Grey and Green Infrastructure Adding Value to Natural Capital - Term Paper Example

Name Tutor Title: Grey and Green Infrastructure adding value to our Natural Capital Institution Contents 1.0Introduction 3 2.0 Factors to consider when building Green Infrastructure 3 3.0 Benefits of Green Infrastructure 6 3.1 Economic benefits 6 3.2 Social benefits 7 3.3 Environmental benefits 9 4.0 EU legislation that support GI 11 4.1 Nature conservation 11 4.2 Water conservation 11 4.3 Climate change management 12 4.4 Land and soil management 12 4. 5 The Natural Environment White Paper 12 5.0 Conclusion 13 6.0 References 13 1.0 Introduction Health professionals, policy makers, water managers and planners all over the world are increasingly acknowledging the benefit of green infrastructure in both the rural and urban areas. Urban areas are growing at a high rate, and this carries the risk of creating unhealthy environments. Human beings deserve to live in safe, clean, healthy and accessible places. Human habitats need to live in places whereby natural systems are valued and recognized for the vital services they offer and are assisted in providing these services. Green infrastructure (GI) may be defined as the strategically combined structure of natural and man-made areas, green spaces and environmental features in urban and rural, coastal, marine, and freshwater and terrestrial areas. Green infrastructure is a general concept that comprises features like forest reserves, parks, gardens, marine and wetlands areas, waterways, transport corridors, orchards, plazas, institutional and green business areas, living wall, sports fields, farms, squares, greenways, cemeteries, and streets. 2.0 Factors to consider when building Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure is crucial to the healthy and sustainability of the rural and urban environments. It reinforces the resilience of cities and towns to react strongly to the major existing and future challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, growth, health and food, water and energy security. However, it is critical to integrate the green spaces with the built environment for the benefits of green infrastructure to be fully realized. The green space needs to be viewed as providing essential services to the people and hence, for its real potential to be achieved the whole community must support its activities. For example, the benefits of a green infrastructure for health-improving activities like walking or cycling can be considerably increased if the health professionals and the community support it. Green space construction and management need to be integrated with more conventional land development and established infrastructure planning for the benefits of green infrastructure to be successfully attained. It is critical to consider the green infrastructure's spatial positioning as some services rely on a good connectivity between place and consumer. A typical example here is green infrastructure meant for recreation. Green space needs to be located in a place where it allows maximum optimal delivery of services. There is a high correlation between accessibility to green infrastructure and its usage (CABE, 2005). For some services like formal sports grounds, benefits can grow arithmetically with the increase in the volume of green space offered. However, for others like habitat, a form of arithmetical improvement can be achieved when interconnectedness is attained as green space facility increases. Hence, a green infrastructure should be framed in the perspective of the people it is intended to serve. There is substantial evidence in the literature which shows that the strongest components of green infrastructure are those that exerted more effort in consulting and engaging the communities. When officials take full control of the green space and ignore the communities, they are more likely to fail. Committed communities and business enterprises may contribute significantly to the success of green space as it may attract additional capital to improve the facility whereas acting as care managers as well. Moreover, the level of safety of a green infrastructure determines its usage. Green space needs to be located in a safe environment with good lighting and sightlines and far from entrapment and hiding spots. Women are the ones who are mostly concerned with safety issues. However, greater care should be taken when ensuring the security of a green infrastructure to avoid creating a facility that is boring. Construction of a green space should make sure greater ground viability while ensuring retention of essential features of natural wilderness. The design of the facility is also of great importance in this case. A study conducted showed that the public tend to have a positive attitude towards formal plans. For example, the view botanic gardens as more peaceful and safer while urban woodland provided an excellent opportunity for social interaction, freedom and a better sense of naturalness (CLES, 2007). Socio-economic status is also associated with the usage of green spaces. Communities from income deprived areas are not likely to visit green facilities, such as country parks, heath-land, and urban parks (Weldon et al., 2007). Moreover, there is a link between ethnicity, age, disability and green facility usage. Ethnic minorities, aged individual and people with disabilities tend to participate less in public spaces (Fairburn, et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to consider factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, disability and economic status when constructing a green infrastructure. The other factors associated with usage of green infrastructure include conflict of use, lack of motivation and knowledge, physical unfitness and feeling unwelcomed. Understanding the several benefits of green infrastructure can help find out the section of the community that may principally support its creation and management to exploit its full potential. 3.0 Benefits of Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure provides a broad range of benefits. These ecosystem services can be grouped as environmental benefits, economic benefits, and social benefits. It is critical to assume a sensible viewpoint when analyzing the value of green infrastructure as some aspects of green space can hurt people. For example, it has been established that trees can intercept and hence decrease the quantity of many types of atmospheric pollution; some trees emit the volatile organic compounds that lead to ozone generation. 3.1 Economic benefits A common misconception that most people have about green infrastructure is that it is very costly and hence cannot be economically feasible. On the contrary, research studies have demonstrated that the building green infrastructure is not expensive than gray infrastructure. Construction of green infrastructure comprises designs that avoid high building costs. Moreover, it has been proved that the maintenance costs for GI are not high as that of gray infrastructure. Investing in green space has shown to lead to attraction and maintenance of high-value industries, employees, entrepreneurs and new business start-ups, thus improving the image of a region. In turn, this has shown to increase the scope of investment in the private sector, creating employment and reducing regional disparities (NENW, 2008). An example of green space investment that has shown to offer economic benefits include the Riverside Park Industrial Estate project. In this case, 1800 trees were planted; creating jobs to over 60 people, attracted high-class inhabitants, and 28 new businesses were started (CLES, 2007). Developing green infrastructures in the key places within rural and urban areas lead to the increase in land and property values. Green infrastructure can result in higher revenues for the land sector. Greener areas attract more visitors, which result in the increase in leisure and retail spending and provide rental opportunities. Research studies have shown that tree enhances the value of property by 15-25% depending on location, condition, size and species rating (CABE, 2005 and CTLA 2003). The Development of Bold Colliery Community Woodland project increased the property prices in the surrounding region by $15m (Forestry Commission, 2005). 3.2 Social benefits There is a range of benefits that green infrastructure can provide. These ecosystem services can be classified into three broad groups: promotion of physical activity, enhancement of psychological health and enabling social interaction. Studies have demonstrated that access to local, safe and high-quality green infrastructure encourages people to engage more in physical activity, and this has several health benefits, such as reducing obesity, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and respiratory disorders in the community. Moreover, people who live closer to recreation facilities or parks have shown to engage more in physical activity. Green infrastructure may be used to promote active travel, to walk and cycling, which can enhance cardiovascular health (Fairburn et al., 2005). For example, people who participate in the green gym projects managed by the British Conservation Trust are more likely to continue engaging in physical activity than those who go to traditional gym-based regimes (Brown and Grant, 2005). Moreover, increased levels of physical activity promote mental health and cognitive function. The attention restoration theory holds that green infrastructure provides excellent opportunities associated with psychological recovery. Studies have shown that green infrastructure has therapeutic value as it decreases stress and mental fatigue and enhances cognitive function (O'Brien et al., 2010). Natural environments play a significant social role in reducing tension and hence lessening anger, violence and aggression. Thus, green infrastructure promotes psychological health, improving the ability to focus and work efficiently. GI may also play a significant role in promoting mental well-being as they facilitate social interaction. GI can provide opportunities for individuals who are not social to come together and interact, helping in developing social bonds and community cohesion. Thus, green spaces can be very useful in regions that are highly withdrawn from the society and which are more prone to social exclusion like individual with disabilities, ethnic minorities and the older and younger and the elderly. Well-managed festivals may have a positive impact on the environment, such as bringing the community together, improving community cohesion, reducing crime rates, fostering social capital, and developing local attachment, especially in deprived communities (Wooley and Rose,2004)). Physical activity is linked to enhanced mood, a decrease in stress, high self-esteem and a high-quality life (Van den Berg et al., 2007). Greener areas are associated with low violent and property crime rates (Tzoulas, 2007). Green infrastructure also has therapeutic psychological benefits. A study carried out showed that individuals who participated in walking and cycling networks of green infrastructure experienced lowered blood pressure, emotional gains and enhanced attention functioning (Hartg et al. 2003). Moreover, there is strong evidence that links the natural views of environmental features like lakes and trees to reducing stress level, blood pressure and promoting quick recovery in patients who have undergone surgery (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003). Green infrastructure is linked to higher educational achievement, good physical health, increased social inclusion, decreased health inequalities, better employment opportunities, and decreased criminality (Tzoulas, 2007). Furthermore, there is a positive association between green infrastructure, physical activity, health and global warming mitigation. Active travels, walking and cycling networks promoted by the green infrastructure contributes to decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. Green infrastructure is also associated with decreased income-inequalities health problems as it solves the issue of income deprivation in marginalized areas. A healthy population is more productive as there will be reduced absenteeism. 3.3 Environmental benefits Green infrastructure offers numerous environmental benefits including reducing air pollution, decreasing stormwater, increasing the aesthetic value of urban and rural areas and amelioration of high temperatures. It is critical to mention that none of these benefits occurs in isolation; a well-planned, located and managed green space can potentially provide all of these benefits at once. Hence, GI should be designed in a way that all these benefits can be fully achieved. GI serves to improve air quality as woodlands and trees tend to absorb a significant amount of gaseous pollutants like ozone, Sulphur dioxides, and nitrogen oxides from the atmosphere. Moreover, trees can have a positive impact on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as they tend to reduce the amount of harmful particles found in them (Spriggs et al., 2005). Vegetation tends to purify the air by producing oxygen during photosynthesis. Trees also tend to decrease building energy use by way of shading buildings and reducing conductive heat loss, thus helping decrease pollutants emitted by power stations. Also, trees reduce air temperatures by transpiration, hence reducing the creation of ozone. Green roofs contribute to minimizing noise and air pollution in congested areas where it is not possible to plant trees (Goode, 2006). However, it is important to note that trees can also emit Volatile organic compounds, increasing the creation of ozone as nitrogen oxides come into contact with the volatile organic compounds. Decrease in air pollution result in reduced rate of respiratory diseases and hence improved health. A study carried out showed that street trees are linked to fewer cases of asthma in children (Lovasi, et al., 2008). Improved health means reduced hospital admissions and decreased premature deaths due to air pollution, resulting in decreased medical expenses. Green infrastructure has several hydrologic benefits, including coastal storm protection, passage, permeation and natural drainage, reduction in surface flow through surface roughness, removing pollutants from water and soil, capturing and storing water. Thus, GI has a positive effect on the quantity as well as the quality of water (Spriggs et al., 2005). Green space has been active in managing groundwater through transpiration in vegetation, ponds, wetlands, green roofs, basins and swales, filter drains and infiltration trenches. They thus have proved to reduce runoff and significantly reducing flood risks. The underground storm sewers that have been traditional used to manage stormwater are expansive and capital-intensive. Hence, this gray infrastructure needs to be used in combination with GI to manage runoff if multiple goals are to be achieved. Green roofs have been effective in lowering temperatures and combating the heat island impact, resulting in energy savings. Cultivated land, urban forests, wetlands, lawns, and parks contribute sustainable drainage systems as well as microclimate regulation, air purification, cultural and recreational values and noise reduction. GI increases the aesthetic value of a place by improving its image, landscape character, protect and enhance historical and natural assets and ensuring training, education, health and social inclusion. Green spaces are usually clean with well-marked footpaths, good lightning, well-kept grass and good drainage. An aesthetically pleasing environment attracts local and foreign investments, tourists and increases property values. 4.0 EU legislation that support GI The immense benefits derived from GI, such as clean air, clean water, climate regulation, recreation and flood prevention has made the EU come up with legislation that ensures the sustainable GI development. The EU is committed to protecting the natural capital, and hence, it perceives investment in GI as the most efficient way to ensure the protection of the natural capital. However, as discussed above, there are several barriers to effective implementation of GI, such as capacity, contextual, cultural, regulatory, structural and technical obstacles. This necessitates the development of regulations to facilitate successful execution of GI. The EU has therefore developed several laws that support the construction of GI. 4.1 Nature conservation The Habitats and Birds Directives by the EU are meant to conserve habitats and protect birds. These two measures to preserve nature together create the Natural 2000 network that acts as the pillar of the EU's strategy to support GI. It ensures a reservoir of biodiversity which can be used to repopulated degraded areas, catalyzing the implementation of GI. Moreover, this is expected to decrease the destruction of the ecosystem, enhancing the connectivity between locations within the Natural 2000 system. This strategy prohibits the pollution or destruction of the habitats of birds (Defra, 2011). 4.2 Water conservation The EU came up with Water Framework Directives aimed at ensuring that all coastal and inland waters meet the set standards. This directive also dictates that no water body ought to deteriorate regarding status. River basin management plans need to be integrated with GI to ensure supply of quality water, reduce the effects of droughts and floods and mitigates the impacts of hydro-morphological pressures. Moreover, combining GI principles with carbon savings strategies can be useful for fish stocks and promote a range of benefits to the marine environment. 4.3 Climate change management To mitigate climate change, the EU has developed a strategy intended to reduce the emission of CO2 and help people adapt to changing climate conditions. The measures to be taken include restoration of floodplain forests, decreasing the carbon and energy used in transportation, and avoiding land fragmentation. Promotion of green roofs and green transport corridors can support a healthy ecosystem (Clark, 2005). The EU has also developed proper reporting mechanisms to effectively communicate the impacts of climate change and adaptation plans at the right time. 4.4 Land and soil management Land and soil form the major components of the EU's natural capital, yet every year more land is used for recreation, industry, housing and roads constructions. Hence, EU has come up with measures such as the Common Agricultural Policy, agro-environmental actions that ensure proper usage of land preventing fragmentation and abandonment of land, avoiding non-productive investments, maintaining valuable land boundaries and preserving rural heritage features. This involves determining the location of a GI that ensures accessibility. 4. 5 The Natural Environment White Paper The aim of establishing this White Paper by the EU was to protect and improves the natural environment as well as facilitates coherent and resilient environmental systems. Hence, spatial planning is an integral component of the development of GI. The White Paper is intended to prevent loss of biodiversity by 2020, promotes healthy functioning environments and develops coherent ecological systems. It has introduced several policies such as the Local Nature Partnerships, Nature improvement areas, the Green Infrastructure Partnerships and the biodiversity offsets. 5.0 Conclusion Green infrastructure is beneficial to both the humankind and the nature. It leads to the restoration and maintenance of quality ecosystems as well as ensures that the connectivity of natural areas. The multiple benefits that are derived from GI can be broadly classified into three: economical; social and environmental benefits. They include clean water and air, crop pollination, flood prevention, carbon storage and health benefits. Moreover, it enables species to grow well across their natural environment. However, there are some barriers to effective execution of GI, including capacity, contextual, cultural, regulatory, structural and technical obstacles. Hence, actions are being taken at the local, regional, national and even international level so as to enhance these benefits derived from GI. In particular, the EU has developed legislation in support of GI such as the Natural 2000, the Water framework Directives, the climate mitigation policy, the Common Agriculture Policy and the Natural Environmental White Paper. 6.0 References Brown, C. and Grant, M. (2005). Biodiversity and Human Health: What Role for nature in Healthy Urban Planning? Built Environment 31 (4), 326–338. CABE (2005). Does money grow on trees? CABE Space, London. Clark, C., Talbot, B., Bulkley, J. and Adriaens, P. (2005). Optimization of green roofs for air pollution mitigation In: Proceedings of third annual Greening rooftops for sustainable communities conference CLES (2007). The contribution of the local environment to the local economy. Research report. April 2007. CTLA (2003). Summary of tree valuation based on CTLA approach. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Defra (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England's Wildlife and Ecosystem Services. London: Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Fairburn, J., and Smith, G. (2008). Environmental justice in South Yorkshire: working towards a better quality of life. Summary report. Environment Agency, London. Forestry Commission (2005). Bold Colliery community woodland: district valuer's report on property values. Forestry Commission, England Goode, D. (2006). Green infrastructure reports to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London Grahn, P. and Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2 (1), 1–18. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S. and Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 109–123. NENW (2008). The economic value of green infrastructure. Natural Economy Northwest (NENW). Lovasi, G.S., Quinn, J.W., Neckerman, K.M., Perzanowski, M.S. and Rundle, A. (2008). Children living in areas with more street trees have a lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62, 647–649. O'Brien, L., Williams, K. and Stewart, A. (2010 in prep). Urban health and health inequalities and the role of trees, woods and forests in Britain: a review. Forest Research, Farnham. Spriggs, T., Banks, M.K. and Schwab, P. (2005). Phytoremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in manufactured gas plant-impacted soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 1755-1762. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, Niemela, J. and James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (3), 167–178. Van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., and Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 63 (1), 79–96. Weldon, S. and Bailey, C. in collaboration with O'Brien, L. (2007). New pathways to health and well-being: summary of research to understand and overcome barriers to accessing woodland. Forestry Commission, Scotland. Wooley, H. and Rose, S. (2004). The value of public space: how high-quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and environmental value. CABE Space, London Read More