The urban futures methodology applied to urban regeneration · ensuring all voices are heard and...
Transcript of The urban futures methodology applied to urban regeneration · ensuring all voices are heard and...
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regeneration
Chris D. F. Rogers Eur Ing, BSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIHTProfessor of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK
D. Rachel Lombardi PhDResearch Fellow, University of Birmingham, UK
Joanne M. Leach MScUrban Futures Programme Manager, University of Birmingham, UK
Rachel F. D. Cooper PhDProfessor of Design Management, University of Lancaster, UK
Making cities more sustainable is a top priority – for national governments, for cities and for the people who live,
work and visit urban areas. The past decade has seen a concerted UK effort to develop, apply and assess sustainability
solutions for the present and near future; however, little has been done to test urban regeneration solutions beyond
that. This paper describes a methodology that has developed future scenarios for the year 2050 against which to test
the robustness of current engineering solutions, thereby providing unique insights into the potential impacts of
present urban planning and design decisions, and thus financial investments. If a proposed solution delivers a positive
legacy, regardless of the future against which it is tested, then it can be adopted with confidence. When there are very
different outcomes depending on the future, the solution can either be modified to create an improved outcome
regardless of the future or implemented in the knowledge of the likely impacts if the future develops in different
ways. The urban futures methodology has been applied to the Lancaster Luneside East regeneration site, for which
contextual information is described along with a justification for its use as a case study to trial the methodology.
1. Introduction
Global urbanisation is increasing and the majority of the
world’s population now lives in cities (Hopwood and Mellor,
2007). The UK was the first country in the world in which this
happened (Clark, 1996); by the 2001 census almost 80% of the
UK population lived in cities, and this figure has since risen to
90% (Denham and White, 2006; UNPD, 2006), while almost
9% of its land mass was designated as city (Pointer, 2005). With
the world’s urban population predicted to reach 6.3 billion by
2050 (UN, 2010), our current design decisions have an
enormous impact. Moreover, their relevance to the way we
live, work and consume in 2050 is crucial, and yet it is not just
the effect this has on our future lives and wellbeing that must
be considered, it is the effect it has on every other living thing
and on the planet that demands equal consideration.
Owing to this dramatic rate of urbanisation worldwide, urban
sustainability has garnered much attention in the global
environmental debate. This dramatic change to our landscapes
is dominated by concerns over the effects of climate change,
and the resilience of global cities is therefore called into
question (Bai, 2009; Grimm et al., 2008; Owens and Cowell,
2002). There is growing global acknowledgement, backed by
the development of national and international policies, of the
need to make our urban environments more sustainable
through various forms of mitigation and adaptation (ICE,
2009).
The sustainable regeneration of cities is a long-held aspiration
(ODPM, 2006). Actions taken now in the name of sustain-
ability are many and varied – from water-efficient fittings
(Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008) to mixed use development
(Bramley and Power, 2009), from providing bat boxes
(Donovan et al., 2005) to brownfield regeneration – and much
current research is assessing the sustainability of those actions
(Cooper et al., 2009; Fenner et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2010;
Lombardi et al., 2008, 2011a; Moncaster et al., 2010). In every
case they consider the benefits for what is in place now and
how things might develop on the basis of current trends and
predictions. While this is a classic and valid engineering
approach, what if the future is different to what we anticipate?
That there will be change, uncertainty and unpredictability in
the future are, perhaps, the only future certainties (Alexander,
2009, p. 6). How can we make robust decisions to achieve the
lofty goals of sustainability and resilience when we truly do not
know what the future will bring? Designing in a flexible way is
one possible solution, but before we can do this we must
incorporate change and uncertainty into the decision-making
process, into strategic thinking about urban regeneration and
into our assessment of it (du Plessis and Cole, 2011). This will
facilitate a move from fragmented decision making to the type
of holistic, whole system thinking (Reed, 2007, p. 674) that is
essential if wide-ranging sustainability objectives are to be
achieved, and importantly the achievement of individual
sustainability objectives is not to be potentially compromised
(Lombardi et al., 2011b).
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodology applied tourban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and Cooper
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Engineering Sustainability 165 March 2012 Issue ES1
Pages 5–20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2012.165.1.5
Paper 1100021
Received 20/06/2011 Accepted 25/10/2011
Keywords: design methods & aids/sustainability/urban
regeneration
ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved
5
Equally important is that our perceptions about achieving
sustainable regeneration change over time – contexts change
(e.g. climate change, peak oil); thinking advances; methods are
tried and tested; solutions work or fail. Sometimes the goal
itself evolves: sustainable cities, 24-hour cities, resilient cities,
carbon dioxide neutral cities, and one-planet living have
emerged successively over the past decade. The challenge here
is how to incorporate changing priorities and thinking into
what we do now, while ensuring, as best we can, that what we
put in place now will have relevance in the future. The urban
futures methodology seeks to improve this decision making.
This paper describes the methodology and its underlying
thinking, establishes it as a powerful tool to assess the
robustness of investment decisions for urban (re)generation,
and then describes a case study site to which the methodology
has been applied: the Luneside East redevelopment in
Lancaster, UK. A series of parallel papers (Boyko and
Cooper, 2012; Brown and Barber, 2012; Caputo et al., 2012;
Farmani et al., 2012; Hale and Sadler, 2012; Hunt et al., 2012;
Pugh et al., 2012) then applies the methodology to the plans for
Luneside East, thus demonstrating its efficacy.
2. Urban regeneration as driver
Delivery of the sustainability agenda through urban regenera-
tion has evolved. Promotion through design excellence,
environmental and social responsibility, economic investment
and legislative change was introduced by the Urban Task
Force (1999) in their report ‘Towards an urban renaissance’.
This report built upon the concept of (social, environmental
and economic) sustainability and added vibrancy, good design,
high density, compact and thriving cities. Four years later, the
Institution of Civil Engineers entered the field in earnest with
the launch of this journal, ‘to help develop a knowledge base
and an understanding of what sustainability is for our
profession and the wider society’ (Leiper, 2003). It is certainly
true for Engineering Sustainability and elsewhere that when
grappling with the issues of sustainability the environmental
aspect dominated and the social aspect was largely ignored
(Fenner, 2011; Lombardi et al., 2011a). Efforts here and
elsewhere are re-focusing to redress this imbalance.
Interestingly, the economic aspect is still largely taken as a
‘given’ and firmly in the domain of business (businesses must
earn money to survive).
‘Resiliency’ has recently re-entered the urban design debate.
Superficially it is still young enough as a concept to hold the
promise of delivery, and yet if part of the reason sustainability
has struggled to become universally adopted as one of the
defining goals of (re)development is because of its definition
being too ambiguous and its means of implementation being
even less clear (Lombardi et al., 2011a; Owens and Cowell,
2002) then, at least at this point, resilience risks failing for the
same reasons. Common to five ‘spheres of resilience’ in the
academic literature – ecological, economic, infrastructure,
community and social, and government – is the idea of a
system’s ability to withstand shocks, or indeed disturbances of
any magnitude and to continue to operate in some recognisable
form, even if system outputs may be degraded for a time.
Given this background, the urban futures methodology
presented herein seeks to assess the future resilience of a
sustainability solution (something done now in the name of
sustainability); that is, if the world changes in a dramatic way
will the solution – perhaps as a result of it being sufficiently
flexible and adaptable – continue to deliver its intended
benefits? The methodology has been developed across dis-
ciplinary boundaries, incorporating perspectives from civil
engineering, biodiversity, air quality, urban studies, regional
planning, urban design, geography and industrial ecology. The
methodology goes beyond current priorities and geographical
locations, addresses issues regardless of scale (evident in the
parallel papers on the Luneside East case study referred to
above), and is flexible enough to incorporate new disciplines
and different foci of solutions (described in greater detail
below). Moreover, it serves to connect the concepts of
sustainability and resilience by bringing a unique perspective
to the ‘alternative futures’ aspects of design decision making.
The urban futures methodology has arisen from a 4 year
research project, funded by the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, 2011), which began work
in May 2008. The project’s aims are to establish a range of
alternative urban futures, test current urban design solutions in
those alternative futures and to transfer knowledge to
stakeholders, notably policy/decision makers. In meeting the
aims, it seeks to address four high-level objectives
& to establish a variety of futures that cover a range of
plausible alternatives, building on previous research and
predicated on different fundamental assumptions and
priorities
& to assess current urban design solutions in those futures in
terms of design, engineering implementation and perfor-
mance
& to refine them, in terms of mitigation and adapta-
tion measures, so that they perform in as many of the
alternative futures as possible
& and ultimately to provide alternative solutions, with an
associated evidence base and strategies for their imple-
mentation.
To be fully effective the urban futures methodology must be
applied right at the start of the planning process, once a
regeneration scheme (of whatever size) has been conceived. The
net must be cast wide when deciding upon the disciplines and
professional backgrounds to invite to detailed consultation on
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
6
the regeneration process, and these parties must have a voice
and potential for influence if the best result is to be achieved
(Lombardi et al., 2008, 2011b). Indeed, the urban futures
methodology has been developed such that any, or all, of the
stakeholder groups can apply it to the (re)development project
in question, as evidenced by the parallel papers on the Luneside
East case study in this special issue. The other ‘rules’ of
engagement apply – that is, flexible policies (Cooper et al.,
2009); flexible and informed decision making with awareness of
the trade-offs when objectives conflict (Cooper et al., 2009;
Lombardi et al., 2011b); using local conditions to set local
priorities (Lombardi et al., 2008); considering density, diver-
sity, intensity (Cooper et al., 2009); hindsight and foresight
(Cooper et al., 2009; Lombardi et al., 2008); and, to reiterate,
ensuring all voices are heard and all stories are told (Cooper
et al., 2009; Lombardi et al., 2008).
3. Introduction to the future scenarios andderivation of the urban futuresmethodology
Using future scenarios to describe what the future might be
like, and then drawing implications for current activities, has
been popular since the late 1960s when Kahn described three
oil-related scenarios with a time horizon to the year 2000
(Kahn and Wiener, 1967). Scenarios are seen as a powerful tool
to guide their users (AEA, 2006), but such widespread
acceptance of the method does not make the process of
building or selecting appropriate scenarios a minor task, nor
should it allow the user to underestimate the importance of
getting it right.
The urban futures methodology assesses and optimises the
resilience – that is, the ability to deliver function in the face of
changing circumstances, of decisions being made now in the
name of sustainability (‘sustainability solutions’) by appraising
them in diverse yet plausible future scenarios. It does so by
defining the conditions necessary for the solution to deliver its
intended benefit(s) and exploring whether they are likely to
pertain in each of the futures. Reviewing the extensive future
scenarios literature (see Hunt et al., 2010), it was considered
vital that the following critical dimensions could be fully
explored: UK, urban, regeneration, sustainability (economic,
social and environmental, as well as governance), and a
realistic time horizon (approximately 40–50 years to enable the
impact of decisions made now to become properly manifest,
yet not so far into the future as to be disconnected from the
current situation). The chosen scenarios also had to cover a
sufficient range of possible futures to cover a range of potential
plausible developments. If the scenarios were too alike in their
critical elements, then they could yield similar results and
would not provide a sufficiently robust test. A final considera-
tion was the desire to enable other users to build upon the
methodology – that is, using scenarios that were well
researched and adaptable.
In addition, eight core themes spanning the range of issues to
be addressed in the urban environment are clearly represented
in the chosen scenarios
& ecology and biodiversity
& air quality
& water and wastewater
& subsurface built environment, infrastructure and utility
service provision, including waste and resource reuse
& surface built environment and open spaces, including urban
design and place making
& density and design decision making
& economy, organisational behaviour and innovation
& social needs, aspirations, and planning policy.
While not collectively exhaustive, they are representative of the
professions involved in urban design extending from deep
below the ground surface to the atmosphere above our cities.
Broadly, the themes addressed map onto the Egan wheel,
which is widely considered to be among the most comprehen-
sive lists in the UK for addressing sustainable communities (see
Table 1).
Four clear archetypes emerged that mapped onto four future
worlds proposed by Raskin (2005): new sustainability para-
digm, policy reform, market forces and fortress world. These
four scenarios resulted from a considerable body of research by
the Global Scenarios Group over a 20-year period (Gallopin
et al., 1997; GSG, 2011; Raskin et al., 1998, 2002), are plausible
(i.e. easily recognised in different parts of the world at present),
academically rigorous and internally consistent.
The scenarios are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, and summarised
below as interpreted for a representative Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) region
(Electris et al., 2009; Raskin et al., 2010).
3.1 New sustainability paradigm
The search for a deeper basis for human happiness and
fulfilment is a central theme for human development. Civil
society and engaged citizens become critical sources of change
for the new values: an ethos of ‘one-planet living’ facilitates a
shared vision of more sustainable living and a much improved
quality of life. A new form of globalisation changes the
character of industrial society; the role of business is trans-
formed through the integration of sustainable development as a
business opportunity and a matter of social responsibility. A
labour-intensive craft economy rises alongside the high-tech
base. Integrated settlement patterns place home, work, shops
and leisure activity in closer proximity. Urbanisation increases,
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
7
although development of integrated settlements, ‘town within a
city’, leaves more open space within the cities. There is no net
change in the land occupied by the built environment: sprawl is
contained and land recycling is high. The shift to values
emphasising quality of life, human solidarity and environmental
sustainability supports much greater civic participation.
Class
Great transitions
Conventional worlds
Barbarisation
Variant
New sustainabilityparadigm
Policy reform
Market forces
Fortress world
Population Economy Environment Equity Technology Conflict
Figure 1. Scenarios structure with illustrative patterns of change.
Adapted from Gallopin et al. (1997). Reproduced by permission of
Stockholm Environment Institute
Egan wheel components of sustainable communities Urban futures research themes
Governance Design decision-making
Planning policy
Transport and connectivity Air quality
Services Water and wastewater
Utility service provision, waste and resource reuse
Environmental Ecology and biodiversity
Air quality
Economy Economy and innovation
Housing and the built environment Surface built environment and open spaces
Subsurface built environment, infrastructure
Density and design decision making
Social and cultural Social needs and aspirations
Organisational behaviour
Table 1. Mapping of urban futures research themes on to the Egan
wheel (ODPM, 2004)
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
8
3.2 Policy reform
The government takes the lead with comprehensive and
coordinated action to align markets for poverty reduction and
environmental sustainability, resulting in improved social equity.
Economic reform with high income and economic growth is
achieved concomitantly, and income disparity is reduced. There
is strong emphasis on providing a built environment that will
facilitate social equity and welfare, and integrate services and
public transport in every neighbourhood. Big business comes to
understand sustainable development as a necessary condition for
preserving the stability of world markets. There is no net increase
in the land devoted to the built environment. Dwelling densities
increase as urbanisation continues and more compact settlements
develop, supported by policy. More economic centres are
created. Sprawl is contained by strong policy and high land
recycling. Unfortunately, policies that prioritise long-range
environmental and social wellbeing are undermined by popular
values of consumerism and individualism.
3.3 Market forces
A world of gradual convergence towards a dominant market
model in which policy focuses on developing the global
markets through international frameworks and institutions.
Current demographic, economic, environmental and techno-
logical trends unfold without major surprise. The agents
driving this scenario are global corporations, market-enabling
governments and a consumerist public. The power of the
transnational corporation continues to grow, and the
self-correcting logic of competitive, open and integrated
markets is expected to cope with problems as they arise.
Environmental scarcity is reflected in higher prices that
moderate demand, and in business opportunities that promote
technological innovation and resources substitution.
Generally, however, sustainability issues are addressed more
through rhetoric than action. Materialism and individualism
spread as core human values, income disparity is high, and
social and environmental concerns are secondary. Urban
development is largely unplanned and fragmented, following
market demand. Single use settlement patterns are common.
The built environment expands onto agricultural, forest,
pasture and other land use classes as populations grow and
urbanisation increases. Dwelling densities drop slightly due to
urban sprawl and little land recycling.
3.4 Fortress world
Deepening social and environmental tensions are unresolved,
and civilised norms erode, bringing unwelcome fundamental
social changes and great human misery. Security and
defensibility are the driving values – social and environmental
problems overwhelm market and policy response. Powerful
actors organise an authoritarian response to the threat of
breakdown by forming alliances to protect their own interests:
the separate spheres of the elite and the masses are codified in
legal and institutional frameworks. The world divides into a
kind of global apartheid, with the elite in interconnected,
protected enclaves, controlling access to resources, and an
impoverished majority outside. Businesses focus on resource
and personal security. The built environment sprawls to cover
twice its current land cover, in part to meet the demands of
high population growth. The impoverished majority live in
poor environmental conditions; the privileged elites live in
more favourable circumstances. High urbanisation combined
with population growth lead to more people in urban areas,
but densities manifest differently for the elite and the masses.
It is important to note that the four chosen scenarios are not
predictive, but rather explorative (Borjeson et al., 2006). They
do not attempt to predict the future (such as by means of trend
analysis). Instead, they are internally consistent worlds that
can be used to address ‘what if’ questions, such as ‘what if
certain changes occurred in our societies (and the economies
they create)’? The scenarios are constructed around the
ultimate drivers of values and needs, knowledge and under-
standing, power structure and culture, with changes to these
drivers resulting in different responses from proximate drivers:
population, economy, technology and governance (Raskin
et al., 2002).
From the descriptions of the four scenarios provided by the
Global Scenarios Group, the Urban Futures team collectively
created an extensive list of indicators (such as population, age
Fortressworld
Social–economic equity
Man
agin
g re
sour
ces
sust
aina
bly
Marketforces
Policyreform
Newsustainability
paradigm
Figure 2. Managing resources effectively against socioeconomic
equity of the four scenarios
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
9
distribution, life expectancy, community cohesion and attitudes
to consumerism). To do this, first the UK sustainability indicators
(Defra, 2007) were consulted, and those determined to be
necessary for understanding urban regeneration and sustain-
ability were extracted. Second, key questions were formulated
(from the different disciplinary perspectives) on how to char-
acterise the sustainability performance of the scenario. For
example, the key questions for ‘water and wastewater’ were as
listed below
& From where is water supplied?
& How is water distributed?
& What are the end user demands for the water network?
& How is water being disposed of, or treated?
& How is flooding avoided/dealt with?
Such questions further informed the selection of indicators and,
importantly, enabled identification of those indicators required to
address its critical elements that were not evident in the futures as
described by the Global Scenarios Group or in the UK
sustainability indicators. Measures for each indicator were
agreed, benchmarks of performance were established (when
possible), and the performance of each indicator was then
described in the four future scenarios (thus creating a compre-
hensive list of characteristics for each of the four scenarios (Boyko
et al., 2012)). The indicator performance assessment was based
upon one or more of the following sources
& the performance of the indicator exactly as described in the
Global Scenarios Group literature
& the performance of the indicator derived from the Glo-
bal Scenarios Group literature and adapted to the UK scale
& the performance of the indicator as deduced from the
performance of other indicators.
The resultant list of characteristics (Figure 3) is an important
resource for implementing the urban futures methodology as it
allows comparisons to be easily drawn across the four worlds.
The list also allows for a high-level analysis and/or a detailed,
deeper analysis through its use of arrows to indicate the
performance of indicators alongside more detailed character-
istic descriptions. Importantly, the characteristics list is
designed to be adaptable. Indicators can be added as necessary
(either by means of the Global Scenarios Group literature or
derived from the existing characteristics) and new future
scenarios can be added.
4. Futures analysis: the application of theurban futures methodology
The urban futures methodology addresses the question: will
current sustainability solutions deliver the same benefits
whatever the future brings? The methodology provides
a structured and repeatable process for assessing the
performance of a sustainability solution in the future, although
it is important to note that the method does not assess the
performance of a solution in the present, nor does it address
current barriers to implementation. Broadly, those conditions
necessary for the solution’s success (its ‘necessary conditions’)
are identified and then the likelihood of those conditions being
present in the future is assessed (see Figure 4).
4.1 Step 1: Identify a sustainability solution and
define its intended benefit
Current sustainability solutions derive from a variety of sources,
including planning documents, masterplans and policies.
Examples include passive solar design, biomass systems,
prioritising local sourcing, planting trees, reducing traffic flows
and introducing greywater recycling and/or rainwater harvesting
systems. The solutions are underpinned by an intended benefit,
or benefits, such as reducing energy and/or water demand,
reducing carbon dioxide emissions, increasing biodiversity or
creating jobs. Many solutions deliver multiple benefits (e.g.
planting trees can increase biodiversity, mitigate air pollution,
mitigate heat island effects and provide visual amenity) and as
such may be favoured over those that deliver a single benefit.
Individual assessments must be made for each intended benefit as
the different benefits are likely to require different (necessary)
conditions to deliver the intended function (see step 2).
4.2 Step 2: Identify the necessary conditions
How does the sustainability solution deliver its intended
benefit in the future and what needs to be in place to enable
continued delivery? The following overarching questions and
checklist have been developed to assist users in identifying
those conditions necessary to enable or maintain the delivery of
the solution’s intended benefit. The questions and checklist are
derived from a sequence of trials of the methodology with
different stakeholder groups and are intended to serve simply
as prompts to encourage broad thinking; any specific user of
the methodology would be likely to amend or add to these
prompts. These considerations should be complemented by a
review of the full characteristics list (and are in fact designed to
reflect the categories of indicators in the list) for any indicators
that relate to the solution’s implementation and use (Figure 5).
Overarching questions
(a) How is it used (consumer behaviour) and is it still useful
and relevant in the conditions characteristic of the various
futures?
(b) How is it managed and maintained, and what is required
to manage and maintain it?
(c) What elements of the local context are critical to
delivering the function, and may change in the various
futures?
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
10
Checklist (used to identify a solution’s adaptability to changing
needs under changing circumstances)
(a) Does the solution’s benefit rely on specific governance
structures being in place?
(i) policies?
(ii) regulations/laws?
(iii) standards?
(b) Does the solution’s benefit rely on certain characteristics
of the urban landscape?
(i) pattern of built environment?
(ii) infrastructure (physical, green, social)?
(iii) access (pedestrian, vehicular, species, social/eco-
nomic)?
(iv) aesthetics (spaces, quality thereof)?
(c) Can the solution’s accessibility be ensured in terms of the
following?
(i) economic?
(ii) natural resources?
(iii) environmental/ecosystem services?
(d) Does the solution rely on certain social conditions being
met or maintained?
(i) acceptability?
(ii) equity?
(iii) values?
(iv) attitudes?
(v) behaviours?
(vi) ability to use?
(vii) wellbeing/quality of life?
(viii) crime and safety?
4.3 Step 3: Assess the necessary conditions against
scenario characteristics
Assessing whether the sustainability solution’s necessary
conditions are likely to remain in place in each of the futures
(Figure 6) is done using the characteristics list as follows.
& For each necessary condition scan the indicators for those
that are relevant.
& For each relevant indicator review the performance of that
indicator in each scenario (the characteristic).
Indicators/ descriptors
Measure(where
applicable)
UK (near present) Comments (including research needs) NSP NSP UK characteristic
– urban
Population Million 61.8 (2009 base)
The GSG methodology is based directly on UN high, medium and low variance predictions for 2050 (see http://esa.un.org/unup/). Here the growth rates for Western Europe have been applied to the UK. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=2615. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=6303
Total UK population decreases by 11% as compared to 2010 values (UK: 55 002k). Assuming a growth rate of –0.1% per annum from 2010 to 2025 and –0.4% per annum from 2025 to 2050
Age distribution % over 65 16 (2009 base) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=2615 Ageing population
Life expectancy Years
77.7 (males), 81.9 (females)
(2007–2009 base)
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168
Increases generally for population
Average household size
People/ household 2.4
UK stats indicate a growing trend toward smaller household sizes, down from 3.1 in 1961
Although population is ageing, strong social and environmental drivers mean co-housing and living with extended family or in multiple family units is commonplace
Dem
ogra
phy
Figure 3. Sample of the urban futures characteristics list for the
new sustainability paradigm future scenario
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
11
Identify a solution:
taking each intended benefit in turn:
dead plants are removed and replaced;
Implement sustainability
likely to exist in the future?
If notthen or
Modify solution:
then
intended benefit:
biodiversity
Define the solution’s
For example mixed plant species green wall,attached to building using metal racking and
including automated water and feeding system
For example visual amenity and
Identify the necessary conditions
For example (biodiversity): plants have food, water and light;plant species able to survive in the given climate;wall is undamaged (vandalism, pollution, damage;
from building repairs, fire);
wall is accessible
Assess the necessary conditionsagainst the scenario characteristics:
Are the necessary conditions
If yes
For example, watering and feeding system
inappropriate for climate and die,racking may be damaged
Implement sustainability solution anyway, but with an awareness of its risk of failure
For example ivy green wall grown directly on buildingrequiring only rainwater to survive
solution with confidence
may fail, plants species may be
Figure 4. The urban futures methodology
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
12
& Using this information to assess the impact of the
characteristics upon the necessary condition to answer the
question: ‘will the necessary condition continue to exist in
each future?’.
& Combine the responses to this question for all the solution’s
necessary conditions to answer the question: ‘is the solu-
tion expected to continue to deliver its intended benefit?’.
Table 2 provides an assessment of the necessary conditions
across the four future scenarios for the example of implement-
ing mixed use development to promote economic vitality.
4.4 Step 4: To implement or to modify solutions?
If the sustainability solution is shown to deliver its intended
benefit across all four scenarios, then it can be implemented
with confidence. If, however, the solution does not deliver in all
four scenarios then the particular solution, as formulated, can
be concluded to be not robust to future change if the future
turns out differently to the current paradigm.
Armed with this information, the sustainability solution can
still be implemented in the knowledge that it does not deliver in
all four futures. Other factors, such as political will, client
insistence, cost of implementation and suchlike might override
a concern about the investment’s long-term performance. The
benefit of the urban futures methodology is that if such a
solution is implemented, then at least it is done so knowing it
risks failure and with an insight into why it might fail.
However, the outcome of the assessment might also be used to
modify a solution to make it more robust to future change. In
such cases, the modified solution can be analysed using the
urban futures methodology to determine its likely robustness
(should the adaptation be substantial one may wish to start as
if with a new solution); iteration thereafter is, of course,
possible. Not only will an engineering solution be potentially
refined and improved by means of such a process, the thinking
of the designer will have been forever broadened and deepened
such that any future design will be tackled with a new insight
into its likely vulnerabilities and long-term performance.
In the case of mixed use development to promote economic
vitality, which does not perform well in market forces and
fortress world, recommendations to increase the robustness of
this sustainability solution might include the following.
& Ensure long-term management structures are in place so
that a mix of uses and quality of public realm are
maintained.
& Ensure the mix of uses is compatible (e.g. it would be
inadvisable to place residential units near night clubs
because of the disturbance from loud music).
& Ensure that buildings can be adapted to meet changing
needs (e.g. from office space to live/work units).
& Increase the social desirability of mixed use by designing
attractive, well connected and high quality developments.
Indicators/ descriptors
Measure (where
applicable)UK (near present) Comments (including research needs)
Settlement pattern (city scale)
(Planning policies tend to promote) Tendency to compact urban form
Current planning policies recommend dwelling densities in new urban development, that lead to thrifty use of land. They also recommend reduced car use and responsible use of resources. These principles correspond to an urban model of a compact city, which is considered sustainable. It is clearly difficult to capture the complexity of urban patterns in a quantitative measure. However, for the purpose of this list dwelling density, and the spatial configuration determined by land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc.) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across
Settlement pattern (neighbourhood
scale)
Urb
an fo
rm
the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006).
Figure 5. Scanning the indicators to identify those that are relevant
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
13
The Urban Futures team specifically scoped the four scenarios
to be relevant to UK urban situations to test sustainability
solutions as applied to regeneration by selecting, and when
appropriate adapting, relevant scenario characteristics from
those created by the Global Scenario Group, which were
themselves created to reflect a ‘western’ (OECD) context. As
such, the urban futures characteristics would be applicable to
any OECD country, perhaps with some degree of country-
specific interpretation. An urban design professional, for
example, will consider the context in which the design is being
created – that is, will take into account societal behaviours and
norms alongside the environmental and built context of the
place; this is what is contained in the characteristics list.
Equally, the urban futures methodology has been applied to
sustainability solutions – that is, interventions that seek to make
the urban environment more sustainable, while recognising that
the criteria for sustainability and sustainability priorities will be
context specific for any given solution, as this thinking lies at the
heart of the activity of the numerous researchers involved in its
creation. For example, the methodology could also be used to
test low carbon dioxide or resource security solutions. The point
here is that any urban solutions can be tested to determine their
likely long-term ability to continue to deliver their function –
that is, their resilience in the face of major change; this is a tool
that, uniquely, assesses the robustness of investment decisions
made at present.
Indicators/ descriptors
Measure(where
applicable)
UK (near present) Comments (including research needs) NSP NSP UK characteristic
– urban
Settlement pattern (city
scale)
(Planning policies tend to
promote) Tendency
to compact urban form
Current planning policies recommend dwelling densities in new urban development, that lead to thrifty use of land. They also recommend reduced car use and responsible use of resources. These principles correspond to an urban model of compact city, which is considered sustainable. It is clearly difficult to capture the complexity of urban patterns in a quantitative measure. However, for the purpose of this list dwelling density, and the spatial configuration determined by land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than
Policentric
Physical urban expansion is limited. The city pattern is policentric, composed of self-contained, integrated (work/services/residential) settlements. High rate of urban regeneration
Settlement pattern
(neighbourhood scale)
land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006).
Medium to high densities. Integrated settlements, almost self-contained and self-sufficient.
Urb
an fo
rm one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006)
Figure 6. Reviewing the performance of the indicator in each
scenario
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
14
5. Case study: Lancaster Luneside East
For 2 years the Urban Futures team has worked with the
Planning Department at Lancaster City Council (LCC) on the
regeneration of the Luneside East site. Luneside East was once
a thriving industrial site (Figure 7), but is now unused and
decaying. It forms part of the recently regenerated St George’s
Quay, lying alongside the River Lune to the north east of the
city located between the city centre and the western urban
fringe (Figure 8). The city would like to extend the regenera-
tion of St George’s Quay to include Luneside East and has long
had plans to do so through the creation of a mixed use
neighbourhood. However, the site poses significant challenges,
including managing extant industrial contamination and
fluctuations in the economy and housing market.
Lancaster is an old Roman town in the county of Lancashire,
in northern England. An important trading port from the
sixteenth century, Lancaster eventually became known for
making furniture, candles, ropes, sailcloth and subsequently
ship building. From the mid-twentieth century, the economy of
Lancaster relied on linoleum manufacture and engineering.
Like many other cities in the UK, the city suffered some decline
of heavy industry in the 1990s (see Lambert, 2011). Lancaster
is now a fast growing city of 143 000.
The western part of the city (west of the mainline railway) was
badly hit by this decline and associated job losses. The
industrial area on St George’s Quay (later termed Luneside
East) became underused and part derelict. Further west the
Necessary conditions
New sustainability
paradigm Policy reform Market forces Fortress world
Mix of uses (commercial,
leisure, residential, etc.)
is maintained
Strong social and
environmental values
support mixed use,
both in theory and
practice. Local
production-driven
economy and
sustainability ethos
may result in
increased variety
Policy emphasises
mixed use to achieve
social and environmental
objectives
Weak policy/land-use
controls and social
values of consumerism
and individualism
mean mixed use is
unlikely to be
maintained, as market
prefers class
differentiated single
use or limited mix
There is no policy to
promote mixed use,
although security and
resource concerns may
support it. The poor are
constrained to small
pockets of undesirable
urban land, which
necessitates high levels
of vertical and horizontal
mixing
Mix of uses (commercial,
leisure, residential, etc.)
meets needs/demands
of all user groups
Vibrant mix of uses
evolves to meet
changing community
needs as required, e.g.
co-living, co-working
units, urban agriculture,
or localised energy
production
Mix of uses driven
more by the market
than social or
community needs, so
will only meet some
community needs
Mix of uses is driven
purely by market
demand rather than
social or community
needs
Rich have good access
to local services; poor
may be lacking some
local services
Strong and widespread
willingness to live, work
and recreate in mixed
use area
The ethos of one-planet
living means people
are willing to live, work
and spend leisure time
in mixed use
developments
Neighbourhoods and
cities favour a compact
model of development,
and more people are
willing to live, work
and recreate in a
mixed use area, albeit
with limited social
mixing
Willingness to live,
work and spend
leisure time in
mixed use area is
largely absent
Willingness to live, work
and spend leisure time in
a mixed use
development is generally
low both for the rich and
the poor, although for
the rich, class-
differentiated mixed use
meets security and
resource concerns
Table 2. Assessment of the performance of mixed use
development to promote economic vitality
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
15
even bigger industrial area (Luneside West), accommodating a
low-grade industrial park at its western extremity with a large
wall coverings plant, downsized dramatically. This has resulted
in increasing problems of multiple economic and social
deprivation, evident in some communities located close to
Luneside East and West.
Luneside East is one of the previously developed areas
earmarked as a regeneration priority area, designated as a
mixed use waterfront regeneration (LCC, 2008), and consid-
ered as ‘the Council’s most important physical regeneration
project’ (LCC 2004). Its triangular shape is delimited by two
high green embankments (one supporting an operational
railway and the other a long-disused railway embankment)
and the River Lune. The latest supplementary planning
guidance 4 (SPG4), issued in 2004, is at present subject to
review. In SPG4, Luneside East is seen as key to connect the
city centre with the western ‘disadvantaged’ areas of the city
(LCC, 2004).
In 1988, LCC commissioned the Luneside Regeneration Study,
which identified the need for a regeneration strategy for the
whole western part of the city and identified the potential to
create a ‘new, sustainable mixed use neighbourhood’ at
Luneside East (i.e. a shift away from the traditions of heavy
industry and site-specific approaches to a wider framework).
LCC looked to growth areas such as information and
communications technology/new media, office economy and
tourism (McManus, 2008). At the same time, it invested
substantially to reinvigorate the seaside in neighbouring
Morecambe as a tourist attraction.
At the time of first involvement of the Urban Futures team the
status of the 6.6 ha Luneside East site was that it had outline
planning permission for 350 homes, 8000 m2 of commercial
buildings, a range of leisure opportunities and new public
spaces (LCC, 2004). Progress on the development of the site
had stalled, mainly due to nationwide poor economic condi-
tions. LCC still saw the regeneration of Luneside East as vitally
important to the city, with the potential implications of getting
it wrong reverberating across the entire city.
In an attempt to reinvigorate the regeneration process, a
workshop was co-organised by LCC’s planning department
and the Urban Futures team. The workshop was held on 9
December 2010 and brought together key players in the
regeneration of the site, including: local, regional and national
government representatives, a private sector developer, com-
munity councillors and planners (currently working on the site
as well as those who had done so previously). The workshop
focused on four areas: understanding the site from multiple
perspectives; exploring mixed use development for the site;
exploring water and energy supply and demand for the site;
and options for the disused railway embankment that forms
the site’s southern border. Woven through the discussions was
how to future-proof sustainability for the entire development.
The papers contained in this special issue derive from the
workshop and research conducted on the Luneside East site by
the Urban Futures team, working with the LCC planning team.
The papers explore the regeneration of Luneside East, the
application of the urban futures methodology and the limitation
of the method from eight sustainability perspectives (biodiver-
sity, air quality, regional water supply, local water use and user
behaviour, solar access, density, innovation and planning).
These papers serve a dual purpose: they are being used by LCC
to inform the regeneration of the site and they have provided an
‘acid test’ of the urban futures methodology and its ability to
integrate solutions across the disciplines. LCC used this joint
work to instigate and inform a public consultation, which took
place in January 2011, and subsequently in the formulation, with
the site developer, of a plan for the site’s first stage of
commercial development. Moreover, it invigorated the debate
about this site following the 2-year stagnation, provided the
catalyst for new thinking, and provided the inspiration for those
originally involved in site discussions to engage actively again.
6. ConclusionsThe urban futures methodology was developed to address the
question: ‘how sustainable are the sustainability solutions that
are being put in place today, often with long design lives?’ The
answer that ‘it depends on how the future develops’ no longer
stifles this debate. The future scenarios literature has been
reviewed, four wide-ranging yet plausible scenarios have been
characterised for the UK urban context, and a methodology
that enables any engineering solution to be assessed against
those future scenarios has been developed. This paper describes
Figure 7. St George’s Works, the gas works and Ford Quay, from
the air circa 1950s (now Luneside East). Reproduced by permission
of Lancaster City Council
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
16
the methodology and its formation. It is demonstrated that for
any particular engineering solution that is proposed ‘in the
name of sustainability’, there must be a clear identification first
of its intended benefits. Only then can the necessary conditions
for the delivery of these intended benefits, taking each benefit
in turn, be assessed to determine the solution’s likely success. A
comprehensive list of characteristics has been developed for
each of the four futures (new sustainability paradigm, policy
reform, market forces and fortress world), and this facilitates
an analysis of whether the necessary conditions will remain in
place to deliver the intended benefit in each of the futures.
If the conditions do remain in place, then the sustainability
solution can be implemented with confidence that it is likely to
work in the long term even if the future develops very
differently from now. If it does not work in all four futures,
and yet there is an imperative to implement it as originally
conceived and designed, then at least it can be done knowing it
risks failure and with an insight into why it might fail. The
process allows the engineer to modify a solution to make it
more robust to future change, the modified solution similarly
being analysed using the urban futures methodology to
determine its likely robustness. Such iteration of the analysis
12
5
6 78
9
14
16
29
2830
31
2724
26
25
22
1918
1520
173
4
23
33
131210
21
0 100 Metres
N
Figure 8. Luneside East regeneration site and surrounding area.
Reproduced by permission of Faulkner Browns and Lancaster City
Council
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
17
not only enables an engineering solution to be refined and
improved, but the thinking of the designer will have been
forever broadened and deepened such that any future design
will be tackled with a new insight into its likely long-term
performance. Ultimately, therefore, this paper seeks to inform
and influence the thinking of academics and practitioners on
the likely future performance of what is being proposed and
done now in the name of sustainability.
The acid test of the urban futures methodology lies in its
application to practice. This can be done with a project of any
size and can only definitively be assessed in the long term – that
is, over the 40–50-year horizon for which the methodology was
developed. Accepting this limitation, the urban futures
methodology has been successfully applied to the Luneside
East regeneration site in Lancaster, UK. The context of the site
is presented and the potential for change has been outlined.
The subsequent papers in this special issue of Engineering
Sustainability describe the detailed outcomes of the futures
analysis in a wide variety of disciplinary areas. Adoption of the
urban futures methodology is thus contended to improve the
likelihood of delivering more sustainable urban environments.
AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to acknowledge the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council for their financial support
for this sustainable urban environments research project under
grant EP/F007426. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
support of Lancaster City Council and all those who
participated in the Luneside East study and workshop; its
expert panelists and in particular Peter Braithwaite of CH2M
HILL and Rob Kinnersley of the Environment Agency who
helped in the conceptualisation and trialling of the urban
futures methodology (see ISSUES Project, 2011).
REFERENCES
AEA (2006) Modelling the Impact of Lifestyle Changes on
Household Waste Arisings. AEA Energy and Environment,
The Future Foundation and The Social Marketing
Practice. A project for Defra’s WREP, WR0107. Defra,
London, UK.
Alexander A (2009) The new towns in a new light. Britain’s New
Towns: Garden Cities to Sustainable Communities.
Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
Bai X (2009) Integrating global environmental concerns into
urban management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2):
15–29.
Borjeson L, Hojer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T and Finnveden G
(2006) Scenarios types and techniques: towards a user’s
guide. Futures 38(7): 723–739.
Boyko CT and Cooper R (2012) High dwelling density as
sustainability solution in Lancaster. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability
165(1): 81–88.
Boyko CT, Gaterell MR, Barber ARG et al. (2012) Benchmarking
sustainability in cities: The role of indicators and future
scenarios. Global Environmental Change 22(1): 245–254.
Bramley G and Power S (2009) Urban form and social
sustainability: the role of density and housing type.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(1):
30–48.
Brown J and Barber A (2012) Social infrastructure and
sustainable urban communities. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability
165(1): 99–110.
Caputo S, Caserio M, Coles R, Jankovic L and Gaterell MR (2012)
Testing energy efficiency in urban regeneration.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 69–80.
Clark D (1996) Urban World/Global City. Routledge, London,
UK.
Cooper R, Evans G and Boyko C (eds.) (2009) Designing
Sustainable Cities. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,
UK.
Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
(2007) Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket
2007. Defra, London, UK.
Denham C and White I (2006) Difference in Urban and Rural
Britain: Socio-demographic Characteristics and Distribution
of the Urban and Rural Populations Based on the 1991
Census. Office of National Statistics Population Trends,
London, UK.
Donovan RG, Sadler JP and Bryson JR (2005) Urban biodiversity
and sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 158(2): 105–
114.
du Plessis C and Cole RJ (2011) Motivating change: shifting the
paradigm. Building Research and Information 39(5): 436–
449.
Electris C, Raskin P, Rosen R and Stutz J (2009) The Century
Ahead: Four Global Scenarios Technical Documentation.
Tellus Institute, Boston, USA.
EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council)
(2011) See www.epsrc.ac.uk (accessed 08/06/2011).
Farmani R, Butler D, Hunt DVL, et al. (2012) Scenario-based
sustainable water management and urban regeneration.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 89–98.
Fenner R (2011) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 164(1): 1–3.
Fenner RA, Ainger CA, Cruickshank HJ and Guthrie P (2006)
Widening horizons for engineers: addressing the
complexity of sustainable development. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability
159(4): 145–154.
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
18
Gallopin G, Hammond A, Raskin P and Swart R (1997) Branch
Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. PoleStar Series
Report No. 7.
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, et al. (2008) Global
change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864): 756–
760.
GSG (Global Scenario Group) (2011) See www.gsg.org (accessed
08/06/2011).
Hale JD and Sadler J (2012) Resilient ecological solutions for
urban regeneration. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 59–68.
Hopwood B and Mellor M (1996) Visioning the sustainable city.
Capitalism Nature Socialism 18(4): 75–89.
Hunt DVL, Rogers CDF, Lombardi DR, et al. (2010) Using
Scenarios to Explore Urban UK Futures: A Review of
Futures Literature from 1997 to 2010. Urban Futures,
Birmingham, UK, Working Paper 1. Available on http://
www.urban-futures.org (accessed 12/10/2010).
Hunt DVL, Lombardi DR, Farmani R, et al. (2012) Urban futures
and the code for sustainable homes. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability
165(1): 37–58.
ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) (2009) The State of the
Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure. ICE, London,
UK.
ISSUES Project (2011) How Urban Futures Influenced the Design
Decisions of Cities around the World. Heriot Watt
University, Edinburgh. See http://www.
urbansustainabilityexchange.org.uk/media/ISSUES%
20Outputs/BS%20Success%201/urban%20futures.pdf
(accessed 01/06/2011).
Kahn H and Wiener AJ (1967) The next thirty-three years: a
framework for speculation. Daedalus 96(3): 705–732.
Lambert T (2011) A Brief History of Lancaster, Lancashire,
England. See http://www.localhistories.org/lancaster.html
(accessed 11/12/2011).
LCC (Lancaster City Council) (2004) Luneside East Development
Brief (Revised). LCC, Lancaster, UK, Lancaster District
Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4.
LCC (2008) Core Strategy (2003–2021) Adopted July 2008.
LCC, Lancaster, UK, Lancaster District Local
Develoment Framework.
Leach JM, Rogers CDF, Cooper RFD, Cooper I and Luger J (2010)
Sustainable Urban Environments Research Dialogues.
University of Birmingham, Birmingham. See http://
suedialogues.wordpress.com/reports (accessed 04/05/2011).
Leiper Q (2003) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 156(1): 3.
Leiper Q (2004) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 157(1): 1–2.
Lombardi DR, Caserio M, Hale J, et al. (2008) Implementing
Sustainability: Lessons Learned for Urban Regeneration.
University of Birmingham, Birmingham. See http://www.
esr.bham.ac.uk/LessonsLearnedFlyer.pdf (accessed 05/09/
2008).
Lombardi DR, Porter EJ, Barber ARG and Rogers CDF (2011a)
Conceptualising sustainability in UK urban regeneration: a
discursive formation. Urban Studies 48(2): 273–296.
Lombardi DR, Caserio M, Donovan R, et al. (2011b) Elucidating
sustainability sequencing, tensions and tradeoffs in
development decision-making. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design 38(6): 1105–1121.
McManus H (2008) Untitled. Urban Futures Project Board
Meeting, Lancaster, 6 November 2008.
Moncaster A, Hinds D, Cruickshank H, et al. (2010) Knowledge
exchange between academia and industry. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability
163(3): 167–174.
ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004) The Egan
Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities. HMSO,
London, UK.
ODPM (2006) Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable
Development Strategy. HMSO, London, UK.
Owens S and Cowell R (2002) Land and Limits: Interpreting
Sustainability in the Planning Process. Routledge, London,
UK.
Pointer G (2005) Focus on People and Migration 2005, Chapter
3: The UK’s Major Urban Areas. Office for National
Statistics, London, UK.
Pugh TAM, MacKenzie AR, Davies G, et al. (2012) A futures–
based analysis for urban air quality remediation.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 21–36.
Raskin P (2005) Global scenarios and the millennium ecosystem
assessment: an historic overview. Ecosystems 8(2): 133–142.
Raskin P, Gallopin G, Gutman P, Hammond A and Swart R (1998)
Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability.
Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,
PoleStar Series Report no. 8.
Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, et al. (2002) Great Transition:
The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm
Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, PoleStar Series
Report no. 10.
Raskin P, Electris C and Rosen RA (2010) The century ahead:
searching for sustainability. Sustainability 2(8): 2626–2651.
See http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/8/2626/pdf
(accessed 14/06/2011).
Reed B (2007) Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration.
Building Research and Information 35(6): 674–680.
Shirley-Smith C and Butler D (2008) Water management at
Bedzed – some lessons. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 161(2): 113–122.
UN (United Nations) (2010) United Nations World Population
Prospects: 2010 Revision. UN Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, USA.
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
19
UNPD (United Nations Population Division) (2006) World
Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision. United Nations
Population Division, New York, USA.
Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance.
DETR, London, UK, The Report of the Urban Task Force
Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1
The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and
Cooper
20