Cooling with green space: policy perspectives

Judith Margaret Bush ORCID ID 0000-0002-7847-6610 Thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the PhD December 2017 Department of Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering and Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne

Abstract

As cities grapple with impacts of urban heat and heatwaves, exacerbated by , integrating green spaces contributes to cooling cities, as well as providing many other benefits. These benefits include biophysical functions such as mitigating urban heat, stormwater management, habitat, and contributing to human health and wellbeing and social and cultural processes. However, space for greenery is threatened as cities grow in size, density and population. This research analysed how policies can contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space.

The research focused on green space policies in Melbourne . A policy analysis framework was developed that integrated elements of policy research, with concepts from theories of sustainability transitions. The analysis framework directed attention to the strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive aspects of policy processes and content.

Data was drawn from policies for Melbourne’s green spaces from federal, state and local governments, and interviews with policy makers and elected officials. A study of

London’s green space policies supplemented the analysis.

The research identified key policy mechanisms and policy success factors, and related these to sustainability transitions perspectives. It argued that a range of policy mechanisms are necessary because different types of mechanisms operate at different points along the transition trajectory. Key policy success factors associated with strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive dimensions were identified. These included green space policy champions, community engagement, integration with other influential policies and technical skills and resources for implementation.

The research found that while green space provides multiple benefits and functions in cities, and this multifunctionality is promoted by policy makers and advocates, multifunctionality itself creates substantial challenges in governing, managing and communicating urban green space, in the context of monofunctional policy systems.

The research highlights the role of overarching, shared narratives in transition from monofunctional infrastructure to multifunctional systems in -based cities.

page i Declaration

This is to certify that:

i. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the degree of the Doctor of

Philosophy except where indicated,

ii. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used,

iii. the thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps,

bibliographies and appendices.

Signed ______J. Bush______

Date______21/12/2017______

page ii List of publications arising from the research

Bush J, Aye L and Hes D, 2015, Cooling cities with green space: a policy analysis framework, State of Australian Cities Conference December 2015, Gold Coast, Australia. Bush J, Aye L, Hes D and Murfitt P, 2017, How could sustainability transition theories support practice-based strategic planning? in Moore, de Haan, Horne and Gleeson (eds) Urban Sustainability Transitions: Australian Cases – International Perspectives. Springer, Japan. Bush J, and Hes D, 2018, Urban green space in the transition to the eco-: policies, multi-functionality and narrative, in Hes, D and Bush, J (eds) Enabling Eco- Cities: defining, planning and creating a thriving future, Palgrave. Doyon A and Bush J, 2015, Transforming cities towards an ecological worldview: applying sustainability transition theories and resilience thinking to International Research Society Conference July 2015 Geelong, Australia. Kendal, D, Farrar, A, Plant, L, Threlfall, CG, Bush, J & Baumann, J, 2017, Risks to Australia’s urban forest from climate change and urban heat. Report for the Clean Air and Urban Landscape hub of the National Environmental Science Programme, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Kendal, D, Lee, K, Ramalho, C, Bowen, K & Bush, J, 2016, Benefits of urban green space in the Australian context. A synthesis review for the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes hub of the National Environmental Science Program, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Pianella A, Bush J, Chen D, Williams NS and Aye L, 2016, Green roofs in Australia: review of thermal performance and associated policy development, Architectural Science Association 50th Anniversary Conference December 2016, Adelaide, Australia.

page iii Acknowledgements

I acknowledge and pay respect to the Traditional Custodians of Melbourne, the

Wurndjerri people of the Kulin nation on whose lands this research was undertaken and whose custodianship and caring for Country teaches and inspires us all in stewardship for the biosphere.

Profound thanks to my supervisors Dr Dominique Hes and A/Prof. Lu Aye and panel member A/Prof. Ole Fryd for their guidance and encouragement. Together they have provided invaluable and inspiring wisdom, clarity and an eye for detail throughout. I also wish to thank my PhD Advisory Committee Chair, Prof. Andrew Western for guidance and support and the Department of Infrastructure Engineering and the

Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning for administrative support and encouragement.

Many thanks to the members of research groups and reading groups associated with

Thrive Research Hub, ASTRA (Australian Sustainability Transitions Research

Alliance), GIRG (Green Infrastructure Research Group) and CAUL Hub (Clean Air and

Urban Landscapes). These groups have provided valuable and enjoyable opportunities to discuss new ideas, share research challenges and develop collaborations.

Thank you to the interview participants and other policy practitioners who generously gave time to discuss with me their insights on policy making and urban green space provision.

To Prof. Kate Auty and Dr Ethna O’Mara, who both inspired me to embark on this

PhD, and provided ongoing encouragement throughout, thank you!

And boundless gratitude to my family and to my partner Ellie Flutey for unreservedly and patiently supporting me throughout this research.

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program

Scholarship, (previously Australian Postgraduate Award), a Low Carbon Living

Cooperative Research Centre scholarship and by a travel grant from the Michael

Kaufman Scholarship Fund.

page iv Contents

Abstract ...... i Declaration ...... ii List of publications arising from the research ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv List of figures ...... ix List of tables ...... xi Chapter 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Context of the study ...... 2 1.1.1 Urban heat, climate change and urban green space ...... 3 1.1.2 Urban heat in Australian cities ...... 4 1.1.3 Study location: Melbourne, Australia ...... 5 1.2 Green space policy perspectives ...... 8 1.3 Research aim, objectives, questions and scope of the study ...... 10 1.4 Significance of the study ...... 12 1.5 Research motivation ...... 13 1.6 Thesis structure ...... 14 Chapter 2. Urban heat and urban green space ...... 17 2.1 Introduction ...... 17 2.2 Urban heat: causes, impacts and mitigation ...... 17 2.2.1 effect ...... 17 2.2.2 Heatwaves ...... 19 2.2.3 Climate change ...... 20 2.2.4 Impacts and mitigation of urban heat ...... 21 2.3 Urban green space ...... 26 2.3.1 Green space benefits and contributions ...... 27 2.3.2 Urban green space research approaches and terminology ...... 28 2.4 Policy perspectives ...... 37 2.4.1 Policy processes ...... 40 2.4.2 Cities and green space policies ...... 43

page v 2.5 Summary ...... 51 Chapter 3. Urban systems and sustainability transitions ...... 53 3.1 Introduction ...... 53 3.2 Sustainable development ...... 53 3.3 Urban systems...... 56 3.4 Sustainability transitions and transformations ...... 58 3.5 Summary ...... 65 Chapter 4. Research approach ...... 67 4.1 Introduction ...... 67 4.2 Research approach: epistemology and ontology ...... 68 4.3 Research analytical framework ...... 70 4.4 Research design ...... 76 4.5 Research methods ...... 80 4.5.1 Stage 1 Green space policy domains and multi-level government ...... 84 4.5.2 Stage 2 Metropolitan Melbourne ...... 85 4.5.3 Stage 3 London, UK ...... 89 4.5.4 Data analysis ...... 89 4.6 Summary ...... 92 Chapter 5. Green space policy domains and Australian policies ...... 93 5.1 Introduction ...... 93 5.2 Inclusion of green space into the public policy agenda ...... 93 5.3 Green space policy domains ...... 96 5.4 Melbourne’s multi-level government and policy context ...... 98 5.4.1 Australia’s system of government ...... 98 5.4.2 Multi-level government roles in green space policy and planning ...... 101 5.5 Policies for Melbourne’s green space ...... 103 5.6 Summary ...... 106 Chapter 6. Melbourne’s green space policies ...... 107 6.1 Introduction ...... 107 6.2 Melbourne’s context: urban form and green spaces ...... 107 6.2.1 Location and urban form ...... 109 6.2.2 Development of Melbourne’s parklands and green spaces ...... 112

page vi 6.3 Federal policies analysis ...... 118 6.4 Victorian state policies analysis ...... 124 6.5 Local government policies analysis ...... 139 6.5.1 City of Melbourne ...... 141 6.5.2 Moreland City Council ...... 152 6.5.3 Hume City Council ...... 162 6.6 Summary ...... 170 Chapter 7. London’s green space policies ...... 172 7.1 Introduction ...... 172 7.2 London’s context: urban form, green spaces and urban heat ...... 173 7.2.1 Location and urban form ...... 173 7.2.2 The urban heat island effect, heatwaves and climate change ...... 174 7.2.3 London’s green spaces ...... 175 7.3 London’s multi-level government ...... 177 7.3.1 London’s strategic policy context...... 179 7.4 London’s green space policies analysis ...... 182 7.5 Summary ...... 197 Chapter 8. Analysis and discussion ...... 198 8.1 Introduction ...... 198 8.2 Practical perspectives: green space policy approaches ...... 199 8.2.1 Overview of Melbourne and London ...... 199 8.2.2 Policy mechanisms ...... 204 8.2.3 Policies, success factors and sustainability transitions ...... 211 8.2.4 Limits of policy: what policy cannot do ...... 222 8.3 Theoretical perspectives: multifunctionality and sustainability transitions .. 224 8.3.1 Urban green space as technological innovation ...... 224 8.3.2 Multifunctionality, and policy and management complexity ...... 227 8.3.3 Communicating multifunctionality: splintered narratives ...... 230 8.3.4 Responding to splintered narratives: participation and narrative ...... 234

page vii 8.4 Methodological perspectives: analytical framework ...... 237 8.5 Limitations of research ...... 241 8.6 Summary ...... 244 Chapter 9. Conclusions ...... 246 9.1 Research overview ...... 247 9.2 Research findings ...... 248 9.2.1 Policy domains and policy integration: connections and linkages ...... 249 9.2.2 Policy mechanisms: from regulation to innovation ...... 250 9.2.3 Sustainability transitions to nature-based cities ...... 251 9.2.4 Policy success factors ...... 251 9.2.5 Green space innovation, multifunctionality and policy ...... 253 9.2.6 Communication and narratives ...... 254 9.3 Research contributions ...... 256 9.4 Research limitations and suggested future research ...... 258 9.5 Concluding remarks ...... 260 References ...... 262 Appendix Ethics information for interview participants ...... 289

page viii List of figures

Figure 1.1 Australia's major capital cities ...... 4

Figure 1.2 Theoretical context for this research ...... 11

Figure 1.3 Thesis structure ...... 14

Figure 2.1 Melbourne’s urban heat island effect ...... 18

Figure 2.2 Impact of climate change on average and extreme temperatures ...... 20

Figure 2.3 Relationship between the UHIE, heatwaves and climate change ...... 21

Figure 2.4 Urban as a multidisciplinary research field ...... 29

Figure 2.5 Classification of ecosystem services ...... 31

Figure 2.6 Nature-based solutions to societal challenges...... 35

Figure 2.7 Urban green space terminology ...... 36

Figure 2.8 Research on urban heat island, green space and policy ...... 52

Figure 3.1 Mapping views on sustainable development ...... 54

Figure 3.2 Regenerative development: transition from technical to living system design...... 55

Figure 3.3 The ‘multi-level perspective’: multiple levels as a nested hierarchy ...... 61

Figure 3.4 The Transition Management cycle ...... 63

Figure 3.5 Theoretical context, and the intersection between bodies of research ...... 66

Figure 4.1 Policy analysis framework ...... 74

Figure 4.2 Melbourne metropolitan ...... 76

Figure 4.3 Greater London region and London boroughs ...... 78

Figure 4.4 Research stages, data sources and chapters in which results are presented ...... 84

Figure 6.1 Melbourne’s ...... 110

Figure 6.2 Melbourne's inner ring of parklands ...... 112

Figure 6.3 City of Melbourne open space gap analysis ...... 116

Figure 6.4 Federal policies analysed ...... 123

Figure 6.5 Victorian policy framework: strategic and statutory planning ...... 125

Figure 6.6 Victorian state government policies analysed ...... 138

Figure 6.7 Local government policy framework ...... 141

Figure 6.8 Parkland creation, Errol St, North Melbourne ...... 142

Figure 6.9 City of Melbourne policies analysed ...... 152

Figure 6.10 Moreland City Council policies analysed ...... 162

Figure 6.11 Hume City Council policies analysed ...... 170

page ix Figure 7.1 Greater London’s Green Belt and other green space areas ...... 176

Figure 7.2 London’s multi-level green space policies and programs ...... 195

Figure 8.1 Development of research results and contributions ...... 198

Figure 8.2 Practical contributions ...... 199

Figure 8.3 Policy mechanisms that support transitions to nature-based cities ...... 206

Figure 8.4 Policy mechanisms that hinder transitions to nature-based cities ...... 208

Figure 8.5 Linkages between policy domains that address green space and urban heat ...... 215

Figure 8.6 Policy success factors ...... 221

Figure 8.7 Theoretical contributions ...... 224

Figure 8.8 Splintered narratives and ecosystem services and disservices ...... 233

Figure 9.1 Research questions, and associated findings and contributions ...... 246

Figure 9.2 Thesis structure indicating iteration of earlier chapters ...... 248

Figure 9.3 Theoretical context and contributions of this research ...... 258

page x List of tables

Table 2.1 Selected indexes for urban green space ...... 47

Table 3.1 Definitions and applications of the Transition Management cycle ...... 64

Table 4.1 Framework for policy analysis ...... 75

Table 4.2 The greater metropolitan regions of Melbourne and London ...... 79

Table 4.3 Semi-structured interview guide ...... 86

Table 4.4 Melbourne's green space policies: data sources...... 88

Table 4.5 London's green space policies: data sources ...... 89

Table 4.6 Research approach ...... 92

Table 5.1 Inclusion of urban green space provision in the public policy agenda ...... 96

Table 5.2 services and associated policy domains ...... 97

Table 5.3 Australian governments’ key policies for urban green space and UHIE ...... 105

Table 6.1 Melbourne's green space and urban development timeline ...... 117

Table 6.2 Australian federal government policies and interviews ...... 119

Table 6.3 Australian federal government policy analysis: cities and urban planning ...... 120

Table 6.4 Australian federal government policy analysis: climate change ...... 122

Table 6.5 Victorian state government policies and interviews ...... 124

Table 6.6 Victorian state government policy analysis: urban planning ...... 127

Table 6.7 Victorian state government policy analysis: urban greening (water) ...... 134

Table 6.8 Victorian state government policy analysis: climate change ...... 136

Table 6.9 Victorian state government policy analysis: climate change (roads) ...... 137

Table 6.10 City of Melbourne local government policies and interviews ...... 142

Table 6.11 City of Melbourne policy analysis: urban planning ...... 144

Table 6.12 City of Melbourne policy analysis: green space ...... 148

Table 6.13 City of Melbourne policy analysis: climate change ...... 151

Table 6.14 Moreland City Council local government policies and interviews ...... 152

Table 6.15 Moreland City Council policy analysis: urban planning ...... 154

Table 6.16 Moreland City Council policy analysis: green space ...... 158

Table 6.17 Moreland City Council policy analysis: climate change ...... 160

Table 6.18 Hume City Council local government policies and interviews ...... 163

Table 6.19 Hume City Council policy analysis: urban planning ...... 164

Table 6.20 Hume City Council policy analysis: green space ...... 168

page xi Table 6.21 Hume City Council policy analysis: climate change ...... 169

Table 7.1 Key policies for London’s green spaces across three levels of government ...... 180

Table 7.2 Mayor of London and GLA policies and interviews ...... 183

Table 7.3 Greater London policy analysis: urban planning ...... 186

Table 7.4 Greater London policy analysis: green space...... 189

Table 7.5 Greater London policy analysis: climate change ...... 193

Table 8.1 Government and green space contexts for Melbourne and London ...... 200

Table 8.2 Approaches to green space policy ...... 201

Table 8.3 Urban green space policy mechanisms ...... 204

Table 8.4 Policy mechanisms and associated outcomes sought ...... 205

Table 8.5 Policy mechanisms that support transitions ...... 207

Table 8.6 Policy mechanisms that hinder transitions ...... 209

Table 8.7 Urban green space: multifunctionality, and policy and management complexity ...... 228

Table 9.1 Policy success factors and associated analysis categories ...... 252

page xii Chapter 1. Introduction

Green spaces are essential elements in liveable, sustainable cities (UN 2015a,

Sustainable Development Goal 11; WHO 2016). With increasing urban environmental, social and economic challenges, and ongoing processes of urban change, the provision of urban greenery is of continuing importance (Seto et al. 2013). This thesis investigates how policies can contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space. The thesis focuses specifically on green spaces’ roles in mitigating the urban heat island effect, as well as greenery’s broader contributions to urban ecosystems services.

The urban heat island effect (UHIE), in which cities are hotter than the surrounding countryside, is caused by the removal of vegetation; by the use of dense and dark coloured building materials and increased impermeable surfaces; and by heat from machinery use (Coutts et al. 2010). The UHIE exacerbates the impacts of heatwaves.

Heatwaves have significant effects on human health and urban biodiversity, economic activity, productivity and urban infrastructure (Gartland 2008). Climate change projections indicate heatwaves will be more frequent, more severe and of longer duration (Steffen et al. 2014). UHIE can be understood as a chronic urban condition exacerbating the acute expression of heatwaves and amplified by climate change.

Urban green space is one of the most effective mitigation measures for the UHIE

(Gunawardena et al. 2017; Santamouris et al. 2016).

Green spaces provide multiple benefits and ecosystem services to both the human and non-human city dweller (Kendal et al. 2016; Livesley et al. 2016). City planners have long recognised the recreation and aesthetic values of green space in cities. More recently, green spaces’ contributions to urban biophysical functions, such as management of stormwater quality and quantity, and mitigation of heat and air , have been recognised (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). There is growing awareness of the role of green space for urban biodiversity and habitat provision, and for urban dwellers’ opportunities for contact with nature, to promote physical and mental wellbeing, and for social and community wellbeing (Douglas et al. 2017; Kendal

Chapter 1 page 1 et al. 2016). Understandings of the urban are being reframed to include biodiversity and threatened species conservation, as well as food production and .

These multiple functions are key elements in the creation of liveable and sustainable cities: as cities continue to develop, change and grow denser and broader, and human populations increase, mechanisms to ensure the inclusion of green space throughout urban areas become increasingly important. As understandings of the multiple urban ecosystem services provided by green space expand, the roles of public policies in retaining and maximising green space are brought into focus.

This chapter introduces the research. It establishes the context of the study, summarising the causes and impacts of urban heat and the roles of green space in mitigating heat. It considers urban heat impacts in Australian cities and provides a brief overview of Melbourne, Australia, the city on which much of this research focuses. The chapter highlights the roles of public policy for urban green space, the knowledge gaps in this area and the research aims, objectives and questions, as well as the expected key findings and contributions. Following a brief explanation of the motivations for this study, the chapter concludes by presenting the thesis structure.

1.1 Context of the study

This PhD research forms part of a larger research project, Urban Microclimates in

Australian cities, undertaken through Australia’s Cooperative Research Centre for Low

Carbon Living (CRC LCL). The CRC LCL project brought together researchers from three Australian universities, with policy makers from local and state governments in three Australian cities, Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide. Industry partners included and planning consultants, a peak body for the horticulture industry and a major manufacturer of building materials. The CRC LCL research project aimed to investigate the localised causes, impacts and mitigation measures for urban heat across the three participating cities. Green space policy perspectives formed the focus of this research’s contribution to the larger CRC LCL project. This research focused specifically on green space policies for one of the participating cities, Melbourne.

Chapter 1 page 2 1.1.1 Urban heat, climate change and urban green space

The ‘urban heat island effect’ (UHIE) is the phenomenon in which urban areas are hotter than their surrounding rural areas. It was first described in Howard’s Climate of

London in 1833 (Gartland 2008). Since the 1970s, substantial research effort has focused on its causes, impacts and mitigation options (Akbari and Kolokotsa 2016; Oke 1982).

The UHIE is caused by the combination of removal of vegetation, use of dense and dark-coloured heat-absorbing building materials and use of machinery including vehicles (Coutts and Harris 2013). Urban design also contributes to the UHIE: design and orientation of buildings, courtyards and streets, height-to-width ratio of roadways, and location and quantity of vegetated open space and waterbodies affect the amount of heat absorbed and radiated (Kleerekoper et al. 2012). The UHIE exacerbates heatwaves. Heatwaves impact a city’s liveability: the health and wellbeing of its residents and workers, biodiversity, economic activity and infrastructure (Loughnan et al. 2013).

The UHIE can be mitigated by increasing vegetation cover, by building- and precinct- scale design and choice of materials, by energy efficiency, and public transport to reduce heating from machinery and vehicles (Kleerekoper et al. 2012). With increasingly severe heatwaves caused by climate change (IPCC 2014; Steffen et al.

2014), urban green space is one of the most effective ways to address and reduce the

UHIE (CES 2013; Kleerekoper et al. 2012), and is of growing importance to maintaining a city’s liveability (Fryd et al. 2011). In this research, the term ‘urban green spaces' is used as an umbrella term that spans the range of forms and vegetation types across both the public and private realms: urban forests, street trees, parks and gardens, waterways and habitat corridors, active recreation areas, green roofs, walls and facades, water sensitive urban design treatments and other vegetated streetside treatments.

Chapter 1 page 3 1.1.2 Urban heat in Australian cities

Australia’s population is highly urbanised (DIT 2013). The majority of Australians live in cities, mostly located on the south-eastern seaboard. Over 60 per cent of Australia’s population live in its five largest cities, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and

Perth (Figure 1.1), all of which have populations over one million people (DIRD 2015).

Figure 1.1 Australia's major capital cities (Source: ACCC https://www.accc.gov.au)

South-east Australia has a temperate climate (CES 2012), characterised by hot, dry summers, and rainfall predominantly during winter months (DSE 2008). Sea breezes moderate temperatures for coastal cities, though these effects are less strongly felt further inland from the coast, including in the outer suburban areas on the inland fringes of large cities. During summer, north from central Australia bring hot air to the cities in south-east Australia, and reduce the impact of cooling sea breezes. With climate change, the region is expected to be at increased risk from extreme weather events including heatwaves, drought and bushfires (CES 2013; Steffen et al. 2014). The duration, frequency and intensity of heatwaves in Australia have increased since 1950,

Chapter 1 page 4 and, with climate change impacts, are projected to increase further in future

(Alexander and Arblaster 2009; DIT 2013; Steffen et al. 2014).

Heatwaves cause significant health and social impacts, particularly to vulnerable sections of the population: the elderly, young children and babies, those with pre- existing medical conditions, and socially or economically disadvantaged members of the population. In Australia, heatwaves kill more people than any other type of natural disaster (Coates et al. 2014; DIT 2013; Nairn and Fawcett 2015; Steffen et al. 2014). As well as health and social impacts, heatwaves have significant economic and infrastructure impacts. These include reduced economic activity during heatwaves, damage to infrastructure and disruption to services and utilities (Sweeney Research

2014).

With increasingly severe heatwaves associated with climate change impacts and an aging population, cities will experience rising heat vulnerability (DIT 2013). In this context, identifying measures to reduce urban heat vulnerability is of significance for governments in this region. Mitigating the UHIE is one element of this.

1.1.3 Study location: Melbourne, Australia

This research focuses on Australia’s second most populous city, Melbourne. Melbourne is the of the state of Victoria, in south-eastern Australia (Figure 1.1). It was established in 1835 by British colonisers, on an area within the traditional Aboriginal lands of the Kulin nation, who have occupied the region for at least 40,000 years.

Melbourne has a temperate climate characterised by mild to warm summers, with temperatures increasing from the coast to inland areas. Rainfall is greatest in winter and spring, and while average annual rainfall is 864 mm, there is wide variation across the region, with less than 600 mm to the west of Melbourne, and more than 1400 mm in the Dandenong Ranges to the east of Melbourne (DSE 2008; VEAC 2010).

Melbourne experiences summer heatwaves, with on average 30 days above 30 0C, and one day above 40 0C under current climate conditions (DSE 2008). Measurement and modelling indicates that there is a substantial UHIE for the Melbourne metropolitan

Chapter 1 page 5 area, which exacerbates the impacts of hot weather and heatwaves (Coutts et al. 2010;

Sachindra et al. 2016). A maximum urban heat island intensity of 4 0C in the CBD and built up areas compared with the surrounding countryside was measured in a 2006 study (Coutts et al. 2010). Loughnan et al. (2013) calculated temperature thresholds at which excess heat-related illnesses and deaths occurred; for Melbourne, the threshold temperature for heat health warnings was forecast maximum of 44 0C or a mean temperature of 34 0C (Loughnan et al. 2013). The identification of the temperature threshold serves to highlight the potential for UHIE to significantly increase the heatwave related impacts on human health and wellbeing. Even small increases in temperature above the threshold level significantly increase health impacts.

Projections of future climate change indicate a substantial increase in the maximum temperature on the hottest days, the frequency of hot days and the duration of warm spells (CES 2012; Grose et al. 2015). Other projections include increased intensity of heavy rainfall events, more time in drought, and increased evapotranspiration rates leading to reduced soil moisture and runoff (Grose et al. 2015). The UHIE will exacerbate the effects of these projected changes to climate. The increasing frequency of both droughts and extreme weather events associated with climate change impacts, reinforces the importance of designing and maintaining urban systems that can cope with these conditions (CoM 2014; OLV 2014). The projected climate changes related to temperature, rainfall, drought, evapotranspiration rates and soil moisture will affect plant growth and plant health. These impacts may include “increased and different pests and diseases, heat impacts including scorching, canopy desiccation, impacts including uprooting and branch break; drought leading to desiccation, poor health, increased susceptibility to other impacts; inundation leading to root rot and increased susceptibility to diseases including fungal root diseases like Phytophthora”

(CoM 2014, p. 30).

Melbourne has experienced several serious heatwaves in recent years, including the extreme heatwave in early 2009, during which there were 374 excess deaths attributed to the heatwave (VAG 2014), and heatwaves in 2013-14 (CES 2013). During

Chapter 1 page 6 Melbourne’s 2009 heatwave, infrastructure suffered serious damage, with train tracks buckling, and electricity network blackouts leaving homes and businesses without power (Steffen et al. 2014). During Melbourne’s 2014 heatwave, public transport users were advised to leave work early to avoid potential problems with the train system at the end of the day (Carey 2014), and businesses reported a range of economic impacts, including reduced demand for their services, and increased costs of operating air conditioners (Sweeney Research 2014). The associated loss in revenue for the central city was calculated to be $37 million (Sweeney Research 2014).

The vulnerability to heatwaves in Melbourne is unevenly distributed, with lower socio- economic areas, and some outer suburban areas, particularly in the north and west of

Melbourne, being particularly affected by heatwaves. These areas are also subject to the UHIE, with urban expansion processes replacing agricultural land (DTPLI 2014), as well as native grasslands of high conservation status (Williams et al. 2005). Areas of social disadvantage are increasingly clustered towards the outskirts of Melbourne, driven by lower house prices (Hulse et al. 2014). These areas are often characterised by a lower access to jobs, transport, facilities and services (Kelly and Donegan 2015). As well as urban expansion, Melbourne is increasing in population density, due to construction of medium- and high-density apartment buildings in inner city locations

(DIRD 2015) and largely ad hoc infill processes in established (Newton and

Glackin 2014). Increasing density has been proposed as a key measure to reduce urban expansion (Kelly and Donegan 2015). However, densification and smaller lot sizes, as well as the trend towards larger houses, are leading to reduction in private green space

(Hall 2010), and increasing pressure on remaining public open spaces, which potentially will exacerbate the UHIE, as well as decreasing urban liveability.

Chapter 1 page 7 1.2 Green space policy perspectives

Urban greenery’s multiple functions and benefits, as well as its essential contributions to urban liveability, necessitate its retention and maximisation. This warrants the application of public policies focused on urban green space provision. While there is increasing research on the ecosystem services and benefits provided by green space, as well as considerable research on the UHIE and other urban environmental challenges, there has been less focus on policy perspectives and the role of policies in retaining and maximising green space. Australian governments at local, state and federal levels have a range of policies related to urban green space provision, and some have commenced policy development to address the UHIE, but efforts are still immature, lack consistency across jurisdictions and lack application of research to inform evidence- based priorities (Jewell 2013).

As cities increase in size and density, and with population increases, green space quantity and quality is under pressure from urban development, both urban expansion at the fringes, as well as urban densification and renewal processes. Mitigation of the

UHIE, and the provision of urban green space are both issues that justify public policy coverage and intervention. However, public policies for urban green space retention and maximisation compete with a range of other urban issues and priorities.

Furthermore, ‘business-as-usual’ approaches to urban infrastructure provision, and vested interests that are focused on capitalising on other types of urban land uses, present further challenges to urban green space provision.

Urban green space policy makers, both bureaucrats and elected officials, have called for more research to support the policy making process and the integration of research findings into the policy evidence base (CES 2013; Jewell 2013). These needs are reinforced by a lack of practice-based monitoring and evaluation of implementation. In many cases, research studies on the functions, services and contributions of urban green space include calls for introduction of policies to protect and increase urban green spaces, as well as increased engagement between research and its application in policy (including for example Kabisch et al. 2016; Kremer et al. 2016; McDonough et al.

Chapter 1 page 8 2017; Mell 2017; Scott and Lennon 2016). However, urban green space policy perspectives have to date received significantly less research attention. This will be further discussed in a review of the literature in the following chapter.

Urban green space approaches represent a shift in urban infrastructure thinking and practice, from a reliance on monofunctional ‘grey infrastructure’ towards multifunctional ‘nature-based solutions’ (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016; Kabisch et al.

2016). While the ‘green infrastructure’ forms of green space could arguably be considered as elements in urban socio-technical systems (Flynn and Davidson 2016), understandings of the role of nature and ecology in cities has expanded framings of cities to consider them as complex social-ecological systems(Wolfram and Frantzeskaki

2016), and urban green space, and its interrelationships with urban dwellers, plays a key role in these framings (McPhearson, Pickett, et al. 2016). Emerging concepts of cities as complex social-ecological systems are necessary to understand multilayered, multiscalar, interrelated environmental sustainability issues facing cities, and to enable a focus on enhancing human wellbeing in urban areas (Elmqvist et al. 2013, p. 721).

Green spaces’ provision of a wide range of ecosystem services reinforces the importance of inclusion of green spaces across cities and within urban policies. Green space policies lack influence and priority in many urban policy domains, compared with issues such as land use planning, transport, health and economic development

(notwithstanding emerging awareness of green spaces’ contributions to these domains). Therefore, green space policies could be framed as ‘niche’ approaches within the larger ‘regime’ of urban policies, that exists within the landscape of the built form, institutions and communities within the city. Theories of sustainability transitions consider the processes in which niches develop and are integrated into the regime, or even replace current practices (Geels and Schot 2007). To date, sustainability transition theories have largely been applied to technological innovations and socio-technical system analysis (Markard et al. 2012). This research extends these applications by utilising theories of sustainability transitions to contribute to understandings of the roles of green space policies in the transition to nature-based, low carbon cities.

Chapter 1 page 9 1.3 Research aim, objectives, questions and scope of the study

The purpose of this research is to analyse how policies contribute to retaining and maximising green space. This research addresses gaps in knowledge linking UHIE, urban green space and policy research and application. This research is explicitly normative. It responds to the urban issues of green space provision in the context of growing urban populations, expanding cities and increasing pressure on urban green space; and to urban environmental sustainability challenges including urban heat and climate change impacts. It aims to contribute to the retention and maximisation of urban green space, as part of larger urban sustainability transformative efforts towards liveable and equitable nature-based cities. It addresses the following key question:

How can public policies contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space?

Associated sub-questions that help to address the key question are:

a. How are public policies currently contributing to green space retention and

maximisation?

b. What are the key policy mechanisms?

c. What are the key success factors?

The research objectives are:

 to extend understandings of urban green space as part of urban social-

ecological systems, and the inclusion of green space policies as contributing to

urban sustainability transitions;

 to determine the success factors for urban green space policies.

The theoretical context within which this research is located is informed by (including urban ecosystem services and more recent conceptualisations of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions); policy research; and theories of sustainability transitions (Figure 1.2). As understandings of urban green spaces’ contributions to urban functions and services (urban ecosystem services and green infrastructure) is still relatively recent, and green space policies lack influence

Chapter 1 page 10 compared with other urban policy domains such as transport, housing and land use, this research utilises theories of sustainability transitions to inform understandings of how ‘niche’ approaches to urban policy domains can develop, and the ‘success factors’ for policies to support sustainability transitions. The intersections between these bodies of research (i, ii, iii) as discussed in the literature are presented in Chapter 3. This research’s contributions (iv) are discussed in Chapter 8 and 9.

Figure 1.2 Theoretical context for this research

The research scope focuses on public policies for Melbourne, Australia, current to the end of 2016. Policies are drawn from the three levels of government: federal, state and local. Three neighbouring local governments are included, which create a municipal transect spanning inner, middle and outer suburban contexts. In addition, greater

London is included to provide a complementary case study of a ’s approach.

London has significant experience with green space provision in the context of urban heat; the UHIE was first described in London in the 19th century. Analysis of London’s green space policies provides an example from another continent, for a different scale city, to strengthen this research’s generalisability of understandings of policy mechanisms and policy success factors for retaining and maximising green space. The research scope is limited by time and resource constraints. It was beyond the scope of this research to consider policies of other Australian cities, or to include quantitative analysis, or historical perspectives on policy development.

Chapter 1 page 11 1.4 Significance of the study

There is an increasing research and practice focus on urban environmental sustainability issues, mitigating urban heat and climate change impacts, and the multifunctional roles, benefits and contributions of urban green space. Research and practitioner interest in urban green space has been growing, but there is little associated research focus on policy perspectives, even in the face of calls for policy responses to research findings of green space benefits. There is substantially less research focused explicitly on the roles and success factors for green space policies, including policy process and policy content considerations. This thesis contributes to these calls by analysing how green space policies contribute to retaining and maximising green space in Melbourne and in London.

This research also contributes to broadening the application of sustainability transitions theories to social-ecological systems, and specifically to urban green space and policy perspectives. This research highlights the policy challenges ensuing from conceptualisations of green space as multifunctional urban infrastructure. It contributes to understandings of policy success factors specifically related to urban green space policy, but potentially generalizable to urban environmental sustainability policy domains more broadly. The key contributions this research aims to make are:

i. linking policy research and theories of sustainability transitions to create a

policy analysis framework that allows consistent analysis of policies from

across multi-level government jurisdictions and between cities;

ii. identification of urban ecosystem services’ associations across multiple urban

policy domains and how urban green spaces can provide the ‘common ground’

in which to link or connect departmental and jurisdictional ‘silos’;

iii. policy success factors and the actions of different types of policy mechanisms in

green space provision, and how these are related to sustainability transitions;

iv. the role of urban green space provision underpinning sustainability transitions

towards multifunctional, social-ecological urban systems or ‘nature-based

Chapter 1 page 12 cities’; and the challenges for managing multifunctional green space within

monofunctional policy and management systems.

The research’s key contribution is conceptualising the intersection of urban ecology, policy research and sustainability transitions (Figure 1.2) as ‘policy perspectives on sustainability transitions to nature-based cities’, and highlighting the role of building coherent narratives to support the transition process.

1.5 Research motivation

Prior to commencing this PhD I led the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action

(NAGA), a local government alliance in the northern metropolitan region of

Melbourne, working on climate change action. Before that I worked for Merri Creek

Management Committee (MCMC) on the revegetation of Merri Creek, a waterway and habitat corridor in northern metropolitan Melbourne. Through these roles I have fostered a deep interest and engagement with urban environmental sustainability policy and management issues, and developed a wide network with local and state government officers and environmental not-for-profit organisations in Melbourne.

Both roles have included advocating to local, state and federal governments for policies, programs and resources for implementing NAGA’s and MCMC’s objectives.

I hold a Bachelor of Science (Hons), majoring in Botany/Ecology, and a Master of Arts

(Environmental Studies). This academic background also informs my epistemological and ontological positions, in that my original training was in a scientific discipline, but

I have progressively moved toward and incorporated qualitative research skills and social science research approaches.

My key research interests, which were directly generated from these experiences, relate to urban green space management, and sustainability and climate change action and responses. The opportunity to undertake the research within the CRC LCL’s Urban

Microclimates project, which offered research-industry collaboration and a trans- disciplinary approach, contributed to my initial interest and enthusiasm for this study.

Chapter 1 page 13 1.6 Thesis structure

The structure of this thesis is shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Thesis structure

Following this introductory chapter, which has established the context, justifications, motivations and aims for the research, Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature related to the causes, impacts and mitigation measures for the UHIE, and the contributions of green space to urban areas. It reviews the UHIE research that shows that increasing the quantity of urban vegetation is one of the most effective ways to mitigate UHIE. Research on the functions and contributions of urban green space, framed within concepts of urban ecology, ecosystem services, green infrastructure, and more recently nature-based solutions is then presented. Chapter 2 concludes that while there is substantial research on urban green spaces’ functions and services, there has been significantly less research on green space policies and policy processes, and there has been little research focus on green space policy in Australian cities.

Chapter 3 reviews the theoretical context within which urban green space policy can be investigated and understood. It considers policy research approaches, and theories of sustainability transitions. Sustainability transition theories examine historical transitions to inform understandings of transition processes. To date, they have largely been applied to socio-technical systems. This research argues that sustainability transition theories are relevant to understandings of the development, adoption and implementation of green space policies. Urban green space policies are not yet part of

Chapter 1 page 14 business-as-usual approaches to urban systems, and many forms of urban green space and green infrastructure are still considered ‘niche innovations’ by urban managers, developers and policy makers. Urban green spaces can bridge socio-technical and social-ecological systems: as ‘green infrastructure’, green space extends understandings of socio-technical systems to incorporate biophysical elements. These same green spaces contribute to evolving understandings of cities as social-ecological systems, emphasising the essential role of nature and ecology in cities, and that urban built forms are part of nature, not separate to nature.

Chapter 4 identifies the research approach for this study. The research adopts a qualitative approach, underpinned by constructivist ontology. A policy analysis framework is developed that focuses the research’s policy analysis on Transition

Management elements of policy process and policy content. This framework reinforces the theoretical understandings of the process of urban transitions towards ‘nature- based cities’, and the policy elements that may contribute to these transitions. As identified in the previous section, this research focuses on Melbourne’s and London’s policies. Data sources included policy documents, semi-structured interviews with policy makers, and supplementary sources including additional policy and government documents, media reports, and observations at policy makers’ seminars.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present the research data and results. Chapter 5 identifies the key public policy domains related to urban green space and links these with the urban ecosystem services classification. Following this, Australia’s multi-level system of government is presented, and the key roles of each level of government related to green space provision and management are identified and described. The policy domains and multi-level government elements are then brought together to identify the key current public policies for Melbourne’s green space.

Chapter 6 investigates the biophysical conditions and historical development of

Melbourne’s urban green spaces to explain its current distribution. The historical influences, trends and legacies that have contributed to the current distribution of green space also influence the current focus of policy and policy makers. Following

Chapter 1 page 15 this, Melbourne’s policies in the domains of urban planning, green space and climate change, from three levels of government (federal, state and three neighbouring local governments) are assessed using the policy analysis framework.

Chapter 7 considers London’s green space policies, to provide a complementary study of a global city’s approach. The chapter provides an overview of the multi-level government system for the greater London , and of the historical development and current distribution of green space, followed by an assessment of the policies of the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority.

Chapter 8 analyses and discusses the results to argue the key contributions. The thesis concludes with Chapter 9, which summarises the thesis content and then addresses the research question and sub-questions to demonstrate how this study has answered them, and in turn contributed to the wider body of research. It highlights the research’s limitations and identifies future research directions arising from this study.

This structure and focus supports achieving the research aim of contributing to the retention and maximisation of urban green space, as part of larger urban sustainability transformative efforts towards liveable and equitable nature-based cities, by making practical, theoretical and analytical contributions, and as a result adding to both academic and practitioner efforts.

Chapter 1 page 16 Chapter 2. Urban heat and urban green space

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the research on the causes, impacts and mitigation measures of urban heat, associated with the urban heat island effect (UHIE) and heatwaves and exacerbated by climate change impacts. It highlights the role of urban green space in mitigating urban heat, as well as providing a range of other ecosystem services. It considers the key research directions and developments related to urban green space functions and policy perspectives, and identifies the gaps in knowledge that this research aims to address.

2.2 Urban heat: causes, impacts and mitigation

2.2.1 Urban heat island effect

Urban areas are “reverse oases” of heat (Gartland 2008, p. 1) in their surrounding rural landscapes (Figure 2.1). The phenomenon of ‘urban heat islands’ was first described in relation to London’s climate patterns during the nineteenth century (Oke 1982).

Research has identified two distinct aspects to urban heating: surface heating and heating of air at the urban canopy level. Surface heating, caused by solar radiation being absorbed by unshaded ground surfaces or buildings, is the daytime element of the UHIE. In contrast, air heating, whereby the higher temperature surfaces and buildings heat the urban air canopy, is particularly related to the increased night-time temperatures in urban areas (Norton et al. 2015). Studies have identified peak heat island magnitudes as large as 6 0C (Gartland 2008), with some large cities experiencing heat island intensities up to 10 0C (Santamouris and Kolokotsa 2016).

Chapter 2 17

Figure 2.1 Melbourne’s urban heat island effect Measured at 1am on 23 March 2006 (Source: Coutts et al 2010, p. 30)

Gartland (2008) identified five main causes for the UHIE:

 Reduced evaporation (increased impervious surfaces and lack of vegetation, rainwater cannot dissipate heat by evaporation or evapotranspiration from plants);  Increased heat storage (built surfaces of dark materials absorb and store solar heat, exacerbated by street ‘canyons’ that trap reflected heat, and air pollution);  Increased net radiation (hotter surfaces lead to hotter air temperature, especially at night when hot surfaces cool slowly and heat the air around them);  Reduced convection (buildings slow speed, delay transfer of heat from surface to air);  Increased anthropogenic heat (heat generation from heating, cooling, transport and industrial processes). Santamouris (2015) examined the magnitude of the UHIE in Asian and Australian cities. He found that the magnitude is “a function of the urban layout, materials' characteristics, synoptic weather and climate conditions, local meteorological factors, physical, structural and morphological characteristics of the cities and anthropogenic heat released” (p. 582). The release of waste heat from air conditioning, one of the forms of anthropogenic heat released, was found to “exacerbate the nocturnal urban heat island and increase cooling demands” (Salamanca et al. 2014).

Chapter 2 18 Debbage and Shepherd (2015) estimated the urban heat island intensities of the 50 most populous cities in USA to investigate how cities’ spatial configuration (sprawling or high density) affects the magnitude of the UHIE. They found that contiguity of built form, rather than the degree of sprawl or density, was more significant. While the

UHIE is usually described as a metropolitan scale effect, heat can vary at much smaller scales too. Relatively distinct local climates develop from a combination of local effects and city-scale effects (Coutts et al. 2010). Studies have examined effects at multi-scales, from neighbourhood, to street to ‘micro-scale’ (Norton et al. 2015) and building scale

(Susca et al. 2011). Furthermore, effects such as cooling sea breezes can provide significant benefits for coastal cities (Santamouris 2015), and urban form that allows air movement and diffusion of cooling breezes increases the cooling benefits.

2.2.2 Heatwaves

During heatwaves, the UHIE further increases the temperatures experienced in urban areas. There is not a single, authoritative definition for a heatwave, with different definitions applied internationally (Marc et al. 2012; Robinson 2001) and across

Australia (VAG 2014), though there are efforts to develop standardised definitions and measurement processes (Nairn and Fawcett 2013; Perkins and Alexander 2012;

Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al. 2016). Definitions may be based on the number of consecutive days above a specified threshold. For example, the CoM (2009) definition is

“five or more consecutive days of temperatures exceeding 35 degrees”. Temperature thresholds are also specific to location. People adapt to the average temperatures of an area, so that the temperature threshold for declaration of a heatwave would be higher in Mildura, which has a warmer climate, than in Melbourne (VAG 2014). Nairn and

Fawcett (2015) proposed the ‘excess heat factor’ index for use in heatwave monitoring and reporting in Australia. The index is based on a three-day-averaged daily mean temperature (the mean of maximum daytime and minimum night-time temperatures).

The index incorporates minimum temperatures, which have been shown to be significant for human health outcomes associated with heat (Nicholls et al. 2008).

Chapter 2 19 2.2.3 Climate change

With climate change, south-east Australia is expected to be hotter and drier than the current climate. As well as reductions in annual rainfall, reductions in relative humidity and increases in evaporation rates will contribute to drier conditions (DSE

2008), though heavy rainfall events are projected to increase (AAS 2015). The annual number of hot days is expected to increase, as well as the frequency and severity of heatwaves, drought and bushfires (Cowan et al. 2014; Steffen et al. 2014). Australia has already experienced an increase in the frequency, severity and duration of extreme heat events (BoM and CSIRO 2016). Climate change impacts are therefore likely to exacerbate the impacts of urban heat (Figure 2.2), due to more extreme temperatures and more frequent and longer heatwaves (BoM and CSIRO 2016; Steffen et al. 2017).

Figure 2.2 Impact of climate change on average and extreme temperatures (Source: Steffen et al 2014, p. 17)

In effect, the relationship between UHIE, heatwaves and climate change can be understood as UHIE being a chronic condition, heatwaves being an acute expression and climate change being an amplifier for urban heat conditions (Figure 2.3).

Chapter 2 20

Figure 2.3 Relationship between the UHIE, heatwaves and climate change

2.2.4 Impacts and mitigation of urban heat

Heatwaves affect the health and wellbeing of a city’s inhabitants, its infrastructures and delivery of public services, and its economic activity and productivity (Hatvani-

Kovacs et al. 2016; Sweeney Research 2014). Those particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves are young children and babies, the elderly, those with pre- existing medical conditions, and socio-economically disadvantaged people (Bi et al.

2011), including those living in poor-quality housing, or without the financial capacity to pay for air conditioning (Nicholls et al. 2017). Heatwaves kill more people than any other type of natural disaster (Steffen et al. 2014), and can exacerbate social isolation and mental health issues (DIT 2013). Heatwaves also have significant impacts on urban biodiversity, and the health of city trees, urban parks, gardens and green spaces.

During the 2009 heatwave in Melbourne, almost 5000 Grey-headed Flying Foxes, a nationally threatened species, died at a single roosting site (Steffen et al. 2017).

Assessment of the economic impacts of urban heat and heatwaves, indicates severe economic impacts associated with reduced labour productivity (Zander et al. 2015), as well as damage to infrastructure including transport and electricity systems (NCCARF

Chapter 2 21 2016; Steffen et al. 2017). The demand for electricity shows significant peaks during heatwaves, caused by reliance on air conditioning for cooling homes; electricity peak demand in turn causes spikes in electricity costs, as well as requiring substantial investment in electricity infrastructure upgrades (Nicholls et al. 2017).

Prediction of heatwaves, and identification of vulnerable people, groups or areas supports both proactive and reactive responses by health, emergency services and urban planners (Loughnan et al. 2014). Urban heat can be mitigated by integrating vegetation and water into the urban landscape, ‘optimising’ built form, selection of materials, and ‘urbanisation strategies’ (Lehmann 2015a). The mitigation mechanisms of each of these are outlined in this section. The multiple benefits of green space and water in urban landscapes are then further examined in the following sections.

Vegetation

Increasing vegetation cover is one of the most effective ways to mitigate the UHIE (CES

2013; DIT 2013; Kleerekoper et al. 2012). Increased vegetation, particularly trees and irrigated grass, significantly reduces land surface temperatures (Adams and Smith

2014; Coutts and Harris 2013; Mariani et al. 2016) through active cooling (evapo- transpiration). In a systematic review of empirical evidence on the cooling effect of vegetation, Bowler et al. (2010) reported that on average, a park was 0.94 0C cooler than the surrounding urban area. Susca et al. (2011) reported a difference of 2 0C in air temperature between the most and the least vegetated areas of study sites in New York

City. Coutts and Harris (2013) reported a 1 0C reduction in daytime surface temperature, with an increase in vegetation area of 10% for one municipality in

Melbourne. Armson et al. (2012) examined the impacts of grass cover and trees on surface and air temperatures in Manchester UK. They found that both grass cover and trees effectively reduced surface temperatures, contributing to mitigation of the UHIE.

While grass cover had little effect on local air temperature, trees’ shade could reduce air temperature contributing to increased human comfort (Armson et al. 2012). Green roofs had cooling effects for the buildings on which they were installed, as well as contributing to UHIE mitigation (Akbari et al. 2016; Norton et al. 2015).

Chapter 2 22 As a result of their systematic review, Bowler et al. (2010) called for further research to investigate the impacts of abundance, distribution and type of greening, to inform the planning and design of green spaces’ incorporation into urban areas for cooling benefits. Using data from 50 US cities, Debbage and Shepherd (2015) reported that mitigation effects in a city are maximised through multiple smaller green spaces distributed throughout the urban area (compared with contiguous development or even compared with the presence of a single larger park). Lin and Lin (2016) compared the cooling effects of eight different spatial arrangements of urban parks. They found that “a larger total park area, a greater number of parks, a greater area of the largest park, more evenly distributed park spaces, and more park diversity led to more dramatic outdoor cooling effects” (p. 357). These results have significant implications for urban design, though the contribution of other benefits of urban green space must also be considered. For example, studies comparing ‘land sparing’ (intensive and compact built up areas beside large, contiguous green space) and ‘land sharing’

(extensive sprawling urban areas with green space interspersed) found that land sparing is more effective in conserving a wider range of green space functions, including habitat provision, though the study also concluded that ‘land sharing’ is important to ensure more people can access and benefit from urban green space (Stott et al. 2015).

Research has shown that even a small reduction in urban temperature (between 0.5 and 2 0C) can significantly reduce heat-related mortality, and increasing vegetation coverage in Melbourne’s central business district from 15% to 33% may reduce heat- related mortality by between 5-28% (Chen et al. 2014). Further research is required to ascertain how size, distribution and total quantity of green space impacts the UHIE

(Akbari et al. 2016). In examining the extent, intensity and efficiency of cooling effects related to differing sizes and shapes of green spaces, Yu et al. (2017) emphasised the complexity of urban systems, and the need for research to consider factors including building height, urban form, wind speeds, vertical and horizontal green space structures, as well as climate zones.

Chapter 2 23 Water

Water, due to its high heat capacity, moderates temperature fluxes (Gartland 2008).

Water bodies also contribute to cooling by evaporation, and in the case of flowing water, by transporting heat out of an area. ‘Water sensitive urban design’ treatments can contribute to cooling effects, as well as mitigating stormwater quantity and quality, and providing water for streetside landscaping, itself a mitigating treatment (Coutts et al. 2010). In a review of research on water sensitive urban design, Coutts et al. (2013, p.

15) reported cooling effects from treatment wetlands, ponds, creeks and rivers, and even fountains: “generally temperatures adjacent to and downwind of water bodies are reduced by around 1–2 0C compared to surrounding areas”.

Water in the urban landscape directly mitigates the UHIE (through evaporative cooling and, in the case of flowing water, by transporting heat out of an area), as well as being essential for plant growth, and therefore enabling vegetation’s mitigating role. The level of soil moisture is critical, with well-watered vegetation providing a greater cooling effect than vegetation on dry soil (Coutts et al. 2013; Gill et al. 2007). The effectiveness of urban green space to mitigate the UHIE will be increased by incorporating water, including stormwater retention or water sensitive urban design elements (Norton et al. 2015).

Built form

The orientation of streets, the height-to-width ratio of street ‘canyons’, the amount of

‘skyview’, the location of open spaces and the amount of shading can all impact the level of solar radiation absorbed by land and building surfaces. Urban density and orientation can also impact air movement and the effects of cooling winds (Smith and

Levermore 2008). Building design that incorporates passive design elements (e.g. orientation, eaves, etc.) and energy efficiency (e.g. double glazing, insulation, draught sealing) requires less artificial cooling, reducing the heat generated by machinery

(Coutts et al. 2010). Reduced reliance on artificial cooling also reduces vulnerability to heat stress in the event of disruption to power supplies during heatwaves (Nicholls et al. 2017). Coutts et al. (2016) found that the combination of street geometry and tree

Chapter 2 24 canopy cover can influence the amount of cooling, with the cooling benefit of street trees during heatwaves being more effective in shallower, broader street canyons.

However, they also recommended that, due to the variable and localised nature of street tree cooling, trees should be distributed throughout urban landscapes to increase cooling effects. They also noted that while denser canopy covers can reduce night-time cooling and air flow (by trapping the released heat below the tree canopies), the trees’ daytime cooling effects far outweighed these detrimental impacts (Coutts et al. 2016).

Materials

The colour, type and permeability of building and paving materials impact the amount of solar radiation absorbed or reflected. Different materials can exhibit substantial temperature differences. A comparison of building facades in found a temperature difference of 8 0C to 10 0C (Kleerekoper et al. 2012). Gartland (2008) contrasted traditional roofing materials, that can heat up to 90 0C, with cool roofing materials that generally stay below 50 0C. Permeable surfaces are cooler than sealed surfaces, and can also allow water infiltration for associated landscaping.

Urbanisation

Lehmann (2015a) highlighted the role of urbanisation strategies as part of heat mitigation, including precinct design, a focus on health impacts and vulnerable populations, and consideration of metropolitan scale heat islands, broadening the scale of responses from site-based to city-based. Deilami and Kamruzzaman (2017) modelled a range of different urban development approaches, and found that population density and porosity (land cover) were the 2 most significant factors for UHIE intensity, reinforcing the potential mitigation benefits from considerations of urban development patterns (as well as inclusion of green space, water and increased pervious surfaces) in the urban landscape. Likewise, the size and distribution of green spaces within cities

(as discussed earlier) can contribute to urban heat mitigation (Icaza and van der

Hoeven 2017; Lin and Lin 2016).

To effectively address the UHIE, a range of different mitigation measures may be employed. Different options will be applicable for different localised conditions and

Chapter 2 25 situations. Vulnerability data (social factors, based on demographic data) and exposure data (physical factors, based on aerial thermal imagery and ground truthing/site inspections) can be used to inform the prioritisation processes, i.e. by combining data on lower socio-economic areas with localised heat maps (Loughnan et al. 2013). Norton et al. (2015) expanded this approach by incorporating ‘behavioural exposure’, zones of high activity, into the prioritisation process. Lehmann (2015a) argued that greenery is the most cost-effective of the mitigation measures, and provides additional benefits, such as ‘pleasant urban environments’.

Mitigating the UHIE has applicability for both climate change mitigation (the reduction of ) and adaptation (the minimisation of the adverse effects of climate change). Mitigating the UHIE, and therefore reducing additional increases to urban temperatures, decreases demand for cooling energy use in buildings (Akbari et al. 2016; Santamouris 2014). Reducing urban temperatures through heat island mitigation will also reduce the level of climate change adaptation required during heatwaves. Estrada et al. (2017) argued that mitigating the urban heat island effect can

“significantly amplify the benefits of international [climate change] mitigation efforts”.

The next section of this chapter considers the multiple functions and benefits of urban green space in addition to heat mitigation, and reviews a range of research approaches to the study of urban green spaces.

2.3 Urban green space

This research focuses on the mitigation of the UHIE with vegetation, one of the most effective and efficient of the mitigation measures. Urban vegetation, as well as contributing to mitigation of the UHIE, provides many other benefits and functions in urban areas and is increasingly recognised as a key element of the urban landscape and the liveable city.

Chapter 2 26 2.3.1 Green space benefits and contributions

A city’s green spaces provide a range of benefits for the city’s residents and biodiversity. As well as contributing to mitigation of UHIE and urban heat, research has identified and quantified many of the other benefits provided by urban green space. These include mental and physical health benefits (Davern et al. 2017; Donovan et al. 2013; Douglas et al. 2017; James et al. 2016; WHO 2016, 2017; Wolf et al. 2015); social benefits, including building social cohesion through social interaction (Fan et al.

2011; Maas et al. 2009); and environmental benefits (Fryd et al. 2011; Kabisch et al.

2015), including provision of important biodiversity habitat (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Ives et al. 2016; Le Roux et al. 2014). The economic benefits include increased economic activity associated with attractive urban landscapes and streetscapes (BOP Consulting

2013; Rogers et al. 2012), and increased economic value of residential properties near urban green space (Swinbourne and Rosenwax 2017), though the latter effect has also been associated with housing unaffordability and social exclusion (Haase et al. 2017).

Urban green spaces can also contribute biophysical functions in addition to heat mitigation, including management of stormwater quality and quantity (Coutts et al.

2013; Gill et al. 2007; Zölch et al. 2017), air quality (Nowak et al. 2014) and acoustic insulation (Azkorra et al. 2015).

Urban green spaces provide the opportunities for city dwellers to have contact with nature. Wilson (1984) proposed the term ‘biophilia’ to describe people’s affinity for nature, and affiliation with life and lifelike processes. Beatley (2011) applied the term to cities, ‘biophilic cities’, to demonstrate the opportunities and benefits of integrating nature into urban planning and design. Biophilic cities “provide close and daily contact with nature, nearby nature, but also seek to foster an awareness of and caring for this nature” (Beatley and Newman 2013, p. 3328). Beatley and Newman (2013, p. 3328) reinforced the need for urban dwellers’ daily contact with nature to live “happy, productive, meaningful lives”.

Research has identified links between proximity to green space and physical wellbeing as well as neighbourhood social cohesion (Villanueva et al. 2015), strengthening

Chapter 2 27 emotional bonds to place and to community (Beatley and Newman 2013), and improvements to concentration and mental wellbeing (Lee et al. 2015; Wolf et al. 2015).

A recent study found that exposure to nature increased cooperative and sustainable behaviour (Zelenski et al. 2015). Further research is required to build understandings of the mechanisms that underpin the benefits to human health and wellbeing from contact with nature (Husk et al. 2016; Trundle and McEvoy 2016). The following section summarises the key bodies of research that are focused on understandings of urban green space roles, functions, services and the underpinning mechanisms.

2.3.2 Urban green space research approaches and terminology

Green spaces have been part of human settlements and cities from earliest times, with gardens found in the stories, myths, legends and archaeological records of urban areas: the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is one of the most famous urban gardens of antiquity

(Turner 2005). Gardens and green spaces have long been valued for their aesthetic properties and for the recreation opportunities they provide. There are growing understandings of the much wider contributions of urban green space, as highlighted in the previous section, and increasing research focused specifically on green spaces and ecosystems of cities. This section provides an overview of key research.

Urban ecology

The declared that from 2007, the majority of humanity now live in cities (UN 2015b), and urbanisation is a major global process. Over recent years, ecology has developed a distinct area of research and body of knowledge focused on urban issues. Early developments in urban ecology focused on the ecology in cities, the examination of biodiversity and ecological processes occurring within cities. Studies were small scale and specific to particular ecosystem types, and were conducted largely by ecological scientists (McDonnell 2011). Urban ecology as a field of study has more recently expanded to consider the ecology of cities, with a broader focus on cities as social-ecological systems, “incorporating both the ecological and human dimensions of urban ecosystems” (Douglas and James 2015, p. 2).

Chapter 2 28 Urban ecology seeks to understand and analyse urban green spaces’ roles, functions and contributions to urban systems, and as a result develop capability for informing and facilitating urban policy (McPhearson, Pickett, et al. 2016). “Urban ecology integrates the theory and methods of both natural and social sciences to study the patterns and processes of urban ecosystems. Evolving conceptual frameworks for urban ecology view cities as heterogeneous, dynamic landscapes and as complex, adaptive, socioecological systems, in which the delivery of ecosystem services links society and ecosystems at multiple scales” (Grimm et al. 2008, p. 756). This necessitates a more interdisciplinary approach, spanning the work of ecologists, as well as social scientists, planners, designers, and so on (Figure 2.4).

McDonnell (2015), in establishing a new journal of urban ecology, characterised the research field as utilising “a unique mixture of approaches, frameworks, study locations, and methodologies that differentiates it from other disciplines, although there is still significant blurring at the boundaries” (McDonnell 2015, p. 2).

Figure 2.4 Urban ecology as a multidisciplinary research field (Source: McDonnell 2015)

Chapter 2 29 Urban forestry and urban greening

In introducing a new journal focused on urban forestry and urban greening, the editors characterised urban forestry as including street trees, park and garden trees and urban woodlands, while urban greening is considered to have a wider scope, and includes linear green structures (such as trees and other vegetation), medium-sized green areas

(such as parks gardens and cemeteries), and urban and peri-urban forests and woodlands (Konijnendijk and Randrup 2002). Urban forestry, largely dominated by

North American and European researchers, grew from origins in natural resource management and forestry, and is defined as “the art, science and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for the physiological, sociological, economic, and aesthetic benefits trees provide society”

(Konijnendijk et al. 2006, p. 93). Urban greening was distinguished as being a term more frequently used in developing economies, and refers to the “planning and management of all urban vegetation” (Konijnendijk and Randrup 2002, p. 2).

In Europe, ‘urban forestry’ refers predominantly to ‘woodlands’, while in North

America the term refers largely to ‘street trees’ (Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015). In

Australia, City of Melbourne’s Urban Forest Strategy (CoM 2012b) defined its urban forest more broadly: “all of the trees and other vegetation – and soil and water that supports it – within the municipality”, although the Strategy’s actions largely focus on planning and management of its tree population in the public realm. In a review of the scientific discourses associated with use of the term ‘urban forestry’, a ‘managerial’ discourse, which addresses “achieving healthy, resilient and safe urban forests by means of sound urban forest management” was found to be the dominant discourse

(Krajter Ostoić and Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015, p. 132), and reflected a focus on quantitative methods, and less focus or inclusion of non-expert input and social perspectives.

Ecosystem services

From the late 1990s, the benefits provided to humans from natural systems were encapsulated within the ‘ecosystem services’ framework, that sought to describe,

Chapter 2 30 measure and financially value the services (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997). The MEA

(2003) identified four categories of services: supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural. Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2013) highlighted the ecosystem services of urban areas that contribute to a city’s functioning and liveability, particularly the ‘regulating’ and ‘cultural’ services (Figure 2.5). The regulating services of ‘temperature regulation’ and ‘moderation of climate extremes’ are of direct relevance to mitigating the UHIE.

Figure 2.5 Classification of ecosystem services (Source: Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013, p. 179)

The ecosystem services framework provides a simple, clear and useable typology for encompassing the range of benefits provided to humans from ecosystems and from nature, and as such has been widely adopted in research literature on green space

(McDonough et al. 2017). However, it is not without its critiques. These revolve around the term being fundamentally anthropocentric and grounded in an economic approach that as a result excludes the intrinsic values of nature and non-human species, potentially leading to commodification of nature, and exploitative human-nature relationships (Schröter et al. 2014). Others have raised questions in relation to how the

Chapter 2 31 concept addresses issues of the distribution of wealth, power, equity and access to green space (for example, Kull et al. 2015). Schröter et al. (2014) highlighted the differing worldviews and disciplinary bases for the critiques, and responding counter- arguments, and called for continuing dialogue between proponents of different views.

McDonough et al. (2017) reinforced the important contribution of interdisciplinary research and cross-communication to “expand and enhance our understanding of ecosystem services” (p. 87).

Tradeoffs and ecosystem disservices

As ecosystems and urban green spaces are complex systems, there may be tradeoffs in the planning and management of different ecosystem services. These tradeoffs may be focused on prioritising provision of one ecosystem service over another. Examples of potentially competing ecosystem services include local climate regulation, recreation, biodiversity and carbon storage (Dobbs et al. 2014; Haase et al. 2012), or more broadly between social and environmental priorities (Haase et al. 2017; Meerow and Newell

2016). One response proposed involves broadening approaches to research and policy practice to incorporate ‘biocultural diversity’ (Buizer et al. 2016), to promote acknowledgement of diverse values and attitudes, potentially reveal conflicts, and encourage transdisciplinary, participatory approaches to research and management of urban green spaces.

While research into ecosystem services has expanded considerably in recent years, there has been less focus on ‘ecosystem disservices’ (Shackleton et al. 2016). Ecosystem disservices are defined as “functions or properties of ecosystems that cause negative effects on human wellbeing or that are perceived as harmful, unpleasant or unwanted”

(Lyytimäki 2014, p. 418). Examples of ecosystem disservices include pest damage to crops, pollen causing allergic reactions (Lyytimäki 2015) or the release by some tree species during heatwaves of volatile organic compounds that exacerbate air pollution

(Salmond et al. 2016). While some researchers have called for more research and explicit acknowledgement of ecosystem disservices (Shackleton et al. 2016), others have suggested resisting resorting to simplified dichotomies, and rather advocated adopting

Chapter 2 32 a “more nuanced, holistic approach” that addresses complexity and the temporal and spatial context of specific ecosystems (Saunders and Luck 2016).

Green infrastructure

The green infrastructure (GI) concept arose as a landscape approach to urban design, planning and management (Lindholm 2017; Mell 2017). Its key principles emphasise multifunctionality, connectivity and ecological networks of urban green spaces (Benedict and McMahon 2006; Tzoulas et al. 2007), as well as integrated approaches to policy implementation (Lennon et al. 2017; Lindholm 2017; Mell 2017). It has been described as ‘operationalising’ the ecosystem services concept, as well as reinforcing the multifunctional roles that urban green space provides, in direct contrast to the monofunctional grey infrastructure (e.g. drainage, transport) of urban systems

(Sandström 2002; Tzoulas et al. 2007). For example, grey infrastructure drainage systems fulfil one main function: removing water as quickly as possible from urban areas. In contrast, green infrastructure in the form of water sensitive urban design treatments can form part of the urban drainage infrastructure, as well as contributing a range of other functions (Dagenais et al. 2017). These design treatments contribute to stormwater quality and quantity management (some of the ‘regulating’ ecosystem services), as well as potentially providing aesthetic, habitat and temperature regulation functions (Coutts et al. 2013; Gill et al. 2007).

The GI term has the potential to build a shared language with city engineers, infrastructure and assets managers, urban planners and designers, and other urban systems practitioners (Lennon and Scott 2014). However, the term has been applied in divergent and sometimes conflicting ways, meaning different things to different people

(Hansen and Pauleit 2014; Lafortezza et al. 2013; Madureira and Andresen 2014). Mell

(2012, p. 152) highlighted the potential interpretations and ambiguity of the term by asking “can we tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Both may have a green or sustainable function”. Horwood (2011) pointed out that there are multiple definitions for green infrastructure, reflecting the different contexts in which the term is used, but that the term has been “very rarely presented as a concept that does not first need

Chapter 2 33 explaining and defining. This repeated defining demonstrates that meaning is not seen as fixed or fully established” (Horwood 2011, p. 964). Massini (2016) suggested that although the term is now in frequent use, it is “not always articulated well or applied consistently”, in part because it describes green space in a way inconsistent with traditional and strongly embedded conceptions of parks and green spaces as locations for “conserving heritage or promoting physical activity” (p. 290).

More recently Mell (2017) argued that there is now “a relatively common consensus relating to what GI is and how it should be developed” (p. 139), but there is still variation in application, at least amongst Australian practitioners (Matthews et al.

2015), with Bosomworth et al. (2013, p. 16) noting the range of applications of the term

‘green infrastructure’, from “low-carbon or energy efficient ‘hard’ infrastructure (such as roads and solar-passive buildings) to ‘open spaces’ (such as public parks)”.

Nonetheless, green infrastructure approaches to landscape planning are increasingly being adopted by local, regional and national governments as an “an integrated and cost-effective approach to urban and landscape planning” (Mell 2017, p. 137)

Nature-based solutions

The term ‘nature-based solutions’ was proposed by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature in the late 2000s (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016), and has been actively adopted by the European Commission (EC 2015). It is intended to create “an umbrella concept that covers a whole range of ecosystem-related approaches all of which address societal challenges” (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016, p. 10), and incorporates ‘green infrastructure’, climate adaptation services and other approaches to ecosystem protection, management and restoration (Figure 2.6).

Chapter 2 34

Figure 2.6 Nature-based solutions to societal challenges (Source: Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016)

According to Scott and Lennon (2016), the term provides a “more holistic ecosystems approach, which includes not only protection but also enhancing, restoring, creating and designing new ecological networks characterised by multifunctionality and connectivity” (p. 268). They cautioned however that the term could “quickly become appropriated as part of a neoliberal planning discourse”, with associated processes of privatisation of urban green spaces (Scott and Lennon 2016, p. 268). In proposing and utilising a new term, there are calls for a single, set definition of the term, to prevent

“misuse”, and “avoid misunderstanding, duplication and unintended consequences”

(Nesshöver et al. 2017, p. 1215). The term has rapidly diffused into research since its introduction (though it has yet to be substantially adopted by Australian researchers) and while some question whether it is simply another ‘piece of green jargon’, it nonetheless reinforces the importance of addressing urban environmental and social challenges by incorporating nature into cities (Nature (editorial) 2017).

Summary

This section has highlighted the evolving and maturing research and landscape planning approaches related to urban green space. (Figure 2.7 presents the annual

Chapter 2 35 number of papers recorded in the Scopus database that include a range of different

‘urban green space’ terms in title, abstract or keywords). The field has expanded from a focus on ecology in towns and cities undertaken by biological scientists, to a focus on the ecology of cities that encompasses a broad range of social and natural sciences. The ecosystem services concept identifies the range of benefits of nature and ecosystems for humans. Green infrastructure operationalises these concepts to inform landscape planning approaches, and to communicate with planners, managers and engineers, while also reinforcing the necessity for a multifunctional, connected network of green space to achieve green infrastructure’s objectives and functions. More recently, nature- based solutions to the challenges of climate change, food and water security and disaster resilience, provides an umbrella term for a range of ecosystem-based approaches. Kremer et al. (2016), in reviewing research on urban ecosystem services and identifying future research directions, noted the potential power of the ecosystem services term to bring together knowledge from diverse fields and disciplines, but also the challenges involved in addressing these differences.

3000

2500

2000 ecosystem services green space 1500 green infrastructure urban forest

1000 urban green space nature based solutions

500

0

1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 1961

Figure 2.7 Urban green space terminology (Source: Scopus database, accessed 1/6/17)

Chapter 2 36 All the approaches acknowledge the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, and incorporation of social perspectives and values, though there are continuing calls for increased focus on inclusion of these perspectives (including for example Kabisch et al.

2016; Kremer et al. 2016; McDonough et al. 2017; Mell 2017; Xing et al. 2017).

This research uses the term urban green space, following the definition of Douglas

(2011): “any vegetated land or water with or adjoining an urban area”. Urban green space includes green corridors, woods, parks gardens and playing fields, and even

“derelict, vacant and contaminated land which has the potential to be transformed”

(Douglas 2011, p. xxi). This term has been selected because it is understood by both research and practice communities and because it spans the range of concepts, terminology and research approaches reviewed in this section. This section has demonstrated the development of a maturing, more nuanced approach to understanding urban green space’s roles and benefits, as well as how research informs landscape planning and policy. The following section reviews policy processes, and the barriers, challenges and opportunities for inclusion of green space within urban policy.

2.4 Policy perspectives

The term ‘policy’ is used in a range of ways by different writers, from an overarching focus on how society’s goals and objectives are expressed and achieved, to more specific and particular attention to process, form, decision making and action. Althaus et al. (2013) reviewed a range of definitions for policy: “the process by which a society makes and enforces decisions”; “what governments do, why and with what consequences”; “a course of action by government designed to attain specific results”

(Althaus et al. 2013, pp. 6-7). Maddison and Denniss (2013, p. 4) stressed the

“unavoidably political” nature of policy, because policy development and decision making requires weighing competing interests and values. Thomas and Murfitt (2011, p. 46) incorporated a range of elements to define policy as “a statement of goals plus an indication of how these goals are to be achieved”. This research integrates these contributions to use the term ‘policy’ to include stated goals, how they will be achieved and the process with which these were planned, developed and adopted.

Chapter 2 37 Likewise, the term ‘governance’ is used in different ways by different writers, with a narrower focus on the “processes, systems and controls for effective management”

(Althaus et al. 2013, p. 263), or more broadly as “the setting of rules, the application of rules and the enforcement of rules”, encompassing consideration of the actors involved and their interrelationships (Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015). As this research is largely focused on policy aspects specifically, broader consideration of the roles, responsibilities, discourses and power relations of ‘governance’ actors is beyond the scope of this research.

The field of urban ecology has expanded to encompass social processes (social sciences) as well as ecological processes (natural sciences). Scientists in the interdisciplinary field of urban ecology recognise the importance and necessity of linking their research to policy. However, knowledge of policy processes and how scientific research knowledge is incorporated into policies is less well understood

(including by some scientists and urban ecologists themselves): “Our understanding of the biotic effects of is improving, but incorporation of this scientific understanding into policy, governance, and planning is still lagging behind” (Niemela et al. 2011, p. 1). In addition, there are challenges involved in crossing disciplinary boundaries and incorporating research based on different conceptual foundations. For example, Tanner et al. (2014) called for urban ecologists to be inclusive, ready to incorporate areas from economics to politics, but noted the epistemological and ontological challenges involved: “how will advocating policy affect scientists’ ability

(real or perceived) to remain objective?” (Tanner et al. 2014, p. 580). This concern reflects how some urban ecologists see their area of research as separate from, rather than encompassing of, social science research fields. It reinforces the epistemological differences between ‘objective’ positivist science that places physical scientists as unattached observers of systems, and social constructionism, in which social scientists

“position themselves in the research to acknowledge how their interpretation flows from their personal, cultural and historical experiences” (Creswell 2014, p. 8).

Chapter 2 38 Planning and management of urban green space forms one element of environmental sustainability policy and governance. The characteristics and complexities of environmental sustainability policies justify their consideration as a specific area of consideration and analysis. The environment underpins the function of all social- ecological processes, and as such, policy related to environmental sustainability is by definition cross-cutting. Likewise, many policy domains will impact on urban environmental outcomes. In addition, “ecosystem service beneficiaries and providers are dispersed vertically at multiple governance levels and horizontally across sectors”

(Loft et al. 2015, p. 150). The distribution of costs and benefits associated with the provision of ecosystem services is complex. While many may benefit from the provision of ecosystem services, the risks and costs caused by damage to the environment (pollution, destruction) are likely to be widely distributed. In addition, the costs associated with provision of ecosystem services may be borne ‘privately’ (by individual property owners, farmers and so on), but the benefits may be distributed broadly (and freely). Environmental policy, as an element of ‘sustainable development’, should also be long term in its approach, as is necessitated by addressing complex issues. Sustainable development must address “those persistent problems in (Western industrialized) societies that can only be dealt with on the very long term” (Loorbach 2010, p. 161).

Thomas and Murfitt (2011) suggested that environmental policy making is one of the most challenging areas of policy, pointing to the “transboundary nature of environmental effects [that] transcend physical boundaries and time periods” (p. 55).

In addition, addressing environmental issues must be linked to the wider social context: Crowley and Walker (2012, p. 6) pointed to ongoing ecological and policy failures caused by “the failure to treat environmental concerns as social manifestations of underlying ecological malfunctions, and the failure to pay heed to the science that could inform policy”. Loorbach (2010, p. 169) suggested that long term time scales are rare in policy making, “which is generally focused on the short and midterm because of political cycles, individual interests, and public pressure”.

Chapter 2 39 Environmental policy making, as with much urban policy, can create an arena of polarisation, winners and losers, delayed consequences with policy outcomes not obvious for many years, and values clashes, particularly between economic growth and environmental preservation (Thomas and Murfitt 2011).

2.4.1 Policy processes

The policy process involves a number of phases, or stages. Howlett and Ramesh (2003) defined five stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, policy implementation and policy evaluation. Althaus et al. (2013) added further detail by identifying three additional stages: analysis, consultation and coordination, serving to draw attention to the importance of broader consultation processes (beyond government policy makers) in policy design and decision making processes.

These policy stages have been portrayed as a ‘cycle’ of sequential steps in specific order

“a cycle depicting the rhythms and patterns of the policy world” (Althaus et al. 2013, p.

2). The policy cycle concept seeks to bring order to what can otherwise appear a chaotic process. Its strength is that it emphasises that the policy process is continuous or iterative. Evaluation of policy may lead to further identification of issues, or improvements or adjustments to existing policies, in which case the cycle begins again.

However the representation of a policy cycle has been criticised as being overly simplistic (Maddison and Denniss 2013); in practice, policy processes rarely follow neat, sequential steps (Cairney 2012; Weible 2014). Howlett and Ramesh (2003) characterised policy processes as often being more idiosyncratic and potentially following a ‘looping’ rather than cyclic path, where stages may be returned to more than once during the development and implementation of a policy. Sabatier and

Jenkins-Smith (1993) criticised the policy cycle as having a ‘top-down’ focus that ignores or understates the role of stakeholders, communities and other perspectives.

Maddison and Denniss (2013), in distinguishing between ‘models’ that seek to describe, and ‘theories’ that seek to explain, concluded that while the policy cycle can

Chapter 2 40 provide a model for describing policy processes (albeit an unrealistically simple or sanitised model), its analytical capacity is limited.

Nonetheless, understanding the policy process as stages or steps may support or inform normative efforts to influence policy development. Identifying specific policy stages may support processes for introducing policy innovations and interventions for green space, and for identifying how (and when) scientific urban ecology research can be integrated into urban policies. For example, the development of policies to address an issue or goal requires that the issue is deemed appropriate for inclusion into the government’s policy ‘agenda’. According to Althaus et al. (2013), an issue must meet four conditions to warrant inclusion in a government’s ‘policy agenda’. These are: agreement on a problem; the prospect of a solution; an appropriate issue for government expenditure; and a political willingness to address the issue. The requirement to meet all four conditions or criteria highlights the challenges of addressing complex issues with public policy, and also of integrating research findings into practical policy outcomes.

The design of policies requires identifying and selecting appropriate policy mechanisms or instruments with which the policy is implemented. Maddison and

Denniss (2013) identified four categories of policy mechanisms: advocacy or persuasion; incentives; government provision or action; and regulation. In addressing complex issues, including sustainability, a single mechanism is unlikely to be sufficient for environmental policies that aim to address sustainability issues in complex systems

(Dovers 2005).

In seeking to understand and analyse policy processes, Maddison and Denniss (2013) contrasted two different views: ‘authorised (or authoritative) choice’ and ‘structured interaction’. In the ‘authorised choice’ approach, development of public policy can be understood as a rational, evidence-based exercise focused largely on decision making as the end result (Althaus et al. 2013). This view emphasises the rational aspects of policy development, particularly ‘evidence-based’ policy development. Evidence-

Chapter 2 41 based policy seeks to ensure that policies are based on credible and complete evidence

(Banks 2009). In this way, it is suggested, policy will be more reliable and objective, and less influenced by values and ideals (or ideology).

However this conceptualisation has been criticised on a number of fronts, beyond the obvious complaint that “it is difficult to imagine anyone arguing that policy should be based on anything but the best available evidence” (Marston and Watts 2003, cited in

Maddison and Denniss 2013, p. p. 209). Critiques question which evidence or information is included and which is not, as it is impossible to include all relevant evidence in decision making process. Lindblom (1959) differentiated between an idealised policy making process that utilises ‘all’ available evidence and the in-practice,

‘incremental’ policy making process of “muddling through”, in which judgement is applied to determining which and how much evidence is used to support policy development and decision making. Stiglitz et al. (2009) emphasised the role of data selection in directing the policy process. The availability of data will directly impact which evidence is considered and included in decision making processes. In some cases data may not have been collected or available, even though its inclusion would be relevant or strengthen the policy development. If data is not collected, this may effectively render these aspects invisible to the policy process.

Head (2008) highlighted three lenses of evidence that contribute to evidence-based policy. The three lenses are scientific research-based knowledge, practical implementation knowledge, and political judgement. He emphasised that policy development is a more complex process than the neat application of facts and evidence: “policy decisions emerge from politics, judgement and debate, rather than being deduced from empirical analysis” (Head 2008, p. 1).

In contrast to the ‘authorised choice’ view, ‘structured interaction’ provides an alternative view that emphasises the range of participants involved, and the role of values in decision making. Within structured interaction, the government is conceived as an ‘arena’ rather than the unified and decisive actor of the authoritative choice

Chapter 2 42 model (Colebatch 2006; Maddison and Denniss 2013). ‘Structured interaction’ acknowledges the process of policy development, rather than concentrating the focus on the decision making as the end result. In addition to acknowledging the value judgements (whether explicit or implicit) involved in the selection of evidence, knowledge and data included in the policy process, Maddison and Denniss (2013) emphasised the range of policy actors from both within and outside government, who seek to influence the policy process.

Policy processes associated with complex issues, such as urban sustainability policies and climate change policies, encompass a range of stakeholders and policy domains.

Decisions may necessitate trade-offs and choices between options. Deciding between options may therefore require value judgements. The structured interaction view of policy making provides a more comprehensive account of the process and the important dynamics for these types of issues, which span research, practical and political participants and bodies of knowledge. The structured interaction approach informs this research’s characterisation and understanding of policy processes.

2.4.2 Cities and green space policies

Formalised land use planning approaches, that were founded in the early 20th century, have recognised the importance of the inclusion of green spaces for city dwellers

(Buxton et al. 2016; Hagan 2014; Wheeler 2013), though the focus has largely been on green spaces’ contributions to recreational and aesthetic values. Policies for urban green spaces that address the wider range of green space functions encapsulated by

‘ecosystem services’ are more recent additions to public policy suites.

International approaches

As the research on green space and urban ecosystem services has expanded, so too has reporting on cities’ approaches to green space policies. Many of the case studies are of individual cities in North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. There is a growing number of reviews and case studies undertaken by both researchers (including for example Boyle et al. 2012; Buizer et al. 2015; Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; CBD

Chapter 2 43 2012; Dobbs et al. 2014; Taylor and Hochuli 2017), as well as by practitioners (Arup

2014; Cities Alliance 2007; Sustainia 2015) of policy approaches to urban green space.

Much of the practice-based literature is driven by a focus on climate change mitigation reporting, with green space actions listed as one of the potential approaches to climate change action. Cities’ climate change reporting is underpinned by efforts of networks and alliances of cities, including C40 (associated with the Clinton Climate Initiative and focused on climate change action in megacities), 100 Resilient Cities (funded by the

Rockefeller Foundation), and alliances, programs and networks associated with UN and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. In addition, the Carbon Disclosure

Project has developed a substantial database of climate change mitigation actions in more than 500 cities around the world. The World Cities Culture Forum, an alliance of

32 ‘world’ cities that seeks to share research and information on policy approaches to promotion of culture as part of urban sustainable development, publishes case studies and a database of the percentage of public green space in member cities (WCCF 2017).

There are also several major research projects that have taken a transdisciplinary approach, many of which are based in Europe. For example, Green Surge has collated case studies from 20 European cities documenting approaches to green space policy, planning and governance (Davies et al. 2015). Transdisciplinarity has the potential to link the research and practice-based approaches, experience and knowledge.

This growing interest and output may be underpinned by increasing research understandings on urban ecosystem services and the contribution of urban green spaces, as well as being driven by high level, international policy approaches. These include the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the adoption of the New Urban

Agenda for sustainable urbanisation, at UN Habitat’s Habitat III conference in 2015. The

Sustainable Development Goals include a specific urban goal, Goal 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities, which seeks to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN 2015a). The New Urban Agenda includes reference to inclusion of ‘green and quality public spaces’, reflecting an increased emphasis on green spaces’ contributions to urban functions and liveability.

Chapter 2 44 Barriers to inclusion in the urban policy agenda

Notwithstanding these high level policy drivers, there are significant challenges for incorporating urban green space policies into cities’ policy agendas. With growing urban populations, green space is under increasing pressure from urbanisation processes of expansion and densification (Pauleit et al. 2011). While urban densification processes have been proposed in part to reduce pressure for fringe development and urban expansion, provision of green space during densification processes is a major challenge (Haaland and Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015). Green space has been seen as easily replaceable when it ‘gets in the way’ of new developments and new (‘hard’) infrastructure (Bélanger 2009; VLSA 2011). Urban planners must juggle a range of often competing demands and issues in the planning and development of cities, including housing affordability, economic development and infrastructure provision (Colding

2011), often with lack of guidance on strategic priorities, or implementation targets.

Matthews et al. (2015) argued that there are a range of institutional barriers for planners to integrate green space, including “definitional ambiguity” related to ‘green infrastructure’, institutional unwillingness for innovation and ‘path dependency’ in which business as usual approaches provide the default response. Furthermore,

Hansen and Pauleit (2014) identified a lack of application-oriented frameworks that could operationalise the research on green infrastructure into practice.

The key objectives for urban green space policies that aim to mitigate the UHIE as well as provide other ecosystem services are to retain existing green cover, to identify opportunities to increase green cover, and to ensure that other policies, strategies and regulations do not pose unreasonable barriers to the retention and establishment of green cover (Bosomworth et al. 2013). Gill et al. (2007, p. 130) suggested that it is the role of planners and green space managers to “ensure that the functionality of greenspace is properly understood and that what exists is conserved”. McPhearson et al. (2015) highlighted the need for planners and managers to go beyond understanding, by better articulating the multiple values of urban ecosystem services, as a key element in integration of green space into urban policy and planning.

Chapter 2 45 For many city dwellers, their lives seem disconnected from ‘nature’ and from ecological processes and functions (Fink 2016; Kaika and Swyngedouw 2012).

Technology can increase the sense of distance and separation from nature and ecology, and the perception of humans’ (particularly city dwellers’) independence from nature and ecology, reinforced by attitudes to green space as non-essential elements of cities that simply contribute aesthetic and recreational aspects. These ‘worldviews’ may contribute to the current (marginal) treatment of urban greening in metropolitan strategies and policies. Mainstreaming urban green space in metropolitan strategies and policies may be supported and reinforced by a shift from understanding urban greening as an aesthetic contribution to urban landscapes, towards an understanding, informed by current research, which embeds green space in urban environments as an integral and necessary element of the urban system and its functions (Andersson et al.

2014; Elmqvist et al. 2013). Fink (2016) suggested that inclusion of urban green spaces and nature-based solutions may contribute to nurturing biophilia (humans’ innate connection with and love for nature) and in turn promote broader environmental stewardship and sustainability action.

Green space indicators and indexes

The development of reliable and valid indicators and indexes for green space can support and facilitate research, monitoring and evaluation of spatial and temporal trends in urban green space and ecosystem services provision. Indicators simplify and communicate complex systems or situations; they need to be reliable (with stable and consistent results) and valid (measuring the required subject or process) (Innes 1975).

With consistency of data collection and context, they can be compared across temporal and spatial scales to show trends and to communicate complex information (Innes

1975). Indexes, which incorporate a range of indicators (often with weighting) into the one measure, have been developed for research, reporting and regulatory applications

(Table 2.1). Berlin’s Biotope Area Factor has been adapted by a number of cities to underpin land use planning and development application processes, including Seattle,

Chapter 2 46 USA (Seattle Green Factor: SDCI 2017), Malmö and Lund, Sweden (Green Space Factor:

Kruuse 2011) and some UK local authorities (Green Infrastructure Toolkit: Kruuse 2011).

Table 2.1 Selected indexes for urban green space

Index Associated indicators Purpose City Biodiversity Comprises 23 indicators including: Proportion of Self-assessment tool for Index natural areas; Connectivity; Native biodiversity urban managers, which (Kohsaka et al. (bird species); Change in number of native integrates a number of 2013) (also known species (plants, birds, butterflies, other); indicators for urban as the ‘Singapore Proportion of invasive alien species; Water biodiversity and ecosystem Index on Cities’ regulation; Climate regulation; Recreational and services. Biodiversity’) educational services; Allocated budget; Number of projects implemented annually; Rules, regulations and policy; Institutional capacity; Participation and partnership; Education and awareness. Biotope Area Factor Ratio of ‘ecologically effective’ surface area Designed to set minimum (BAF) relative to total land area. standards for inclusion of (SDETCP 2017) green space into new developments. Green Plot Ratio Measure of ‘green density’: average Leaf Area Design and planning tool for (Ong 2015) Index of the greenery on a site. incorporating target green space quantity (based on the Leaf Area Index) in urban developments; can be used to track temporal changes.

While there are potential benefits for their use by policy makers and urban forest managers in supporting and underpinning ongoing monitoring and evaluation, as well as generating communication, participation, and stewardship across institutional boundaries, Kohsaka et al. (2013) noted a range of methodological and institutional challenges and difficulties associated with the use of green space indicators and indexes. These include lack of available data, inconsistency in defining some indicators, the size of the data collection task associated with the number of indicators and the types of information included, as well as issues of scale and boundary definition. The gathering of reliable and accessible data remains a major challenge (Dizdaroglu 2017).

While some cities have invested resources in the development and ongoing application green space indexes, their use does not yet appear to be widespread, with global reporting (such as Sustainia 2015; WCCF 2017) continuing to use simple green space area calculations rather than more complex indexes.

Chapter 2 47 Notwithstanding the difficulties in their use, Holman (2009) argued that sustainability indicators can contribute to framing definitions and increasing conceptual understandings of sustainability. As such, indicators “act as key sites of innovation” to build relationships and trust between networks of planners and urban policy makers

(Holman 2009). Lakes and Kim (2012) argued that there has been relatively little research on the development and application of indicators for urban ecosystem services. Further studies are required to support continued development and application of indicators as important tools for both research and planning to address urban environmental challenges.

Economics

As part of efforts to integrate green infrastructure into mainstream approaches to urban planning and functions, frameworks and methodologies have been developed to calculate the economic value of the benefits of green infrastructure (for example,TEEB

2010; VISES 2015). This is based on the belief that being able to assign a financial value to green space benefits will strengthen the business case for their inclusion in urban infrastructure and landscapes.

Green spaces’ contributions to biophysical functions have dominated economic valuations. Research demonstrating that nature contact directly contributes to psychosocial, cognitive and physical health and wellbeing benefits was used as the basis to expand economic valuations (Wolf et al. 2015). The researchers used a ‘life course approach’ to calculate benefits over the course of a human lifespan by focusing on six indicators associated with epidemiology and public health, related to specific stages in a human life span: birth weight, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD), school performance, crime, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease.

They estimated the substantial annual potential cost savings, avoided costs and increased incomes associated with ‘metro nature benefits’, but also noted substantial challenges related to data availability and comparability between different studies, and related to different cities.

Chapter 2 48 Building the business case is viewed as an integral element of evidence-based decision making (Althaus et al. 2013). However others have questioned whether financial valuations make any difference to decision making processes: “they have been ‘putting a price on the environment’ for a couple of decades now without any noticeable impact” (Hamilton 2015), suggesting that underlying values and worldviews are the dominant informer of policy decisions. Coffey (2016) suggested that the use of economic metaphors, such as ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’, “marginalises transformative agendas” and is at best a “mildly reformist attempt to give greater consideration to environmental objectives in decision making” (p. 17).

Green space distribution and equity

Analyses of the quantity and location of urban green space have suggested an uneven distribution of green space across cities, with more affluent areas often having disproportionately higher quantities (Kabisch and Haase 2014; Wolch et al. 2014).

Urban planners are increasingly considering provision of green space in metropolitan planning strategies. Kabisch and Haase (2014) identified green space quality and design, as well as differences in cultural preferences, as elements that need to be considered in green space planning approaches. Norton et al. (2015) highlighted the social equity dimensions of green space distribution: with socio-economically disadvantaged areas suffering greater health impacts from heatwaves, urban green space provision becomes a social justice issue, as well as a preventive health issue.

Some public authorities, in recognition of the equity considerations of green space provision and distribution, have responded by targeting areas with less green space for new parklands. However, Wolch et al. (2014) argued that greening strategies may lead to ‘green gentrification’, displacing the socio-economically disadvantaged residents that the strategies were designed to address. Estimations of increased property values associated with increased canopy cover (Swinbourne and Rosenwax 2017) or proximity to parks (Herath et al. 2015) serve to reinforce these concerns. With inclusion of green space as part of marketing approaches to , Haase et al. (2017) argued for increased consideration of social impacts.

Chapter 2 49 While social equity perspectives on green space creation and improvement should be considered, there is a risk that translating these to a specific focus on ‘green gentrification’ may obscure other issues of greater local significance in relation to green space provision and environmental justice. Key amongst these are not just providing equitable distribution of green space across the urban area, but also ensuring the design of urban green spaces facilitates a sense of welcome, a ‘right to the city’ and its green spaces, across cultural and socio-economic groups (Vrasti and Dayal 2016). In addition, fostering citizen contributions to green space planning and management through ‘mosaic governance’ (Buijs et al. 2016) may support endeavours towards social inclusion and broadening participation.

Green space policies in Melbourne

In Melbourne, the contribution of urban green space to urban liveability has been recognised in a range of high-level assessments and strategic plans, including, at federal, state and local levels (for example, DIT 2013; DTPLI 2014; CoM 2012b, respectively). However, in a review of metropolitan planning strategies of Australia’s major cities, Davidson and Arman (2014) found that green infrastructure was not yet

‘mainstreamed’ in any of the high-level or metropolitan-scale strategies reviewed.

(Mainstreaming was achieved through explicit reference to the issue, and implementation processes in place.) ‘Successful’ green space policies and strategies need to demonstrate their effectiveness in retaining and maximising green space, beyond the ‘vague and meaningless’ vision statements of ‘liveability’ that have been featured in Melbourne’s metropolitan strategies since 2002 (Whitzman 2015).

Green space policy research

Researchers have identified a number of gaps in how knowledge on green space and urban ecosystem services is operationalised. These include gaps in policy approaches to urban ecosystem services, including at a range of scales (Rall et al. 2015), and gaps in the integration with other urban policies (McPhearson et al. 2015). Researchers have identified a range of challenges to inclusion of green space and urban ecosystem services in policies (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Matthews et al. 2015; McPhearson et al. 2015).

Chapter 2 50 However, there is a lack of research specifically investigating urban forest governance

(Krajter Ostoić and Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015; Lawrence et al. 2013) and limited understandings of policy processes and policy content for urban green space, and it is this gap in the research that this study seeks to address.

2.5 Summary

This chapter has reviewed the research on urban heat, its causes, impacts and mitigation. Following this, research into the roles of green space in cities has been reviewed. There is growing research activity in understanding the causes, impacts and mitigation of the UHIE, with more than 3700 papers published between 1967 and 2016

(Figure 2.8). Many of these have acknowledged the roles that urban green space can play in mitigating the effect (Aleksandrowicz et al. 2017).

There is substantial research on urban green space, and its contributions to urban sustainability and liveability, with more than 1200 papers recorded in the Scopus database since 1963 that include in their title, abstract or keywords the terms ‘urban green space’ or ‘urban ecosystem services’ or ‘urban nature-based solutions’ (Figure

2.8). The utilisation of this research by policy makers is still in its early stages. The integration into metropolitan strategies and policies of green space provision, particularly the framing of green space within urban ecosystem services, is not yet mainstream. Designing and implementing policies to address the UHIE with urban green space faces significant challenges due to the complexity of competing demands for space and resources in urban areas.

There is a gap in the research literature analysing the role of policy in retaining and maximising urban green space, particularly in the Australian context. Less than 200 papers, all published since 1977, included both urban green space (search terms included ‘urban green space’ or ‘urban ecosystem services’ or ‘urban nature-based solutions’) and policy (search term: ‘polic*’) in the title, abstract or keyword of papers listed in the Scopus database (Figure 2.8). There is also a lack of knowledge on understandings of urban green spaces as innovative approaches to urban

Chapter 2 51 infrastructure and urban function. In addition, there are a lack of links between research and practice on UHIE, on urban green space and on policy roles and processes. Research on urban green space is also not well integrated with urban planning and design (Norton et al. 2015). Further, policy makers and industry stakeholders have noted the challenges and difficulties in many cases in applying the considerable body of international research on UHIE, to Australian conditions in

Australian cities (Jewell 2013). This research seeks to address this gap by investigating and developing understandings of policy processes and policy content for urban green space retention and maximisation.

Figure 2.8 Research on urban heat island, green space and policy Data series: 'Urban heat island’; ‘urban green space’ or ‘urban ecosystem services’ or ‘urban nature-based solutions’; both 'polic*" and urban green space terms in title, abstract or keyword (Source: Scopus database, accessed 1/6/17)

The next chapter identifies the theoretical context within which this research is located.

It reviews understandings of cities as socio-technical and social-ecological systems, and theoretical concepts of urban sustainability transitions and transformations. The relevance of these concepts to research on urban green space policies will be elaborated.

Chapter 2 52 Chapter 3. Urban systems and sustainability transitions

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter reviewed the research on the urban heat island effect (UHIE), and heatwaves. It highlighted the impacts for urbanites of heatwaves, exacerbated by

UHIE, and that climate change is expected to increase the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwaves. It identified the multiple ecosystem services provided by urban green space, in addition to its role in mitigating UHIE. While retaining and maximising urban green space provides multiple benefits to urban functions and processes, green space policy currently plays a weak role in urban policy and planning. There is considerable research on UHIE, urban green space and urban ecosystem services, but there has been substantially less research focus on the policies and policy processes associated with UHIE mitigation, and urban green space provision.

The retention and maximisation of green space is part of normative efforts towards sustainable transformations of cities. Urban sustainability transformations “may require radical, systemic shifts in deeply held values and beliefs, patterns of social behavior, and multi-level governance and management regimes” (Westley et al. 2011, p. 762). This research focuses on one aspect of this transition, the development of policies for urban green space. This chapter reviews the theoretical understandings of urban sustainability transitions and transformations. It first considers concepts of sustainable development and definitions of urban systems, before then reviewing approaches to sustainability transition theories.

3.2 Sustainable development

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ evolved from increasing awareness of global environmental degradation, and the links with social equity and economic development. Sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without

Chapter 3 53 compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43), explicitly integrating environmental with social and economic concerns.

Sustainable development is an umbrella term that applies to a wide range of approaches. Hopwood et al. (2005) categorised and mapped many of these approaches, differentiating them based on concern for social equity or for environment (Figure 3.1).

The conceptual mapping also differentiated approaches on the basis of their attitude to change, with approaches classified as seeking status quo, reform or transformation.

The conceptual mapping illustrates the different worldviews that separate the approaches, and therefore also the grounds for tension and debate between these approaches. For example, while ‘ecological modernisation’ seeks to actively utilise economic analyses and market mechanisms to promote environmental outcomes, others criticise these as ‘neoliberal’ approaches that “marginalise transformative agendas” (Coffey 2016, p. 219) necessary for achieving sustainability (Coffey 2016;

Thomas and Murfitt 2011). Furthermore, the tension between prioritising social equity concerns or environmental concerns is reflected in the representation by Hopwood et al. (2005) of the sustainable development debate.

Figure 3.1 Mapping views on sustainable development (Source Hopwood et al. 2005)

Chapter 3 54 Emerging more recently, ‘regenerative development’ is an ambitious approach that seeks to go beyond simply reducing negative impacts, towards development that makes a positive contribution (Figure 3.2) to environmental stocks (de Jong et al. 2015;

Hes and du Plessis 2015; Mang et al. 2016). Rather than seeking ‘eco-efficiency’ to reduce destructive impacts, it calls for a ‘whole systems approach’ that focuses on increasing positive impacts (Mang and Reed 2012a). It reinforces a biocentric worldview integrating relationship with nature and spatial scales of analysis, and to demonstrate a normative shift from indiscriminate, degenerating resource use towards regenerative design and development (Mang and Reed 2012b). Rather than a focus on equality and environment, regenerative development takes a systems approach to

‘thriving’ with equity, seeking to achieve multiple outcomes instead of trading off some against others (Hes and du Plessis 2015). The integration of green spaces and their multiple benefits and functions to urban systems underpins the regenerative development approach. Likewise, adopting a regenerative development approach to design and development of cities necessitates inclusion of green spaces.

Figure 3.2 Regenerative development: transition from technical to living system design (Source Mang and Reed 2012b, p. 13)

Chapter 3 55 3.3 Urban systems

Cities are locations where social, technical, institutional, economic and biophysical elements all interact with each other. Wu (2014) defined urban systems as complex adaptive systems “that are characterized by highly diverse components, spatial heterogeneity, nonlinear feedbacks, multi-scale interactions, and ability to self-adjust in response to changes” (p. 214). McPhearson, Haase, et al. (2016) highlighted the properties of cities shared with complex adaptive systems, including

“interconnectedness, unpredictability, modularity, redundancy, and resiliency” (p. 5).

This section reviews understandings of urban systems as socio-technical systems and social-ecological systems, before considering how urban green space’s roles and contributions inform conceptualisations of urban systems.

Socio-technical systems

Socio-technical systems highlight the linkages and interrelations between the social and technical organisation of infrastructure systems. Where technical systems of infrastructure provision had until recent decades been seen as the largely unproblematic realm of engineering challenges, more recent constraints in social domains including economic, population and institutional, have served to highlight the existence of socio-technical systems and prompted studies of their configurations and the processes of change and transition (Hodson and Marvin 2010). A focus on socio- technical systems has informed understandings of the co-evolutionary linkages between

“particular technologies, institutions (policy, regulation, markets) and practices (users, routines)” (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016, p. 4).

Social ecological systems

Urban ecology, particularly the body of research that examines the ecology of cities, frames cities as social-ecological systems. While a socio-technical systems approach has been the ‘traditional way’ of analysing urban complexity, Elmqvist et al. (2013) argued that conceptualising cities as complex social-ecological systems is necessary both to acknowledge that cities are more than human and built structures, as well as to support efforts to address substantial environmental challenges. This approach

Chapter 3 56 explicitly links the social and ecological dimensions by highlighting the intertwined

(human and non-human) inhabitants, functions and (bidirectional) processes of urban areas. Social systems include governance, knowledge, worldviews and ethics.

Ecological systems (ecosystems) are “self-regulating communities of organisms interacting with one another and with their environment” (Berkes et al. 2002, p. 3).

“Social-ecological systems are nested, multi-level systems that provide essential services to society such as supply of food, fiber, energy, and ” (Binder et al. 2013, p. 27). A social-ecological system is therefore an “integrated concept of humans-in-nature … social and ecological systems are in fact linked, and the delineation between social and natural systems is artificial and arbitrary” (Berkes et al.

2002, p. 3). These definitions are consistent with conceptualisations of regenerative development highlighted earlier (Figure 3.2).

Urban green space as part of urban systems

Urban green space, particularly in its role as green infrastructure that contributes to urban infrastructure and urban functions, can be understood as part of urban socio- technical systems. Urban green space is also part of, and represents, both social and ecological systems. Urban green space is part of ecological systems as biotic systems of flora, fauna and other ecosystem elements. It is also part of social systems of cities as constructed landscapes, and as specific outcomes of policies, programs and practices.

As such, urban green space provides a link between the technical, social and ecological in cities. It has potential to contribute to the “imperative of reconnecting cities to the biosphere” (Seto et al. 2013, p. 2). “Urban ecology can elucidate the connections between city dwellers and the biogeophysical environment in which they reside”

(Grimm et al. 2008, p. 759). In a very tangible sense, green space, as a physical location of urban ecological processes, can contribute to the shift in the underlying worldview associated with regenerative development (Hes and du Plessis 2015) that reintegrates humans in nature. “Humans need to reconnect to the biosphere, and cities in this context, properly managed, could provide great opportunities and arenas for social ecological change and transformation towards sustainability” (Jansson 2013, p. 285).

Chapter 3 57 The governance and management of urban green spaces, as part of larger social- ecological systems, is complex and not easily solved in linear processes that may be more applicable to engineering or socio-technical systems (Backhaus and Fryd 2012). In addition, Westley et al. (2011) pointed to the requirement for integrated management approaches for ecosystem-based management, and highlighted the diversity of actors involved: “individuals, networks, organizations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational levels” (Westley et al. 2011, p. 769).

Wolfram et al. (2016) called for more research that moves beyond a single system focus to instead consider multisystem approaches and cross-cutting domains such as land use and biodiversity “to bridge the divide between STS and SES” (p. 23). McPhearson,

Haase, et al. (2016) argued that must move beyond socio-technical or social-ecological approaches towards “creating an integrative view on human-nature and technological relations as coupled or intertwined SETS [social-ecological-technical infrastructure system]” (p. 8). Urban green space has the potential to embody or materialise SETS, and studies of urban green spaces’ incorporation into urban systems, including policy and governance approaches, may contribute towards integrative relational research approaches.

3.4 Sustainability transitions and transformations

Understanding and ‘dealing with’ change, absorbing change and intentionally creating change and shifts in existing regimes is a key sustainability challenge. “We consider sustainability as a process, rather than an end product, a dynamic process that requires adaptive capacity for societies to deal with change” (Berkes et al. 2002, p. 2). Roggema et al. (2012) distinguished between incremental change, transition and transformation as follows: “Incremental change is seen as a slow process, which modifies the landscape only slightly. Transition is seen as a fluent change towards a new future, which is an improved version of the existing; and transformation is seen as a change towards a future that is fundamentally different from the existing” (p. 2525).

Chapter 3 58 In a review of research on urban systemic changes, Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016, p.

144) characterised the emerging field as “highly interdisciplinary”, and highlighted the need for research that understands “cities as places shaped by and shaping interactions between multiple socio-technical and social-ecological systems”. A number of conceptual frameworks for studying sustainability transitions have emerged, including resilience and sustainability transition theories, that describe sustainability transformations as “multilevel, multiphase, and cross-scale processes, but have different points of departure and theoretical focuses” (Olsson et al. 2014, p. 1).

Resilience is the “capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, i.e., capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity” (Elmqvist et al. 2013, p. 736). It is therefore a process of non-normative maintenance or adaptation of systems (Patterson et al. 2016). With its focus on absorbing and adapting to disturbance, resilience has been critiqued for being weaker in its capacity to address sustainability transformations (Smith and Stirling 2010).

Sustainability transition theories have developed to analyse non-linear, long term processes of change towards sustainability and are explicitly normative (Patterson et al. 2016). Resilience has largely been applied to social ecological systems, and sustainability transition theories has focused on socio-technical systems (Childers et al.

2014; Olsson et al. 2014), however there are recent studies applying Transition

Management to governance of social-ecological systems (for example Frantzeskaki and

Tilie 2014).

This research is normative in its aim to contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space, as part of larger urban sustainability transformative efforts towards liveable and equitable nature-based cities. This normative aim of urban sustainability transitions directs the selection of sustainability transition theories as the appropriate theoretical context for this research. The following section provides an overview of the main conceptual streams of sustainability transition theories before concentrating on

Transition Management, due to its focus on governance and policy perspectives.

Chapter 3 59 Theories of sustainability transitions focus specifically on processes of change as part of long term system transformations. Transition theories research draws on complex system dynamics and economic theories from the first half of the 20th century and builds in a focus on societal functions and processes, institutional roles, and so on

(Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014). Theories of sustainability transitions originated largely in the Netherlands in the late 20th century, but now span research activity across

Europe, UK and Australia (Twomey and Gaziulusoy 2014). The theories are not limited to a ‘technical’ or technological focus, also drawing upon social, environmental and governance considerations and acknowledging the necessity for systemic changes

(Geels 2011). There are several branches within sustainability transition theories, that vary from a focus on a specific technological innovation, to a focus on larger change processes, and to governance and policy. Some of the main approaches include:

 Multi Phase Theory describes the phases in development, adoption and

stabilisation of transitions (temporal dimensions) (Rotmans et al. 2001);

 Technological Innovation Systems focuses on entrepreneurial activities and market

formulations of innovation systems (Hekkert et al. 2007);

 Strategic Niche Management focuses specifically on creation of protective spaces

for niche experimentation to foster innovation (Kemp et al. 1998);

 Multi-Level Perspective highlights the nested hierarchy of societal subsystems in

which transitions develop and the associated transition pathways (Geels 2002;

Geels and Schot 2007; Rip and Kemp 1998);

 Transition Management focuses on governance and policy perspectives

(Loorbach 2010; Rotmans et al. 2001).

The latter two branches are of most relevance to this research, as they underpin a focus on policy development. The Multi-Level Perspective identifies three levels of activity

(Geels 2002; Rip and Kemp 1998):

 landscape: macro-level, slow changing, deep structural and global conditions;

 regime: meso-level, established political, governance and technological context;

 niche: micro-level, where innovations can arise.

Chapter 3 60 The Multi-Level Perspective can be represented as a ‘nested hierarchy’, with the niches embedded in the regimes, and the regimes embedded in the landscape (Figure 3.3).

Sustainability innovations can arise in niches. Transition theories propose that the continuation or broad scale adoption of niche-based innovations may depend on regime conditions, which themselves are influenced by much larger developments at the landscape level.

Figure 3.3 The ‘multi-level perspective’: multiple levels as a nested hierarchy (Source: Geels 2002)

The Multi-Level Perspective is primarily focused on relationships, resources and practices; it is less definitive with respect to spatial scale, and “the role of cities in transitions approaches is consequently uncertain, fragmented and often implicit”

(Hodson and Marvin 2010, p. 480), raising the question of where cities “fit” within the landscape-regime-niche hierarchy. Cities are increasingly recognised as significant locations in global sustainability efforts (Castán Broto and Bulkeley 2013; UN-Habitat

2011). This recognition in part relates to the relative magnitude of the urban-related causes and generators of sustainability issues, as well as the substantial roles that cities, municipalities and community organisations are already playing in sustainability responses, sometimes in the face of lack of action at higher levels of government

(Bulkeley and Betsill 2013). Given the focus on urban transitions, a number of researchers have explicitly applied the Multi-Level Perspective to cities (Hodson and

Chapter 3 61 Marvin 2010), conceiving cities as located in either the regime or the niche.

Alternatively, Doyon (2015) characterised the city, its built environment, governance structures and economy as the ‘landscape’, and the planning system, its policies, legislation, practices and codes as the ‘regime’, with novel land use practices in

‘niches’. These different approaches reinforce that the nested hierarchy conceptualisation can apply at different scales; what is considered ‘regime’ at one scale may be considered ‘niche’ at a larger scale. Within this research on urban green space policy, the Multi-Level Perspective could be applied as follows:

 landscape: urban area, encompassing built environment and open spaces

 regime: established policies and practices for urban areas, business as usual or

mainstream approaches to urban functions and structures, ‘grey infrastructure’

 niches: policies for green infrastructure, urban ecosystem services and nature-

based solutions, urban forest strategies.

Transition Management has developed to focus specifically on the public policy perspectives of sustainability transitions, and to map and coordinate public sustainability policy for decision makers and community (Rotmans et al. 2001). It can be used both to analyse transitions that have already occurred (historical processes), as well as to ‘structure’, ‘manage’ or steer transition processes (current and future processes) (Loorbach 2010, p. 163). The key characteristics of Transition Management are

(Rotmans et al. 2001, p. 22):

 “Long term thinking (at least 25 years) as a framework for shaping short term

policy;

 Thinking in terms of more than one domain (multi-domain) and different actors

(multi-actor) at different scale levels (multi-level);

 A focus on learning and a special learning philosophy (learning-by-doing and

doing-by-learning);

 Trying to bring about system innovation alongside system improvement;

 Keeping a large number of options open (wide playing field)”.

Chapter 3 62 It can be summarised as a “reflexive approach toward long term social change through small steps based on searching, learning, and experimenting. It is normative in its ambition, prescriptive nature, long term focus, and analytical basis” (Loorbach 2010, p.

178). Loorbach (2010) described the Transition Management process as a ‘cycle’ comprised of strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive activities (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4 The Transition Management cycle (Source Loorbach 2010)

‘Strategic’ relates to envisioning and establishing the transition arena; ‘tactical’ to the process of developing transition agendas, and alliances, partnership and coalitions;

‘operational’ to implementing projects and experiments; and ‘reflexive’ to the monitoring, evaluation and learning from implementation and experience. Though represented in a sequential way, “in practice there is not a fixed sequence of steps”

(Rotmans and Loorbach 2009, p. 191). It is iterative, requiring ongoing review and revision, and “in the real world, the transition management activities are carried out partially and completely in sequence, in parallel, and in a random sequence” (Rotmans and Loorbach 2009, p. 191). The ‘cycle’ reinforces the necessity of connecting all four types of activities (Loorbach 2010, p. 172).

The Transition Management cycle’s four elements have been applied in a range of ways by different researchers, and this is encouraged by Loorbach: the model is reflexive, not

Chapter 3 63 deterministic, and “applying the model implies adjusting the basic tenets and transition management instruments to a specific context” (Loorbach 2010, p. 178).

Frantzeskaki et al. (2012) applied the cycle to definitions of scale, with ‘strategic’ referring to societal scale; ‘tactical’ to subsystems (institutions, regulations, infrastructure) and ‘organisational’ to activities (short term, everyday decisions).

Alternatively, Frantzeskaki et al. (2014) applied the Transition Management cycle to a multi-level governance application, with ‘strategic’ referring to political processes;

‘tactical’ to planning and policy processes; ‘organisational to implementation processes, and ‘reflexive’ to review and citizen engagement. These various applications and conceptualisations are summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Definitions and applications of the Transition Management cycle (Adapted from Loorbach (2010) unless otherwise stated)

Activities Strategic Tactical Organisational Reflexive Focus Culture Structures Practices Problem scope Abstract / Institutions / Concrete / societal system regime project Time scale Long term Midterm Short term (30 years) (5-15 years) (0-5 years) Evaluating, Level of activities System Subsystem Concrete monitoring Structures Transition Transition Transition and learning arena agendas experiments Processes Problem Developing Mobilising structuring, coalitions, actors and envisioning, images executing establishment projects Stages (policy Vision, strategy Programs, Implementation Review cycle) funding Scale Societal Subsystems: Activities: short Evaluation (Frantzeskaki et al. institutions, term and 2012) regulations, everyday infrastructure decisions Multi-level Political Planning/policy Implementation Review and governance citizen (Frantzeskaki et al. engagement 2014)

Transition Management has been criticised for portraying policy intervention processes as neat, straightforward approaches, that obscure or ignore conflict and inequality, and that suggest an unrealistic degree of ability to deliberately shape or steer transition

Chapter 3 64 processes (Shove and Walker 2007). In many ways, these critiques are similar to the critiques of ‘rational comprehensive’ and ‘authorised choice’ public policy models in their focus on critiquing the representations as neat, linear processes and top-down, rational decision making. In response to criticisms of Transition Management, Rotmans and Kemp (2008, p. 1010) acknowledged that while there is not yet unequivocal evidence that Transition Management ‘works’ in practice, it nonetheless provides a

“useful model for governance towards sustainable development” and pointed to rapidly expanding research and practical applications.

Sustainability transition theories highlight the multiple participants and multiple levels involved in the transitions. They highlight the key role of niche-based innovation, as well as the difficulties and challenges of the transition or evolution from niche to regime, in the adoption of sustainability innovations. Transition theories can potentially contribute to transition processes and actors by maintaining the focus on the sustainability objectives, in the face of complexity of time scales (short term and long term planning), geographic scales (local, regional, national and global), and governance scales (community, business, levels of government).

3.5 Summary

This chapter has reviewed the theoretical context within which this research is located.

It has reviewed understandings of sustainable development, and highlighted the more recent concept of regenerative development, underpinned by a worldview that places humans within and part of nature. It has reviewed research approaches to cities as complex adaptive systems, and highlighted how urban ecology has expanded understandings of urban systems from socio-technical to social-ecological to social- ecological-technical systems. It argued that research of urban green spaces can contribute to understandings of cities as social-ecological-technical systems.

This chapter considered theoretical approaches to urban systemic change. Theories of sustainability transitions, and particularly Transition Management, provide the theoretical context for this research. These theories inform the conceptualisation of

Chapter 3 65 urban green space policy as a niche approach within broader urban land use policies, and the inclusion of green space as part of normative shifts to sustainable urban systems. The theoretical context for this research brings together urban ecology, policy research and theories of sustainability transitions (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5 Theoretical context, and the intersection between bodies of research

The areas of intersections between these bodies of research inquiry, as relevant to this research, are identified. The intersection between urban ecology and policy research for this research is the description and analysis of policy processes, content and mechanisms for green space. The intersection between policy research and sustainability transitions is the field of Transition Management. The intersection between urban ecology and theories of sustainability transitions can be conceived as urban green space innovations in the form of green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. This theoretical framework is revisited in the concluding chapter of this thesis to represent the research’s theoretical contributions.

The next chapter details the research approach that is adopted in this study, including the underlying epistemology and ontology, research methods and stages, data collection and analysis.

Chapter 3 66 Chapter 4. Research approach

4.1 Introduction

The previous chapters provided an overview of the theoretical context within which this research is located. Understandings of the contributions of urban green space have expanded from a focus on the aesthetic and recreational functions that underpinned land use planning approaches from the early 20th century, to recognition of the provision of a range of ecosystem services. However, this research argues that the policies for urban green spaces that extend beyond the established approaches are still relatively immature. Due to their immaturity and their weak status in relation to other elements of land use planning, these policies can be conceptualised as still being in the early stages of larger urban sustainability transformations. The previous chapter described various research approaches to analysing sustainability transitions. It highlighted the predominant application of these theories to socio-technical systems.

To date there are comparatively few applications to social-ecological systems; this research adds to these studies by conceptualising urban green space as part of urban social-ecological systems and more recent framings of social-ecological-technical systems.

This chapter defines the research approach for this study, to address the research question: How can policies contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space?

The associated sub-questions are: How are policies currently contributing to green space retention and maximisation? What are the key policy mechanisms? What are the key success factors? This chapter is structured to successively define and explain the constituent elements and methodological choices of the research approach. The chapter outlines the epistemology and ontology that underpin the research, the analytical framework, the research design and the research methods. Data sources are identified, and data collection and analysis methods described.

Chapter 4 67 4.2 Research approach: epistemology and ontology

This section identifies the research strategy selected for this study, and outlines the epistemology and ontology that underpin the research. This research uses a qualitative research strategy, because it focuses on examining the social dimensions of policy development and implementation. It aims to explore the meanings ascribed to the social problem of planning sustainable cities and policy responses to retaining and maximising urban green space. It is informed by an interpretivist epistemology and a constructivist ontology, as well as integrating influences and approaches from a pragmatist methodology. These positions are now elaborated.

An interpretivist epistemology seeks to develop an understanding of the social world through examining the interpretation of participants. This is different to a positivist or post-positivist epistemology that focuses on the application of the methods of natural sciences, in which knowledge is developed through observation and measurement of objective reality (Bryman 2012; Creswell 2014). This research seeks to understand rather than explain human behaviour (Bryman 2012, p. 28) – in this research, the ‘behaviour’ being examined is policy development and implementation. A constructivist ontology views social objects and categories as socially constructed, rather than as an objective existence independent of social actors, as understood in objectivist ontology (Bryman

2012, p. 33). In addition, this research is explicitly normative: it seeks to build understandings of the role of policies to retain and expand urban green space, as part of larger efforts to transition to more sustainable, liveable cities.

This research is concerned with the social processes of policy development and implementation for urban green space. It aims to build understandings of how urban green space is addressed within the urban policy context, as a social process, and a social construction. The research however also acknowledges the contributions of natural science-based understandings of the urban heat island effect (UHIE) and the role of green space in its mitigation. As a result, the research approach is also influenced by a pragmatist methodology (Creswell 2014). “A pragmatic approach emphasizes shared meanings, joint action, and respect between different perspectives

Chapter 4 68 with the ultimate aim of solving specific problems in specific contexts” (Madill and

Gough 2008, p. 263).

A pragmatist methodology utilises “pluralistic approaches” to investigating research questions (Creswell 2014, p. 11); a pragmatist approach can provide an “integrated methodology for the social sciences” (Morgan 2007, p. 73) that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data and analysis (though the analysis of quantitative data is beyond the scope of this research). Morgan (2007) highlighted three characteristics of a pragmatic approach that have particular relevance for this study: abduction, intersubjectivity and transferability, defined as:

 Abductive reasoning: “moves back and forth between induction and

deduction—first converting observations into theories and then assessing those

theories through action” (p. 71). In this research, I use abduction to ground the

theoretical understandings of green space policies within the policy makers’

perspectives and practical contexts (Bryman 2012).

 Intersubjectivity: “represents the emphasis on processes of communication and

shared meaning … In a pragmatic approach, there is no problem with asserting

both that there is a single “real world” and that all individuals have their own

unique interpretations of that world” (p.72). In this research, I apply

intersubjectivity to build an understanding of urban green space policies using

a range of data sources from a range of disciplines.

 Transferability: “cannot simply assume that our methods and our approach to

research makes our results either context-bound or generalizable; instead, we

need to investigate the factors that affect whether the knowledge we gain can be

transferred to other settings” (p. 72). This research incorporates policy

perspectives from a number of settings to inform transferability.

A pragmatist methodology focuses on “a reflexive orientation where we pay more attention to the social processes that produce both consensus and conflict” (Morgan

2007, p. 72). This research is influenced by a pragmatist approach in that its research inputs utilise scientific understandings of the causes of UHIE and the role of vegetation

Chapter 4 69 in its mitigation. This knowledge provides the context to inform the data collection and analysis of policy content and processes using qualitative data and social science research approaches. Pragmatism also influences the research outputs in terms of the potential transferability of findings and conclusions to other cities and other policy contexts.

The next section presents the development of the analysis framework that is applied in this research to analyse policies for urban green space and UHIE. The analysis framework integrates elements of policy research and Transition Management to direct the research process.

4.3 Research analytical framework

This research aims to develop understandings of how policies can contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space. This includes investigating how urban green space policies are included in the jurisdiction’s policy agenda and the choices related to the selection, design and mix of policy mechanisms. The research investigates policy makers’ own processes of policy evaluation and ‘diffusion’ (both within and between organisations and cities), and policy makers’ understandings and definitions of policy ‘success’, as part of the analysis and identification of the key policy factors for retaining and maximising urban green space.

There are a range of different research approaches to describing and analysing policy processes, utilising different theories and based on different epistemologies. Policy analysis and research (theoretical studies that focus on analysis of policy) differs from applied policy analysis (analysis for policy, including evaluation). Policy evaluation (as a stage in the policy cycle), is most often undertaken by (or for) policy makers to review the results of policy implementation, to determine whether the policy is effectively addressing its objectives. Policy evaluation frequently focuses specifically on a narrow range of measures or indicators, often related to cost-effectiveness or efficiency (Huitema et al. 2011). On the other hand, policy research seeks to understand and explain the broader policy arena in which policy processes are situated (Maddison

Chapter 4 70 and Denniss 2013). Policy research may consider the process as a whole, or focus on the range and roles of actors involved, the types of evidence included and excluded, the choice of language used in policy documents and so on (Maddison and Denniss 2013).

Approaches to policy research have developed significantly from the 1950s, when attention focused on the ‘rational comprehensive’ approach (integrating scientific research and available evidence) and policy cycles. More recent theoretical developments have focused on analysing the role of power (for example, Institutional

Analysis and Development Framework), agenda setting (for example, Punctuated

Equilibrium Theory, and Multiple Streams approach), networks (Advocacy Coalition

Framework), narratives and framings (for example Discourse Coalition Framework) and governance (Multi-level Governance) in policy processes (Cairney 2012; Cairney and Heikkila 2014; Weible 2014).

Australian policy research has tended to focus less explicitly on the development or application of these specific theoretical approaches; Crowley and Head (2015, p. 3) identified five main areas of focus and approach in Australian policy research: institutional accounts of policy structures and processes; case study accounts of policy and policy change; political economy accounts; interpretivist and experiential studies; and normative, critical and deliberative theories of policy processes.

This research, as with much research on environmental policy, draws from elements of both policy research (theories to analyse process) and applied policy analysis (focused on evaluating policy content and implementation). This research considers policy processes as a key part of decision making (across multiple levels of government), but also aims to address normative goals of maximising urban green space in cities, and therefore is informed by applied policy analysis in considering policy content, including choice of policy mechanism types.

In undertaking policy research, a theoretical framework is required to focus the analysis on the key aspects of the research that are likely to be ‘important’ (Coveney

2010). Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) argued that “it is logically impossible to

Chapter 4 71 understand any reasonably complicated situation – including almost any policy process – without some theoretical lens … distinguishing between the set of potentially important variables and causal relationships, and those that can be safely ignored”

(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993, p. xi). As described in the previous chapter, the theoretical context for this research brings together urban ecology and ecosystem services with sustainability transition theories, with which to analyse urban green space policies. Sustainability transition theories are relevant both for the focus they bring to urban transition processes towards sustainability cities, and to the sustainability processes or pathways in which sustainability innovations (niches) arise and are incorporated into practice (regime). Although green space provision has been part of urban planning approaches since the beginning of formalised land use planning approaches in the early 20th century, policies for green space have largely focused on their recreational and aesthetic provisions. Policies for urban green space that address the broader range of ecosystem services are not yet well-developed or widespread

(Wilkinson et al. 2013). Given their relative immaturity and lack of influence within urban policy and urban infrastructure provision, they are arguably niche approaches in the early stages of urban sustainability transitions. As such, analysis of these policies approaches can be informed by the theoretical framework of Transition Management

(as the policy-focused sustainability transition theory). The following sections consider first the elements from policy research and then from Transition Management that combine to create the analysis framework used for this research.

Policy elements of analysis framework

This research asks how policies contribute to urban green space provision and the associated key success factors. Policy analysis to evaluate policy ‘success’ may take a number of approaches. From a practice perspective, policy monitoring and evaluation is an important element of the ‘policy cycle’, to allow policy makers to assess the effects of the policy and adjust it as appropriate. It usually focuses on assessing policy outputs, costs, and so on (Althaus et al. 2013; Dovers 2005). Policy research may take a larger focus, for example assessing environmental performance of a particular

Chapter 4 72 government over multiple terms in office (Coffey 2011); evaluating climate policies of a particular region (Huitema et al. 2011); considering the emergence of green infrastructure in planning policies (Lennon 2013); or comparing urban forest governance approaches using a case study approach (Lawrence et al. 2013).

There are several aspects of public policy that can be examined, including process and content, and multiple methodologies for policy research analysis (Vogel and Henstra

2015). A ‘plethora’ of evaluation criteria have emerged over recent years (Huitema et al. 2011, p. 182); many focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Policy effectiveness and policy success can be defined in a number of different ways and take different perspectives: from input, to process, output, and ultimately outcome (Doick et al. 2009;

Millar et al. 2001). Marsh and McConnell (2010) identified three key dimensions of policy success largely focused on policy outcome: process success (passage into legislation, legitimacy, innovation and influence); program success (implementation and outcomes); and political success (contribution to government popularity).

Assessing outcomes provides the most direct indication of the achievement of policy aims or objectives. However, the challenges with measuring policy outcomes include attribution (demonstrating that a specific policy has led to a specific outcome (Bovaird

2014; Doick et al. 2009; Maddison and Denniss 2013)) and timeframes (policies may only produce ‘subtle effects’ with considerable timelags (Conway and Urbani 2007;

Doick et al. 2009; Vogel and Henstra 2015)). Utilising policy outputs as proxies for policy outcomes is still problematic, as they may not provide effective indicators or reflections of policy outcomes, or ultimately, policy ‘success’. For example, an urban green space output of ‘number of trees planted’ does not indicate whether the outcome of ‘increased tree canopy coverage’ has been achieved.

Noting these and other issues, Vogel and Henstra (2015) developed a framework for comparative policy analysis of climate adaptation policies focused on two aspects of public policy: content and process. Policy content includes goals, targets, instruments and agents, and policy process spans agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation and evaluation, involving different participants throughout.

Chapter 4 73 Transition elements of analysis framework

Transition Management provides a specific focus on the governance dimensions of sustainability transitions. As described in the previous chapter, Transition

Management identifies four areas of focus: strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive. In the context of this research, the categories of activities that are of relevance for analysis of urban green space policies are processes, stages and multi-level governance (Table 3.1).

Wittmayer and Loorbach (2016) emphasised that while “these activities are recognisable in other governance approaches or policy process models, their difference here lies in their focus on societal processes, persistent problems, fundamental change, and innovation as well as their normative direction” (p. 19). It is for this reason that they are particularly appropriate for contributing to this research’s analysis framework.

Integrated analysis framework

The policy analysis framework synthesises insights from the heuristic framework for policy research of Vogel and Henstra (2015) that directs focus to policy content and process, with Loorbach (2010)’s heuristic Transition Management framework for governance of sustainability transitions (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Policy analysis framework

Chapter 4 74 Analysis of policy content identifies the goals, targets and agents, assessed against transition management’s strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive criteria. Analysis of the policy process includes examining how urban green space policies are identified as part of the policy agenda, knowledge transfer and policy ‘diffusion’ (both within and between organisations and cities (Starke 2013)), policy learning (Ison and Collins

2008), and researching policy makers’ own understandings and definitions of policy success. The analysis of the policy process also considers the development of policy

‘ownership’ (who takes responsibility for implementing urban green space policies, or as Hajer et al. (2015) expressed, the inspiring and motivating agents of change to implement policy goals). The strength of this framework is that it focuses the analysis on the elements of policy process and policy content that are relevant to sustainability transition processes, consistent with the normative aim of this research (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Framework for policy analysis Transition Management elements for analysing policy process and content (Adapted from Loorbach 2010; Vogel and Henstra 2015)

Strategic Vision and objectives Green space goal Targets Green space definitions, functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Partners and alliances Community engagement Operational Policy instruments Delivery mechanisms Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Policy learning and diffusion

The policy analysis framework provides a methodology with which to enable analysis of urban green space policies from different jurisdictions (in the case of this research, between different levels of government in Melbourne, and between Melbourne and

London). In addition to underpinning this research, the framework can also provide a methodological contribution to broader research and practice-focused efforts, given the lack of standardised policy analysis methodologies (Vogel and Henstra 2015), the immature and inconsistent policy context for urban green space provision, and the lack

Chapter 4 75 of qualitative research on urban green space (Krajter Ostoić and Konijnendijk van den

Bosch 2015). The framework can contribute to the development of understandings of policy ‘success’ for urban green space, and the contributions of policy content and process to policy success.

4.4 Research design

This section outlines the research design used to address the research questions. This research has adopted a cross-sectional design, with policies as the unit of analysis

(Bryman 2012). Cross-sectional research involves the collection of data from more than one case, at a single point in time. This research focuses on three municipalities in metropolitan Melbourne, the adjoining Cities of Melbourne, Moreland and Hume, which form a municipal transect representing inner, middle and outer suburban contexts respectively (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2 Melbourne metropolitan municipalities Melbourne, Moreland and Hume are indicated with arrows. (Source: http://www.mav.asn.au/about-local- government/council-details/PublishingImages/metropolitan-municipalities-map.jpg accessed 15/1/16)

Chapter 4 76 Policies and policy processes of local, state and federal governments have been included, as all levels of government have existing relevant policies and policy roles.

The research examines horizontal integration (between policy sectors), and vertical policy integration (between different levels of government) (Bulkeley and Betsill 2013;

Giles-Corti 2014). Focusing on one city and its multi-level jurisdictions allows more in depth comparison of policy roles and approaches applied within a similar geographic and biophysical context, than would be possible if comparing across different cities. It allows the within-city variations associated with different urban contexts – inner, middle and outer – as well as between different levels of government to be investigated and examined.

Metropolitan Melbourne, Australia’s second largest city (in terms of population), was selected due to its existing exposure to the UHIE and severe heatwaves. This exposure heightens the importance of the provision of green space for urban heat mitigation.

There is a growing recognition of the impacts of urban heat for Melbourne, and a number of policies have already been developed that relate to UHIE mitigation. There has also been a number of research projects on Melbourne’s UHIE (Chen et al. 2014;

Coutts et al. 2010; Norton et al. 2013; Norton et al. 2015). However there has been a lack of research focused on Melbourne’s green space policies. This research seeks to address this gap, as well as building on previous work, by examining green space policy perspectives: the policies that governments have developed to address green space provision in the context of the increasingly well understood challenges of mitigating urban heat. Finally, Melbourne was selected due to the researcher’s familiarity with the location and context, and because it is one of the participating cities of the Cooperative

Research Centre Low Carbon Living’s (CRC LCL) project Urban micro climates:

Comparative study of major contributors to the urban heat island in three Australian cities

(Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide) of which this PhD is a part. Rather than considering all three capital cities of the CRC LCL project, which have differing climate zones, policy frameworks and histories of green space and urban development, this research focused on Melbourne specifically, to enable detailed examination of the three municipalities representing inner, middle and outer contexts within a greater .

Chapter 4 77 In addition to metropolitan Melbourne, a complementary study has been included of

London UK. Bryman (2012, p. 72) suggested that social phenomena can be better understood “when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations”. This element of the research has been included to provide a contrasting, non-Australian city, to broaden the data sources and potentially increase the generalisability of the findings, as well as introduce different (non-

Australian) or novel policy approaches that can inform the application of findings in an

Australian context. This contributes to calls for increased research on governance perspectives for urban greening, across a range of cities (Lawrence et al. 2013).

London was selected as it has been identified as one of the leading cities for low carbon policies and planning (Lehmann 2015b; Mees and Driessen 2011; Ween 2012), and it is referred to by Melbourne-based policy makers as providing relevant and inspirational examples of policy approaches to urban green space in an established city. The UHIE was first described for London almost 200 years ago; although it has a temperate climate with cool winters, there is an increasing focus on the need to mitigate London’s

UHIE summer impacts, particularly in the context of recent heatwaves (Mills 2015). In contrast with Melbourne, London has a metropolitan-scale level of government in the form of the Mayor of London (MoL) and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which cover the greater metropolitan area, including the central City of London and the surrounding 32 boroughs (Figure 4.3). This research focuses on policies at this level.

Figure 4.3 Greater London region and London boroughs (Source: http://directory.londoncouncils.gov.uk/images/boroughmap.gif accessed 31/5/17)

Chapter 4 78 Urban density for the two cities considered in this research is significantly different;

London has on average 97 people per hectare compared with Melbourne’s 32 people per hectare (Spencer et al. 2015). The cities’ respective urban densities and other factors related to the history and current status of urban development means that the two cities are not directly comparable. Rather, London is included to provide examples of metropolitan-scale policy approaches to addressing the challenges of retaining and maximising green space. As such, the complementary study presents the opportunity to review a different scale of government and reflect on aspects of its strengths and weaknesses related to Melbourne’s context (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 The greater metropolitan regions of Melbourne and London

Metropolitan Melbourne Greater London (Source: DTPLI 2014, unless (Source: GLA 2015b, unless otherwise noted) otherwise noted) Population 4.3 million (2014) 8.5 million (2015) Metropolitan area 10,000 (approx.) 1579 (km2) Number of local 32 municipalities 32 boroughs and the City of governments London Corporation Area of public 223.67 285.19 open space (km2) Open space 11.5% 18% percentage of within urban growth boundary not including the Green Belt metropolitan area (Source: VEAC 2011) (Source: GiGL 2015)

The research has been undertaken in three stages, the focus for each summarised as follows:

Stage 1: identifying and classifying the range of policy domains and roles of

government that address urban green space, associated with the ecosystem

services typology. Following this, the current (or most recent) policies from

local, state and federal jurisdictions were identified, to inform the purposive

sampling for Stage 2.

Stage 2 focused on Melbourne’s green space policies. It provides an overview of the

historical development of green space in Melbourne, which underpins the

current differences and disparities in green space provision across the city, and

Chapter 4 79 defines the context within which the range of green space policies are

developed and implemented. Following this the multi-level policy analysis

across the three municipalities of Melbourne is presented.

Stage 3 focused on London’s greens space policies. It provides an overview of the

historical development of London’s green spaces, followed by analysis of green

space policies for the Greater London area.

The following section outlines the research methods, data collection and analysis.

4.5 Research methods

The research design for this study has been summarised in the previous section. This section considers issues of research quality and the researcher’s role, and then details the data collection and analysis for the three stages of this research. Qualitative research involves collecting data within ‘natural settings’ or the specific contexts in which the research is being undertaken. It involves multiple sources of data, and the researcher is the ‘key instrument’ for data collection, as opposed to questionnaires or experimental instruments (Creswell 2014).

Research quality in qualitative research has become a “rather contested area in recent years, with several schemes of criteria being proposed as possible alternatives”

(Bryman 2012, p. 393). Reflecting the terms applied to quantitative research, research quality is commonly assessed against the criteria of reliability, validity and generalisability (external validity) (Creswell 2014). However, the terms are applied in different ways by different researchers (Bryman 2012). Mason (2002, p. 38) argued that they are measures of “quality, rigour and wider potential of the research”. Creswell

(2014) defined reliability as consistency or stability, which should be addressed by detailed documentation of procedural steps, protocols and cross-checking accuracy of interview transcripts. Creswell (2014) defined validity as the accuracy of the findings.

He presented eight validity strategies, listed in order from most commonly to least commonly (or with greater difficulty) adopted:

Chapter 4 80  Triangulation: use more than one method or data type (observation,

interviewing, focus groups, language-based approaches, and document and

text analysis), to strengthen confidence in findings;

 Member checking: present findings, themes and so on to research participants,

potentially as part of follow up interview;

 Rich, thick descriptions to provide detailed, realistic descriptions of the settings,

perspectives and themes;

 Clarify researcher bias;

 Present negative or discrepant information that runs counter to the themes’

information;

 Spend prolonged time in the field;

 Peer debriefing;

 External auditor.

Bryman (2012) highlighted two alternative primary criteria for assessing a qualitative study: trustworthiness and authenticity. The component elements of these are largely reflected in the validity and reliability criteria outlined above.

This research adopts a number of these reliability and validity strategies to ensure the quality of research. In particular:

 Triangulation of data sources: policy documents, semi-structured interviews,

supplementary desktop sources, observations at policy makers’ seminars and

workshops;

 Member checking, through periodic presentation of key findings and themes to

interview participants;

 Using rich, thick descriptions, drawn primarily from interviews, and presenting

discrepant as well as supportive information;

 Detailed documentation of data collection procedures.

Associated with issues of research quality is the treatment of the researcher’s values and bias. While Bryman (2012) identified the multiple points in which the researcher’s own values and biases can ‘intrude’ into the research process, other authors treat the

Chapter 4 81 issue differently by explicitly acknowledging the contribution of the researcher’s background, epistemology and ontology in all aspects of the research process, and by describing the qualitative researcher as the research instrument and therefore also an active participant in the research process (Denzin and Lincoln 2008; Glesne 2011;

Mason 2002; Patton 2002). Charmaz, quoted by Puddephatt (2006, p. 10) described the significance of the researcher’s epistemology and ontology in the research process: “I think that the observer’s standpoint is not an add-on, it is a way of seeing and I think you constantly have to be self-reflective about where you come from to have any conception of your own values, because the things that are most important to us are what we tend to take for granted”. Mason (2002, p. 66) described the researcher as active and reflexive, rather than a “neutral data collector”, and Etherington (2004) encouraged maintaining a distinction between the participants’ voices and the researcher’s voice by reporting each separately and explicitly. Creswell (2014, p. 187) proposed that researchers “explicitly identify reflexively their biases, values and personal background that shape their interpretations formed during a study”. He identified a number of ways to acknowledge these, including providing statements about the researcher’s past experiences and current connections with the research problem or participants, and how these may shape research interpretation.

This study adopts the perspective that qualitative research can never be completely separated from the researcher’s own values and perspectives, and it is therefore important to be explicit about these throughout the research process. My epistemological and ontological standpoints, and my experiences that have motivated this study and shaped the research approach have been described in Chapter 1.

While developing rapport with research participants is important in qualitative research processes, ‘over-familiarisation’ may cloud data collection and analysis

(Glesne 2011; McGrath 2012; Patton 2002), and therefore should be proactively managed. With ‘over-familiarisation’, researchers may start to accept their respondents’ assumptions and beliefs with growing familiarity and ‘immersion’ within the research (Corbin and Strauss 2008). McGrath (2012) managed this by explicitly

Chapter 4 82 acknowledging his connections, and by keeping a research journal throughout the research process to reinforce self-reflexivity (Charmaz 2014; Corbin and Strauss 2008).

In McGrath’s case, his journal entries were significant during the data collection and analysis processes to focus his attention and research practice on emerging themes, ensuring they were reflected in the data, and not merely his own previous experience

(Charmaz 2014, p. 166; McGrath 2012).

For this research, over-familiarisation has been managed following McGrath’s approach, by maintaining a research journal throughout the research process, and actively reflecting on the spoken and unspoken communication and engagement throughout the interviews. Further, the research design aimed to mitigate the risks of over-familiarisation with interview participants, by including a range of participants, both previously known and unknown to the researcher, and from a range of different organisations, backgrounds and different roles and levels of organisational hierarchy within their respective workplaces.

Glesne (2011, p. 59) highlighted the need for researchers to develop self-awareness and self-consciousness of the impact that their verbal and nonverbal behaviour has during the interview process. “Your greatest challenge is to create questions that your respondents find valuable to consider, and questions whose answers … offer insights and upset any well-entrenched ignorance” (Glesne 2011, p. 110). These issues and considerations are further discussed in following chapters where results are presented.

This section has reviewed considerations of research quality and research process. The methods for each of the three stages of the research, and their associated data sources, are now defined (Figure 4.4).

Chapter 4 83

Figure 4.4 Research stages, data sources and chapters in which results are presented

4.5.1 Stage 1 Green space policy domains and multi-level government

This stage determined the policy domains that address the provision of urban green space. These were identified and classified in relation to urban ecosystem services.

Following this, Australia’s multi-level government system was described. The policy domains and multi-level government components of this stage were then brought together to underpin the identification of the range of current (or most recent)

Australian public policies at federal, state and local government levels related to retaining and maximising urban green space and mitigating the UHIE. Documents for inclusion were accessed and downloaded from government websites. For this research,

‘public policy’ is used as an umbrella term to include formal policies, as well as strategies, regulations, organisational plans, media releases and speeches. The outputs for Stage 1 are a matrix indicating the policy domains associated with urban ecosystem services, and a matrix identifying the current policies within these domains at federal, state and local levels of government. The outputs of Stage 1 informed data collection strategies for Stages 2 and 3.

Chapter 4 84 4.5.2 Stage 2 Metropolitan Melbourne

This stage is the main part of the data collection and analysis for this study. This stage focused in depth on policies and policy processes related to urban green space for the

‘transect’ of three municipalities in metropolitan Melbourne: Melbourne, Moreland and

Hume. Data sources included the key policies for urban green space, and semi- structured interviews with policy makers, supplemented with a desktop study of other relevant strategies and plans. Policy documents provided data related to policy content, while semi-structured interviews provided insights on policy processes as well as insights into why and how particular policy content is included or excluded.

Supplementary material, sourced through both desktop study and through referral from the main data sources (interview participants and policy documents), is used to elaborate on policy content and policy processes where necessary. Observation at selected workshops and seminars provided additional insights into policy makers’ current concerns and areas of focus, as well as serving to triangulate findings.

Purposive selection (also referred to as purposive sampling) of interview participants aimed to strategically identify research participants most relevant to the study, and who reflect a range of perspectives and experience (Bryman 2012; Creswell 2014). The sampling or selection strategy included elements of both ‘maximum variation’ sampling, in which a wide range of perspectives is intentionally sought, as well as

‘snowball sampling’ in which participants themselves suggest other people to interview (Bryman 2012, p. 419; Patton 2002, p. 243). In this study, purposive selection identified a range of policy makers to be invited to participate in the study through semi-structured interviews. The participants were selected to reflect the range of sectors (or organisational departments) involved in the area of focus of this study

(based on the results of Stage 1’s review), as well as from a range of positions within organisational hierarchies. Elected officials (both current and previous) were also included, as well as consultants and those working in community or non-government organisations. At least one participant from each group was sought.

Chapter 4 85 Ethics approval is required before commencing semi-structured interviews. Ethics approval was granted in September 2015 (Project Ethics ID #1544948.1). The key elements of ethics approval include informed consent, confidentiality, and protection from harm (Bryman 2012; Fontana and Frey 2003). To address these elements, all interview participants were provided a ‘plain language statement’ of the research, including ethics approval number (Appendix). Participants were asked to sign a consent form for the interview to proceed and to be recorded. To ensure confidentiality, no interview participants’ names or specific job titles have been used.

They are referred to using unique identifiers, which also included an indicator of their role (for example, 20 Councillor). In terms of protection from harm, the research was assessed as a minimal risk project for both researcher and participants.

Interview participants were emailed requesting their participation. Interviews were carried out face-to-face in locations of the participants’ choosing, either office space in their organisation, or a local café. An interview guide identified key questions that formed the basis for discussion in the semi-structured interviews (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Semi-structured interview guide

Research focus Interview question Identifying key What are your organisation’s policies related to urban greenery? policies and policy Related to urban heat island effect? mechanisms Defining policy How do you define policy success? How do you evaluate policy success success? Which policies of your organisation are successful? What makes them successful? Policy linkages and What is the relative influence of policies; how do urban greenery influence policies rank against other policies of your organisation? How are you/your organisation’s policies linked to other levels of government and/or to adjacent municipalities in your city? Policy learning Have you been influenced by other policies/cities from around the world?

The interview questions sought to address the research questions by focusing on the elements that policy makers considered lead to retention and maximisation of urban green space, and the factors that contribute to policy success. The interview questions aimed to identify and explore policy makers’ perspectives on the strategic, tactical,

Chapter 4 86 operational and reflexive elements of the policy analysis framework. The questions provided an initial guide or preliminary structure for the semi-structured interviews, to allow opportunities for other aspects that were identified by the interview participant, or that arose during the interview, to be uncovered and explored.

Interviews were carried out between October 2015 and March 2016. Most interviews were conducted one-to-one. A small number of interviews were with two-three participants at once, where the interview participants had requested sharing an interview with a colleague. The shared interviews were with Respondents 5, 11 and 12

(MPA), Respondents 13 and 14 (MW), and Respondents 29 and 30 (MCC). Interviews lasted for up to one hour, were recorded and transcribed by the author. Research journal notes and memos were prepared throughout the data collection and analysis phases. These served to record initial insights, points of tension or particularly strongly held views of interview participants, and notes or suggestions on additional supplementary sources of data. In addition, the notes and memos encouraged researcher reflexivity, including reflection on the researcher’s conduct of the interviews.

The key documents for inclusion were identified with reference to results from Stage 1 and from semi-structured interviews. The policies selected address the domains of urban or spatial planning; green space; and climate change, including heatwaves and additional impacts from the UHIE. Policies analysed were current at the end of 2016.

Where relevant, selected discussion papers, draft plans, Council meeting minutes and speeches were considered as supplementary data. Policy documents and supplementary data were identified through searches of government websites and from information provided during interviews (Table 4.4). Policy analysis, including search words and analysis processes, are outlined in section 4.5.4.

Chapter 4 87 Table 4.4 Melbourne's green space policies: data sources

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Australian (federal) Government Policy Smart cities plan (2016) No current plan Climate resilience and adaptation strategy (2015) Supplementary n.a. Minister’s speech 19/1/16 n.a. data Interviews 1 Consultant 2 Consultant 3 Consultant Victorian (state) Government Policy Plan Melbourne (2014) No current plan Climate change adaptation plan (2013) Supplementary Victorian Planning Water for Victoria 2016 VicRoads Sustainability data Provisions and climate change Plan Melbourne refresh strategy 2015-2020 discussion paper (2015) VicRoads Movement and Place Framework Interviews 4 Planner (DELWP) 9 Project officer (DELWP) 19 Strategic planner 5 Project manager 10 Project coordinator (VicRoads) (MPA) (DELWP) 6 Urban designer (MW) 11 Strategic planner (MPA) 7 Ministerial Advisor 12 Planner (MPA) (DELWP) 13 Manager (MW) 8 Developer 14 Policy advisor (MW) 15 Policy officer (MW) 16 Manager (CWW) 17 Ministerial advisor (DELWP) 18 Community group member (NGO) City of Melbourne Policy Council Plan (2013, Urban forest strategy Climate change adaptation updated annually) (2014) plan (2009) Supplementary Local planning scheme n.a. Resilient Melbourne data strategy (2016) Interviews 20 Councillor 21 Team leader 24 Planner 22 Project coordinator 25 Manager 23 Urban forester Moreland City Council Policy Council Plan (2013) Urban forest policy and Zero carbon evolution: strategy suite (2016) carbon neutral strategy (2014) Supplementary Local planning scheme Council report (2016) Urban heat island action data plan (2016) Interviews 26 Councillor 28 Planner 29 Team leader 27 Manager 30 Planner Hume City Council Policy Council Plan (2013, Land and biodiversity Climate change adaptation updated annually) plan (2015) plan (2013) Supplementary Local planning scheme Street and reserve tree Pathways to sustainability data policy (2004) (2015) Interviews 31 Councillor 33 Team leader 34 Coordinator 32 Manager

Chapter 4 88 4.5.3 Stage 3 London, UK

The third stage of this research focused on a study of London’s green space policies.

Data sources and data collection followed those detailed for Stage 2, with a reduced number of documents and interview participants (Table 4.5). Interviews were conducted in September 2015. Respondents 36 and 37 were interviewed together on their suggestion. Ethics approval covered the interviews for Stage 3 as well as Stage 2.

Table 4.5 London's green space policies: data sources

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Mayor of London and Greater London Authority Policy The London Plan 2011 The All London Green Climate Change (rev 2015) Grid Supplementary Adaptation Strategy (2011) planning guidance (2012) Supplementary n.a. GLA reports for green n.a. data space projects Interviews 35 Consultant Policy Officer 36 Policy Officer 38 (International Policy Officer 37 (London Climate Change consultancy) (GLA) Partnership)

4.5.4 Data analysis

This study has utilised a directed content analysis approach (Hsieh and Shannon 2005), combined with grounded theory tools of coding, memo writing and categorising

(Charmaz 2014). This combined approach allowed both initially predetermined and emerging codes to be used (Creswell 2014). ‘Coding’ is a process to “separate, sort and synthesize data” (Charmaz 2014, p. 4). Coding involves “interacting with the data

(analysing) using techniques such as asking questions about the data, making comparisons between the data and so on” (Corbin and Strauss 2008, p. 66), with the objective of deriving concepts for the data. Directed content analysis utilises existing theory to focus the analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). In grounded theory coding, the codes “emerge as you scrutinize your data and define meanings within it … Coding may take you into unforeseen areas and new research questions” (Charmaz 2014, p.

114). This combined approach, consistent with a pragmatist research methodology, was selected to utilise existing theoretical knowledge on sustainability transitions, and extend their application to the context of urban green space policy.

Chapter 4 89 In this research, the directed content analysis utilised the policy analysis framework, presented in Section 4.3, as guidance for initial codes. The analysis framework highlighted the key themes, and the key sections within policy documents on which data analysis focused (Table 4.1). Grounded theory allows codes to arise from emerging information (Charmaz and Belgrave 2012; Wamsler et al. 2016) and was particularly relevant in this study to the data sourced from interviews.

The analysis of policy documents focused on how green space is defined and addressed within these strategies, the implementation mechanisms and associated commitment of funding and resources. The presence of analysis framework elements, such as vision, green space goals, and targets was identified for each policy and categorised into one of the four analytical elements of strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive. In addition, each policy was searched using keywords to identify coverage of the research’s focus areas across the whole policy content. The keywords used were:

green infrastructure, green space, greening, forest, tree, natural, nature, green roof,

urban heat island, and heatwave.

The analysis of interview data commenced during the period in which interviews were being undertaken, to allow topics and ideas that arose in the interviews to be further explored in subsequent interviews (Creswell 2014, p. 195). As the interview recordings were being transcribed by the researcher, preliminary reflections were noted as research journal entries, which in turn were used to develop memos (Charmaz 2014).

The transcripts were coded using NVivo qualitative research software1, to organise, sort and search the data, and manage the coded material.

The coding and analysis of interview data focused on what was said and how, as well as what was not said, “the silences, gaps and omissions” (Rapley 2008). The issues for which interview participants held strong views, or which they discussed with energy or insistence, were noted during the transcription process and in memos. As the

1 http://www.qsrinternational.com/

Chapter 4 90 interview transcription process proceeded, the focus of analysis expanded to encompass points of agreement, divergence or dissent between different interview participants.

The literature review (Chapter 2) had highlighted areas of contention related to the terms, definitions and conceptual understandings of urban green space and the roles of green space in cities. The literature review had also identified key research gaps in terms of understandings of policy approaches to green space provision, and policy makers’ perspectives. These insights from the literature review were also used to focus the analysis on how interview participants approached and understood these issues.

Furthermore, the theoretical context that underpins this research directed attention to a focus on innovation and novel approaches to green space policies, and highlighted the tensions and unevenness in policy adoption. As interview participants were drawn from a range of organisations and disciplines, they reflected the range of approaches, language, understandings and values that they and their organisations applied to urban green spaces. Additional insights were provided by the supplementary data, particularly from the researcher’s attendance at a number of practitioner workshops and seminars in which policy processes, and policy makers’ issues and preoccupations were discussed.

The analysis process involved moving from coding, to identifying categories of codes, and subsequently themes, which sought to interpret and explain the data (Walter 2010).

To develop the themes, insights were combined from policy document sources and interview data, and points of connection, departure or disagreement between different data sources were mind-mapped. This built understandings of how the policy processes interrelated with the form and content of the final policy documents, and led to the key practical and theoretical perspectives and contributions that are discussed in

Chapter 8.

Chapter 4 91 4.6 Summary

This chapter has described the research approach and research design developed to address the research question: How can policies contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space? and associated sub-questions: a. How are policies currently contributing to green space retention and maximisation? b. What are the key policy mechanisms? c. What are the key success factors? The qualitative research is informed by a constructivist ontology and an interpretivist epistemology (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Research approach

Research strategy Qualitative Epistemology and Interpretivist ontology Constructivist Pragmatist influences Theoretical framework Policy analysis framework that integrates theories of sustainability transitions and policy research methods Research design Cross-sectional design Policies as the unit of analysis: Melbourne, Australia (federal, state and local governments) London, UK (Metropolitan government) Research methods Data collection: policy documents and semi-structured interviews (purposive sampling) Data analysis: directed content analysis and grounded theory

The research aims to make practical, theoretical and methodological contributions. The practical contribution is developing understandings of policy approaches to urban green space retention and UHIE mitigation, including policy domains and mechanisms. The theoretical contributions arise from applying theories of sustainability transitions to the urban green space policy context. The methodological contribution is provided by development and application of the policy analysis framework. The following three chapters present the results.

Chapter 4 92 Chapter 5. Green space policy domains and Australian policies

5.1 Introduction

This chapter, the first of the three chapters presenting the data and results of this research, provides the analytical foundation for the subsequent research of

Melbourne’s green space policies (Chapter 6) and London’s green space policies

(Chapter 7). This chapter begins by demonstrating how green space provision meets the necessary criteria for inclusion into governments’ public policy agendas. The ecosystems services framework is then utilised to identify the range of public policy domains to which urban green spaces’ ecosystem services may contribute. Following this, Australia’s multi-level system of government is presented, and the roles of each level of government related to these policy domains are summarised. The key policies for each of the policy domains, across the three levels of Australian government are then identified, and the extent to which green space is addressed in these policies is examined. The research finds that green space provision is largely addressed in three policy domains: cities and urban planning, green space (including urban forest and street tree strategies), and climate change.

The chapter utilises data from a range of primary and secondary sources, government policies and reports, also informed by interview participants’ reflections. The analysis in this chapter informs the selection of policies examined using the policy analysis framework in the following chapters. It also demonstrates gaps in policy coverage that will be further discussed in Chapter 8.

5.2 Inclusion of green space into the public policy agenda

Dovers (2005, p. 76) argued that “the formulation of policies and their implementation

… is critical to the collective achievement of any social goal, including that of protecting the environment”. As discussed in Section 2.4.1, for public policies to be developed to address a particular issue or goal, that goal must meet the conditions for

Chapter 5 93 inclusion into the public policy agenda (Althaus et al. 2013). This research argues that green space meets these conditions. This section summarises the evidence, largely drawn from government reports, demonstrating how these four criteria are met.

Agreement on a problem

Althaus et al. (2013) argued that “a coalition of voices within and outside government”

(p. 51) is required to demonstrate agreement on a problem. There is a wide and diverse range of government and non-government reports that have examined the issues related to urban heat impacts and green space provision, at a range of scales, from local to regional, national and international. These include reviews by government departments, auditors and consultants on the impacts of heatwaves on health (Nairn and Fawcett 2013; PwC 2011; VAG 2014; WHO 2009) and economic activity (AECOM

2012; Nairn and Fawcett 2013; PC 2012, 2014; Sweeney Research 2014), and the intensification of these impacts with climate change (CES 2012, 2013; NCCARF 2013).

Prospect of a solution

Althaus et al. (2013) suggested that plausible solutions must be available for an issue to be included in the public policy agenda. In contrast with mitigating climate change, which is a global-scale issue, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that urban heat can be mitigated at the local neighbourhood and city scale with provision of green space, and that green space provides multiple other benefits in cities. In addition to research evidence reviewed in Chapter 2, there is an increasing body of evidence from government reports and research-government partnerships addressing urban green space provision for urban heat mitigation and other benefits (including for example

202020 Vision 2014; Colmer Brunton 2012; Davern et al. 2017; Deloitte Access

Economics 2015; DTPLI 2013; Ely and Pitman 2013; Townsend et al. 2015; VLSA 2011;

WHO 2016, 2017).

An appropriate issue for government expenditure

Even with agreement on the problem, and prospects for the solution, the issue must be deemed appropriate for expenditure of public funding (Althaus et al. 2013), and there

Chapter 5 94 must be an expectation of public benefit from the expenditure (Maddison and Denniss

2013). In the case of urban heat mitigation and provision of urban green space, expenditure on preventing or minimising disasters is more economically efficient than post-disaster recovery expenditure (PC 2014). Public authorities own and manage large areas of open space and green space in urban areas, and there are expectations that these areas are managed to ensure they contribute to the urban fabric and to urban liveability (202020 Vision 2015; DIT 2011; DTPLI 2013; VEAC 2010).

Political willingness to address the issue

Althaus et al. (2013) argued that the issue must be consistent with a government’s political or ideological framework for the issue to be part of its policy agenda. Likewise

Head (2008) reinforced that the ‘political’ lens provides one of three forms of evidence necessary for ‘evidence-based policy making’. In this context, policies that address public health issues and policies for provision of urban green space consistently receive broad-based support across the political spectrum (Doyle 2015; DSE 2012; Hunt 2016).

However, the selection of policy approaches and mechanisms, and the degree of influence of different policy approaches varies widely between political parties, between different levels of government and in different municipalities and cities. It is these different approaches that are the focus of this research into how policies can contribute to retaining and maximising green space.

The justification for inclusion of urban green space provision into the public policy agenda is summarised in Table 5.1.

Chapter 5 95 Table 5.1 Inclusion of urban green space provision in the public policy agenda

Conditions for inclusion Urban green space justification in the policy ‘agenda’ Agreement on a problem The UHIE and heatwaves impact a wide range of functions and processes in urban areas. Many government departments are involved in addressing the impacts, and benefit from mitigation actions. Local governments, businesses, community organisations and individuals are increasingly concerned about the impacts of heatwaves on the city’s liveability. Prospect of a solution There is substantial scientific research indicating that urban green space provides significant mitigation of the UHIE. In contrast to mitigating climate change, which requires global action, UHIE mitigation can be successfully undertaken at a range of scales, from building, precinct, or city-wide. An appropriate issue for Planning for disaster mitigation and post-disaster recovery is an government expenditure important role for governments, and expenditure on mitigation is more efficient than post-disaster recovery. Developing and implementing policies for urban green space contribute to urban liveability and productivity. Political willingness to The majority of Victoria’s population lives in Melbourne; there is address the issue a large number of people, businesses and infrastructures exposed to the impacts of the UHIE and heatwaves. Addressing the issue with urban green space is highly visible, and creates multiple benefits in addition to heat mitigation.

5.3 Green space policy domains

The previous section demonstrated that provision of urban green space meets the criteria for inclusion into the public policy agenda. This section identifies the public policy domains that arguably have a role in green space provision. The management of urban green space, as with other complex urban issues, is multi‐level and cross‐ sectorial: there are multiple public policy domains which could potentially address green space provision. The ecosystem services framework provides a rigorous and extensive framework for categorising the range of services and contributions that green space can provide in urban areas (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). For each of these ecosystem services, the associated public policy domains have been identified (Table

5.2).

Chapter 5 96 Table 5.2 Urban ecosystem services and associated policy domains

Ecosystem service category and function Associated policy domain Provisioning Food supply Health (public health: nutrition) Urban agriculture Water supply Water management: supply Regulating Urban temperature regulation Health (public health: heatwaves) Ecology and biodiversity Climate change Buildings Moderation of climate extremes Health (public health: heatwaves) Climate change Global climate regulation Climate change Noise reduction Environmental pollution regulation Air purification Environmental pollution regulation Runoff mitigation Water management: drainage Waste treatment Environmental pollution regulation Pollination, pest regulation, seed Urban agriculture dispersal Cultural services Recreation Open space and recreation Health (public health: physical activity) Aesthetic benefits Open space and recreation Health (public health: physical and mental) Economic development Cognitive development Education Place values and social cohesion Health (public health: mental wellbeing) Community development and social welfare Supporting Habitat for biodiversity Ecology and biodiversity

In addition to urban land use planning, which provides the overarching strategic directions for urban development and land use, other relevant policy domains include environmental sustainability, climate change, water, ecology and conservation (natural resource management). Green space provision potentially contributes to the policy domains of health and emergency management through a range of ecosystem services, addressing both short-term, acute perspectives such as disaster mitigation, as well as long-term, chronic issues such as public health improvements associated with physical activity, mental well-being and social cohesion. While green spaces’ provision of ecosystem services contributes to the range of policy domains identified in Table 5.2, it

Chapter 5 97 is not necessarily the case that all the policies in these domains actually address green space provision. The next section provides a summary of Australia’s system of government, followed by identification of the key policies associated with these policy domains, and examination of the extent to which they address green space provision.

5.4 Melbourne’s multi-level government and policy context

The previous sections argued that green space meets the criteria for inclusion into the public policy agenda, and then utilised the ecosystem services framework to identify the policy domains relevant to urban green space provision. This section provides an overview of the Australian system of government and outlines the roles of and relationships between the different levels of government for the policy domains related to ecosystem services provision. This then informs the subsequent identification, in the following section, of the key policies for Melbourne’s green space provision, across the different levels of government.

5.4.1 Australia’s system of government

Australia has a system of representative democracy, with three levels of government, federal, state (comprised of eight states and territories) and local (almost 600 local governments across Australia). There are 79 local governments in Victoria, of which 32 are located within Melbourne’s metropolitan area.

Australia’s federal system of government was established under the Constitution of

1901. Australia is one of the countries of the British Commonwealth and has inherited a

Westminster-style government (Maddison and Denniss 2013). However, as a federation of states, Australia also reflects elements and influences from other jurisdictions, including US federalism (Maddison and Denniss 2013). The three levels of government have a defined division of powers, roles and functions. The division of powers between Federal and State governments is codified in the Australian

Constitution, defining that each jurisdiction is “autonomous within its sphere of responsibility and neither subordinate nor dominant in its authority” (Maddison and

Denniss 2013, p. 24). The federal government however, is only empowered to

Chapter 5 98 undertake actions expressly authorised by the Constitution (Stilwell and Troy 2000).

Notwithstanding constitutional declarations, the relationships between federal and state governments can still be a source of conflict, tension, and ultimately High Court challenges, particularly if one level of government is perceived to be encroaching on another’s areas of responsibility or jurisdiction.

The federal government has greater economic power, because it is responsible for collecting income tax (since 1942), and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) (since 2000)

(Maddison and Denniss 2013). The distribution of tax revenue by the federal government to state and local governments creates substantial ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’, contributing to tension and competition between the different levels of government, as well between the eight state and territory governments (Stilwell and

Troy 2000).

Local government plays a pivotal role in Australia’s democratic system, being the level of elected government ‘closest to the people’ (Dollery et al. 2015). However, Australian local governments lack recognition in the federal constitution, thus impacting their power and authority in their relationships with the other levels of government. In contrast to some countries where the principle of ‘subsidiarity’, in which “decisions are taken whenever possible at the lowest level of government, as close to the citizen as possible” is enshrined in law (Miller 2014, p. 342), Australian local governments are subordinate and accountable to their state governments. As a result, it has been argued that local government has a “limited range of responsibilities and is overly dependent on other spheres of government” (Kiss 2007). Even with recognition of local government in States’ constitutions, local governments can still be amalgamated, suspended or dismissed by state governments (Stilwell and Troy 2000).

In addition, ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’ places local government in an “invidious supplicatory relationship to higher tiers of government” (Dollery et al. 2015, p. 107).

Local government collects property rates revenue, but this source of funding is limited, and even more so since rate capping was introduced for Victorian councils in 2015 (in which annual increases to rates are capped at a level set by the Victorian state

Chapter 5 99 government). Local government only started receiving direct federal government funding from 1973, as well as additional ‘ad hoc specific-purpose’ grants (Kiss 2007).

Many Australian local governments are facing severe financial pressures, caused by declining state government funding, rates capping and state government pressure for reduced charges, ‘cost-shifting’ (whereby services previously delivered or funded by higher levels of government are transferred to local governments), and increasing community expectations for the quality, quantity and range of services provided

(Searle 2011). This has resulted in cutbacks to infrastructure provision rather than service delivery and an ‘escalating backlog’ of infrastructure needs (Dollery et al. 2015, p. 109). The infrastructure backlog is exacerbated by local government unwillingness to take on the responsibility for additional infrastructure because of its associated maintenance costs and responsibilities (Searle 2011).

Local government dependence on property rates revenue reinforces a perception of their subservience and limitations, “hampered in developing their roles much beyond services to property” (Kiss 2007). In recent years however, the range of services provided by local governments has expanded beyond the ‘traditional’ spheres of

‘roads, rates and rubbish’, to encompass provision of a broader range of roles, including land use planning, community facilities and services, such as recreation and sports, health and family services, and economic development. Local government environmental spending is now larger than that of state and federal governments

(Dollery et al. 2015). While Victorian state government departments and agencies

(including Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water) maintain responsibility for national parks, major metropolitan parks and some areas of waterways and streamside reserves, as well as utility easements, the day-to-day management of much of

Melbourne’s urban green space is largely the domain of local government.

Due to substantially different rates bases, different local governments have markedly different financial capacities, and therefore different levels of services. In addition, major differences in the requirements of rural and urban areas means that “local governments are often divided not only from state to state but also within each state”

Chapter 5 100 (Kiss 2007), contributing to a lack of shared ‘local government platform’ or voice in intergovernmental negotiations and debates. In contrast however, significant levels of cooperation have been documented between Melbourne’s local governments, in the areas of climate governance and adaptive capacity building (Moloney and Fünfgeld

2015). The emergence of ‘climate change alliances’ constitutes a form of ‘integrative governance’, that fosters a mix of collaboration, cooperation and competition between the alliances’ local government members, facilitating information sharing, experimentation and innovation, policy learning and leadership (Bulkeley and Betsill

2013; Moloney and Fünfgeld 2015; VGA 2017).

There is a complex division of roles and responsibilities across Australia’s three levels of government, in relation to urban planning and policy, including for green space.

This is critical to understand for this research, because there are areas of crossover, conflict or competition between the policies of different levels of government, and from different policy domains, and their associated range of government departments.

Identifying these interactions contributes to addressing the research questions of how policies contribute to green space provision and the key policy success factors.

This section has summarised the Australian system of government and the relationships between the three levels of government. The next section of the chapter outlines the roles of the different levels of government with relation to the policy domains associated with ecosystem services provision. The chapter concludes by identifying the key policies for each of these policy domains, and assessing the extent to which they address urban green space provision. This then informs the selection of policies for detailed analysis in the following chapter.

5.4.2 Multi-level government roles in green space policy and planning

Under the Australian Constitution, the powers conferred on the federal government do not include urban or land use planning, apart from for ‘matters of national environmental significance’, as defined by the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Williams and Maginn 2012). The primary responsibility for urban planning and policy lies with state and local governments

Chapter 5 101 (Williams and Maginn 2012). The extent to which the federal government should fill a role in urban planning is a matter of continuing debate. The left of centre Labor federal governments have played a more active role in urban policy, from Whitlam’s government in the early 1970s, which established the Department of Urban and

Regional Development (Gleeson and Low 2000). However, the conservative Liberal-

National Coalition federal governments have since retreated from active involvement in urban planning and policy making, with their roles more focused simply on providing funding to states for some urban infrastructure. On gaining office in 2007, the Labor government established the Major Cities Unit in the Department of

Infrastructure and developed the 2011 National Urban Policy (DIT 2011). However, the incoming Liberal-National Coalition government in 2013 dissolved the unit and again withdrew from active urban policy making. The urban policy approach of the current

Liberal-National Coalition government is assessed in the following chapter as part of the analysis of multi-level green space policies.

As stated above, Australian state governments are largely responsible for urban planning, each having its own planning system and associated statutory, policy and procedural frameworks (Williams and Maginn 2012). Some aspects of the system, largely the local decision making functions, are delegated to local governments.

In Victoria, the Victorian State Government develops metropolitan-scale strategies for

Melbourne, and defines the Victorian Planning Provisions. Each local government is then required to establish its own local planning provisions, including a Municipal

Strategic Statement. The land use planning system is required to balance a range of urban issues across potentially conflicting policy domains, including economic development and employment, urban development, urban renewal and urban consolidation, transport, housing, and sustainability and liveability (Williams and

Maginn 2012).

The development of metropolitan strategies by the Victorian state government has become increasingly politicised over the last 20 years, with each new government revising or rewriting the strategy during its term of government (Whitzman 2015).

Chapter 5 102 Since the establishment of Melbourne’s urban growth boundary in 2002, the metropolitan area has been extended with each new metropolitan strategy; frequent changes to land use planning contributes to land speculation and to a lack of ability to undertake long term strategic planning and resource allocation (Buxton and Goodman

2012; Harris 2005), as well as increasing uncertainty amongst the development industry and governments with respect to infrastructure provision.

The Victorian state government established the Growth Areas Authority in 2005 at the same time as the release of its development plan for growth areas. The Authority’s work was expanded to include strategic planning for inner and middle-ring urban renewal in 2013 and it was renamed the Metropolitan Planning Authority. In 2016, the

Authority’s work was again expanded when it became the Victorian Planning

Authority, with additional responsibility for planning for for the state’s regional cities and towns.

Two major areas of tension exist for state governments related to metropolitan planning: between state and (multiple, fragmented) local governments; and also between urban and rural interests (Stilwell and Troy 2000); “institutional fragmentation has led to fragmented strategic planning” (Buxton and Goodman 2012, p. 73). In response, there are calls for the creation of metropolitan-scale governance and strengthened metropolitan-scale planning (Gleeson et al. 2012); but these are tempered by an acknowledgement of the difficulty of achieving such ‘radical’ reforms, particularly in the context of already complex and crowded inter-governmental relationships (Stilwell and Troy 2000) as well as commercial interests of the development and construction industries.

5.5 Policies for Melbourne’s green space

The previous section examined the roles and relationships between the different levels of government in Australia and how these inform the development and implementation of green space policies. This section determines the key policies or strategies (current to the end of 2016) at each level of government associated with the

Chapter 5 103 policy domains identified in Section 5.3. Policies have been identified by reviewing government websites, and through interviews with policy officers.

Following identification of key policies in each of the policy domains for the three levels of government (Table 5.3), policies are reviewed to assess whether they address green space provision: while green spaces’ ecosystem services may contribute to these policy domains, not all policies within these domains actually address green space provision.

The most directly relevant policies addressing green space provision, in addition to green space-specific policies, are land use planning and climate change policies at Victorian state government and local government levels. The land use planning policies include

Plan Melbourne metropolitan planning strategy and the Victorian Planning Provisions, and local planning schemes and local planning provisions, which by legislation, must be consistent with state level planning.

In relation to the green space policy domain, the previous Victorian Government had committed to developing a metropolitan open space strategy as part of the actions in

Plan Melbourne, but its release date (expected to be 2015) has been delayed significantly, due to the current government’s revision of Plan Melbourne (according to Project

Manager 5, Planner 12).

Many local governments develop municipal green space strategies. These fall into two broad areas: open space strategies and urban forest strategies. Open space strategies are generally focused on land use and categorisation of different types of open space use and function, often explicitly linked to recreation, while urban forest strategies are generally focused more strongly on the perspective of the vegetation (or trees), including street trees.

Consideration of urban heat and the UHIE is mainly addressed as part of heatwave response planning, either as part of public health and emergency management, or within climate change plans and strategies, particularly adaptation planning. Zero

Carbon Moreland (MCC 2014) is one of the few climate change mitigation strategies to

Chapter 5 104 acknowledge UHIE and recognise that mitigating the UHIE will also contribute to reduced energy use during heatwaves, and therefore climate change mitigation.

Table 5.3 Australian governments’ key policies for urban green space and UHIE

Policy area Federal State of Victoria Victorian local government Key policy domains legislative other requirement Cities, urban Smart Cities Plan Plan Melbourne Council Plan; Resilient Melbourne design and 2015 2014; Plan Municipal Strategic Strategy 2016 planning Melbourne Refresh Statement; Local in prep; Vic Planning Policy Planning Provisions 2016 Infrastructure Strategy 2016 Urban green 20 Million Trees Metropolitan Open Various space program Space Strategy (in strategies:Urban prep); Linking Forest; Open Space; People and Spaces Street Tree; Green 2002 Roofs and Walls Climate National Climate Climate Change Act Various plans: change: Resilience and 2010; Climate Mitigation Plan; mitigation; Adaptation Strategy Change Adaptation Adaptation Plan adaptation 2015; Emission Plan 2013; Climate Reduction Fund Change Framework (in prep) Other relevant policy domains Water, water Water Act 2007; Environment Various: Integrated cycle, National Urban Protection Act 1970; Water Management stormwater Water Planning State Environment Plan; Waterway management Principles 2008; and Protection Policy management plan Review 2013-14 (Waters of Victoria) Water for Victoria Plan 2016 Ecology and Environment Flora & Fauna Various: Urban biodiversity Protection & Guarantee Act 1988; ecology strategy Biodiversity Biodiversity Conservation Act Strategy (in prep) 1999; Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 Health, Emergency Victorian Public Municipal Health Heatwave Plan emergency Management Health and and Wellbeing Plan; management Australia; National Wellbeing Plan 2015 Municipal Strategy for Disaster Heat health plan for Emergency Resilience 2011 Victoria 2015; State Management Plan Emergency Response Plan 2016 Buildings National Construction Code 2016 Building regulations, permits

Chapter 5 105 While the contribution of green spaces’ ecosystem services to public health is widely recognised, provision of green space is not directly addressed in any of the health policies identified. As such, this research finds that while health is a key policy domain that receives significant and substantial benefits from green space, it does not yet address or contribute to its provision.

Green space’s multifunctionality, and its cross-cutting contributions to urban form, functions and infrastructure provision result in policy coverage across a wide range of policy domains. The range of policies related to or affecting green space provision at all levels of government, across multiple policy domains and government departments creates the potential for lack of integration, inconsistencies and contradictions in how green space is reserved and managed across the metropolitan area. These opportunities and issues are further considered in the following chapters.

5.6 Summary

This chapter has summarised Australia’s system of government and highlighted the complex, multi-level, multi-sectorial coverage of policies for green spaces. However, green spaces’ multifunctionality, and the resulting complex policy coverage also creates overlap and potential competition and conflict between policy domains.

The following chapter analyses the key policies within the domains of cities and urban planning, green space and climate change to analyse how policies contribute to retaining and maximising green space in Melbourne. The chapter first provides an overview of the historical development of Melbourne’s green spaces. This explains how the natural and Aboriginal cultural heritage of the region, including climate, soils and topography, have influenced urban development and form, and the existing differences in tree canopy cover across the metropolitan area, which in turn provides the context within which the current policies operate. Following this, the policy analysis framework

(Chapter 4) is applied to analyse the key policies for urban green space in Melbourne, supplemented with interviews from policy makers and other green space stakeholders.

Chapter 5 106 Chapter 6. Melbourne’s green space policies

6.1 Introduction

This chapter begins by investigating the social-ecological context that has contributed to the current quantity, quality and distribution of Melbourne’s green space, and within which its green space policies are located. It provides a review of Melbourne’s green space development, from the perspective of land form, Aboriginal cultural heritage and land stewardship, urban development and policy. The historical development of Melbourne’s green spaces, from prior to British settlement in the early

19th century to present day, has been influenced by small scale, localised biophysical and socio-economic factors, as well as metropolitan scale planning. This historical development, underpinned by ecological and institutional factors explains the current distribution, its unevenesses, deficiencies and inequities (the slow changing ‘landscape’ of the Multi-Level Perspective). Research of current green space distribution that does not take account of underlying biophysical differences across the metropolitan area will therefore miss key influencing factors. The current quantity and distribution of green space in turn underpins policy approaches to current and future green space provision.

Following this establishment of the existing context for urban green space in

Melbourne, the following sections present the assessment of the key policies for

Melbourne’s green space. Results are presented in this chapter, with the chapter concluding by identifying common themes, issues and approaches, as well as key differences and omissions in the respective approaches. The analysis and discussion of the results is presented in Chapter 8, which also incorporates results from assessment of London’s policies.

6.2 Melbourne’s context: urban form and green spaces

Melbourne was established by British colonists on the banks of the Yarra River, upstream of its mouth into Port Phillip Bay. The region had already been occupied for

Chapter 6 107 at least 40,000 years; it is within the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people of the

Wurundjeri and Boonwerung tribes, of the Kulin nation (Flannery 2002; Presland

2008). The Aboriginal connection with the land is a deep and powerful, bidirectional relationship in which the landscape shaped the people, and the people shaped the landscape (CoM and MSI 2016). “In looking at the natural history of an area, we are also looking at aspects of local Aboriginal culture” (Presland 2008, p. p. 203).

Aboriginal connections with land, embodied within the land stewardship concept of

‘caring for Country’, emphasise the fundamental connections between environment, society and economy, “there is no economy without environment, no environment without society, no society without economy and so on” (CoM and MSI 2016, p. 12).

Thus, the region settled by British colonists in 1835 had shaped and been shaped by

Aboriginal people’s stewardship and economy for tens of thousands of years. It was a

“temperate Kakadu”, the abundance of its wetlands creating “a most beautiful and bountiful region … billabongs and swamps were sprinkled right around the bay, and they teemed with brolgas, magpie-geese, Cape Barren geese, swans, ducks, eels and frogs” (Flannery 2002, pp. 7-8).

The landscape of the Port Phillip region is a result of the combination of climate, soils, topography and Aboriginal custodianship and land management. Today’s urban landscape is a result of these continuing biophysical and cultural factors and processes, overlaid by European colonisation and settlement, and subsequent urban planning, design and development, and land and water management. Melbourne is a city “rich in biodiversity”, though careful urban planning and management is required to maintain and enhance biodiversity values (Ives et al. 2013).

The following sections summarise Melbourne’s natural and cultural history and the development and form of the metropolitan area. These elements strongly influence the current extent, location, size and distribution of green spaces within the city. The current policy approaches to green space provision are informed by and respond to the current distribution and quantity of existing green space, and the relative differences in access, size and quality of green space across the metropolitan area.

Chapter 6 108 6.2.1 Location and urban form

Melbourne extends from Port Phillip Bay to the foothills of the Great Dividing Range to the north and east. It stretches around the bay’s coastline and basin, covering almost

10,000 km2 (the exact area depends on where the edge of the metropolitan area is defined). It is characterised by a dense central business district (CBD) on the banks of the Yarra River, the location of the original settlement in the 1830s, and rings of subsequent urban and suburban development. Suburban development commenced almost as soon as Melbourne was settled, with public transport provision (rail lines) developed from the 1850s, and suburban expansion along these transport routes.

Between the depression of the 1890s and the end of World War One, suburban growth slowed, but grew again with public transport expansion in the 1920s. The 1930s Great

Depression, World War Two and post-war austerity again slowed expansion, but private car ownership and aspirations for home ownership spurred further metropolitan extension from the 1950s (Davison 1978; Kelly and Donegan 2015).

The inner urban areas, circling the CBD, are relatively dense, with terrace houses, and detached single and double storey houses. More recent development of these areas is characterised by multi-storey apartment buildings in addition to the single dwellings.

The middle suburbs, that were settled up to the 1950s-1960s, are characterised by larger blocks and larger houses. The outer suburbs and growth areas have been developed since the 1970s (Figure 6.1). Over the last decade, there has been substantial housing construction in growth areas, particularly to the north and west in the municipalities of

Hume, Melton and Wyndham, and to the south-east in Casey. At the same time there has been “dramatic growth” in the central City of Melbourne, mainly in high- and medium-rise apartments (Buxton et al. 2016, p. 1). Melbourne’s population is expected to continue to grow from its current level of 4.3 million people in 2014 to as many as 7.7 million people by 2051 (DTPLI 2014).

Chapter 6 109

Figure 6.1 Melbourne’s urban area Above, Melbourne's urban growth 1850-2010 (Source: Townsend 2012, p. 9); Below, Melbourne’s urbanised area in 2014 (Source: DTPLI 2014)

Chapter 6 110 Melbourne’s urban development has not progressed evenly from its initial settlement area, with development in the east and south-east extending substantially further than to the north and west. However, more recent development patterns are now expanding these latter areas as well. Today, Melbourne extends at least 50km to the east and south-east, southerly around the edge of Port Phillip Bay (up to 100 km), and at least 40 km to the north and west.

Presland (2008) documented the natural and Aboriginal cultural history of the region, and argued that the development of the city has been fundamentally and powerfully influenced and shaped by nature: the region’s Aboriginal and natural history, the two of which are intertwined and inseparable. Melbourne’s original settlement was on high ground on the north bank of the Yarra River, at least 3 km upstream from Port Phillip

Bay. Although this location necessitated a longer journey inland from the coast, it was the most downstream point of the Yarra River with a freshwater supply: the existence of small rocky falls created a barrier to salt water ingress from the Bay and the Yarra

River estuary (Presland 2008). As the city developed and grew, housing and transport routes radiated out from the CBD along ridge lines, with waterways and stream valleys lying between (Harris 2005).

Presland (2008) explained the uneven extension of the city due to a combination of natural and psychological characteristics. With psychological preferences for elevation, views, well-watered areas and mature trees, Melbourne’s growth stretched to the east, north-east and south-east, on the hilly, treed Silurian and Tertiary deposits. The flat, treeless volcanic plains of the north and the west were perceived as less hospitable.

Less favourable areas were used for working class settlements and industrial purposes, with waterways for waste disposal. Thus, Presland (2008) correlated landscape type and social value, with class and social demarcations based on geological and topographical distinctions. The pattern of corridor development between waterways and stream valleys is still reflected to some extent in the current location of open space corridors and ‘green wedges’ along waterways that separate development corridors.

The following section describes the development of green space in Melbourne.

Chapter 6 111 6.2.2 Development of Melbourne’s parklands and green spaces

By the middle of the 19th century, city planners had already established an extensive ring of parklands around the city (Figure 6.2), forming an inner ‘green belt’ (MPE

1988). The parks included Royal Park, Princes Park, Carlton (Exhibition) Gardens,

Treasury Gardens, Fitzroy Gardens, Flinders Park, the Royal Botanic Gardens and

Kings Domain, Fawkner Park and Albert Park (Buxton and Goodman 2012; VEAC

2010). The parklands, established for recreational and aesthetic purposes, were planted as European landscapes. Studley Park, on the banks of the Yarra River in Kew, which was permanently reserved in 1864, was the first large park to retain and make a feature of Australian vegetation (MPE 1988).

Figure 6.2 Melbourne's inner ring of parklands (Source: MTPC 1929, p. p. 193)

Chapter 6 112 By the 1880s, with rapid urban development, few large parks were reserved in some of the inner areas beyond the inner green belt. “The working class municipalities of

Brunswick and Coburg, for example, were poorly provided for, and in 1918, only 0.17 per cent of Coburg was devoted to parks” (MPE 1988, p. 6). In addition, the inner ring of parks had been reduced and fragmented by subsequent development pressures and construction of enclosed and gated sporting stadiums, a trend which has continued to recent years (John et al. 2013), affecting Yarra Park, Royal Park, Princes Park, Albert

Park and Flinders Park, as well as Studley Park.

A metropolitan plan, the 1929 General Development Plan, prepared by the Metropolitan

Town Planning Commission, identified the inadequate supply of public open space and the difficulty in acquiring vacant land to supplement parkland, due to development driving up land prices, even at this relatively early stage in the city’s development (MPE 1988). The plan recommended minimum guidelines for provision of recreation space, and proposed a radial system of parks along Melbourne’s major waterways (VEAC 2010). The plan stated that “the provision of sufficient open spaces for the enjoyment of the community in large cities is generally accepted as a vital part of city development” (MTPC 1929, p. 187). However, the 1929 plan was never formally implemented. Subsequent metropolitan plans that addressed open space provision included the 1954 Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) planning scheme report (MMBW 1954), which included a detailed survey of open space distribution and proposed a set of open space standards. However, the 1954 metropolitan plan proposed a network of arterial roads and multi-lane freeways along the radiating watercourses, and despite local and environmental protests, a number of these were constructed (Presland 2008).

The principle of green wedges separating the radiating growth corridors was formalised in the 1971 Planning Policies report. Over the following 20 years, the

MMBW endeavoured to implement this approach through the acquisition and reservation of major areas of land for metropolitan parks, most associated with

Chapter 6 113 waterway valleys, including Maribyrnong Valley, Yarra Valley, Dandenong Valley,

Braeside and Plenty Gorge (MPE 1988; Townsend 2012; VEAC 2010).

Although all previous metropolitan strategies had addressed open space planning

(Townsend 2012), the 1988 Metropolitan Open Space Plan (MPE 1988) claimed to be the

“first long term open space plan since 1929” (p. 1). The plan highlighted more recent efforts focussed on “restoring and beautifying Melbourne’s neglected rivers and creeks” (p. 9), and identified recreational and social trends towards unstructured outdoor activities, natural settings, environmental awareness, increased interest in indigenous landscapes, flora and fauna. Freestone (2014) characterised the general approach to land use planning during this period as focused on ‘environmentalism’, and a growing interest in the bio-physical environment. The 2002 Linking People and

Spaces strategic open space plan focused on nature-based regional open space and trails for metropolitan Melbourne (PV 2002).

By 2010, at the time of the Victorian Environmental Assessments Council’s (VEAC) investigation of public open space in metropolitan Melbourne (VEAC 2011), there were significant areas of public land including crown land and land owned by state and local government departments and agencies. VEAC categorised public open space into the following types: protected areas (including national parks, and nature reserves), natural and semi-natural areas (metropolitan and regional parks, waterways and wetlands), parkland and gardens (including playgrounds and pocket parks), organised recreation areas (sports grounds), services and utilities areas, civic squares and promenades and recreation corridors (VEAC 2011). VEAC highlighted the absence of a current metropolitan-wide open space strategy, thereby implicitly questioning the status, currency and coverage of the 2002 Linking People and Spaces strategy. VEAC identified projected population increases as a key issue impacting public open space provision, both for the need for providing additional public land, as well as for protecting existing natural landscapes (VEAC 2010).

Comparisons of public open space provisions across metropolitan Melbourne indicated that “there is no clear pattern across municipalities, with comparatively low

Chapter 6 114 proportions observed in both established and growth municipalities” (VEAC 2010, p.

106). The municipalities with the least public open space, proportional to total municipal area, are the middle-ring (and relatively affluent) eastern and south-eastern municipalities of Stonnington (6.7%) and Glen Eira (4.7%). While VEAC found no clear pattern of public open space proportion across municipalities in Melbourne (VEAC

2010, p. 106), Jacobs et al. (2014) found significant differences in tree cover across metropolitan municipalities, with inner city and western regions having the lowest tree cover. The differences in tree cover can be explained to a large degree as a combination of the natural history and subsequent urban development patterns for these areas. The heavy clay soils and lower rainfall of the areas to the north and west of the city are much less conducive for tree growth, and these areas, prior to British settlement, largely supported treeless native grasslands (Presland 2008).

The proportion of public open space for the municipalities that are the focus of this research’s detailed policy analysis are: Melbourne 16.6%; Moreland 10.3% and Hume

10.1% (for land within the urban growth boundary at its 2011 location), and 14.2% (for the entire municipality, including rural land outside the boundary) (VEAC 2011). The municipality of Melbourne’s comparatively higher proportion of public open space reflects the legacy of reservation of the inner green belt ring of parks and gardens. The open space is not evenly distributed within the municipalities; in City of Melbourne’s case, the municipality contains a number of large parklands but also areas (particularly industrial and working class areas) with poor access (Figure 6.3).

In a study of proximity to open space, Mavoa et al. (2015) found that although more than one-third of metropolitan Melbourne’s dwellings were further from open space than the distance set under the Victorian Planning Provisions, there was no evidence of a socio-economic gradient in open space provision.

Chapter 6 115

Figure 6.3 City of Melbourne open space gap analysis (Source: CoM 2012a, p. 6)

While the focus of this section of the chapter has been on publicly owned green space in metropolitan Melbourne, privately owned green space should also be considered as part of the overall understanding of the city’s green spaces, as private open spaces also contribute to urban ecosystem services and to mitigating the UHIE. Much of Australian suburban residential development, in the first 150 years of settlement, was in the form of a detached house with a relatively large backyard (Hall 2010; Timms 2006). Inner city, working class areas were often characterised by significantly smaller block sizes.

With pressures of land prices, as well as attempts to limit urban expansion, block sizes have reduced in more recent greenfields developments. In addition, house sizes have increased; since 1990, private open spaces, particularly backyards, have diminished in size (Hall 2010; Urban Initiatives 2015). As well as shrinking private open space cover, a report on metropolitan tree cover found that the number of trees on private land is decreasing, even as the number and canopy cover of trees on public land is increasing, the latter largely due to local government tree planting efforts (VLSA 2011).

Chapter 6 116 This section has examined some of the factors that have contributed to the current distribution of Melbourne’s open spaces. The current quantity and distribution of green spaces across the metropolitan area reflects a combination of underlying natural history and intentional metropolitan planning decisions, often underpinned by notions of urban requirements for aesthetics as well as space for recreation to support healthy lifestyles. Environmental considerations of biodiversity conservation and provision of ecosystem services are much more recent considerations (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 Melbourne's green space and urban development timeline

Period Key characteristics Metropolitan planning and open space strategies 40,000 years Land of Kulin nation - - present Land-people-economy stewardship. 1835 British settlement - Settlement located near freshwater and higher ground. 1840s-1890s City and suburban establishment - Inner ring of parklands; European landscapes; working class areas with little public open space; suburban expansion along transport routes (rail lines). 1890s-1920s 1890s depression and World War I - Suburban expansion slowed. 1920s Post WWI 1929 Plan for General Expanded public transport and associated suburban Development development; some areas, particularly in working class suburbs, lacked adequate amounts of public open space but purchase of lands for parks already considered largely ‘prohibitively’ costly. 1930s-1940s 1930s depression and World War II - 1930s depression, World War Two and post-war austerity slowed suburban development. 1950s-1970s Postwar growth 1954 Melbourne Metropolitan 1950s – 1960s: suburban expansion, home ownership Planning Scheme aspirations, propelled by private car transport. 1970s-1990s Green wedges and corridors; environmentalism 1971 Planning Policies for Protection of green wedges; calls for limits to Metropolitan Region metropolitan expansion, and for urban consolidation 1988 Metropolitan Open Space and urban renewal in existing urban areas. Strategy 1990s- Urban growth boundaries, urban densification; 1995 Living Suburbs present sustainability and resilience 2002 Melbourne 2030 Local government amalgamations and sale of public 2002 Linking People and Spaces assets (1990s); introduction of the Urban Growth open space strategy Boundary (2002), but several expansions with 2008 Melbourne 2030: a planning subsequent planning strategies. update – Melbourne @ 5 million 2014 Plan Melbourne; 2016 Refresh

Chapter 6 117 Recent changes to the quantity and proportional provision of open space highlight the strengths and weaknesses of green space policies and their relative status in the suite of urban policies. Land acquisitions and the transformation to accessible public open space of under-utilised road space or easements has increased public open space in some areas that have had lower provisions. Examples include City of Melbourne’s transformation of road space to parkland in Errol St North Melbourne (Team leader

21), and Melbourne Water’s ‘main outfall sewer parkland’ project in Melbourne’s west

(Policy officer 15). In contrast, recent infrastructure projects, including for example the

East-West freeway link, continue to involve significant ‘sacrifice’ of open space (Buxton et al. 2016), and green wedge areas have been eroded by large-scale commercial developments and construction (Buxton and Goodman 2012). Urban consolidation, infrastructure provision and decreasing private open space reinforce the importance of retaining existing open space, and finding opportunities to increase urban green spaces to maintain the city’s liveability.

The following sections present the assessment of the key policies for Melbourne’s green space at federal, state and local government levels, in the areas of cities and urban planning; green space; and climate change or urban heat. Each policy is described, and its coverage of the key strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive analysis elements is summarised. Each jurisdiction’s section concludes by summarising the approaches to green space policy, encapsulated as an organisational theme or expression of organisational identity. The results are discussed and analysed in Chapter 8.

6.3 Federal policies analysis

Consistent with the federal government’s main role in urban policy being provision of funding, the current approaches at the federal level are primarily grants programs for research and tree planting. Nonetheless, the Australian Government has also demonstrated its interest in influencing urban policy and implementation, with the

Minister for Environment calling for long term urban planning, and “greening our cities [for a] more liveable environment” by improving air quality and increasing tree

Chapter 6 118 canopy cover (Hunt 2016). This section analyses the key urban planning, green space and climate change adaptation policies of the federal government (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Australian federal government policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy Smart cities plan (2016) No current plan Climate resilience and adaptation strategy (2015) Supplementary n.a. Minister’s speech 19/1/16 n.a. data Interviews 1 Consultant 2 Consultant 3 Consultant 16 Manager

Cities and urban planning

As discussed previously, the federal government’s role in urban planning has varied over time and between the different political parties in power. The existence, focus and level of detail of current policies for urban planning at the federal level are highly politicised. The current Liberal-National Coalition (conservative) government (2015- ) has demonstrated the most interest in urban policy compared with recent Liberal-

National Coalition governments: a new Ministry for Cities and the Built Environment was established in September 2015.

The Australian Government released the Smart cities plan (DPMC 2016) on 29 April

2016, slightly more than two months before the federal election on 2 July 2016. The plan, although published as a final document, called for feedback over the following two months (until June 2016), to guide priorities for funding rather than revision of the plan itself (p. 28). While the plan is ambitious in its coverage of urban issues and challenges, it lacks detail on implementation, targets or responsibilities and therefore functions less as a strategic urban policy or plan, and more as an issues or discussion paper or even quasi funding guidelines for a yet-to-be announced grants program.

The plan, “a new framework for cities policy at the federal level” (p. 5), sets out the government’s vision for cities, and includes three pillars: “Smart Investment, Smart

Policy and Smart Technology” (p. 4). The plan introduces City Deals funding (modelled in part on the UK program of the same name), inviting state and territory governments to partner with the federal government to deliver urban infrastructure (p. 5).

Chapter 6 119 Green space is addressed in the context of increasing urban density and urban dwellers’ needs for access to parks and open spaces, particularly for those without access to private open space (p. 13). However, aside from the short section on Green urban spaces (p. 13) as part of the chapter on Understanding challenges and opportunities, the plan includes few details on objectives and mechanisms for incorporating green space into cities, and lacks specific targets and goals (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Australian federal government policy analysis: cities and urban planning

National Smart cities plan Strategic Vision and objectives “Our natural and built environments must be sustainable and liveable, with high quality public spaces that bring people together to exchange ideas and build a sense of community” (p. 14) Green space goal Not stated Targets Not stated Green space definitions, Definitions: parks and open spaces, community gardens, green walls and functions and benefits roofs, public artwork and playing fields (p. 13) Benefits: air quality, water quality, reduce the heat island effect, protect biological diversity and threatened species, enhance general amenity, give people “greater connection with nature, provide important places for recreation and healthy lifestyles” (p. 13) Tactical Supporting strategies Green star rating system Partners (and community Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) engagement) Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) (p. 13) Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (p. 27) Operational Instruments and delivery Building and precinct standards and investments, including the Green mechanisms Star system (p. 13) ‘City Deal’ federal funding that integrates ‘environmental criteria into decision making, “such as green coverage to minimise urban heat island impacts” (p. 22) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation “Will work to … identify key city metrics and the data required to assess performance” (p. 25)

Green space

There are no policies specifically for green space at the federal level. Federal approaches for green space currently focus on grants funding for tree planting and for research. These grants include the 20 million trees program, (part of the National

Chapter 6 120 Landcare Program2), which provided a $5.5 million grant for tree planting in

Melbourne’s west (Manager 16), and funding for research into Clean Air and Urban

Landscapes through the National Environmental Science Program3 (Consultant 2).

Climate change and UHIE

Climate change mitigation policy in Australia at the federal level has been bitterly contested by political parties, business groups and non-government organisations, and unstable for at least ten years (Beeson and McDonald 2013; Eckersley 2015; Head 2014;

Warren et al. 2016), notwithstanding Australia’s commitments to UNFCCC international treaties (Kyoto, and more recently Paris). Much of the debate, contest and uncertainty has focused on the level of ambition in greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the policy mechanisms required to achieve the reductions (Beeson and McDonald

2013). However, planning for climate change adaptation appears to have suffered less politicisation, with a National climate resilience and adaptation strategy released in 2015

(DoE 2015). Climate resilience is framed as encompassing both emissions reduction

(mitigation) and adaptation, and urban greening is defined as providing both mitigation and adaptation benefits (p. 14). The use of the term ‘resilience’ reflects its growing adoption by policy makers, though the term is often understood and applied inconsistently and incompletely (Meerow and Stults 2016).

Cities and the built environment is one of the seven priority sectors addressed. The plan identifies the interdependencies between the priority sectors, with Cities and built environment directly linked to all other priority sectors except agriculture. For each priority sector, the strategy identifies the risks, current actions and required future actions, as well as highlighting key case studies and the work of associated stakeholders (other levels of government, community organisations). As a result of this structure, the strategy has a large focus on reporting current activities as much as identifying future strategic needs and actions, an approach common to many of the documents analysed from all levels of government. The Cities section includes a

2 http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees accessed 1/7/17 3 http://www.environment.gov.au/science/nesp/current-projects/clean-air accessed 1/7/17

Chapter 6 121 discussion of the risks of heatwaves, exacerbated by the urban heat island effect, and identifies the contribution of urban forests for mitigation and other benefits.

The national strategy acknowledges local governments’ measures to address urban heat risks, including City of Melbourne’s Urban forest strategy, as well as the role of the private sector and privately owned infrastructure. Future needs in the cities sector are largely related to consideration of disaster risks in planning processes and decision making. Urban greening, as a contributor to both climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, is identified as a priority for the Minister for Cities.

The strategy lacks specific details on actions, implementation mechanisms, timelines, or funding sources. Although the final page of the strategy provides a summary of the strategy’s scope and purpose, vision, guiding principles, and priorities for national engagement, there is no summary of the key existing or proposed future actions. The strategy acknowledges the need for monitoring and evaluation, but includes no detail on indicators, targets, baselines or timing of review or evaluation (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Australian federal government policy analysis: climate change

National climate resilience and adaptation strategy Strategic Vision and objectives “We act together to support prosperity and wellbeing in Australia and beyond by building the resilience of communities, the economy and the environment to a variable and changing climate” (p. 6) Green space goal Not stated Targets Not stated Green space definitions, Functions: contributes to both climate change mitigation and adaptation, functions and benefits through “passive microclimate control” (p. 37) Benefits: “Urban forests and greening also provide habitat for biodiversity, improve wellbeing, support management of stormwater run-off and improve air and water quality” (p. 36) Tactical Supporting strategies State and local government strategies Partners (and community State and local governments engagement) Australian Green Infrastructure Council Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia Operational Instruments and delivery Not stated mechanisms Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not addressed beyond general statement to “Evaluate progress towards building resilience and adaptation to climate change and review our plans and actions” (p. 18, p. 77)

Chapter 6 122 Summary: Funding: We’ve got the funding, we’ll set your targets

The federal government’s approach to green space policies across the three domains

(Figure 6.4) is largely focused on funding provision to other levels of government, with associated directives on funding expenditure, characterised as:

We’ve got the funding, we’ll set your targets (paraphrase: Manager 16)

Figure 6.4 Federal policies analysed

The federal government’s influence is primarily through its decisions on what (and who) is funded, and the establishment and reporting of the goals and targets associated with the funded projects. One recipient of federal grants funding reflected on the tree planting targets that were negotiated as part of the funding provision:

“1 million trees, the target is pretty ridiculous. I mean, doesn’t it sound great, and I think that’s what the federal government were keen about, it’s how it sounded. It wasn’t our recommendation that 1 million trees was the target. I think we were looking at something about half that and the government said no, no, take on more and we’ll fund you” (Manager 16).

However, this target was described as unachievable (certainly within the timeframes set by the funding agreement), and in the context of constraints on local governments’ resources for ongoing maintenance of trees:

“well there’s never any money for maintenance and that’s what all of the councils have said. We would love to do so much more … you can get an MP to come down and cut a ribbon and plant the first tree, but in 3 years’ time when that needs to be watered desperately or we’ve got to do weeding or whatever other capital works you can’t find the money” (Manager 16).

Chapter 6 123 Nonetheless, grants recipients were keen to make the most of the substantial funding opportunities as they arose:

“on the flip side of that I think well, whatever we do will be better than the state of tree canopy cover now and you’ve got to act now” (Manager 16).

6.4 Victorian state policies analysis

As discussed in the previous chapter, the Victorian state government takes responsibility for metropolitan-scale planning; there is not a separate level of government for metropolitan Melbourne, though this role had been undertaken by the

MMBW until 1985 (Harris 2005). This section analyses the key urban planning, green space and climate change adaptation policies of the Victorian state government, relating to metropolitan Melbourne (Table 6.5).

Table 6.5 Victorian state government policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy Plan Melbourne (2014) No current plan Climate change adaptation plan (2013) Supplementary Victorian Planning Water for Victoria 2016 VicRoads Sustainability data Provisions and climate change Plan Melbourne refresh strategy 2015-2020 discussion paper (2015) VicRoads Movement and Place Framework Interviews 4 Planner (DELWP) 9 Project officer (DELWP) 19 Strategic planner 5 Project manager 10 Project coordinator (VicRoads) (MPA) (DELWP) 6 Urban designer (MW) 11 Strategic planner (MPA) 7 Ministerial Advisor 12 Planner (MPA) (DELWP) 13 Manager (MW) 8 Developer 14 Policy advisor (MW) 15 Policy officer (MW) 16 Manager (CWW) 17 Ministerial advisor (DELWP) 18 Community group member (NGO)

Cities and urban planning

‘Strategic planning’ defines the vision, priorities and directions for urban planning, which are translated into regulations through ‘statutory planning’ processes. For metropolitan Melbourne, the current strategic plan (to the end of 2016) is Plan

Chapter 6 124 Melbourne (DTPLI 2014), and statutory planning is defined within the Victorian Planning

Provisions (Figure 6.5).

Figure 6.5 Victorian land use policy framework: strategic and statutory planning

Strategic planning strategies for metropolitan Melbourne, though often designed with a timeframe of twenty years or more, have been rewritten or revised by each incoming government since the state government took over planning responsibility from

MMBW, indicating that urban planning has become a highly politicised activity. The current Plan Melbourne was developed by the previous state government. The incoming government announced a ‘refresh’ process, rather than a complete replacement of the plan, to strengthen the environmental sustainability and climate change aspects of the plan (DELWP 2015). The refresh was due to be released by mid-late 2016 (DELWP

2015, p. 3), but had still not been released at the end of 2016. This delay has also impacted on the release of the Metropolitan open space strategy and the Boulevards strategy (Project manager 5, Strategic planner 11), both of which were identified as short term initiatives in Plan Melbourne. There is a significant level of local government support for development of the strategies:

“From the consultations that we’ve done for both of those strategies [the Metro Open Space Strategy and the Boulevard Tree strategy] we’ve talked to all the metropolitan councils, all 32 of them, and they’re all very supportive of having an umbrella strategy to help drive the agenda of open space and the liveability of the city” (Planner 12)

The existence of targeted, specific and current strategies can support funding and budgetary bids at local state and federal government levels, and strengthen justification for project proposals (Planner 12). This research focuses on analysing Plan

Melbourne’s treatment of green space, UHIE and heatwaves, in the absence of the refreshed strategy. However, the Refresh discussion paper explicitly addresses urban greening and UHIE mitigation, and is summarised in Box 6.1.

Chapter 6 125 Box 6.1 Urban greening and UHIE in Plan Melbourne Refresh The ‘refresh’ process aims to strengthen and expand the metropolitan strategy’s coverage of key areas including climate change and UHIE mitigation. These are addressed in Chapter 6 A more resilient and environmentally sustainable Melbourne (pp 63-83). Specific coverage includes:  Section 6.3: strategic environmental principles, including to “green the city to better prepare for higher temperatures and heatwaves”, through planning system mechanisms for “water sensitive urban design, greening strategies, and urban development standards” (p. 70).  Section 6.4 address climate hazards by creating a “resilient city prepared for climate change”, with cooler urban areas created by “more green spaces, ‘greening our buildings’, roads and open space, and planting urban forests” (p. 71)  Section 6.6 heatwaves exacerbated by UHIE as key issues for Melbourne, to be addressed by: o Urban greening by planting more vegetation, including use of water sensitive urban design and irrigation (p. 78) The discussion paper acknowledges the work of local government and others, including City of Melbourne’s Urban forest strategy, 202020 Vision information guide, and Greening the West. Proposed mechanisms include: “structure planning, local policies and overlays (such as Design and Development Overlays and Development Plan Overlays)” (p. 78) o Greening buildings to cool internal and external environments, by encouraging uptake of green roofs, walls and facades, and low heat absorption materials for buildings and pavements (p. 79). The discussion paper refers to the development of the Growing Green Guide (DEPI 2014) in providing technical guidance. Proposed mechanisms include: addressing “market development barriers”, and research gaps. These proposals represent additional measures, and a strengthened focus. The finalised strategy will attain statutory effect through incorporation into Planning Schemes.

Plan Melbourne defines a vision, objectives and outcomes for Melbourne, and identifies challenges and key planning concepts. Urban green space is not identified in these high level statements; heatwaves are listed as one of Melbourne’s challenges in a “changing climate”. Urban green space is addressed as part of Objective 4 Liveable communities and neighbourhoods, under direction 4.5: make our city greener (pp 126-127), with actions focused on strategy development, as well as provision of new parks, and new tree plantings. Partnerships and collaboration, largely with local governments, are identified in Objective 7 Implementation: delivering better governance (p. 171), which also includes the establishment of five metropolitan subregions to facilitate collaboration of local governments and support regional planning and project coordination (Table 6.6).

Chapter 6 126 Table 6.6 Victorian state government policy analysis: urban planning

Plan Melbourne Strategic Vision and objectives Key concepts (pp 7-11), include “Transitioning to a more ”, which incorporates “greening metropolitan areas” and “creating more open space” (p. 11) Green space goal Outcomes and objectives (pp 18-19) include: “Liveable communities and neighbourhoods”, which includes “Direction 4.5 Make our city greener” (pp 126-127); and “Environment and water” Green space targets Not specified Green space definitions, Definitions: urban forest of trees and vegetation on our properties, lining functions and benefits our streets and on public lands (p. 126) Benefits: many environmental, social and economic benefits. These include cooling to reduce heat and UV impacts, reduced air pollution and energy costs, enhanced liveability, improved physical and mental wellbeing, protected biodiversity and enhanced visitor appeal (p. 126) Tactical Supporting strategies 2 Million trees program (2012-2014) Partners (and community Local governments engagement) Metropolitan Planning Authority (now VPA) Department Of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (Planning; Local Infrastructure, ) (now DELWP) Department Of Education and Early Childhood Development (now Department of Education and Training) Office of Living Victoria (now DELWP) Department Of Environment and Primary Industries (now DELWP) VicRoads Operational Instruments and delivery “Direction 4.5 Make our city greener” includes three actions, all with mechanisms short term deliverables, the implementation of which are to be led by Victorian government departments (pp 126-127): Initiative 4.5.1: Develop a new Metropolitan Open Space Strategy Initiative 4.5.2: provide new neighbourhood parks and open space, largely through development contributions in growth areas, establishing a pocket park fund for under-serviced areas, and preparing “shared-use plans of open space and recreation facilities for government schools” Initiative 4.5.3 extend the landscape and vegetation cover of metropolitan Melbourne, by addressing “impediments to planting canopy trees along roads”, and extending existing tree planting programs, including the 2 Million Trees program “Direction 7.4 Open up new funding sources” for infrastructure provision: reform development contributions and utilise ‘value capture’ associated with increased economic activity and property values near new services and infrastructure (p. 191) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation “Direction 7.5 Monitor progress and outcomes: Initiative 7.5.1 Establish a monitoring framework for Plan Melbourne” by identifying “robust and meaningful measures” for monitoring the plan’s outcomes and objectives (p. 193)

Chapter 6 127 While the current state government has declared that the Plan Melbourne refresh process is not intended to “comprehensively revise Plan Melbourne 2014”, and that there is bipartisan support for much of the plan (DELWP 2015, p. 9), implementation of its

Greener Cities actions have been slow, or non-existent. For example, there is no information on the 2 Million Trees program (unconnected with the federal government’s 20 Million Trees program) remaining on the current Victorian government’s departmental website, and as previously noted, the release of the

Metropolitan open space strategy, the preparation of which had been underway, has been significantly delayed due to the refresh process (Strategic planner 11). In November

2016, open space data was made available through the government’s Metropolitan open space network portal4. However, all references to preparation of the Metropolitan open space strategy have been removed from the website, and at the end of 2016, there had been no further information released on the status of the strategy’s preparation and publication.

Plan Melbourne has ‘statutory effect’ in decision making through a planning scheme amendment to the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP). The VPP is the template document of standard provisions (State of Victoria 2016) specified under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The VPP applies to all land in Victoria, both public and privately owned. The VPP identifies the overarching State planning policy framework, and sets out the requirements for development of the Local planning policy framework applicable for each local government area, as well as zones, overlays, and general and particular provisions. The VPP provides the main regulatory mechanism for addressing green space on private land. Urban green space is addressed in clauses within the State planning policy framework and within a number of particular provisions. The key mechanisms include minimum open space provisions for growth area development; and developers’ contributions. These are discussed below.

Within the State planning policy framework, Clause 11.03 Open space covers open space planning, with the objective “to assist creation of a diverse and integrated network of

4 https://vpa.vic.gov.au/strategy-guidelines/metropolitan-open-space-network/ accessed 1/7/17

Chapter 6 128 public open space commensurate with the needs of the community”; and open space management “to provide for the long term management of public open space”. Policy guidance is provided by departmental growth area plans and precinct structure plans, as well as Linking people and spaces (PV 2002). This latter document, now more than ten years old, is no longer available on the Parks Victoria website and was not identified in

VEAC’s 2011 investigation as previously highlighted, yet remains the reference document (presumably until the release of the proposed Metropolitan open space strategy identified in Plan Melbourne). The continued inclusion of an outdated reference document contributes to a sense of green space planning lacking influence, priority or currency in the planning process.

There are also a number of particular provisions related to open space, including public open space provision (Clause 52.01, Clause 56.05-2), private open space objectives

(Clause 54.05-2) and green wedge land (Clause 57). These are summarised in Box 6.2.

The amount of open space contributions (clause 52.01), varies from council to council, and may be in the form of land or financial contribution. According to one developer,

“for most developments unless you’re doing a huge site, you’re not delivering a new public park as part of that, you’re generally just paying some cash. … council to council it generally goes into a murky kind of, general revenue kind of pot. … We have no idea where that will be spent and it definitely isn’t going to be automatically spent on something in that [our development’s] area … so there is a disconnect between where development is occurring, which logically is where new public open space is required because you’re increasing the density of population in those areas, putting more pressure on the existing public open space, there’s no connection between that and where public open space contributions are spent automatically. I mean there might be, there’s definitely no requirement for council to spend their money that way. Which is a bit frustrating” (Developer 8).

The VPP identifies a number of environmental risks, including Section 13.01 climate change (focused on coastal inundation) and Section 13.05 bushfires, but does not explicitly identify or address urban heat or heatwaves. As summarised in Box 6.2, the

VPP includes clauses for permeability, landscaping and tree retention for residential zones. While tree retention is explicitly addressed, the provisions are limited in their ability to protect trees because of the specification that only trees that are part of

‘neighbourhood character’ must be retained. The assessment of a tree’s contribution to

Chapter 6 129 neighbourhood character, and of tree health (also considered in decisions related to tree retention or removal), are subjective assessments by arborists appointed by developers, and reviewed by local governments’ planning arborists, often without site visits or additional independent information (Hume City Council Tree Protection

Seminar 21/11/16). In many cases, lots are completely cleared of all vegetation prior to redevelopment, because none of the vegetation is considered to contribute significantly to ‘neighbourhood character’ (Hume City Council Tree Protection Seminar 21/11/16).

Box 6.2 VPP Particular provisions related to urban green space  Public open space contribution, expressed as “a percentage of the land intended to be used for residential, industrial or commercial purposes, or a percentage of the site value of such land, or a combination of both”: Clause 52.01: the amounts vary depending on municipality, with specifics defined in local planning schemes. For the three municipalities in this research, the contributions are: o Melbourne Planning scheme: 5-8% (depending on location of subdivision) o Moreland planning scheme: 2.5-6.8% (depending on location of subdivision) o Hume planning scheme: 2-4.48% “land and/or cash contribution” (depending on location of subdivision)  Permeability: Clause 54.03-4 (one dwelling on a lot) and Clause 55.03-4 (two or more dwellings on a lot): minimum 20% of the site permeable  Significant trees and landscaping: Clause 54.03-6 (one dwelling on a lot); Clause 55.03-8 (two or more dwellings on a lot) “provide for the retention or planting of trees, where these are part of the neighbourhood character; provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made”  On site amenity and facilities: Clause 54.05: “a dwelling should have private open space consisting of an area of 80 square metres or 20 per cent of the area of the lot, whichever is the lesser, but not less than 40 square metres”  Public open space provision: Clause 56 residential subdivision: o Provide a network of well-distributed neighbourhood public open space that includes: o Local parks within 400 metres safe walking distance of at least 95 percent of all dwellings. Where not designed to include active open space, local parks should be generally 1 hectare in area and suitably dimensioned and designed to provide for their intended use and to allow easy adaptation in response to changing community preferences. o Additional small local parks or public squares in activity centres and higher density residential areas. o Active open space of at least 8 hectares in area within 1 kilometre of 95 percent of all dwellings o Linear parks and trails along waterways, vegetation corridors and road reserves within 1 kilometre of 95 percent of all dwellings  Metropolitan green wedge land: Clause 57

Chapter 6 130 A significant change (commenced in 2011) to land use planning provisions that is relevant to urban green space is the Small lot housing code, introduced to “support housing affordability and choice in Melbourne’s newest suburbs”, which applies to lots of less than 300 m2 (MPA 2014). It allows for 90% coverage by impervious surfaces.

This reduces the available space for vegetation or trees, and increases stormwater runoff rates, particularly if substantial contiguous areas are developed as small lot housing. This also increases the localised causes of UHIE while simultaneously reducing opportunities for its mitigation with green space.

In summary, the VPP acknowledges open space as an important element of urban form. It contains a number of policy statements, clauses and provisions to protect and enhance open space provision and access. However, there are limitations in how it can contribute to increases in green space in established suburbs; in its lack of recognition of heat as an urban planning issue; and in the extent to which developer contributions are used for land purchase or rather absorbed into general revenue. In addition, the

VPP lacks the ability to impact private open space quantity in the construction of single residential dwellings in residential zones (which do not require planning permits). The

VPP addresses climate change only in a very narrow way, focused largely on coastal inundation; it fails to address other significant climate change impacts and fails to take the opportunities for land use planning to proactively address these.

VEAC’s Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation, noted that “most public land within metropolitan Melbourne is used for services and utilities … VEAC estimates that nearly half is roads” (VEAC 2010, p. 8), and that VicRoads, the state’s road and traffic authority, is one of the largest public authority landholders in the metropolitan area. It is therefore relevant to also review VicRoads’ strategies and policies related to urban planning and green space. Key strategic documents of relevance to this research are the

Movement and place framework and the Sustainability and climate change strategy 2015-2020

(VicRoads 2015a). The Movement and place framework (which is included within the

Sustainability and climate change strategy), defines a “new approach for VicRoads”, with its focus on place and place-making as well as transport, encapsulated by “the impacts

Chapter 6 131 of movement and opportunities for place” (p. 5). The Movement and Place framework is considered in this section; the Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy is considered in the following section on Victorian government climate change policies.

The Movement and place framework acknowledges the contribution of trees to the urban landscape, and the important links between transport (moving through) and place

(being in), and the impacts (potentially positive as well as negative) that transport infrastructure can make to ‘sense of place’. It demonstrates a new direction in

VicRoads’ conceptualisation of its roles, and of road infrastructure, as well as embedding community engagement into organisational processes (Strategic planner

19). It recognises that some streets are more important for ‘movement’ and some for

‘place’; it uses a matrix to categorise the strategic role of each street, providing a

“platform for VicRoads and its stakeholders to agree on where travel movement should be prioritised, and where they want to encourage greater interaction between people and places” (p. 13). However it does not specify how the matrix will be developed, or the degree of consultation employed.

The delivery mechanisms, to translate the objectives from the strategic framework into changed planning and implementation practices, remain undefined at this stage. The strategy commits to increasing tree canopy, guided by the Tree Planting Policy

(VicRoads 2015b). The Tree Planting policy however is written in such a way as to constrain rather than encourage tree planting.

“The tree planting policy, its mainly from a road safety perspective, you know, mitigating the movement, fast movement and trees can often conflict with that … To date its mainly been about arterial roads which are the faster moving roads and our area was to mitigate the impacts on the environment and community. But now it’s about movement and place, so talking about community health and wellbeing as a benefit, something we’re going to facilitate rather than having an impact on, which is great, because being an environmental person in a road organisation is a bit challenging” (Strategic Planner 19)

Tree removals associated with road construction and realignment projects continue, even of trees with heritage listing (National Trust Significant tree register) in built up urban areas. The designation of ‘movement’ as the strategic role of specific streets

Chapter 6 132 underpins continued tree removals. An example is removal of a heritage-listed Lemon

Scented Gum tree from a major road intersection in inner Melbourne in July 2016, despite opposition from the City of Melbourne and community members. A key challenge is that VicRoads prioritises road user safety above other, potentially conflicting, considerations (Strategic planner 19). In the case of the Lemon Scented

Gum, a reduction in the speed limit of the road in the tree’s vicinity would have allowed the tree to remain, as it would not have been assessed under the more stringent safety standards associated with higher speed limits.

VicRoads’ Movement and place framework may have been in part inspired by London’s vision for Transport for London in 2013, characterised by “changes to the design and management of London’s streets and streetscapes … which advocates that much of the city’s road network should be considered and managed in terms of public space rather than simply as movement corridors” (Massini 2016, p. 289).

Green space

Plan Melbourne and the VPP address urban green space in the context of urban planning. However, there is no current green space strategy at the metropolitan or state-wide scale. In 2011, VEAC, the body established through state legislation to

“conduct investigations relating to the protection and ecologically sustainable management of the environment and natural resources of public land” (VEAC 2011, p.

13), released its Metropolitan Melbourne investigation. One of its recommendations was that the government “prepare a metropolitan open space policy and strategy that provides a long term plan for public open space in metropolitan Melbourne”. This recommendation was supported in the government’s response to VEAC’s report (DSE

2012) and may have been the basis for the commitment in Plan Melbourne to develop an open space strategy. However, as noted previously, the open space strategy has not yet been released and there is no information on when it will now be published.

The state government released the Water for Victoria plan (DELWP 2016c) in October

2016, one of the few new strategic planning or environmental sustainability strategies released by the current government by the end of 2016 (two years after it took office

Chapter 6 133 and halfway through its current four year term), notwithstanding its declared ambitions to revise and update a range of strategies. The water plan aims to manage water to “support a healthy environment, a prosperous economy and thriving communities”, within the context of the “challenges of climate change and population growth” (p. 1). It identifies the essential links between urban green space and adequate water provision for “community wellbeing”, “liveable cities and towns” and to “cool the urban landscape” (p. 6). The plan includes a chapter on Resilient and liveable cities and towns (pp 81-95). In the absence of a current green space plan, and reflecting its relevance to urban green space, the water plan has been summarised (Table 6.7).

Table 6.7 Victorian state government policy analysis: urban greening (water)

Water for Victoria Strategic Vision and objectives “Water is fundamental to our communities. We will manage water to support a healthy environment, a prosperous economy and thriving communities, now and into the future” (p. 5) “We will help transform Victorian cities and towns into the most resilient and liveable in the world. We will include all elements of the urban water cycle in the way we plan and manage water so that Victorian communities can continue to thrive in all climates” (p. 81) Green space goal Not stated Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions, “Healthy and valued urban landscapes” is one of five roles of water for functions and benefits “resilient and liveable towns and cities” (p. 85) Functions: “urban landscapes for ‘cooler, greener cities’ and waterways as accessible open space” (p. 85); “Green priority spaces for community health and wellbeing using stormwater and recycled water” Tactical Supporting strategies Key Victorian government policies, strategies and plans listed in Appendix (p. 183), span the domains of climate change, biodiversity, planning, industry, agriculture, health and wellbeing, and energy Partners (and community Water corporations, catchment management authorities, Environment engagement) Protection Authority, local government, development industry, government departments such as the new Suburban Development portfolio, Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians (p. 179) Operational Instruments and delivery “Action 5.5 Improve stormwater management for greener environments mechanisms and healthier waterways” (p. 91), largely through VPP (clause 56-07-4) and building regulations “Action 5.6 Work across government for healthy and resilient urban landscapes” (p. 92) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Identified for a number of specific actions throughout the plan (rather than dedicating a specific section to overall monitoring and evaluation as some other strategies), however monitoring is not identified for any of the actions listed for Chapter 5 Cities and towns

Chapter 6 134 Climate change and UHIE

The current Victorian plan, Climate change adaptation plan (DSE 2013) was developed by the previous state government. The Minister’s foreword is framed around maintaining liveability by preparing for future “changing climate”. The focus is on specifying “state government roles, priorities and actions”, with the expectation “for local government and business to follow with their own climate risk planning” (p. 1), suggesting a relatively passive (or unenthusiastic) approach to collaboration and partnerships, as well as for intergovernmental relationships.

Heatwaves are addressed, as part of Managing climate hazards (section 4, pp 46-47).

Actions are focused on health perspectives, to be delivered by Department of Health, including a Heatwave plan for Victoria, heat health alert system and research and capacity building (p. 46). The other action identified is “strengthening policy frameworks to support climate resilience” by “integrating water into the landscape”

(subsequently addressed in the Water for Victoria plan summarised in the previous section), and through the precinct structure planning process.

There is a section on regional snapshots to “showcase state and local government action underway to build climate resilience” (p. 64). The actions highlighted for the metropolitan Melbourne region that are related to urban greening and UHIE or heatwaves include “investing in projects to grow green roofs and walls in response to climate change, helping to cool buildings, reduce energy use and make Melbourne more liveable” (p. 80), specifically a demonstration green roof at the University of

Melbourne’s Burnley campus, and the Growing green guide (DEPI 2014) guidelines for building and maintaining green roofs and walls.

The plan states that it will be “evaluated with updates and progress reports made available on the climate change website. Evaluation findings will inform the next

Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Plan due to be prepared in 2016” (p. 3).

However no further details, evaluation indicators or targets are provided and there are

Chapter 6 135 no evaluation findings reported on the Victorian Climate Change website5. The current state government has begun development of a new plan, which is scheduled to be published in early 2017; consultation on a Directions paper (DELWP 2016b) was undertaken in August-September 2016. The key analysis elements for the existing plan are summarised in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 Victorian state government policy analysis: climate change

Victorian climate change adaptation plan Strategic Vision and objectives Not stated Green space goal Not stated Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions, Not stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Heatwave Plan for Victoria Plan Melbourne (in development at the time of the plan’s publication) Partners (and community Council of Australian Governments engagement) “supports capacity-building in local government through a strengthened adaptation partnership” (p. 3) “Engagement with the private sector to inform and support business in understanding and managing their climate risks” (p. 4) Operational Instruments and delivery Not explicitly stated mechanisms Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Commits to publishing “updates and progress reports” but lacks detail on indicators

As noted earlier, VicRoads is one of the largest public authority landholders in the metropolitan area, and as such, its relevant policies are considered as supplementary data in this analysis. VicRoads’ Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy recognises that the UHIE will be exacerbated by climate change, and that lack of vegetation increases the impacts on people (p. 10). In response, Initiative 3.4 seeks to ‘improve metropolitan street tree canopy coverage’, by delivering a “network of boulevards in growth areas and existing road corridors”, working closely with MPA. The strategy specifies that the development of ‘tree lined streets’ will be guided by its Tree planting policy. However, as this research has previously noted, the Tree Planting Policy is more

5 http://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/ accessed 1/7/17

Chapter 6 136 strongly focused on constraining or limiting rather than promoting tree planting beside roads. The key elements for the VicRoads strategy are summarised in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9 Victorian state government policy analysis: climate change (roads)

Sustainability and climate change strategy 2015-2020 Strategic Vision and objectives “To make lives better for our road users, the local and global community and future generations … we will balance the needs of all groups of society” (p. 3) “Improve health and wellbeing while protecting environmental values” (p. 3) Movement and place framework:  the impacts of movement and opportunities for place  staff engagement with stakeholders that represent health, wellbeing and environmental values of the broader community  triple bottom line assessments (p. 5) Green space goal Improve tree canopy cover (p. 5) Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions,  “embed environmental resilience” functions and benefits  mitigate the urban heat island effect (p. 10)  “reduce heat retention, create attractiveness and encourage walking and cycling” (p. 13) Tactical Supporting strategies VicRoads Tree Planting Policy Partners (and community Metropolitan Planning Authority engagement) “Community” Operational Instruments and delivery  Initiative 3.4 Improve metropolitan street tree canopy coverage: mechanisms mitigate the UHIE by working with the state government to deliver a boulevard network in “growth areas and established road corridors”. The development of “tree-lined streets will be guided by Tree Planting Policy” (p. 10)  Movement and Place strategic approach: “when considering transport solutions, place based impacts must be identified and avoided through planning then mitigated through design. Conversely, for place based solutions, the Strategy can be used to inform better places” (pp 12-13) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not addressed

Summary: Building the evidence base: “Articulating the problem and the solution”

The state government’s approach to green space policies across the three domains

(Figure 6.6) is focused on establishing and communicating the evidence base on which policies, strategies and regulations are based, characterised as:

“Articulating the problem and the solution” (Planner 4)

Chapter 6 137 State-level policy approaches to urban planning and climate change are strongly politicised, with incoming governments often developing new strategies to replace those of the previous government. In this context, this research has found that policy makers are strongly focused on a careful assembly of the evidence base to support policies, and to articulate the problem and associated solution that the policies are attempting to address (Planner 4, Ministerial advisor 17). Policy makers see their role as careful analysis and filtering of potential policy responses, being aware of the unintended consequences and financial implications of new policy approaches:

“People are keen to do something and it has a bit of resonance. It’s just that it has a high cost, and you’ve got to burn a lot of political capital and spend a lot of money … Greening a whole suburb or city: great idea, but in terms of health and urban heat, I don’t think it’s a particular priority given the expense” (Planner 4).

Figure 6.6 Victorian state government policies analysed

Many of the policy makers interviewed referred to ‘building the evidence base’, but the types of evidence accepted as credible or valid varied. Policy makers rarely collected qualitative data, and more than one interview participant (including Planner 12,

Planner 28, Planner 24) labelled site observations and community feedback as

Chapter 6 138 ‘anecdotal’ or even ‘intangible’, and therefore not an acceptable or valid contribution to the evidence base.

Policy makers are mindful of having to make difficult decisions that balance competing interests, particularly for multifunctional assets such as water infrastructure and green space. In addition, community engagement and consultation, which contributes to building a policy’s “authorising environment” (Project coordinator 10), may be fraught by tensions between consulting ‘everyone’, or only the key community leaders and

‘influencers’ (Ministerial advisor 17).

Key relevant policies such as Plan Melbourne, VPP and Water for Victoria include specific sections on urban green space and urban heat island effect. The objectives and actions listed in strategies for water and land use reinforce the importance of green space for liveability and resilience. However, substantial areas of green space are located in areas managed primarily for several purposes, such as roads and utilities’ easements. The treatment of green space in the policies related to these spaces highlights the competing, and frequently conflicting objectives and management practices between green spaces and other uses, and the complexities of managing multifunctionalities.

While visions and goals in many cases create ambition and expectations for change and transformation, the actions, implementation and policy officers’ own approaches are often constrained (or even fixed) in business-as-usual approaches and siloed departmental inertia. Concerns on financial implications are (understandably) focused on short term budget ramifications but as a result, opportunities are forfeited or lost for sustainable approaches that will reduce long term costs.

6.5 Local government policies analysis

This section analyses the key local government policies for the cities of Melbourne,

Moreland and Hume. These three municipalities form a municipal transect spanning inner, middle and outer areas of northern metropolitan Melbourne.

As described in the previous chapter, Australian local governments are regulated by their respective state governments, which set out local governments’ roles,

Chapter 6 139 responsibilities and reporting requirements. Under the Victorian Local Government Act

1989, all Victorian local governments are required to develop a Council Plan within the first 6 months following local government elections, which are held every four years.

The Council Plan identifies the vision, goals, and associated outcomes that the elected

Council seeks to achieve during its four year term. The Council Plan is also required to include a Strategic resource plan that identifies the financial and non-financial resources required during the four year term to implement the Council Plan.

The key policies that apply to privately owned land are defined within planning schemes, as described in the previous section. All Victorian local governments must develop Local planning schemes which must be consistent with the VPP, and which are approved by the Victorian State government. Each local planning scheme includes a

Municipal strategic statement (clause 21), which describes the municipal profile and defines the vision and strategic framework, and local planning policies (clause 22).

Local governments are constrained by legislation in the additional measures that can be included within their local planning schemes.

Other relevant legislative requirements include the Emergency Management Act 1986, which requires each Victorian local government to develop a municipal emergency management plan; and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, which requires each

Victorian local government to develop a municipal public health plan. Local government heatwave plans are developed within these requirements, and as a result are focused on addressing heatwaves from a short-term, acute perspective.

Many local governments have been pro-active in addressing broader urban liveability issues beyond regulated requirements, including developing and implementing urban green space and climate change plans, many of which integrate the longer term perspectives of urban heat mitigation as part of climate change planning. Different local governments have different approaches to green space policy, strategy and planning. Overarching strategies, which may apply to the municipality as a whole, spanning both public and privately owned land, include urban forest strategies and urban ecology or biodiversity strategies, as well as street tree strategies and policies.

Chapter 6 140 Open space strategies usually apply to public land only, and are often more strongly focused on recreation perspectives (both active and passive).

The following sections provide a brief overview of each municipality, followed by analysis of the policy approaches that address green space within each municipality, across the domains of urban planning; green space; and climate change (Figure 6.7).

Figure 6.7 Local government policy framework

6.5.1 City of Melbourne

City of Melbourne (CoM) is the capital city municipality and covers the central business district as well as surrounding residential, commercial and industrial suburbs of inner Melbourne. It portrays itself as a ‘global city’, is a member of several global city networks, including the C40 cities network and the 100 Resilient Cities network, and highlights a range of international awards that it has received6. One of these was the C40 city climate leadership award in 2014 for its urban landscapes climate adaptation program, a key element of which is its Urban forest strategy (CoM 2012b).

As described in the previous chapter, the municipality’s green space is diverse and unevenly distributed, with large parks and formal gardens circling the central city area, but other areas (working class residential and commercial or industrial areas)

6 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-melbourne/celebrating- melbourne/Pages/accolades.aspx accessed 12/12/16

Chapter 6 141 significantly lacking green space. As a result, CoM has instituted actions to address green space provision, including greening laneways in the densely built-up central city

(CoM 2016b); and converting under-utilised road space in residential areas (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8 Parkland creation, Errol St, North Melbourne Replacement of under-utilised road space (L) with parkland (R) (Source: http://greeningthewest.org.au )

CoM has addressed green space provision and UHIE mitigation in several of its key strategies, including the Urban forest strategy, the Climate change adaptation plan (CoM

2009), the Open space strategy (CoM 2012a) and Total watermark, its integrated water cycle management strategy (CoM 2014). CoM, in partnership with neighbouring inner city municipalities, developed the Growing green guide technical guidelines for installation and maintenance of green roofs, walls and facades (DEPI 2014). The policies and interviews analysed are listed in Table 6.10.

Table 6.10 City of Melbourne local government policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy Council Plan (2013, Urban forest strategy Climate change adaptation updated annually) (2014) plan (2009) Supplementary Local planning scheme n.a. Resilient Melbourne (2016) data Interviews 20 Councillor 21 Team leader 24 Planner 22 Project coordinator 25 Manager 23 Urban forester

Chapter 6 142 Cities and urban planning

The Council Plan (CoM 2013) sets out eight goals for the city, which encapsulate how

Council will achieve its vision over the four year duration of the plan. Of these eight goals, one is directly relevant to urban green space: the eco-city goal (p. 6), which defines Council’s role as providing the foundations for its community to be sustainable. It emphasises CoM’s willingness to experiment and innovate, to “embrace the unfamiliar if it helps us achieve our ambitions”. The Mayor’s message refers to substantial CoM expenditure in areas that include: “protecting our city from extreme weather, keeping our city safer at night, future-proofing our iconic parks and gardens”

(p. 7).The key analysis elements of the plan are summarised in Table 6.11.

The Melbourne Planning scheme includes specific provisions for the central city zone as well as the Docklands precinct and urban renewal areas. Environment and landscape values are included within the Municipal strategic statement (clause 21.05), highlighting the significance of these values to the municipal profile and strategic framework.

A recent amendment to Melbourne’s local planning scheme includes the Central city planning controls (DELWP 2016a), introduced to ensure adequate separation between buildings and the street, and protection of key public open space areas from overshadowing and wind. The amendment also supports increased floor area in multi- storey buildings where public benefit (public open space being one of the five different types) is provided. This incentive may encourage developers to consider opportunities for incorporating open space provision into developments, and as a result may contribute in a small way to open space provision in the central city area. However the provision lacks detail on what or how much constitutes a sufficient contribution to public benefit, and therefore is open to interpretation and inconsistency in its application. In addition, the requirement is for provision of open space, which does not necessarily guarantee inclusion of any greenery or pervious surfaces, and so may have no impact on UHIE mitigation (and this is not one of the drivers for this provision).

Chapter 6 143 Table 6.11 City of Melbourne policy analysis: urban planning

CoM Council Plan Strategic Vision and objectives Vision: “A bold, inspirational and sustainable city” (p. 6) Goals: A city for people (includes ‘safe healthy and high-quality public spaces’); An eco-city (“We provide solid foundations for the sustainability of Melbourne’s communities. We embrace the unfamiliar if it helps us achieve our ambitions. We continue to encourage our community to take positive actions and we lead by example locally, nationally and globally”) p. 6 Green space goal Outcome associated with ‘a city for people’ goal, to be achieved by 2017: “Safe, high-quality and well-used public spaces and places” Outcomes associated with ‘eco-city’ goal, to be achieved by 2017: “Increased biodiversity and tree canopy cover in the municipality”; “Climate change impacts on the municipality are managed” (p. 14) Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions, Not stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Biodiversity strategy Climate change adaptation strategy Docklands waterways strategic plan Growing green guide Inner Melbourne action plan Melbourne planning scheme Open space strategy Urban design strategy Urban forest strategy (p. 18, p. 27) Partners (and community Range of Council’s functional work areas involved in implementation engagement) identified for each goal (but not for each action) (p. 18, p. 27) Operational Instruments and delivery “Expand and improve public spaces through our Open space strategy mechanisms with a particular focus on areas designated for rapid growth” (p. 17) “Improve resilience to environmental impacts by implementing our Urban forest and Open space strategies, and also develop a Biodiversity strategy” “Update and continue to implement our Climate change adaptation strategy and Action plan” “Embed a stronger focus on sustainability and climate change adaptation in our systems, governance, tools and knowledge and in our interactions with the community.” (p. 27) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation “Ongoing evaluation and review” (p. 8) Progress related to these outcomes to be tracked in terms of : “The proportion of the resident population that lives within a 300 metre walk to open space” (p. 16) “The proportion of city users satisfied with: a) the quality; and b) the safety of City of Melbourne public spaces and places, annually” (p. 16) “Percentage of tree canopy cover of the municipality, annually” (p. 26)

Chapter 6 144 Green space

CoM’s key overarching and most high-profile green space strategy is the Urban forest strategy (CoM 2012b). Its high profile has led to numerous green space policy makers from local governments around Australia seeking advice from CoM’s policy officers

(Team leader 21). This led to the development of a toolkit (202020 Vision 2015) and masterclass symposium to inform and support other local government efforts (Team leader 21, Urban forester 23). Their support extends to directly sharing strategy text:

“I think there’s something like eight councils now across Victoria that are starting to do urban forest strategies based on ours. We’ve had requests to copy and paste, that’s fine” (Interview with City of Melbourne officer, reported in Cidell 2017, p. 125)

The Urban forest strategy opens by identifying three significant challenges that the city is currently facing: climate change, population growth and the urban heat island effect.

These three challenges frame the opening paragraphs of the strategy and underpin the selection of priorities, strategies and targets. The strategy emphasises the role of the urban forest in cooling the city, and uses the terms ‘green infrastructure’ and

‘ecosystem services’ to frame the provision of benefits to Melbourne’s residents, workers and visitors, and contribution to the urban environment. It highlights the challenges facing the urban forest in terms of drought and water restrictions, aging tree populations, and climate change. The strategy’s Executive summary finishes with a quotation from the Lord Mayor that reinforces the political commitment to the strategy, and the emotional connection of the city to urban green space:

“We often think of the trees as the lungs of our city, but they are also, in some ways, our heart and soul. The whole community owns our trees and our future trees… There are few political, budget or policy decisions that must deliver for people in 100 years. In politics, so much is driven by the artificial three- or four-year election cycle. Not this plan. Our trees are too important” (p. 7).

The strategy is a thorough policy document, which identifies the broader strategic framework within which the strategy is located (p. 8), specifies principles, strategies and associated actions (pp 37-51), including development of key supporting master plans, guidelines and management plans (pp 54-56), and sets out specific measures to support monitoring and review of the strategy’s implementation. It seeks to engage

Chapter 6 145 with the municipality’s community, which it understands as encompassing “federal, state and local governments, leaseholders, champions and environmental sector leaders, research and educational institutions, artists, industry forums, businesses, schools and developers” (p. 56), in an effort to celebrate, educate, inform and promote

“the importance of managing and enhancing urban ecology across our city” (p. 56).

The strategy is underpinned by a wide range of academic research, as well as references to other international urban forest and urban greening strategies (p. 63).

The strategy identifies the importance of influencing urban forest management on private land as well as the public realm, because a significant proportion of the municipality is owned or managed by individuals or organisations other than Council.

One of the mechanisms identified, in addition to community engagement programs, is for protection of trees in the Melbourne planning scheme (Clause 42.01 Schedule 2), through establishment of the Exceptional tree register, and the requirement for a planning permit to “significantly prune, lop or destroy a tree listed on the Exceptional tree register” (p. 57). However, as discussed in the previous section, the application of this requirement is constrained or limited by other factors that take precedence, such as in the case of the Flemington Rd Lemon-scented Gum, where road alignment (and road safety) priorities led to removal of the registered tree, even with refusal of a planning permit by CoM.

While a wide range of actions are identified for each of the six strategies, many represent broader objectives and lack detail on specific delivery mechanisms or outcomes sought, for example “Encourage increased canopy cover where possible in the private realm”; “Ensure that management regimes over the urban forest are adaptive to reflect its dynamic nature” (p.40).

Community engagement is highlighted in the strategy, and is a key ongoing priority for council staff (Urban forester 23). Community engagement both contributed to development of the strategy, and is a focus for ongoing implementation following the strategy’s publication. Staff members see community engagement as a key element of

CoM’s continuing approach, to build support and stewardship for the municipality’s

Chapter 6 146 urban forest, as well as underpin ongoing political support, prioritisation and associated provision of resources for implementation (Team leader 21). CoM commits significant resources to community engagement, and provides training to staff to enable them to confidently respond to community contacts (Urban forester 23).

“The thing that they all [local government officers] have in common, almost unanimous, they don’t want to talk to the community or they don’t know how … if you’re working with the community, part of your job is to say, we want to make a solution together, so how can we do this? and accept the complaints and accept the uncomfortable moments” (Team leader 21).

In the time since the strategy was published, many of the priority actions have been implemented, reflecting the provision of significant funding and resources, the high profile of the strategy within and beyond Council, and the ‘championing’ of the strategy by both policy makers and Councillors, as well as community members. As part of the strategy’s implementation, the municipality’s individually mapped tree data was made accessible on its website, and an urban forest infographic was developed7, which also allowed residents to ‘email’ individual trees. Although this function was originally designed to allow tree damage to be reported, it became a vehicle for people to express their connection with, and love for particular trees (Urban forester 23). In some cases the trees replied to emails (via one of CoM’s urban foresters), a program receiving international media attention8, and inspiring similar programs in other cities, including New York (Team leader 21). This facility also acted to shift the communication with Council from solely a complaints-based focus, and provided policy makers with additional data and support for ongoing resource allocations (Team leader 21). The strategy is summarised in Table 6.12.

7 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/urban-forest-infographic.pdf accessed 10/1/17 8 http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/11/12/NY-City-Council-member-proposes-email- addresses-for-individual-trees/1711447347564/ accessed 19/1/17

Chapter 6 147 Table 6.12 City of Melbourne policy analysis: green space

CoM Urban forest strategy Strategic Vision and objectives “The City of Melbourne’s urban forest will be resilient, healthy and diverse and will contribute to the health and wellbeing of our community and to the creation of a liveable city” (p. 4) Guiding principles:  mitigate and adapt to climate change;  reduce the urban heat island effect;  become a ‘water sensitive’ city;  design for health and wellbeing;  design for liveability and cultural integrity;  create healthier ecosystems;  position Melbourne as a leader in urban forestry” (p. 7) Green space goal Resilient, healthy and diverse forest for the future (p. 5) Green space targets Increase public realm canopy cover from 22% to 40% by 2040; Increase species diversity; Improve vegetation health; Improve soil moisture and water quality; Improve urban ecology (p. 7) Green space definitions, “The City of Melbourne’s urban forest comprises all of the trees and other functions and benefits vegetation – and the soil and water that supports it – within the municipality. It incorporates vegetation in streets, parks, gardens, plazas, campuses, river and creek embankments, wetlands, railway corridors, community gardens, green walls, balconies and roofs. Urban forests provide critical ecosystem services such as air and water filtration, shade, habitat, oxygen, carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. The urban forest also provides a connection to nature that is often perceived to be missing in urban areas” (p. 9) Tactical Supporting strategies Strategic framework; integration with Future Melbourne Plan, Council Plan (p. 8) Partners (and community Lord Mayor’s and Councillors’ support and engagement (p. 7) engagement) Intra-Council integration (p. 53) Community and inter-professional integration; inter-municipal integration (p. 53) “Green governance” (p. 53) Community engagement programs: “federal, state and local governments, leaseholders, champions and environmental sector leaders, research and educational institutions, artists, industry forums, businesses, schools and developers” (p. 37, p. 56) Operational Instruments and delivery A wide range of actions associated with the six strategies listed (pp 40- mechanisms 50); delivery mechanisms for many are not stated Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring as part of tree maintenance (p. 42); Information development (data collection priorities) (p. 57)

Chapter 6 148 Climate change and UHIE

CoM classifies extreme heat as one of the six high priority climate change impacts that will affect the municipality, and identifies a range of actions already being undertaken, mostly focused on addressing urban heat impacts, and implementation of urban forest and water management projects9. Its Climate change adaptation strategy (CoM 2009) is due for update (Planner 24) and a discussion paper was released in 2016 for consultation on development of an updated strategy. The updated strategy is due for release in mid-201710; this research focuses on analysis of the current strategy.

The 2009 strategy was partly funded by the federal government through its (now discontinued) Local adaptation pathways program (LAPP). This is another example of federal government provision of grants funding to local governments that came with substantial constraints in the form and content of the expenditure and outputs. One of these requirements was for preparation of adaptation strategies funded through the

LAPP to be by an approved consultant, listed by the federal government. LAPP was criticised for producing adaptation plans that were “generic and not detailed enough to result in concrete action” (PC 2012, p. 151). As such, while CoM’s adaptation strategy was one of the first adaptation strategies developed by a Victorian local government, reflecting CoM’s adoption of a ‘leadership’ or ‘frontrunner’ role within the local government sector (CoM 2009, p. 6), the strategy’s content was constrained to reflect federal government influences and directives.

The strategy was prepared by consultants (Maunsell, an engineering consultancy, now part of AECOM), and lacks any introductory statements from the Mayor or CEO, that are included in many of CoM’s other strategies and plans, reinforcing criticisms of the generic production process for LAPP. CoM’s strategy takes the form of a detailed report focused on climate change research, risk management and technical implementation, and lacks an explicit overarching vision or goals. Extreme heatwaves

9 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/vision-goals/eco-city/Pages/adapting-to- climate-change.aspx accessed 10/1/17 10 http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/climatechange accessed 10/1/2017

Chapter 6 149 are identified as one of the two most significant extreme weather events to which CoM is exposed that will be exacerbated by climate change (p. 8). Short term (to 2030) and long term (to 2070) actions to address climate change risks are identified, and aim to

“engage all stakeholders” (p. 93). For heatwaves, short term actions focus on developing and implementing a Heatwave response plan and building public knowledge and safe behaviour (p. 100), while long term actions focus on “cooler surroundings, inside and out, through improved infrastructure” (p. 100). The latter explicitly refers to reducing the heat island affect through rooftop gardens, stormwater wetlands and selection of building materials (p. 102), however the role of vegetation in cooling microclimates and mitigating the UHIE is not otherwise mentioned. Trees are explicitly referred to as the cause of risks during extreme weather events (p. 9) due to the potential for falling limbs (pp 33, 57, 60, 68) or “weak trees” (pp 10, 34, 36). The plan proposes “strengthening of potential debris, such as trees or awnings” (p. 65) to reduce vulnerability, treating trees in the same way as (unreliable) built infrastructure. A separate section is included identifying the top eight high-value adaptations (p. 106), several of which “have the potential to reduce multiple risks” (p. 111). Expansion of stormwater harvesting and is the highest value, highest priority action; addressing the urban heat island effect is the third of the eight priorities (p. 107).

Ongoing monitoring of climate change risks is listed as a high value adaptation, but monitoring of the strategy’s implementation is not addressed.

Consistent with criticism directed at LAPP-funded adaptation plans, the strategy lacks the strong sense of CoM’s identity that is reflected in other CoM strategies. The strategy’s content and tone reflects the significant influence of external funding (federal government) and external authorship (consultancy). It is technical in content, heavily focused on a risk management approach and while it identifies the key physical and environmental context, lacks explicit engagement with or reference to the social and community elements of the municipality. Many of these shortcomings are likely to be addressed in the updated strategy, based on the content of the discussion paper (CoM

2016a), which emphasises taking a partnership approach, working with the community

Chapter 6 150 to strengthen resilience, and explicitly includes direct quotes from local residents and businesses. The 2009 plan’s key elements are summarised in Table 6.13.

Table 6.13 City of Melbourne policy analysis: climate change

CoM Climate change adaptation plan Strategic Vision and objectives Not stated Green space goal Not stated Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions, Not stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Strategies with supporting or intersecting actions: Total Watermark -City as a Catchment Other CoM strategies identified as sources of background information: City of Melbourne Drainage Strategy Zero Net Emissions by 2020 - Update 2008 Partners (and community Shared stakeholder responsibility associated with addressing climate engagement) change adaptation, including stakeholders’ “awareness of issues, their influence and responsibilities, their inter-relationships and their role in an integrated climate change adaptation plan for the city” (p. 6) Specific stakeholders are identified in the risk management sections, but not in the section identifying the adaptation actions. ‘Stakeholders’ for heatwave related actions include emergency services, health and community welfare organisations and state government departments Operational Instruments and delivery Long term: “Implement changes to urban form to reduce heat island mechanisms affect; urban and rooftop gardens; lighter building; roof and road colours; more extensive network of stormwater fed urban wetlands” (p. 102) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not addressed

Summary: Demonstration: “We’ll show you how it’s done”

City of Melbourne’s approach to green space policy development and implementation

(Figure 6.9) is focused on self-assured leadership and demonstration encapsulated by:

“We’ll show you how it’s done” (Team leader 21)

CoM’s landscape branch has explicitly taken responsibility for implementation of urban forestry actions to demonstrate internally (to other departments within Council), as well as externally to other local governments in Melbourne and around Australia, and to international visitors and study tours. This approach has been important in establishing new techniques, horticultural standards and funding levels, and enables

Chapter 6 151 new approaches to urban greening that are less constrained by existing contract specifications and business-as-usual on-ground practices.

Figure 6.9 City of Melbourne policies analysed

6.5.2 Moreland City Council

The City of Moreland is located directly north of the City of Melbourne. It spans established inner and middle suburbs and includes residential, commercial and industrial areas. It is experiencing urban densification, both in inner suburban areas and in brownfields (ex-industrial) sites. Its eastern and western municipal boundaries are formed by waterways, two of the Yarra River’s four northern tributaries. While the municipality contains substantial areas of green space, including land associated with its waterways, there are also areas significantly lacking public open space access. The policies and interviews analysed in the following section are listed in Table 6.14.

Table 6.14 Moreland City Council local government policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy Council Plan (2013) Urban forest policy and Zero carbon evolution: strategy suite (2016) carbon neutral strategy (2014) Supplementary Local planning scheme Council report 2016 Urban heat island action data plan 2016 Interviews 26 Councillor 28 Planner 29 Team leader 27 Manager 30 Planner

Chapter 6 152 Cities and urban planning

The Moreland City Council (MCC) Council Plan (MCC 2013) was published within six months of the start of Council’s term. An action plan is also developed and published annually, detailing how the Council Plan will be implemented during the coming year.

The annual action plan contains no explanatory or introductory text and is largely an annual resource allocation plan (required by legislation) for the four year plan. The key elements of the Council Plan that relate to urban green space are summarised below.

The Mayor’s message, included at the start of the plan (p. 2), states “this plan strikes the right balance between responsiveness to the needs and concerns of the community and financial responsibility”. The development of the plan is underpinned by consultations with councillors, community and staff to identify priorities. The five main themes of the Council Plan are: Moreland’s People; Moreland’s Spaces and Places;

Environmentally Sustainable Moreland; Moreland’s Sustainable Economy; and Civic

Leadership. The context within which the Plan has been developed includes demographic shifts (increased birth rate, increased life span, and an ageing population), ageing infrastructure, and changing urban form. “With higher density and smaller dwellings with diminished private space and amenity, there is a corresponding need for increased access to public open space and other community facilities. Council will continue to respond to this imperative” (p. 2).

Two threads underpin MCC’s approach, and the way that Councillors and staff represent Council’s work: environmental leadership, and the necessity for collaboration and shared responsibility. Of the former, the Mayor stated, “Moreland has long been a local government leader in the field of environmental sustainability and will continue to innovate with a range of practical initiatives” (p. 2). Of the latter, the plan states that “many of the issues facing the City of Moreland cannot be addressed effectively by Council alone” (p. 2). This is repeated often, in other MCC strategies and by staff in interviews and at community meetings (Councillor 26, Team

Leader 29, Planner 30).

Chapter 6 153 While the plan commits to annual monitoring and reporting (p. 42) consistent with statutory requirements under the Local Government Act, it does not include any reference to evaluation, which would consider the effectiveness of implementation and outputs in achieving desired outcomes. The key green space elements of the plan are summarised in Table 6.15.

Table 6.15 Moreland City Council policy analysis: urban planning

MCC Council plan Strategic Vision and objectives “By 2017, a sustainable Moreland will have a more resilient community, more attractive, accessible and safe places, a stronger local economy and services that meet the needs of our growing community” (p. 6) Of the Plan’s five themes, two have direct relevance to urban green space: Moreland’s places and spaces; and Environmentally sustainable Moreland Green space goal Access to local places and spaces (p. 24) Attractive and well maintained built environment, streetscapes and landscapes (p. 27) is preserved and enhanced (p. 34) Green space targets “To be determined” Green space definitions, Not stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Health and wellbeing plan Street landscape plan Open space strategy Waterway management plans Partners (and community Council departments engagement) External partners not specified Operational Instruments and delivery Land purchases (p.24) mechanisms Implement open space and street landscape improvement upgrades and maintenance (p. 24, p. 27) Advocating to the state government for planning scheme amendments (p. 27) Continue supporting partnerships that promote and improve natural environments (p. 34) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Annual monitoring and reporting (p. 42) Indicators or performance measures are included for each outcome, however the sources of data for a number of these are to be determined. The relevant performance measures for green space actions include: proportion of population/residences within 400m of a park (reflecting the requirements of VPP Clause 56.05-2); perception of local parks and open areas; open space land per capita; and no reduction in natural habitats. Of these, the only data source identified is the annual Community indicators survey for the perceptions measure.

Chapter 6 154 MCC is one of less than 10 Victorian local governments to have incorporated a local planning policy for Environmentally sensitive development (ESD) into its planning scheme

(Planner 30). The ESD policy (Clause 22.08) includes objectives related to urban ecology. In relation to urban green space, it also includes a specific requirement for tree planting (clauses 32.07 and 32.09) above the minimum standards for landscaping set by the VPP (clauses 54 (construction of one dwelling) and 55 (construction of two or more dwellings)): “A minimum of one tree should be planted within the front setback, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014”. Of the three municipalities considered as part of this research, Moreland is the only one to extend planning scheme requirements by defining such a provision.

Green space

MCC’s key green space policy is the Moreland street landscape strategy (MCC 2012b), supported by the Moreland open space strategy (MCC 2012a). At the Council meeting on

10 December 2014, Councillors resolved to investigate the need for developing an

Urban forest strategy, perhaps inspired by CoM’s strategy (Planner 28). The request to investigate the need for an additional strategy was greeted with irritation by some officers who felt that there were already enough strategies and plans in this area

(Planner 28). In response to the Councillors’ request, MCC staff compared the content of CoM’s strategy with MCC’s existing suite of policies, which included the Street landscape strategy, the Open space strategy, Zero carbon evolution climate change mitigation strategy, Health and wellbeing plan and the Water map integrated water management plan. The use of CoM’s Urban forest strategy as a template and guidance document reinforces the status of the strategy as a leading and influential document for many in the local government sector, if not beyond. MCC staff concluded that there were only a very small number of issues not addressed within the existing suite of policies, and recommended revising existing plans rather than developing a new strategy (Planner 28). However, for some Councillors, this reliance on a suite of policies and plans rather than one overarching strategy, reinforced for them the lack of a strong

Council voice on this issue, and the potential for community confusion or lack of clarity about Council’s priorities and commitments (Councillor 26). At its meeting on 7

Chapter 6 155 October 2015, Council resolved to develop the Moreland urban forest strategy, by reviewing and renaming the current Moreland street landscape strategy and incorporating high level strategic information from the other relevant policies and strategies11. This approach effectively created a win-win resolution to the differing positions of

Councillors and staff. As the Moreland urban forest strategy is not due for release until

January 2017, this analysis focuses on the Moreland street landscape strategy, as MCC’s existing urban green space policy.

The strategy encompasses an overarching vision, goals, objectives and actions, as well as appendices with technical design, planting guidelines and the tree removal policy.

While the title and content of the strategy relate to street trees, the strategy’s vision focuses on ‘the urban forest’, which is defined as “a continuum of connected green streets linking public parklands and private spaces throughout the City” (p. 6). The strategy acknowledges that the urban tree population has declined due to “extended periods of below average rainfall, inadequate protection of trees during construction and reduced space due to urban consolidation” (p. 6), and this is exacerbated by the lack of a current tree inventory and long term planning. Despite one of the objectives of the 2012 strategy being to develop a tree inventory, this had not yet been commenced by late

2015, and no funds had been allocated to its development (Planner 28). The strategy includes an annual tree planting target, but its effectiveness has been questioned:

“we have a 5000 tree annual planting regime, because council pulled out of a hat a number and said this is what we need to be doing and so we’re putting money into 5000 street trees. We’re not maintaining them properly and we lose large numbers [from vandalism and lack of ongoing pruning maintenance]” (Planner 28).

Unlike CoM’s Urban forest strategy, which contains numerous photographs, maps and other images, designed to communicate to the community as well as Council, MCC’s strategy is largely text-based, and of a more technical character. Rather than a focus on community engagement and education (CoM’s strategy), MCC’s strategy focuses on community notification and consultation (pp 39-40), and lacks any actions to promote

11 http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/key-docs/meeting/minute-council-upc/council- minutes-7-october-2015---confirmed.doc accessed 16/12/16

Chapter 6 156 engagement or involvement. Even during site inspections, council staff members are unwilling to engage with local residents:

“the resident was there at the time while we were talking next to their place … And I said well let’s have a chat to her, and they [other council staff] were all “got to go”, almost like smoke, they just disappeared, even my own boss, who I would have thought would have been quite interested. …That public engagement side … they get excited by it on the one hand but it’s also scary. Because we … get 6000 [customer complaints] a year. Now 6000 complaints, it’s about a stick dropping or a leaf drop or about a limb hanging over their fence, sticky sap coming out of trees, dead trees, live trees, wrong trees, all the possible things, 6000. So their life is ruled by the community in a way, they can’t do much else, so in a way it’s unfair to criticise them for running away but … I think part of the reason we get 6000 is that we’re not engaging with the community” (Planner 28).

The strategy highlights the conflicts between street trees and other urban infrastructure and services located in streets, including powerlines, communications infrastructure, on-street parking and so on (p. 38). The severe constraints placed on some streetscapes in built-up areas are illustrated in the case of the road safety requirements introduced in 2009. The strategy highlights the requirement for local government to actively advocate to higher levels of government, to which it is accountable:

“Vic Roads introduced changes to regulations regarding vegetation (trees in particular) in 70 km/hr road zones. These regulation changes include the requirement for street trees to have a 5 metre setback from the kerb and channel and this requirement has potential implications for any street landscape on Bell Street West in particular. These requirements are not enforced in 50km or 60km/hr zones, so a possible option is to reduce the speed limit to allow for more significant landscaping. It is important the Council continues to regularly liaise with Vic Roads regarding landscaping and vegetation requirements for the City of Moreland, as well as to continue to advocate for retaining street landscaping” (p. 30).

Monitoring and evaluation is largely only addressed in terms of specific actions, focused on monitoring performance of different species and of pests, rather than implementation of the plan as a whole or of the achievement of the annual planting target. The strategy identifies the policy context and supporting strategies with which it is linked, but does not identify the Moreland planning scheme as one of the linked policies. As a result, mechanisms for influencing trees and vegetation on private land are not addressed in the strategy. The strategy is summarised in Table 6.16.

Chapter 6 157 Table 6.16 Moreland City Council policy analysis: green space

Moreland street landscape strategy Strategic Vision and objectives “To have an Urban Forest that is attractive, sustainable, diverse and healthy, defines neighbourhood character and provides a pleasant and healthy environment for the community to live and work” (p. 6) Green space goal  Create a pleasant living, walking and cycling environment  Focus resources on the planning, implementation, protection, conservation and development of high quality street landscapes  Provide habitat corridors for native fauna and insects that link waterways and open space and provide opportunities for fauna to move around Moreland and adjoining municipalities  Establish ecologically sustainable design principles and planting themes  Assist in adapting our city to climate change  Mitigate the urban heat island effect Green space targets Increase canopy cover by planting 5000 trees per year Green space definitions, The urban forest is the continuum of connected green streets linking functions and benefits public parklands and private spaces throughout the City. Trees in urban landscapes provide many environmental, health, social and economic benefits, including: provision of shade, shelter and habitat corridors, “softening” the built landscape and contributing to stormwater management and mitigation of the UHIE (p. 6) Tactical Supporting strategies Moreland open space strategy Moreland health and wellbeing plan Pedestrian strategy Climate action plan Integrated water management Moreland line clearance management plan Partners (and community Internal council departments: Open space design; open space engagement) maintenance; Engineering; Asset management; Municipal laws; Place strategy; Roads “Community notification and consultation” (pp 39-40) Operational Instruments and delivery Implementation identifies priorities (p. 41) and actions (pp 42-44) that mechanisms include data collection, planning, planting and maintenance Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not explicitly stated

MCC is constrained in how existing green space is managed by current practices and maintenance routines. For example, parks are not watered in summer to reduce additional mowing requirements, with summer being a time when the maintenance teams are ‘freed up’ to undertake other maintenance tasks:

“our open spaces can then be hotter than the roads and activity centres nearby because they’re essentially, by February, they’re bare earth because we don’t irrigate them because we don’t want to cut the grass” (Planner 28)

Chapter 6 158 This practice however severely reduces the parks’ aesthetic, recreational and cooling contributions, and presents a challenge to policy makers in how to improve the quality and function of green space in the municipality. It highlights the gap (or in some cases conflict) between policy goals and existing operational practice, and the challenges of achieving transitions in the face of resistance to changing established practices.

Climate change and UHIE

MCC is one of the few Victorian local governments to have prepared a specific UHIE action plan (MCC 2016). The development of the action plan was one of the commitments specified in MCC’s climate change mitigation strategy Zero carbon evolution (MCC 2014). MCC is also one of the few Australian jurisdictions to link UHIE mitigation with climate change mitigation. Most other Australian government jurisdictions that address UHIE do so as part of their climate change adaptation action, but MCC has not published a specific climate change adaptation plan.

The Zero carbon evolution strategy opens with the vision for 2020 for creating a

“prosperous and resilient future for Moreland” (p. 3). It emphasises that “everyone will play an important part” (p. 4) reinforcing the recurring theme of collaboration, partnership and shared responsibility, which characterises much of MCC’s approach to strategy and implementation in both internal and external organisational communications (Team leader 29, Planner 30). “Working collaboratively” and

“including our whole community” are also two of the four key principles identified by the strategy to guide action on climate change mitigation (pp 11-12).

The strategy includes a number of local case studies of businesses’ and residents’ sustainability actions and programs. These serve to strongly reflect the local character of the municipality, as well as demonstrating examples of tangible, achievable and potentially inspiring outcomes. The strategy asks Moreland people to “respect and value Council’s investment in street trees”, as well as planting and tree care on public and private land, however it does not list any links or relationships to the Moreland planning scheme. The strategy does not include details on monitoring and evaluation, or funding sources for implementation. The strategy is summarised in Table 6.17.

Chapter 6 159 Table 6.17 Moreland City Council policy analysis: climate change

Moreland Zero carbon evolution Strategic Vision and objectives  “Shifting towards zero net carbon emissions is part of creating a prosperous and resilient future for Moreland. It will encourage connected communities of citizens who are doing things differently to have a positive influence on our shared future” (p. 3)  “More people will take responsibility for the impacts of their lifestyles on the health of our environment, and choose to engage in the decisions that shape our suburbs” (p. 4)  “Everyone will play an important part in the shift to a zero carbon future” (p. 4)  “Streets and open spaces will be alive with people, plants, activity and art” (p. 4) Five strategies (priority themes), one of which is “minimising urban heat island effects”; each strategy specifies 2020 goals and key actions to be undertaken by council are identified, as well as expectations for policy or action by other levels of government or other organisations Green space goal For UHIE strategy (priority theme): “Increase vegetation cover in Moreland’s most vulnerable areas by 35%” (p. 19) Green space targets 30,000 new trees by 2020 (pp 23-24) Green space definitions, “Trees keep us cool on hot days” (p. 11) functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies  Moreland WaterMap 2020 (integrated water management plan)  Moreland Open Space Strategy 2012–2022  Moreland Street Landscape Strategy 2012–2022 (p. 19) Partners (and community Victorian government, electricity distributors, VicRoads; Moreland engagement) people Operational Instruments and delivery For UHIE strategy (priority theme), key council actions: mechanisms  develop a Moreland heat island action plan that will identify priority vulnerable areas and provide a “strategic approach to increasing vegetation on private and public land”  implement existing council strategies: the integrated water management plan, the open space strategy and the street landscape strategy Actions for utilities companies (overhead and underground electricity services) and VicRoads:  street tree management Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not stated

The Moreland heat island action plan (MCC 2016) was developed following completion of

Zero carbon evolution. As noted previously, MCC is one of the first Victorian local governments to develop an UHIE action plan, a fact that surprised one of the MCC

Councillors who had assumed several Melbourne councils were formally addressing

Chapter 6 160 the UHIE as part of broader urban heat focus (Councillor 26). The plan reinforces

MCC’s focus on collaborative efforts to achieve strategic outcomes:

“Transforming Moreland into a green, cool, more livable city cannot be achieved by Council alone. It will require investment and commitment from residents, businesses, community groups and many others across the community. It will also require supportive State and Commonwealth policies and programs as well as partnerships with leaders at research institutions and in business” (p. 4).

Nonetheless, many of the actions listed in the detailed Implementation plan section are those for which Council is responsible for implementing. The action plan also seeks to integrate UHIE mitigation into relevant council strategies and policies, including the

Moreland planning scheme (pp 20-23). It recognises community engagement, education and capacity-building as guiding principles for identifying actions (p. 8). The action plan identifies and quantifies budget allocations required for implementation of actions, and lists measures against which progress can be monitored, evaluated and reported (p. 40). These elements in the UHIE-specific plan address some of the shortcomings of Zero carbon evolution that were previously highlighted.

Summary: Collaboration: “We can’t do this on our own”

MCC’s approach to green space policy (Figure 6.10) revolves around the principle of collaboration and the oft-repeated:

“We can’t do this on our own” (Team leader 29, Planner 30)

This articulates both an internal approach (the reliance on a number of different

Council departments for implementation), as well as an external approach (with other levels of government and the community): “Everyone in Moreland is responsible for climate change, everyone is vulnerable to the impacts and everyone must be part of the solution” (MCC 2014, p. 5). However MCC, while clearly articulating its expectations of others, as well as its commitments for its own actions, lacks more sophisticated approaches to or prioritisation of community engagement than those of CoM.

Chapter 6 161

Figure 6.10 Moreland City Council policies analysed

6.5.3 Hume City Council

The City of Hume, directly north of the City of Moreland, spans established suburbs, and growth area residential developments, as well as major industrial and commercial areas, including Melbourne’s international airport. The municipality’s population is culturally very diverse, with residents coming from more than 160 countries. The municipality includes areas of significant socio-economic disadvantage.

Approximately 65 % of the municipality is rural land. There are also substantial areas of public open space and conservation reserves that provide habitat to endangered species, including the native grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plains, which are one of Australia’s 15 national biodiversity hotspots12. As a result, Hume City Council

(HCC) faces substantial challenges related to its green space management, including meeting the needs and expectations of residents in new suburbs, addressing the needs of socio-economically disadvantaged communities, managing the interface between urban and rural, incorporating threatened species management into green space management, and prioritising and allocating sufficient resources, both funding and staff, to these challenges. The policies and interviews analysed in the following section are listed in Table 6.18.

12 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity- hotspots accessed 1/7/17

Chapter 6 162 Table 6.18 Hume City Council local government policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy Council Plan (2013, Land and biodiversity Climate change adaptation updated annually) plan (2015) plan (2013) Supplementary Local planning scheme Street and reserve tree Pathways to sustainability data policy (2004) (2015) Interviews 31 Councillor 33 Team leader 34 Coordinator 32 Manager

Cities and urban planning

HCC’s Council plan (HCC 2016) notes the challenge of “meeting our community’s ever- changing needs and expectations” (p. 2), reflecting the theme of “great expectations” identified by CSIRO as one of six global “megatrends” (Hajkowicz et al. 2012). The

Mayor’s opening statement highlights the need for securing “sustained, long term investment from State and Federal Governments”, and for partnerships with local agencies, businesses and community groups (p. 2), expressing pressures that many councils are experiencing due to reduced funding and increased expectations. The plan is informed by HCC’s community plan Hume Horizons 2040, federal and state governments’ policies, and environmental considerations such as climate change.

The plan lists the top five short term and long term priorities, based on a survey of

Hume residents undertaken annually (p. 32). Traffic and parking management is the top short term and long term priority. Parks, gardens and natural environment is the second- most important long term priority, but is not listed at all in the top five short term priorities. The identification of parks as a long term but not short term priority presents challenges for Council in meeting community expectations, particularly as land must be reserved for public open space at the start of the development process. The dominance of traffic-related priorities in both the short and long term may reflect the lack of transport options and the dependence on private vehicle transport in many of the municipality’s growth areas. The inclusion of green space objectives and actions in the Council Plan makes clear that the Council has placed priority on a detailed strategic framework for green space-related issues. Heatwaves and the UHIE are not explicitly included in the Council Plan. The plan is summarised in Table 6.19.

Chapter 6 163 Table 6.19 Hume City Council policy analysis: urban planning

HCC Council plan Strategic Vision and objectives HCC “will be recognised as a leader in achieving social, environmental and economic outcomes with a common goal of connecting our proud community and celebrating the diversity of Hume” (p. 17) Themes of relevance to urban greening:  A healthy and safe community  A sustainably built and well-maintained City with an environmentally aware community Green space goal Not explicitly stated Green space targets Net increase in street trees (p. 68) Green space definitions, Not explicitly stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Supporting strategies listed for theme 4 ‘a sustainably built and well maintained city with an environmentally engaged community’: Live green plan; Land and biodiversity plan; Pathways to Sustainability Framework; Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2013 – 2017; Greenhouse Action Plan 2013 – 2016; Hume Integrated Land Use and Transport Strategy; Hume Integrated Growth Area Plans (HIGAP); Integrated Water Management Plan Partners (and community State and Federal Governments; engagement) Local agencies, businesses and community groups (p. 2) Operational Instruments and delivery Theme 2 A healthy and safe community; Strategic Objective 2.1: Foster a mechanisms community which is active and healthy:  Action 2.1.5 sustainable living practices: implement actions from Council’s environmental sustainability and community engagement Live Green Plan (p. 47) Theme 4 A sustainably built and well maintained city with an environmentally engaged community: Strategic Objective 4.1 Facilitate appropriate urban development while protecting and enhancing the City’s environment, natural heritage and rural spaces:  Action 4.1.3 Implement the Land and Biodiversity Plan actions; Implement the Pathways to Sustainability Framework, including relevant actions from the Sustainable Places Action Plan and Leadership Action Plan  Action 4.1.4 Improve environmental sustainability and resilience to climate change by pursuing high environmental standards and supporting sustainability as a focus of the planning and development process: “Undertake compliance activities for the Hume Planning Scheme, including Native Vegetation regulations” Strategic Objective 4.2 Create community pride through a well-designed and maintained City  Action 4.2.1 Implement landscape improvements to enhance amenity and vitalise Hume activity centres, gateways and key streets, including Seabrook Reserve landscape improvements Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Net increase in street trees: baseline to be established

Chapter 6 164 The Hume planning scheme includes the “natural environment and built environment”

(related to biodiversity, catchment and land management, landscape, open space and heritage) within the Municipal strategic statement (clause 21.05), similar to CoM’s approach. This reinforces that these values are integral to the municipality’s profile and strategic framework. As a growth area council, the Hume planning scheme contains a number of provisions and schedules related to precinct structure plans for new suburbs, which specify landscape treatment, open space provision as well as provisions for small lots, as discussed earlier in this chapter in relation to the VPP. There are no additional provisions for landscaping or tree establishment in established suburbs.

Green space

The Land and biodiversity plan, HCC’s key green space plan (HCC 2015), was adopted by Council in November 2015, at the time that most of the interviews for this research were being held. Policy officers interviewed said they were looking forward to having the plan adopted to support implementation of green space actions (Manager 32, Team leader 33). Prior to its adoption, the key strategy relied on for policy support to protect and retain trees was Hume’s Street and reserve tree policy (HCC 2004). The policy was characterised as:

“quite out of date, it’s being partially reviewed this year with a view to potentially developing an urban forest plan or policy … the aim is to try and put the street tree policy away from just “we plant 5000 trees every year and this is how we do it and this is how we chop them down if they’re dangerous” into more looking at, what’s the canopy cover across certain areas? And Parks have done some work on that; how are we going to manage our increasing, to a target of, is it 20%?, so improving the canopy cover particularly in areas that are lacking relative to the rest of the community” (Manager 33).

While the Street and reserve tree policy has been identified as requiring update, there was concern that in the process of updating, it could be ‘demoted’ from a ‘policy’, to a

‘plan’ that would have less authority in protecting and retaining trees, particularly in the minds of Councillors, who at times had advocated on behalf of individual residents for specific tree removals (Team leader 33). The Street and reserve tree policy is focused on improving the appearance of the municipality, as well as acknowledging trees’ contributions to “absorbing heat, providing shade, reducing solar radiation, providing

Chapter 6 165 habitat, utilising storm water run-off and assisting in air purification” (p. 1). The policy focus is largely technical, defining the arboriculture requirements related to tree planting, pruning and removal to achieve “consistent tree management”. The Land and biodiversity plan, while cross-referencing the existing policy, identifies development and implementation of an Urban forest plan as a key action.

At HCC’s Council meeting on 14 June 2016, staff were requested to prepare a briefing note for Council on the “merit of Council developing an Urban Forest Strategy”, including providing “details of similar strategies adopted or being developed by other councils, including the City of Moreland”. In November 2016, council staff prepared a briefing note (unpublished) recommending that existing strategies, the Land and

Biodiversity Strategy and the Street and Reserve Tree policy, addressed the necessary elements of an urban forest strategy, and therefore development of a specific strategy was not required (Coordinator 34). This is the same response as that provided by MCC staff, when requested by Moreland Council to develop an urban forest strategy, though in MCC’s case, as noted in the previous section, Council insisted on development of an

Urban forest strategy, partly through re-titling and combining existing documents. By the end of 2016, HCC staff had not yet presented their findings to Council. This analysis focuses on the Land and biodiversity plan as the most recent, published Council green space plan.

The plan states that it is an amalgamation and revision of two previously separate plans focused on land management and natural heritage. The plan defines its scope as covering the municipality’s assets of biodiversity, significant landscape features, cultural heritage sites and the urban forest, the latter defined as including “trees in public open space, streetscapes and on private land” (p. 2). The plan identifies HCC’s roles and responsibilities as “land owner and manager, a planning authority and a facilitator/provider of community support, education and capacity-building” (p. 2). It is one of the few such local government plans to acknowledge the interaction of urban forest planning and land use planning through the Hume Planning Scheme. As with other councils, implementation requires a ‘whole of organisation’ approach and

Chapter 6 166 partnerships with “other public land managers in Hume, the community and other key stakeholders” (p. 3).

The plan acknowledges threats to the urban forest that include development pressure, and climate change impacts, which include urban heat, exacerbated by the UHIE. The plan notes that HCC has established baseline data for canopy cover in a 2014 survey, with over 160,000 trees recorded in the municipality. The opportunities are cross- referenced to the action plan, which, for each goal, identifies “objectives, actions, the role that Council departments will play in implementing the actions, external partners / stakeholders, timeframes for completion and the financial investment required by

Council to achieve positive change” (p. 16). Monitoring and evaluation of the plan is addressed in the final section on Measuring success, which involves annual reporting of implementation, and a full review of the plan in 2019. In addition, measures, targets and current baselines are defined for each goal. The key analysis elements are summarised in Table 6.20.

Chapter 6 167 Table 6.20 Hume City Council policy analysis: green space

Hume Land and biodiversity plan Strategic Vision and objectives “A sustainably built and well-maintained city with an environmentally engaged community” (p. 3) Green space goal “Suburbs are leafier with increased canopy cover” (p. 3) Green space targets Percentage increase in canopy cover: “Canopy cover increase of 30% in car parks, 40% in open space, 25% in streetscapes and 15% on private land by 2040” (p. 21) Green space definitions, The urban forest is defined as “the entire population of trees and woody functions and benefits shrubs within the urban environment” and part of Hume’s ‘land and biodiversity assets’ (p. 6) The functions and benefits include “absorbing heat and providing shade, which reduces solar radiation resulting in a reduction in the urban heat island effect. … important habitat for wildlife in urban areas, reduces the impacts of storm water run-off, assists in air purification and mitigates the effects of climate change” (p. 6) Tactical Supporting strategies Hume Horizons 2040 Plan (community plan); Pathways to Sustainability Framework 2015-2019; Live green plan; Hume Integrated Growth Area Plan; Hume health and wellbeing plan; Hume Integrated Land Use and Transport Strategy; Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2013 – 2017; Open space strategy Partners (and community A range of partners are listed in the plan, but none identified for engagement) implementation of Goal 3 Operational Instruments and delivery Existing programs: mechanisms  Street and Reserve tree management,  Live Green community sustainability engagement program Opportunities for enhancement of the existing programs (pp 13-15):  tree and shrub planting;  community engagement on streetscapes;  canopy cover assessments every five years To address development pressure:  continuing “acquisition and management of newly established public open space”  advocating to the State Government to assist in ensuring financial sustainability; and applying and strengthening land use planning mechanisms to protect significant sites and ‘landscape elements’ To address “lack of community connectedness to nature”:  expand existing planting events, workshops, field days, and tours Specific actions for Goal 3, funding for which will be from ‘existing human resources’ (p. 20):  “Finalise development of the Urban Forest Plan, including consultation around community preferences for the provision of trees in streetscapes and open space into the future” (p. 20)  “Implement the Urban Forest Plan”, including developing a “natural shade planting program for council managed play spaces, picnic spots and meeting areas” (p. 20) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Annual tracking of progress on goal measure of increased canopy cover. While HCC has established baseline canopy cover data for the whole municipality, baseline suburb-based data is to be completed by 2019

Chapter 6 168 Climate change and UHIE

HCC’s Climate change adaptation plan (HCC 2013b) is framed around increasing the municipality’s resilience to impacts. Heatwaves are specifically listed as increasing in frequency and severity. The plan takes a risk management approach, identifying more than 100 risks, categorised into five themes: “planning for future communities; infrastructure management; vulnerable communities; biodiversity and waterways; embedding climate change considerations into organisational processes” (p. 1). Actions are detailed in a separate action plan (HCC 2013a). UHIE and heatwaves are addressed largely as part of the Vulnerable communities theme; and vegetation is seen as a victim of climate change risks and impacts, and not as a mitigation mechanism. Relevant existing actions include reviewing and implementing the HCC Heat Wave Plan (HCC

2013a, p. 11); and “the move to drought resistant turfs for sports grounds, irrigation management and use of alternative (non-potable) sources of water by the Parks and

Open Space Department” (HCC 2013b, p. 1). Key analysis elements are summarised in

Table 6.21.

Table 6.21 Hume City Council policy analysis: climate change

Hume Climate change adaptation plan and action plan Strategic Vision and objectives “Increase Council’s resilience to climate change impacts; support the Hume community to increase resilience to climate change impacts; and support the climate resilience of the natural assets of the City” (p. 1) Green space goal Not stated Green space targets Not stated Green space definitions, Not stated functions and benefits Tactical Supporting strategies Municipal Emergency Management Plan; Heat Wave Action Plan; Business Continuity Plan; Municipal Fire Management Plan; Social Justice Charter; Learning Together Strategy; Hume Horizons Community Plan; Municipal Strategic Statement; Natural Heritage Strategy; Hume Integrated Water Management Plan; Hume Health and Wellbeing Plan; Hume Greenhouse Action Plan (p. 10) Partners (and community State government, including Department of Health engagement) Operational Instruments and delivery Detailed in separate action plan (26 pages) mechanisms Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Three general key performance indicators included in action plan (p. 25), but none directly relevant to green space

Chapter 6 169 Summary: Quiet experimentation: “Always a push, always a compromise”

HCC has a well-developed suite of green space and sustainability-focused policies

(Figure 6.11), and an implementation approach characterised by quiet experimentation:

“Always a push, always a compromise” (Team Leader 33)

Figure 6.11 Hume City Council policies analysed

HCC staff members are prepared to confidently, yet quietly, experiment with new horticultural approaches and techniques (for example ‘structural soils’ to support additional tree planting next to the main Council building (Manager 32, Team leader

33)), yet also work within a context of having to push for green space treatments, and associated budget allocations, and accepting compromises to ensure that staged approaches and additional measures can be added in future.

6.6 Summary

This chapter began by examining the development and current distribution of green space in Melbourne. It demonstrated how Melbourne’s natural history has influenced the existing quantity and distribution of green space, and it continues to influence the quality and character of Melbourne’s existing green spaces, including vegetation types and tree cover.

Following this, the key policies for Melbourne’s green space were assessed, to address the overarching research question: How can policies contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space? The assessment has found that while green space is often

Chapter 6 170 acknowledged within high-level, urban strategic plans, it is not a high priority element, being addressed as one of many of the elements of the built form and community resources. Green space goals and targets are often framed as general aspirations. While strategies may list specific actions, there is often little detail on implementation responsibility, timing and funding. Without specific requirements and accountabilities, comprehensive implementation is not guaranteed. Furthermore, if additional funding provision is not committed, it is unclear how additional actions and responsibilities will be fulfilled or absorbed into existing responsibilities. Evaluation of green space policies and implementation is not well addressed, with a lack of specification of processes, indicators and targets. In many cases it appears that evaluation is not undertaken, beyond the annual reporting required for accountability. Furthermore, where data collection and analysis is undertaken, it is most commonly focused on quantitative indicators, with qualitative data and analysis excluded from the evidence base as ‘anecdotal’ and ‘intangible’ (as explicitly framed by Respondent 12), or deemed less ‘useful’ or ‘valid’ (Local government seminar, Melbourne, April 2016).

Integration of green space into urban policy approaches epitomises the challenges of complex systems thinking for urban social-ecological systems, and navigating urban sustainability transitions. Although green space’s multifunctionality is acknowledged, particularly within ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘green infrastructure’ framings, existing management approaches have only partially encompassed this multifunctionality.

Funding and budgeting for urban green space presents challenges, with uncertainties in costs of ongoing maintenance of urban greening, particularly for new and innovative forms of green space. In the process of substituting or replacing grey infrastructure, urban greening, while providing multiple functions and benefits, may be less efficient in the delivery of the individual functions compared with the grey infrastructure it replaced. In addition, there may be competition between, and different priorities for urban greenings’ functions or ecosystem services.

The results of this chapter will be analysed and discussed in Chapter 8, integrating results of the assessment of London’s policies presented in the following chapter.

Chapter 6 171 Chapter 7. London’s green space policies

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the assessment of London’s urban green space policies. As outlined in Chapter 4 (research methods), London was selected to provide a complementary study because it presents a metropolitan-scale approach to green space policy and planning, and because it provides examples of innovative measures to integrating green space into a dense and highly spatially constrained urban fabric.

Analysis of London’s green space policies can inform other major cities’ policy development, and provide a counterpoint for the analysis of Melbourne’s green space policies.

London is a culturally diverse and globally influential city. ‘Global cities’ such as

London and New York (Sassen 2001) exercise greater global influence than other cities and in many cases entire nations (Kotkin 2014). At the same time as being hubs of economic activity, they are also however increasingly polarised in terms of wealth, and access to jobs, housing, services, health outcomes and so on (GLA 2015b, p. 35; Kotkin

2014). “London is big, crowded, expensive, cosmopolitan, vibrant and trend-setting”

(Bryant 2006, p. 223). The Mayor of London claimed it is also “the greenest big city in the world” (GLA 2011a, p. 15).

This chapter begins with an overview of London, its urban context and green spaces, and its exposure to the UHIE and heatwaves. London’s multi-level system of government and strategic policy context are examined to support the analysis of policies for urban green space. Following this, the assessment of policies and semi- structured interviews is presented. The interviews were undertaken in September 2015, and policies current at this time are included. The following chapter will analyse and discuss the results, together with results of Melbourne’s policy assessment presented in the previous chapter.

Chapter 7 172 7.2 London’s context: urban form, green spaces and urban heat

7.2.1 Location and urban form

London is the most populous city in the United Kingdom (UK), and “nearly three times larger than the next ” (Bryant 2006, p. 221). It is the UK’s major commercial centre, and the main gateway for the rest of the UK for tourists, travellers, services and trading (GLA 2015b). The current distribution, quantity and form of the city’s green space is a result of its biophysical context, hundreds of years of urban development and change, and more recent formalised urban planning processes

(Massini 2016). A brief overview of this context follows.

London is located in south-eastern England. The Romans established London

(‘Londinium’) as a ‘military supply base’, a defence outpost for the Roman Empire after their invasion of Britain in 43 AD (German and Rees 2012). It is one of the oldest cities in the world with continuous habitation. The city’s growth and the form of the streets, laneways and districts have been dictated by topography, overland water flows and by strategic and defensive needs. The River Thames bisects the city, having been both a major supply route, water supply, waste removal and incursion or invasion route. The Thames is tidal within most of the London area, and substantial spring tides can rise almost seven metres (Ween 2012). The Thames Barrier was constructed in 1984 to control tidal surges and tidal flooding (Ween 2012), but surface water and river flooding remain issues for parts of the city (GLA 2015b).

Today, the greater London area includes 32 boroughs (local government authorities) and the central City of London, as defined by the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act

1999 (GLA 2015b). The population of London in 2015 was more than 8.5 million people

(UK National Statistics), though defining London’s physical boundary and associated population is difficult, due to its location and role within the wider region (Thompson

2008). Its suburbs extend across the wider south-east region, beyond the GLA’s boundary (Bryant 2006), and its wider commuter population could be up to “the 20 million in the ‘Greater South East’ within easy commuting distance” (Pimlott and Rao

2002, p. vi).

Chapter 7 173 7.2.2 The urban heat island effect, heatwaves and climate change

London’s climate is generally temperate (Ween 2012), but summer heatwaves, exacerbated by the UHIE, can cause substantial impacts on London’s people, economy and infrastructure (GLA 2015a). As noted in Chapter 2, the UHIE phenomenon was first observed and described in relation to London’s urban area by Luke Howard in

1818 (Gartland 2008). London continues to experience a significant UHIE, particularly in the central denser areas with narrow streets, lacking vegetation and air movement.

In addition to density and precinct-scale issues contributing to the strength of the

UHIE, most of London’s buildings are “old, uninsulated, and energy-inefficient”

(Ween 2012, p. 213), and are not built or operated to cope with excessive summer temperatures (Consultant 35).

The UHIE exacerbates the impacts of heatwaves. While the impacts of heatwaves are experienced both during day and night-time, the UHIE in London is predominantly nocturnal, with heat island intensity values (the temperatures of built up areas compared with rural green spaces) exceeding 10 0C on some occasions (Doick et al.

2014). Climate change projections indicate London will experience warmer and drier summer conditions, and more frequent heatwaves (Doick et al. 2014; GLA 2011a,

2015b). London has experienced at least three major heatwaves over the past 15 years, resulting in hundreds of excess deaths (UK PHE 2015) and impacts on urban infrastructure including transport and energy systems (GLA 2011a). While the UK’s national weather service states that there is no official definition of a 'heatwave' in the

UK (UK Met Office 2016), the national heatwave plan developed by Public Health

England (UK PHE) specifies threshold temperatures for declarations of weather warnings, with London’s thresholds set at 32 0C for daytime and 18 0C for night-time temperatures (UK PHE 2015). Londoners acknowledged that what are considered excessive temperatures by London standards (daytime temperatures exceeding 26 0C) are regularly experienced in other cities (Policy officer 38): adaptation to increasingly severe and frequent heatwaves will require improvements to the built environment and changes in behaviour or ‘way of life’, as well as increasing green infrastructure

(GLA 2015a, p. 12).

Chapter 7 174 7.2.3 London’s green spaces

Green spaces (including open water and domestic gardens) make up more than 60% of

London’s area (Jones and Somper 2014; Momm-Schult et al. 2013). There is a wide range of urban green space types in London, including ‘recreation grounds’, parks, squares and courtyards, gardens (Rasmussen 1982) and ‘pocket parks’: “a plethora of green and open spaces, formal and informal, large and small, helping to define and shape the form of the city” (GLA 2012a, p. 7). The pattern of built up areas and green spaces, particularly in the central boroughs, reflects land uses dating back to the

Middle Ages, with green spaces occupying the otherwise uninhabitable marshy land, and large parks associated with royal palaces and royal hunting grounds, such as the

142 ha Hyde Park (Massini 2016; Momm-Schult et al. 2013).

The utilisation of green space in urban design was conceptualised in the Garden City urban planning movement, which emerged in the UK in the early twentieth century, promoting, amongst many land use planning innovations, the integration of public and private green spaces throughout the planned city (Hagan 2014; Rutherford 2014).

Green spaces within or close to cities and industrialised towns were seen as refuges from the dense polluted cityscapes, “to act as ‘lungs’ for the city, to counteract the

‘miasmas’ which were thought to harbour pestilence and disease” (Massini 2016, p.

281). In London, land use planning approaches of the twentieth century focused on protection of natural and heritage landscapes, as well as provision of urban green spaces for outdoor amenity and recreation for city residents (Massini 2016).

London’s Green Belt was formalised by the 1938 Green Belt Act, to limit urban sprawl, protect the countryside at the edges of the city, and severely restrict development within the green belt area (Ween 2012). The Green Belt covers a substantial area in

London (Figure 7.1), as well as extending into the east and the south-east regions. In

2014, the Green Belt was 5804 km2, of this 352 km2 is within the Greater London region

(UK DCLG 2014). The current distribution of green space varies significantly between

London boroughs, with central boroughs having less than 20% green space and outer boroughs, such as the Borough of Bromley, which is within the metropolitan green belt area, with more than 80% green space (UK Office for National Statistics 2005).

Chapter 7 175

Figure 7.1 Greater London’s Green Belt and other green space areas (Source: GLA 2012a, p. 71)

The existence of the Green Belt has resulted in London being surrounded by relatively undeveloped countryside (Ween 2012), but has also seen housing development

‘leapfrogging’ the green belt to house London’s ‘overspill population’ in towns across the wider region (Thompson 2008, p. 53). While some characterise the green belt as one of London’s ‘successes’ in containing urban growth and protecting green space (Ween

2012), there has been criticism that green belt preservation has led to development on unused brownfield sites within the city that may have higher ecological or amenity value than the farmland within the green belt area (Amati and Yokohari 2006). “The feeling among planners that the green belt is unfair, outdated and inefficient has led to a variety of proposals for its reform” (Amati and Yokohari 2006, p. 127), prompting the suggestion of a paradigm shift in focus from green belt to greenway (Alexandre 2013) and to green grid initiatives (Thompson 2008). While there have been changes

Chapter 7 176 proposed to Green Belt protection and use, the regional authorities (London, east and south-east regions) “would fiercely resist such a change, united by a common hostility to the notion of incursion into the Green Belt, fearing that the process, once initiated, would be very difficult to stop” (Thompson 2008, p. 55). In addition, “the vigor and resourcefulness of green and community interest groups” has also restricted political changes to the green belt (Thompson 2008, p. 54). However, rather than ‘protection of space’, Massini (2016) argued that current policy approaches have shifted to a focus on the ‘management of networks’, informed by principles of landscape ecology.

7.3 London’s multi-level government

The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a national parliament and government, and a layer of local government, which either includes one tier (‘unitary authorities’ of city, borough or county councils) or two tiers (county councils and district, borough or city councils)13. In addition, at the time of this research, the EU sets the overarching policy directions. London is the location of the national government. There are two tiers of local government for London: metropolitan-wide (Mayor of London and Greater

London Authority (GLA)) and local (the City of London Corporation and 32 boroughs). As the UK’s “centre of wealth and power” (German and Rees 2012, p. 3),

London has also been the scene of political dissent from Roman times onwards, with conflict and competition between the different groupings and different levels of government (German and Rees 2012).

Metropolitan-scale government of London has been one of “successive experiments” in structure, boundaries and functions, “an urban quagmire marked by suspicion, insecurity and lack of popular authority” (Pimlott and Rao 2002, p. v). City-wide administration of London was established in 1855 through the Metropolitan Board of

Works, followed by city-wide government in 1889 with the London County Council

(Bryant 2006). The Greater London Council (GLC) was established in 1963 to represent the larger, extended built-up area (or ‘metropolitan sprawl’ Pimlott and Rao 2002). In

13 https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works accessed 5/7/17

Chapter 7 177 1986, the national (Thatcher-led Conservative) government abolished the GLC. The subsequent national (Blair-led Labour) government reinstated London-wide directly elected government in the form of the Mayor of London, in 2000, following a referendum. The Greater London Authority (GLA) provides the bureaucratic support for the Mayor of London. The London Assembly, composed of 25 directly elected members has limited powers, largely focused on scrutiny of the Mayor’s actions, decisions and annual budgets. Elections are held every four years. “The Mayor of

London is an executive organisation, a position and a person; … [while] the Mayor is larger than life, the assembly is barely visible” (Bryant 2006, p. 226). Since establishment of the Mayor of London in 2000, three people have filled the position:

Ken Livingstone (2000-2008), Boris Johnson (2008-2016) and Sadiq Khan (2016- ). The data collection for this research was undertaken in 2015, during Boris Johnson’s second term of office.

Even with the return of elected, metropolitan-wide government, in the form of the

Mayor of London and the GLA, its powers are limited, and narrower than its predecessor, the GLC (German and Rees 2012). “Most services are still delivered by

London Boroughs. London is still politically fragmented” (Bryant 2006, p. 223). It does not have revenue-raising power, so its key roles are in planning and policy making, with boroughs responsible for implementation of policy (Momm-Schult et al. 2013).

Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and 2007, the Mayor of London and

GLA are responsible for transport, policing, economic development, spatial planning, including environmental planning and policy, and emergency planning. The boroughs are responsible for local services not overseen by the GLA, including local planning, and management and maintenance of much of the public green space and open space.

“The Mayor’s powers are chiefly those of partnership and persuasion plus strategic planning, rather than grant giving or direct operational powers” (Momm-Schult et al.

2013, p. 98).

The planning policy hierarchy that operates within this multi-level government context requires that subservient policies must be ‘in general conformity’ with higher level

Chapter 7 178 directions. Overarching policy directions are defined by the EU, with national policy set by the UK (central) government. The Mayor of London establishes regional policy through the London Plan, which is then translated into local policies by the boroughs

(Ween 2012). From a wider regional perspective, the most recent London Plan (GLA

2015b) placed a greater emphasis on working with neighbouring boroughs outside the greater London area, in addition to London boroughs, “to integrate London into the wider region of south-eastern England” (Ween 2012, p. 190).

As with many multi-level government arrangements and attempts at metropolitan- scale government, key issues revolve around the nature and quality of relationships and linkages both vertically (between different levels of government) and horizontally

(within organisations, and between stakeholders and partners). “Any system of metropolitan government rests on just such a set of relationships between local, area- wide and national bodies” (Pimlott and Rao 2002, p. 162). In London, these relationships include those between the Mayor and the Assembly, the boroughs, individually and collectively, and with central government (Pimlott and Rao 2002, p.

162). In terms of green space governance (beyond government), stakeholders and partners also include volunteer and friends groups, not-for-profit environment and social welfare organisations, businesses and business groups at national, regional and local scales (GLA 2012a). This creates a complex governance environment.

7.3.1 London’s strategic policy context

The directives, guidance, policies and strategies for London’s green space span EU, UK

(national), greater London and local borough government levels. Relevant EU directives that provide overarching policy directions include the Birds and Habitats

Directives (Directive 2009/147/EC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Water

Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) (Momm-Schult et al. 2013). At the national level, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guides preparation of local and neighbourhood spatial plans (GLA 2015b). The NPPF requires local plans to address

“creation, protection, enhancement, and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure”, and emphasises the roles of green infrastructure in climate

Chapter 7 179 change adaptation (Momm-Schult et al. 2013, p. 98). The UK Government has released an Environment White Paper, which highlights commitments to protect and improve the natural environment, and ‘reconnect people and nature’ (UK DEFRA 2011). Also at the national level, Public Health England, an executive agency of the Department of

Health, has developed and annually updates a Heatwave Plan (UK PHE 2015). This multi-level policy context is summarised in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Key policies for London’s green spaces across three levels of government

Cities/urban planning Green space Climate change and heatwaves National Government National Planning The Natural Choice: Heatwave Plan (2015) Policy Framework securing the value of (2012) nature: Natural Environment White Paper (2011) Mayor of London, GLA London Plan (2011, rev All London Green Grid Climate change 2015) (2012) adaptation strategy (2011) Boroughs Development Plan Open space strategies Climate change Documents strategies

The overarching strategic land use directions for metropolitan London are defined by the London Plan, the ‘spatial development strategy’ developed by the Mayor of London

(GLA 2015b). The London Plan informs both the development of the Mayor’s and GLA’s other strategies related to its other responsibility areas (transport, environment, housing), as well as the development of the boroughs’ Local Development

Frameworks. The Mayor is responsible for keeping the London Plan ‘under review’ to ensure it reflects new information and updates related to population changes and other issues. Changes to the London Plan require a rigorous consultation process, which includes public consultation and scrutiny by the London Assembly.

The London Plan sets out the strategic vision and objectives for London and defines policies for an “an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20–25 years” (GLA 2015b, p.

14). The main body of the plan is composed of 122 policies across these sectors that elaborate the Plan’s vision and objectives, and provide guidance for their

Chapter 7 180 implementation. Local borough plans have to be in ‘general conformity’ with the

London Plan. The Plan provides the strategic framework for the greater metropolitan area, as well as providing specific guidance, research, data and expertise to inform boroughs’ local planning and implementation across a range of urban issues.

To support delivery of the London Plan, a number of supplementary plans and strategies are developed for specific issues and sectors. Of relevance for this research are the supplementary planning guidance The All London Green Grid (ALGG) (GLA

2012a) and the climate change adaptation strategy, Managing risks and increasing resilience (GLA 2011a). The Mayor must ensure that the policies that are specified within the London Plan are complemented by, consistent with, and integrated with the other mayoral strategies (GLA 2015b, p. 183). This serves to increase the potential for a

‘joined up approach’ (Massini 2016). While this may be achievable horizontally (across departments and strategies within the GLA), vertical integration is reliant to a large degree on establishing and maintaining relationships between different levels of government, including with the national government and London boroughs, and with neighbouring regional governments and other planning bodies.

The Mayor and GLA are limited in their capacity to directly implement actions. Their key implementation mechanisms are through “advocacy and persuasion” (Policy officer 37). They have little control over how their policies will be addressed or implemented by boroughs, including the quality of boroughs’ management of green space (Policy officer 37). However, there are a number of urban green space programs that the GLA delivers or partners to directly support achievement of London Plan policies. The programs address both actions to meet specific targets in the London Plan,

Adaptation Strategy or ALGG, as well as serving to raise awareness, engagement and broader involvement from London’s residents, businesses and other organisations.

Electoral cycles, and the change of politicians can impact policy stability and contribute to uncertainty amongst green space stakeholders (Policy officer 38). The focus and strengths of incumbents filling the role of Mayor also have substantial impacts on the work of the GLA. The first Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, focused on establishing

Chapter 7 181 a solid and rigorous policy framework, including for green space. The second Mayor of

London, Boris Johnson’s was more focused on action, and as a result, some of his commitments and announcements were less strongly strategically justified (Policy officer 36). For example, the Pocket Parks program was “retrofitted” to the GLA’s strategic priorities only after its public announcement (Policy officer 36). This reflection is supported by research that compared the different planning approaches of Mayor

Livingstone and Mayor Johnson (Holman and Thornley 2011). It found that Mayor

Livingstone’s policy and strategy development was characterised by a strong focus on sustainability, based in a precise, prescriptive and spatially specific approach, compared with Mayor Johnson’s “looser more individual notion of quality of life …

[that] never fully defines sustainability as it relates to strategic planning” (Holman and

Thornley 2011, p. 157). London’s green space policies developed by the Mayor of

London and GLA for the greater London area are assessed in the following section.

7.4 London’s green space policies analysis

This section examines the policies of the Mayor of London and Greater London

Authority within the three policy domains of cities and urban planning, green space and climate change adaptation. Policy data is supplemented by interviews with policy makers and supplementary sources (Table 7.2). Supplementary sources include reports related to the key greening programs delivered by GLA including the RE:LEAF tree planting program, Greening the Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), Pocket Parks and Wild West

End. These are largely delivered in partnership with other organisations including the

London Climate Change Partnership (established by Mayor Livingstone and currently jointly funded by the GLA and the UK Environment Agency), the Green Infrastructure

Taskforce, and the Cross River Partnership, as well as community and friends groups.

Chapter 7 182 Table 7.2 Mayor of London and GLA policies and interviews

Cities / urban planning Urban green space UHIE/Climate change Policy The London Plan 2011 The All London Green Climate change adaptation (rev 2015) Grid 2012 strategy 2011 Supplementary n.a. GLA reports for green GLA reports for green data space projects space projects Interviews 35 Consultant Policy Officer 36 Policy Officer 38 Policy Officer 37 (London Climate Change (GLA) Partnership)

At the time of this research, the environmental sustainability priorities for GLA and

London’s boroughs are more strongly focused on addressing air pollution and flooding than on green space (Policy Officer 37). Addressing air pollution and flooding has bipartisan support across the political spectrum of the 32 London boroughs, and with the Mayor of London. These issues are the current focus of shared attention both within forums such as the London Environment Coordinators Forum, a network of

London boroughs’ environment officers, as well as in shared advocacy efforts to the national government. In contrast, London’s green infrastructure and green space have broad support amongst boroughs and the GLA, and GLA policy officers reflected that there are currently no issues which require political advocacy (Policy Officer 36 and

37). “Because there’s bipartisan support for green space, it’s not discussed” (Policy

Officer 37). However, there is a risk that this may result in green space ‘disappearing off the agenda’ of focus and action amongst multi-level government participants, unless there are other means to maintain its policy and implementation ‘visibility’.

“Officers have to work hard to maintain the organisation’s policy focus” (Policy Officer

37).

The London Plan, the All London Green Grid (ALGG) and the climate change adaptation strategy are presented in the following sections, utilising the policy analysis framework to focus on the strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive elements associated with each plan, with interview data elaborating the policy data. These results presented in this chapter will be further analysed and discussed in the following chapter.

Chapter 7 183 Cities and urban planning

The London Plan’s vision for London includes achieving “the highest environmental standards and quality of life and leading the world in its approach to tackling the urban challenges of the 21st century, particularly that of climate change” (p. 43). As such, it declares its ambitions for a global leadership role for environmentally sustainable cities. Of the six objectives that underpin this vision, two directly address green space (p. 44):

 Objective 4 “A city that delight the senses … which makes the most of and extends its wealth of open and green spaces, natural environments and waterways, realising their potential for improving Londoners’ health, welfare and development.”  Objective 5 “A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment” The wording for objective 4 stands out in its connection with sensory, aesthetic and emotional concerns, in contrast with the more conventional strategic planning language in which the other objectives are expressed.

There are a large number of policies within the London Plan that relate to green space provision and management. The key policies specifically focused on green space and on urban heat mitigation are:

 Policy 2.18 Green infrastructure: the multifunctional network of green and open spaces (within the spatial strategy section)  Policy 5.10 Urban greening (within the section on response to climate change)  Policy 7.18 Protecting open space and addressing deficiency (within the section on ‘Protecting London’s open and natural environment’) The Plan recognises that green space provides a wide range of benefits and services to the city, “the myriad functions it performs” (GLA 2015b, p. 96). In defining the key green space policy (Policy 2.18, pp 94-97), the term ‘green infrastructure’ is used to highlight the interconnected functions of the network of green spaces. Policy 2.18 specifies that delivery of green infrastructure will be undertaken in partnership with a range of groups, including regional park authorities, and through the ALGG (which is examined in the following section of this chapter). Policy 2.18 requires boroughs to prepare green infrastructure strategies to support a strategic approach to green and open space planning and management (p. 95).

Chapter 7 184 The supporting text for Policy 2.18 (pp 96-97) identifies the other policies of the London

Plan to which green infrastructure contributes. The policies specifically related to green space are included in the London Plan’s chapters on London’s places, London’s response to climate change and London’s living spaces and places. In addition, there are a number of other policies that are also relevant to green space provision in the chapters for

London’s people, London’s economy, and London’s transport (though green space or green infrastructure are not explicitly listed). These multiple policy domains reinforce the potential for green space to act as a cross-departmental linkage, but also heighten the challenges for implementation, resourcing and policy ownership. Massini (2016) reflected that green infrastructure requires new governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and business cases that recognise and accommodate multiple benefits and functions. The policy challenges associated with green spaces’ multifunctionality will be further discussed in the following chapter.

Policies to address the UHIE and heatwaves are included in the section addressing climate change adaptation (pp 200-208). ‘Policy 5.10 Urban greening’ is included in this section. This policy includes specific targets for urban greening, including:

 “increase the amount of surface area greened in the Central Activities Zone by at least five per cent by 2030, and a further five per cent by 2050;” (p. 202)  “programme to plant another 10,000 street trees by 2015” (p. 202)  “the Mayor wishes to see an additional two million trees by 2025” (p. 202). The London Plan refers to the London climate change adaptation strategy as the “first such strategy for a major world city” (p. 183), and notes that the climate change strategy provides additional background material and actions. The climate change strategy is presented later in this chapter.

In seeking to protect open space and address deficiencies of access, Policy 7.18 (pp 304-

305) defines a ‘hierarchy of open space categories’ based on open space area and defines benchmark ‘distances from homes’. This policy seeks to ensure London’s residents have access to a range of different types, sizes and functions of green space within less than 400 m (for pocket parks of less than 0.4 ha) to up to 8 km (for regional parks of more than 400 ha).

Chapter 7 185 The London Plan lists 24 key performance indicators against which the plan’s implementation will be monitored and evaluated. Of these, five indicators are of direct relevance to green space.

London’s approach to land use planning and policy at the metropolitan scale provides an example of policy integration, both vertically and horizontally (Momm-Schult et al.

2013). Vertical integration is demonstrated through links to national and local planning, underpinned by the requirement for policies to be ‘in conformity’. Green infrastructure, as an area of policy focus, also acts as horizontal linkage between policy domains, being a key element of the ‘cross-cutting issue’ of London’s environment. The key analysis elements of the London Plan are summarised in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Greater London policy analysis: urban planning

London Plan Strategic Vision and objectives Vision for London: “the highest environmental standards and quality of life and leading the world in its approach to tackling the urban challenges of the 21st century, particularly that of climate change” (p. 43) Objectives: Objective 4 “delight the senses”; Objective 5 “improve the environment” (p. 44) Green space goal “work with all relevant strategic partners to protect, promote, expand and manage the extent and quality of, and access to, London’s network of green infrastructure” (p. 94) Green space targets Increase green space in Central Activities Zone by at least 5% by 2030 and a further 5% by 2050; Plant another 10,000 street trees by 2015; Additional 2 million trees by 2025 Green space definitions, “green infrastructure”; “multifunctional network” (p. 94); “benefits functions and benefits including, but not limited to, biodiversity; natural and historic landscapes; culture; building a sense of place; the economy; sport; recreation; production; mitigating and adapting to climate change; water management; social benefits that promote individual and community health and well-being”( p. 94); “myriad functions” (p. 96) Tactical Supporting strategies Climate Change Adaptation Strategy All London Green Grid supplementary planning guidance Partners (and community All London Green Grid groups; Boroughs; London Parks and Green engagement) Spaces Forum, The Royal Parks and other key stakeholders (p. 96) Operational Instruments and delivery Key policy: Policy 2.18 Green infrastructure: the multifunctional network mechanisms of green and open spaces (pp 94-97) Other green space policies: Policies 3.6, 5.9-5.13, 6.9-6.10, 7.4-7.5, 7.8, 7.14- 7.22, 7.24-7.30 Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Key performance indicators related to green space policies: 1, 3, 18, 22, 23 (pp 336-337)

Chapter 7 186 To support the application of Policy 2.18, and other green space policies, the supplementary planning guidance document the All London Green Grid was developed

(GLA 2012a). This guidance document forms part of the London Plan ‘implementation framework’, and is assessed in the following section.

Green space

The All London Green Grid (ALGG) (GLA 2012a) focuses specifically on ‘green infrastructure’, which is defined as the “multifunctional, interdependent network of open and green spaces and green features” (p. 135). The key emphasis and purpose of the document, highlighted in the Mayor’s Foreword (p. 7), is to consider strategic integration of London’s green space, both from the perspective of physical space (“a network spreading across the face of the capital”) as well as from the perspective of values or contribution (“to the quality of life, to the environment and to the economy”).

The ALGG does not have the formal status of the London Plan in directing the preparation of boroughs’ local development plans. Rather, it provides ‘non-statutory guidance’ to supplement the London Plan. The ALGG builds on the experience and approach of the East London Green Grid (GLA 2006), a strategic green space strategy that provided the basis for implementation partnerships for the East London gateway, which links to the Green Belt and Thames Estuary Parklands strategies to the east of

London. According to the ALGG, the East London Green Grid had been “extremely successful in accelerating delivery” (p. 15); the ALGG therefore consolidates and expands this approach across the entire greater London area.

The ALGG seeks to “promote a shift from grey to green infrastructure to secure environmental, social and economic benefits”, and to change the way Londoners perceive London’s green space, from discrete parcels of parks and open spaces, to an interconnected network, and an essential element of the city’s infrastructure. “By being connected, the value and function of the ALGG is significantly enhanced” (p. 12).

The ALGG identifies three aims (p. 12):

 Protect, conserve and enhance London’s strategic network of green and open natural and cultural spaces;

Chapter 7 187  Encourage greater use of, and engagement with, London’s green infrastructure;  Secure a network of “high quality, well designed and multifunctional green and open spaces to establish a crucial component of urban infrastructure able to address the environmental challenges of the 21st century – most notably climate change”. The objective is to “plan and manage networks of natural and cultural landscapes and open spaces strategically so as to conserve ecosystem functions and provide a range of benefits for people” (p. 13). The ALGG highlights delivery mechanisms through partnerships, integration into the planning process, identification and delivery of projects, and securing funding. The plan lists 13 functions of the green infrastructure network, and maps green space provision and deficiencies for each of these. The ALGG provides guidance on the implementation of the London Plan’s policies through specification of seven ‘implementation points’ or mechanisms, in addition to the detailed mapping and strategic assessment of the green grid areas. It then considers each of the eleven green grid areas that make up the All London Green Grid. Each green grid area is mapped, showing the strategic components of the open space network, including strategic corridors and linkages, parks, and strategic cycling and walking routes, and park opportunities. The information is intended to inform boroughs’ development plans and open space plans. Local green grid area groups are also identified (p. 141).

The ALGG explicitly identifies vertical policy integration with national and local strategies and plans, and emphasises a partnership approach. It acknowledges the wide range of available (and necessary) expertise to include in developing and implementing plans (p. 27). Stakeholders include other levels of government and government agencies, community groups and the private sector, including the development industry and business improvement districts (BIDs), which are “defined areas within which businesses pay an additional tax, fee or financial contribution to fund improvements” (p. 134). Key elements of the ALGG are summarised in Table 7.4.

Chapter 7 188 Table 7.4 Greater London policy analysis: green space

All London Green Grid Strategic Vision and objectives “create a well designed green infrastructure network of interlinked, multi-purpose open and green spaces with good connections to the places where people live and work … provide a richly varied landscape that will benefit both people and wildlife providing diverse uses to appeal to, and be accessible by, all” (p. 26) “high quality multifunctional green infrastructure network that maximises the opportunities for improving quality of life and contributes to implementing a range of policies in the London Plan” (p. 26) “promote a shift from grey to green infrastructure to secure environmental, social and economic benefits” (p. 12) Objective: “plan and manage networks of natural and cultural landscapes and open spaces strategically so as to conserve ecosystem functions and provide a range of benefits for people” (p. 13) Green space goal Aims: 1. Protect, conserve and enhance London’s strategic network of green spaces; 2. Encourage greater use of, and engagement with, London’s green infrastructure; 3. Secure a network of high quality, well designed and multifunctional green spaces to address the environmental challenges of climate change (p. 12) Green space targets None explicitly listed; green grid maps identify areas of green space deficiencies Green space definitions, “multifunctional, interdependent network of open and green spaces and functions and benefits green features (e.g. green roofs)” (p. 135) “provides multiple benefits for people and wildlife including: flood management; urban cooling; improving physical and mental health; green transport links (walking and cycling routes); wildlife habitats and ecological connectivity; and food growing” (p. 135) Green grid functions: 13 identified, (p. 14) Tactical Supporting strategies Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Other strategies identified in the London Plan Boroughs’ open space strategies Partners (and community “include local community groups, London boroughs, Government engagement) departments and their agencies; green space managers; subregional and cross boundary organisations and partnerships; regeneration and environmental organisations; the green space and green infrastructure jobs and skills sector; and across the London administrative boundary with, for example, the GreenArc Partnership” (p. 34) Appendix 3, Partnership organisations (pp 141-142) Operational Instruments and delivery Partnerships, integration into local planning processes, identification mechanisms and delivery of projects, securing funding (p. 16) Implementation points: 7 identified, addressing protection (p. 20), partnerships (p. 34), governance (p. 35), planning integration (p. 36), delivery (p. 36), management (p. 37) and achieving benefits (p. 40) Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not specified; collection of monitoring data by Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) (p. 35)

Chapter 7 189 London’s green space planning demonstrates the bidirectional influences between the multiple levels of government. The national government directs regional and local policy development and implementation. While the GLA must be in conformity with national policy, the GLA directly influenced the development of the national Natural

Environment White Paper, through the research, experience and policy directions set out in the ALGG (Policy officer 36). However, within this multi-level context, the gaps in national policy drivers impact the content, focus and coverage of policies at lower levels. For example, Policy officer 37 reflected on how water quality regulations in USA have driven substantial policy development for green infrastructure, linked to water sensitive urban design. The UK lacks this regulatory focus, as well as having different land ownership and government arrangements related to urban water management.

The differences in the underlying policy drivers serve to limit the extent to which policy elements can be translated between cities, the replicability of different cities’ policy experience and the potential for policy learning and diffusion at an officer or administrative level: “it’s a fundamentally different governance structure so, that’s a political decision, it’s not a technical decision” (Policy officer 37).

The ALGG is a comprehensive and rigorous strategic document, which also provides detailed practical local guidance, and a basis for ongoing collaboration.

Notwithstanding its lack of formal status or enforceability, the ALGG strongly addresses the both the high level strategic and tactical elements as well as the practical, operational elements, and as such arguably provides a solid policy foundation for green space implementation in London. It also serves as a comprehensive template for other cities’ policy approaches to strategic and integrated green space planning and implementation.

Chapter 7 190 Climate change and UHIE

The Mayor’s climate change adaptation strategy Managing risks and increasing resilience

(GLA 2011a) highlights the roles of ‘greening London’ in contributing to adaptation, particularly in addressing future overheating and flooding impacts, as well as in providing “tangible benefits in the present” (p. 5). The strategy is directed towards

“improving the quality of life of Londoners and making the city more sustainable” (p.

7). The strategy highlights London’s vulnerability to heatwaves, and presents the climate change projections that indicate there will be hotter, drier summers with more frequent and intense heatwaves (p. 12). Consistent with its focus on risk management

(reflected in the title of Managing risks and increasing resilience), the strategy emphasises that adapting to climate change is “as much about the economy, quality of life and social equality, as about the environment” (p. 12). It reinforces that green spaces will be important in increasing resilience and improving quality of life (p. 12).

The strategy aims to identify climate change impacts and associated actions “to protect and enhance the quality of life of Londoners” (p. 19). The strategy identifies nine objectives, which relate to resilience of existing and new infrastructure, the role of businesses, public sector organisations and others in climate change adaptation, raising awareness of impacts and adaptation, and promoting and facilitating adaptation of the natural environment (pp 19-20). Green space is addressed in relation to Heatwaves

(Chapter 5 of the strategy), and Environment (Chapter 7 of the strategy). There are also references to green space in relation to Flooding (Chapter 3).

To address Heatwaves, the strategy provides detailed background information on the

UHIE, extreme weather and heatwaves, mapping and identifying areas of vulnerability, and key measures for managing the risks. The strategy specifies a partnership approach to mapping risk areas to prioritise actions; increasing the amount of green space and vegetation; focusing on both new and existing development and infrastructure; and ensuring London has a ‘robust’ heatwave plan (p. 66). There are 11 associated actions, four of which are explicitly related to green space and include specific quantified targets for implementation (p. 66), the lead and partner

Chapter 7 191 organisations and delivery due dates (pp 112-115). For all of the four green space actions, the GLA is listed as the lead organisation, and boroughs, private sector, and voluntary sector as implementation partners (p. 113). Of these four actions, two are expected to be delivered within 12 months (by winter 2012): ‘enhancing’ 1,000 ha of green space; and constructing 100,000 m2 of new green roofs.

The strategy frames London’s environment (Chapter 7) as a ‘cross-cutting issue’ which is therefore cross-referenced with a number of other chapters and actions within the strategy. Within the Environment chapter, the concept of ecosystem services is applied to describe green spaces’ multifunctionality. The only action listed for this chapter is for the Mayor to “work with the Environment Agency and other partners to restore

15 km of London’s rivers by 2015 through the London Rivers Action Plan” (p. 90).

As part of the Environment chapter, the strategy identifies the potential increase of pests and diseases as a risk for the natural environment, but there are no actions identified to manage these risks. Research has argued that climate change impacts of warmer, drier summers for London will put increased stress on trees and vegetation (Doick et al.

2014). Drought impacts, combined with pests and diseases, are likely to impact vegetation health and vigour (Tubby and Webber 2010). Doick et al. (2014) provided specific response recommendations, including diversification in urban green space forms and sizes, to include small wooded green spaces, green roofs and cool pavements, in addition to the large open or grassed green spaces currently preferred by urban planners. Although these research recommendations are not explicitly addressed as specific actions in the Environment chapter, they have been addressed in various actions within the climate change adaptation strategy.

The key elements of the climate change strategy are summarised in Table 7.5.

Chapter 7 192 Table 7.5 Greater London policy analysis: climate change

Climate change adaptation strategy Strategic Vision and objectives “improving the resilience of the city to extreme weather and long term climatic changes … to preserve and enhance our quality of life and prosperity for generations to come” (p. 5) Headline message: “Restoring greenspaces and building community capacity will increase our resilience and improve our quality of life” (p. 12) Aim: assess the consequences of climate change, prepare for impacts and enhance Londoners’ quality of life (p. 19) Objectives: 9 identified (pp 19-20) Green space goal “increase the amount of green space cover, by protecting existing green spaces and encouraging new opportunities for ‘urban greening’, or materials that mimic urban greening” (p. 73) Green space targets  enhance 1,000 ha of green space by 2012 (p. 66)  increase green cover in central London by 5% by 2030 and a further 5% by 2050 (p. 66)  increase tree cover across London by 5% (from 20 to 25%) by 2025 (p. 66)  delivery of 100,000 m2 of new green roofs by 2012 (from 2008/09 baseline) (p. 66)  restore 15 km of London’s rivers by 2015 (p. 90) Green space definitions, Green infrastructure: network of interlinked, multifunctional and functions and benefits high quality open and green spaces (p. 8) Ecosystem services provided by green infrastructure include: reducing flood risk, offsetting urban heat island effect, reducing energy demand, reducing air and noise pollution, supporting biodiversity, providing recreation and leisure (p. 90) Tactical Supporting strategies London Plan; ALGG; London Rivers Action Plan Partners (and community Environment Agency, London Climate Change Partnership, Public engagement) Health England, Boroughs, private sector, voluntary sector Operational Instruments and delivery Key policy: mechanisms Policy 3, “managing rising temperatures by increasing the amount of green space and vegetation in the city” (p. 66) Actions 5.3-5.6: “work with partners to manage rising temperatures by increasing green space and vegetation cover in the city” (p. 66) Other green space related policies: Policy 1, reducing and managing flood risk Action 7.1 restore 15 km of London’s rivers Delivery mechanisms: Not specified

Reflexive Monitoring and evaluation Not specified (feasibility study for temperature and weather monitoring to be undertaken by LCCP (p. 71))

Chapter 7 193 GLA’s approach emphasises the necessity and value in partnerships, collaboration and seeking input and expertise from a range of sources including research scientists, building managers, architects, health professionals and so on. Examples of collaborative green space programs that address actions specified in the ALGG and the climate change adaptation strategy are provided in Box 7.1.

Box 7.1 GLA’s partnership programs

Wild West End aims to encourage biodiversity in London’s West End by enhancing connections between green spaces through the installation of green roofs, walls street trees and planter boxes. The program (which at the time of this research was still in its early stages, having been launched in October 2015) works in partnership with major property owners and real estate developers (Reil et al. 2016, p. 8).

Pocket Parks aims to improve the smallest green spaces across London, including streets, squares and parks, with the Mayor’s commitment to provide funding to local residents and communities for greening 100 pocket parks (GLA 2012b).

RE:LEAF is focused on implementation of the target of increasing tree cover by 5% by 2025 (Climate change adaptation strategy action no. 5.5). The program seeks to encourage partnerships for tree protection, planting and management, by providing community grants for tree planting and management; collecting data and undertaking research; and collecting philanthropic and sponsorship support (GLA 2011b).

Greening the Business Improvement Districts (Cross River Partnership 2016) is delivered as a partnership with the BIDs of the dense Central Activity Zone. The program provides ‘green infrastructure audits’ to BIDS, to identify opportunities for green infrastructure installation, including green roofs and walls, as well as rain gardens. The program contributes specifically to implementation of the climate change adaptation strategy’s Action 5.4, as well as to developing mechanisms for provision of private funding, in the context of shrinking public budget allocations (Reil et al. 2016, pp. 7-8).

Chapter 7 194 Summary: High-profile influence: “We’ll direct … please implement and comply”

London’s metropolitan-scale Mayor and GLA provide a consistent vision and approach (Figure 7.2), and a forum for coordination, but their effectiveness is limited by their lack of capacity to implement policies or enforce others’ policy implementation. The approach is characterised as high visibility influence:

“We’ll direct … please implement and comply” (Policy officer 36)

Figure 7.2 London’s multi-level green space policies and programs

London’s approach highlights the ongoing need for developing and maintaining working relationships within the multi-level government context. London’s metropolitan-scale government’s limitations related to delivery, funding and authority constrain its ability to ensure effective implementation of its detailed strategic plans and objectives. It has no control over the quality or consistency of implementation of its green space strategies by the boroughs (Policy officer 37). After the policies and

Chapter 7 195 strategies have been written and endorsed, the Mayor and GLA act as spectators, observing policy implementation, for which the boroughs are largely responsible.

London Assembly’s role is limited to scrutiny of the Mayor, so it also has a spectator role, even further removed from policy implementation. Nonetheless, the Mayor has a substantial role in leadership, and establishing and communicating the vision for policies, acting to provide the overarching and consistent spatial and strategic direction. Furthermore, the requirement that the London Plan and its associated strategies are in conformity with each other reinforces a consistent approach, and underpins the necessity for interdepartmental linkages, “creating the conditions for policy to be more joined up, an approach long-championed by those in ecological disciplines but largely eschewed by [government] departments” (Massini 2016, p. 284).

Major challenges lie in finding the physical spaces to establish additional green spaces, particularly in the dense central activity zone, where, during hot weather, “the city is stifling, it can’t breathe” (Policy officer 38). Given the densely packed urban area, identifying how and where green spaces can be incorporated, and how targets for increased green space and tree cover can be met is difficult (GLA 2015a). This reinforces the importance of broadening the policy and implementation responses to incorporate partnerships and encouraging broader policy ownership amongst non- government stakeholders. The green infrastructure audits undertaken as part of the

Greening the BIDs program are an example of GLA’s approach to addressing these challenges.

The success factors in greater London’s approach to green space policy include the

Mayor’s high level support, underpinned by the solid and well-founded strategic planning and policy base (Policy officer 36). This high level support also serves to drive efforts to identify and access alternative sources of funds for implementation (for example sponsorship, philanthropy, contributions from surrounding businesses, and so on). Provision of adequate and secure funding is a key enabler of implementation.

While all the policy analysis elements are addressed at least to some extent in greater

London’s policy approaches to green space, the Mayor’s and GLA’s roles are largely

Chapter 7 196 effective strategically and tactically, but less so operationally. However, the impact of different approaches to strategic planning brought by the different Mayors also highlights the vulnerability of a governance structure predicated on election of a single high profile Mayor. Where Mayor Livingstone established a solid, strategic foundation for sustainability in metropolitan planning and implementation, Mayor Johnson’s

“more conciliatory and pragmatic approach” risked a retreat from a strongly stated leadership and innovation approach to one that “shuffles along in pragmatism”

(Holman and Thornley 2011, p. 157).

7.5 Summary

This chapter has presented the results of the assessment of London’s green space policy approach. London, as one of the “greenest big cities in the world”, provides an effective demonstration of approaches to integration of green space into a large urban area. Its green spaces reflect hundreds of years of urban development and change. As well as its sense of history, London also shows very modern approaches to treating its green spaces within the context of addressing challenges of urban densification, heatwaves, flooding and climate change. Its understanding of green space as green infrastructure, as an essential element of its urban infrastructure systems providing ecosystem services, has contributed to raising its importance and profile with urban managers and planners. The strong support of the Mayor of London, backed by solid and rigorous strategic planning provides some buffer for green space planning and implementation in the face of funding and development pressures.

The following chapter brings together the assessment of London’s green space policies, with the assessment of Melbourne’s approaches presented in the previous chapter, to address the research questions and to discuss key themes, issues and opportunities.

The chapter considers the role of framing and narratives, in the context of complex systems and the research’s conceptual framework of urban ecology, policy research and sustainability transitions, to elaborate on how policies can contribute to retaining and maximising green spaces, as part of efforts to create liveable and equitable cities.

Chapter 7 197 Chapter 8. Analysis and discussion

8.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the results presented in the previous three chapters. The key practical, theoretical and methodological contributions of this research are analysed and discussed in the context of the research reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3. First, the assessments of Melbourne’s and London’s green space policies are discussed. The key issues associated with urban green space policies as part of urban sustainability transitions are identified and examined. These include the integration into urban systems of green space as a technological innovation; multifunctional governance; and the role of green space framing and narratives in the context of complex systems and urban liveability. This analysis seeks to explicitly address the research question of how green space policies can contribute to cooling urban areas to mitigate the urban heat island effect, as one of many of green spaces’ benefits, and as part of broader efforts to create liveable and equitable cities. Following the discussion of the practical and theoretical contributions, the analytical framework is reviewed, to reflect on how it supported and directed the qualitative analysis (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1 Development of research results and contributions

Chapter 8 198 8.2 Practical perspectives: green space policy approaches

This section discusses the key practical contributions this research has made. First, a brief summary is provided of Melbourne’s and London’s context for green space policies and the different approaches to green space policies for each jurisdiction.

Following this, examples of the different types of policy mechanisms for green space from across the jurisdictions are provided. The research proposes that the different policy mechanisms contribute different types of outcomes that can be conceptually linked to the trajectory of sustainability transitions towards regenerative development and nature-based cities. The key policy success factors and how these factors relate to

Transition Management are then discussed. This section concludes with consideration of the limits of policy approaches, which are also conceptually linked to Transition

Management’s insights on sustainability transition governance (Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2 Practical contributions

8.2.1 Overview of Melbourne and London

This research has assessed the green space policies for Melbourne, with a complementary study of London’s green space policies. In terms of research approaches, Lawrence et al. (2013) argued that comparisons between cities, even those of different scale and contexts, can provide useful insights. Such comparisons can progress understandings of the complexities of development and implementation of green space policies and can promote learning from the range of innovative approaches (Lawrence et al. 2013). The application of an analysis framework to policies across all jurisdictions (both within and between cities) underpins the analysis process, including identification of key similarities and differences. Melbourne’s and London’s urban policy, government and green space contexts are summarised in Table 8.1.

Chapter 8 199 Table 8.1 Government and green space contexts for Melbourne and London

Melbourne (Chapters 5 and 6) London (Chapter 7) Multi-level Federation with Constitutional National government and one or two government recognition of federal government and levels of regional and local governments. eight state and territory governments; London has two levels of regional and multiple subordinate local government local governments: the Mayor of London authorities (councils), lacking in power and the London Assembly; and the 32 beyond that granted by their respective local boroughs and City of London. state governments. Metropolitan Metropolitan government by Victorian Metropolitan government by the Mayor of government state government, whose responsibilities London, with specific, limited powers, and extend beyond the metropolitan area to limited role in direct implementation of encompass the State of Victoria; 32 local policies; the 25 member London governments within the Melbourne Assembly’s role is largely limited to metropolitan area. scrutiny of Mayor and Greater London Authority’s (GLA) budget and expenditure; local boroughs and City of London responsible for implementation, and for ensuring local plans are in conformity with metropolitan plans. Green space Uneven distribution of public and private London is one of the greenest large cities green space; incremental reduction of in the world, yet green space is unevenly inner circle of parks, and of ‘green distributed; substantial areas in parks, but wedges’ areas through development deficiencies in denser areas, substantial processes; substantial areas of open space green space within the Green Belt that associated with waterways and major circles the metropolitan area. metropolitan parks. Urban Densification in inner urban areas; urban Urban development ‘leapfrogging’ development renewal in brownfields areas; substantial London’s Green Belt and extending into urban development on fringes (outer surrounding countryside and villages urban growth areas). Green space Federal government’s role largely funding Mayor of London and GLA have strong policy provision; substantial associated influence policy platform and policy authority, but integration on implementation through specification limited role in policy implementation; and authority of targets and funding allocations. local boroughs largely responsible for Victorian government lacks current implementation. GLA also works in metropolitan green space policy, partnership with other organisations and weakening its capacity for a strategic, businesses to increase green space metropolitan-wide approach. Victorian implementation. water and road authorities, owners of substantial areas of public open space, have developed specific green space policy mechanisms. Local governments have multiple policies related to green space, but lack power in state-local government relationships, and have limited resources for funding implementation and ongoing management. Policy drivers Climate change adaptation and Climate change adaptation: Thames mitigation: urban heat, drought; health flooding, urban heat; economic and well-being; environmental competitiveness. sustainability stewardship. Leadership and ‘global city’ competition. Leadership and inter-city competition.

Chapter 8 200 In comparing the adoption of green space policies across different cities, ‘frontrunner’ and ‘follower’ characterisations have been used in some representations (for example

EC 2015). However, this research has acknowledged the different contexts within which the local government jurisdictions are operating, and the varied challenges and issues that they confront in addressing green space and urban heat. Therefore, rather than distinguishing between jurisdictions on the basis of ‘frontrunner’ and ‘follower’ cities (which may be seen as implied judgement of the extent of development or sophistication of their approaches), this research proposes descriptors that highlight the strengths and internalised, organisational characterisations for each government jurisdiction assessed. These descriptors were developed based on the themes that arose from analysing interview and policy data (Table 8.2).

Table 8.2 Approaches to green space policy

Jurisdiction Approach to urban green space policy Melbourne, Australia Federal Funding: “We’ve got the funding, we’ll set your targets” (Section 6.3) State of Victoria Building the evidence base: “Articulating the problem and the solution” (Section 6.4) City of Melbourne (CoM) Demonstration: “We’ll show you how it’s done” (Section 6.5.1) Moreland City Council (MCC) Collaboration: “We can’t do this on our own” (Section 6.5.2) Hume City Council (HCC) Quiet experimentation: “Always a push, always a compromise” (Section 6.5.3) London, UK Mayor of London and GLA High-profile influence: “We’ll direct … please implement, and comply” (Chapter 7)

A key challenge experienced by each of the governments is integrating new approaches to green space management into existing maintenance approaches, and budget constraints. Each of Melbourne’s local governments analysed in this research take different approaches. CoM has addressed this by the Urban Landscapes (policy and design) branch leading the on-ground implementation of many new aspects of urban forest implementation, rather than the existing on-ground subcontractors, that operate within set budgets and maintenance regimes (Project coordinator 22, Urban forester 23). MCC’s sustainability team has attempted to build broad policy ownership across departments, by inviting their involvement in policy development from the earliest stage, and reinforcing the necessity for shared responsibility for

Chapter 8 201 implementation (Team leader 29). HCC’s green space managers take a different approach, by actively informing, educating and inspiring their on-ground staff

(Manager 32, Team leader 33). For example, a day-long professional development seminar on tree establishment and management was held in November 2016, formally opened by HCC’s Mayor, and featuring a range of topics on green space forms, functions, management techniques, and local government roles and responsibilities.

Rather than holding the event only as an internal professional development requirement, attendance was opened to other councils and promoted via professional networks. This contributes to raising the profile and sense of significance of the work amongst HCC’s staff, and serves to simultaneously build and demonstrate high level

(mayoral) interest and support, as well as contributing to information sharing and policy learning with other local councils (Councillor 31, Team leader 33).

At state government level, policy makers emphasised a considered approach to policy development, based on collecting evidence and credible quantified facts, to provide the platform from which policy change can be rigorously justified (Planner 4, Project officer 9). However, state government policies are prone to substantial shifts with the electoral cycle. In comparison, local government policies and strategic positions appear less affected by electoral cycles, even with the requirement for four year planning cycles imposed on them by state-based legislation.

In Melbourne, a key difference between the state and local government approaches to policy making for green space is in their respective engagement with experimentation and innovation. While all three local governments analysed demonstrated openness to trial new approaches and technologies (Urban forester 23, Team leader 29, Manager

32), the state government appeared much less prepared to engage with innovations, trials and experimentation, and state-level policy makers emphasised the careful collection of data to support policy positions. This may in part reflect their different roles, particularly in land use planning. State government is responsible for setting the

Victorian planning provisions (VPP), and is very cognisant of development and construction interests, and very careful about introducing policy that may result in

Chapter 8 202 increased costs. The local governments included in this research, on the other hand, tended to adopt an ’innovation’ approach to sustainability that seeks to push state government planning and policy positions, integrate local approaches and reflect local priorities (Councillor 26, Team leader 29). In effect, State government carefully sets the minimum standards, while local government appears more willing to push improvement and innovation. This approach however is patchily expressed within each local government, with sustainability-focused teams being more engaged with experimentation than some other departments that have long-standing established processes and methodologies (Planner 28). The federal government is currently effectively absent from most urban green space policy making; its key involvement is through defining and allocating funding programs and setting implementation targets.

London’s approach is characterised by an uneasy combination of defining the strategic directions to which boroughs must follow, but then being largely powerless in how the boroughs implement the policies (Policy officer 36, Policy officer 37). The Mayor’s and

GLA’s role of ‘influencer’ has generated and supported implementation amongst businesses, through programs such as Greening the Business Improvement Districts and with individuals and community groups through programs such as Pocket Parks.

The inclusion of London as a complementary study provided insights into the benefits and limitations of its approach to metropolitan government and how this impacts on implementation of green space policies by the subordinate level of government

(London boroughs). London’s green space policies have formalised strategic linkages with the overarching strategic spatial London Plan and active support from the Mayor.

London’s green space policies have has also provided examples of the opportunities for embedding green space approaches into other stakeholders’ priorities, including

Business Improvement Districts and local communities (through Pocket Parks program).

This section has discussed the different approaches to green space policies across the jurisdictions considered in this research. The next section considers the range of policy mechanisms applied to green space provision. These findings inform the identification of policy success factors and their relationship to Transition Management.

Chapter 8 203 8.2.2 Policy mechanisms

Public policies achieve their objectives and goals through defining specific mechanisms or instruments for implementation. These can be categorised into four different types of mechanism: government provision or demonstration; information and engagement; incentives and awards; and regulations (Maddison and Denniss 2013). Using this policy intervention/mechanism typology, green space policy approaches have been identified across the four different intervention types. Examples of green space policy mechanisms drawn from the policies considered in this research, and indicating the associated mechanism type are summarised in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 Urban green space policy mechanisms

Policy mechanism type Example Government provision Install and maintain green space in public spaces and demonstration Create parks from street closures or realignment Opportunistic public works (utilities/ easements management) Water sensitive urban designs integrated with street tree plantings Install greenery innovation (green roofs) on government-owned buildings Information and Research and implementation partnerships: universities, peak bodies engagement Community information, engagement, participation, including community plantings, citizen science, participatory planning and decision making on green space design and implementation Guidelines, toolkits, seminars, green roof tours: urban greening; green roofs, etc. Incentives and awards Incentives during the planning process:  increased floor area ratios with increased green space provision  ‘green door’ fast tracking of approvals for those which incorporate urban greenery features (e.g. green roofs, walls, open space, etc.)  Waiving planning fees  Exempt certain works related to urban green space Stormwater fee discount with increased pervious surfaces Grants, rebates, financing for installation of urban greenery features Awards and prizes Regulations Developer contributions (financial or land) for public open space Regulations, mandated for particular types of development, using Green Star model (Green Star Communities rating tool; ENV 3 UHI) Planning scheme overlays for ‘hot spots’ (based on temperature data): require specific heat mitigation treatments for private development Protection for heritage-listed trees Protection of public trees: penalties for damage

Chapter 8 204 The four different types of policy mechanisms address different intervention challenges and opportunities, as well as focusing on different stages in uptake and adoption of niche innovations. Government provision or demonstration works to build the vision and shared narrative (and “walk the talk”), as well as supporting industry and skills development and experimentation. Information and engagement delivers the communication and builds broader community support, which underpins continuing political support (Councillor 26, Team leader 21). It also contributes to skills and capacity development (Project coordinator 22). Regulations set minimum standards, and incentives encourage and support innovation. In this way, policy mechanisms can calibrate implementation standards: regulations act to establish ‘baseline’ performance or practice, while incentives inspire efforts to best practice (Table 8.4). Furthermore, regulations by necessity are underpinned by an ‘evidence base’, while incentives create and test innovation for building an evidence base for increasingly ambitious policy.

Table 8.4 Policy mechanisms and associated outcomes sought

Mechanism Focus Government provision or Building a shared vision demonstration Development and demonstration of innovations, new approaches and technologies, industry skills and capacities Provision for public service Prioritisation to address inequities and vulnerabilities Information and engagement Support a shared vision and sense of urban green space stewardship Build broad-based skills Build and maintain political support Incentives and awards Foster ambition and innovation Encourage and support best practice Regulations Require compliance Define and enforce minimum standards

The four types of policy mechanisms, understood and characterised in this way, can be conceptualised as part of sustainability transitions. This research proposes that ‘nature- based cities’ are the normative goal of these urban transitions, which can be conceptualised as follows. Monofunctional, grey infrastructure can be understood as being part of conventional ‘technical systems’ as conceptualised by Mang and Reed

(2012b), and representative of mechanical solutions and segregated land uses (Lennon and Scott 2016). The inclusion of green infrastructure into urban systems is part of

Chapter 8 205 larger sustainability transitions from urban socio-technical systems to social-ecological systems (Abson et al. 2017; Andersson et al. 2014) and encompasses the transition to regenerative development and living system design (Mang and Reed 2012b) and to nature-based solutions and ‘integrated land uses’ (Lennon and Scott 2016).

The integration of nature-based solutions, which are by definition multifunctional elements of urban infrastructure, into urban social-ecological systems, creates a sustainability transition trajectory towards the normative goal of ‘nature-based cities’.

A ‘nature-based city’ could be understood as a city within nature (rather than ‘nature in the city’), with nature-based solutions underpinning provision of multifunctional urban infrastructure systems, diverse human-nature connections (Fink 2016; Ives et al.

2017) and stewardship of the biosphere (Andersson et al. 2014; Elmqvist et al. 2013).

Returning to considerations of policy mechanisms, the distinct roles and actions of the different types of policy mechanisms can be represented along the sustainability transition trajectory to nature-based cities (Figure 8.3), reinforcing the necessity of multiple mechanisms for achieving sustainability outcomes in complex urban systems.

Figure 8.3 Policy mechanisms that support transitions to nature-based cities

Chapter 8 206 The curved lines reflect the flexibility and potential responsiveness of the application of government provision and of engagement and information, while the straight lines reflect the relative rigidity of defined regulations and incentives programs.

Examples of policy mechanisms that act to support the transition to nature-based cities, promoting or pushing innovation, and encouraging an engaged and informed community are provided in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5 Policy mechanisms that support transitions

Policy mechanism Mechanisms that support the transition to nature-based cities type Regulations Regulations that set minimum standards, and that are periodically recalibrated to increase performance Victoria: Victorian Planning Provisions: Clause 56: minimum public open space provisions City of Melbourne: Exceptional tree register: requirement for permit to prune, lop or destroy listed tree Moreland City Council: Planning scheme: Environmentally sustainable development policy (includes requirement for tree planting above minimum standard set in VPP) Government Provision and demonstration that utilises and inspires innovation, supports provision and development of industry skills and capacity, demonstration City of Melbourne: Errol St conversion of road space to parkland City of Melbourne: CH2 green roof installation and ongoing operation Moreland City Council: Pop up parks on unused road space in areas with low open space provision Hume City Council: Professional development seminars on urban tree planning Hume City Council: Tanderrum Way (beside the City Library and Council office) tree planting into structural soils Engagement and Engagement and information that inspires action and innovation, and empowers information recipients of information Victoria and City of Melbourne: Growing Green Guide City of Melbourne: Canopy seminar series for green roof industry participants City of Melbourne: Email a tree and urban forest infographic City of Melbourne: Urban Forester engagement program Moreland City Council: Town hall meetings to consult on strategy development Hume City Council: Live Green program Incentives, awards Incentives, awards and grants that recognise and reward innovation, best practice and grants Victoria: annual Premier’s Sustainability Awards City of Melbourne: Greening your laneways funding and information program

Chapter 8 207 However, not all policy mechanisms act to support transitions to nature-based cities.

Policy mechanisms may simply reinforce minimum, baseline standards, or even work to hinder or resist transitions (Figure 8.4). Regulations may be set to define maximum provision or a ceiling on compliance rather than minimum standards for which innovators can exceed. Examples of mechanisms that hinder sustainability transitions are provided in Table 8.6.

Figure 8.4 Policy mechanisms that hinder transitions to nature-based cities

Chapter 8 208 Table 8.6 Policy mechanisms that hinder transitions

Policy mechanism Mechanisms that hinder the transition to nature-based cities Regulations Specify maximum standards or ‘ceiling’ below which implementation must comply Victoria: VicRoads tree planting policy: limits to where trees can be planted Victorian Planning Provisions: Small lot housing code: reduces required area of pervious surface, and associated space for vegetation Government provision Limited provision; demonstration of low standards; lack of innovative approaches and demonstration Victoria: VicRoads tree planting policy: road extension works with associated tree removal Moreland City Council: Reduced park irrigation in summer to reduce maintenance and mowing requirements Engagement and Information that reinforces compliance with minimum standards; engagement and information consultation that is limited to basic information provision Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones Incentives, awards Incentives, grants and awards that maintain business-as-usual approaches without and grants fostering innovation and best-practice Federal Australia: 20 Million Trees program: Funding for tree planting without associated funding for tree establishment and maintenance; tree planting targets that are set so high as to push implementation to easier-to- plant areas rather than strategically prioritised areas

This research reinforces calls for the inclusion of multiple policy mechanism types in the design of environmental policies (for example Dovers and Hussey 2013), as the different mechanisms focus on different stages of sustainability transitions, and act in different ways to affect green space policy implementation. Furthermore, while regulation is often the first option identified for encouraging widespread adoption of new technologies and practices (Farrelly and Brown 2011, p. 728), it is likely that other policy mechanisms will be more effective at driving innovation and uptake.

For policies to successfully contribute to retaining and maximising green space, they need to both prevent loss as well as promote gain of green spaces (Community group member 18). They need to address a varied range of small- and large-scale processes, from loss of individual scattered trees across established suburbs, to replacement of green space with paved impervious surfaces, to larger scale removal of green space for housing and infrastructure in growth areas and in established areas (Project officer 9,

Policy officer 15). They need to apply across different types of ownership (public and private), and land use (residential, spanning single dwelling, multi-unit developments, multi-storey apartments, and growth area estates; commercial; and industrial).

Chapter 8 209 Policies for public land need to address both loss of open space for new infrastructure and facilities (such as roads, and built form), as well as incorporating and maintaining new areas of open space, balancing open space uses and functions, and ensuring compliance with minimum distances for access as stipulated in the Victorian Planning

Provisions (VPP) (Project manager 5, Strategic planner 11). Opportunities for increasing green space within established built areas will necessitate constructing green roofs and walls; repurposing land such as road space, carparks or utilities’ easements, and through purchasing land with developer contributions (Team leader 21).

The VPP essentially constitutes only one type of policy mechanism: regulation. The

VPP and planning scheme provisions are the main green space policies applicable to

Melbourne’s private land. While regulation is often assumed to be the most ‘powerful’ mechanism for ensuring action, there is a lack of evaluation on the extent of application or enforcement of specific provisions. Integrating a range of other policy mechanism types is likely to contribute to increased effectiveness of green space policy overall. In addition, more comprehensively integrating and cross-referencing policies may strengthen implementation, uptake and build broader political support; London’s integration of green space policies with the London Plan and the requirement for local policies to be in conformity provides an example of this approach. Policy integration will be further discussed in the following section of this chapter.

In the case of green roofs and walls, this research has found that practical approaches and existing examples are not yet widespread in Australia, and there is an associated lack of broad-based industry experience on the technical and financial aspects of installation and maintenance. Uncertainty and inexperience leads to developers’ wariness in including these features (Urban designer 6, Developer 8). This reinforces the importance of policy mechanisms that target government demonstration and provision, and provide education, incentives and awards, to develop industry capacity and skills, before their installation can be more broadly mandated in regulation.

This research has argued that a range of policy mechanisms is required to support implementation and innovation. As such, the inclusion of a range of mechanisms

Chapter 8 210 constitutes one factor in policy success. The following section analyses and discusses the policy success factors identified in this research.

8.2.3 Policies, success factors and sustainability transitions

Analysis of Melbourne’s and London’s green space policies has highlighted a number of key policy success factors. Policy success – developing, endorsing and implementing policies that effectively contribute to retaining and maximising urban green space – differs across the jurisdictions and between cities, but a number of common factors were identified. Conversely, the lack of these factors was identified as contributing to less effective implementation or poor outcomes. These success factors include both organisational and individual characteristics. The success factors have been categorised or associated with the analytical framework’s four dimensions, strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive, and are presented and discussed in the following sections.

Strategic factors

Strategic factors were largely well addressed by the jurisdictions and their respective strategies. There is a growing shared understanding of and commitment to the multiple benefits of green space to urban dwellers. This is reflected in the vision, goals and objectives defined in many of the strategies that were analysed. Many of the strategies also explicitly identified the larger strategic framework within which each plan was located, and the hierarchical relationships between plans and strategies.

Leaders and policy champions were also significant factors in the process of policy design and adoption. Several policy makers reflected on the important role that leaders and champions had in policy development and adoption, and without whom policies were less likely to have been initiated (Project officer 9, Manager 16, Ministerial advisor

17, Planner 30). Gibson et al. (2017) suggested that “such champions are only perceived to be influential if they are at a high-enough level in the bureaucracy” (p. 5). A leadership role, particularly that of Mayor in a local government authority, can provide powerful ‘moral authority’ (Pimlott and Rao 2002). As a result of this ‘moral authority’, the Mayoral term provides a valuable period to initiate and adopt key strategies, which

Chapter 8 211 supports ongoing policy development, as well as shifts in organisational culture and attitudes, that may extend well beyond the end of the Mayor’s term (Councillor 31).

The continuing impact, beyond the specific mayoral term, of strong Mayoral leadership on policy directions was reflected in both Melbourne and London. Mayor Ken

Livingstone’s policy foundations continued to strongly influence urban greening approaches after his mayoral term finished (Policy officer 36, Policy officer 38).

The ‘authorising environment’ and ‘political capital’, were referred to by different policy makers in reference to the political processes for achieving policy endorsement, both in terms of necessary pre-conditions, as well as to represent the sense of the transactionary process implicit in negotiation and decision making. This reflected the potential political costs associated with introducing new policy approaches, and the necessity to build political support, both amongst the elected decision makers, as well as the electorate.

In considering the roles of people working to achieve transformative goals, de Haan and Rotmans (2016) argued that transformative actors are ‘value-driven’ and that

‘shared value sets’ are the basis of their alliances. In this research, green space champions were described as being ‘passionate’, and their passion, when well- articulated and supported by organisational authority, provided the energy to shift organisational and staff practices.

“Just for one she’s got that presence. She was very active in the first couple of years at various events and putting the challenge out there for other partners to come on board … she’s challenged our engineers as well, to look at what our standard practices are. She’s challenged them to think of the green bit as another asset as well” (Manager 16).

Policy champions need not necessarily occupy leadership roles (Layzer 2016;

Maddison and Denniss 2013). Policy officers may be strongly instrumental in the extent of implementation or enforcement of policies. Courage was identified as a factor to push successful implementation of policies. This is true even for regulations, such as planning scheme provisions, the application of which are open to interpretation (Local government seminar, November 2016). One local government planner reflected:

Chapter 8 212 “It’s all about two words in our planning scheme … I push the boundary – it says ‘good design’, that’s what I use to strive for really good outcomes … it’s challenging but you can do a lot with a couple of words … when I do [assess] a referral I think, what’s the worst that can happen? Somebody’s got to be brave” (Planner 30).

Furthermore, as highlighted previously, local government planning staff use discretion in how planning provisions are interpreted and applied in assessing permit applications. One local government planner commented that it depends on who is assessing the planning application as to how hard they push for sustainability outcomes (Local government seminar, November 2016). The policy positions of elected officials can also influence the process:

“I push pretty hard on things [assessing permit applications] and I’ll say, that will be acceptable to me, and I get a bit of a response and that’s in my referral advice. It does smooth the way with our councillors to get those decisions because they’re very sustainability-minded so it is to their benefit … Sometimes I put on things that are sort of pushing the boundaries a little bit” (Planner 30).

For all jurisdictions analysed, there appeared to be a significant gap between the strategic elements of policy ambition and the subsequent operational aspects of policy implementation, with a lack of translation of strategic elements into implementation processes and structures. This is consistent with other research that found that policy implementation can diverge significantly from the high level goals, objectives and ambitions of the policies (Raynor et al. 2017). The necessity for translating the strategic elements into implementation processes and structures also reinforces the importance of communication and constructing effective ‘narratives’ for urban green spaces; this will be further considered in Section 8.3.3.

In envisioning a sustainable, liveable and ‘beautiful future’, there is general agreement of the elements required for its creation (Roggema 2014, p. 225). Likewise incorporating green spaces into cities is generally strongly supported; crafting the strategic elements of vision and goals is consistently the strongest element addressed in the policies analysed. The operationalization of these strategic visions, into tactical, operational and reflexive elements, is significantly more challenging, and was consistently less well addressed in the policies analysed.

Chapter 8 213 Tactical factors

‘Tactical’ factors identified in the analysis focused on community engagement and information provision, as well as building alliances and support internally within jurisdictions. Several policy makers reflected on the importance of community engagement and communication to build and maintain political support, and to contribute to the positive political capital associated with green space policies (Team leader 21, Ministerial adviser 7, Councillor 26).

Integration between policies, from within the organisation’s strategic framework as well as from different policy domains and other levels of government, was also identified as a success factor. High level policies may add authority, and conversely, if policies lack integration and cross-referencing then their scope of authority is reduced.

For example, the lack of cross-referencing between local government urban forest strategies and local planning schemes significantly diminishes the potential authority and coverage of the urban forest policy approaches. Apart from Moreland City

Council’s Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, none of the local planning schemes examined for this research listed the urban forest, urban greening, climate change or sustainability strategies or policies as incorporated documents (listed in

‘Schedule to Clause 81.01’). In contrast, the cross-referencing between the London Plan and the All London Green Grid, as well as the requirement for plans and strategies at

London metropolitan and local scales to be ‘in conformity’ with the London Plan is a key strength. Furthermore, the London Plan provides a clear, consistent, coherent policy approach across the whole of the greater London area.

Policy integration may also contribute to linking policy makers from different policy domains, jurisdictions and levels of government, which contributes to building policy

‘ownership’ and commitment to implementation from across the organisation (Figure

8.5). Conversely, when there are multiple government ministers, politicians and bureaucrats involved in addressing an issue that crosses policy domains, there may be significant competition for political or departmental ‘territory’ or for ministerial status and control, which in turn may detract from addressing the issue itself (Manager 27).

Chapter 8 214

Figure 8.5 Linkages between policy domains that address green space and urban heat

Community engagement and information, as one type of policy mechanism, is approached in markedly different ways by the different jurisdictions analysed. To be effective, community engagement requires careful framing, skilled staff, organisational allocation of resources and ongoing commitment (Urban forester 23). It also requires accepting “complaints and uncomfortable moments” (Team leader 21). Community engagement may contribute to more engaged stewardship of the urban forest, shifting from the singular concern for the tree outside a resident’s house (Team leader 21) or the parochial concerns of friends groups and community groups (Ministerial advisor

7), to a broader perspective of shared endeavour for the urban forest. An engaged community also underpins elected officers’ support for policy approaches, spanning electoral cycles (Team leader 21). Clearly defined and framed policies themselves contribute to communication efforts (Councillor 26, Councillor 31). Alternatively, lack of investment of staff time and resources in community engagement may be a contributing factor in community complaints and disengagement (Planner 28), and in addition may create an unbalanced perception of community attitudes:

Chapter 8 215 “There’s two things with that. So one is, yes people do ring up and complain … Nobody’s ever ringing with praise … council officers get a few phone calls a week or a month that can overblow the perception that actually the public don’t like trees. And then they take these vocal minority as a litmus test for the rest of the community and that’s wrong. … The second thing, how do we deal with it? Well we have to actually have experts to deal with it. We can’t send somebody out to go and talk to the community who is not skilled in community engagement. So everyone in my team is trained” (Team leader 21).

It is interesting to note that CoM’s ‘email a tree’ program has effectively provided an alternative and ongoing vehicle for people to express their appreciation for particular trees, moving beyond a complaints-only communication channel. This program has provided the inspiration for similar programs in other cities, including New York

(Team leader 21).

There was surprisingly little discussion amongst policy makers of the existence of broader alliances or organised networks of green space advocates and enablers. When it was discussed, it was in the context of the difficulty of establishing and maintaining broader networks between organisations (Team leader 33, Planner 28), or between and including non-government organisations, community groups or industry groups.

Nonetheless, Australian local governments have demonstrated their openness to collaboration and information-sharing within the local government sector for policy development, through their membership of a range of alliances (Moloney and Fünfgeld

2015) and regional groupings (Councillor 26, Team leader 29, Manager 27); through organising seminars and publishing toolkits (Team leader 21, Project coordinator 22,

Urban forester 23, Team leader 33); and through individual relationships with staff from neighbouring councils (Team leader 33, Manager 32, Coordinator 34). Councils have also made explicit reference to being guided by neighbouring councils’ strategies in both discussions and in formal council meetings and meeting minutes. However, others reflected on how parochial local governments can be, in their expectations for directly relevant local evidence and for rejecting interstate or overseas experiences as irrelevant to their specific local context (Councillor 20, Team leader 29). In addition, the importance of the local context in which green space policy operates is seen as a barrier for learning from other jurisdictions (Planner 30, Manager 32, Policy officer 36).

Chapter 8 216 Operational factors

The operational factors identified in the analysis focused on skills and capacity, provision of resources (financial and non-financial, including time and staff resources), and necessity of working across departmental boundaries (or ‘siloes’) and between different jurisdictions. The latter factors also highlighted the resistance to adopting new practices and the associated inertia of status quo or ‘business-as-usual’ approaches. Willingness to try new ideas and experimentation were also identified in some policies and by some policy makers (Team leader 21, Team leader 33).

Many local government officers, particularly in sustainability-focused departments, were willing to trial new approaches, particularly with availability of grants funding from external sources (higher levels of government, philanthropic or industry-based research and development grants). As with water systems’ experimentation, “the strategic act of labelling a project as a pilot or demonstration … helped to quarantine possible failures” (Farrelly and Brown 2011, p. 729). However, there was evidence of the difficulty of translating strategic visions to practical implementation, and to diffusing innovation and shifts to business as usual approaches (Strategic planner 19,

Planner 28). In effect, there was resistance to internalising strategic directions into the day-to-day organisational practices. CoM’s urban landscapes team addressed this challenge by taking on the implementation of key strategic actions (Project coordinator

22). However, the challenges of operationalising sustainable strategic directions may extend beyond challenges related simply to shifts in business as usual practices, skills and techniques. In some cases, operationalisation challenges the tacit, underlying and deeply held assumptions (worldviews) and organisational ‘constructs’ that reflect inherently conflicting internal logics (Vogel 2016). Examples range from an unwillingness to maintain watered parks in summer due to increased maintenance requirements (Planner 28), to the lack of protection for trees and other vegetation in land use planning regulations, and to the resistance to reviewing roadside tree planting guidelines because of organisational singular focus on road safety and the perceived incompatibility of trees for safety reasons (Strategic planner 19).

Chapter 8 217 Policy officers highlighted the challenges associated with implementing new policies if there was not an associated allocation of funding and resources. In some cases, a reliance on one-off ‘capital expenditure’ grants allowed establishment of green spaces, but the ongoing maintenance costs were then expected to be absorbed into existing operational budgets. Some officers highlighted concerns about accepting grants funding for new projects and pilots, due to the necessity for absorbing ongoing maintenance costs, and to increasing community expectations that would be associated with newly created green installations (Manager 16, Planner 28). The recognition of the importance of ongoing management of urban green spaces, and provision of its adequate resourcing, is expanding from ‘on-ground’ managers, whose responsibility this has been, to the planners, designers and policy makers who are now proposing the

‘nature-based solutions’ to urban sustainability challenges (Urban designer 6, Manager

16, Team leader 33).

The operational approaches for multifunctional urban greening are not yet well developed, with gaps in both skills (people) and techniques (processes). While management systems for single-focus grey infrastructure are well-established, green infrastructure management is not. Existing management practices tend to be either single-function focused, for example mowing grassed areas (Planner 28); or even completely lacking, with an expectation that green infrastructure will ‘look after itself’ once it has been installed, even in harsh locations such as roadsides (Community group member 18). These unrealistic expectations, particularly where green infrastructure is being used to meet multiple, dynamic functions such as water quantity and quality management as well as aesthetic, landscaping contributions, risk failure or less-than- expected performance for the ‘nature-based’ innovations. Nesshöver et al. (2017) pointed out that “as NBS are developed, we must also moderate the expectations placed on them since the precedent provided by other initiatives whose aim was to manage nature sustainably demonstrates that we should not expect NBS to be cheap and easy, at least not in the short-term” (p. 1216).

Chapter 8 218 The risks associated with experimentation and adoption of innovative approaches are that they may not meet expectations, may not function according to plan, or may fail to deliver on the political promises. There are also risks that green infrastructure designs are difficult and therefore expensive to maintain. On-ground managers have had to develop and trial maintenance techniques and practices ‘on-the-job’. The risks for green infrastructure are similar to those associated with adoption of water system innovations: “the perceptions of risk and the perceived consequences of failure highlighted substantial concerns regarding the possibility of inducing a system backlash, where innovations are no longer supported … and the system reverts to previous ‘safe’ practices” (Farrelly and Brown 2011, p. 729). While green spaces’ multifunctionality may provide the linking or bridging mechanism for cooperation and collaboration between departments and jurisdictions, this in itself creates an additional governance14 challenge, as governance structures and approaches largely operate within monofunctional settings. The challenges of multifunctional green spaces within monofunctional governance systems will be further discussed later in this chapter.

Reflexive factors

Reflexive factors, including monitoring and evaluation, are required to assess the effectiveness of the policy approach and its implementation, enabling policy learning, and identifying potential or necessary changes to policy mechanisms (Connop et al.

2016; Kabisch et al. 2016). Reflexive factors are the weakest of the Transition

Management elements analysed, being inadequately addressed in the green space policies examined. Beyond the reporting required for organisational accountability, evaluation is not prioritised. Policy makers’ own assessments of the degree of success of their policies are hampered by a lack of monitoring and evaluation. Policy makers suggested that resources and time were not allocated to policy learning and ‘research’, even when this involves simply sharing information with neighbouring local

14 ‘governance’ here refers to a government’s processes and systems (Althaus et al. 2013, p. 263)

Chapter 8 219 authorities (Planner 30). If monitoring and evaluation is not carried out, the opportunity to learn and revise and improve is substantially hindered.

Annual reporting, by contrast with monitoring and evaluation, often focuses only on the successful implementation measures, “the good news stories” (Team leader 29;

Coordinator 34). Where there is a wide suite of strategies, substantial staff time is required for reporting for organisational accountability purposes (Manager 32).

Many of the policies analysed in this research included a requirement for monitoring and measurement, but lacked defined baselines, data sets or key indicators against which progress can be tracked. A significant need across all jurisdictions is for the development of easily applied green space indicators to support ongoing monitoring and evaluation (O'Neil and Gallagher 2014). However, the existence of indicators will obviously not ensure improved reflexive practices, unless they are accompanied by an organisational commitment to evaluation and rigorous policy learning.

The fear amongst government officers and politicians of criticism and public exposure of failure was highlighted as contributing to reduced appetite for experimentation and for reporting the less than successful projects or techniques. This contributes to a risk- averse organisational culture, particularly amongst local governments. Similarly,

Farrelly and Brown (2011), in a study of experimentation in water management, highlighted “an apprehension [amongst policy makers] regarding potential negative implications for personal and organisational reputation, as well as issues of political and legal liabilities” (p. 728). This fear of failure, and fear of bad publicity inhibits experimentation and inhibits evaluation and reporting of experimentation. This is exacerbated by short term timeframes for assessing the success of installations and innovations, associated with financial year reporting and electoral cycles, which have little relationship with the requirements for establishment of living systems and ecosystem functions. The weak evaluation processes and policy reflexivity identified in this analysis reduces the value of experimentation, the extent to which policy learning can be achieved, and therefore the potential for transformation (Connop et al. 2016) that could result from the green space policy innovations.

Chapter 8 220 Summary

The policy success factors identified in this research have been discussed within the analytical framework’s four categories, strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive, and are summarised in Figure 8.6. The use of the circular form does not seek to suggest a sequential or cyclic process, but rather that these elements may operate together to create a synergistic effect towards increasing policy success.

In summary, through analysing the policy approaches of different levels of government in Melbourne, with a complementary study of London, this research has identified a range of practical contributions. The different types of policy mechanisms, and their distinct modes of operation have been associated with different locations and actions within the transition trajectory to nature-based cities. Policy success factors have been identified within each of the four Transition Management dimensions of strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive. However, there are limits to what can be achieved through policy approaches, and these are examined in the following section.

Figure 8.6 Policy success factors

Chapter 8 221 8.2.4 Limits of policy: what policy cannot do

Policy research has highlighted the limits of policy approaches, even where there is extensive objective or research-based evidence to support government action and involvement (Cairney 2016; Head 2008; Head and Walter 2015). “Just because someone has identified an environmental problem and even figured out how to fix it, do not expect that the government will necessarily address the problem or adopt the most

‘rational’ solution” (Layzer 2016, p. 572). For some green space champions, both elected officials, bureaucrats and community activists, their response is to call for more regulation in the belief that this will effectively enforce compliance, and they expressed frustration that policy change had not quickly or automatically followed (Community group member 18; Councillor’s comment at local government seminar, April 2016).

Policy makers interviewed for this research reinforced the challenges and constraints in introducing green space policies into existing policy contexts. Policy makers from different jurisdictions highlighted a range of challenges, with some common elements but also some key differences. Protecting economic growth (Consultant 3, Planner 4), and public safety (Strategic planner 19) are two areas that many green space policy makers highlighted as always able to ‘out-rank’ green space policies, with short term

(acute) concerns for economic growth and public safety outweighing longer term benefits of green space. Policy makers reinforced researchers’ conclusions on the

“significant inequalities in political participation and bargaining power [that] typically favour short-term, well-organised private interests in the policymaking process at the expense of more diffuse, less well organised, long term public interests” (Eckersley

2015, p. 142), including those associated with environmental services and public good.

These inequalities also contribute to policy makers taking very conservative, careful approaches to policy proposals, and defending these approaches based on requirements for significant “political capital”, as well as substantial and rigorous evidence to support policy change (Planner 4, Ministerial advisor 7).

Some policy makers called for more evidence to support policy introduction or policy change (Project manager 5, Planner 12). There was also a focus amongst policy makers

Chapter 8 222 on what constituted credible or appropriate ‘evidence’. One policy maker labelled community feedback (and policy makers’ own observations) as ‘anecdotal evidence’ and therefore not admissible (Planner 12). There is a lack of inclusion of qualitative data and research, and apparent assumptions about the need for expert-driven research and information provision. Innes and Booher (2015) also reported similar approaches to community information, “in deliberative processes and public hearings, planners and other experts often dismiss citizens’ comments as “anecdotal” and take the view that their job is to educate citizens rather than to learn from or with them.

Some regard much of what community members bring to the process as emotion, misinformation, and self-interest, none of which they consider relevant to a decision”

(p. 200). Some policy makers also specified the necessity for local research, and the lack of applicability or relevance of research findings from different jurisdictions or different cities and countries. For some Melbourne-based local governments, research needs were highly parochial, with research from even neighbouring municipalities deemed inapplicable or less relevant (Planner 30, Councillor 31).

This research has also found that green space policy implementation is hampered or constrained by other more powerful, contradictory or inconsistent policies. Due to the multiple policy domains and stakeholders that address urban green space, there is a high level of policy complexity and significant potential for contradictory or inconsistent policies both within jurisdictions, between neighbouring jurisdictions and across multi-level urban governments.

To achieve urban sustainability transformations and a shift from business-as-usual approaches, policies must be ambitious, yet also politically and economically realistic or feasible. Without sufficient ‘political capital’, that includes support of decision makers and the electorate, this research found that policy makers are unwilling to pursue policy change (Planner 4), reflecting the contribution of multiple ‘evidences’

(Head 2008) towards building policies, and the compromises inherent in pragmatic approaches to policy making. This reinforces the significant role that researchers have in translating research to practical policy contexts and working in partnership with

Chapter 8 223 policy makers to clearly identify and communicate policy implications and recommendations (Consultant 1, Ministerial advisor 7, Planner 30).

This section has discussed the key practical contributions of this research, highlighting policy approaches, policy mechanisms and policy success factors. These have been linked to theories of sustainability transitions, specifically Transition Management, as part of understanding green space policies as contributing to the transition to nature- based cities. The limits of policy approaches have also been identified and discussed.

The following section discusses the theoretical contributions of this research that have emerged from the results.

8.3 Theoretical perspectives: multifunctionality and sustainability transitions

This section discusses theoretical perspectives and identifies the key contributions that this research has made. It focuses on how understandings of urban green space as an eco-technological innovation highlight the necessity for developing new skills and capacity in installation and maintenance. Following this, broader considerations of urban green spaces’ multifunctionality demonstrate the requirement for policy and management approaches that address green spaces as part of urban complex systems.

Finally, challenges with communicating and governing multifunctionality are illustrated by exploring the ‘splintered narratives’ of urban green spaces (Figure 8.7).

Figure 8.7 Theoretical contributions

8.3.1 Urban green space as technological innovation

Parks, gardens and green spaces have been part of urban environments for millennia.

In recent years, a renewed focus on their range of functions, as well as innovations in

Chapter 8 224 their forms and functions, have led to new conceptualisations, such as ‘green infrastructure’ (Benedict and McMahon 2006; Gill et al. 2007; Lennon and Scott 2014;

Mell 2009, 2017; Tzoulas et al. 2007), and new types of installations, such as green roofs, walls, and facades, and water sensitive urban design treatments. These can be considered ‘niche innovations’ due to their novelty, lack of widespread installation or adoption as ‘business-as-usual’ by land managers and property developers. As niche innovations, technical expertise in both installation and maintenance processes is not yet widespread. Green infrastructure innovation is analogous to innovation for integrated water management, in which “introducing new technologies and practices revealed substantial capacity deficits (skills and knowledge)” (Farrelly and Brown

2011, p. 727). As highlighted earlier in this chapter, these skills and knowledge deficits lead to wide divergence in cost estimates for installation and maintenance, limiting uptake as developers and land managers are unwilling or hesitant to risk uncertain costs (Urban designer 6, Developer 8; Clabby 2016).

Incentives and awards programs extend the boundaries of standard practice, and foster invention and experimentation amongst green space innovators. Even with the necessary macro- and micro-scale pressures (including for example, urban heat impacts and local community expectations respectively), there is still significant

‘regime resistance’ (Farrelly and Brown 2011; Geels 2014), or business-as-usual inertia to adopting innovation; the normative drivers (policy visions) are in tension with organisational resistance and internal organisational conflicts, due to perceived (and actual) risks associated with changing approaches to infrastructure provision.

Without well-developed skills in maintenance and commitment of resources to repair unsuccessful trials, there is substantial risk that new forms of green infrastructure and new installations will fail and with this lose credibility, support and interest. CoM’s landscape team, being aware of these risks, took responsibility for installation and management of new installations (Team leader 21), in part to create a protected space in which to develop and mature their skills and techniques. In this way, they adopted a

‘strategic niche management’ approach to green infrastructure (Kemp et al. 1998). As

Chapter 8 225 noted previously, Nesshöver et al. (2017) cautioned that expectations for nature-based solutions (NBS) must be moderated: “we should not expect NBS to be cheap and easy, at least not in the short-term” (p. 1216). There is substantial risk in ‘over-promising’ the potential for green infrastructure innovation to address urban infrastructure needs, without associated skills and techniques, to support the ongoing functioning and

‘performance’ of innovative green infrastructure installations.

There is also a requirement for new policy and management approaches that acknowledge the complexity and multifunctionality inherent in urban green spaces.

Associated with this is an expanded focus on the contribution of a range of green space stakeholders to governance (Consultant 2). Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2015) emphasised the shifting relations between state, market and civil society and the

“move away from ‘governance by government’ to ‘governance with government’ or even ‘governance without government’” (Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015, p. 35).

While new approaches to green infrastructure may be constrained within government and business sectors by lack of skills and techniques, and the risks of failure, it could be argued that green infrastructure is more accessible to experimentation by community groups and individuals, compared with some other forms of sustainability innovations that are more heavily regulated. For example, the energy sector is heavily regulated to ensure public safety, but this potentially narrows the possibilities for ‘bottom-up’ or

‘grass-roots’ experimentation in . Green space installations largely do not have regulations preventing experimental application (though tree planting near regulated infrastructures, such as under powerlines, beside major roads and on building rooftops is highly regulated and constrained).

Notwithstanding the skills gained through horticultural training and expertise, green space innovations can be developed through informal, non-institutionalised, bottom- up individual or community approaches, learned through backyard gardening, or

‘guerrilla gardening’ installations on publicly owned or unused patches of urban land

(Local government seminar, November 2016). This may include urban agriculture, ecological restoration and rewilding efforts, even water sensitive urban design

Chapter 8 226 treatments. In addition, this can provide the freedom from constraints or controls associated with accepting funding from governments. This creates the potential for significant niche or ‘bottom-up’ learning and experimentation to develop skills and experience that can inform institutional and business approaches, if there are communication avenues with which information can be shared.

8.3.2 Multifunctionality, and policy and management complexity

Multifunctionality, as encapsulated in concepts of ecosystem services and green infrastructure in both research and practice, is a significant factor in the promotion of urban green space. Urban greening policies recognise green space’s multifunctionality in terms of the multiple benefits and contributions that green spaces make to urban areas and city dwellers. Multifunctionality is assumed to be advantageous, even a

‘selling point’ for government and community. However, multifunctionality, by definition, also reflects the inherent complexity of green space policy and management: multifunctional green space is underpinned by a range of research and practical approaches, and spans a number of functions and policy domains across multiple levels of government and multiple land tenure types (Table 8.7).

This creates a major challenge for existing policy and management systems that are premised on single, ‘mechanistic’ and linear focus areas, that have developed within socio-technical approaches to urban systems’ policy and management. Existing management and budgeting systems are often not well equipped to address the multiple benefits, and multiple beneficiaries, across a range of ‘siloed’ or separate and separated policy domains. This is exacerbated by some of the multiple green space benefits being in the form of intangibles and synergies: “business case metrics applied to justify spending on infrastructure are incapable of dealing with synergies and intangibles” (Massini 2016, p. 290). Current predominantly monofunctional policy structures and processes do not have mechanisms to encourage or foster cooperation above disciplinary or departmental competition.

Chapter 8 227 Table 8.7 Urban green space: multifunctionality, and policy and management complexity

Concepts and Urban ecology theories Ecosystem services Green infrastructure Nature-based solutions Structures and Open space forms, and Green space associated Urban forests management and Street trees maintenance Parks approaches Playing fields and active recreation spaces Gardens Green grid, Green wedge Habitat corridors Waterways and wetlands Functions Urban ecosystem services: Supporting: habitat Provisioning: food and fibre Regulating: air quality, water quality and quantity, thermal regulation, noise mitigation Cultural: sense of place, aesthetic, cultural and community, spiritual, education, recreation Tenure Private land; common (body corporate) land Public land Easements and utilities Policy domains Cities, urban design and planning Urban green space: Urban forest; open space strategies Climate change: mitigation; adaptation Water, water cycle, stormwater management Ecology and biodiversity Health, emergency management Buildings Stakeholders Government: elected officials, policy officers; open space managers; infrastructure managers Businesses and Industry: construction; landscaping and horticulture; retail precincts Community: urban agriculture, heritage landscapes, environmental conservation and restoration, beautification, local site or precinct groups, schools

This is illustrated by the approach to planning and maintenance of much of the urban green spaces considered in this research: street trees are maintained by street tree crews, parks are maintained by mowing teams, while waterways and nature reserves are maintained by revegetation teams, all with separate design specifications and maintenance regimes (Planner 28, Team leader 33). The results of this segregated approach include, for example, the unwillingness of one council’s open space maintenance team to irrigate grassed surfaces during summer, to the detriment of the

Chapter 8 228 park’s cooling and aesthetic values (Planner 28). Massini (2016) suggested that green space’s multifunctionality “works against its proper resourcing because there are less easily defined links between the costs of the investment and the benefits of the outcomes, and between the funder of a project and the beneficiary” (p. 290).

Urban green space policy and management requires an expansion from an uncritical celebration and advocacy of green spaces’ multifunctionality, to explicitly identifying the challenges associated with multifunctional social-ecological systems within monofunctional, largely socio-technical structures that are premised on neoliberal market-based management processes. Policy development, application and funding of multifunctionality and complex systems inherently pose challenges: who ‘owns’, manages and funds the ‘asset’ and its upkeep? If others benefit, should they pay? If benefits are widespread, should all beneficiaries be expected to contribute to urban greening establishment and maintenance? How should this be calculated? How can these multifunctional benefits be adequately reflected in economic valuation processes, particularly when a significant number of green infrastructure’s ‘ecosystem services’ are intangible, such as sense of place, and community building, and are valued differently by different people. Hunter and Luck (2015) noted that “differences in the definition and measurement of greenspace and its ecological and social qualities can have a profound impact on interpretations of greenspace value” (p. 1139).

Developing the business case for urban green space interventions and installations is particularly complex due to the novelty of green infrastructure (and resulting lack of experience and rules of thumb to guide costings), and to the multiple, but hard-to- measure, benefits. Economic valuation systems and development of business cases are difficult and problematic because inclusions and their valuations are scrutinised and contested. Furthermore, economic systems that are based fundamentally on concepts of fungibility (substitutability), struggle to address the temporal dimensions of green space provision. An old tree is non-substitutable in a human lifetime: cutting down a large tree that has grown in place for decades if not centuries, is not replaced or restored by planting multiple seedlings or saplings in its place.

Chapter 8 229 Extending beyond a policy focus, the inherent complexity of multifunctional green space in urban areas disturbs the conceptual boundaries between humans and non- human nature in cities. Urban green spaces contribute to the “evolving relationship between nature and the city” (Lennon and Scott 2016, p. 271), and to urban sustainability transitions from mechanistic, socio-technical systems to complex social- ecological systems and nature-based solutions. However urban green spaces also create challenges, conflicts and tensions in how their multifunctionality is conceptualised and prioritised. Characterised by inward-facing competition between advocates of the different types and functions of green space (Table 8.7), the coalescing of green space niches is hampered, weakening the power with which established regimes and business-as-usual approaches can be challenged (Geels and Schot 2007).

These different facets of green spaces’ multifunctionality (Table 8.7) form ‘splintered narratives’; the impacts of splintered narratives on urban green space policy and provision are discussed in the following section.

8.3.3 Communicating multifunctionality: splintered narratives

Communicating urban greening’s multifunctionality requires creating a vision and

‘narrative’. Policy researchers have identified the significance of values and emotions in the policy making process (Cairney 2016), and policy makers also reinforced the importance of being able to ‘sell’ the policy (Team Leader 21), by creating and framing effective narratives or storylines (Councillor 20), including for example the London

Plan’s inclusion of an objective for creating a city that “delights the senses”. Narrative is important not just to impart information, but also to craft a storyline that will interest and connect with the recipient and their concerns, and encourage further involvement, whether in the capacity of developing or implementing policy, or to foster community or ministerial support (Project officer 9).

However, multifunctionality creates challenges in crafting an overarching, shared narrative, which at the same time encompasses and includes green space diversity: green space’s multifunctionality achieves many functions or ecosystem services, which

Chapter 8 230 then compete for primacy in the minds of green space policy makers, managers, funders, and community members.

In attempting to encapsulate this multifunctionality to an urban policy making and management audience, terms such as green infrastructure, ecosystem services and

‘nature-based solutions’ have been developed (Krajter Ostoić and Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015). However, the terms, are applied in different ways, leading to confusion, ambiguity and reduced efficacy: for example, “the inherent versatility of the

[green infrastructure] concept has both supported and hindered its uptake in different locations” (Mell et al. 2017, p. 136). In response, some have called for definitions to be set or codified to prevent the ‘incorrect’ application of terms (Urban designer 6), or alternatively to establish a ‘definitional framework’ to reduce confusion and support their ‘operationalisation’ (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016). In practice, it is usually impossible to entirely control the use of specific terms; instead approaches that elaborate and reinforce the underlying narrative, may encourage uptake, application and ‘internalisation’ in practical and research contexts.

As with the challenges of conceptualising complex systems, this research has shown that green space advocates, while acknowledging green spaces’ multifunctionality, resort to championing their normative priorities and key functions or features. Green space advocates are separated based on their value systems and worldviews: intellectual, spiritual, scientific, human-centric or eco-centric, useful, productive and utilitarian, built heritage, place-based, aesthetic, social justice and equity and so on.

Green space advocates use multifunctionality as a selling point and extol the various benefits and functions, but often prioritise that benefit or service that is the most vulnerable, or the most visible, or the most attuned with their own values and worldviews (Policy officer 15, Community group member 18). Green space storylines become ‘splintered narratives’ of competing visions: indigenous species versus

European heritage; urban forest versus green space versus habitat corridor; active versus passive recreation; dog walking versus wildlife (Team leader 21, Urban forester

23). Or even possums and flying foxes versus roses and fruit trees (Local government

Chapter 8 231 seminar, April 2016). Sonnino et al. (2016), in addressing global food systems and food security issues, highlighted the “oppositional narratives …, and obsolete dichotomies

… that are unable to capture the systemic and evolutionary nature of … complex, ambiguous, contested and persistent problems” (p. 477). The same framing could as well be applied to understandings of urban systems and functions, and the role of green space in addressing complex social, economic and environmental challenges.

These systemic challenges are being made more complex as climate change and other global processes shift biophysical and social-ecological systems, creating ‘novel’ ecosystems (Lennon 2015) and disrupting ecosystem functions, processes and components and their associated narratives.

The splintered narratives reflect the lack of overarching or unifying narrative, and the competing allegiances and priorities of urban greening benefits and meanings, as well as lack of trust between the various green space groups.

“It’s interesting that there are so few people who spring to mind as being able to talk about urban landscapes and urban nature – it seems that everyone has a particular barrow to push” (Ministerial advisor 7).

These differences and separations exist within green space research, policy and practice, where advocates of different ecosystem services compete for primacy and political influence, profile, space and funding.

Along with the lack of an overarching narrative for urban green space, there is also an absence of peak bodies or umbrella groups that advocate for urban green space in its entirety and complexity. In Australia, some groups such as the Australian Institute of

Landscape Architects, Horticulture Industry Australia and 202020 Vision have attempted to fill this role, but are still perceived as dominated by commercial interest, or partisan or sectorial by others, whose voices are not represented or encompassed within their agendas and objectives.

The divergent green space narratives act as markers that differentiate and maintain the distinctions between groups and their associated concerns. Within the diversity of voices and narratives, in seeking to establish the primacy of each narrative’s key

Chapter 8 232 priority, other groups and their narratives are criticised for a lack of understanding or perspective. This splintering is not helped by competing definitions of green space functions as ‘ecosystem services’ or ‘disservices’. Urban greening may simultaneously deliver ecosystem services (ES) and ‘disservices’ (EDS) (Lyytimäki 2014; Nisbet 2014;

Shackleton et al. 2016). “An ecosystem function can be an EDS in one context and benign or an ES in another context” (Saunders and Luck 2016, p. 1363). The same patch of vegetation could be simultaneously contributing both ecosystem services and disservices (Figure 8.8). Plants that provide habitat and cooling may also produce allergenic pollen. In the same way, parks that contribute to increased economic activity and increased land values in adjacent areas (Swinbourne and Rosenwax 2017) may also be implicated in displacement of existing communities (Haase et al. 2017).

Figure 8.8 Splintered narratives and ecosystem services and disservices

Framing divergent views as incompatible or opposing, “as if they are mutually exclusive” (Innes and Booher 2015, p. 200), seeks to reduce the complexity of urban green space systems to simplified management prescriptions and visions of urban nature. Emphasising a dichotomy of opposing views ignores the spectrum that connects the two extremes, and seeks to shut down, rather than open up dialogue, debate and the possibility for creating more nuanced or complex understandings.

Chapter 8 233 This section has argued that while green space’s multifunctionality has been used to promote its integration and utilisation into urban systems, and to address a range of urban sustainability issues, there has been little focus on the complex governance and communication challenges that directly arise with conceptualisations of multifunctionality. Furthermore, green space’s multifunctionality has led to splintered narratives and competing allegiances that have served to weaken the influence of and support for urban nature-based solutions. The next section proposes responses to the splintered narratives, to address stewardship in social-ecological cities.

8.3.4 Responding to splintered narratives: participation and narrative

Narratives can support and underpin strong policy if there is a coherent and shared approach and vision (Transition Management’s strategic element). A strong and coherent narrative, which contains the complexity rather than simplifying or erasing it, is required to catch the attention of politicians and policy makers, for issues to be incorporated into the policy agenda (Roxon 2017). Alternately, absence of compelling narratives can slow assimilation of issues into policy and action (Segal 2017).

To address splintered narratives as well as normative goals of environmental equity, deliberative democracy processes have been proposed and developed, that focus on

‘co-owing’ the problem, ‘co-designing’ the solution and ‘co-deciding’ the policy (Hartz-

Karp 2017). These mark a shift from governance by government to broader decision making and participation processes. Examples of these processes include CoM’s approaches to community engagement and participation in precinct planning and participatory budgeting, and in GLA’s partnerships with Business Improvement

Districts and other non-government stakeholders. These efforts demonstrate governments’ roles in stimulating ‘active citizenship’ and harnessing their energy and engagement for green space planning and management (Buijs et al. 2016).

Participatory approaches are not without challenges, in tempering the input of powerful voices and interests, and in managing stakeholder expectations by clearly defining the boundaries within which input and participation is sought (Team leader

Chapter 8 234 21, Councillor 31, Ministerial advisor 17). Green space’s multifunctionality provides opportunities for use as a convening mechanism to bring people together, to link place and function (Lennon et al. 2017), and to provide a framing for engaging with complex systems (Innes and Booher 2015), and long term timeframes: “When you plant a tree you create a 100-year policy statement” (CoM’s Lord Mayor, in Aliento 2014).

Green space narratives reflect the complexity and uncertainty of overlapping usages, meanings, functions and processes, and the challenges that arise in addressing multifunctional, complex systems within monofunctional policy and management structures. They epitomise the co-existence of mosaics of meaning, of amenity and biodiversity (Ives and Kelly 2016). Concepts of mosaic governance (Buijs et al. 2016) to create inclusive (rather than competitive) processes, and narrative ‘panarchy’

(Loorbach 2014) that acknowledges disagreements and discontinuities to build integrating narratives, may hold the key to developing urban governance, that encompasses involvement from both government and non-government stakeholders, for nature-based cities of the future.

The process and outcome of ‘reconnecting people with nature’ (Broom 2017) may constitute a powerful ‘leverage point’, inspired by systems thinking (Meadows 2008), for ‘transformational sustainability interventions’ (Abson et al. 2017). Urban green spaces, as the locations for promoting “adaptive and inclusive policy and planning practice” (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016, p. 3), may provide a powerful vehicle for people to

(re)learn how (and why) to collaborate; the ‘leverage point’ has the potential to contribute to transformative processes of collaboration, as well as transformative outcomes of urban sustainability and liveability. Promoting interdisciplinary dialogue,

“reflective of divergent human values and aspirations” to counter the “overly narrow conceptions of what is possible and desirable” (Castree et al. 2014, p. 763) may reinforce participatory governance of green space as an active input to sustainability transition processes, not just a desired outcome. Glimpses of these potentials have been provided throughout this research, in the efforts of policy officers and elected officials to build links between policy domains, enable collaboration, support community

Chapter 8 235 groups’ efforts to restore biodiversity habitats and celebrate residents’ connections to their local trees and green spaces.

This research has highlighted the necessity for developing policy and management structures and processes that can accommodate and support multifunctionality in nature-based cities. This will require trialling new approaches to green space planning, and to installation and management practices. In effect, urban green spaces can create the experimental transition arenas within which these governance issues can be engaged, interrogated, addressed, debated and developed. Such experimentation arenas are “useful for exploring value conflicts, contradicting worldviews, and solving tensions among stakeholders” (Olsson et al. 2014, p. 5). As such, new forms of participatory green governance and new narratives have the potential to contribute to re-creating people’s relationships with each other, with place and with non-human nature. In turn these efforts may feed into sustainability transitions towards stewardship of the biosphere (Elmqvist et al. 2013). To put into effect the vision “to create a city within a forest rather than a forest within a city” (CoM 2012b, p. 5) requires efforts to move beyond an anthropocentric view of trees, which “reduces the complexity and dynamism of the living tree and puts it to human purpose” (Dean

2014, p. 165) and incorporates the agency of trees and non-human nature (Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015). Embodying the ‘city in a forest’ may require us to absorb tree lessons about democracy (Dryzek 2017) and communication (Wohlleben 2016) to transition to the social-ecological city.

This section has highlighted the theoretical contributions of this research. It has argued that integration of green space into urban functions and structures in many cases constitutes new forms of urban infrastructure, and that the ongoing maintenance processes and techniques for these technological innovations are poorly understood.

There is a risk that green space interventions fail due to lack of expertise in their ongoing maintenance. Further, this research has argued that when grey infrastructure is replaced by green infrastructure, although multiple benefits are now provided, delivery of specific functions is likely to be less efficiently delivered compared with the

Chapter 8 236 single-function grey infrastructure. Unrealistic expectations of green infrastructure’s efficiency, and lack of resources and skills in management and maintenance may reduce policy and community support and potentially impact on the future integration of nature-based solutions. This research argues that urban policy, management and participatory governance systems are not yet equipped to adequately address complex systems associated with addressing urban sustainability challenges and integration of green space.

Furthermore, green space’s multifunctionality, while promoted as a key contribution to urban systems, has led to splintered narratives and competing allegiances between green space functions, benefits and values, and their respective proponents. This section concluded by proposing participatory processes and consideration of non- human agency as responses to splintered narratives. The following section reviews the analytical framework and methodological contributions of this research.

8.4 Methodological perspectives: analytical framework

This section considers the development of the analytical framework and its application in this research. It reviews the theoretical context that underpins the analytical framework’s relevance to this research and how it contributed to the policy analysis and the comparison of policy approaches between different jurisdictions and cities. The limitations of the analysis framework are also considered. Broader research limitations are discussed in Section 8.5.

The development of the analytical framework was informed by urban ecology, policy research and sustainability transition theories (Chapter 3 and Figure 3.5). Urban ecology and ecosystems services underpin this research’s understandings of the multiple contributions of green space to urban functions (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013;

Kremer et al. 2016). In turn, the ecosystem services concept informed the identification of relevant policy domains (Table 5.2), and the selection of data (policy documents and interview participants).

Chapter 8 237 This research developed a policy analysis framework to analyse the data from

Melbourne and London. The policy analysis framework brought together policy research elements with sustainability transition theories (Figure 4.1), to analyse how green space policies address the strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive elements associated with ‘successful’ urban transitions. The framework focused research attention on the coverage of green space, as a key mitigator of urban heat, in policy content and processes. As discussed in Chapter 3, by conceptualising green space policies as niche innovations (Geels 2002), in the early stages of integration into the

‘mainstream’ urban policy agenda, theories of sustainability transitions provided an appropriate theoretical context in which to examine green space policy development.

In particular, Transition Management (Loorbach 2010; Rotmans et al. 2001), which focuses on policy perspectives, was utilised in the analytical framework to elaborate on the strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive elements of green space policies.

To date, sustainability transition theories have mainly been applied to socio-technical systems, including energy systems, transport systems, health care systems and agricultural systems (the latter can still be considered primarily as socio-technical systems in industrialised nations). Urban green space in the form of ‘green infrastructure’ could be conceptualised as a socio-technical system, particularly within the context of delivering ecosystem ‘services’ to urban infrastructure systems.

However, this research argues that urban green spaces can also be understood as social-ecological systems, reflecting their inherent bio-physicality as living systems in urban contexts (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Hes and du Plessis 2015), and extending these concepts to social-ecological technical systems (McPhearson, Haase, et al. 2016). Urban green spaces are moreover essential elements in the sustainability transition of cities to liveable and thriving systems, due to the functions and benefits - biophysical, social, cultural, health - which they contribute. There are a small number of applications of sustainability transition theories (and particularly Transition Management) to social- ecological systems (for example, Frantzeskaki and Tilie 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014;

Kabisch 2015). This research reinforces and supports efforts to demonstrate its theoretical value for analysis of urban green space policies.

Chapter 8 238 The focus on cities and systemic change for sustainability is an emerging ‘highly interdisciplinary’ research field (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016, p. 144). By bringing together the disciplinary perspectives of urban ecology, policy research and Transition

Management, this research has contributed to interdisciplinary efforts, identified as necessary for research in urban sustainability (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Krajter Ostoić and

Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015; Kremer et al. 2016; Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016).

This research has also contributed to emerging conceptualisations of cities as complex social-ecological-technological systems (Bai et al. 2016), by demonstrating how green space draws together these different contexts.

While some policy research approaches highlight and focus on the selection of policy mechanism or intervention types, and call for a mix of mechanisms in addressing environmental challenges (Dovers and Hussey 2013), this research’s analysis framework has directed the focus on both policy process and content, the latter incorporating a range of aspects beyond simply a focus on mechanism selection. In this way, the broader policy content that includes context, strategic framings and policy linkages were also considered. Furthermore, the analysis framework enabled the analytical focus to move beyond a generalised assessment of policy process and policy content, to focus on the specific elements that transitions research has identified as being necessary elements of transition processes. This was important in enabling this research to identify policy success measures and to address the research questions. The analytical attention on the strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive elements of policy process and policy content provided a rigorous and consistent means to extract the key elements and significant perspectives from policies, and enabled comparison across the multi-level jurisdictions that govern Melbourne, and between cities

(Melbourne and London). It provided a structured framework for examining the ‘big picture’, the overall context in which policies are located. At the same time, it effectively highlighted the strengths and weaknesses, the inclusions and omissions, of the necessary elements for sustainability transitions, from a Transition Management policy perspective.

Chapter 8 239 The analytical framework is however limited by the nature of the data itself. As Raynor et al. (2017) reflected, policy documents are “the ‘sanitised’ and edited public documents that reflect institutional narratives” (p. 5). They may be limited in the extent to which they reflect broader organisational values and objectives, the extent to which they can in turn influence or direct officers’ views and approaches, and the extent to which they are translated into tangible implementation. In this research, the inclusion of data collected from semi-structured, confidential interviews with policy makers addressed this issue to a degree, by incorporating the views and reflections of elected politicians and decision makers, their advisors, bureaucrats, and those charged with policy implementation. However, even though interviews were confidential, it is likely that at least some of the interviewees felt constrained in how much they could critically or unfavourably reflect on policy processes and organisational approaches.

The potential risks of researcher over-familiarisation with interview participants was identified in Chapter 4. To manage this risk a research journal was kept throughout the research process, to support the analysis of results based on data collected, rather than the researcher’s pre-existing experience. Furthermore, the ongoing maintenance of a research journal encouraged the development of self-awareness and self-consciousness for the researcher during the conduct of the interviews and the subsequent analysis of interview data. One key reflection arising from this self-conscious focus was that although the development of rapport with the interview participant is important

(Glesne 2011), moments of discomfort or discordance during the interview process were sometimes associated with the subsequent identification of key insights that were then influential in the analysis process.

The framework focused on a ‘snapshot’ in time of green space policies and does not address aspects of quantitative analysis or temporal scale. Perhaps more significantly, in an analysis of green space policy, the analysis framework does not provide a strong focus on the specific power dynamics, both within and between jurisdictions. The framework focused on alliance building and strategic integration (Transition

Management’s strategic and tactical elements) to support and facilitate transition

Chapter 8 240 processes, rather than the power differentials that promote, hinder or prevent transitions. Power dynamics are significant both in the policy process, and in the outcomes of policy decision making and implementation. During interviews, some policy makers reflected on the power and influence differences between departments or sections of their organisations, particularly between sustainability areas and more well-established ‘grey infrastructure’ management areas. However these issues were not explicitly addressed within the analytical framework, and therefore were not explored more fully in this research. Nonetheless, some perspectives associated with multi-level government and relationships between different levels of government were identified by this research.

There is increasing focus on the political ecology and social equity dimensions of urban green space and urban sustainability (Konijnendijk van den Bosch 2015; Kull et al.

2015), which addresses both the power and influence imbalances and differentials within and between government jurisdictions, as well as issues related to equity and access perspectives of urban green space (Kabisch and Haase 2014; Kitchen 2013; Vrasti and Dayal 2016; Wolch et al. 2014). The analysis framework would be strengthened by explicitly incorporating consideration of these aspects.

In summary, the development of the analytical framework as part of this research has contributed to interdisciplinary research on urban systems. It could be applied in future to comparative research into urban sustainability policies in a range of different policy domains, beyond urban green space policy. The following section outlines the limitations of this research.

8.5 Limitations of research

This research has examined and analysed policies and policy processes related to

Melbourne’s urban green space, with a complementary study of London’s metropolitan-scale approach to green space policy. There are a number of limitations of this research that constrain broader generalisations of the findings, largely related to

Chapter 8 241 the scope and scale of data collection. These limitations can inform future research needs and directions.

Spatial limitations are associated with the focus on only three municipalities in one

Australian city. The three municipalities were chosen as they represent different urban contexts: inner, middle and outer urban areas. They are neighbouring municipalities, spanning the northern metropolitan region of Melbourne, and therefore share similar biophysical characteristics. Policies at the local scale reflected the responses to the different challenges, and patterns of urban development and demographics of these areas. However, it was beyond the scope of the research to consider other municipalities within the Melbourne metropolitan area, or other Australian cities, which may have provided additional insights into the role of biophysical characteristics and other urban contexts on policy processes.

London was selected to provide a complementary study, due to its relative maturity in awareness of urban heat island effects for the city, and in developing and implementing policies for retaining and maximising the city’s green spaces. It could be argued that London, as a ‘global’ city, provides a significantly different urban context against which few other cities could be compared. This research therefore presented

London’s policy approaches as those of a ‘benchmark’ leadership city. While the inclusion of London as a case study allowed analysis of the metropolitan-scale policy approaches of the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority, analysis of national and local (borough) policies was beyond the scope of this research. This limited the extent to which results of the analysis of Melbourne’s and London’s policies could be directly compared. Future research could analyse policies from other

Australian cities, or from international cities of similar size to Melbourne, to provide more directly comparable results.

This research sought to provide a description of the biophysical, social and urban development contexts of Melbourne and London that have influenced the current location, quantity and quality of these cities’ green spaces. However, temporal limitations of this research relate to analysis only of current or most recent policy

Chapter 8 242 documents. This limits the extent to which the influence or impacts of previous policies could be considered in both the current status of green space and the policy suite.

This research focused on qualitative analysis of the role of public policies in retaining and maximising green spaces, rather than quantitative measurement or analysis of implementation or spatial outcomes of the policies. Future research could adopt a mixed methods approach over a longer timeframe, to link policy approaches and mechanisms with spatially explicit, quantified outcomes. Future research could also address questions of policy impacts and success factors related to the quality of green spaces and their accessibility and inclusivity across social and cultural groups. In particular, for open space to provide cooling functions, as well as many of the other ecosystem services, the area of green space (as opposed to impervious surfaces), the level of maintenance, the type of vegetation and the design of the space are all important elements contributing to ‘quality’, accessibility and inclusivity.

This research acknowledged the range of policy domains across which green space is addressed. However this research limited the policy analysis to policies only within the three most relevant policy domains: urban planning, green space, and climate change.

For most jurisdictions, one key policy from each of these domains was identified and analysed. However, as noted in the Chapters 6 and 7, for some jurisdictions, more than one policy existed in these key policy domains. In some cases, additional policies occupied a similar position within the jurisdiction’s policy hierarchy, while in other cases, a number of subordinate policies (including action plans) also existed. Where multiple relevant policies existed, this research sought to identify and analyse the most relevant, or most strategically important, or most influential policy for each domain. In some cases, additional policies were considered as supplementary data. However, further research could extend this analysis to include other relevant policies, and could consider the impact (potentially positive or negative) of the existence of multiple policies within key domains.

This research utilised elements of policy research and theories of sustainability transitions to construct the analysis framework, creating an interdisciplinary approach

Chapter 8 243 to green space policy analysis. As a result, this research identified key elements of policies and policy approaches for green space as a type of urban infrastructure innovation, as well as challenges and constraints associated with broader adoption and integration of urban green space policies. However, aspects of the political economy of urban green space, and the financial and power aspects of vested interests associated with urban development processes were not addressed. As identified in section 8.2 of this chapter, power dynamics are significant both in the policy process, and in the outcomes of policy decision making and implementation. Additional research could consider these highly relevant aspects as dimensions of policy success and failure. The analytical framework could be expanded to incorporate consideration of these factors.

Finally, a focus on policy documents, supplementary documents, and policy makers’ reflections and assessments of the policy making process and content, while providing valuable insights into aspects of urban green space creation, management, retention and loss, reflects carefully constructed, public-facing institutional narratives. In other words, analysis of policy documents and policy makers’ reflections has provided a rich insight into the processes, pressures, influences and contradictions that exist within efforts to transition to sustainable urban forms and structures, yet these insights would be substantially strengthened and broadened by examining consultation and engagement processes that led to the policies’ development. Further insights would also be gained with complementary, longer term analysis that seeks to link policies with associated outcomes.

8.6 Summary

The practical contributions of this research are documenting and analysing how green space is addressed in current policies in Melbourne, and providing a complementary study of London, UK. The research has highlighted the importance of a range of policy mechanisms, rather than a singular focus on regulation, and has identified the roles that policy mechanisms, both regulatory and non-regulatory, play in the transition to sustainable, nature-based cities. To promote innovation and best-practice approaches,

Chapter 8 244 awards and incentives (potentially both financial and non-financial) are required, as well as government provision to foster industry and skills development and experimentation.

As green space policies continue to evolve, with new policies already replacing some of those analysed as part of this research, some aspects of the practical contributions will become less current and lose topical relevance. However, this research has also provided theoretical contributions, by explicitly linking the identification of relevant policy domains to the range of urban ecosystem services. It has developed understandings of green spaces’ multifunctionality and how this is encompassed in diverse, sometimes conflicting, and often ‘splintered’ narratives of urban green space.

Further it has developed methodological contributions, with the development of the analytical framework which provides a structured approach to examining how green space is addressed by policy.

The following chapter concludes this thesis by drawing together the practical, theoretical and analytical contributions discussed in this chapter, and demonstrating how these have addressed the research aim stated in Chapter 1.

Chapter 8 245 Chapter 9. Conclusions

This research has addressed the research question How can public policies contribute to retaining and maximising green space for cooler cities? by answering the sub-questions:

a. How are public policies currently contributing to urban green space retention and maximisation? b. What are the key policy mechanisms? c. What are the key ’success factors’ for policies to be effective? The policy analysis framework, which provided the lens through which the research was conducted and understood, was informed by elements from policy research and theories of sustainability transitions. The resulting findings are strongly interrelated;

Figure 9.1 indicates these linkages, reflecting that the findings cannot be understood in isolation but rather reveal the multiple connections between the individual findings and how they all contribute together to answering the research questions.

Figure 9.1 Research questions, and associated findings and contributions

Chapter 9 246 As the final chapter of this thesis, an overview of the research justification, the research aim and associated research questions, methods, data collection and analysis is presented (Section 9.1). Following this, the key findings are summarised (Section 9.2), and significance of the key contributions are stated (Section 9.3); these sections demonstrate how the findings and contributions address the research aim and research questions, and contribute to growing research efforts on green space policies and sustainability transitions to nature-based cities. The chapter concludes by reviewing the research limitations and identifying future research directions.

9.1 Research overview

The aim of this research is to contribute to the effectiveness of public policies in retaining and maximising urban green space for mitigation of the urban heat island effect, and broader urban sustainability and liveability objectives. The research focuses on Melbourne, a city of more than 4.5 million people in south-eastern Australia.

Globally, urban populations are increasing; trends in global urbanisation processes indicate that urban areas are expanding faster than urban populations (Elmqvist et al.

2013). Urban areas are exposed to the impacts of the urban heat island effect (UHIE).

The UHIE exacerbates heatwaves, which themselves cause significant health, environmental and economic issues for cities. Climate change impacts are projected to increase the frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves for many Australian cities, including Melbourne. This research forms part of a larger study, Urban Microclimates, through the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living.

There are three main parts to this thesis: the first part (Chapter 1-4) presented the review of literature, theoretical context and research approach; the second part presented the data and results (Chapter 5-7) and the final part presents analysis, discussions and conclusions (Chapter 8-9). The research findings and discussion in turn further informed the scope and content of the first part of the thesis in an iterative process (Figure 9.2). The key findings and research contributions are reviewed in the following section.

Chapter 9 247

Figure 9.2 Thesis structure indicating iteration of earlier chapters

9.2 Research findings

This section highlights the key findings of this research, bringing together results from

Melbourne and London. The key findings relate to urban green space policy domains and policy integration; policy mechanisms or instruments, and their differing actions with respect to sustainability transition trajectories; the strengths, weakness and omissions of the strategic, tactical, operational and reflexive elements in the policies examined and associated policy success factors; green space’s multifunctionality and its implications for urban green space policy and management; and finally, communicating urban green space policy in the context of multifunctionality and

‘splintered narratives’. While some of these elements have already been identified within policy research and may be familiar (or intuitive) to policy practitioners, a key contribution of this research is identifying these findings as together being collectively and explicitly linked to policy effectiveness, success, and transitions in complex urban systems. By focusing on green space policies, within the context of urban heat, the research enunciated policy processes and success factors underpinning green space provision and conceptualised these as part of sustainability transitions to nature-based cities. This research emphasises the complementarity of policy success factors, and the importance of integrated and multipronged policy responses for effective policy interventions. Further, these are critical for the transition to nature-based cities, and a green, low-carbon future.

Chapter 9 248 Together, the findings address the research questions by showing how policies can and are contributing to retaining and maximising urban green space, and by identifying key policy success factors informed by theories of sustainability transitions. Taken as a whole, the research findings can contribute to ongoing policy efforts for cooler and more liveable cities, as part of sustainability transitions to nature-based cities.

9.2.1 Policy domains and policy integration: connections and linkages

In answering the research sub-question ‘a. How are public policies currently contributing to green space retention and maximisation?’ this research found that there are multiple, sometimes interconnected, policy domains relating to urban green space (Figure 8.5).

As such, there is potential for green space policy to link across different policy domains, and to link together their associated policy officers, as well as the underlying objectives and implementation actions from across policy domains. This process could provide the catalyst, or policy impetus, for bringing together these otherwise separate and distinct policy areas. However, in practice, as found in this research, the complexity of multiple policy domains more often reflects siloed approaches to green space policy development and implementation. There is a lack of integration across these policy domains, and conflicting or contradictory objectives weaken policies’ roles in retaining and maximising urban green space. Furthermore, some highly relevant policy domains were found to be largely absent from green space policy making at present. This is particularly apparent in the health domain. There is growing research demonstrating significant health benefits associated with urban green space provision, and this is reflected in the strategic elements of green space policies (for example, vision statements). However, health-related policy makers are at present largely absent from involvement in green space policy making or implementation processes.

Integrating green space-specific policies with other influential policies (particularly land use and transport, as well as health domains), presents significant opportunities for increasing policy success. Policy integration is further considered later in this chapter in relation to policy success factors (Section 9.2.4).

Chapter 9 249 9.2.2 Policy mechanisms: from regulation to innovation

In addressing the research sub-question ‘b. What are the key policy mechanisms?’ this research used a typology that defines four categories of policy mechanisms (Maddison and Denniss 2013): government provision and demonstration; information and community engagement; regulations; and incentives. These policy mechanisms represent distinct approaches to tackling policy issues, address different participants within the policy context, and operate at different points on the transitions trajectory.

The findings of this research support calls for a range of policy mechanisms to be applied to effectively address urban challenges (Dovers and Hussey 2013).

Government provision is important for urban green space installation and ongoing management on publicly owned land. Additionally, governments can play a significant role in demonstrating the techniques and benefits of green space provision. This is particularly important for innovative approaches and techniques, where there may be reluctance on the part of private businesses or individuals to adopt new techniques, and unfamiliarity with benefits and processes. Government provision and demonstration of green space innovations can contribute to development and maturing of horticultural knowledge, processes, skills and industry participants. An example of this is the case of green roofs, which are not yet widespread in Australian buildings (Wilkinson and Dixon 2016; Williams et al. 2010). City of Melbourne has installed a green roof on a recently refurbished Council building, as well as organising regular green roof forums (‘Canopy’) for industry participants.

Information and community engagement contributes to building knowledge and understanding of green space processes, functions and benefits, as well as providing specific technical information to build skills and capacity. Information and engagement also fosters broader support for policy goals and objectives, and underpins ongoing political support for policy interventions and provision of funding and resources for implementation.

Regulations set the baseline, legally enforceable minimum performance standards.

Regulations require an ‘evidence base’ for establishment, and to underpin

Chapter 9 250 enforceability. Incentives push and foster innovation and efforts towards best practice that stretch and extend techniques and industry capacity, as well as building and expanding the evidence base. With ongoing policy review and evaluation, and improvements in techniques and practices, regulations should be periodically reset to increase minimum standards. As noted in Chapter 8 (Figure 8.3), both government provision and demonstration, and engagement and information mechanisms may act to promote and support innovation and best practice, or, less positively, may simply reinforce regulatory-based minimum standards.

9.2.3 Sustainability transitions to nature-based cities

This research brought together understandings of the typology of policy mechanisms and actions, with theories of sustainability transitions, to demonstrate how the different policy mechanisms contribute in different ways and at different stages to the transition trajectory from monofunctional socio-technical systems, to multifunctional social-ecological systems. Furthermore, in characterising the transition trajectory in this way, this research has built on representations of land use planning-focused transitions to nature-based solutions (Lennon and Scott 2016), building-focused transitions to regenerative development (Mang and Reed 2012b) and understandings of sustainable development (Hopwood et al. 2005). It engages with recent research on urban ecosystem services and nature-based solutions (Kabisch et al. 2016; Kremer et al. 2016;

Nesshöver et al. 2017) to frame ‘nature-based cities’ as the normative goal of transitions to multifunctional social-ecological systems.

9.2.4 Policy success factors

In addressing the research sub-question ‘c. What are the key success factors?’, this research drew on theories of sustainability transitions, and specifically Transition

Management’s strategic, tactical, organisational and reflexive elements, to identify policies’ strengths, weaknesses and omissions. This research found that most of the policies examined were more effective addressing the strategic factors of defining vision, goals and targets, and significantly less effective in addressing reflexive factors

Chapter 9 251 and evaluation processes. There is a shared need, across all jurisdictions analysed, and reinforced by policy makers’ comments in interviews and seminars, for development and application of indicators for urban green space quality, quantity and retention, that can be easily utilised to support active and ongoing policy monitoring and evaluation.

The specific success factors associated with the analysis elements were identified and discussed in Chapter 8 (Figure 8.6), and are summarised in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Policy success factors and associated analysis categories

Analysis Policy success factors category Strategic Policy champions; goals, targets, narratives High level support from elected officials and managers, underpinned by community support; green space ‘champions’ to inspire others and to be courageous in pushing application of policy Goals and targets to communicate ambition and to direct implementation Coherent, overarching narratives to communicate priorities, and to integrate multifunctionality, diverse elements and separate policy domains and objectives Tactical Policy integration with other influential policies, alliances and partnerships, community engagement Policy integration across policy domains, including land use planning, transport, health Actively engaging with community members, local residents and businesses, supported by organisational resources and training Building and maintaining alliances and partnerships across policy domains and across stakeholder and community interest areas Operational Resources, technical skills and range of policy mechanisms Utilising a range of policy mechanisms to address urban green space challenges Technical skills and willingness for experimentation Financial resourcing for on-ground implementation Reflexive Policy monitoring and evaluation; indicators for urban green space ; policy learning Monitoring and evaluation supports policy review and improvement Indicator sets for urban green space enable and facilitate monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation and outcomes Policy learning, drawn from monitoring and evaluation, contributes to sharing skills and experience within and between jurisdictions and cities Monitoring and evaluation were not well addressed by most jurisdictions analysed in this research

The importance of policy integration, particularly between green space policies and influential policies in the land use and transport domains is illustrated by poor integration and resulting lack of protection afforded to Melbourne’s green space retention by the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) (Chapter 6). This research found

Chapter 9 252 that the VPP fails to effectively ensure green space (or even open space) retention in many different types of residential development (for example, single dwelling in residential zone where redevelopment with larger houses leads to loss of open space).

Without integration of green space objectives and targets in high-level and enforceable policies for land use and transport at state level, green space on public and private land lacks strong protection and is vulnerable to ongoing, incremental loss associated with urban densification and renewal processes. This situation contrasts with the bidirectional integration and cross-referencing between London’s urban planning and green space policies, the London Plan, and the All London Green Grid (Chapter 7).

These findings also demonstrated the effectiveness of the analytical framework in enabling the development of thorough insights into urban green space policies and success factors. The research supports the views that policy success is necessarily underpinned by multiple forms of evidence (Head 2008), by multiple policy participants adopting different roles (de Haan and Rotmans 2016; Loorbach 2014) and by narratives that can encapsulate a clear vision as well as a diversity of contributing, often complementary elements (Luederitz et al. 2016). Furthermore, in communicating policy needs and opportunities to policy decision makers and politicians, ‘capturing their imagination’ and ‘sparking their interest’ with a clear succinct message or narrative, that is in turn underpinned by research, is likely to be far more effective than attempting to present the research in detail (Roxon 2017). Communication and narrative is discussed further in Section 9.2.6.

9.2.5 Green space innovation, multifunctionality and policy

This research has found that green space functions and benefits are acknowledged across multiple policy domains and levels of government in Australia and UK. There is increasing awareness and interest amongst policy makers in harnessing the multiple benefits of green space and its associated ecosystem services to address urban issues and challenges. These include the explicitly ‘environmental’ challenges (stormwater quality and quantity, air pollution and thermal regulation), as well as broader social

Chapter 9 253 functions (social cohesion, mental and physical health and well-being). However, green spaces’ multifunctionality directly leads to challenges in the existing ‘monofunctional’ policy and management processes: Who pays, who benefits? Who should lead green space policy development and implementation? How should green space be funded?

This research has found that conceptualisations of multifunctional green space as urban ‘green infrastructure’ are not yet embedded in policy makers’ and urban managers’ business-as-usual approaches to infrastructure provision. In many cases, installations of green infrastructure constitute technical innovations, particularly water-sensitive urban design treatments and green roofs, walls and facades. There is a lack of experience, techniques and financial costings for their installation and ongoing maintenance. This limits uptake, as developers and land managers are unwilling or hesitant to risk uncertain costs. In addition, this research found that there are often unrealistic expectations, reflected in the interviews with some policy makers, that low levels of maintenance interventions will be adequate to ensure the ongoing operation of green infrastructure, in part based on the assumption that green infrastructure, as

‘natural’ systems, will be able to ‘look after themselves’ with minimal maintenance inputs. This supports other research that cautions against expectations that nature- based solutions will be, by definition, “cheap and easy” (Nesshöver et al. 2017, p. 1215), and the importance of provision of time, resources and community participation towards maintaining green infrastructure into the future (Clabby 2016).

9.2.6 Communication and narratives

This research has shown that while green space’s multiple benefits are broadly acknowledged, there is an absence of an overarching narrative; the splintered narratives reflect inward-facing competition between advocates of green spaces’ different functions, characteristics and ecological composition. This results in the diffusion or scattering of policy, advocacy, communication and engagement efforts, and unclear, conflicting and competing framings. This splintering extends to the stakeholders, peak associations and community groups involved in urban green space

Chapter 9 254 planning and management. Given that this research found that ‘narrative’ is one of the policy success factors, identifying approaches to build integrated narratives for urban green space is a priority for contributing to this research’s aim of retaining and maximising urban green space. In terms of addressing splintered narratives through government structures, London’s metropolitan scale structure, the Mayor of London and its associated Greater London Authority, provides an approach that can potentially concentrate and assemble a coherent and overarching narrative. The extent to which it is successful depends in large part on its ability to establish and maintain relationships across a broad-based ‘green space alliance’ of London’s boroughs, businesses and community members.

This finding of ‘splintered narratives’ supports other research that reflected on the competing narratives associated with different understandings and characterisations of sustainability transitions (Luederitz et al. 2016). Luederitz et al. (2016) identified how different worldviews underpin these narratives, differentiated by attitudes towards the roles of technology; and shallow, incremental interventions versus systemic, transformational change. While the differing narratives can be understood as reflecting competing or even conflicting understandings of sustainability transitions, Luederitz et al. (2016) argued that the narratives reflect different points along the sustainability transitions trajectory and therefore can be understood to provide complementary conceptualisations. Rather than emphasising the conflict between pathway narratives, the different narratives can be seen to all contribute towards a more complete insight into the complexities of transition pathways, opening the opportunity for learning from each to build a more complex, composite understanding (Luederitz et al. 2016).

Likewise, Kabisch et al. (2016) highlighted the need for new integrated approaches,

“bringing together new networks of society, nature-based solution ambassadors, and practitioners, … that take into account an integrative and transdisciplinary participation of diverse actors” (p. 1). This research has argued that participatory approaches that emphasise collaboration and cooperation, while also acknowledging the existence of conflict and competition, may contribute to efforts to build coherent

Chapter 9 255 and resilient urban green space narratives. Furthermore, acknowledging non-human nature and ecosystem services and disservices may strengthen and add depth to this approach. These efforts to build a sense of shared agency in the current and future planning, design and management of cities is an essential element in enhancing stewardship of the biosphere (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Ostrom et al. 1999).

This section has presented the key research findings and how they inform approaches to green space research, policy and practice. The following section presents and briefly discusses the associated practical, theoretical and analytical research contributions, before the chapter concludes by considering research limitations and future directions.

9.3 Research contributions

In addressing the research question and sub-questions, this research has made practical, theoretical and methodological contributions. These contributions are interlinked and reflect the multiple connections between the sub-questions, the findings and contributions.

The research has provided a number of practical contributions that have the potential to inform and support policy makers’ work to address green space policy drivers and contribute to retaining and maximising green space. The practical contributions focus on the identification of the range of policy success factors and on showing that many of these interact with each other to maximise success. Other practical contributions include presenting green infrastructure as a form of urban technical innovation, which requires particular attention to technical skills and capacity development, as well as adequate resourcing for ongoing maintenance to ensure continued functioning and provision of ecosystem services and benefits. This research also reinforced the role of reflexive elements of policy monitoring, evaluation, policy learning and the need for development of easily applied green space indicator sets to support these processes in practice. The limits of policy approaches presented by this research related to requirements for ‘political capital’ to enable policy innovation; the gaps between communicating research findings, expectations of rational, evidence-based policy

Chapter 9 256 making and the political processes involved in decision making; trade-offs between green space and other urban uses. These findings also constitute important practical contributions to policy makers’ efforts and expectations.

This research has contributed to theoretical understandings of how multifunctional green space, as a form of urban innovation, presents challenges to the existing and predominantly monofunctional policy and management systems. The findings related to green space multifunctionality’s splintered narratives has contributed to theoretical perspectives on concepts of nature-based solutions and green infrastructure, as well as practical perspectives on green space policy approaches and success factors.

This research has made analytical contributions by developing and applying a policy analysis framework that brought together elements from Transition Management and policy research to identify policy ‘success factors’ for green space in urban transitions.

In doing so, it framed green space as a boundary or linking concept between socio- technical and social-ecological understandings of cities, and contributed to theoretical understandings of the role of urban green space in the sustainability transition trajectory from monofunctional socio-technical systems to multifunctional social- ecological systems. As discussed in the previous section, this research has adapted and extended existing conceptualisations of sustainability-related transition trajectories

(Hopwood et al. 2005; Lennon and Scott 2016; Mang et al. 2016) to construct a trajectory towards nature-based cities as multifunctional, social-ecological systems.

These contributions can be represented by adapting the theoretical context defined in

Chapter 3 (Figure 3.5) to demonstrate how this research contributes to knowledge and research. Figure 9.3 shows how the research findings and contributions are related to the theoretical context underpinning this research. It indicates that the findings inform and contribute to understandings of the intersections between urban ecology and policy research (A and B), between policy research and sustainability transitions (D), and between sustainability transitions and urban ecology (C and E). Together, the research contributes to understandings of policy perspectives in the transition to nature-based cities, as the intersection between all three bodies of knowledge.

Chapter 9 257

Figure 9.3 Theoretical context and contributions of this research

9.4 Research limitations and suggested future research

In undertaking this research, I have found that my previous experience has provided familiarity with the context and with many of the research participants. This may have made it easier for me to identify relevant interview participants and to gain access to them for interviewing and to their organisation’s policy documents. However I have also realised through the data collection and analysis processes, the importance of active listening, to ensure I do not assume that I already know what each participant’s responses will be to interview questions. I have found that my previous role of sustainability ‘advocate’ (while employed at NAGA and MCMC) has needed to shift to a researcher’s role of listener. I no longer have to try to convince government stakeholders of the need for increased funding and resources; my researcher role has both freed me and required me to actively listen and attend to what the interview participants think, and how they understand the issues.

Chapter 9 258 While this research has provided analytical, theoretical and practical contributions, there are a number of limitations that have reduced the generalizability of results. The key limitations of this research are that it undertook qualitative research only, that it examined policies from a limited timeframe (temporal limitations) and that research was limited to Melbourne, with the inclusion of London as a complementary study.

The complementary study of London’s policies was restricted to only analysing metropolitan scale policies of the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority, further limiting the scope for direct comparison between Melbourne’s and London’s policy approaches. In addition, there are other areas that would contribute to more complete understandings of green space policies and policy processes that were not addressed. These include economic and financial analysis, political ecology and quantitative measures of green space distribution. Furthermore, incorporating assessments across time may contribute to efforts to correlate specific policy approaches with changing green space quantities and policy outcomes. Applying a systems approach utilising quantitative and qualitative data, such as systems dynamics modelling, could extend understandings of the effects of feedbacks and other relationships in applying specific policy approaches.

Future research of green space policy approaches could aim to address these limitations, as well as focusing on the broader green space governance issues of social inclusion and equity in the planning and distribution of green space; analysis of stakeholders’ power and influence in policy development, decision making and implementation; and discourse analysis of green space narratives and policy communication. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ‘action research’ approaches that utilise both quantitative and qualitative data to address knowledge gaps would be particularly effective in investigating green space narratives, underlying worldviews and resulting policy making and implementation processes. Considerations of trade- offs between different ecosystem services, and how ecosystem disservices and non- human nature are reflected in green space narratives, and addressed in green space policies would also present significant future research contributions. Utilising other conceptual approaches to urban transformation processes would provide a range of

Chapter 9 259 different insights. Finally, there is a continuing need for action research to contribute to identifying and operationalising opportunities to increase urban green spaces, by converting built areas and under-utilised impervious surfaces, and by engaging and valuing participatory approaches.

9.5 Concluding remarks

This research started with a focus on the role of urban green space in mitigating the urban heat island effect. As the research progressed, the findings encompassed urban green spaces’ multifunctionality and multiple roles in urban areas as social-ecological systems. While this focus on urban green spaces’ multifunctionality has informed the key research contributions related to green space policies, this research has nonetheless also contributed to practical understandings of how green space policy can contribute to UHIE mitigation. In particular, it has identified policy mechanisms and success factors that can contribute to policy effectiveness in urban green space provision. With increasing government focus on UHIE impacts and mitigation, this research has contributed to practical, policy makers’ needs, as well as methodological and theoretical perspectives.

Furthermore, while the research addressed green space policy perspectives, this led to deeper understandings of green spaces’ roles and functions in urban systems. This research identified that urban green space is often approached in a fundamentally monofunctional ‘mechanistic’ way, in which one or two key functions are prioritised, and the other benefits or ecosystem services (multifunctionality) are treated as side benefits (something for nothing!). Managing urban green space for one or two priority ecosystem services is largely treating green space as monofunctional, and urban nature as ‘bio-mechanical’. To effectively utilise green space’s multifunctionality, a shift is required to understanding it as a complex social-ecological urban system and to develop governance systems that can at least accommodate, if not facilitate multifunctionality.

Chapter 9 260 Green spaces illustrate and embody both service and disservice, both competition and collaboration, strengthening the importance of asking research questions that uncover complexity rather than reinforcing oppositional dualities: if you only look for competition, you may not see cooperation or co-habitation. Building green space narratives that encompass its multifunctionality and diversity presents opportunities for engaging with complexity and multiple perspectives in urban settings.

Chapter 9 261 References

202020 Vision 2014, The 202020 Vision plan, Horticulture Innovation Australia Ltd, Sydney. ——— 2015, How to grow an urban forest. A ten step guide to help councils save money, time and share practical knowledge, 202020 Vision, City of Melbourne and Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne. AAS 2015, The science of climate change: questions and answers, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Abson, DJ, Fischer, J, Leventon, J, Newig, J, Schomerus, T, Vilsmaier, U, von Wehrden, H, Abernethy, P, Ives, CD, Jager, NW & Lang, DJ 2017, 'Leverage points for sustainability transformation', AMBIO, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 30-9. Adams, MP & Smith, PL 2014, 'A systematic approach to model the influence of the type and density of vegetation cover on urban heat using remote sensing', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 132, pp. 47-54. AECOM 2012, Economic assessment of the urban heat island effect. Report prepared for City of Melbourne, City of Melbourne, Melbourne. Akbari, H, Cartalis, C, Kolokotsa, D, Muscio, A, Pisello, AL, Rossi, F, Santamouris, M, Synnefa, A, Wong, NH & Zinzi, M 2016, 'Local climate change and urban heat island mitigation techniques – the state of the art', Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Akbari, H & Kolokotsa, D 2016, 'Three decades of urban heat islands and mitigation technologies research', Energy and Buildings, vol. 133, pp. 834-52. Aleksandrowicz, O, Vuckovic, M, Kiesel, K & Mahdavi, A 2017, 'Current trends in urban heat island mitigation research: observations based on a comprehensive research repository', Urban Climate. Alexander, LV & Arblaster, JM 2009, 'Assessing trends in observed and modelled climate extremes over Australia in relation to future projections', International Journal of Climatology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 417-35. Alexandre, F 2013, 'The role of vegetation in the urban policies of European cities in the age of the sustainable city', European Spatial Research and Policy, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 11-26. Aliento, W 2014, Melbourne’s Lord Mayor on climate change, planning powers and dog boxes, 2/10/14, The Fifth Estate, viewed 20/3/17, . Althaus, C, Bridgman, P & Davis, G 2013, The Australian policy handbook, 5th edn., Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W. Amati, M & Yokohari, M 2006, 'Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of London's green belt', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 75, no. 1–2, pp. 125- 42. Andersson, E, Barthel, S, Borgström, S, Colding, J, Elmqvist, T, Folke, C & Gren, A 2014, 'Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services', AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 445-53.

262 Armson, D, Stringer, P & Ennos, AR 2012, 'The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 245-55. Arup 2014, Cities alive: rethinking green infrastructure, Arup, London. Azkorra, Z, Pérez, G, Coma, J, Cabeza, LF, Bures, S, Álvaro, JE, Erkoreka, A & Urrestarazu, M 2015, 'Evaluation of green walls as a passive acoustic insulation system for buildings', Applied Acoustics, vol. 89, pp. 46-56. Backhaus, A & Fryd, O 2012, 'Analyzing the first loop design process for large-scale sustainable urban drainage system retrofits in , Denmark', Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 820-37. Bai, X, Surveyer, A, Elmqvist, T, Gatzweiler, FW, Güneralp, B, Parnell, S, Prieur- Richard, AH, Shrivastava, P, Siri, JG, Stafford-Smith, M, Toussaint, JP & Webb, R 2016, 'Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 23, pp. 69-78. Banks, G 2009, Evidence-based policy making: What is it? How do we get it? ANU Public Lecture Series, presented by ANZSOG, 4 February, Productivity Commission, Canberra. Beatley, T 2011, Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning, Island Press, Washington, DC. Beatley, T & Newman, P 2013, 'Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities', Sustainability, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 3328-45. Beeson, M & McDonald, M 2013, 'The politics of climate change in Australia', Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 331-48. Bélanger, P 2009, 'Landscape as infrastructure', Landscape Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 79- 95. Benedict, MA & McMahon, ET 2006, Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities, Island Press, Washington, DC. Berkes, F, Colding, J & Folke, C 2002, Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bi, P, Williams, S, Loughnan, M, Lloyd, G, Hansen, A, Kjellstrom, T, Dear, K & Saniotis, A 2011, 'The effects of extreme heat on human mortality and morbidity in Australia: Implications for public health', Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, vol. 23, no. 2 SUPPL., pp. 27S-36S. Binder, CR, Hinkel, J, Bots, PWG & Pahl-Wostl, C 2013, 'Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems', Ecology and Society, vol. 18, no. 4, p. art. 26. BoM & CSIRO 2016, State of the climate 2016, Canberra. BOP Consulting 2013, Green spaces: the benefits for London, London. Bosomworth, K, Trundle, A & McEvoy, D 2013, Responding to the urban heat island: a policy and institutional analysis, Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research, Melbourne. Bovaird, T 2014, 'Attributing outcomes to social policy interventions – ‘Gold Standard’ or ‘Fool's Gold’ in public policy and management?', Social Policy and Administration, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1-23.

263 Bowler, DE, Buyung-Ali, L, Knight, TM & Pullin, AS 2010, 'Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 147-55. Boyle, C, Gamage, G, Burns, B, Fassman, E, Knight-Lenihan, S, Schwendenmann, L & Thresher, W 2012, Greening cities: a review of green infrastructure, Transforming Cities, The University of Auckland. Broom, C 2017, 'Exploring the relations between childhood experiences in nature and young adults' environmental attitudes and behaviours', Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 34-47. Bryant, CGA 2006, The nations of Britain, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bryman, A 2012, Social research methods, 4th edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Buijs, A, Mattijssen, TJ, Van der Jagt, AP, Ambrose-Oji, B, Andersson, E, Elands, BH & Steen Møller, M 2016, 'Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 22, pp. 1-6. Buizer, M, Elands, B, Mattijssen, T, van der Jagt, A, Ambrose, B, Gerőházi, É, Santos, A & Steen Møller, M 2015, The governance of urban green spaces in selected EU cities: policies, practices, actors, topics. Green Surge Work Package 6. Buizer, M, Elands, B & Vierikko, K 2016, 'Governing cities reflexively - the biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 62, pp. 7-13. Bulkeley, H & Betsill, MM 2013, 'Revisiting the urban politics of climate change', Environmental Politics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 136-54. Buxton, M & Goodman, R 2012, 'Protecting Melbourne's green wedges - fate of a public policy', in M. Amati (ed), Urban green belts in the twenty-first century, Ashgate Publishing, Abingdon, pp. 61-82. Buxton, M, Goodman, R & Moloney, S 2016, Planning Melbourne: lessons for a sustainable city, CSIRO Publishing, Clayton, Vic. Cairney, P 2012, Understanding public policy: theories and issues, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. ——— 2016, The politics of evidence-based policy making, Palgrave Pivot, Basingstoke, UK. Cairney, P & Heikkila, T 2014, 'A comparison of theories of the policy process', in Paul A Sabatier and Christopher M Weible (eds), Theories of the policy process, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 363-90. Carey, A 2014, 'Go home now, Metro says as heat hits services', review of, The Age, 16 January 2014. Castán Broto, V & Bulkeley, H 2013, 'A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities', Global Environmental Change, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 92-102. Castree, N, Adams, WM, Barry, J, Brockington, D, Büscher, B, Corbera, E, Demeritt, D, Duffy, R, Felt, U, Neves, K, Newell, P, Pellizzoni, L, Rigby, K, Robbins, P, Robin, L, Rose, DB, Ross, A, Schlosberg, D, Sörlin, S, West, P, Whitehead, M & Wynne, B 2014, 'Changing the intellectual climate', Nature Climate Change, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 763-8. CBD 2012, Cities and biodiversity outlook, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

264 CES 2012, Climate change Victoria: the science, our people and our state of play. Foundation paper one, Melbourne. ——— 2013, Victoria State of the Environment report 2013. Science, policy, people, Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, Melbourne. Charmaz, K 2014, Constructing grounded theory, 2nd edn., SAGE Publications, London. Charmaz, K & Belgrave, LL 2012, 'Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis', in Jaber F. Gubrium, James A. Holstein, Amir B. Marvasti and Karyn D. McKinney (eds), The SAGE handbook of interview research: the complexity of the craft, SAGE Publications, pp. 347-65. Chen, D, Wang, X, Thatcher, M, Barnett, G, Kachenko, A & Prince, R 2014, 'Urban vegetation for reducing heat related mortality', Environmental Pollution, vol. 192, pp. 275-84. Childers, DL, Pickett, STA, Grove, JM, Ogden, L & Whitmer, A 2014, 'Advancing urban sustainability theory and action: challenges and opportunities', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 320-8. Cidell, J 2017, Imagining sustainability: creative urban environmental governance in and Melbourne, Routledge, London. Cities Alliance 2007, Liveable cities. The benefits of urban environmental planning. A Cities Alliance study on good practices and useful tools, The Cities Alliance, Washington. Clabby, G 2016, 'Delivering green infrastructure through planning: insights from practice in Fingal, Ireland', Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 289- 95. Coates, L, Haynes, K, O’Brien, J, McAneney, J & de Oliveira, FD 2014, 'Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: an examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844– 2010', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 42, pp. 33-44. Coffey, B 2011, ‘Victorian Labor and the environment: a legacy to be proud of?’, Australian Political Studies Association Conference, 20-28 September, Old Parliament House, Canberra. Coffey, B 2016, 'Unpacking the politics of natural capital and economic metaphors in environmental policy discourse', Environmental Politics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 203-22. Cohen-Shacham, E, Walters, G, Janzen, C & Maginnis, S 2016, Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Gland, Switzerland. Colding, J 2011, 'The role of ecosystem services in contemporary urban planning', in Jari Niemelä, Jürgen H. Breuste and Glenn Guntenspergen (eds), Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 228-37. Colebatch, HK 2006, 'Mapping the work of policy', in H. K. Colebatch (ed), Beyond the policy cycle: the policy process in Australia, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W., pp. 1-20. Colmer Brunton 2012, The urban forest and perceived health and wellbeing. Report for City of Melbourne, Melbourne. CoM 2009, Climate change adaptation strategy, Melbourne. ——— 2012a, Open space strategy. Planning for future growth, Melbourne. ——— 2012b, Urban forest strategy. Making a great city greener. 2012-2032, Melbourne. ——— 2013, Council Plan 2013-2017, Melbourne.

265 ——— 2014, Total watermark - city as a catchment. Update 2014, Melbourne. ——— 2016a, Climate change adaptation - discussion paper, Melbourne. ——— 2016b, Love your laneway framework, Melbourne. CoM and MSI 2016, Caring for Country: an urban application. The possibilities for Melbourne, Melbourne. Connop, S, Vandergert, P, Eisenberg, B, Collier, MJ, Nash, C, Clough, J & Newport, D 2016, 'Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 62, pp. 99-111. Conway, TM & Urbani, L 2007, 'Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: a case study of Toronto, Canada', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 181-92. Corbin, JM & Strauss, AL 2008, Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn., SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. Costanza, R, d'Arge, R, de Groot, R, Farber, S, Grasso, M, Hannon, B, Limburg, K, Naeem, S, O'Neill, RV, Paruelo, J, Raskin, RG, Sutton, P & van den Belt, M 1997, 'The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital', Nature, vol. 387, no. 6630, pp. 253-60. Coutts, A, Beringer, J & Tapper, N 2010, 'Changing urban climate and CO2 emissions: implications for the development of policies for sustainable cities', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27-47. Coutts, A & Harris, R 2013, Urban heat island report: a multi-scale assessment on urban heating in Melbourne during an extreme heat event: policy approaches for adaptation, Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research, Melbourne. Coutts, AM, Tapper, NJ, Beringer, J, Loughnan, M & Demuzere, M 2013, 'Watering our cities: the capacity for Water Sensitive Urban Design to support urban cooling and improve human thermal comfort in the Australian context', Progress in Physical Geography, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 2-28. Coutts, AM, White, EC, Tapper, NJ, Beringer, J & Livesley, SJ 2016, 'Temperature and human thermal comfort effects of street trees across three contrasting street canyon environments', Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 124, no. 1-2, pp. 55-68. Coveney, J 2010, 'Analyzing public health policy: three approaches', Health Promotion Practice, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 515-21. Cowan, T, Purich, A, Perkins, S, Pezza, A, Boschat, G & Sadler, K 2014, 'More frequent, longer, and hotter heat waves for Australia in the twenty-first century', Journal of Climate, vol. 27, no. 15, pp. 5851-71. Creswell, JW 2014, Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches, 4th edn., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Cross River Partnership 2016, Green capital. Green infrastructure for a future city, Cross River Partnership, London. Crowley, K & Head, B 2015, 'Policy analysis in Australia: context, themes and challenges', in B. Head and K. Crowley (eds), Policy analysis in Australia, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 1-20.

266 Crowley, K & Walker, KJ 2012, Environmental policy failure: the Australian story, Tilde University Press, Prahran. Dagenais, D, Thomas, I & Paquette, S 2017, 'Siting green stormwater infrastructure in a neighbourhood to maximise secondary benefits: lessons learned from a pilot project', Landscape Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 195-210. Daily, GC 1997, Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems, Island Press, Washington, DC. Davern, M, Farrar, A, Kendal, D & Giles-Corti, B 2017, Quality green public open space supporting health, wellbeing and biodiversity: a literature review. Report prepared for the Heart Foundation, SA Health, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Office for Recreation and Sport, and Local Government Association (SA), Victoria. Davidson, K & Arman, M 2014, 'Planning for sustainability: an assessment of recent metropolitan planning strategies and urban policy in Australia', Australian Planner, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 296-306. Davies, C, Hansen, R, Rall, E, Pauleit, S, Lafortezza, R, De Bellis, Y, Santos, A & Tosics, I 2015, Green Surge: green infrastructure planning and implementation: the status of European green space planning and implementation based on an analysis of selected European city-regions. Report 5.1. Davison, G 1978, The rise and fall of marvellous Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Vic. de Haan, FJ & Rotmans, J 2016, They make the change: roles of actors in transitions, MSSI Research Paper No. 5, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of Melbourne, Parkville. de Jong, M, Joss, S, Schraven, D, Zhan, C & Weijnen, M 2015, 'Sustainable-smart- resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 109, pp. 25-38. Dean, J 2014, 'The unruly tree: stories from the archives', in L. A. Sandberg, Adrina Bardekjian and Sadia Butt (eds), Urban forests, trees, and greenspace: a political ecology perspective, Earthscan, Abingdon, pp. 162-75. Debbage, N & Shepherd, JM 2015, 'The urban heat island effect and city contiguity', Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 54, pp. 181-94. Deilami, K & Kamruzzaman, M 2017, 'Modelling the urban heat island effect of smart growth policy scenarios in Brisbane', Land Use Policy, vol. 64, pp. 38-55. Deloitte Access Economics 2015, 'Quantifying benefits of public open space in Melbourne. Unpublished report for MPA.', Metropolitan Planning Authority, Melbourne. DELWP 2015, Plan Melbourne refresh. Discussion paper, East Melbourne. ——— 2016a, Shaping Melbourne’s central city. Melbourne Amendment C270: development that enhances Melbourne. , Victoria. ——— 2016b, Victoria’s climate change adaptation plan 2017-2020. Directions paper, Melbourne. ——— 2016c, Water for Victoria water plan, Melbourne.

267 Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 2008, 'Strategies of qualitative inquiry', SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. DEPI 2014, Growing green guide: a guide to green roofs, walls and facades in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia, Melbourne. DIRD 2015, State of Australian cities 2014-2015. Progress in Australian regions, Canberra. DIT 2011, Our cities, our future. A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future, Canberra. ——— 2013, State of Australian cities 2013, Canberra. Dizdaroglu, D 2017, 'The role of indicator-based sustainability assessment in policy and the decision-making process: a review and outlook', Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 6. Dobbs, C, Nitschke, CR & Kendal, D 2014, 'Global drivers and tradeoffs of three urban vegetation ecosystem services', PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1-9. DoE 2015, National climate resilience and adaptation strategy, Canberra. Doick, KJ, Peace, A & Hutchings, TR 2014, 'The role of one large greenspace in mitigating London's nocturnal urban heat island', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 493, pp. 662-71. Doick, KJ, Sellers, G, Castan-Broto, V & Silverthorne, T 2009, 'Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: the requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 163-78. Dollery, B, Kortt, MA & de Souza, S 2015, 'Policy analysis capacity and Australian local government', in B. Head and K. Crowley (eds), Policy analysis in Australia, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 105-19. Donovan, GH, Butry, DT, Michael, YL, Prestemon, JP, Liebhold, AM, Gatziolis, D & Mao, MY 2013, 'The relationship between trees and human health: evidence from the spread of the emerald ash borer', American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 139-45. Douglas, I 2011, 'Prologue', in I. Douglas, D. Goode, M.C. Houck and R. Wang (eds), The Routledge handbook of urban ecology, Routledge, London, pp. xx-xxiv. Douglas, I & James, P 2015, Urban ecology: an introduction, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon. Douglas, O, Lennon, M & Scott, M 2017, 'Green space benefits for health and well- being: a life-course approach for urban planning, design and management', Cities, vol. 66, pp. 53-62. Dovers, S 2005, 'Policy analysis, environment and sustainability', in R. Quentin Grafton, Libby Robin and Robert J. Wasson (eds), Understanding the environment: bridging the disciplinary divides, UNSW Press, Sydney, pp. 76-96. Dovers, S & Hussey, K 2013, Environment and sustainability: a policy handbook, 2nd edn., The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. Doyle, R 2015, The Melbourne story: how we shape cities and then cities shape us. Redmond Barry Lecture 2015 by Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, City of Melbourne, 8/7/15 Melbourne. Doyon, A 2015, ‘Don't ask permission: live/work’, State of Australian Cities Conference 2015, Gold Coast, Australia. DPMC 2016, Smart cities plan, Canberra.

268 Dryzek, J 2017, 'Democracy needs more trees and less Trump', The Conversation, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/democracy-needs-more-trees-and- less-trump-74059. DSE 2008, Climate change in Port Phillip and Westernport, East Melbourne. ——— 2012, Victorian government response to Victorian Environmental Assessment Council's metropolitan Melbourne investigation, Melbourne. ——— 2013, Victorian climate change adaptation plan, Melbourne. DTPLI 2013, Creating liveable open space: case studies, Melbourne. ——— 2014, Plan Melbourne. Metropolitan planning strategy, Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, Melbourne. EC 2015, Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group, Brussels. Eckersley, R 2015, 'Australian democracy and climate politics for the long term', Meanjin, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 140-5. Elmqvist, T, Fragkias, M, Goodness, J, Güneralp, B, Marcotullio, PJ, McDonald, RI, Parnell, S, Schewenius, M, Sendstad, M, Seto, KC, Wilkinson, C, Alberti, M, Folke, C, Frantzeskaki, N, Haase, D, Katti, M, Nagendra, H, Niemelä, J, Pickett, STA, Redman, CL & Tidball, K 2013, 'Stewardship of the biosphere in the urban era', in Thomas Elmqvist, Michail Fragkias, Julie Goodness, Burak Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, Susan Parnell, Maria Schewenius, Marte Sendstad, Karen C. Seto and Cathy Wilkinson (eds), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 719-46. Ely, M & Pitman, S 2013, Green infrastructure: life support for human habitats. The compelling evidence for incorporating nature into urban environments: a review of research and literature, Adelaide. Estrada, F, Botzen, WJW & Tol, RSJ 2017, 'A global economic assessment of city policies to reduce climate change impacts', Nature Climate Change, vol. advance online publication. Etherington, K 2004, Becoming a reflexive researcher: using our selves in research, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, GBR. Fan, Y, Das, KV & Chen, Q 2011, 'Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: assessing the cumulative impact', Health and Place, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1202-11. Farrelly, M & Brown, R 2011, 'Rethinking urban water management: experimentation as a way forward?', Global Environmental Change, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 721-32. Fink, HS 2016, 'Human-nature for climate action: nature-based solutions for urban sustainability', Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 254. Flannery, T 2002, The birth of Melbourne, Text Publishing, Melbourne. Flynn, CD & Davidson, CI 2016, 'Adapting the social-ecological system framework for urban stormwater management: the case of green infrastructure adoption', Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 4. Fontana, A & Frey, JH 2003, 'The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text', in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 61-106.

269 Frantzeskaki, N, Kabisch, N & McPhearson, T 2016, 'Advancing urban environmental governance: understanding theories, practices and processes shaping urban sustainability and resilience', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 62, pp. 1-6. Frantzeskaki, N, Loorbach, D & Meadowcroft, J 2012, 'Governing societal transitions to sustainability', International journal of sustainable development, vol. 15, no. 1-2, pp. 19-36. Frantzeskaki, N & Tilie, N 2014, 'The dynamics of urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands', AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 542-55. Frantzeskaki, N, Wittmayer, J & Loorbach, D 2014, 'The role of partnerships in ‘realising’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam's City Ports Area, the Netherlands', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 65, pp. 406-17. Freestone, R 2014, 'Australian environmental planning origins and theories', in J. Byrne, Neil Sipe and J. Dodson (eds), Australian environmental planning: challenges and future prospects, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 21-35. Fryd, O, Pauleit, S & Bühler, O 2011, 'The role of urban green space and trees in relation to climate change', CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, vol. 6, pp. 1-18. Gartland, L 2008, Heat islands: understanding and mitigating heat in urban areas, Earthscan, London. Geels, FW 2002, 'Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study', Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 8–9, pp. 1257-74. ——— 2011, 'The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms', Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24-40. Geels, FW 2014, 'Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective', Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 21-40. Geels, FW & Schot, J 2007, 'Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways', Research Policy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 399-417. German, L & Rees, J 2012, A people's history of London, Verso, London. Gibson, FL, Rogers, AA, Smith, ADM, Roberts, A, Possingham, H, McCarthy, M & Pannell, DJ 2017, 'Factors influencing the use of decision support tools in the development and design of conservation policy', Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 70, pp. 1-8. GiGL 2015, Key London figures, Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL), London, viewed 5/07/2016, . Giles-Corti, B 2014, 'Healthy liveable communities: strengthening the evidence base', Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, vol. 18, no. Supplement 1, pp. e112-e3. Gill, SE, Handley, JF, Ennos, AR & Pauleit, S 2007, 'Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure', Built Environment, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 115-33. GLA 2006, East London Green Grid primer, London. ——— 2011a, Managing risks and increasing resilience. The Mayor’s climate change adaptation strategy, London.

270 ——— 2011b, RE:LEAF prospectus. Trees for a greener London, London. ——— 2012a, Green infrastructure and open environments: the All London Green Grid, London. ——— 2012b, Pocket parks prospectus, London. ——— 2015a, Come rain or shine: London's adaptation to the risks of severe weather. Report by Environment Committee, London Assembly, London. ——— 2015b, The London Plan. The Spatial Development Strategy for London. Consolidated with alterations since 2011, London. Gleeson, B, Dodson, J & Spiller, M 2012, 'Governance, metropolitan planning and city‐ building: the case for reform', in R. Tomlinson (ed), Australia’s unintended cities: the impact of housing on urban development, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 117‐33. Gleeson, B & Low, N 2000, Australian urban planning: new challenges, new agendas, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Glesne, C 2011, Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction, 4th edn., Pearson, Boston. Gómez-Baggethun, E, Gren, Å, Barton, DN, Langemeyer, J, McPhearson, T, O’Farrell, P, Andersson, E, Hamstead, Z & Kremer, P 2013, 'Urban ecosystem services', in Thomas Elmqvist, Michail Fragkias, Julie Goodness, Burak Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, Susan Parnell, Maria Schewenius, Marte Sendstad, Karen C. Seto and Cathy Wilkinson (eds), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 175-251. Grimm, NB, Faeth, SH, Golubiewski, NE, Redman, CL, Wu, J, Bai, X & Briggs, JM 2008, 'Global change and the ecology of cities', Science, vol. 319, no. 5864, pp. 756-60. Grose, M, Abbs, D, Bhend, J, Chiew, F, Church, J, Ekström, M, Kirono, D, Lenton, A, Lucas, C, McInnes, K, Moise, A, Monselesan, D, Mpelasoka, F, Webb, L & Whetton, P 2015, Southern Slopes Cluster report, climate change in Australia. Projections for Australia’s natural resource management regions, Australia. Gunawardena, KR, Wells, MJ & Kershaw, T 2017, 'Utilising green and bluespace to mitigate urban heat island intensity', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 584- 585, pp. 1040-55. Haaland, C & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C 2015, 'Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 760-71. Haase, D, Kabisch, S, Haase, A, Andersson, E, Banzhaf, E, Baró, F, Brenck, M, Fischer, LK, Frantzeskaki, N, Kabisch, N, Krellenberg, K, Kremer, P, Kronenberg, J, Larondelle, N, Mathey, J, Pauleit, S, Ring, I, Rink, D, Schwarz, N & Wolff, M 2017, 'Greening cities – to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities', Habitat International, vol. 64, pp. 41-8. Haase, D, Schwarz, N, Strohbach, M, Kroll, F & Seppelt, R 2012, 'Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany', Ecology and Society, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 102-23. Hagan, S 2014, Ecological : the nature of the city, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.

271 Hajer, M, Nilsson, M, Raworth, K, Bakker, P, Berkhout, F, de Boer, Y, Rockström, J, Ludwig, K & Kok, M 2015, 'Beyond cockpit-ism: four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals', Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1651-60. Hajkowicz, S, Cook, H & Littleboy, A 2012, Our future world: global megatrends that will change the way we live. The 2012 revision, Australia. Hall, T 2010, 'Goodbye to the backyard?—The minimisation of private open space in the Australian outer-suburban estate', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 411-33. Hamilton, C 2015, 'The price of God at Coronation Hill', The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/the-price-of-god-at-coronation-hill-49235. Hansen, R & Pauleit, S 2014, 'From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas', AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 516-29. Harris, G 2005, Melbourne's green belt and wedges: a short history of open places and spaces in the city and their strategic context, School of Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, Melbourne. Hartz-Karp, J 2017, 'What would a wise democracy look like? We, the people, would matter', The Conversation, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/what- would-a-wise-democracy-look-like-we-the-people-would-matter-71938. Hatvani-Kovacs, G, Belusko, M, Skinner, N, Pockett, J & Boland, J 2016, 'Heat stress risk and resilience in the urban environment', Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 26, pp. 278-88. HCC 2004, Street and reserve tree policy, Broadmeadows. ——— 2013a, Climate change adaptation action plan 2013-2017, Broadmeadows. ——— 2013b, Climate change adaptation plan, Broadmeadows. ——— 2015, Land and biodiversity plan 2015-2019, Broadmeadows. ——— 2016, Council plan 2013 – 2017 (2016/2017 actions), Broadmeadows. Head, B & Walter, J 2015, 'Academic research and public policy', in B. Head and K. Crowley (eds), Policy analysis in Australia, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 283-302. Head, BW 2008, 'Three lenses of evidence-based policy', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 1-11. Head, BW 2014, 'Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision making in Australia', Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 663-79. Hekkert, MP, Suurs, RAA, Negro, SO, Kuhlmann, S & Smits, REHM 2007, 'Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 413-32. Herath, S, Choumert, J & Maier, G 2015, 'The value of the greenbelt in Vienna: a spatial hedonic analysis', Annals of Regional Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 349-74. Hes, D & du Plessis, C 2015, Designing for hope: pathways to regenerative sustainability, Routledge, Abingdon. Hodson, M & Marvin, S 2010, 'Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?', Research Policy, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 477-85.

272 Holman, N 2009, 'Incorporating local sustainability indicators into structures of local governance: a review of the literature', Local Environment, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 365- 75. Holman, N & Thornley, A 2011, 'The reversal of strategic planning in London: the Boris effect with a focus on sustainability', Observatoire de la société britannique, vol. 11, pp. 145-59. Hopwood, B, Mellor, M & O'Brien, G 2005, 'Sustainable development: mapping different approaches', Sustainable Development, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 38-52. Horwood, K 2011, 'Green infrastructure: reconciling urban green space and regional economic development: lessons learnt from experience in England's north-west region', Local Environment, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 963-75. Howlett, M & Ramesh, M 2003, Studying public policy: policy cycles and subsystems, Oxford University press, Toronto. Hsieh, H-F & Shannon, SE 2005, 'Three approaches to qualitative content analysis', Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1277-88. Huitema, D, Jordan, A, Massey, E, Rayner, T, van Asselt, H, Haug, C, Hildingsson, R, Monni, S & Stripple, J 2011, 'The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe', Policy Sciences, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 179-98. Hulse, K, Pawson, H, Reynolds, M & Herath, S 2014, Disadvantaged places in urban Australia: analysing socio-economic diversity and housing market performance. AHURI final report No.225, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne. Hunt, G 2016, Long-term planning and cities for the next century. Speech by the Honorable Greg Hunt M.P., Minister for Environment to the Sydney Business Chamber, Tuesday 19 January 2016, Canberra. Hunter, AJ & Luck, GW 2015, 'Defining and measuring the social-ecological quality of urban greenspace: a semi-systematic review', Urban Ecosystems, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1139-63. Husk, K, Lovell, R, Cooper, C, Stahl-Timmins, W & Garside, R 2016, 'Participation in environmental enhancement and conservation activities for health and well- being in adults: a review of quantitative and qualitative evidence', Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2016, no. 5. Icaza, LE & van der Hoeven, F 2017, 'Regionalist principles to reduce the urban heat island effect', Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 5. Innes, J 1975, Social indicators and public policy: interactive processes of design and application, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., Amsterdam. Innes, JE & Booher, DE 2015, 'A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses', Planning Theory, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 195-213. IPCC 2014, Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Working Group II fifth assessment report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York. Ison, R & Collins, K 2008, ‘Public policy that does the right thing rather than the wrong thing righter’, Analysing Collaborative and Deliberative Forms of Governance Conference, Canberra, Australia. Ives, CD, Beilin, R, Gordon, A, Kendal, D, Hahs, AK & McDonnell, MJ 2013, 'Local assessment of Melbourne: The biodiversity and social-ecological dynamics of

273 Melbourne, Australia', in Thomas Elmqvist, Michail Fragkias, Julie Goodness, Burak Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, Susan Parnell, Maria Schewenius, Marte Sendstad, Karen C. Seto and Cathy Wilkinson (eds), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 385-407. Ives, CD, Giusti, M, Fischer, J, Abson, DJ, Klaniecki, K, Dorninger, C, Laudan, J, Barthel, S, Abernethy, P, Martín-López, B, Raymond, CM, Kendal, D & von Wehrden, H 2017, 'Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 26–27, pp. 106-13. Ives, CD & Kelly, AH 2016, 'The coexistence of amenity and biodiversity in urban landscapes', Landscape Research, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 495-509. Ives, CD, Lentini, PE, Threlfall, CG, Ikin, K, Shanahan, DF, Garrard, GE, Bekessy, SA, Fuller, RA, Mumaw, L, Rayner, L, Rowe, R, Valentine, LE & Kendal, D 2016, 'Cities are hotspots for threatened species', Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 117-26. Jacobs, B, Mikhailovich, N & Moy, C 2014, Benchmarking Australia’s urban tree canopy: an i-Tree assessment, prepared for Horticulture Australia Limited, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney. James, P, Hart, JE, Banay, RF & Laden, F 2016, 'Exposure to greenness and mortality in a nationwide prospective cohort study of women', Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 124, no. 9, pp. 1344-52. Jansson, Å 2013, 'Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services', Ecological Economics, vol. 86, pp. 285-91. Jewell, C 2013, 'First-of-a-kind project to tackle urban heat island effect', The Fifth Estate, 4 July 2013. John, A, Stewart, B & McDonald, B 2013, 'Mixed doubles: political hegemony, urban entrepreneurialism and the Australian open tennis championships', International Journal of the History of Sport, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 162-78. Jones, S & Somper, C 2014, 'The role of green infrastructure in climate change adaptation in London', The Geographical Journal, vol. 180, no. 2, pp. 191-6. Kabisch, N 2015, 'Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning - the case of Berlin, Germany', Land Use Policy, vol. 42, pp. 557-67. Kabisch, N, Frantzeskaki, N, Pauleit, S, Naumann, S, Davis, M, Artmann, M, Haase, D, Knapp, S, Korn, H, Stadler, J, Zaunberger, K & Bonn, A 2016, 'Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action', Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 39. Kabisch, N & Haase, D 2014, 'Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 122, pp. 129-39. Kabisch, N, Qureshi, S & Haase, D 2015, 'Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces — a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 50, pp. 25-34. Kaika, M & Swyngedouw, E 2012, 'Cities, and the political imaginary', Architectural Design, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 22-7.

274 Kelly, J-F & Donegan, P 2015, : why Australia's cities are broken and how we can fix them, Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton, Vic. Kemp, R, Schot, J & Hoogma, R 1998, 'Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175-98. Kendal, D, Lee, K, Ramalho, C, Bowen, K & Bush, J 2016, Benefits of urban green space in the Australian context. A synthesis review for the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes hub of the National Environmental Science Program, The University of Melbourne,, Melbourne. Kiss, R 2007, 'Local government', in B. Galligan and W. Roberts (eds), Oxford Companion to Australian Politics, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Kitchen, L 2013, 'Are trees always ‘good’? Urban political ecology and environmental justice in the valleys of south Wales', International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1968-83. Kleerekoper, L, van Esch, M & Salcedo, TB 2012, 'How to make a city climate-proof, addressing the urban heat island effect', Resources, Conservation and , vol. 64, pp. 30-8. Kohsaka, R, Pereira, HM, Elmqvist, T, Chan, L, Moreno-Peñaranda, R, Morimoto, Y, Inoue, T, Iwata, M, Nishi, M, da Luz Mathias, M, Souto Cruz, C, Cabral, M, Brunfeldt, M, Parkkinen, A, Niemelä, J, Kulkarni-Kawli, Y & Pearsell, G 2013, 'Indicators for management of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services: City Biodiversity Index', in Thomas Elmqvist, Michail Fragkias, Julie Goodness, Burak Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, Susan Parnell, Maria Schewenius, Marte Sendstad, Karen C. Seto and Cathy Wilkinson (eds), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 699-718. Konijnendijk, CC & Randrup, TB 2002, 'Editorial', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-4. Konijnendijk, CC, Ricard, RM, Kenney, A & Randrup, TB 2006, 'Defining urban forestry - a comparative perspective of North America and Europe', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 4, no. 3-4, pp. 93-103. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C 2015, 'From government to governance: contribution to the political ecology of urban forestry', in L. Anders Sandberg, Adrina Bardekjian and Sadia Butt (eds), Urban forests, trees and green space. A political ecology perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 35-46. Kotkin, J 2014, The changing face of the global city, Civil Service College, Singapore. Krajter Ostoić, S & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, CC 2015, 'Exploring global scientific discourses on urban forestry', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 129-38. Kremer, P, Hamstead, Z, Haase, D, McPhearson, T, Frantzeskaki, N, Andersson, E, Kabisch, N, Larondelle, N, Rall, EL, Voigt, A, Baró, F, Bertram, C, Gómez- Baggethun, E, Hansen, R, Kaczorowska, A, Kain, JH, Kronenberg, J, Langemeyer, J, Pauleit, S, Rehdanz, K, Schewenius, M, Van Ham, C, Wurster, D & Elmqvist, T 2016, 'Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research', Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 2.

275 Kruuse, A 2011, GRaBS expert paper 6: The green space factor and the green points system, Town and Country Planning Association & GRaBS, London. Kull, CA, Arnauld de Sartre, X & Castro-Larrañaga, M 2015, 'The political ecology of ecosystem services', Geoforum, vol. 61, pp. 122-34. Lafortezza, R, Davies, C, Sanesi, G & Konijnendijk, CC 2013, 'Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions', iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 102-8. Lakes, T & Kim, HO 2012, 'The urban environmental indicator "Biotope Area Ratio" - an enhanced approach to assess and manage the urban ecosystem services using high resolution remote-sensing', Ecological Indicators, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 93- 103. Lawrence, A, De Vreese, R, Johnston, M, Konijnendijk van den Bosch, CC & Sanesi, G 2013, 'Urban forest governance: towards a framework for comparing approaches', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 464-73. Layzer, JA 2016, The environmental case: translating values into policy, 4th edn., SAGE Publications, London. Le Roux, DS, Ikin, K, Lindenmayer, DB, Blanchard, W, Manning, AD & Gibbons, P 2014, 'Reduced availability of habitat structures in urban landscapes: implications for policy and practice', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 57-64. Lee, KE, Williams, KJH, Sargent, LD, Williams, NSG & Johnson, KA 2015, '40-second green roof views sustain attention: the role of micro-breaks in attention restoration', Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 182-9. Lehmann, S 2015a, 'Green districts and carbon engineering: increasing greenery, reducing heat island effects and generating energy', in Steffen Lehmann (ed), Low carbon cities: transforming urban systems, Routledge, London, pp. 191-209. ——— 2015b, 'Low carbon cities: more than just buildings', in Steffen Lehmann (ed), Low carbon cities: transforming urban systems, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 1-55. Lennon, M 2013, ‘Meaning making and the policy process: the case of green infrastructure planning in the Republic of Ireland’, PhD Thesis, University of Cardiff. Lennon, M 2015, 'Nature conservation in the Anthropocene: preservation, restoration and the challenge of novel ecosystems', Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 285-90. Lennon, M & Scott, M 2014, 'Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning: reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green infrastructure approach', Town Planning Review, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 563-87. Lennon, M & Scott, M 2016, 'Re-naturing the city', Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 270-6. Lennon, M, Scott, M, Collier, M & Foley, K 2017, 'The emergence of green infrastructure as promoting the centralisation of a landscape perspective in spatial planning—the case of Ireland', Landscape Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 146- 63.

276 Lin, BS & Lin, CT 2016, 'Preliminary study of the influence of the spatial arrangement of urban parks on local temperature reduction', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 20, pp. 348-57. Lindblom, CE 1959, 'The science of "muddling through"', Public Administration Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 79-88. Lindholm, G 2017, 'The implementation of green infrastructure: relating a general concept to context and site', Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 4. Livesley, SJ, McPherson, GM & Calfapietra, C 2016, 'The urban forest and ecosystem services: impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale', Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 119-24. Loft, L, Mann, C & Hansjürgens, B 2015, 'Challenges in ecosystem services governance: multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities', Ecosystem Services, vol. 16, pp. 150-7. Loorbach, D 2010, 'Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework', Governance, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 161-83. ——— 2014, To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation, DRIFT, Rotterdam. Loughnan, ME, Tapper, NJ, Phan, T, Lynch, K & McInnes, JA 2013, A spatial vulnerability analysis of urban populations during extreme heat events in Australian capital cities, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast. Loughnan, ME, Tapper, NJ, Phan, T & McInnes, JA 2014, 'Can a spatial index of heat- related vulnerability predict emergency service demand in Australian capital cities?', International Journal of Emergency Services, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 6-33. Luederitz, C, Abson, DJ, Audet, R & Lang, DJ 2016, 'Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives', Sustainability Science, pp. 1-15. Lyytimäki, J 2014, 'Bad nature: newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 418-24. Lyytimäki, J 2015, 'Ecosystem disservices: embrace the catchword', Ecosystem Services, vol. 12, p. 136. Maas, J, van Dillen, SME, Verheij, RA & Groenewegen, PP 2009, 'Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health', Health and Place, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 586-95. Maddison, S & Denniss, R 2013, An introduction to Australian public policy: theory and practice, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Vic. Madill, A & Gough, B 2008, 'Qualitative research and its place in psychological science', Psychological Methods, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 254-71. Madureira, H & Andresen, T 2014, 'Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: promises and challenges', Urban Design International, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 38-49. Mang, P, Haggard, B & Regenesis 2016, Regenerative development and design: a framework for evolving sustainability, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey. Mang, P & Reed, B 2012a, 'Designing from place: a regenerative framework and methodology', Building Research and Information, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 23-38.

277 ——— 2012b, 'Regenerative development and design', Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, Springer, New York. Marc, S, Fabio, DA & Philippe, D 2012, 'Heatwave classification over Europe and the Mediterranean region', Environmental Research Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 014023. Mariani, L, Parisi, SG, Cola, G, Lafortezza, R, Colangelo, G & Sanesi, G 2016, 'Climatological analysis of the mitigating effect of vegetation on the urban heat island of Milan, Italy', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 569-570, pp. 762-73. Markard, J, Raven, R & Truffer, B 2012, 'Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects', Research Policy, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 955-67. Marsh, D & McConnell, A 2010, 'Towards a framework for establishing policy success', Public Administration, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 564-83. Mason, J 2002, Qualitative researching, 2nd edn., SAGE, London. Massini, P 2016, 'Urban green infrastructure in London: the role of landscape ecology in informing the future of parks and green space policy in the city', in Robert A. Francis, James D.A. Millington and Michael A. Chadwick (eds), Urban landscape ecology: science, policy and practice, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 280-92. Matthews, T, Lo, AY & Byrne, JA 2015, 'Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 138, pp. 155-63. Mavoa, S, Koohsari, MJ, Badland, HM, Davern, M, Feng, X, Astell-Burt, T & Giles- Corti, B 2015, 'Area-level disparities of public open space: a geographic information systems analysis in metropolitan Melbourne', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 306-23. MCC 2012a, Moreland open space strategy 2012-2022, Coburg. ——— 2012b, Moreland street landscape strategy 2012-2022, Coburg. ——— 2013, Council Plan 2013-2017, Coburg. ——— 2014, Zero carbon evolution: getting on track to a carbon neutral Moreland community, Coburg. ——— 2016, Moreland urban heat island effect action plan 2016/17-2025/26, Coburg. McDonnell, M 2011, 'The history of urban ecology', in Jari Niemela, J. Breuste, T. Elmqvist, G. Guntenspergen, P. James and N. McIntyre (eds), Urban ecology: patterns, processes and applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 5-13. McDonnell, MJ 2015, 'Journal of Urban Ecology: linking and promoting research and practice in the evolving discipline of urban ecology', Journal of Urban Ecology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6. McDonough, K, Hutchinson, S, Moore, T & Hutchinson, JMS 2017, 'Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research', Ecosystem Services, vol. 25, pp. 82-8. McGrath, R 2012, ‘Managing ambiguity: a grounded theory study exploring Australian local government provision of community recreation opportunities for people with impairments’, PhD Thesis, University of South Australia. McPhearson, T, Andersson, E, Elmqvist, T & Frantzeskaki, N 2015, 'Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services', Ecosystem Services, vol. 12, pp. 152-6. McPhearson, T, Haase, D, Kabisch, N & Gren, Å 2016, 'Advancing understanding of the complex nature of urban systems', Ecological Indicators, vol. 70, pp. 566-73.

278 McPhearson, T, Pickett, STA, Grimm, NB, Niemelä, J, Alberti, M, Elmqvist, T, Weber, C, Haase, D, Breuste, J & Qureshi, S 2016, 'Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities', BioScience, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 198-212. MEA 2003, Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, DC. Meadows, D 2008, Thinking in systems: a primer, Earthscan, London. Meerow, S & Newell, JP 2016, 'Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why?', , pp. 1-21. Meerow, S & Stults, M 2016, 'Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice', Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 8, no. 7. Mees, H-LP & Driessen, PPJ 2011, 'Adaptation to climate change in urban areas: climate-greening London, Rotterdam, and Toronto', Climate Law, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 251-80. Mell, I, Allin, S, Reimer, M & Wilker, J 2017, 'Strategic green infrastructure planning in Germany and the UK: a transnational evaluation of the evolution of urban greening policy and practice', International Planning Studies, pp. 1-17. Mell, IC 2009, 'Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?', Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, vol. 162, no. 1, pp. 23- 34. Mell, IC 2012, 'Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of green infrastructure development', Local Environment, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 152- 66. Mell, IC 2017, 'Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis', Landscape Research, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 135-45. Millar, A, Simeone, RS & Carnevale, JT 2001, 'Logic models: a systems tool for performance management', Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 73-81. Miller, C 2014, 'Citizen engagement in Australian policy making', in C. Miller and L Orchard (eds), Australian public policy: progressive ideas in the neoliberal ascendency, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 333-50. Mills, G 2015, 'The urban heat island and low carbon cities', in Steffen Lehmann (ed), Low carbon cities: transforming urban systems, Routledge, London, pp. 253-69. MMBW 1954, Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme report, Melbourne. Moloney, S & Fünfgeld, H 2015, 'Emergent processes of adaptive capacity building: local government climate change alliances and networks in Melbourne', Urban Climate, vol. 14, pp. 30-40. Momm-Schult, SI, Piper, J, Denaldi, R, Freitas, SR, Fonseca, MLP & Oliveira, VE 2013, 'Integration of urban and environmental policies in the metropolitan area of São Paulo and in Greater London: the value of establishing and protecting green open spaces', International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89-104. Morgan, DL 2007, 'Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods', Journal of Mixed Methods Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 48-76. MPA 2014, Small lot housing code, Melbourne, Victoria.

279 MPE 1988, Melbourne's open space: the metropolitan open space plan, August 1988, Victorian Ministry for Planning and Environment, Melbourne. MTPC 1929, Plan of general development. Melbourne, Melbourne. Nairn, JR & Fawcett, RJB 2013, Defining heatwaves: heatwave defined as a heat-impact event servicing all community and business sectors in Australia. CAWCR Technical Report No. 060, South Australia. ——— 2015, 'The excess heat factor: a metric for heatwave intensity and its use in classifying heatwave severity', International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 227-53. Nature (editorial) 2017, 'Nature-based solutions' is the latest green jargon that means more than you might think', Nature, vol. 541, no. 7636, pp. 133-4. NCCARF 2013, Managing heatwave impacts under climate change. Policy guidance brief 9, Gold Coast. ——— 2016, Heat and heatwaves. Synthesis summary 1, Queensland. Nesshöver, C, Assmuth, T, Irvine, KN, Rusch, GM, Waylen, KA, Delbaere, B, Haase, D, Jones-Walters, L, Keune, H, Kovacs, E, Krauze, K, Külvik, M, Rey, F, van Dijk, J, Vistad, OI, Wilkinson, ME & Wittmer, H 2017, 'The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 579, pp. 1215-27. Newton, P & Glackin, S 2014, 'Understanding infill: towards new policy and practice for urban regeneration in the established suburbs of Australia's cities', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 121-43. Nicholls, L, McCann, H, Strengers, Y & Bosomworth, K 2017, Electricity pricing, heatwaves and household vulnerability in Australia, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne. Nicholls, N, Skinner, C, Loughnan, M & Tapper, N 2008, 'A simple heat alert system for Melbourne, Australia', International Journal of Biometeorology, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 375-84. Niemela, J, Breuste, J, Elmqvist, T, Guntenspergen, G, James, P & McIntyre, N 2011, Urban ecology: patterns, processes and applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Nisbet, MC 2014, 'Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change', Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 809-23. Norton, B, Bosomworth, K, Coutts, A, Williams, NSG, Livesley, SJ, Trundle, A, Harris, R & McEvoy, D 2013, Planning for a cooler future: green infrastructure to reduce urban heat. Final report, Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research, Melbourne. Norton, BA, Coutts, AM, Livesley, SJ, Harris, RJ, Hunter, AM & Williams, NSG 2015, 'Planning for cooler cities: a framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 134, pp. 127-38. Nowak, DJ, Hirabayashi, S, Bodine, A & Greenfield, E 2014, 'Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States', Environmental Pollution, vol. 193, pp. 119-29.

280 O'Neil, JA & Gallagher, CE 2014, 'Determining what is important in terms of the quality of an urban green network: a study of urban planning in England and Scotland', Planning Practice and Research, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 202-16. Oke, TR 1982, 'The energetic basis of the urban heat island', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 108, pp. 1-24. Olsson, P, Galaz, V & Boonstra, WJ 2014, 'Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective', Ecology and Society, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1-13. OLV 2014, Developing the metropolitan whole-of-water-cycle strategic framework 2014-2024. Discussion paper, Melbourne. Ong, BL 2015, 'The Green Plot Ratio and the role of greenery in low carbon living', in Steffen Lehmann (ed), Low carbon cities: transforming urban systems, Routledge, London, pp. 349-60. Ostrom, E, Burger, J, Field, CB, Norgaard, RB & Policansky, D 1999, 'Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges', Science, vol. 284, no. 5412, pp. 278- 82. Patterson, J, Schulz, K, Vervoort, J, van der Hel, S, Widerberg, O, Adler, C, Hurlbert, M, Anderton, K, Sethi, M & Barau, A 2016, 'Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability', Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. Patton, MQ 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Pauleit, S, Lui, L, Ahern, J & Kazmierczak, A 2011, 'Multifunctional green infrastructure planning to promote ecological services in the city', in Jari Niemelä, Jürgen H. Breuste and Glenn Guntenspergen (eds), Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 272-85. PC 2012, Barriers to effective climate change adaptation, Report no. 59, Final inquiry report, Canberra. ——— 2014, Natural disaster funding arrangements, draft inquiry report, Canberra. Perkins-Kirkpatrick, SE, White, CJ, Alexander, LV, Argüeso, D, Boschat, G, Cowan, T, Evans, JP, Ekström, M, Oliver, ECJ, Phatak, A & Purich, A 2016, 'Natural hazards in Australia: heatwaves', Climatic Change, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 101-14. Perkins, SE & Alexander, LV 2012, 'On the measurement of heat waves', Journal of Climate, vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 4500-17. Pimlott, B & Rao, N 2002, Governing London, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Presland, G 2008, The place for a village: how nature has shaped the city of Melbourne, Museum Victoria Publishing, Melbourne. Puddephatt, AJ 2006, 'Special: an interview with Kathy Charmaz: on Constructing Grounded Theory', Qualitative Sociology Review, vol. 2, pp. 5-20. PV 2002, Linking people and spaces. A strategy for Melbourne's open space network, Melbourne. PwC 2011, Protecting human health and safety during severe and extreme heat events: a national framework. Report by PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia for the Commonwealth Government, November 2011, Canberra.

281 Rall, EL, Kabisch, N & Hansen, R 2015, 'A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning', Ecosystem Services, vol. 16, pp. 230-42. Rapley, T 2008, Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis, SAGE Publications, London. Rasmussen, SE 1982, London, the unique city, Revised edn., M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Raynor, K, Mayere, S & Matthews, T 2017, 'Do ‘city shapers’ really support urban consolidation? The case of Brisbane, Australia', Urban Studies. Reil, A, Grimes, C & Anton, B 2016, Partnering up for greener cities: how public can work with private. 2nd Green Surge Stakeholder dialogue forum. Bilbao, Basque Country, Spain, 26 April 2016, ICLEI European Secretariat and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm. Rip, A & Kemp, R 1998, 'Technological change', in S. Rayner and E.L. Malone (eds), Human choice and climate change: an international assessment, Vol. 2, Batelle Press, Washington DC, pp. 327-99. Robinson, PJ 2001, 'On the definition of a heat wave', Journal of Applied Meteorology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 762-75. Rogers, K, Jaluzot, A & Neilan, C 2012, Green benefits in Victoria Business Improvement District. An analysis of the benefits of trees and other green assets in the Victoria Business Improvement District, Victoria Business Improvement District, London. Roggema, R 2014, 'The plan and the policy. Who is changing whom?', in Leonie Pearson, P. Newton and Peter Roberts (eds), Resilient sustainable cities. A future, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 225-33. Roggema, R, Vermeend, T & van den Dobbelsteen, A 2012, 'Incremental change, transition or transformation? Optimising change pathways for climate adaptation in spatial planning', Sustainability, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 2525-49. Rotmans, J & Kemp, R 2008, 'Detour ahead: a response to Shove and Walker about the perilous road of transition management', Environment and Planning A, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1006-12. Rotmans, J, Kemp, R & van Asselt, M 2001, 'More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy', foresight, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 15-31. Rotmans, J & Loorbach, D 2009, 'Complexity and transition management', Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 13, pp. 184-96. Roxon, N 2017, 'Interview with the Hon. Nicola Roxon: getting evidence into health policy', Public Health Research and Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, p. e2711701. Rutherford, S 2014, Garden cities and suburbs, Shire Publications, Oxford. Sabatier, PA & Jenkins-Smith, HC 1993, Policy change and learning: an Advocacy Coalition approach, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Sachindra, DA, Ng, AWM, Muthukumaran, S & Perera, BJC 2016, 'Impact of climate change on urban heat island effect and extreme temperatures: a case-study', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 142, no. 694, pp. 172-86. Salamanca, F, Georgescu, M, Mahalov, A, Moustaoui, M & Wang, M 2014, 'Anthropogenic heating of the urban environment due to air conditioning', Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 119, no. 10, pp. 5949-65.

282 Salmond, JA, Tadaki, M, Vardoulakis, S, Arbuthnott, K, Coutts, A, Demuzere, M, Dirks, KN, Heaviside, C, Lim, S, MacIntyre, H, McInnes, RN & Wheeler, BW 2016, 'Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment', Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, vol. 15. Sandström, UG 2002, 'Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden', Planning Practice and Research, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 373-85. Santamouris, M 2014, 'On the energy impact of urban heat island and global warming on buildings', Energy and Buildings, vol. 82, pp. 100-13. ——— 2015, 'Analyzing the heat island magnitude and characteristics in one hundred Asian and Australian cities and regions', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 512-513, pp. 582-98. Santamouris, M, Ding, L, Fiorito, F, Oldfield, P, Osmond, P, Paolini, R, Prasad, D & Synnefa, A 2016, 'Passive and active cooling for the outdoor built environment - analysis and assessment of the cooling potential of mitigation technologies using performance data from 220 large scale projects', . Santamouris, M & Kolokotsa, D 2016, 'Urban climate mitigation techniques', Urban Climate Mitigation Techniques, Routledge, London, pp. 1-208. Sassen, S 2001, The global city: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edn., Princeton University Press, Princeton. Saunders, ME & Luck, GW 2016, 'Limitations of the ecosystem services versus disservices dichotomy', Conservation Biology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1363-5. Schröter, M, van der Zanden, EH, van Oudenhoven, APE, Remme, RP, Serna-Chavez, HM, de Groot, RS & Opdam, P 2014, 'Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments', Conservation Letters, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 514-23. Scott, M & Lennon, M 2016, 'Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city', Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 267-70. SDCI 2017, Seattle Green Factor, Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections, City of Seattle, Seattle, viewed 23/6/17, . SDETCP 2017, Biotope Area Factor, Senate Department for the Enviroment, Transport and Climate Protection, State of Berlin, Berlin, viewed 23/6/17, . Searle, G 2011, 'Urban consolidation and the inadequacy of local open space provision in Sydney', Urban Policy and Research, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 201-8. Segal, M 2017, 'The missing climate change narrative', South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 121-8. Seto, KC, Parnell, S & Elmqvist, T 2013, 'A global outlook on urbanisation', in T Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, Marte Sendstad, Karen C. Seto and C. Wilkinson (eds), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. A global assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-12.

283 Shackleton, CM, Ruwanza, S, Sinasson Sanni, GK, Bennett, S, De Lacy, P, Modipa, R, Mtati, N, Sachikonye, M & Thondhlana, G 2016, 'Unpacking Pandora’s Box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing', Ecosystems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 587-600. Shove, E & Walker, G 2007, 'CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management', Environment and Planning A, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 763-70. Smith, A & Stirling, A 2010, 'The politics of social- and sustainable socio-technical transitions', Ecology and Society, vol. 15, no. 1. Smith, C & Levermore, G 2008, 'Designing urban spaces and buildings to improve sustainability and quality of life in a warmer world', Energy Policy, vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 4558-62. Sonnino, R, Marsden, T & Moragues-Faus, A 2016, 'Relationalities and convergences in food security narratives: towards a place-based approach', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 477-89. Spencer, A, Gill, J & Schmahmann, L 2015, ‘Urban or suburban? Examining the density of Australian cities in a global context’, State of Australian Cities Conference 2015, Gold Coast, Australia. Starke, P 2013, 'Qualitative methods for the study of policy diffusion: challenges and available solutions', Policy Studies Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 561-82. State of Victoria 2016, Victorian planning provisions, Melbourne. Steffen, W, Hughes, L, Alexander, D & Rice, M 2017, Cranking up the intensity: climate change and extreme weather events, Climate Council of Australia, Australia. Steffen, W, Hughes, L & Perkins, S 2014, Heatwaves: hotter, longer, more often, Climate Council of Australia, Australia. Stiglitz, J, Sen, A & Fitoussi, J-P 2009, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris. Stilwell, F & Troy, P 2000, 'Multilevel governance and urban development in Australia', Urban Studies, vol. 37, no. 5-6, pp. 909-30. Stott, I, Soga, M, Inger, R & Gaston, KJ 2015, 'Land sparing is crucial for urban ecosystem services', Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 387-93. Susca, T, Gaffin, SR & Dell’Osso, GR 2011, 'Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat island and green roofs', Environmental Pollution, vol. 159, no. 8–9, pp. 2119-26. Sustainia 2015, Cities100: 100 solutions for climate action in cities, Sustainia and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Copenhagen. Sweeney Research 2014, A quantitative research report on 2014 heatwave business impacts - social research. Report for City of Melbourne, Melbourne. Swinbourne, R & Rosenwax, J 2017, Green infrastructure. A vital step to brilliant Australian cities, AECOM, Sydney. Tanner, CJ, Adler, FR, Grimm, NB, Groffman, PM, Levin, SA, Munshi-South, J, Pataki, DE, Pavao-Zuckerman, M & Wilson, WG 2014, 'Urban ecology: advancing science and society', Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 574-81.

284 Taylor, L & Hochuli, DF 2017, 'Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 158, pp. 25-38. TEEB 2010, 'The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB', United Nations Environment Programme, Malta. Thomas, I & Murfitt, P 2011, Environmental management: processes and practices, The Federation Press, Leichardt, NSW. Thompson, R 2008, 'The inter-regional dimension: the greening of London and the wider south east', in Eugenie L. Birch and Susan M. Wachter (eds), Growing greener cities. Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century, University of Pennsylvania Press, , pp. 46-59. Timms, P 2006, Australia's quarter acre: the story of the ordinary suburban garden, Miegunyah Press, Carlton, Vic. Townsend, L 2012, Managing Melbourne: review of Melbourne metropolitan strategic planning, Melbourne. Townsend, M, Henderson-Wilson, C, Warner, E & Weiss, L 2015, Healthy parks healthy people: the state of the evidence 2015. Trundle, A & McEvoy, D 2016, 'Urban greening, human health, and wellbeing', in Karen C. Seto, William Solecki and Corrie Griffith (eds), The Routledge handbook of urbanization and global environmental change, Routledge, New York, pp. 276-92. Tubby, KV & Webber, JF 2010, 'Pests and diseases threatening urban trees under a changing climate', Forestry, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 451-9. Turner, T 2005, Garden history: philosophy and design 2000 BC - 2000 AD, Taylor and Francis, London. Twomey, P & Gaziulusoy, AI 2014, Review of system innovation and transitions theories. Concepts and frameworks for understanding and enabling transitions to a low carbon built environment. Working paper for the Visions and Pathways project, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Tzoulas, K, Korpela, K, Venn, S, Yli-Pelkonen, V, Kaźmierczak, A, Niemela, J & James, P 2007, 'Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 167-78. UK DCLG 2014, Local Planning Authority Green Belt: England 2013/14 statistical release, London. UK DEFRA 2011, The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Natural Environment White Paper, London. UK Met Office 2016, Heat-health watch, viewed 30/6/2016, . UK Office for National Statistics 2005, Land Use Statistics (Generalised Land Use Database), London. UK PHE 2015, Heatwave plan for England – protecting health and reducing harm from severe heat and heatwaves, London. UN-Habitat 2011, Cities and climate change: global report on human settlements, London.

285 UN 2015a, Sustainable Development Goals. 17 goals to transform our world, viewed accessed 20/4/17, . ——— 2015b, World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. Urban Initiatives 2015, 'Liveability and the vegetated urban landscape. An investigation of opportunities for water-related interventions to drive improved liveability in metropolitan Melbourne', DELWP, Unpublished report for Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. VAG 2014, Heatwave management: reducing the risk to public health, Melbourne. VEAC 2010, Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation. Discussion paper, Melbourne. ——— 2011, Metropolitan Melbourne Investigation. Final report, East Melbourne. VGA 2017, Victorian Greenhouse Alliances: local governments driving climate action, Victorian Greenhouse Alliances, Melbourne, viewed 29/6/17, . VicRoads 2015a, Sustainability and climate change strategy 2015-2020, Melbourne. ——— 2015b, Tree planting policy, Kew. Villanueva, K, Badland, H, Hooper, P, Koohsari, MJ, Mavoa, S, Davern, M, Roberts, R, Goldfeld, S & Giles-Corti, B 2015, 'Developing indicators of public open space to promote health and wellbeing in communities', Applied Geography, vol. 57, pp. 112-9. VISES 2015, Green infrastructure economic framework, Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne. VLSA 2011, Urban forestry background issues paper, East Melbourne. Vogel, B & Henstra, D 2015, 'Studying local climate adaptation: a heuristic research framework for comparative policy analysis', Global Environmental Change, vol. 31, pp. 110-20. Vogel, N 2016, 'Municipalities’ ambitions and practices: at risk of hypocritical sustainability transitions?', Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 361-78. Vrasti, W & Dayal, S 2016, 'Cityzenship: rightful presence and the urban commons', Citizenship Studies, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 994-1011. Walter, M 2010, 'Social research methods', Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Wamsler, C, Niven, L, Beery, TH, Bramryd, T, Ekelund, N, Jönsson, KI, Osmani, A, Palo, T & Stålhammar, S 2016, 'Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change', Ecology and Society, vol. 21, no. 1. Warren, B, Christoff, P & Green, D 2016, 'Australia's sustainable energy transition: the disjointed politics of decarbonisation', Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 21, pp. 1-12. WCCF 2017, Cultural indicators database, World Cities Culture Forum, viewed 21/6/17, . WCED 1987, Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

286 Ween, C 2012, 'London, England: a global and sustainable capital city', in Timothy Beatley (ed), Green cities of Europe: global lessons on green urbanism, Island Press, Washington, pp. 181-214. Weible, CM 2014, 'Advancing policy process research', in Paul A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible (eds), Theories of the policy process, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 391-407. Westley, F, Olsson, P, Folke, C, Homer-Dixon, T, Vredenburg, H, Loorbach, D, Thompson, J, Nilsson, M, Lambin, E, Sendzimir, J, Banerjee, B, Galaz, V & van der Leeuw, S 2011, 'Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation', AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 762-80. Wheeler, SM 2013, Planning for sustainability: creating livable, equitable and ecological communities, 2nd edn., Routledge, Abington, Oxon. Whitzman, C 2015, 'Can zombies become human again? Plan Melbourne, zombie institutions, and citizen dissent', Planning Theory and Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 441-6. WHO 2009, Improving public health responses to extreme weather/heat-waves: technical summary, Copenhagen. ——— 2016, Urban green spaces and health. A review of the evidence, Copenhagen. ——— 2017, Urban green space interventions and health. A review of impacts and effectiveness, Copenhagen. Wilkinson, C, Saarne, T, Peterson, GD & Colding, J 2013, 'Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept - an historical exploration', Ecology and Society, vol. 18, no. 1. Wilkinson, S & Dixon, T 2016, 'Looking to the future', in Sara Wilkinson and Tim Dixon (eds), Green roof retrofit: building urban resilience, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 235-46. Williams, NSG, McDonnell, MJ & Seager, EJ 2005, 'Factors influencing the loss of an endangered ecosystem in an urbanising landscape: a case study of native grasslands from Melbourne, Australia', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 35-49. Williams, NSG, Rayner, JP & Raynor, KJ 2010, 'Green roofs for a wide brown land: opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 245-51. Williams, P & Maginn, PJ 2012, 'Planning and governance', in Susan Thompson and P.J. Maginn (eds), Planning Australia: an overview of urban and regional planning, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, pp. 34-55. Wilson, EO 1984, Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wittmayer, JM & Loorbach, D 2016, 'Governing transitions in cities: fostering alternative ideas, practices, and social relations through transition management', in Derk Loorbach, J.M. Wittmayer, H. Shiroyama, J. Fujino and S. Mizuguchi (eds), Governance of urban sustainability transitions: European and Asian experiences, Springer, Tokyo, pp. 13-32. Wohlleben, P 2016, The hidden life of trees: what they feel, how they communicate - discoveries from a secret world, Black Inc., Carlton, Vic.

287 Wolch, JR, Byrne, J & Newell, JP 2014, 'Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 234-44. Wolf, KL, Measells, MK, Grado, SC & Robbins, AST 2015, 'Economic values of metro nature health benefits: a life course approach', Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 694-701. Wolfram, M & Frantzeskaki, N 2016, 'Cities and systemic change for sustainability: prevailing epistemologies and an emerging research agenda', Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1-18. Wolfram, M, Frantzeskaki, N & Maschmeyer, S 2016, 'Cities, systems and sustainability: status and perspectives of research on urban transformations', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 22, pp. 18-25. Wu, J 2014, 'Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions', Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 209-21. Xing, Y, Jones, P & Donnison, I 2017, 'Characterisation of nature-based solutions for the built environment', Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 9, no. 1, p. 149. Yu, Z, Guo, X, Jørgensen, G & Vejre, H 2017, 'How can urban green spaces be planned for climate adaptation in subtropical cities?', Ecological Indicators, vol. 82, pp. 152-62. Zander, KK, Botzen, WJW, Oppermann, E, Kjellstrom, T & Garnett, ST 2015, 'Heat stress causes substantial labour productivity loss in Australia', Nature Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 647-51. Zelenski, JM, Dopko, RL & Capaldi, CA 2015, 'Cooperation is in our nature: nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior', Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 24-31. Zölch, T, Henze, L, Keilholz, P & Pauleit, S 2017, 'Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-based solutions – an assessment at the micro-scale', Environmental Research, vol. 157, pp. 135-44.

288 Appendix Ethics information for interview participants

289

Invitation to participate in research project

Researchers: A/Prof. Lu Aye Department of Infrastructure Engineering ph: +61 3 8344 6879 Dr Dominique Hes Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning ph: +61 3 8344 4230 Ms Judy Bush (PhD candidate)

Project: Mitigating the urban heat island effect with urban greenery: Policy, governance and communication

About the research Your name and contact details have been provided as part of your involvement in the planning and management of urban green space, urban heat island effect or urban sustainability. We would like to invite you to participate in our research project. The aim of the study is to investigate the role of policies, governance and communication in the retention and maximisation of urban green space. This project has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee.

What will I be asked to do? Should you agree to participate, you would be asked to participate in a face-to-face interview of no more than 1 hour, to elaborate your perspectives on the role of policies, governance and communication in urban green space retention and maximisation. With your permission, the interview would be digitally recorded so that we can make an accurate record of what you said. When the recording has been transcribed, you would be provided with a copy of the transcript, so that you can verify that the information is correct and/or request deletions. We estimate that the total time commitment required of you would not exceed 1.5 hours.

How will my confidentiality be protected? We intend to protect your anonymity and the confidentiality of your responses to the fullest possible extent, within the limits of the law.

The name of the project and interview transcripts will be kept in a password- protected computer file, accessible only by researchers. In the final report, the project and participants will be referred to by pseudonyms. Your own name and contact details will be kept in a password-protected computer file, separate from any data that you supply. This will only be able to be linked to your responses by the researchers, for example, in order to know where we should send your interview transcript for checking. In the final report, you will be referred to by a pseudonym. HREC # 1544948.1; PLS Version 3.0; 12 August 2015

Department of Infrastructure Engineering The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia T: +61 3 8344 6879, F: +61 3 8344 6215, E: [email protected]

We will remove any references to personal information that might allow someone to guess your identity, however, you should note that as the number of people we seek to interview is less than ten, it is possible that someone may still be able to identify you.

All data will be kept securely in the Department of Infrastructure Engineering for five years from the date of publication, before being destroyed.

How will I receive feedback? Once the report arising from this research has been completed, a summary of the findings will be provided to you. It is also possible that the results will be presented at academic conferences.

Do I have to take part? Participation in this study is voluntary. Should you wish to withdraw at any stage, or to withdraw any unprocessed data you have supplied, you are free to do so without prejudice. Your decision to participate or not, or to withdraw, will not affect your relationship with this department or affect any services you may receive now or in the future.

Where can I get further information?

Please contact the responsible researcher A/Prof. Lu Aye if you have any questions or if would like more information about the project.

If you have any concerns about the conduct of the project which you do not wish to discuss with the research team please contact the Manager, Human Research Ethics, Office for Research Ethics and Integrity, The University of Melbourne, on ph: +61 3 8344 2073, or fax: +61 3 9347 6739, and quote the Project’s Ethics ID # 1544948.1.

How do I agree to participate? If you would like to participate, please indicate that you have read and understood this information by signing the consent form and returning it to the researchers. The researchers will then contact you to arrange a mutually convenient time for you to complete interview.

HREC # 1544948.1; PLS Version 3.0; 12 August 2015

Department of Infrastructure Engineering The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia T: +61 3 8344 6879, F: +61 3 8344 6215, E: [email protected]

Consent form for persons participating in a research project PROJECT TITLE: Mitigating the urban heat island effect with urban greenery: Policy, governance and communication

Name of participant: Name of investigator(s): A/Prof. Lu Aye, Dr Dominique Hes and Judy Bush (PhD candidate)

1. I consent to participate in this project, the details of which have been explained to me, and I have been provided with a written plain language statement to keep.

2. I understand that after I sign and return this consent form it will be retained by the researcher.

3. I understand that my participation will involve a face-to-face interview and I agree that the researcher may use the results as described in the plain language statement.

4. I acknowledge that:

(a) the possible effects of participating in the interview have been explained to my satisfaction;

(b) I have been informed that I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data I have provided;

(c) the project is for the purpose of research;

(d) I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements;

(e) I have been informed that with my consent the interview will be recorded and I understand that the recordings in digital form will be stored at University of Melbourne and will be destroyed after five years;

(f) my name will be referred to by a pseudonym in any publications arising from the research;

(g) I have been informed that a copy of the research findings will be forwarded to me, should I agree to this.

I consent to this interview being recorded □ yes □ no (please tick)

I wish to receive a copy of the summary project report on research findings □ yes □ no (please tick) If yes, please include email address below

Participant signature: Date:

Department of Infrastructure Engineering The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia T: +61 3 8344 6879, F: +61 3 9344 6215, E: [email protected]

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Bush, Judith

Title: Cooling cities with green space: policy perspectives

Date: 2017

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/197498

File Description: Cooling cities with green space: policy perspectives

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.