creates over 6ha of new lakes and wetlands for diversity. They have created a variety of ecological and community recreational opportunities. New species of bird, mammal and insect life have moved into Cambourne as direct result of creating/enhancing these areas. This 35 dwelling estate had already been designed in its layout when a surface based approach to managing surface water was introduced. GI in the estate’s design was adapted for water management with open spaces becoming detention areas receiving water from permeable paved areas and roofs. For conveyance linear green areas were utilised for both low flow and exceedance flow conditions. One of the few schemes in the UK that has been monitored.

Slide 17 The Manor Estate in Sheffield demonstrates the use of green infrastructure fulfilling a water management role. Funding was sought to improve a large area of neglected park land during regeneration of an area of social housing. Initially this was sought for the purposes of recreation, amenity and biodiversity. The water management function was brought in at a later date because it was less expensive to use the park than provide a tunnelled piped access to a nearby surface water sewer. A series of ponds is used to manage surface water runoff, these were constructed using a commuted sum arrangement. As part of sustainability studies, the public acceptability and engagement in this scheme was extensively researched showed a strong and positive attitude on the part of residents to what was once described as ‘the worst housing estate in Britain’. In 2007 during severe flooding across the area, this system performed as expected, with the events arena filling with excess overland flow.

Manor Park

Manor Park wetlands in Sheffield

Green infrastructure modified to fulfil a water management role

Stamford Stamford: permeable paving with

subsurface flows to a series of open linear wetland channels that provide further storage and a final polish before flows continue to an adjacent river

2007

2010

Overall the SuDS site in comparison to the traditional drainage system at the Control Site are showing excellent results in terms of reduction of flows rates, volumes, enhanced water quality and improvements to the habitat and visual diversity.

Manchester

Greater Manchester Green Roof Programme: Retrofitting green roofs. Strategic and planned small and largegreen roof programme designed to combat the effects of climate change, especially attenuation of heat islands.

Speaker notes

Slide 18 In Stamford, green infrastructure is supported by non-green SuDS. Permeable paving provides the first stages of water quantity and quality management before potential release into further storage and cleaning in GI areas. The majority of a 72 dwelling housing development’s inner courtyards were made with permeable paving laid over voided stone, taking all runoff from roofs etc to small GI wetlands as part of the landscaping requirements for the development. There is also a green exceedence flow pathway throughout the development.

Slide 20 At Hopwood Park Services filter strips on road verges are the first stage in a four stage cleaning process utilising the GI for the whole site for lorry park run-off. Further stages include a spillage basin, swales and wetlands before entering a sensitive watercourse In Manchester, a strategic and planned green roof programme was designed to combat the effects of climate change, especially attenuation of heat islands. Four public buildings are pilot projects with retrofit green roofs and bee habitats associated with the roofs were identified as a biodiversity priority.

Slide 24 The driver for this Ethelred Estate scheme was not specifically water related. Existing flat roofs were in need of replacement and the opportunity was taken to install green roofs in their place to help promote sustainability in construction locally. Sedum roofs are expected to provide biodiversity benefits; although not as much as would be expected on an intensive green roof. The entire refurbishment was occupant driven.

Slide 25 The Upton scheme is adjacent to the floodplain and the River Nene. Northamtpon has a long history of flooding. Natural England, English Partnerships, Northampton Borough Council and the Princes Foundation held a master planning event in 2001, involving local residents, businesses and stakeholders, which showed how important dealing effectively with floodwater was to residents. Consulting engineers Pell Frischmann designed a scheme that captures storm water run-off from roofs and roads and channels the water through green spaces via a series of ponds and wetlands that connect to the Upton Country Park. Already the system has been colonised by a wide range of aquatic and wetland plants and animals. The system is not perfect but lessons have been learned from problems that have occurred with it.

Slide 32 Despite some good examples of well planned green infrastructure incorporating surface water management and the need to consider SuDS by law, there is still a reluctance amongst many to fully embrace the philosophy. It is presumed that stormwater considerations can be dealt with once the transport, accessibility and other aspects have been planned the driver in Scotland has been water quality which has led to the promotion of SuDS within Scotland; their uptake by Scottish Water (the monopoly public water company) and a joined-up approach to SuDS and GI compared with the fragmented and disjointed approach being taken in England.

Victoria BID

Ashby Grove Islington

Ethelred estate

Green sedum roofs at Ethelred Estate retrofit of green roofs to apartments under renovation to help promote sustainability in construction locally (driver not water management)

Upton

Adjacent to floodplain in Northampton – long history of flooding

Masterplanning event included council, residents, businesses

Stormwater from roofs and roads captured in ‘SuDS train’

sweden

3/8/2012 26

Ecovillages Malmo

London

Rainfall 584mm

Population density 12,681/sq.mile

Surface water management charge is buried in ‘wastewater’ charges

27

Estimating the NPV of green roofs led the Mayor to introduce a subsidy of £17/sq.m for their use

disconnects

Olympics have allowed for some innovation

3/8/2012 28

(Morgan, 2012)

The Mayor’s vision for water in London…

29

The Mayor applies the following hierarchy for the drainage of rainwater in the London Plan. The aim is to manage as much water as possible towards the top of the hierarchy: 1. Store rainwater for later use 2. Use infiltration techniques, such as

porous surfaces in non clay areas 3. Attenuate rainwater in ponds or open

water features for gradual release 4. Attenuate water by storing in tanks or

sealed water features for gradual release Wastewater: “The Mayor will work with Thames

Water and other partners to support the construction of the Thames and Lee Tunnels…”

“The integration of water management as a whole is central to the success of this

Strategy”

Managing rainwater: “The Mayor will work with partners through the

Drain London Forum to manage surface water flood risk and ensure a consistent approach across

London”

Dings - Green?

Bristol Dings Homezone based on the Dutch concept of ‘woonerf' (living yard), where a group of streets are designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists rather than solely drivers

Vogelwijk, Den Haag, Netherlands A very flat housing area in Den Haag built in the 1920s with a combined sewer network –

Phase 2 of redevelopment includes stormwater separation of 450 properties from 6km of combined sewers for a 36ha total area which is 50% impervious

3/8/2012 31

The need to make an economic argument

•Weak quality drivers (England)

•Rare co-ordinated activity between local authorities and water companies

•Lack of UK specific performance data

•High density housing (typically 30-50 dwellings per hectare) seen as a barrier

•Development costs pressured by the need to reach Code for Sustainable Homes standards

•Lack of incentives

•Adoption & maintenance issues

•Locked-in behaviour

High density housing area in London, but still with opportunity to retrofit surface water management – often missed in reality

The need to make an economic argument Inclusion of green

infrastructure in urban areas is usually for aesthetic, recreational or biodiversity reasons

More apparent drivers, benefits & costs for improved water management by GI will strengthen the argument

Demonstrating added value in monetary terms is difficult but attempts have been made e.g. using

Centre for neighborhood technology

ecosystem services valuation

GI NorthWest valuation toolkit

SKINT valuation tool

Speaker notes

Slide 33 The inclusion of green infrastructure in UK urban areas still predominantly occurs for aesthetic, recreational and biodiversity reasons and is not usually linked specifically with surface water management. If the drivers, benefits and costs for improved water management can be made more apparent then the arguments for linking it to green infrastructure with all the incidental benefits becomes stronger. Managing surface water so that it can help to deliver multiple functions with green infrastructure is a major opportunity for improving urban environments and for adding value that cannot be obtained from buried stormwater infrastructure. However, most UK guidance does not yet acknowledge this. Stormwater removal from combined sewers in London is currently undergoing an investment of £4.1billion. However this is for construction of a r tunnel to intercept CSOs. the Thames Tunnel will be 7.2 m in diameter and up to 67 m deep, and Thames Water’s preferred route is up to 25 km (16 miles) long. The target date for completion of the tunnel is currently estimated to be 2022–23. It was concluded by the private sewer operator that the practicalities of retrofitting SuDS in the dense urban area of London are too great and too costly for this to be a practicable option, would take too long and delays would lead to continuing breach of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. These studies, however, do not consider the wider multi-value benefits of green infrastructure nor appear to learn any lessons from elsewhere in the world (e.g. NRDC, 2011).

Slide 35 Employment directly related to the new green space gives a value of £40,000 monetised benefits estimated from fitting green roofs to the university and hospital estates, planting 3,300 new trees and creating limited additional green space, thus increasing green cover by 27% in the study area. The overall added value of the new GI totals £29.3m - £46.5m (PV) of which some £1.6m - £2.0m is for stormwater and flood management. The estimated cost of the measures is £29.7m, which would clearly be a value for money investment. The restoration of Mayes Brook in London was evaluated using the ecosystem services approach and the overall benefits were found to be substantial relative to the planned investment. The lifetime value of restoring the site across the four ecosystem service categories (provisioning, regulatory, cultural and supporting) yields a grand total of calculated benefits of around £27 million, even if ‘likely significant positive benefits’ for the regulation of air quality and microclimate are excluded. This is Ecosystem services assessment of the Mayesbrook Park restoration compared to the estimated costs of the whole Mayesbrook Park restoration scheme at £3.8 million including the river restoration works. This produces a lifetime benefit-to-cost ratio of £7 of benefits for every £1 invested. Work started on the UK's first 'Climate Change Park' at Mayesbrook in Barking, east London on 16 March 2011. This is the £1 million first phase of a project to transform a rundown 45 hectare park into a showcase of how public greenspace can help a community to cope with the risks from climate change; such as increased flooding and higher summer temperatures. (Thames River Restoration Trust)

Making the economic argument Benefit category Estimated benefits from the new GI (discounted

to present value)

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Savings in energy costs and in carbon emissions £3.4 – £4.7 million Carbon storage in trees £6,000 - £18,000

Water and flood management Avoided surface water charges and reduced carbon emissions from reduced water treatment £1.6 million - £2.0

Place and communities Not monetised

Health and wellbeing Pollution control benefits £14,000 - £112,000

Land and property values Some 6,000 properties were deemed to benefit with a total value of £1.7m - £6.7m

Investment Assuming a 3.5% - 4.6% annual GVA growth over the next decade, some 5,600 – 8,000 jobs will be created with 7% of this attributable to the GI at a value of £23m - £32m

Land management Employment directly related to the new green space gives a value of £40,000

GINW example of use of toolkit, retrofitting GI in Liverpool

Water cycle management and

urban development

Inseparable (apart from how we do it in England)

Not only do we separate water from the urban planning process, we also

Split up the management of the water cycle so that it is almost impossible to reconnect it

Hence strong emphasis on flood risk management now being linked with sustainable development duty 3/8/2012 36

Outcome measures – flooding only? Community focus & partnership working;

Sustainability;

Risk-based approach;

Proportionality;

Multiple benefits; and

Beneficiaries should be allowed & encouraged to invest in local risk management strategies.

Outcome measures have to date been based on a cost/benefit ratio where benefits are greater in the long run than costs

They involve delivering a better level of protection for households whilst ensuring environmental outcomes are also achieved

3/8/2012 37

Joining up

3/8/2012 38

Preparation

Forming the reasons and scope

for retrofitting

Feasibility

Confirming the needs, opportunities

& what may be possible

Develop optionsIdentifying what

measures to apply & benefits

Appraisal

Benefit cost assessment

Implement

Key retrofitting issues to consider

during detailed design, construction

& delivery

Performance monitoring

What and why we should measure to provide feedback

Urban retrofitting

Integrating with good

urban design

CIRIA C713

Threads and themes Mitigating and coping with

existing flood risks (and coastal erosion) affordably

Preventing future flooding in new developments

Managing surface water in the future

Supporting and utilising ecosystem services

Promoting and using green (stormwater) infrastructure

Fitting water much better into the urban planning process

Water quality?

3/8/2012 39

Getting very much more from less

Getting communities to work for themselves and engaged in local decisions

Flood risk - consequences Funding ? Allocating LA budgets in

time

Redundancies of staff Re-skilling/recuitment?

Partnerships Co-funding

Outcome measures (Many) additional benefits

Empowering/engaging communities

Encouraging the use of local labour in the supply chain

3/8/2012 40

Meeting multiple expectations Changing understanding about

the issues (capacity?)

Multi-value and multi-functionality

True multi-disciplinarity and understanding across entire actor landscape

Greater bottom-upness But partners need to (must) get

something from the process – ‘musical partner chairs’

Longevity of commitments and legacy of schemes – institutional knowledge

Is a nice environment (NOW) a luxury?

3/8/2012 41 (Borrowed from Steve Wilson)

3/8/2012 42 Flood risk management seems to be well covered

National strategy

3/8/2012 43

Manage flood and coastal erosion risks using the full range of options. Communities, individuals, voluntary groups and private and public sector organisations will work together to:- Manage the threat to people and property; • Move decision making action to a

more local level away from Government funding; and

• Achieve environmental, social and economic benefits, consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

How does this fit with the NSS and town planning?

Funding Only 30% of Government

funding into flood risk management goes to ‘public’ good

Risk and outcomes based funding: Government spend is fixed

into the future Schemes will be co-funded in

partnerships LLFAs job is to orchestrate: Bring funders together Delivering added benefits

beyond only FRM

3/8/2012 44

Outcome measures - values

3/8/2012 45

sustainability What is sustainable

development?

Experience already with sustainable community strategies, Agenda 21 etc.

Local flood risk management strategies must contribute to wider environmental objectives

3/8/2012 46

10 themes Sustainable Development in Government Green Economy Actions to Tackle Climate Change Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment Fairness and Improving Wellbeing National and International Sustainable Development Building a Big Society Business Planning Operations and Procurement Commitments Transparency and Public Accountability

In practice most of the ideas seem to be about building capacity

and using non-structural measures

3/8/2012 47

What does this mean in the urban drainage

context?

May include… The carbon footprint

Early action to adapt to climate change by identifying “low-regrets” options

Engaging with and respond to local communities to secure multiple benefits

Valuing the local environment, understand the impact that FCERM has on it, and identifying opportunities to enhance it

Contributing to a support network and share knowledge

Strategic environmental assessment is still required

3/8/2012 48

BIG questions How do the visionary ideas and Defra guidance related

to flood risk management join up with NSS?

Also the White Papers?

The flood risk and GI/stormwater communities do not always converge

Multi-value Green infrastructure north west

on-line calculator

Halewood primary school

Net present value £80,000 over 25 years: Recreation and leisure – £75,000 (in

other economic value); increased access for the children to the field

Land and property value increases – £22,000 (in GVA); improvements to the school field enhance the setting for houses immediately around it

Climate change mitigation – £1,000 (in other economic value); carbon sequestered through the new tree planting.

3/8/2012 50

What responsibility do developers have to benefit society as a whole?

Benefits from ecosystem service assessment

Optimising multiple benefits

Mayesbrook Park and Mayes Brook restoration

World’s first planned ‘climate change park’

Many ecosystem service benefits in a deprived ward

Joins flood risk and ecosystem

services Mayesbrook Park and Mayes Brook regeneration: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Provisioning services

Fresh water

Food (crops, fruit, fish etc.)

Fibre and fuel (timber, wool etc.)

Genetic resources (used for crop/stock breeding and biotechnology)

Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals

Ornamental resources (shells, flowers etc.)

Regulatory services

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation (local temperature/rainfall, greenhouse gas sequestration etc.)

Water regulation (timing and scale of run-off, flooding etc.)

Natural hazard regulation (storm protection)

Pest regulation

Disease regulation

Erosion regulation

Water purification and waste treatment

Pollination

Cultural services

Cultural heritage

Recreation and tourism

Aesthetic value

Spiritual and religious value

Inspiration of art, folklore, architecture and so on

Social relations (such as fishing, grazing or cropping communities)

Supporting services

Soil formation

Primary production

Nutrient cycling

Water recycling

Photosynthesis (production of atmospheric oxygen)

Provision of habitat

The suite of ecosystem services values in this case study yields a lifetime benefit-to-cost ratio of roughly £7 of benefits for every £1 invested. More than 93% of this is for cultural services

Mayesbrook Park and Mayes Brook regeneration: • London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Implementation Gross lifetime benefit is almost £19M after discounting over 40 years plus some £7.8M uplift to the 100 year value of adjacent properties, giving a total of some £27M. Monetised benefits to costs are £27M: £3.8M. Gross annual regulatory service benefits are approximately £28,000 comprising climate regulation @ £13,087 + flood risk @ £10,000 + erosion @ £5,000. However, there will also be ‘likely positive benefits’ for the regulation of air quality and microclimate. The benefits found in this urban area contrast with similar studies undertaken in rural areas, where the value of ‘provisioning services’ (e.g. fresh water, food, fibre and fuel) is usually substantial.

Government only took notice of this because of the financial benefits

55

Linkages between Blue Corridors and Green Infrastructure

Overland Flow Path

River Corridor / Flood Zone

Ponding Area

Priority BAP Areas / Parks / Open Spaces

Sewer Capacity

Overland Flow Paths

Critical Infrastructure Soil Type / Geology

Flood Risk Maps

(Fluvial and Surface Water)

+ + + + +

Flood Risk Maps are

readily available through

SFRA and/or SWMP

There is a significant

difference in the

infiltration capacity of

different soils, and run-

off on clay soils can be

comparable to a built up

area

Identify areas at risk of flooding as a result of inadequate

drainage and the overland flow paths which may form part of

an Urban Blue Corridor

To identify areas at most

need of protection and areas

that may be unsuitable for

Urban Blue Corridors

To identify ecological areas

needing protection and

opportunities for

enhancement

Emerald cities Mono-problem solutions are

being usurped

Emerald cities - 6 US Cities mandated requirement that GI should be used to reduce the amount of existing impervious areas (pop/sq.m)

Philadelphia (11,379);

Milwaukee (6,184);

New York (26,821);

Portland (4,375

Syracuse (5,584)

Washington (9,856) 56

“These cities have recognized that stormwater, once viewed as a costly nuisance, can be transformed into a community resource.

….have determined that green infrastructure is a more cost effective approach than investing in “gray,” or conventional, infrastructure.

….each dollar of investment in green infrastructure delivers other benefits that conventional infrastructure cannot”

Calculating added value from using green infrastructure

Total added values:

$2.8bn from source controls

$180million from the Sewer

tunnel

Philadelphia will spend $1.6bn delivering this over 25 years

57

Retrofitting Madison Park Seattle (Chris Digman)

3/8/2012 65

Preparation

Forming the reasons and scope

for retrofitting

Feasibility

Confirming the needs, opportunities

& what may be possible

Develop optionsIdentifying what

measures to apply & benefits

Appraisal

Benefit cost assessment

Implement

Key retrofitting issues to consider

during detailed design, construction

& delivery

Performance monitoring

What and why we should measure to provide feedback

Urban retrofitting

Integrating with good

urban design

CIRIA retrofitting guidance

Making the economic argument Benefit Level 1: overview assessment of

Benefits to:

Level 2: quantitative

analysis

Level 3:

Financial

Valuatio

n

Environment

(e.g. EU

biodiversity

strategy)

Economy Society Energy

use

Cultural

heritage

EU Directive

fulfilment

(overall)

Regulations/

Directive

necessary

for local

planning?

Direct

quantitati

ve

analysis

possible1

Indirect

quantitati

ve

analysis

possible2

Financial

Valuatio

n tool

availabl

e3

Improves water qualityC H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Increases water recycling ES

(SUPPORTING)

H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Reduces need for grey

infrastructureC

(i.e. constructed infrastructure

rather than green/renewable)

H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Improves habitatC, ES (SUPPORTING) H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Improves groundwater rechargeC H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Ameliorates contaminated landS H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Air quality regulation ES (REGULATORY) H/M/L/N H/M/L/N H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

H/M/L/

N

WFD/FD/

OTHER

WFD/FD/

OTHER

Y/N Y/N Y/N

Speaker notes

Slide 66 This valuation tool is being developed within an EU funded project that aims to ensure water is considered early in the planning process. It takes elements of existing valuation approaches (ecosystem services, Center for Neighborhood Technology, GI NorthWest) and has additional criteria emerging from the project (with the appropriate acronym SKINT: Skills, Integration and New Technology). This is a matrix of benefits; valuation can be coarse (high, medium, low or no benefits in each area) or more refined by applying financial valuation where possible to each benefit.

Slide 68 Imaginative approaches are taken by some developers. Here the solution to flooding was found after different options had been considered and discussed with the Environment Agency. The siphon arrangement, lowered ground level, retaining walls and landscaping were appropriate to the development. No one solution or type of solution is appropriate in all cases.

Slide 69 National standards for SuDS have been published and are under consultation until March this year. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires new developments and redevelopments in England and Wales to have drainage plans for surface runoff approved by the SuDS Approval Body (located in the local authority) where the construction work would have drainage implications. This removes the automatic right in England and Wales for a developer to connect site drainage to a sewer (whether or not it is designed to convey stormwater) and to use SuDS as the first option. Although this multi-value vision provides a logical direction in achieving better value for money, the present climate of austerity constrains realistic interest in and opportunities for green infrastructure when considering development scale economics. For this reason being prepared to promote all aspects of SuDS design, evaluation and management using where necessary, economic tools instead of specious ‘sustainability’ arguments is of paramount importance.

Slide 71 National standards for SuDS have been published and are under consultation until March this year. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires new developments and redevelopments in England and Wales to have drainage plans for surface runoff approved by the SuDS Approval Body (located in the local authority) where the construction work would have drainage implications. This removes the automatic right in England and Wales for a developer to connect site drainage to a sewer (whether or not it is designed to convey stormwater) and to use SuDS as the first option. Although this multi-value vision provides a logical direction in achieving better value for money, the present climate of austerity constrains realistic interest in and opportunities for green infrastructure when considering development scale economics. For this reason being prepared to promote all aspects of SuDS design, evaluation and management using where necessary, economic tools instead of specious ‘sustainability’ arguments is of paramount importance.

The future of GI: - WSUD in the UK

•Multi value vision provides a logical direction for achieving value for money •BUT, the present climate of austerity in Europe constrains realistic interest because of need to maximise profit in the Short term •Danger of minimum action for compliance & hence missed opportunities •Need to build on successes, promote all aspects of SuDS design, evaluation and management using economic tools where necessary

3/8/2012 70 (Morgan, 2012)

Conclusions

•GI takes us so far, but with a greater will the UK may even begin to embrace more innovation like these floating buildings •We now have a number of emergent tools to make the arguments •We could also move towards WSUD, the question is how much we need to adapt the WSUD concept to the UK context in order to ensure its uptake

References Benedict M A., McMahon E T. (2006). Green Infrastructure – Linking Landscapes and

Communities. Island Press. ISBN 1-59726-027-4. CABE (2010) Developing a green infrastructure strategy. Commission for Architecture and the

Built Environment. http://www.cabe.org.uk/sustainable-places/advice/green-infrastructure-strategy (accessed Nov 2011)

Center for Neighborhood Technology (2010) The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits

Green Infrastructure North West (2010). Building natural value for sustainable economic development: Green Infrastructure Valuation Toolkit user guide and online calculator. (accessed 11-01-12)

http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf

Natural England (2009) Green Infrastructure Guidance Catalogue Code: NE176 www.naturalengland.org.uk

Related Projects: FloodResilienCity (FRC) http://www.floodresiliencity.eu MARE: Managing Adaptive Responses to changing flood risk http://www.mare-project.eu SKINT: Skills, Integration and New Technology http://www.skintwater.eu/