IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v132y2023ics026483772300265x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England

Author

Listed:
  • Kirby, Matthew G.
  • Scott, Alister J.

Abstract

In England, Green Belt policy primarily aims to prevent urban sprawl and maintain openness. This contrasts globally with a new generation of multi-goal Green Belts which contribute to climate action and ecosystem services provision. Recently, there have been calls from researchers and practitioners for England to follow suit and widen the scope of Green Belts to provide multifunctional benefits around towns and cities. Although some secondary objectives to encourage wider benefits of Green Belt exist in English national planning policy, it is unclear if, and how, these objectives are implemented by planning authorities. Responding to this research and policy gap, this paper assesses the extent to which Green Belt policy in England promotes multifunctional benefits for people and nature. A bespoke multi-criteria policy assessment framework was designed and used on a purposive sample of 69 planning authorities across England, reflecting different governance structures and urban, peri-urban and rural locations. The results show there is considerable variation in the way benefits from Green Belts are promoted in planning policy, which can be categorised into four typologies. Where policies score high for coverage, they often had weak policy wording. Assessment criteria for protecting natural capital across scales scored highest, whilst multifunctionality, mainstreaming of ecosystem services and equitable policy delivery scored lowest of the criteria overall. Key policy hooks identified which increase assessment scores include Green Infrastructure and regional tier of government. Additionally, our results echo international literature suggesting the importance of a regional tier of government in catalysing more ambitious Green Belt policy. Whereas, some local and regional authorities perceive and treat Green Belts as positive natural capital assets capable of providing multifunctional benefits to people, their full potential has not yet been fully realised or mainstreamed in English planning policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirby, Matthew G. & Scott, Alister J., 2023. "Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:132:y:2023:i:c:s026483772300265x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772300265X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106799?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lamya M A Gadou, 2022. "Banking Risk in Selected MENA Countries," International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, Innovative Research Publishing, vol. 5(4), pages 306-331.
    2. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Charles Edward Goode, 2022. "The enduring importance of strategic vision in planning: the case of the West Midlands Green Belt," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 1231-1259, November.
    4. Han, Albert T. & Go, Min Hee, 2019. "Explaining the national variation of land use: A cross-national analysis of greenbelt policy in five countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 644-656.
    5. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    6. Ayse Saka-Helmhout & Maryse M. H. Chappin & Suzana B. Rodrigues, 2022. "Corporate Social Innovation in Developing Countries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 589-605, December.
    7. Maes, Mikaël J.A. & Jones, Kate E. & Toledano, Mireille B. & Milligan, Ben, 2020. "Accounting for natural capital has cross-cutting relevance for UK public sector decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Jeongbae Jeon & Solhee Kim & Sung Moon Kwon, 2020. "The Effects of Urban Containment Policies on Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-11, May.
    9. Greg Oulahen & Yaheli Klein & Linda Mortsch & Erin O’Connell & Deborah Harford, 2018. "Barriers and Drivers of Planning for Climate Change Adaptation across Three Levels of Government in Canada," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 405-421, May.
    10. Han, Albert Tonghoon & Daniels, Thomas L. & Kim, Chaeri, 2022. "Managing urban growth in the wake of climate change: Revisiting greenbelt policy in the US," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Scott, Alister & Carter, Claudia & Hardman, Michael & Grayson, Nick & Slaney, Tim, 2018. "Mainstreaming ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: Exploiting a hybrid opportunity space," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 232-246.
    12. Helena Nordh & Anton Stahl Olafsson, 2021. "Plans for urban green infrastructure in Scandinavia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(5), pages 883-904, April.
    13. Quintin Bradley, 2019. "Combined Authorities and material participation: The capacity of Green Belt to engage political publics in England," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(2), pages 181-195, March.
    14. Sara Macdonald & Jochen Monstadt & Abigail Friendly, 2021. "Rethinking the governance and planning of a new generation of greenbelts," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(5), pages 804-817, May.
    15. Max Hislop & Alister J. Scott & Alastair Corbett, 2019. "What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 633-655, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Santos, Laura & Ramos Miguel, Rita & do Rosário Pinheiro, Maria & Rijo, Daniel, 2023. "Fostering emotional and mental health in residential youth care facilities: A systematic review of programs targeted to care workers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    7. Joel C. Creed & Laura Sol Aranda & Júlia Gomes de Sousa & Caio Barros Brito do Bem & Beatriz Sant’Anna Vasconcelos Marafiga Dutra & Marianna Lanari & Virgínia Eduarda de Sousa & Karine M. Magalhães & , 2023. "A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Xiaoyu Li & Shudan Gong & Qingdong Shi & Yuan Fang, 2023. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Based on Bibliometric Analysis: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Wei Jiang & Rainer Marggraf, 2021. "Making Intangibles Tangible: Identifying Manifestations of Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cultural Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Pierre E. Galand & Hans-Joachim Ruscheweyh & Guillem Salazar & Corentin Hochart & Nicolas Henry & Benjamin C. C. Hume & Pedro H. Oliveira & Aude Perdereau & Karine Labadie & Caroline Belser & Emilie B, 2023. "Diversity of the Pacific Ocean coral reef microbiome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    14. Lili Zhang & Baoqing Hu & Ze Zhang & Gaodou Liang & Simin Huang, 2023. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Ecological-Economic Value of Guangxi Based on Land Consolidation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Jiao Zhang & Qian Wang & Yiping Xia & Katsunori Furuya, 2022. "Knowledge Map of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, February.
    16. Bell-James, Justine & Boardman, Tessa & Foster, Rose, 2020. "Can’t see the (mangrove) forest for the trees: Trends in the legal and policy recognition of mangrove and coastal wetland ecosystem services in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    17. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    18. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    20. Yahui Wang & Erfu Dai & Yue Qi & Yao Fan, 2023. "Study on the Ecosystem Service Supply–Demand Relationship and Development Strategies in Mountains in Southwest China Based on Different Spatial Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-19, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:132:y:2023:i:c:s026483772300265x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.