Connecting Urban and Rural Report

Connecting Urban and RuralFinal report of the Sustainable Urban Fringes (SURF) Project

Editors Page

• EmmaWatt-AberdeenCityCouncil

• AlisonLeslie-AberdeenCityCouncil

• RolfOldejans-TheCityofEnschede

• KevinThomas-SchooloftheBuiltEnvironment–LeedsMetropolitanUniversity

• StephenLittlewood-SchooloftheBuiltEnvironment–LeedsMetropolitanUniversity

• MichelleWishardt-SchooloftheBuiltEnvironment–LeedsMetropolitanUniversity

• TheodeBruijn-SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences

• BaukedeVries-SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences

• HuibertHaccou-SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences

• GoosLier-SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences

PublishedbySURFincollaborationwiththeSURFpartnership:

• AberdeenCityCouncil,UK

• SchooloftheBuiltEnvironmentatLeedsMetropolitanUniversity,UK

• BradfordMetropolitanDistrictCouncil,UK

• NorfolkCountyCouncil,UK

• TheCityofEnschede,Netherlands

• SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences,Netherlands

• TheCityofAlmelo,Netherlands

• TheCityofHengelo,Netherlands

• ProvinceofEastFlanders,Belgium

• ProvinceofWestFlanders,Belgium

• ProvinceofAntwerp,Belgium

• FreeandHanseaticCityofHamburg,Germany

• MunicipalityofHärryda,Sweden

©Copyright2012SustainableUrbanFringesProject(SURF)Title-ConnectingUrban&Rural-SustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)project-report

ThispublicationisafinaloutputfromtheInterregIVBNorthSeaRegionprojectSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF).

ImageswithinthisreportarethepropertyofpartnersintheSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)projectunlessotherwiseacknowledged.

Thisdocumentmayonlybecopiedinentirety,withoutanyalteration.

FurthercopiesofthisreportcanbedownloadedfromtheSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)websitewww.sustainablefringes.eu

TheSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)projectwaspart-financedbytheEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFundintheInterregIVBNorthSeaRegionprogramme.

2 Sustainable Urban Fringes (SURF): Final Report

Acknowledgements&Foreword

TheSURFPartners

ThankyoutotheSURFpartnersforworkingcollaborativelyandtransnationallytodeliverontheobjectivessetfortheSURFproject,allowthecooperationtopresentthefindingsfromtheprojectandprovidealastinglegacyofinformationtoassistthoseworkingonprojectsintheurbanfringe.

ThepartnershipshouldberecognisedforenablingSURFtoexceedtheinitialprojectambitionsanddeliverusefulandpracticaloutputswhichwillbenefitthosewishingtomakepositivechangeintheurbanfringeforgenerationstocome.

TheWorkpackageLeaders

Specialthanksinparticulargoto:

Workpackage 2 - Communications The SURF Communications Manager Alison Leslie, the backbone of all marketing and communication activitiesthroughoutSURF.Alisonworked tirelessly toproduceanarrayofsupporting items for theSURFproject tobetterpromotetheprojectambitionsandhelpmaketheurbanfringemessagesaccessibletoall.Alison’seffortsforSURFhavebeenlimitlessandgreatlycontributedtotheavailabilityofinformationthroughouttheprojectlifecycle.Alison’sexpertise brought an exhaustive list of communication activities to SURF through the creation of theSURF logo,strapline,website,newsletters,annualreports,PRplans,imagery,writingskillsandonlinepromotion,ensuringthatSURFwillcontinuetoinformbeyondtheprojectcompletion.

Workpackage 3 - Review & Analysis - School of the Built Environment at Leeds Metropolitan University KevinThomas,StephenLittlewoodandMichelleWishardthaveprovidedSURFwithanoutstandinglevelofexpertiseonurbanfringes.Theconciseandfocusedconceptualandanalytical frameworkdevelopedwithacademicpartnerSaxionUniversityinformedandsteeredtheSURFpartnershiptowardsdeliveringtheprojectoutcomes.TranslatingtheanalysisandfindingsfromSURFanddocumentingtheminthisreporthasbeengreatlyappreciatedforatimelydeliverytoEurope.

Saxion University of Applied Sciences TheodeBruijn,BaukedeVries,GoosLierandHuibertHaccouprovidedSURFwitharefreshingapproachtodeliveringtheprojectoutcomes.TheirpracticalapproachtowardsdeliveryallowedSURFtoincorporatenewmethodsofpartnerengagementintotheworkprogrammetodelivermutualbenefitforthepartnershipwhilecomplementingtheoveralltaskathand.Specificacknowledgmentofthe‘ImplementationLabs’usedinSURFtofacilitatetheprojectpeerreviewprocessandthecreationoftheSURFuniqueurbanfringetoolkitarealsonotedwiththanks.

Workpackage 4 - Testing & ImplementationTheCityofEnschede-RolfOldejanshasprovidedSURFwithhiseverlastingenthusiasmtowardsthecauseoftheurbanfringe.Hisexperience inworkingonEUprojectshasbeen invaluableandhisnetworkingabilitieshavebeenintrinsically beneficial toSURFaccessing newand influential organisations andnetworks to increase theproject’sprofileinEurope.

SURFhopesthisreporthasalegacytoinformandassistanarrayofindividuals,networksandorganisationswishingtomakepositivechangeontheirenvironmentandachievegreaterrecognitionandincreasedmanagementoftheurbanfringe.

Emma WattSURFProjectManager

3

Executive Summary 6

Introduction 7

Chapter 1 Why SURF? What happens at the urban edge – and the SURF aspiration to influence it? 8

1.1 TheUrbanFringeinaChallengingWorld 91.2 WhatcharacterisestheUrbanFringe?TheSURFanalyticalcontext 101.3 WhatistheEUapproachtoUrbanFringes? 121.4 Whatwasknownalready?CapitalisationwithinSURF 131.5 SURF–Thecoreaspirations 14

Chapter 2SURF projects in the urban fringe 15

2.1 Exploringwaystoresolveurbanfringechallenges 162.2 Thecasestudyareas–SURFprojects 162.3 Developingthelinkbetweenurbanandrural 172.4 Conclusion 20

Chapter 3The SURF Themes 21

3.1 Introductiontothemeworking 223.2 ThemeReports 24 3.2.1 Economy,competitivenessandenterprise 24 3.2.2 Roleandvalueofgreenspaces 28 3.2.3 Spatialplanningandstakeholderengagement 31 3.2.4 Governance 34

Chapter 4Urban fringe governance 37

4.1 Background 384.2 Governanceatthecity-regionscale 384.3 WhatwaslearnedfromtheSURFpartnerregionsaboutgovernance? 394.4 Conclusion–Progresstowardsanurbanfringegovernancemodel 41

Chapter 5Integrated policy guidelines and approaches towards urban fringe planning and management 43

5.1 Introduction 445.2 Locallevelrecommendations 445.3 Regionalrecommendations 455.4 Nationalrecommendations 455.5 Policyinpractice 46

Conclusion The future management of the urban fringe 47

Contents


Appendices 1 Accessible learning from SURF 51

2 Sustainable Urban Fringes project partners:

BradfordMetropolitanDistrictCouncil-WorthValleyProject 53 FreeandHanseaticCityofHamburg-SuburbiaProject 54 ProvinceofWestFlanders-Stad-Land-schapProject 55 AberdeenCityCouncil-RiverDonProject 56 NorfolkCountyCouncil-TheGaywoodValleyProject 57 CityofHengelo-WeusthagProject 59 CityofEnschede-RondjeEnschedeproject 60 CityofAlmelo-NorthernParkProject 61 MunicipalityofHärryda-WalkingTracksProject 62 ProvinceofEastFlanders-SpatialQualityProject 63 ProvinceofAntwerp-LaarseBeekProject 64

Scientific Partners: LeedsMetropolitanUniversity-SchooloftheBuiltEnvironment 65 SaxionUniversityofAppliedSciences 66

3 Glossary 67

4 References 70

5

ExecutiveSummary

Recognising the opportunity for the urban fringe to add value to Europe’s city regions and play a vital role in their sustainability was the drive behind the work of the Sustainable Urban Fringes (SURF) transnational project.

The SURF project formed part of the Interreg IVB North Sea Region programme running from 2009 to 2013. The project involved 13 partners from five countries: the UK; the Netherlands; Belgium; Germany; and Sweden, who worked together and shared information to produce a robust and coherent set of outputs to benefit the future recognition, planning and management of the urban fringe.

This report on project findings outlines information on key commitments delivered under the SURF project, including new approaches to governance, policy recommendations and dynamic approaches to urban fringe planning, development and management.

SURF carried out a programme of urban fringe research and analysis which was outlined in the project ‘Conceptual and Analytical Framework’. This document categorised the partners into four main theme groups, from which the project could focus. These were:

1. Economy, competitiveness and enterprise

2. Role and value of green spaces

3. Spatial planning and stakeholder engagement

4. Governance

In addition, the framework provided a programme to maximise contributions from the project partners sharing information on urban fringe projects in their own city regions. Wider knowledge of the urban fringe was drawn through exchanging best practice information with associated European projects and networks.

The project focused on the effective management and development of the urban fringe and the processes and practices used, revealing that the urban fringe can make a real contribution to the sustainable development of city regions. Opportunities include: health and lifestyle improvements; urban to rural connectivity; and areas for economic growth. Significant challenges acknowledged within the project included: poor connectivity; lack of legislative support for the urban fringe; and the need for funding for development and management of these areas.

Alongside this SURF examined governance approaches for the urban fringes, identifying the need for a ‘soft governance’ approach for these environments at a local and national level. Evidence from SURF partner projects illustrated the benefit and potential of working in collaboration with stakeholders and influencers for the urban fringe and aligning the needs of their city and/or region to the development of the urban fringe.

In addition, SURF identified an underlying holistic need within Europe to bridge the gap between urban and rural policy and address the interdependency of urban and rural interests. This could lead to more effective and sustainable management of the urban fringe for the benefit of the city region if European legislation was transferred down through national, regional and local government.

SURF created a toolkit to satisfy the need for increased knowledge of successful approaches and tools used in urban fringe development in Europe.

It is likely that urban fringe projects in Europe will continue to be developed sporadically until there is a greater European recognition of the economic, social and environmental role and value of the urban fringe. More importantly, the report findings highlight the need for formal government and governance practices to support urban fringe development and the opportunity in these areas to enhance the sustainability of city regions for generations to come.

Further information on the project can be found on the website www.sustainablefringes.eu


Introduction

Introduction to the Sustainable Urban Fringe (SURF) project

SURF is the acronym for Sustainable Urban Fringes.

SURF was one project that formed part of the Interreg IVB North Sea Region programme running from 2009 to 2013 under the area of intervention ‘promoting sustainable growth solutions for expanding areas’.

SURF made a commitment to research, analyse and test the opportunities presented by the urban fringe, consider the barriers to the development of these environments and, through a structured research and analysis programme, deliver a number of project outputs including: suggesting new approaches to governance; creating specific policy recommendations; categorising useful methods for urban fringe planning and management; and creating a toolkit for practical urban fringe development.

The project partnership included 13 partners from five countries: the UK; The Netherlands; Belgium; Germany; and Sweden. Supplementary information on the project partners and their urban fringe environments can be found in Appendix 2.

The findings and conclusions from the work programme conducted throughout the project are summarised in this report.

7Introduction

Chapter1

WHYSURF?

WHATHAPPENSATTHEURBANEDGE–ANDTHESURFASPIRATIONTOINFLUENCEIT?

1.1 The urban fringe in a challenging world

TheSURFprojectisaresponsetoimportantchallengessetbymodernsocietalandnaturalenvironmenttrendswhichimpactuponspacesandcommunitiesattheurbanedge.SURFhasprovidedanoverarchinginstrumentforaddressingtheimperativeforurbanfringestocontributetocompetitiveregions,butalsoregionsthataregeareduptodeliversustainabledevelopments.TheSURFrationale for intervening inurban fringeswas theaspirationtomakethemmoresustainable.TheSURFbeliefisthatthismeansdevelopingpolicyandcapacitytointegratedifferentqualities.ThefourmainqualityissuesidentifiedinSURFare:

• socialquality

• environmentalquality

• spatialquality

• economicquality

Thechallengeistocombinethedifferentqualitiesandtolookforsynergybetweenthem.Ifqualitiesareactuallyconflicting thencareful choices, or trade-offs,will have tobemadebetween them relative to theparticularlocalityanditsneedsandcharacteristics.Makingtherightchoicesisfundamental.Identifyingandselectingthemostappropriateprocessesofdecisionmaking,communication,andstakeholder involvementarecentraltothepracticeofsustainabledevelopment.Itisalsocrucialtopreventthetransferofproblemstootherplacesortofutureperiods.Projectpartnershaveeachsoughttodevelopexemplarresponsestoparticularaspectsoftheinescapablerequirementtoconsiderallfuturedevelopmentandconservationwithinthecontextofsustainability. ThespecificspatialcontextfortheSURFprojectwastheterritory,orzone,atthe‘soft’marginsofurbanareaswhichmergesintoruralareas–sometimescalledtheperi-urban,rurbanorurban-rural,butreferredtowithinthisprojectastheurbanfringe.

TheSURFprojectapplicationhighlightedthatrecentresearchontheurbanfringehadidentifiedthehighlevelofinterdependencyofurbanandruralinterests,withtherespectivefunctionsoffringeandinnerurbanareaseffectivelymerging.ThisperspectiverepresentsachallengetotheconventionoftreatingtheurbanandtheruralasindependententitieswhentheinterestsoftheirresidentsareessentiallyconverginginmostoftheNorthSeaRegion.

Unfortunately,thisurbanfringeterritoryistoofrequentlyforgotten.Beingneitherurbannorrural,ittendstooftenfallintoavacuumleftbetweenurbanandruralpolicyandanalysis.Asaconsequenceitcanbecomethesceneof tensionbetween issuesofdevelopment andconservation,ofadesiretoattractvisitorsandtoexcludethem,andofaneedtopreservealegibleheritage landscapewhileadaptingpositively tonecessary change. The urban fringe containsboth significant potential to boost economicdevelopment of towns and cities and manyvaluedenvironmental,socialandculturalassetswhich require protection within sustainablemodelsofdevelopment.However,whatmakesthe urban fringe a territory requiring research,policyandactioninitsownrightisthatitcanbebothanareaofveryspecialcharacteristicsandanareaofunusualdynamismandtransition(1)-andnotalwaysinapositivesense.

Sometimestheurbanfringewillhavelegalstatusthatprovides protection, as with Green Belt designation.However,toooftenitistherecipientofarangeofneglectand negative impacts which are the collateral damage

9Chapter 1: What happens at the Urban Edge - and the SURF aspiration to influence it?

fromtheneedtoadapttopressureofurbanexpansion,demandforurbanand industrial resourcesandtherequirementtoaccommodateinfrastructurewhichurbanandruralareasandeconomiesaredependentuponbuteithercannotorwillnotentertain.

Negativeconsequencesmayincludetheurbanfringebeingpronetoeconomicdecline,urbanfringecommunitieslosingtheiridentityorbeingdisenfranchised,anddegradationofenvironmentalqualityandculturalhistory.Inothercasestheurbanfringecanbeaprivilegedlivingspaceasinsomecommuterbelts.Itcanalsobesaidthaturbanfringestendtounder-achieveandbeunder-supportedascontributorstothewell-beingofregionalandsub-regionalterritories.TheSURFprojectsoughttointerrogateresponsestoactualeventsintheurbanfringeandtoreporton,bygleaningexperiencefromarangeofdiverseprojects,positivewaystoresolvesomeofthemorecommonchallengestobefoundthere.

1.2 What characterises the urban fringe? The SURF analytical context

Whiletheterm“urbanfringe”ispartofadevelopingdiscourseaboutmanagingurbanenvironments,thereisnocommonlyagreeddefinitionoftheurbanfringe.ItwasdecidedearlyonintheSURFprojecttoside-stepthedefinitionargumentsandtofocusondealingwiththechallengesandopportunities.Whatcanbesaidasageneralisationisthatthefutureoftheurbanfringeandthefunctionsthatitsupportsarecloselytiedtoresponsestothefollowing:

• Demographicchange: North-westEuropeiswitnessingaperiodinwhichthepopulationofsomeregionsmightbeshrinking andothersmaybegrowing.Bothscenarioshaveimplicationsforthewaytheurbanfringeisdeveloped. On the one hand, theremay be a need to change theway inwhich the economies of regions are developed,jobscreatedandresourcesallocated.Ontheotherhand,theremaybecontinuingurbanflight tothefringesandexpansionofcitiesoutwardstoaccommodatemorehousingandotherdevelopment. Whatisclearisthattheurbanfringeisnolongeratemporaryzone,simplywaitingfortheimpactofthe nextwaveofurbangrowth.Itisanidentifiableterritorywhichshouldbedevelopedinamannerappropriate to its special character. This should apply regardless of urban population expansion or retraction. Incasesofdemographicshrinkage,forexample,theurbanfringemighthaveapermanentcharacterand functionthatenhancesanyproximateurbanretrenchmentorre-imagining.

• Agricultureinrelationtothelandscape: Thepositionofagricultureasthedominantindustrialsectorinurbanfringeandruralareasisdiminishing. Wherefarminghashistoricallyhadarole inmaintaining landscapes,thequestionnowishowandby whomthisfunctionwillbedelivered?TheCommonAgriculturalPolicy(CAP)hasbeentargetingresources to farmers tomanage landscape for environmental andbiodiversity advantage, but diversificationby farmersintoavarietyofmodesofsupplementaryincomegenerationandtheincreasingprofitabilityof landforfoodproductionhasmadethefutureofagricultureuncertain.Atthesametimerecreationaland natureconservationinterestsareincreasinglyhavinganimpactonlandscapeanditsfunctions.Policies aboutfarmingarerarelycoordinatedwithrecreationandotherurbandemands.

• Climatechangeandtheneedsofcities: Adaptationtotheexpected impactsofclimatechangehas ledtoan increased interest intheofferof ruralareasandurbanfringesashoststoamultiplicityofecosystemservices.Asexamples,globalwarming mayhaveanincreasingimpactonendangeredhabitatsandspecieswhichcanbeaffordedprotectionin the urban fringes. Flood relief and water retention, water quality management and water delivery are increasingly important functions, and urban fringeswill increasingly be the habitat for renewable energydevelopmentandnewformsofecohousing.


TheSURFexperiencesuggeststhatwherevertheyaresituated,urbanfringestendtosharecertaincharacteristics.Toagreaterorlesserextenttheycanbedescribedas:

• Areasintransition,impactedbytheexpansionofthecity’sneeds(suchashousing,infrastructure,and commercialdevelopment,whichnecessitateschanging landuse).Thedynamismof theurban fringe environmentoftenarisesfromlandbeingconvertedandadaptedfordifferentusesovertime.Atthesame timethismaybe inconflictwitha functionofurban fringesasadepository forhistoricalandcultural heritage.

• Ahighlycontestedterritory,astheyfulfilnumerousoverlappingfunctions,servearangeofinterestsand offerarangeofpotentialdevelopmentorconservationoptions, including,actingasasourceofprofit forlandownersandalocationfornewurbanservicesThistendstomakeitanuntidylandscapewherein landcanbevariouslytradedorbankedbyarangeofcommercial,voluntaryorpublicsectoragencies, oftenwithconflictinginterests.

• Major contributors to the quality of the living environment, since the urban fringe offers the urban populationachancetoenjoynatural/greensurroundings.Greenspaceintheurbanfringeisincreasingly beingpromotedforitshealthbenefitsandasrespitefromunhealthyurbanlifestyles.

• Therecipientsofhousingandother,frequentlylow-density,developmenttargets,thatrequiremorespace andwhichareurbaninnature,suchasshoppingmalls,andinfrastructurenodes.Suchdemandforurban fringe land tends to inflateproperty values, sometimescreating an arena for political disputeswithin planningsystems.

• Underthe influenceofoftenvagueandcomplexgovernancearrangementswithdifferentgovernment andnon-governmentstructuresatdifferent levelshavingauthority inavarietyofcontexts.Thismight includedecisionsmadebystatutoryinfrastructuredeliveryagents,arms-lengthdevelopmentagencies, environmentalquangosandvoluntaryconservationbodiesandothers, inaddition todifferent tiersof formalgovernmentplanningandregulation.

• Theplayingfieldforurbaninterests(ratherthanruralorregional).Thismightbeintheformofplaying fields,golfcourses,biketrailsandfootpaths,allotmentsandgardencentres,horticulture,parksandlocal naturereserves.

Reflectingthisvariety,theurbanfringecanbeseenasakindoflaboratorywherenewpolicyideas,interventiontoolsandgovernancearrangementscanbeexploredand triedout,whichmayproveuseful inotherspatialcontextsorother typesof region.Onesuch ideatoemerge inrecentyears fromurbanfringestudies is thenotionof‘multifunctionality’.Thistermdescribesadiversityofactivitiesoccupyingthesameoradjoiningspace(e.g.networksofrecreationalfootpathsmayoverlayagriculturallandwhichmayinturnhostrenewableenergyinstallations).Multifunctionality“isgettingincreasingattentionnotonlyinthelandscapesciencesbutinsocietyingeneral,sinceitseemstobeanimportantaspectof…sustainabledevelopment”(2).Thisnewtermalsosetsachallengetopolicymakerstoproduceappropriatepolicesandinterventionstocaptureandexploititspotential,applyingconcepts,suchas‘greeninfrastructure,’andtheseresponsescaninturncreateademandfornewgovernancestructurestofullyrealisetheirpotentialinpractice.

Multifunctionality,togetherwithrelatedideasofinterdependencyofurbanandruralinterestsandthepossibilitiesof new governance arrangements around the city region scale of policy action,were important foundationconceptsforSURFandwerewidelyusedintheanalysis,asreflectedintheremainderofthisreport.


1.3 What is the EU approach to urban fringes?

ArangeofEU interestandactivity is relevant to thedevelopmentof theUFand there is adiscerniblediscourseA rangeofEUinterest and activity is relevant to the development of theurban fringe and there is a discernible discourse withinpolicies which suggests that while the urban fringe isan important asset, there is no explicit policy whichaddressesthecontribution,needsordevelopmentofit.ThuswehavetobuildupanunderstandingoftheroleoftheurbanfringeinEuropefromaninterpretationofarangeofEUpoliciesandinterventions.Forexample,theEuropeanCommission has aWhite Paper addressingclimate change which does not explicitly mention theroleoftheurbanfringe,buttalksaboutthebenefitsofenhancinggreen infrastructuresuchthat“working with nature’s capacity to absorb or control impact in urban and rural areas can be a more efficient way of adapting than simply focusing on physical infrastructure”.(3).

In another example, a European Parliament report on the future of the CommonAgricultural Policy after 2013 draws attention to “the particular role played by farmers in peri-urban areas, where there can be intensive pressures on rural and agricultural resources”and “stresses that this production of food and public goods near urban populations should be maintained”.At the sametime,thevulnerabilityoftheurbanfringeisrecognisedinthemessage“that the CAP after 2013 must rebalance its support in favour of employment and of maintaining an agricultural presence in vulnerable areas, including peri-urban territories”.

Inrecognisingtheurbanfringecontributiontourbanandregionalsustainabilityandcompetitiveness,theplenaryoftheEuropeanParliamentinJuly2011agreedanamendmenttothe5thCohesionReportwhich“stresses that larger urban centres face specific challenges because of the complexity of their social, economic and environmental tasks; (and) in this context, sees the endogenous potential of rural and peri-urban areas as offering an opportunity for development”.Thisisaverygeneralisedreferencetotherelationshipoftheurbanwithitshinterland.MoreexplicitistheworkemanatingfromtheEuropeanSpatialPlanningObservatoryNetwork(ESPON)projectEDORA(EuropeanDevelopmentOpportunitiesforRuralAreas).Thissuggeststhattheurban-ruralrelationship(andbyimplicationtheplacesinbetween)isverydifferentindifferentpartsoftheEU.Thenewmemberstatesandthesouthtendtobemoreagrarian,whileintheNordicstatesthereismoreemphasisuponthehinterlanddeliveringleisure,recreation,tourismandconservationamenities.ThisseemstobethecaseinmostNorthSeaRegionurbanfringeareas.

Finally, there is pressure for the intrinsic needs and attributes of the urban fringe to be recognised directlyinEUpolicy rather thanasaperipheralconcern formainstreampolicyareas. Inaspeech to theEuropeanParliament,duringaconferencetodiscussthepotentialofEurope’speri-urbanspace,thePresidentofPURPLE(acampaigninggroupofEUauthoritiesfocusingontheurbanfringe),stated:“I’m confident, as Dacian Ciolo Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural development himself stated in a number of recent speeches, that tools that meet the needs of peri-urban regions are not necessarily the same as those suited for other territories.”(4)ShewentontoargueforanincreaseinEUfundingresources,includingtheERDF,tobededicatedexclusivelytotheurbanfringe.


1.4 What was known already? Capitalisation within SURF TheSURFprojectispartofanextensivebodyofworkfundedovertimebyInterregandotherEUprogrammestolookataspectsoftheurbanfringe.SURFhasnotthereforebeenprogressedinisolation.Previousandon-goingworkhasbeensourcedandcontactsmadetootherrelevantprojects,aprocessreferredtoinSURFas’capitalisation.’

CapitalisationhasbeenimportanttoassistwiththebaselineSURFinventoryofurbanfringeissues,policiesandpractices;tohelpavoidduplicationofworkalreadycarriedoutunderotherprojects;toenhanceSURFlearning;andtobuildrelationshipswithotherprojectsandnetworkstoshareknowledgeandunderstanding.SURFwasseenfromtheoutsetasbeingdistinctiveandaddingvaluetourbanfringeknowledgebyaspiringtouncoverdifferent practices in different regions across particular SURF-defined themes and to share that knowledgethroughtrans-borderexchanges. Insodoing, itwas intendedtobothseekoutbestpractice forsupportingaspectsofsustainabledevelopment intheurbanfringe,andtotakealongitudinalanalyticalapproachtotheworkwhichcouldenablebestpracticetobecomparedandturnedintopolicyrecommendationsandatoolkitforthedevelopmentoftheurbanfringe.Inanefforttohelpthisaspirationtocapitaliseonotherwork,morethan40relevantInterregprojectswereidentified,thoughnotallwereliveorabletoofferameaningfulcontribution.

Examplesofurbanfringe-relatedInterregprojectsthatSURFfoundvaluableintheaboverespectsincluded:

• Sustainable Open Space, SOSi and SOSii. These projects were concerned with rationalising and developinglandscapeidentity.

• RURBAN-Theproject sought to identify the impactofurbanpressureon rural landscapesand the contribution of rural goods and services in enhancing sustainable territorial rural-urban relationships. It included suggestions to strengthen urban-rural solidarity. Conflicting urban and rural development policiesdefinedatnationalandEuropean levelscomplicated theorganisationof territorial rural-urban relationshipsandgotinthewayofmutualityandcooperation

• SAUL-SustainableandAccessibleUrbanLandscapes focusedoncity regionsasrepresenting‘new urbanlandscapes’-spacesthatareneithercountrysidenorurbanparks,butwhichneednewapproaches topartnershipandstakeholderengagementtoplayavitalroleinsustainablecityregiondevelopment

• VALUE-aimedtodemonstratetheeconomicvalueofgreeninfrastructureincitiesandregions.Although itisnotyetfinished,itfollowedonfromthefindingsofanotherproject,’CreatingaSettingforInvestment,’ whichsoughttocreatealinkbetweengreenspaceandlandvalues,investmentdecisions,landscape qualityandcommunityengagement

• PeriUrban Parks - aimed to improve policies on management of natural suburban areas, focusing specificallyonpolicyandmanagementsolutionstomitigatepressuresonbiodiversity.SURFengaged withthisprojecttoexchangeonpolicyambitionsandprogress

Anon–Interreg(butunderthe6thFrameworkProgramme)projectofparticularrelevancewas: • PLUREL-Peri-UrbanLandUseRelationshipsarguedthatamoreintegratedEUlevelpolicyandfunding system could enable and encourage integrated peri-urban (urban fringe) development at the local, regionalandnationallevels.Reportsquantifythetrends,risksandopportunitiesforperi-urbanareas,set outnewconceptsforurban-rurallinkages,andproviderecommendationsfortargetedpoliciesforrural- urbanregionsacrossEurope

Aswellasprojects,SURFhasalsohadvaluableconnectionstonetworkssuchasPURPLE,acampaigningnetworkoflocalauthoritiesseekingtoraiseawarenessoftheperi-urbanagenda,andESPON,theEuropeanObservationNetworkforTerritorialDevelopmentandCohesion,whichhassoughttodescribeandanalyseurbanfringespatialplanningindifferentEuropeancountries.


1.5 SURF – The core aspirations

TheSURFprojectmodelwasforpartnerstoexplorearangeofissuescentraltothesustainabilityoftheurbanfringeindividuallyandjointlycontributingappropriately,ascontextandpartnerresourcesallowed,toanalysisand transnationalworkinganddissemination.Datawascollatedby thescientificpartners,whileknowledgewasexchangedbyarangeofmeans,includingpartnerconferencesandintensiveImplementationLabswherepartnerscouldmeetfacetofacetodiscussthemesindetail.

• AlthoughtheregionsofSURFpartnersvariedintheextenttowhichtheyformallyembracedcity-region taxonomy,theSURFbiddeterminedthattherewasafocuson‘cityregions’askeyspatialentitieswhere sustainabilitychallenges(includingcompetitiveness)andpolicyresponsestothemareplayedout.Inthe SURFcontext,workwasmainlytofocusonsub-regionalactivitywhichemploysspatialplanningand integrated place and sector working (economic, environmental, social), to create ‘functional urban regions’or‘city-regions’.ThepartnerprojectsaresummarisedinAppendix2

• Fromanearlystagetheworkaccentuatedfourthemesfundamentaltothesustainabilityoftheurbanfringe. Theseweregreenspace(includinggreeninfrastructure),governance,spatialplanningandcompetitiveness, (discussedinchapter3)

• TheoverarchingrationaleforSURFisthatcitiesneedtheirurbanfringesandvice-versa,andthatthis hasnotbeenwellrecognisedinthepast. Indeed,thedemandsofthecityhaveoftenbeenacostto thesurroundingfringe–hencesuburbanhousingsprawl,out-of-townshoppingandcommercialfacilities andunpopularfunctionssuchaspowerstations,wasteincineratorsandsewagetreatmentworks.As anexample,andinlinewiththis,severalSURF-partnerprojectssoughttodemonstratehowtownsand citiesincreasinglydependontheecologicalandotherservicesofsurroundingfringeareas.Suchservices gobeyondtraditionalactivitiesofprovidinglandforurbandevelopmentandgrowingfood(thoughthese remain highly significant). They increasingly include providing both ‘liveability’ factors - attractive, naturalisticlandscapeswithspaceforrecreation,andaffordingculturalattachment.AkeySURFobjective wastoproduceaToolkitformanagingtheurbanfringeandtoincorporateexamplesdrawnfromproject partners’experiencesindealingwiththeirspecificchallengesintheirquestforsustainabilityintheurban fringe.TheUrbanFringeToolkitmaybefoundontheSURFwebsitewww.sustainablefringes.eu

• Inthepressuredandoftenconflict-strewncontextoftheurbanfringethereisaneedtorecognisewhere conservationandprotectionisappropriateandwheresometimesurbanfunctionsandresourceshaveto beaccommodated.However,toooften,existinggovernancetoolsproveinadequateinensuringthatthe best decisions are made. Some SURF projects explored governance models for the urban fringe, including in thecontextofcity-regions,andSURFhassought to reporton insights intourban fringe governance together with developing appropriate recommendations for urban fringe - specific governance(chapter4)

The Lisbon & Gothenburg agendas prioritise economiccompetitiveness alongside interregional balance, socialintegration(cohesion)andenvironmentalsustainability.However,ithasbeentheSURFcontentionthateconomiccompetitivenesscannotbepursuedsimplybytraditionaleconomicdevelopmentmodelswhichportraytheurbanfringeonlyasahinterlandofthecities,providingfood,waterandwasteforurbandwellers.Theurbanfringe itselfhasresourcesandpopulationsthatneedtoberetainedandservedinkeepingwithsustainabilityprinciples,while still offering the city-enhanced status and amarketablequalityspatialsetting.ASURFobjectivewastopresentprojectlearning and good practice within a set of integrated policyguidelinesandconsideredapproachestowardsurbanfringeplanningandmanagement(chapter5).

Image: Gemma Clark, Norfolk County Council


Chapter2

THEPROJECTPARTNERS

2.1 Exploring ways to resolve urban fringe challenges

Chapter1rationalisestheambitionsof theSURFproject torecognisetheopportunitiesandpotentialof theurbanfringeandprovidesabackgroundintotheissuesthattheseareasface,thebarrierstotheirsustainabilityandthechallengesinimplementingpositivechangefortheseenvironments.

Combiningtheidentifiedissues,challengesandbarrierswiththepotentialopportunitiespresentedbytheurbanfringe;thepracticalmethodsthattheSURFpartnershipchosetoimplementtoeffectpositivechangewithintheircityregionswasexplored.

SURFnotedthattherewereanumberofsynergiesbetweenapproaches,thatanumberofthepartnerswereshowcasingsuccessfulmethodsofachievingtheirurbanfringeambitionsinalignmentwiththeambitionsoftheircityregions.Additionallythepotentialforexchangeandguidancetransferbetweenpartners,coupledwiththewillingnesstogainknowledgewasevidentamongstthepartnership.

ThechallengelaywithaligningindividualprojectambitionswithgeneratingtherequiredoutputsfortheSURFprojectasawhole.

2.2 The case study areas – SURF urban fringe projects

Themake-upoftheSURFpartnersvariedfrom:thephysicalsizeofprojectareas;theambitionsoftheprojects;totheinfluencesfeltfromthecityregionswithwhichtheyconnected.Theidentificationofeachpartnerprojectareaasan‘urbanfringe’wasuniquetothecityregionpartnerprojectsconnectedwith,theirlocaldefinitionofanurbanfringeandthespatiallandscapetowhichtheybelonged.DetailedinformationonthepartnerprojectsandsupportinginformationontheircityregionandsurroundingenvironmentcanbefoundinAppendix2. Althoughagreeingonadefinitionoftheterminology‘urbanfringe’withinSURFwasnotcrucialtotheprojectdevelopment,understandingeachpartners’interpretationoftheirprojectareaasbeingpartoftheircity’surbanfringewassimpletoappreciate.Thiswasrationalisedtotheencompassinginformationfromtheseprojectsthatassistedwithunderstandingnotonlywheretheirprojectswerelocated,intermsofvicinitytotheircitiesandsurroundingruralareas,butalsothemultiplefactorsthataredeemedtobeintegraltowhatdefinesanurbanfringe;asnotedinchapter1.

Theambitionsof theprojectpartners for theirurban fringeareasvaried,however, throughSURF’sanalyticalframework,themainfunctionsofeachprojectareawerecollated.ThemostfrequentlyreportedfunctionsoftheurbanfringeinSURFwereprovidingthepublicwithaccesstonatureorrecreationforhealthandwell-being,andprotectingnature,landscapeandbiodiversity.Thenextmostfrequentfunctionwassightingnewdevelopment.However,diversefunctionswerereported,thoughthiswasonlydiscussedovertlyintermsofmultifunctionalityintheEnglishregionsandtheNetherlands.Moreover,inthecaseofEnschede,itwasacceptedbutwithfunctionsinparallelratherthanintegrated.InAlmelotoo,differentprioritieswereassignedfordifferenturbanfringeareas,eachdepictedwithitsownidentity;thusthe‘easternlung’was‘cherishedfornatureprotection,’whilethefocusforotherswas,for instance,sportandleisureoremploymentopportunities.Bycontrast, inHamburgmono-functionalitywasactuallyastatedpreferencefortheurbanfringe,tobeusedfor‘safeguardingagriculture’,ornature,forestryetc. MoreinformationcategorisingthedifferingfunctionsofthepartnerurbanfringeareascanbefoundinTable1.


Table1:FunctionsoftheurbanfringeidentifiedthroughSURF

Function

Providingurbanpopulationwithaccesstonatureandrecreation

Protectingnatureandbiodiversity

Providingspaceforurbanexpansionincludinghousingandindustry

Providingecosystemservicesfortownsandcities

A location for urban support services such as waste transfer, energyproduction, water supply, sewage treatment, recycling facilities andlandfillsites

Providingfoodforthetownsandcities

Locationformoresustainableliving

Sitesformajortransportinfrastructure,airportsmotorwaysetc.

Asourceofhealthandwellbeing

Asourceofculturalidentityandregionalheritage

Asourceofenterpriseandproductivity

2.3 Developing the link between urban and rural

SURFnotedadegreeof interdependencybetweentheurbanfringeandthecitieswithwhichtheyconnect.ThiswaswhollyapparentintheSURFprojectduetothegovernmentalandgovernanceissuesraisedfromthestartoftheproject.However,increasingtheknowledgeincityregionstowardstheopportunitiesthattheurbanfringecanpresentwasanareawhichprovedtobeamajorbarriertopartnersandhadknock-oneffectssuchaslimitingaccesstofunding,delayingprojectplansanddivertingprojectstrategies.

ThechallengewithinSURFwasthereforetotryandalleviatethesebarriersandenableurbanfringeprojectstosubsequentlybeviewedbythecityregionsasareaswhichcanenablepositivechangeandbeintegratedwithincityregionplansandambitions.

The SURF partners employed varying approaches towards urban fringe management and development,demonstratinganumberofcomparabletechniquestoachievingcityregionconnectivityineverysense-fromphysical accessibility froma city to urban fringe areas; to aligningwith city regionplans andprocesses fortheirurbanfringeprojectareas.Approachesoftensupportedtheambitionsofthecityregionandalignedwithoverarchingstrategies.SomeoftheSURFpartnerapproachesarecategorisedbelow.

Connectivity

SURFnotedthatconnectingtheaspirationsofthecityregionwiththoseoftheurbanfringecanbeanenablerforurbanfringeprojects.Inpracticethiswasachievedthroughunderstandingtheambitionsofacityandaregionandworkingcreativelywithinformalstructures,theendresultoftenbeingthattheurbanfringecouldactasaconduittochangeandsupportcityregionambitionssuchas:

17Chapter 2: SURF projects in the urban fringe

• Increasingaccesstogreenspaces–theurbanfringecanoftenprovidepositivehealthbenefitsthrough cleaner air quality and space for sports and leisure activities for city residents. Indeed this was the overarchinguseoftheurbanfringeenvironmentswithinSURF

• Increasingeconomicdevelopment–theurbanfringecanoftenbeanareathatharboursnewbusiness developmentsandservices;increasingemploymentintheareaandopportunitiesforeconomicgrowth

• Increasingbiodiversity - theurban fringecanact asaneutral areaofgreenspace, allowingacity to cultivateplantspeciesanddirectlyimpactairqualityandnaturereserves,thusbuildingamoreresilient naturalenvironment

TheSURFpartnershipnotedtheneedtoworkwithexistingproceduresandboundariestoenableurbanfringeprojects tomaterialiseandprogress.Considering thegovernmental andgovernancechallenges recognisedwithinthepartnership,partnersalsonotedtheneedtoconnectwithcolleaguesindifferentdepartmentsinternallyandthroughassociatedpartnershipswithgovernmentallinks.Additionally,connectingwithexternalinfluencerssuchasprivatelandownersandbusinessownerswasalsoabalancethatmanypartnerssoughttoachievetoenableprojectdevelopment.

Antwerpacknowledgedtheimportanceofbridgingthegapbetweendifferentgovernmentlevelsthroughthefoundingoftaskfocusedsteeringgroupsencompassingavarietyofpublicandprivatesectoractors.SpecificallyAntwerpcreatedtwosteeringgroups:oneconsideringtheurbanfringeinthevalleyoftheLaarseBeekbeekasawhole;andoneconsideringfishmigrationduetoaprotectedfishspeciesinhabitingtheprojectarea.

The Hamburg Metropolitan Region integrated the issue of urbanruralcooperationinitsnewstrategicschemeasoneof itsprioritiesandconsideredtheintermunicipalforaandothernetworksbetweenHamburg and its surrounding municipalities. To communicate theambitions of this strategy, Hamburg employed a tool called the‘colloquiumseries’toraiseawarenessaboutthepossibilitiesofferedby theurban fringeareaand thepotential impactofneglecting theopportunitiespresentedbytheseenvironments.Thisinvolvedhostinginformationsharingeventswhereresidentscouldinteractwithpublicsector representatives and could be educated on the cause of theurbanfringeandhowtocontributetodevelopingasustainablefuturefortheseareas.

Bradfordlookedtosupportthedevelopmentofthenextparishplanforthearea,withtheadditionofengagingwith localcommunities,and incorporatenotonly local issuesbutalsothoseof thewidercity region.Withinthis,Bradfordlookedtoincorporatesustainablepracticesthatwouldprovidetheplanwithalevelofresilienceforitslongevitywithintheprojectarea.Thisinvolvedahighdegreeofcollaborationandconnectivitywithlocalresidents,businessownersandvisitorsandaligninglocalneedswiththoseofthewidercityarea.

TheMunicipalityofHärrydarecognisedearlyonwithintheirprojectthat,duetothelargenumberofprivatelandownerswhichformedpartoftheprojectareaboundaries;communicatingandconnectingwiththeseindividualswasintegraltotheproject’sdelivery.Throughunderstandingthepowerplayerswithintheirregion,Härrydawereable todemonstratepracticesofconnectivityultimatelyenablingawalking track tobecreated through theproject.


Collaboration

TheSURFpartners substantially engagedwith a variety of actorsandinfluencersinterestedinseeingpositivechangewithintheirurbanfringes.Formingsteeringgroupsorworkinggroupsbybringing togetherexistingandnewactorswithan interestorinfluenceintheprojectareasprovedtobeasuccessfulapproachtodeliveringchangefortheurbanfringe.

TheWest Flandersfoundationtermed‘Stad-Land-schap‘t West-Vlaamse hart’ comprised of representativesfromninemunicipalitiesofmid-WestFlandersand theProvince itself. This inter-local cooperation of varyingexpertise allowed the West Flanders project to gainhigherpoliticalrecognitionoftheimportanceoftheprojectareaandallowedaccesstonewfundingstreams,enablingdifferent promotional activities to be developed to engagewiththepublic.Additionally,thecontinuationofthefoundationonceSURFcompletedmeantthatWestFlanderswasabletobuildasustainablefuturefortheprojectarea.

Aberdeenformedasteeringgroupbybringingtogetherthepractitionersalreadyworkingwithintheprojectareaandnewinfluencerssothatvaryingactivitiescouldbedeliveredontheground.Thesteeringgroupwasinvolvedinthedevelopmentofaplanforthearea, inalignmentwithanexternalcontractorconsultingontheprojectareaanddevelopingaframeworkfortheproject.Thisallowedcommunitynetworkstodeliverdifferentworkstreamsandenabledplanningforfutureownershipofanumberofactivitiesandresponsibilitiesfortheareatobecommunityownedandgoverned.

The East FlandersProvincialQualityChamber (PQC),althoughausefulexampleofacollaborativeworkinggroup, is deemed to be a governmental instrument comprisedof expertsworking in fields such as spatialplanning,architectureandlandscapemanagement.ThePQCtoolwasutilisedasapracticalsoundingboardforthebuiltandgreenenvironmentinEastFlanderstostrivetowardssoundspatialplanningprocesses,whilerespecting the open space areas inwhich it effects and giving consideration to sustainable practices. ForEastFlanders,theuseofthePQCstimulatedexchangebetweendifferentstakeholdersandsocialgroupsandallowedcurrentgovernmentalpracticestobecarriedoutcreatively,butalsoengineeredtoallowmoreattentiontotheurbanfringeanditsimportanceintheurbanplanningprocessforthecity.

Almelo,Hengelo andEnschededemonstrated thebenefitofcollaboration through their jointefforts in theproductionofthe‘TwenteVision,’realisingthepotentialforcityregionstoconnectwiththeircitizensandcreatepositiveenvironmentsthatareaccessibleandcontributetoaqualityurbanlifestyle.Theircollaborativeapproachalsoenabledhigherrecognitionoftheurbanfringeareasgenerallywithintheircityregions,resulting inmoresupporttodevelopanimplementationplanandfocusonpracticalactivitiesbeingdeliveredtoseevisiblechangewithintheseenvironments.

Communication

Allpartnerssawtheneedforandbenefitofcommunicationactivitiesandthenecessitytomarketurbanfringeproject areas andengagewith a variety of actors andorganisations.Manypartners aimed to include localcitizensinthedeliveryorownershipoftheirurbanfringeprojectsonceSURFcompleted.Communicationandengagementwiththelocalcommunity,privatebusiness,stakeholders,influentialnetworksandinterestedpartieswasessentialfromthestartoftheprojecttoallowthistohappenandtoempowerindividualstocontinueworkplannedoutwiththeSURFlifespan.VaryingdegreesofmarketingandbrandingwereseenthroughoutSURFtoengagewithdifferentsectorsandmaintaincommunicationofactivitiesdelivered.

19Chapter 2: SURF projects in the urban fringe

Insomecapacityallpartnersshowcasedexamplesofcommunicationtoolssuchasleaflets,flyers,brochuresandprojectreports,illustratingtheimportanceofconnectingwithactorsassociatedwithprojectareas.Somepartners explored the use of socialmedia andmore intense programmes ofmarketing project areasweredevelopedthroughSURF.

AberdeencreatedaFacebookaccounttopromotetheworkofthesteeringgroup,communicatewith localresidentsandprovideaforumforlocalownershipoftheprojectareaonceSURFcompletes,whileenablingthepromotionofeventsandactivitieswithintheprojectarea.

Norfolkemployedanumberofcommunicationactivitiestoengagewithdifferentsectorsofthecommunity,onebeingtheregularuseofTwitterto‘tweet’projectupdatesandeventinformation.

Enschede explored developing different ‘apps’ with Saxion students to offer new accessible ways forcommunitiestoengagewiththeirenvironmentandkeepup-to-datewitheventsandprojectprogress.

Intermsofwidermarketingactivities,thebrandingofprojectsprovedtobeaneffectivewayofallowingprojectareastocreateprojectnamesandidentifiablecharacteristicswhichcommunitiesandresidentscouldeffortlesslyrecogniseandengagewith.

Activitiesdevelopedthroughbrandingofprojectareasinclude;West FlandersandHengelocreatinginteractivewebsitesforinformationupdatesandpromotionalactivitiesforeventsandprojectmilestones.

2.4 Conclusion

Theambitionsof theSURFpartners,alignedwith thedevelopmentandmanagement techniquesemployedvaried.However,interestinglywithinSURFtherewereanumberofareaswheresimilarapproacheswereusedindifferentways,suchastheuseofmarketingactivitiesandcollaborativesteeringgroups.

Thiswasaccounted forbyanumberof factors, including thegovernanceandgovernmentalboundaries inwhichtheurbanfringeareaswereinfluenced,thepotentialandcapacityoftheprojectteamstodeliverchangeontheground,andtheresourcesavailabletoallowurbanfringeprojectstobedevelopedandmaintainedinthatarea.

WhatwasclearwithinSURFwasthatnotonlydoestheurbanfringeoffermultifunctionalopportunitiesforcityregions,arangeofapproachesandtechniquesneedtobeemployedtoenablepositivechangetobeseen.

Itseemedthat therewereanumberof factors thathadadirectinfluence on the urban fringe, often dictated by the cityregion theyconnectedwith.However, theSURFpartnersdemonstrated that by working within and in somecases challenging these boundaries and testing newapproaches to urban fringe development, positivechangecanbedelivered.

Supporting informationon theprojectpartnerscanbefoundinAppendix2.

Image: Gemma Clark, Norfolk County Council


Chapter3

THESURFTHEMES

3.1 Introduction to theme working

TheSURFprojectwasundertakenasatransnationallearningprojectintothesustainabilityandcompetitivenessofurbanfringes.Asnotedintheprojectapplication,thiswouldbeacomplexundertakingpartlybecausetheelementsbeingdealtwith,sustainabilityandcompetitiveness,areintrinsicallymultifacetedanddifficulttodefine,andpartlybecausetheseconceptshavenotbeenappliedsystematicallytourbanfringesbefore.Thiswastobeavoyageofdiscovery,sotheprojecthadtodevelopnewwaystounderstandtheelementsoftheurbanfringesbeingtackledandawaytoanalyseevidenceabouturbanfringesthatcouldbeusedtoproducehelpfuloutputsforpolicyintheseareas.Intheprojectapplicationdocumentitwasagreedtopursueanumberofkeyobjectives:

• toundertakeaproblemanalysisofurbanfringeregions

• toundertakeareviewofexistingapproachesintheurbanfringe

• toenabletransnationalnetworkingontheseissuesandapproaches

• tofindwaystointegratepoliciesandprogrammesforurbanfringes

Todothisthescientificpartnersdevelopedatwo-foldapproachcalledtheConceptualandAnalyticalFramework(C&AP).Theconceptualelementinvolveddefiningkeyaspectsofurbanfringesthatrequiredattentionwithintheprojecttoproduceusefullearning.Theanalyticalframeworkelementdescribedtheprocessforgettingthere.Theconceptualelementswereinitiallydefinedinthestagesleadinguptothesuccessfulfundingbid,basedontheexistingknowledgeandpreliminaryresearchofthescientificpartners.TheanalyticalframeworkhadtobeconstructedtoenableoptimumlearningduringtheSURFprojectandformedakeyfoundationforthewaytheprogrammeofSURFactivitieswasdesigned.

TheframeworkstartedbyoutliningthemaincharacteristicsofurbanfringesintheNorthSeaRegionandthekeypolicychallengestheywerethoughttoface.Theseareoutlinedin1.2andrangefromdemographicchangestoclimatechange.Theseissuesareoftenpolicychallengestoowithimportantcontradictionsandtensionsseeninurban fringeareas.Asstated in1.2, theurban fringehasbecomeakindof laboratoryboth for improvedunderstandingofhowurbansystemsfunctionandforhownewpolicyapproachesandtoolsareevolving inresponse.TheC&APdocumentisavailableontheSURFwebsite:www.sustainablefringe.euhoweverthekeyconceptualheadingscanbesummarisedas:

• generalfocusonthesustainabilityandcompetitivenessofurbanfringeswithincityregionsandnetworks oftownsandcities

• specificfocuson(leadscientificpartner):

- economy,competitivenessandenterprise(SaxionUniversity)

- roleandvalueofgreenspaces(LeedsMetropolitanUniversity)

- spatialplanningandstakeholderengagement(SaxionUniversity)

- governance(LeedsMetropolitanUniversity)

Theanalytical frameworkaddressed theseheadings in twomainways:firstlybycontinuing to research intoemergingknowledgeabouturbanfringes(especiallylearningemergingfromEU-fundedprogrammes)tofeedintotheSURFproject,whichtheprojectcalledcapitalisation;andsecondlybydesigningascheduleoflearningactivitiesembedded into thesix-monthlycycleofpartnerconferences indifferent regions.The fourspecific-focusheadingswereadoptedasSURFthemes,Sub-setsofpartnerswereallocatedtothemesandlearningtasksweresetaskingpartnersfor informationandsuggestingtheme-relatedactivities.Conferencemeetingswereheldtodiscusstheprogressmadeandtologlearning.

Thethemeworkwasdividedintofivephases:preparing/scoping/comparing/researchingandplanning/deliveringwhichreflectedanevolutionaryworkpackageoflearningtoengagethepartnersintheanalyticalprocess.Thisstructurewasadaptablenotfixed,forinstanceitwasdecidedtoprioritisetheproductionofatoolkitasakeyoutputofphase4intheanalyticalprocess,whenitbecameclearthiswouldbefeasible,valuableandwelcomedbythepartners.


The C&AF proved useful in focusing partners on keylearningoutcomes, inachievingsomeconsistencythroughouttheprojectandinhelpingcoordinateefforts towards delivering outputs. LessonslearnedfromapplyingtheC&APapproachinSURFrelatemainlyto:issuesofengagingpractitionerpartnersin jointdiscussionsabout difficult concepts throughouta lengthy project, the wide varietyof perspectives and experiences ofdifferent partners, as well as varyinglevels of resources to engage inpolicyabstractionsortonetworkwithregionalpolicymakers.

Despite these challenges the themework produced a number of valuableoutcomes. Given the centrality of thetheme work as an organising strand, mostof the SURF outcomes can be claimed asC&AFresults.Forexample,thegovernancemodel(chapter 4) depends on the case studies of policynetworking in the SURF partner regions produced frompresentationsby, documentsprovidedby, anddiscussionswithpartners. This kindof foundationwas alsonecessarytounderpintheexternalacademicoutputsflowingfromSURF.InadditionthetoolkitreliesonmaterialchannelledbypartnerstothescientificpartnersaspartoftheC&AF.

Therestofthischapterpresentskeyelementsoflearningflowingfromthethemework,basedonsummariesproducedbytheleadscientificpartners.Thematerialisorganisedundercommonheadingsforeaseofabsorption.Firstly,thereisevidencethatthethemeisimportantfortheurbanfringe.Allfourchosenthemesprovedtobeatleastasimportantasanticipatedinthebid.Secondly,theprojectlookedatphenomenareflectingthepresenceofthethemeinactualityinNorthSeaRegionareas.OncemoreexampleswerefoundfromoutsideandfromwithinSURF,whichshowedthethemetobeapressingrealityforpolicymakers.Thirdly,itwasconsideredwhichurbanfringestakeholdersweretryingtotacklethethemeissuesandmakingclearimpacts.Fourthly,evidencewassoughtof the impactsofpolicymeasuresandwhether they representedclear lessons forotherareas.SURFisnotaresearchprogramme;thefocuswasonsecondaryassessmentsofimpacts,wheretheyexist,andonperceptionsofpartnersandtheirstakeholders.Finally,broadconclusionsweredrawnforthethemes.

23Chapter 3: The SURF themes

3.2 Theme Reports

3.2.1 Economy, competitiveness and enterprise

3.2.1a Evidence that the theme is significant for the urban fringeThecompetitiveness theme iscentral to theoverallchallengeofSURF in thequest forbothsustainableandcompetitiveurban fringes.From thestartSURFadoptedacity-regionperspective thatenabled theinterdependenciesofurbanandruralelements tobe lookedat inacomprehensivewayandtheprojectstartedtolookatdevelopmentconceptsbeingusedfortheurbanfringes.Increasingtheeffectivefunctionalityandattractivenessofthefringeareaaroundthecitycontributestoeconomicsustainabilityofcities,creatingfavourableconditions fornew industriesand residents. In thisway thespatialqualityof theurban fringeendorsesthecompetitivenessofthecityandregionasawhole.

Despite thediversity incontextsandeconomicdrivers in thedifferenturban fringeareasof the Interregpartnership,theincubatorroleofthistypeofurbanfringeareaforeconomicdevelopmentpresenteditselfasaconcretefeaturewhenthecompetitivenessthemewasconsidered.Moreaffordablelandpricesandpricesforrealestateincomparisontothemoreurbanisedareascanmaketheurbanfringearatherfavourableareaforstartingupnewbusinessesandtheurbanoverspillofsmallenterprisesandinstitutionslikeuniversitiesformerlyoperatinginthecitycore.

Conditioning thesedevelopments insuchaway that theyarenotharmful to theotherqualities thatareuniquetotheurbanfringes- likerecreationandgreenfunction- isaprioritythatcarriessomeweight. Ifincubatingnewbusinessesadhere from theoutset to theconditionsof sustainability and theeconomicdevelopmentcanbeembeddedinthecontextofthevarietyoffunctionsthattheurbanfringesoffer,itwouldalsointhelongerterm,tosustainableurbanfringes.Thechallengeistocreateabalanceinconditionsinsuchawaythatsustainableeconomicdevelopmentisnotacontradictionintermsbutaninherentconditionofurbanfringedevelopment.

3.2.1b What is actually happening in the urban fringe relating to this theme?

What are effective sustainable economic development concepts that add or create new economicperspectivesforenterprises intheurbanfringes,capitalisingbothonthevicinityof thecityandtheruralcharacteristicsof theurban fringe?Focusingon thepromotionofsustainabledevelopment in theurbanfringes,many initiatives thatseek tocreateeconomicdevelopment thatappeal togreen living, includingmakingthelabellingoftheirproductsandservicesasbeing“green”intoacompetitiveadvantage,becomevisible.

Economic development concepts that give new perspectives to the rural enterprises –mainly, but notexclusivelyfarmsoragribusinessesarebeingintroduced.Agrowingnumberoffarmerssituatedinexpansionareas around the cities go out of business, notably those farms that have their enterprise.Once thesefarmersaregone,theurbanfringetransformswhentheregion isunderpressureofthenearbycity;or itbecomesderelictwhensituatedinashrinkingregion.Whentheselandscapemaintainingfarmersfadeaway,sowouldthelandscapeanditsgreencharacter.Thisdevelopmentcontrastssharplywiththeappreciationthecitizenshavefortheruralsettingofacityfortheobviousrecreationalpurposes.

Ontheotherhand,SURFalsowitnessedagribusinessdevelopmentsthatturnthegreenurbanfringesintoindustriallandscapeswithwarehousesandglasshouses(e.g.WestandEastFlanders)thataredifficulttodistinguishfrommono-functionalindustriallandscapes.Heretheeconomiccompetitivenessisnotanissueandneedsnoothersupportthanreductionofthespatialandenvironmentalplanningbarrierswhichlimittheirexpansion.Thiscouldbeseenasbeingquestionablefromasustainabilitypointofview.

Thebusiness(survival)strategybeingadoptedbytheruralenterprisesinneedofnewsourcesofincomeis tobroaden their spectrumofactivitiesandaddactivities thatnotonlygenerateadditional income for


thefarmers,butalsohavewhatiscalledasocialsurplus.ThisoldstrategyhasshowntobeaneffectivesurvivalstrategyadoptedbyFrenchfarmerswiththeirregionalproduceincheeseswhenconfrontedwithdiminishingfarmingreturns.

Enlarged/broadened farmers’ business concepts which have shown to be economically viable, in theNetherlands,EnglandandotherpartsofEuropelikeItaly(slowfoodmovement),havebeencopiedinmanyotherregionsoftheEU,andinclude:

• regional foodproduction farms incombinationwith farmshops, farmersmarkets,webshopsand homedelivery

• social care farms where farming activities are offered as day programme for small children or disadvantagedpeople

• recreationalfarmswherefarmfunctionsarecombinedwithovernighthotelstay(bedandbreakfast), accommodationoftenlabelledthematically(e.g.MiddleAges),orcombinedwithteagardens

• culturalfarmsofferingcreativeclasses,oftencombinedwitheducationalactivities

• nature-relatedfarmingcontributingtonatureconservationandupkeepofthelandscape,farmsthat diversify theirproducts inproteinproductionoften incombinationwithenergyproduction (biogas, wind,orsolarenergy)

Thesedevelopmentscapitaliseonexistingagriculturalbusinessesandlinktheircorebusinesstoactivitiesthatcanbeeasilycombined in theprogrammeof runninga farmandprovideadditional income for thefarmer.

Otherdevelopmentsthathelpmakethesenewcombinationseconomicallyviable,oreventriggerthem,areinitiatedbythemunicipalityorregionalauthority.Theseinclude:

• investmentsinslowtrafficinfrastructurelikefootpaths,bikingtrackandhorsetrackssuchasthose thatEnschede,Almelo,WestFlanders,Hamburg,Norfolk,Leedsaredoing

• flexibleinterpretationofspatialplanrulingbytheresponsibleplanningauthoritiesinthefringeareas, whenitcomestointroductionofnewactivities

• development-andplanningprocessesinvolvingthestakeholders

• offering of co-financing arrangements for nature conservation and upkeep of the landscape, like the green andblue services of farmers combinedwith the landscape funding in the Twente and Enschederegions

• facilitationofentrepreneurstothesubsidyandco-financingarrangementsofregionalandnational authorities

Thefollowingexamplecanbeconsideredtoberepresentativeforsimilargovernanceinitiatives:AnimportantstrategyofEnschede forworkingat the fringewas to facilitateand tostimulateentrepreneurs to initiatebusinessesinthefringe.Enschededevelopedanattractivecyclingtour(includingnewinfrastructure)inthefringearoundthetown(42km).Theexistenceofthiscyclingtourwasagoodstimulusforentrepreneurstoinvest,butthisprocessofgeneratingneweconomicactivityhadtobeaccelerated.Itisimportantthat entrepreneurs are informed about the potential for individualandcollectiveprojects.SaxionUniversityproposedthatEnschedeorganiseaninformingandinspiringmeetingforentrepreneursinthefringeandrepresentativesofurbanorganisations.Theintentionwastodevelop innovativeprojectsrelatedtothenowdeclinedtextile-industry. The idea of putting a theme forward was not generallysupported,but theentrepreneurswantedtohaveacatchytitle fortheirarea.Thethemestextileandorflaxwerereceivedwithskepticism,butsomemonthslaterallrecommendationswereimplemented.


Itmustalsobenotedthat,althoughagricultureandtourism-relatedbusinesseswerestudiedthroughoutSURF,therewereothersignificanteconomicusesfortheurbanfringethatareeitheroccurringorheadingtowardsusageoftheseareas.SpecificallynotedinHamburgwereusessuchasretailsitesandlogistichubs.

3.2.1c Who are the key stakeholders and organisations impacting on the evolution of this theme in the urban fringe?

Keystakeholdersare:thosewhoowntheland,mostlythefarmersandrelatedagriculturalbusinesses;butalsothenatureconservationorganisationswhichownprotectedconservationareasin-orneartheurbanfringes; the actorswith the legitimate authority and powers to rule and regulate; the local and regionalgovernmentinstitutions;andfuturestakeholders;theactorswhoneedtoinvesttheircapitalinenterprisesand/orareadevelopmentandwhiledoingsogeneratejobsandadditionalvalueandprofitsthatinturnwillhavetobeinvested.

3.2.1d What evidence is there of impact of measures taken?

ThereareactivitiesthatareinitiatedorboostedintheframeworkofourSURFprojectsuchas:

• Infrastructuredevelopment CyclepathsrenewedandimprovedbytheregionalauthorityofWestFlandersandintheurbanfringesof Almelo,HengeloandEnschede.AndforHamburgtheinterconnectionofhorsetracks

• Improved,morecoherentpolicyimplementation ThelaunchofanintegratedapproachintheurbanfringeofEnschede,tostimulateneweconomicactivity inthefringe,basedoninfluencing,inspiringandfacilitating.Nonewinstrumentsweredevelopedbutthe existinginstrumentswereusedinamorecoordinatedway

• Enterprisecoaching InAlmelothismeantempoweringthesmallinitiativesthatwanttoseizetheopportunitiescreatedbythe municipalinfrastructureinvestments

• Regionalbranding AsagovernmentbodyofWestFlanderswantingtocreateabottomupprocess,itstartedthemission with no clear vision on the area. This approach appeared to bequite successful due to the lack of constraintsexperienced.

It startedwith a concrete and small-scale activitywith the urban fringe stakeholderswhobuild on andcontributetotheregionalbrandingoftheirregionandatthesametimebuiltcohesionandcommunities.Oncethesecommunitieswereestablishedandgainedsufficientmutualtrust,abroadervisionontheidentityanddevelopmentstrategyoftheregion/fringewasdeveloped,allowingthecircleofstakeholderstogrow,withanattractivenarrativethatembracedthevision.Inthiswaythegovernmentinstitutionsfacilitatedthevisioningprocessanddevelopedacoherentandfocusedcommunityatthesametime


3.2.1e Concluding remarks

AlloftheactivitiesembarkedonduringtheSURFproject generated generally positive effects:regardingtheattitudeofpolicymakerstosupporttheseinitiativesincashandinkind;andconsideringpublic opinion on the process leading up to anendorsed vision on the preferred developmentsof the urban fringe. Although the SURF projectdid not seek to generate statistical evidenceabout competitiveness changes, many of thepartners in theSURFprojects reported that theirinitiatives contributed to more entrepreneurshipandcommunity involvement intheirurbanfringes.Competitiveness gains can cause tension withother aspects of sustainability, for instance impactson the quality of green spaces. For example, SURFwitnessedagribusinessdevelopmentsthatturnthegreenurban fringes into industrial landscapes with warehousesandglasshouses(BelgiumandWestFlanders)thataredifficulttodistinguishfrommono-functionalindustriallandscapes.

If itcanbeaccomplishedthatfromtheoutsetnewbusinessesadheretotheconditionsofsustainability;andthateconomicdevelopmentcanbeembeddedinthecontextofthevarietyoffunctionsthattheurbanfringesoffer,itwouldcontributealsointhelongerterm,tosustainableurbanfringes.ThisisafterallwhattheSURFprojectaimedtodo.


3.2.2 Role and value of greenspaces

3.2.2a Evidence that the theme is significant for the urban fringe

Greenspaces,depictedvariouslyasgreenbelt,lungs,ribbons,fingers,axesandzones,compriseasignificantpartoftheurban fringe in all partner areas, from Härryda wherealmosttheentireurbanfringeareacouldbedescribedas green space, to others where green spacescross-cutthefringesuchasAntwerp,wheregreenfingersextendinaradialwayfromthecityintoruralareas.Theyvaryalsointheircomposition,useandassignedvalue/levelofrecognition.

Thesegreenspaceareasareespeciallysignificantfor the urban fringe not only because they makeupa sizable elementof it, butbecauseapart fromprotecteddesignationsfornatureandrecreationtheytendnot tobeprotected legally andareoftensubjectto neglect and/or developmental pressure, mainly fromhousing, transport and industrial expansion. They are seenvariouslyasboththekeyopportunityinandthemostthreatenedelementof,urbanfringeareas.Theperceptionofwhatrolethesespacesshouldfulfilisperceiveddifferently,mostcruciallyaccordingtotheinterestsofthosewhoeitherownorhavethelandintheirsights.Thusanopportunityfordevelopersisconsideredathreattothoseconcernedaboutbiodiversity, climatechangemitigation, or access togreen spaces for recreation. Thusgreen spaces inurbanfringeareasconstitutetheprimaryfocusoftensionaboutwhattheroleoftheurbanfringeshouldbe.

DuringtheprojectSURFpartnerswereaskedtoratethemainfunctionsoftheirurbanfringeareas.Thetwofunctionsthatappearedmostfrequentlywere‘providingtheurbanpopulationwithaccesstonatureandrecreation’and‘protectingnatureandbiodiversity’.Thegreenspacefunctionsoftheurbanfringearerecognisedashavingparticularsignificance.Howeverwhattheworkalsorevealedwasthatdetailedlandassessmentsaboutwhathashappenedtogreenspacesintheurbanfringeovertimeislacking,althoughthereareinstanceswherepotentialexistsforthistoberedressed(e.g.theFlanders‘spatialaccount’).Much,however,reliedonanecdotalinterpretations.Thepotentialtoerodegreenspacesmaybeeasierduetotheinvisibilityorlackoftransparencyoftheprocess.


OnewidespreadviewwhichemergedthroughtheSURFthemeworkisthaturbanfringesandthegreenspacesinthemareoftenperceivedasextensionsofneighbouringconurbationswiththeresulttheyarethetargetofencroachment.Insomeareastheyareexplicitlydesignatedaspotentialgrowthpoints,inothersvaluableforestlandhasalreadybecomehousing,andtheassociateddevelopmentmeasureshaveerodedtheirenvironmentalfunctionality.Degradationandfragmentationareindeedwidelyreported,indicatingalowlevelofvalueassociatedwithmuchgreenspaceurbanfringeland,makingitmoresusceptibletopressurewhere it isseenas lacking inanyuseful function.Ontheotherhand instancesofmitigationefforts (e.g.inAntwerp)andactivity toprotect land from, for instancenewroad infrastructure inHärryda,showedaconcernaboutdespoliation,andofcourse,therearecasesofnaturalhabitatsofexceptionalqualityaswell.ThegeneralpublicinAlmeloshowedaprideinpartsoftheirgreenlungsforexample.


Divergingtrendsmakegeneralisationdifficult.Insomeinstancesurbanfringesholduniquequalitiesinanecologicalsensewithinterestinglandscapesanddevelopmentsaimingtostrengthenthese.Yetthenaturalqualityintheurbanfringeisalsounderpressureinmanyplacesduetothevarietyoffunctionsfightingforspace.Reconcilingtheseisachallenge.Thisisparticularlydifficultgiventhattheconditionanduseofmuchurbanfringegreenspaceisinevitablyconstrainedbytheownership,managementandmaintenanceofthelandwhichisoftendividedbetweenamultiplicityofsometimesoverlappingstakeholdersandbodies.

Despitesomepositivetrends,akeyfactorinunderstandingwhyfragmentationandencroachmentoccur,inadditiontothislackofauthorityandcontrol,istheabsenceofacoherentapproachtothemanagementofurbanfringegreenspaceareas(excludingthosefocusedonparticularsitesofinterest).WiththeexceptionofHärrydaandEnschede,HengeloandAlmelo(5)collectivelyandtheLeedsCityRegiongreeninfrastructureinformalstrategy,whichhavestrategieswithsome interest inprotecting thegreenaspectsof theurbanfringe,thereisadearthofspecificstrategiesorpolicies.Furthermore,theurbanfringeisallocatedinseveralareasforurbanexpansion,althoughcomplementarymeasuresforconnectingandimprovingopenspacesandenhancingtreesandwoodlandaresometimesalso inplace.Broadlyspeakingdeliberativeeffortstoimprovethespatialqualityandenhancethepotentialofgreenspaceswithinurbanfringesarepatchy.Theydoexistthough;bothinfairlyrudimentaryandmorecomprehensiveformsuchastheRegionalVisionforTwente.Theinitiativesofinterestthathaveemergedinrecentyearsarelargelyareactiontothesituationdescribedearlierwithinthisreport.Thosethatareproject-ledwillbecoveredseparately.

3.2.2c Who are the key stakeholders and organisations impacting the evolution of this theme in the urban fringe?

Thesituationisoftencomplexwithmanyorganisations,includingmanyvoluntaryassociationscommittedtogreenspaceprotection,asimportantstakeholders.Inevitablythereareconflictsofinterestsandintentionsfortheuseofland.Itfrequentlyappearstobethelandowners,businessentrepreneursandgovernmentagencieswhichexertmostpoweranddominate.Jurisdictionisnotstraightforward,however.Somespacesfallunderdifferent levelsofgovernance,overlappingagencycontrol,orbetweenanyformalcontrols.Accordingtoonepartnerthereis“nouniformityofapproach…managementisscattered,”foranother,“greenspacesareownedbyseveralservicesandsectionsatdifferentlevels.Thishasledtoascatteredpolicyongreenspaces.Thereisnostrongvisionyetonhowtodealwithexistingopenspace.Newconstructionsarebuilt,scarceopenspaceisdisappearing.”

Limitationsofdemocraticaccountabilityalsoseemtobeanissuewithpeoplelivinginornearthevicinityoften(being)unheardandtheinterestsofthecityandurbanauthoritiesdominating(thougharguablythepowerof‘NIMBYs’canalsobeapowerfulcounter-forceinfringeareas).Thepredominantconsequenceofthemultiplicityofstakeholdersanddispersalofmanagementisthevariationingreenspacequality.Oftenthisislargelydependentontheknowledgeandexpertiseofthemunicipalityandonwhetherthegreenspaceisinprivateorpublichands.Typicallyabouttwo-thirdsofsuchlandisinprivatehandswhichcancreateaconflictbetweentheprivatecharacterofthesegreenareasandthepossibleservicetheycoulddelivertothebroadsociety.IntheUK,acontrastwasnotedbetweenlandundertheadministrationofbodiessuchastheWoodlandTrustwhereitiseasytoseewhethertheareaisbeingeffectivelymanagedasreportsarepreparedandthereisagoodlevelofaccessandprivatelyownedlandwhereit ismoredifficulttoseewhether(it)isbeingeffectivelyprotectedoradministeredasaccessislimitedinareasandobjectivesandtargetsarenotpublicisedtothegeneralpublic.Privatelandownersthemselvesvarywidelyintheiraspirationsforthelandandtheobjectivessetoutforitinthepublicinterestaremoreorlessdeterminedbytheirambitionandgoodwill,ratherthanthedeliberationsofpublicpolicymakers.



A significant part of SURF partner work focused on thepractical enhancement of green connectivity through

specificpathways,withattentionalsogiventoinvolvingthepublicinvaryingwaysinlandscapeenhancementandaccess. InAlmelothis involved“connect(ing)two large green areas (green lungs) and usingthepotentialofanunusedcanalthroughwhichthe connection could gain substantially inattractiveness.” Unlocking recreational andaccessibility potential “from and to the cityfringes for present and future inhabitants,’’summarisesthegreenspaceobjectivesoftheirinput. Similarly in Antwerp, the concentrationwason“bring(ing)openspacethroughtheurban

fringeintotheurbanarea.”TheLaarseBeekcasestudystreamvalley,oneofthegreenfingerslocated

inaforestedbutbuilt-uparea,wasalsoselectedasanareafortherealisationofecologicalcorridors.InHärryda

attentionwasparticularlygiventotherestorationofa38kmlong “Vildmarksleden,” or track. The Norfolk project gave broad

considerationtogreeninfrastructureinstrategicplansforurbanareasandthepotentialtocreatelinksandestablishagoodnetworkofsitesintheGaywoodValley.Inallcases,pilotinggreenconnectionsthroughurbanfringeareashasdemonstratedthepotentialanddifficultiesimplicitinimprovingboththequalityandsubsequentlytheuseofsuchspaces.

3.2.2e Concluding remarksAlthough it isobvious that thegreenspaces inurban fringeareasarekey to thesustainabilityof thesespatiallysubstantialareas,theirvaluehasnotbeenwidelyappreciated.Insmallpart,throughpracticalcasestudies,theSURFprojectpartnershaveattemptedtodemonstratehowthatvaluecanberealised.Fulfillingthepotentialofgreenspacesonawiderscalefacessubstantialchallengesassociatedwiththeproblematicgovernance,managementandcontrolofurbanfringeareas.


3.2.3 Spatial planning and stakeholder engagement

3.2.3a Evidence that the theme is significant for the urban fringe

Spatial planning refers to the methods used by the public sector toinfluencethedistributionofpeopleandactivities inspacesofvariousscales. Spatial planning refers both to the planning process itself(communication,stakeholderinvolvement,decisionmaking)andtothe resultof theplanningprocess (decisionsabout landuseanddivisionoffunctions,presentedinamapandaplanningdocumentandbroughtintopracticebybothpublicandprivatestakeholders).

Spatial Planning and Stakeholder Involvement was one of thekeythemesintheSURFproject.Duetothepositionoftheurbanfringebetweenurbanandruralareas,planningresponsibilitiesarefrequentlydivided,uncoordinatedandunclear,andthereforeoftenlead to inadequate decisions, poor amenity and unsustainablepractices. This themewas therefore concernedwith themeans bywhichmanagement and change isplanned, coordinated andbrought about in a sustainableway. It includedmechanismswhich influencethe distribution of people and activities connected to infrastructures, business, recreation and naturemanagementintheurbanfringe.Aspartofthistheme,therewasanemphasisonhowtoengageinterestedparties,includinglocalpeopleandbusinesses,invisioningandplanningtheurbanfringes.

Becausethescopeofthethemewassobroad,itwascrucialforallgovernmentsworkingontheirurbanfringe. Four SURF partners took an active role in this theme group Spatial Planning and StakeholderInvolvement-Aberdeen(UK),Hengelo(NL),EastFlanders(Belgium)andNorfolk(UK).


Developmentsintheurbanfringewithregardtospatialplanningshowdivergentpatterns.Insomeregions,the open space in the urban fringes is still under pressure because of plans for development of newresidentialareas.Thisseemedtobethecase insomeoftheBritishSURFpartners,e.g.Aberdeen.TheAberdeenCityandShireStructurePlan(6)aimstorealiseapopulationgrowthof9%(40,000inhabitants)between2009and2031,andanticipatesmorethan56,000newhouseswillberequiredinthisperiodforthepopulation(AberdeenCityandShireSDPA,2009).Otherregionsarenowexperiencing,oranticipatein thenear future, a shrinkingpopulationand/or a shrinkingneed for housesand facilities,which leadstooppositedevelopments, for instance in theNetherlands.The regionofTwenteanticipatesashrinkingpopulationaround2025,andrecentresearchondemographicchangeandspatialdevelopmentconcludesthatthemunicipalitiesinTwentehave160–320%moreplansfornewhousesthantheyneedinthecomingyears(7).Inallsituations,thefunctionoftheurbanfringeischanging,fromanareamainlyfortheproductionoffood,toamultifunctionalareaimportantforrecreation,natureconservation,watermanagementandabroadersetofjobopportunities.

Spatialplanningitselfhasdevelopedquiterapidlyinthelastdecades,partlyasaresultofshiftingpositionsofpublic andprivateactors.Theexistingpracticeof top-downdecisionmakingbypublic authorities isgradually shifting towards amore governance, bottom-up oriented approach. The following trends canbeidentifiedwithregardtospatialplanningingeneral,andespeciallywithregardtospatialplanningintheurbanfringes.Theexactsituationregardingthesetrendsdiffersperlocation.Sometrendsareclearlyvisibleinmanylocations;othersareonlyvisibleatalimitednumberoflocations,orareexpectedtrendsforthenearfuture.TheevidenceforthesetrendsandtheconsequencesforgovernmentinvolvementinplanningissuesintheurbanfringearefurtherelaboratedintheToolkitforSustainableUrbanFringes.


Thetoolsthathavebeendevelopedtodealwiththenewchallengesinspatialplanningmarktheshifts.Manytoolsaimatbuildingnetworks,bothpublicandprivate.Afewexamples:TheGreenKnowledgePortalisacollaborativeinitiativeoftheregionofTwente(consistingof14municipalities),thenationalgovernment,andeducationalandresearchinstitutes.GKPcreatedaplacewhereentrepreneurs,governments,educationalandresearchinstitutescanjointlyworkoninnovativeandregionalissues.AnotherexampleistheintermunicipalneighbourhoodforuminHamburg,agovernancetooltoengageseverallevelsofregionalandlocalpublicadministrationofHamburganditsneighbouringmunicipalitiesinaregularexchangeondevelopmentissues.The forumaimed to exchange informationondevelopmentplansbefore formal planningprocesses arestarted. The Provincial Quality Chamber (PQC) of the province of East Flanders brought together localactorswithexpertsfromvariousdisciplines.Itaimedtostrengthentheaspectofspatialqualityinprojectsintheurbanfringeandruralareas. InAberdeenaDesignReviewPanelwassetup.Thepanel isa jointventure between AberdeenCity Council and Aberdeenshire Council. It aimed to offer constructive andobjective advice at an early stage in theprocess,which should lead to abetter output and a strongerworkingrelationshipbetweenallthoseinvolved.FriendsofWeusthag-Hengelo,afoundationestablishedbythedirectstakeholdersoftheparkarea.Inessence,thetoolwasastructuredwayoforganisingbottom-upinitiativesofstakeholdersthathaveadirect interest intheprojectarea.ThecityofHengelofacilitatesthisdevelopment.InNorfolk,theprojectactedasafacilitatorforarangeofcommunityeventsandtoolswhichenabledpeopletovaluetheareasmoreandencouragecommunityparticipationandengagementindevelopmentplansfortheprojectarea.

Theseandother toolsmarked thechallenge in theurban fringe:stakeholdermanagementandcreatingeffectivegovernancearrangementsarekeytocreatingsustainablequalitiesintheurbanfringe.


Therearemanykeystakeholders.Realestatedevelopers, landownersandotherprivate investorshaveasubstantialinfluenceondevelopments.Asstatedpreviously,theinstrumentsusedbylocalandregionalauthoritiesverymuchaimtoengagewithawidegroupofstakeholders.Nevertheless,governmentsstillplayakeyrole.Theplanningprocessstillgives,inmanycases,exclusiveresponsibilitiestogovernments.SomepartnersinSURFwereaimingspecificallytogetprivateactorsinaproactiverole.Afewexamples:WestFlandersworkedonregionalbrandingintheregion,averyimportantregionforthecultivationandprocessingofvegetables.Theyalsoworkedonthedevelopmentofnewbusinessmodelsforurbanagriculture.TheCityofBradfordworkedcloselyacrossanumberofsectorsandactorsintheWorthValleyinacollaborativeapproach for thedevelopmentofa future localeconomicplanwith theparishcouncil.Thiscooperativeapproachhadthepotentialtoimprovebusinessopportunities,givemoreinvolvementtolocalcommunities,gaingreaterunderstandingoftheissuesintheareaanddevelopasharedvisiontowardsasustainablefuturefortheWorthValley.ThecityofEnschede used the concept of Rondje Enschede (Enschederound) as a vehicle to stimulate recreation and tourism inthe urban fringe and to create extra opportunities forentrepreneursintheurbanfringearea.InAlmelo,anatureNGO(LandschapOverijssel)workedwithbusinessestoimprovethequalityofbiodiversityandgreenspaceonthebusinesssites.Thelocalgovernmentonlyfacilitatesandbringsthepartiestogether,sincethestakeholderswereconvincedaboutthemutualbenefitoftheirworkforthemselvesandthecommunityasawhole.InNorfolktheprojectworkedwithavarietyofaudiencesincludingpoliticians, landowners, local communities and natureconservationorganisationstoenableaconsistentandcleardialoguebetweenthem.

Image: Scott Perkins, Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership



ManyoftheresultsoftheSURFprojectswerenotyetvisible inphysicalchanges(atthetimeofprint) inthe areas in charge, since the period to realise changes in physical planning is usually longer than theSURFprojectwilllast.Thisimpliesthatmostoftheevidencewillbeseenontheprocesslevel:newwaysof cooperationandcommunicationbetweenstakeholders; andagrowingawarenessof thequality andattractiveness of the urban fringe area among citizens and businesses. This becomes visible in visitornumbersateventsorganisedintheprojectareas(hundredsofpeoplevisitingtheWeustdayevent intheWeusthagarea inHengelo inJune2011andtheopeningeventoftheEnschederound inMarch2012),intheworkofnewcoalitions(chapter2),andintheresponsetostakeholderconsultationactivitiesintheprojectsliketheinteractiveSWOTinAntwerp.

PhysicalchangeswereexpectedinmanySURFprojectareas,butinmostcasesonalongerterm.Examplesare:improvementsintheaccessibilityandthequalityofthegreenspaceoftheWeusthagparkinHengelo;improvementofslowroads(tracksforcyclistsandwalkers)inWestFlanders;transitionofaderelictrailwaytrackintoatrackforcyclists,walkersandothertouristictraffic(alreadypartiallyrealisedatthetimeofprint);improvementof accessibility to theRiverDon valley for residents in the surroundingneighbourhoods inAberdeen;andinNorfolk,improvinglinkagesfromtheGaywoodValleyprojectareatostrategicroutesinthewiderareaofKing’sLynnprovidealastinglegacyforthisurbanfringeaccessibility.


Spatialplanningandstakeholdermanagementarekey themes in theurban fringe.Sustainablequalitiescannotbedeliveredbygovernmentsonly. Interactionwithandengagementofothers,business,NGOs,citizens,educationand research,arenecessarymeans.While thisholds true inmanyareasof thecity,this is especially salient in theurban fringe.Multifunctionality, fragmentedauthorities andmany involvedstakeholderscreateaneedforamuchmoreinteractiveplanningsystem.

WhileSURFshowedinterestingexamplesoftoolsthatlocalandregionalgovernmentshaveimplementedtocopewiththischallenge,manymoreexampleswilllikelybedevelopedoverthecomingyears.

Most of the SURF projects focused on issues like spatial quality, accessibility, job opportunities andrecreation. This links tomany of the dimensions of sustainability that the

project identified especially spatial quality, social quality, economicqualityandprocessquality.Theecologicalqualitydimensionof

sustainabilitygetsattentionintheimprovementofbiodiversityandgreenspaceandintheimprovementoftheaccessibilityof theurban fringe forcyclistsandwalkers.Manyotherenvironmental issues do not get substantial attentionintheSURFproject,althoughtheyareveryoftenseenas promising for urban fringe areas. This refers, forexample to theuseof theurban fringe forproductionofsustainableenergyortheuseoftheurbanfringeforlocalfoodproductionandclosingnutrientcycles.

This implies that after SURF there will be many newopportunitiestoworkonsustainableurbanfringes,meaning

future-orientedintegratedquality.TheprospectsofSURFarepromising,buttheworkwillbefarfromfinished.


3.2.4 Governance

3.2.4a Evidence that governance is significant for the urban fringe

Theinterdependenciesofcitiesandtheirfringes,therecognitionofmultifunctionalityinurbanfringesandconceptssuchasgreeninfrastructureandecosystemservicesallrepresentpowerfulideasinthecontextofSURF.AnumberofcurrentEUsupportedresearchanddisseminationprogrammessuggest thatnewgovernanceapproachesare required toaddress these ideasandcapitaliseon themeffectively inurbanfringes.

There isnoconsensusaboutwhatshapeany improvedgovernanceshould takeandvery little researchcompletedintopossiblemodels.Somearguethatformalstructuresareneededtofaceuptothechallengesahead; structures that have powers sufficient to make things happen when faced with resistance bytraditionalgovernmentbodies.Otherstakeamorereflexiveapproach,arguingthatthebarrierstocreatingsubstantialnewgovernmentstructures,togetherwithahistoryoffailedattemptstocreatelong-termcityregionandregionstructures,meanitisprobablymoreappropriatetopursuemoreconsensual,voluntaryandbottom-upmethodsofcooperation (8).Less formalgovernance for theurban fringe isalsoamorerealisticapproachincurrentrecessionarytimeswhenextraresourcesforgovernmentwillbehardtofind.Howeversomedegreeoflongevity,mutualcommitmentandformalisedrewardforcooperationandsomesanctionsforfailuretocooperatedoseemtobeneededtosustaincollaborativegovernanceincityregionsandcitynetworks.

Thismore collaborative approach to governance has been described as ‘soft governance’, dependentmoreon informalstakeholder relationships thanondemocratic forumsand ismoreaction-oriented thanstrategically-oriented,mostoftennotreplacingbutrunninginparallelwithformalregionalandsub-regionaladministrations,whileharnessingthepowerofnewideasandactingflexiblyandquicklytodefineproblemsand design new policy solutions. The role of individuals in these soft governance structures requiresattention,whenconsideringtheirrole,powerandcapacitytomakechangeandinfluence.Itmustalsoberecognisedthatwhencertainindividualsmoveonfrompoignantroleswithinsuchstructures,thedynamicofsoftgovernanceapproachesandgroupschanges,thereforeconsiderationtopotentialpossibilitiesneedstobeconsidered.

3.2.4b What is actually happening in the urban fringe relating to governance?

InterregandotherEU-supportedprojects(suchasMETREX,RURBAN,URMA,PLURELetc.)haveexploredandcontinuetoexplorepossibilitiesforurbanfringegovernance.SomeofthefindingssofararementionedintheGovernanceModelchapterofthisreport.ThischapterwillfocusonwhatcanbeobservedinSURFareas,whichoftenreflectsthewiderlessonsfromotherprojects.

Asexpectedat the timeof theSURFbid, thecity regionscaleof thinkingabouturban fringesbecameimportant.Urbanfringe issuesandopportunitiesarewidelyseen inthepartsoftheSURFnetworksthatarelocatedincity-regions(sometimesalsodesignatedasmetropolitanregionorpolycentriccitynetwork)asintegraltothegovernancestructureneededtorespondtothethreatsandopportunitiesofconurbationsin theNorthSeaRegion.SURFprojects located inHärryda (theGothenburgcity region),Aberdeen (theAberdeencityregion),Bradford(theLeedscityregion)andHamburg(theHamburgmetropolitanregion)areall locatedinregionswithsomeformalstructuresthatrecogniseandincludeurbanfringeinterests.OnasimilarscaletheNetworkCityTwente(includingEnschede,HengeloandAlmelo)andmuchmorelocalisedSLSnetworkofWestFlanders,alsosharekeyelementsofthejoined-upgovernancethaturbanfringesarewidelyagreedtoneed.



There isnocommonapproach togovernance foundacross theseareas.Sectoralpriorities vary,withawidespread commitment to environmental sustainability, enterprise promotion, recreation and tourismdevelopment.Theseare the topicswhich tend todominateSURFpartneractivities,withmanypartnersfocusedonverylocalinitiativestopromotethosetopics.Thetopicsdonotdeterminethestyleofgovernancefound;ratherthegovernanceapproachisinfluencedbytheacceptanceofthemultifunctionalcharacteristicsofthechallengesfacingurbanfringeandthecomplexestablishedlayersofgovernmentwithoverlappinggeographicboundaries,functionalresponsibilitiesandfundingmechanisms.Pressureforjoined-upthinkingand action comes both from above (from a strategic level it seems obvious that differentmetropolitanfunctionshavetocoordinate)andfrombelow(whenimplementingprojectsthemultiplicityofstakeholdersneeded to make things happen on the ground becomes clear). Acceptance of multifunctionality reallydemands joined-up collaborative governance responses and emerging policy concepts such as greeninfrastructurecanonlyworkwellincollaborativegovernancestructuressuchasthoseatcityregionlevel.

Urban fringe governance is never simple. The business of the urban fringe tends to be multi-sectoral(reflectingurbanfringemultifunctionality),multi-levelandengagesmanystakeholders.Themanagementofthecomplexlevels,functionsandmembershipsofurbanfringedecision-makingandprojectdeliveryreflectstheoverallcomplexityandcanbeverytime-consumingfortheusuallysmallagenciestryingtoeffectchangeintheurbanfringe.Addingtothecomplexitycanbethedifferentbackgroundsofthestakeholders,withpoliticians,businesspeople,residentsandactivistshavingurbanfringegovernance.

Therearevaryinglevelsoftop-downencouragementbynationalandregionalgovernmentsforcooperationbymunicipalitieswithinsub-regionalgovernancestructures.Thiscanincludeencouragementtomakeregionalspatial plans, unified public transport strategies, shared economicgrowth policies, etc. which can benefit regional and nationaleconomies.Thisisdoneindifferentwaysindifferentcountriesandcanvaryovertime,withthemosteffectivearrangementsbeingwheretop-downnationalencouragementcoincideswithcity-regionlevelself-interest,e.g.inLeeds,Hamburgand Gothenburg little interest in how sub-regionalgovernanceconnectswiththelocalscalevariesgreatly,but this level was very important for some SURFpartners. For example, Stad-Land-Schap in WestFlanderswasanimportantbridgeforlocalbusinessesgainingaccesstoregionalenvironmentalgrants,andinBradfordtheSURFprojecttookstepstoconnect localurbanfringeneighbourhoodswiththecityregionlevelofpolicy-making.



Measuresofsuccessingovernanceintheurbanfringearehardtoobtain.Theoutcomestendtobelong-termandSURFhadonlyjust‘gotintoitsstride’,theavailablemeasuresaremainlythoseofchangingperceptionsandofengagementwithemerginggovernancemeasures.Perceptionof the logic forbettergovernancewasraisedthroughSURFpartneractivitiesandtransnationalcomparisons,bothbetweenSURFregionsandsome regionsoutsideSURF. Impacts in termsof raised levelsof engagementof stakeholderswithSURFactivitiescanbequantified.Examplesoflivelystakeholderengagementinclude:thelargeturnoutfortheLeedsCityRegionconferenceonurbanfringesinApril2011:theHamburgseriesofsuburbiacolloquiahasinvolvedmanykeystakeholdersinurbanfringediscoursesinthatregion;theHamburgNeighbourhoodForumsattractkeypeoplefromgovernmentandbusiness; inEastFlanderscivilservantscometogetherwithexpertsandprojectinitiatorsinthecontextoftheProvincialQualityChambertodiscussandstrengthenspecificdevelopment;inEnschededialoguebetweenstakeholdershasenabledtheUrbanfringes:NetworkCityTwentestudytobecommissionedandpublished,whichhashelpedconsolidatestakeholdernetworkdevelopmentthere.


The emerging governance arrangements described aboveand in the Governance Model chapter point towardsa growing realisation that better networking ofstakeholdersin‘softgovernance’settingsneedstoemergetocomplementexisting‘hardgovernment’structureswhichoftenfailtoservetheinterestsoftheurbanfringe.

It is important that improved governanceis adopted if the emerging challenges andopportunities of the urban fringe are to beeffectively addressed. There is no avoidingthe complexity of urban fringe challenges andthe difficulties of changing existing outmodedstructures, but such change is necessary ifthe potential for improved competitiveness andsustainabilityoftheurbanfringeistoberealised.


Chapter4

URBANFRINGESGOVERNANCE

4.1 Background

Littleisknownabouthowurbanfringesaregovernedorhowtheycouldbebettergoverned.However,therehasbeenmuchworkdoneonmetropolitanandcity-regiongovernanceas its importance is recognised forimprovingthecompetitivenessandsustainabilityofcityregions(8).Asthisworkhasprogressed,theneedtoincludeperi-urbanareas inanyplannedmetropolitanchangeshasbeenacknowledgedtocomplementandreinforcecity-regionsuccessandresilience(9).IntheSURFprojectapplicationthepartnershipcommittedtoworkingacrossurban/ruralboundaries inthesearchforcompetitivenessandsustainability.TheGovernancethemereportinchapter3providesmorediscussionofgovernmentandgovernanceinurbanfringes.

SURFlookedfirstatwhathasemergedoutofcity-regionscalegovernancework,fromtheSURFcapitalisationanalysis,toseewhatlessonsmightbedrawnforurbanfringes.MetropolitanscaleanalysisflowsfromdebatesthatcontinuetoengageleadingEUpoliticianse.g.theRotterdamAcquis,theBristolAccord,andtheLeipzigCharter, so it is important that those operating in urban fringes,whichtendtohavealowerpoliticalprofile,areawareofthosediscoursesandlinkthemtotheirowninterests.LessonsfromSURFpartnerareaswerestudiedandrecommendationsbasedonasynthesisofthetwosourcesofinformationwereproduced.

SURF cannot suggest a single overriding modelof successful urban fringe governance, andthis reflects the emerging nature of urban fringegovernance. Too little is known about whatworksinmetropolitanorlower-scalecollaborativegovernance; it iscontingentonparticularregionaland temporal circumstances. The closest SURFgottoamodelwastoidentifyimportantdimensionsofurbanfringegovernanceapproachesthatseemtooffer themost potentially useful learning opportunitiesfor themost regions. These are referred to in theSURFrecommendations.

4.2 Governance at the city-region scale

Acurrentdriverofdebatesaboutmetropolitanisedgovernanceistheemergingpost-2013EUcohesionpolicypicturewhichmanywanttoinfluenceinfavourofmetropolitanandotherurbanareas(10).However,despitegrowingrecognitionofurbanfringespacesforEUpolicies,therehasbeenlittleengagementinEUpolicy-makingcircleswith city regions (11). At some national and regional levels there have been interesting governancedevelopments.EuropeannetworkssuchasMETREXdescribeexamplesofpolycentriccitynetworksworkingtogetheracrosspolitical,urbanandruralboundariestogaincompetitiveness.ThishasobvioussignificanceforurbanfringeareasandSURFhastakennoticeoftheirfindings(8).

EmergingcommonfeaturesofmetropolitanlevelgovernanceAfter a review of metropolitan level governance projects and literature, the following governance featuresemergedasusefulcontextforthesearchforanurbanfringegovernancemodel:

Keypolicychallengesformetropolitangovernance:

• promotingandretainingeconomiccompetitivenessofthecityandregion

• providingahighqualityoflifeforresidents,immigrantsandinvestors

• promotingenvironmentalsustainability

• securingjoined-upgovernanceofcomplexadministrativeareaswithboth‘rural’and‘urban’characteristics


Keypolicyinterventions:

• coordinatedmajorpublicinfrastructureprojects

• variouseconomymeasuresincludingcollaborativeindustrialsectorandbusinessclusterstrategies,and tourismpromotion

• green interventions including green (or green/blue) infrastructure, nature and flood plain protection, regionalfoodproductionandbranding

• liveabilityandquality–of-lifemeasures-recreationalspacesandaccess,sustainabletravel

• top-down encouragement by national and regional governments for cooperation bymunicipalities in sub-regionalgovernancestructures

- to make regional spatial plans, unified public transport strategies, shared economic growth policies,etc.

Keygovernancestructurefeatures:

• voluntaryassociationsofmunicipalitiescooperatingonavarietyofpolicymeasures

• varyingdegreesofinclusivenessofnon-electedofficials,butoftenincludingbusiness,communityandspecial intereststakeholders;

• differentlevelsofstructure,multi-level,fordifferenttasksrangingfromlocalisedtoregionalco-operations

• seekingintegrationofurbanandruralorganisationsandprogrammes;

• awidevarietyofwaystoencouragebottom-upengagementindecisionmakingbylocalresidentsand communities

• predominanceofsoftgovernanceformswhichco-existwithelectedgovernmentbodies

• oftenshort-term,narrowpurposeandtask-orientedbodiesdependentonfixed-termfunding

4.3 What was learned from the SURF partner regions about governance?

Three contrasting examples of city-region/city-network policy collaboration provide interesting insights intodifferentperspectivesandexperiences.

Leeds City Region represents an attempt to comprehend and respond to a polycentric arrangement ofeconomicallymutually-relatedmajortownsandcitiesinalargelypostindustrialcontext;albeitrecentresourcecutshavecomplicated the task.Hamburghasadynamic relationshipwith surroundingareas that existsatdifferent spatial levels andwith varyingpolitical priority levels.Stad-Land-schap ’tWest-Vlaamsehart (SLS)isaproject forasmall-scalenetworkof towns inWestFlanderswithabottom-upremit topromotemutualunderstandingandinterventionsonurbanfringepriorityissues.Itisashort-termfundedagencywhichhashadtoadapttorapidlyshiftingresourcepressures,ofatypeoftenfoundinurbanfringesituations,andiscurrentlygoingthroughsomethingofareinvention/adaptationtosurvive.

Leeds City Region (LCR)

TheLeedsCityRegion(LCR)isoneofeightinthenorthofEnglanddesignatedbynationalgovernment.Itisarelativelyinformalgovernancestructuretoaddressmulti-sectorpolicyconcernsthroughanassociationof10districtcouncils.Ithaslimitedstaffandfinancialresources,buthasaccesstocentralgovernmentfundsthroughbiddingprocessesandattemptstoinfluenceemergingconcernsthroughpersuasionandstrategiclogic.ThekeygoaloftheLCRispromotingthecityregioneconomyanditsglobalcompetitiveness,buttherearepoliciesto support this which promote environmental sustainability, such as aGreen Infrastructure Strategy. A lowcarboncityregionprojecthasrecentlybeenlaunchedtoreduceCO2emissionsatthesametimeasboostingtheeconomy.

39Chapter 4: Urban fringes governance

Thekeysectoralgoalsarepromotedthroughsectoralcommittees/workinggroupsandkeydecisionsaremadebythemainLCRBoardwhichhasequalvotingrightsforeachoftheconstituentdistricts.Thechiefexecutivesandcivicleadersofallthedistrictsarerepresentedequallyindecisionmaking,animportantwaytoavoidthebigcitiesdominatingstrategy-makingandavoidingpoliticaltensions.Businessleadersareinvolvedatahighlevel,notably throughanenterprisepartnership ledbyabusinessman.Somesectorpolicygroupsarealsobusiness-led.

Atthemorelocallevel,wheretheSURFprojectisparticularlylinkedwiththeLCR,practitionersinsomeareasareworkingouthowbesttoengageresidents,councillorsandbusinessesintheemerging‘localismagenda’ofUKcentralgovernmentasitaffectssmalltownsintheurbanfringe,distilledoutintheformalspatialplanmakingprocess. Indoingso,theSURFprojectsoughttobridgethepoliticalgapthatparallelsthelargegeographicgapbetweenLCRanditsurbanfringelocalities.Anumberofinitiatives,fromcity-regionlevelconferencesofurbanfringerepresentativestolocalengagementofruralpolicyofficerswithstakeholders,arebeingtriedout.Akeychallengeistoengagelocalpeopleinbroaderstrategiccity-regionthinking,avoidingNIMBYresponsestodevelopmentproposals,andengenderformalandinformalinter-communitycooperationthatcanpromotemutualinterestsandsharedknowledgeandresources.

Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg

Hamburg as a federal city-state has a long tradition of cross-bordercooperation with its neighbouring federal states Schleswig-Holstein andLowerSaxony.Thecityhasbeenencouragedbythefederalgovernment’spolicy for city networks in metropolitan regions and the Concepts andStrategies forSpatialDevelopment inGermany(partly inresponsetotheEULisbonandGothenburgstrategyandthenewterritorialagendafor2020(11)toformlarge-scaleallianceswithsurroundingfederalstates(Laender).Since1996therehasbeenaHamburgMetropolitanRegion(MRH)voluntarycooperationforumworkingoneconomic,energyandmobilitystrategiesandtheinternationalcompetitivenessof the region.Thereareanumberof initiativesbeingpursued on the large scale of regional cooperationwith the number and type of partners varyingwith theinitiatives.Forexample,theFehmarnbelt tunnel,partofMORONord, isamajor infrastructureprojectto linkHamburgwith theOresund regionwhere economic collaboration extends to all surrounding rural areas. Inanother example,HafenCityUniversityHamburg is a lead partner in an Interreg IVCproject on urban-ruralpartnershipsinmetropolitanareas(URMA)whichaimstoidentifynewmodelsforcooperationandgovernanceby2015.

WhereasHamburgmetropolitanregionisgrowingbiggerandsomefieldsofcooperationevenreachoutbeyondtheregion,Hamburg’sSURFprojectfocusesonthenarrowercoreofthecityregion-apartofthemetropolitanregionthathasbeenoverlookedinrecentyears.Theprojectistryingtoimprovecooperationacrosstheurbanfringeandsuburbanareasthroughaprogrammeofcolloquia,withinvitedexpertsandworkshopstopromotecommonunderstandings.There isan initiativeon inter-municipalneighbourhood forums to facilitatepoliticalengagementacrossmunicipalboundariestohelpanticipateanddealwithpotentialpolicyconflictpoints.

Theprojectdefinesitselfasfocusedonsuburbiaratherthanurbanfringes,inotherwordsonthemorebuilt-upinnerpartsoftheurbanfringewheregrowthanddevelopmentdialoguesareespeciallyvigorousandpoliticallycharged.The inter-municipalneighbourhoodforumsareaseriesofarrangementscoveringquadrantsof theurbanfringewheredialogueaboutdevelopmentismostpressingandthestakeholdersareprimarilymunicipalofficialsandpoliticians,ratherthanthebroadermake-upofstakeholdersfound insimilarlynamedforums inothercityregions–notablythoseintheLeedsCityRegionSURFproject.Theinter-municipalneighbourhoodforumswillhelptoidentifythemosturgentandpromisingtopicsoffuturecross-bordercooperation.


West Flanders

West Flanders and the Stad-Land-schap ’t West-VlaamseHart (SLS) localised collaborative governance network projectrepresentsanattemptbyacollectionofsmalltowns,inalargelyagricultural area under strong urban development pressures,toadvanceacoherent response to related issuesofeconomy,naturalfeatureprotection,touristpromotion,etc.Itisincontrastto the city-region scale structures described elsewhere andrepresents what is possible in smaller networks of towns withlimitedresourcesbutsharedissuesinanurbanfringearea.

Itisafixed-termvoluntarycooperationofninesmallmunicipalitiesfunded by a small local tax supplement and it works alongside anumberofsimilarlymodestlyresourcedcommonprojectsaddressingsocialwelfare,jobcreationandtrainingandruraldevelopment.TheSLSprojectfocusesonpromotinglandscapeidentityandvalueacrossurban-ruralboundariesthroughworkingoutagreen/bluerecreationalnetwork,linkingnaturesites,producingalandscapevisionintegratedwithslowways(paths).SLSoperatesfromthesub-provinciallevelregionalhouseinRoeselare.

FromagovernanceperspectiveSLSisofinterestbecause:

• stakeholdersinvolvedinSLSreflectastrongnetworkingethos,includingexpertsandresidentsinasoft governanceapproach

• although small, SLS deals with multifunctional domains of landscape/nature/recreation/education/ heritageandworkstoinfluencegovernanceandpolicythroughforums,networksandlobbying

• itworkswithlocaluniversityresearchersandstudentstohelpproducenewideasanddesignsatlowcost toSLS

• strongworkinglinkswithlocalfarmersandlandownersonlandscapebusinessplans

• buildingpublicawareness,recognitionandcommunityinvolvementbyusingbrandinganddevelopinga website,newsletters,festivalsandpublicevents

Althoughlargelysuccessful,theSLSasafixed-termprojecthashadtoreinventitselfinordertocontinuewithitsmostimportantwork.Likemanyothersub-regionalassociations,ithashadtoadapttoresourceconstraintscreatively andmove away froma soft governancemodel to secure continuity and resources as a regionallandscapeintheFlandersregionalgovernmentsystem.Itmaybeseenasasuccessfulexperimentinurbanfringegovernancewhichattractedenoughpoliticalkudosduringitsinitialphasetobeadoptedinmainstreamregionalgovernancestructures,addinginnovativeelementstoexistingpractices.ThenatureprotectionaspectsofSLSwillbereinforced,butattheexpensetosomeextentofitsdistinctbottom-uplocally-embeddedapproach.

4.4 Conclusion: Progress towards an urban fringe governance model

Anymodelforurbanfringegovernanceneedstobeeffectiveatcognitivelevel(compellingargumentsinfavour,crediblepolicygoals,etc.),atorganisationallevel(stakeholdernetwork,democraticposition,financingpackages,rolesandresponsibilities,etc.)andataspatial level(thegeographyandboundariesoftheurbanfringe,landuses,natureandotherdesignations,developmentforms).

Thespatialboundaries, scalesanddesignationsarediscussed in relation to thespatialplanning theme, soattentionwillbefocusedhereonthecognitiveandorganisationlevelsofurbanfringegovernance.

41Chapter 4: Urban fringes governance

In relation to thecognitive level, theargumentshavebeenmadeabove,elsewhere in this reportandbyanincreasingnumberofEU-fundedandotherpolicyprojects.IntheSURFpartnerareassomekeymotivationsforengaginginurbanfringegovernancewerenoticed:

• themotivationsidentifiedbySURF,includingbetterqualityoflifeforresidents,desiretoprotectnature, promotethelocaleconomy,andseeksustainabilitywereallimportantpolicydrivers

• workingacrosstheurban-ruralboundarywassometimesdifficult,especiallyifurbaninterestswereseen asathreatbymoreruralcommunities

• thesemotivationsattractedquitehighlevelsofpoliticalsupportandpoliticianswereattractedbySURF interventionswhichwerequickwinsandhelpedtojustifyurbanfringeprojects

• morejoined-upapproachesandsharingofficersacrossmunicipalboundarieswasattractiveandallowed higherlevelsofexpertiseabouturbanfringeissuestobeemployed

• green/blue infrastructure interventionswerepopularandencouragedcooperationbetweenauthorities andsectors

Attheorganisationallevel,anumberofresponseswereobserved:

• cooperativeactionsinrespectofmultifunctionalurbanfringedidnotrequirelargeorganisationsorlarge staffs–quitesmallorganisationsweredoingsophisticatedjoined-uppolicythinkingandrunninginclusive stakeholdernetworks

• stakeholdernetworkswhichincludedbothhardgovernmentandsoftgovernanceelements(e.g.including politicians,thirdsectorandbusinesses)wereawidespreadfeature

• hardgovernmentremainscriticaltocoordinating,staffingandfinancingurbanfringeorganisation,even forsoftgovernancenetworks

• urbanfringeorganisationscanworkatseverallevelsinthesamearea,e.g.regional,provincial,cityand communitylevels,whichcanbechallengingforjoined-upgovernanceandpoliticalcoordination

• urbanfringeagenciescanworkeffectivelydespite limitedresourcesandshort lifespans,butresource limitscanbedisruptive

• smallsupplementsoflocaltaxestopayforurbanfringeorganisationshavehadsomesuccess

• businessstakeholderscanbeencouragedbypromotingeconomy-focusedinitiativessuchastourism andlocalfoodproductionandmarketing

• manystakeholdershavenarrowinterestsintheurbanfringesogovernmentleadershipisnormallyrequired toproduceandmaintainstrategicpolicyinterventionsandtoensurethatimportantelementsofstrategy arenotoverlooked

• the role, power and influence of individuals as part of soft governance structures need to be taken intoconsiderationwhenplanningurbanfringedevelopments.Contingenciesneedtobeconsideredfor whenindividualsmoveonfromsuchpartnerships/groups


Chapter5

INTEGRATEDPOLICYGUIDELINESANDAPPROACHESTOWARDSURBANFRINGEPLANNINGANDMANAGEMENT

5.1 Introduction

SURF started with a belief in the potential of the urban fringe.With therightmanagement anddevelopment of these areas they can functionasacatalyst tosustainacity’seconomic, social andenvironmentalpotential.

TheaimofSURFwastoreviewexistingpoliciesonurbanfringesandbuildupacommonapproachtowardstheseareas.Thisapproachhas ledtoasetofguidelinesto influence local, regional,nationalandEUpoliciestoachievesustainableeconomicdevelopmentandcompetitivenessofurbanfringes.

Through thepartner projects and the themesused to analyse theseprojects, several guidelines have been determined for a successfulapproachtosustaining theurban fringe.Theseguidelinesare formulatedbyrecommendationsforthedifferentgovernmentlevelswithinEurope.

5.2 Local level recommendations

Thelocallevelisthepointinwhichmostcontactsbetweengovernment,citizensandstakeholders,includingtheprivatesector,takeplace.Therecommendationsforthislevelaremoreconcretethanformorestrategiclevels.However,theimpactofthelocallevelrecommendationswillbemultipliedwhentheyareappliedontheregionallevel.Theyare:

Recogniseandpromotetheopportunitiesformultifunctionalitypresentedbyurbanfringes:

- bybeingopentothevarietyofusesforthese areas,theycanstrengthenacity’soffering,add toacity’scompetitivenessandoffersustainable solutionstocityregionlevelchallenges

- byregardingtheurbanfringeasanincubator zonefornewtypesofenterprisesthatcontribute tosustainabledevelopment

Recognise that an attractive urban fringe gives citiesapositiveandstrongeridentity:

- thiscanleadtomoreopportunitiesforacity suchasincreasedtourism,healthbenefitsand opportunitiesforbusiness

Builduparecreationalinfrastructureinandaroundtheurbanfringe:

- thisimprovesthecontextandopportunities forentrepreneursandcommunitiestoenhance theeconomicandrecreationalfunctionsofthe urbanfringe

Engage citizens and other stakeholders to recognise and relate to the urban fringe environment and make use of collaborative thinkingandactionsintheacceptanceofmultifunctionality:

- collaborationcanbeanenablertourbanfringe developmentandsustainability

Buildupaninformalnetworknexttotheformalstructures:

- bymakinguseoftheseinformalandpractical approachesthanstrategicallyorientated, stakeholder’snetworkscanbedevelopedto developprojects

Image:Gemma Clark,

Norfolk County Council


5.3 Regional recommendations

Forurbanfringestheregional(orcityregion)levelisofgreatimportance.Certainlythezonesofurbanfringesofcitiesoverlapeachother.Coordinationbetweencitiesisnecessaryandforthistobeachieved,acityregionlevelofgovernance,decisionmakingandspatialplanningshouldberecommended.

5.4 National/ European recommendations

Althoughinmostcountriesthenationallevelisnotreallyinvolvedinthedevelopmentofurbanfringes,theymustbeawareoftheimportanceoftheseareasforcityeconomies.Theroleofnationalgovernmentsisgrowingtobemoresupportiveofthedevelopmentofurbanfringesbycities.TheyalsohaveanimportantpositiononaEuropeanleveltoensurethatEuropepaysmoreattentiontourbanfringes.

UrbanfringestendtobeunderpressureandlackingcohesioninEurope.Thebalancebetweenurbanandruralareasandbetweeneconomic,socialneedandnaturemustberestoredbydevelopinginasustainableway.Ifthisdevelopmentisimplementedinformallyandsympatheticallyitcanaddvaluetoqualityoflifeandsustainabledevelopmentinurbanandruralareas,eveninsituationsofdemographicchanges.However,inEuropethereislittlediscourseandlesspolicyattentionpaidinrespectoftheseopportunities.BecausesomanyEuropeansliveintheserelativelyinchoateareasSURFpleadsformoreEuropeanawarenessoftheopportunitiestocoherentlyandsustainablydevelopurbanfringes.

Recognisethevalueofurbanfringe-specificenterprises,rootedinidentifiableurbanfringespace,communitiesandopportunities:

- interactionbetweenrootedenterprisesand citizensandotherstakeholdersenlargesthe resilienceofurbanfringes

- enterprisecoachingcanbeofgreatvaluefor thesespecificentrepreneurs

Recommend the use of the SURF toolkit for projectdevelopmentactivitiesintheurbanfringe:

- thisuniquetoolkitfortheurbanfringecanoffer practicalguidanceofsuccessfulmethodsfor urbanfringedevelopment

Recommendtodeveloparegionalstrategyon urban fringes with attention to green infrastructure,competitivenessandspatialplanning:

- specificattentionshouldbegiventothe connectionsbetweentheurbanandruralareas inregions,inordertounlocktherecreational, tourismandaccessibilitypotentials

- regionalbrandingcansupportregionalactivities tostrengthentheurbanfringesidentity

Recognisethatspatialplanningforurbanfringesisaniterativeplanningprocessinsteadofanimposedprocedure:

- bydoingthismorespaceisprovidedfor stakeholderengagementandsubsequentlythe resultsoftheprocessbenefittheacceptanceby stakeholders

45Chapter 5: Integrated policy guidelines and approaches towards urban fringe planning and management

Toreinforcethis,activityisneededto:

5.5 Policy in practice

Whatisneedednowtomakepositivechangewithintheurbanfringe?SURFidentifiedthatcollaborationisakeyelementtoinfluencingandseeingchange.Forchangetooccur,managersworkingonurbanfringeprojectsneedtonotonlyfocusontheactivitiesrequiredtophysicallyenhancetheurbanfringe,theyalsoneedtolobbyforchangeatalocalandnationallevelandwherepossible,engagewithorganisationsandprojectslookingtodeliverchangeattheEuropeanlevel.

SURFhasaimedtoachieveabalanceatthesethreelevels;local,regionalandnational,todemonstratethatarangeofagencies,individualsorgroupscaninfluencechangeandmakeapositive impacton the futureof theurbanfringe,irrelevantofpositionorauthoritywithinonesorganisationorcity.Inthelongerterm,theSURFpartnersarecommittedtocontinuingtoshareexperience,ideasandbestpracticewitheachotherandwithotherregionsinEurope.

Formally identify the urban fringe and document the uses of urban fringe areas within each Europeancityregionsothataccessibleknowledgeoftheopportunitiespresentedbythetheseareasareavailable:

- bycommunicatingthemultifunctionaland sustainableopportunitiespresentedbytheurban fringe,understandingofthepossibilitiesis increasedandactioniseasiertotake

Formulate long term visions for urban fringes withinEurope:

- acombinedEuropean-wideurbanfringevision couldEuropemorecompetitiveandcontribute tothequalityoflifeforcitizensandopportunities availableforbusinesses

Developandmaintaindedicatedsoftgovernancearchitecturetocomplementand,wherenecessary,replaceexistinghardgovernmentstructures which often fail to serve the interests oftheurbanfringe:

- Europeanacknowledgementthatflexible approachesareneededintheabsenceof generalised,one-size-fits-allurbanfringepolicyto enabledevelopmentandmanagementofthe urbanfringeappropriatetocircumstance

- understandingthecity/citiestowhichtheurban fringeconnects,howitoperates,whereand howpowerisdistributedandhowpartnership andcollaborationbetweenalllevelscanbe enhanced

Createpolicythatrecognisestheidentityandexplicitneedsoftheurbanfringe:

- bridgethegapbetweenexistingurbanandrural policywithspecificpolicyfortheurbanfringe. Createconnectivepolicythatcomplementsand enhancesurbanandruralpolicytostrengthen acity’sandaregion’sofferingandoffer sustainableopportunitiesforgenerationstocome

- adapturbanandruralpolicytoaccommodatethe urbanfringeareaandformallynotespecificsfor thesustainablemanagementanddevelopmentof theseareas

Image: Scott Perkins, Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership


CONCLUSION

THEFUTUREFORTHEURBANFRINGE

Opportunities for the urban rural connection

TheSURFProjectbroughttogether13partnersfromfivecountriestoworktransnationallywhilebalancingthepursuitofindividualprojectambitions.

Withinthisreport,SURFhascategorisedthemaininfluencingfactorsthatbearontheurbanfringe(withintheprojectEuropeansample),whichenabledtheanalysisofthepotentialopportunitiesofferedbytheseareastoberevealed.

SURFidentifiedthattostrengthentheurbanruralconnectionthereremainsanumberoffactorswhichneedtobeaddressed.Ifthefuturecompetitivenessandsustainabilityofcityregionsaretocombinerecognitionoftheopportunitiespresentedbytheurbanfringeasanenablerandasset to futuredevelopment, thebarriersacknowledgedwithintheSURFprojectneedtobeformallyaddressedandpracticalapproachesadoptedtofacilitatepositiveandmostimportantlysustainablechange.

Thereisanoverarchingneedtocreatespecificurbanfringepolicyatanationalandregionallevel;policythatisnotlimitedtoeitherurbanorruralpolicy,butisabletoflexwiththeneedsofthemultifunctionalurbanfringearea.Suchpolicythenneedstobefiltereddowntolocalpracticesandbuiltintolocalpolicyandgovernancemethodstoenableurbanfringeprojectstobeefficientlyintegratedintothegreaterambitionsofcityregions.

SURFwouldarguethat:

• urbanfringejoined-uppolicythinkingisdesirableandnecessaryforcertainpurposes

• thiscanbeachievedindifferentwaysbydifferentagenciesandatdifferentlevels(althoughacity-region/ citynetworklevelmakesmostsense)

• EUencouragement throughpolicyguidanceand fundingwouldbebeneficialandspeedupnational/ regionalleveladoptionofSURFideasinmoreplaces

Alignedwith the increasing need for appropriate policy, SURF revealed effective approaches and practiceswhichallowurbanfringeareastobedevelopedandefficientlymanaged.IntheimplementationprojectsSURFrevealedanumberofcircumstanceswheretheurbanfringewaseffectivelymanagedandwherewiderbenefitandgoodpracticeexamplesemerged.Additionally,SURFprovidedapragmaticviewonthechallengesthatremainfortheurbanfringeandsuggestedmethodsthat,ifadopted,atcityregionlevel,couldalleviatespecificbarriers.

Softgovernanceapproacheshaveprovedtobesuccessfulenablersforurbanfringeprojectsandallowdeliveryofambitions thatconnectwith theneedsof thecity regionandofferopportunities for the futureof thecityregion.However,traditionalelectedhardgovernmentremainsimportantandhaspotentialtobemoreeffectivelyfocusedonurbanfringesalongsideemergingsoftapproaches.

Spatialplanningandstakeholdermanagementarekeyelementsinurbanfringedevelopmentandmanagement.SURFnotedthatsustainablequalitiescannotbedeliveredbygovernmentsalone.Interactionandengagementofbothinternalandexternalagentsisnecessarytoenabledevelopmentoftheurbanfringe.Multifunctionality,fragmentedauthoritiesandmanyinvolvedstakeholderscreateaneedforaplanningsystemthatismuchmoreinteractive,andtherewerepositivesignsthatarangeofagenciesandcommunitieswereengagingwiththeseissuesindifferentwaysandatdifferentlevelsofpolicyanddelivery.

Appreciating the value of green spaceswithin the urban fringe remains a challenge. Future scope remainsfor city regions to realise the potential of greenspace opportunities within the urban fringe as an asset tocity regioncompetitivenessandqualityof life.Newpolicyconceptssuchasecosystemservicesandgreeninfrastructureprovideopportunities forpolicymakersto intervenemorestrategicallyanddynamically ingreenspacemanagement.


Theopportunities forenterprise in theurban fringearesupportedbybenefitssuchasmoreaffordable landpricesandpricesforrealestateincomparisontothemoreurbanisedareas.Thiscanmaketheurbanfringeafavourableareaforstartingupnewbusinesses.Additionally,theurbanfringecanprovideareastofacilitateurbanoverspillofsmallenterprisesandinstitutionslikeuniversitiesformerlyoperatinginthecitycore.However,competitivenessgainscancausetensionwithotheraspectsofsustainability,forinstanceimpactsonthequalityofgreenspaces.Ifnewenterprisedevelopmentsadheretotheconditionsofsustainabilityfromtheoutset,theopportunitiespresentedbytheurbanfringeasanenablerforcompetitivenessandenterprisecanbeachieved.

ThemanyurbanfringeinterventionsobservedatlocalandcityregionlevelswouldbegreatlyassistedifthereweremoresubstantialpolicyguidanceandsupportivemeasuresinplaceatEUlevel.

Exploring possibilities – the SURF case studies

ThechallengeformanySURFpartnerswastodeterminethe legacyoftheirprojectsandtoensurethatthefuture ambitions of these areaswere financially sustainable and that the necessary additional resources toensuredeliveryoffutureambitionsandownershipwereplanned.

AllSURFpartnershaveconsidered the futureof theirprojectareasandexploreda rangeofpossibilities forcontinuing thedevelopment,maintenanceand long-termmanagementof theseuniqueareas.Forexample,partnerswhoformedcollaborativesteeringgroupsfromtheprojectoutsetandplannedforlegacyactivitiesandpassingonownershiphaveplacedthemselvesinanadvantageouspositiontosecurethefutureoftheirurbanfringedevelopments.

TheSURFpartnershave influenced,guided,and learned fromeachotherandsharedacommonapproachtowardsthedevelopmentoftheurbanfringe.ThecollaborativeandtransnationalactivitiesdevelopedwithinthepartnershipremainfollowingtheSURFprojectconclusionastherewasawarenessandprojectagreementthatthisknowledgeshouldbesharedwithothersinEurope.

TheSURFpartners aligned tomaintain a transnational approachandcontinue to share andgain expertisetransnationally,aswellastobuildcasestudylegacyplansintotheirowncityprojects.

InAberdeenprogresswasmadeinSURFonthedevelopmentofTheRiverDonCorridorFramework,whichwasdesigned todelivera legacy for thevisionof thisurban fringeandprovidea levelofprotection for theareafromfuturedevelopmentbyexternalparties.CombinedwiththedevelopmentofAberdeenCityCouncil’sGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS),thecity’sopenspaces,includingtheprojectarea,willnowbeintegratedwithcityspatialplanning.

TheCityofBradfordWorthValleyProjectsoughttoputinplaceasustainablecommunityengagementprocesswhichallowedthoseattheurbanfringetoconnectbothhorizontallyandverticallyindecisionmakingprocessesaffectingtheirfuture,throughcollaborationonthearea’snewparishplan.ItishopedthatthelegacyofSURFwillbelong-termconfidenceintheeffectivenessofcommunityengagementincityregionplanningfortheurbanfringe.

TheNorfolkCountyCouncilGaywoodValleyProjectleavesalegacyofpracticalmethodstoenablethefuturedevelopmentof theproject area, suchas signageand interpretationpanels, thedevelopmentof awebsiteforum, and the planning of community engagement events. The innovative GIS-based virtual-reality filmshowinglandscape,culturalandhistoricalinterpretationofthesitecommissionedbytheprojectalsoallowsforfutureactivitiestobeplannedandmanaged.Anenvironmentalbaselinereportforthevalleyandacommunitywildlifetoolkitwillalsoenablelocalcommunitiestovaluetheareaandbecomemoreproactivelyinvolvedinitsmanagement.

TheCityofEnschedeRondjeEnschedeProjectsawthecreationofaregionalvisionandurbanfringestrategyfortheTwenteregionincollaborationwiththecitiessurroundingEnschedeandanumberofotherauthorities

49Conclusion: The Future for the Urban Fringe

wheretheirurbanfringesoverlap.ThedevelopmentofanimplementationstrategyalignedtotheTwenteRegionvisionwillprovidealegacyofactivitiestofurtherdevelopthisurbanfringearea.

TheCityofAlmeloNorthernParkProjectexceededitsprojectambitionsduringtheSURFprojectlifethroughthedevelopmentofanadditionalaccessiblerouteconnectingtheurbanfringetothecityofAlmelo.Theincreasedconnectivityandaccessibilitytothisprojectareawilldrawmorepeople intotheurbanfringeandencouragemoreuseofthisarea.

Through the creation of the Friends ofWeusthag group, the City ofHengelo positively engaged with thecommunity,empoweringresidentstodeliveractivitiesandtakeownershipoffutureplansfortheprojectareaanditishopedthatthisgroupwillcontinuewiththisprocess.

ThroughtheuseoftheProvincialQualityChamber,theProvinceofEast Flandersdevelopedmethodstoworkwithincurrentgovernmentalpractices,butalsoforcreativitytobeengineeredtoallowmoreattentiontotheurbanfringeanditsimportanceintheurbanplanningprocess,providingapositivelegacyforfutureurbanfringedevelopmentwithinthecityregion.

ThecreationandsuccessoftheStad-Land-SchapprovidedanintegralfactorinthelegacyplansfortheProvinceofWest Flanders.TheagreementtocontinuethiscooperationbeyondtheconclusionoftheSURFprojectwill,it ishoped,beanenablerforfuturedevelopment,ownershipandprotectionoftheurbanfringeareaswithinWestFlanders.

TheprovinceofAntwerplaidthefoundationsforalong-termprocesstowardsanimprovedqualityofopenspaceintheurbanfringeinthenortheastofthecityofAntwerp,structuredaroundthewatercourseLaarseBeek.Tomaintaintheenthusiasmandkeeppeopleengagedinalong-termprocess,therealisationofaquick-winprovedcrucial. The cooperation builtwith varying government personnel and the creation of specific task-focusedgroupswithin theprojectprovideda frameworkandsupportingmethods thatwillbe replicatedpostSURF.Additionally,theinteractivewebsitewhichwasdevelopedshouldkeeplocalpeopleandvisitorsconnectedtotheurbanfringe.

The implementationof theSuburbiaProject inHamburg ensured that recognitionof the importanceof theurban fringe toametropolitanarea the sizeofHamburg,with somanydifferentpolitical andgovernmentalboundaries, increased.Thecreationofaspatialanalysis/monitoringstructure isstill indevelopmentandwillresultinincreasingtheinformationontheurbanfringezone.Itwillincludethecollationofinformationsuchasstatisticalfeatures,currentdevelopments,plans,policiesandprogramsthatdirectlyconcerntheurbanfringe.ThefinalproductfromthisanalysiswillbeanumberofmapsthatcanvisualizeandpresentdevelopmentsinHamburg’surbanfringeareasand,itishoped,informfuturedevelopmentforthecityregion.

The Municipality ofHärryda successfully showcased the importance of collaboration with different powerplayersinvolvedwiththeurbanfringe.NotablywithinHärryda,thenumberofprivatelandownersandfarmerswhocrossedthewalkingtrackboundariesprovedtobeaninitialbarriertoprojectdevelopment,howevertheremainingtaskisnowthemaintenanceanddevelopmentofthewalkingtracktoensurethisurbanfringeprojectcontinuestoofferresidentsagreenrecreationalenvironment.

Theexamplesnotedaboveillustratethepotentialformanytypesofpolicyinterventionanddifferentgovernanceapproachesinurbanfringes,allofwhichprovideusefullessonsforotherpartsoftheNorthSeaRegion.Theselocalinitiatives,togetherwithmoregenericsuggestionsincludedinotherpartsofthisFinalReportandintheToolkitshowhowdynamicandcomplexaplace theurban fringe is.Theyalsoshow there isnomagickeywhichfitsallcircumstancesinallregions,sohowtheselessonsareappliedwillneedtobecontingentonlocalandregionalcircumstances.AkeyremainingchallengeforpolicymakerswillbetotakeonboardthelessonsprovidedthroughtheSURFprojectandapplythemeffectivelytotheirowncircumstancesandlocalities.


Appendix1

MANAGINGTHEURBANFRINGE-ACCESSIBLELEARNING

TheSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)projectmadeacommitment“to create a web- based long-term sustainable network of experts, practitioners, businesses, institutions, community development organisations and linking it to (those) existing.”(12)

Theaimwastoensurethelongevityofworkbydevelopingalong-termaccessiblelegacyoflearning.Thiswasdoneby:

• capitalisingonexistingknowledgebygathering information frompreviousandexistingprojectsandrelevant organisations

• buildingawarenessandstrengtheningprocessbyestablishingnetworklinkswithrelatedprojectgroups

• developing future orientated processes to ensure that project learning andwork produced during SURF is retainedandavailableinyearstocome

Atanearlystageintheproject,SURFstartedworkonacapitalisationexercise,researchinginformation,reportingandfindingsfrompreviousrelatedEUprojectsandrelatedsubjectsofstudy.Despiteawiderangeofpreviousrelevantprojects,SURFfoundthatinmanycasesinformationonprojectfindingswasnolongeravailable.

Byfocusingonexistinginformationorinformationindevelopmentthroughcurrentprojects,SURFstartedtobuildlinkswithprojectsandorganisationslobbyingfortherecognitionoftheneedforurbanfringe/peri-urbanpolicyinEurope.

Collaborativeworkingonpolicyandpractice

Exchanginginformationandresearchwithrelatedprojectsandnetworksenhancedunderstanding;helpedtoavoidduplicationandbuildcollaborationstotakeforwardthepursuitofhigherrecognitioninEuropeofthevalueofurbanfringe/peri-urbanareas.

Thiscollaborativeworkingaddedvalue throughcooperationon thedevelopmentof theSURFpositionpaperandpolicyrecommendations.SURFsharedinformationwiththefollowingprojects,networksandorganisations:

PURPLE www.purple-eu.org ThePURPLENetworkwassetupin2004andrepresentsperi-urbanterritories,whereurbanandruralfeatures co-exist.

Plurel www.plurel.net ThePeri-urbanLandUseRelationshipsprojectwascompletedin2010.Theprojectbroughttogether31partner organisationsfrom14EuropeanCountriesandChinatodevelopstrategiesandsustainabilityassessmenttoolsfor urbanrurallinkages.

Periurban Parks www.periurbanparks.eu Periurbanisaregionalinitiativeproject,whichusestheexchangeofexperiencestoimprovepoliciesonmanagement ofnaturalsuburbanareas.

51Appendix 1

RELU www.relu.ac.uk TheRuralEconomyandLandUseProgramme(RELU)aimstoadvanceunderstandingofthechallengesruralareas face,usinginterdisciplinaryresearchtoinformfuturepolicyandpractice.

METREX www.eurometrex.org METREXcontributesthemetropolitandimensiontopolicies,programmesandprojectsfromEuropeaninstitutions, theresearchcommunity,governmentalorganisationsandothernetworks.

Eurocities www.eurocities.eu Eurocitiesbrings together the localgovernmentsofmore than140 largecities inover30Europeancountries. WorkingwiththeEUinstitutions,theyaimtoshapetheopinionsofBrusselsstakeholdersandshiftthefocusofEU legislationtoallowcitygovernmentstotacklestrategicchallengesatlocallevel.

Developingalastinglegacy

SURFpartnerscontributedtothedevelopmentofaDisseminationPlanfortheprojectoutputs.Thiswastoensurealldocumentsoftransferablelearningwereretainedandreadilyavailableaftertheprojectcompleted.

DocumentsInclude: SustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)FinalReport SustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)Toolkit AnalyticalFramework SWOT1Report ImplementationLabReports SURFNewsletters SURFAnnualReports ProjectPartnerReflectiveReports AcademicPapers Presentations

WherecanIfindSURF-relatedinformation?

• TheSustainableUrbanFringes(SURF)officialwebsitewww.sustainablefringes.euhasbeenaninformationhub fordocumentsproducedduring thecourseof theproject.Thiswebsitewillbemaintained forseveralyears beyondtheendoftheproject

• RelevantdocumentsavailableonSURFprojectpagesonpartners’ownwebsites

• SURFestablishedaLinkedindiscussiongrouptoenablediscussionontheworkbeingdoneandthepotential forperi-urbanandurbanfringeareas.ThisgrouphadagrowingmembershipbeyondtheSURFpartnershipand willbemaintainedbeyondtheproject,toallowthenetworktocontinuetosharenewsandinformation

• PrintanddigitalversionsoftheSURFFinalReportandToolkitwillbedistributedtokeystakeholdersandmade availableonadatastick.Partnerswillassistinthisinformationdisseminationprocessbymakingtheinformation availableatlocalandregionaleventsandconferences

• Documentswillbepostedoninformationwebsitesincluding:

- KEEP(KnowledgeandExpertiseinEuropeanProgrammes)- www.territorialcooperation.eu/frontpage/keepdetail

- EuropeanUrbanKnowledgeNetwork(EUKN)–www.eukn.org


Appendix2

SUSTAINABLEURBANFRINGES(SURF)PROJECTPARTNERS

Bradford Metropolitan District Council WorthValleyProject

Population:BradfordDistrictcoversanareaofapproximately400sqkmwithapopulationofjustoverhalfamillion.About140,000ofthepopulationliveintheurbanfringeandruralareas.

Area:TheWorthValleyjoinsAiredaleatKeighleyandrunsinasouthwesterlydirectiontotheRiverAire.Itisamixtureofhighmoorland,valleys,smallsettlementsandvillages.

Background:Airedalewas identifiedasa keygrowtharea in theLeedsCityRegionaswellasinBradford.ThesettlementsincludedinthisurbanfringeareaarethosethatlinkdirectlytoandfeedthecoreareaofAiredale.Itsmaintowns,aswellasthecitiesofBradfordandLeeds,areessentialtosupportingtheeconomicandsocialregenerationofthearea.

Since the inception of the Airedale masterplan in 2005, extensive networks andrelationshipshavebeenestablishedatastrategiclevelandwithdifferentorganisations.

Theproject focusedon theWorthValleyworkingwith theHaworth,CrossRoadsandStanburyParishCouncil indevelopinganewplanwhichwouldengagewithpeopleandconnectthemlocally,strategicallyandwiththecityregion.

Theprojectaimedto:Engagecommunitiesintheurban/ruralfringeofAiredale,inparticulartheWorthValley,sothattheyunderstandanddeveloptheircontributiontothecompetitivenessof theLeedsCityRegionandtheYorkshireRegionthrough localaction.

Thiswasdoneby:

• developingasustainablecommunityengagementprocessthatallowedthoseattheurbanfringetoconnect bothhorizontallyandverticallyinthedecisionmakingprocesses

• identifying strategies, policies and programmes that have an influence on the future of local urban fringe settlements

• understandingandtestinghowtoprioritisestrategy,policiesandresourceissuesfortheurbanfringe

• bettertargetingoffundsforurbanfringemaintenance

• useoftheabovetoinformlocalcommunitysettlementplansthatwillinfluencestrategiesandactivitiesandseek toenablecommunitiestocontributeandaddvalueandresources

Website:www.airedalepartnership.org

53Appendix 2

Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg SuburbiaProject

The City of Hamburg is home to 1.7million people and at the core of ametropolitanregionwithmorethan5.5millioninhabitants.Thisconsistsofthreefederalstatesandalargenumberofcountiesandcommunitiesresponsibleforurbanplanning.

The urban rural fringe (suburbia) has a population of 2.3million.Administratively theurban fringe ishighly fragmented,withmorethan40localandregionalauthorities.

Although Hamburg is still a growing city, the urban fringes areaffectedbysuburbanisation.Thishaschangeddramaticallyduringthe last decade and is expected to change again in forthcomingyears. A trend of re-urbanisation has emerged with suburbiafacing economic, social, demographic and spatial pressure as thedisadvantages of an old,mostly family-driven housing stock and urbanenvironmentwithagrowingnumberofelderlyresidentsbecomesobvious.

Theprojectaimedto:Withabroadsetofactivities,Hamburganditsregionsoughttostreamlinepoliciesfortheadministratively-fragmentedurbanruralfringeandofferadiscussionforumforitschallengesandpotentials.Throughjoinedforces instead of piecemeal planning, suburbia’s contribution toregionalcompetitivenessandqualityoflifeshouldbeimproved.

Thiswasdoneby:

• raisingawarenessofthechallengesoftheurbanruralfringe through communicative measures, including organising a colloquiumseriescalledApproachestoSuburbia

• facilitatingworkshops to develop a commonunderstanding on requiredpoliciesandjointaction

• implementing cross-border intermunicipal fora between Hamburg and adjacentcommunitiestodiscussdevelopmentproposalsandplansfortheurbanfringe

• supportingexistingandnewcross-borderprojectsandinitiativestoimproveco-operation

• furtherdevelopingtheinstrumentofregionalparkstoimprovethequalityoflifeintheurbanfringe

Website: www.hamburg.de/regionalentwicklung and www.hamburg.de/suburbia


Province of West FlandersStad-Land-schapProject

Thecity region ‘tWest-Vlaamsehart,consistsof thecityRoeselareandeightsurroundingmunicipalities.Thishasformedatypicalurbanscape(stad-land-schap)withhighspatialdynamicsinopenareasandlessintensivedynamicsinthecentres-60%offirmsaresituatedoutsideindustrialandbusinesscentresand45%ofthehousingoutsidecitycentres.

Regionalgovernanceonspatialplanningfor this typicalurbanscapewasnon-existent.Therewerepolicyplans forurbandevelopmentandforruraldevelopment,butuntilthefoundingofanewregionalorganisation,theStad-Land-schap,therewasnoregionalgovernancedealingwithspatialquality intheurban,peri-urbanandruralareas,withattentionfortheinteraction/linkbetweenthoseareasofthisurbanscape.

ThefoundingoftheStad-Land-schap,(theprovinceandninemunicipalities)broughtaunifiedapproachtoruralandurbanareas.Stad-Land-schappartnerswanted tobring this issue toahigherpolitical levelanddrawattention tosustainableinvestmentinurbanscapes.

Previouslytherewasapolicyforurbandevelopmentandforruraldevelopment,butnowthereisregionalgovernancedealingwithspatialqualityintheurban,peri-urbanandruralareas–withattentiontothelinksandinteractionsbetweentheseareas.

Theprojectaimedto:Increasetheoverallspatialqualityof the landscape intheurbanareaof thecityRoeselare, inconnectionwiththesurroundingmunicipalities,leadingtobetterinteractionandlinksbetweenurbanareasandcountryside.Themunicipalities,theprovinceandseveralorganisationsplannedto investigatehowtheycouldworktogetheronenhancingtheattractiveness,recreationalpotentialandlandscapenatureoftheregion.

Thiswasdoneby:

• creatingaplatformforcooperationandnetworkinginStad-Land-schap’tWest-Vlaamsehart

• workingoutagreen-bluerecreationalnetwork

• convertinganoldrailwaytrackintoasafe,greenrecreationaltrack

• implementinginnovativegreenmanagementtechniques

• realisingbusinessplansonlandscape,especiallytargetingfarmers

• creatingawebsite,landscapejournalandregionalbrand

• holdingatransnationalImplementationLabtodevelopideasandsolutionsfortheprojectarea

• improvingaccesstogreenspace

Website:www.west-vlaanderen.be

ProjectWebsite:www.westvlaamsehart.be

55Appendix 2

The City of Aberdeen RiverDonProject

Aberdeenisacompactcityofapproximately189sqkilometresandpopulationof220,420.Itisflankedbytwomajorwaterwayswhichoriginateoutwiththecity:

• TheRiverDeetothesouthofthecity,whichisaSpecialArea of Conservation and through a catchment management approach is a good example of collaborative working to improve the urban fringes which are influenced by the River Dee. In the city there is excellent access along the RiverDee for salmon fishing,walkingand recreation.The urbanfringeinthisareaofthecityiswellusedandisfamed foritsbeautyandroyalconnections.

• TheRiverDontothenorthofthecity,whichisknownfortrout fishing. In the city the River Don cuts through varying areas including those of industry, some deprived communities and developedareas.Whiletheriverisanimportantareatothecity,access totheriver is inneedof improvement.However,thereareareasofcultural andhistoricimportance,suchastheBrigo’BalgownieandSeatonPark.

ThroughSURFtherewasanopportunitytobringthecommunity,landownersandstakeholdergroupstogetherinordertoimprovethecity’surbanfringes.Inadditiontothis,AberdeencompletedanOpenSpaceAuditprovidinginformationforcitizenstounderstandthequalityofthecity’spublicandprivateopenspaces.

Thephysicalscopeoftheprojectwas:

• TheRiverDonCorridor,Aberdeen–anurban fringeareamadeupof theRiverDonandsurroundingopen spaces,fromthecoasttothecountryside.Itisanareaunderpressureofdevelopmentandlikelytoundergo significantchangeintheyearsahead

Theprojectaimedto:DevelopandpromotenewmethodsforassessingandmanagingopenspacesalongtheRiverDoncorridorforthebenefitofthelocaleconomy,environmentandcommunities.Theaimwastobringpeopleandorganisationstogetherwith information,toolsandtechniquestodevelopamorecollectiveapproachtotheplanningandmanagementofopenspacesalongtheRiverDoncorridor.

Thiswasdoneby:

• formingaprojectstakeholdergrouptooverseeanddirecttheproject

• developinganaccessibleGIStooltoassistwithspatialplanningofopenspace

• conductingaparticipativeprogrammeofcommunityengagementactivities,usingGIS,toimprovelocaldecision making

• producingaspatialplan,incollaborationwiththecommunity,toguidedevelopmentanddirectimprovementsto openspace.TheRiverDonCorridorFrameworkhasbeenapprovedascouncilguidancetosupportAberdeen’s LocalDevelopmentPlan

• accessingfundingandworkingwithcommunitiestoimplementseveralimprovementstoopenspacesinline withthespatialplan

Website: www.aberdeencity.gov.uk


Norfolk County Council TheGaywoodValleyProject

TheGaywoodValleySURFprojectsoughttounlockthepotentialoftheGaywoodValleytotheeastofKing’sLynninNorfolkasanaturalenvironmentalamenity.

Theprojectpresentedopportunitiesfor:socialcohesion;environmentaleducation; training and volunteering; the local economy; andleisure and recreation. Further benefits were associated with themanagement of wildlife habitats connected with the GaywoodValleyproject, improvedflood-riskmanagementandopportunitiesforwildlifethroughhabitatcreationandenhancement.Throughanintegrated approach to themanagement of land,water and livingresources–anecosystemsservicesapproach–theprojecthasleftasustainablelegacyforthepeopleofKing’sLynn.

The King’s Lynn Urban FringeTheurbanand rural fringeofKing’s Lynnhasapoor relationshipwith thetown’shistoriccentralcoreandwiththebroadercountrysidewhichsurroundsit.NorthLynnandFairsteadwardsofKing’sLynnareinthetop10mostdeprivedareasofNorfolk.Thearea’surban fringesuffers from limitededucationalopportunities,poorhealth,socialexclusionanddeclininginvestment.By202011,000newhomeswillbebuiltinKing’sLynn.Thefocusforthisexpansionwillbeintheurbanandruralfringeofthetown.

The River GaywoodTheRiverGaywoodisshortchalkriversome13kminlengthwhichrises fromspringsnearDerbyFen to theeastofKing’sLynnandrunsintotheGreatOuseatBoalQuay.TheriverdischargesintotheGreatOuseatKing’sLynnthroughatidalflap,whereitexperiencestidalinfluences,andthenintotheNorthSeathroughtheWashEstuary.Itsmid–to-lowerreachesrunthroughurbanareas.

Projectdelivery:Withcommunityinvolvementandownershipatitsheart,theprojectwasdeliveredthroughfiveworkareasunderthedirectionofaJointAdvisoryPanel(JAP)andwiththeengagementofanadvisorygroupandwiderstakeholderforum.

Workareas:

• projectdevelopmentandecosystemsservicesevaluation

• communication

• landandrivercatchmentmanagement

• communityengagement

• learningandskills

57Appendix 2

Thiswasdoneby:

• followingstakeholderengagement,aVisionandDeliveryPlanfortheGaywoodValleywasdeveloped,taking intoaccount: theKing’sLynnGreen InfrastructureMasterplan;opportunitiesto linkvaluablewildlifehabitats; theLocalDevelopmentFrameworkgrowthstrategyforthetown;andtheaspirationsofthelocalneighbourhoods andfarmingcommunities

• seeking opportunities for communication across the project, including mechanisms such as signage and interpretationandcommunityevents

• developingan innovativemap-basedGISvirtual-realityflythrough,showing landscape,culturalandhistorical interpretationofthesite

• landandrivercatchmentmanagementsoughttoimproveaccesstotheGaywoodValley,creatingenhanced trailsanddirectionalwaymarking

• communityengagement focusingonconnecting localurbancommunitieswith their localcountryside.Local peopleofallagegroupswere involved increatingandenhancinggreenspace.Opportunities foreconomic regenerationweresought

• formalandinformaleducationalopportunitiesweredevelopedforlocallearning.Curriculumexamplessuchas understanding andmanaging local climate change impacts; the importance of ecological networks for the welfareoflocalbiodiversity;andvaluingthegreenenvironmentforhealthyrecreation,weredeveloped

Website: www.norfolk.gov.uk


City of HengeloWeusthagProject

Hengelo,whichhasapopulationofmorethan80,000,issituatedintheeasternNetherlands.TheprojectislookingattheWeusthagarea (200 hectares). This sizable piece of countryside issituatedbesideadensebuiltneighbourhood.Thepark isused for sports and recreation and has specific statusasawaterprotectionarea.Theaimofdeveloping theWeusthagPark,astheParkofConnectionwastobuilda connecting space between city neighbourhoods,rather than the area being a dividing space to localcommunities.

Theprojectaimedto:Improve the social value of theWeusthag area andmake better use of opportunities presented by theurban fringe to increase the quality of life for thoseliving close by. Specifically, the project wanted todeliver a landscape park, which would be wellmaintainedandusedbyadiverserangeofpeoplefordifferentpurposes,suchasnature,sports,cultureandeducation.Increasedsocialimportanceforthisurbanfringewillhelpprotectitsfutureroleinthecity.

Thiswasdoneby:

• improvingrecognition,attractiveness,awarenessandengagementwiththeprojectarea

• brandingfortheWeusthagastheParkofConnection

• bringingpartnerstogethertoimproveaccessandimplementphysicalimprovements

• raisingawarenessthroughevents.AnannualWeusthagDayhasbeenestablishedtoencouragelocalpeopleto makebetteruseofthisspace

• communicationmeasuresincludingawebsite,socialmediaandwelcomesignagetoengagelocalresidentsand visitorstotheparkanditsfacilities

• SettinguptheFriendsofHetWeusthagFoundationtoinvolvelocalpeopleinthepark’sfuture

• dredgingtheHoutmaatvijverpondintheparkandredevelopingnaturalislands

Website:www.hengelo.nl

59Appendix 2

The City of EnschedeRondjeEnschedeProject

Enschede,whichhasabout160,000inhabitants,isthemaincityinTwenteintheeasternregionoftheNetherlands.Itseconomywastraditionallycharacterisedbythetextileindustry,butfollowingthedeclineofthissector in theearly1970s, thecityand its region facedsubstantialunemployment.

Afterasignificantperiodoftransition,theregionhasdevelopeditselfasatechnologyvalley,foundedonthepresenceoftheuniversityandagrowingnumberofhigh-techindustries.

Privateandpublicsectororganisations,includingtheuniversityandeducationalinstitutions,havedevelopedaregionalInnovationRoadmapthatshouldcontributetostrengtheningoftheregionaleconomy,inlinewiththeLisbonobjectives.

TherelationshipbetweentheeconomyandEnschede’ssurroundinglandscapehasalwaysbeenimportant.Numerousparksinandaroundthecitywereestablishedinthepreviouscenturybywealthytextileindustryowners.

Today, the greenquality of the city and its region is invaluable forattractingbusinessesandinhabitants.However,economicgrowthandurbanexpansionhasputthisgreenassetunderpressure.

Enschede, together with its neighbouring cities Hengelo andAlmelo,wantedtooptimisetheuseandvalueoftheurbanfringe,establishingaclearlyrecognisableandsustainablezoneinwhichapositivelinkbetweeneconomyandlandscapecouldbecreated.

Theprojectaimedto:CreateadistinctandsustainableurbanfringearoundthecityofEnschedeanddesignanattractiverecreationalroutealongtheofficialborderbetweentheruralandurbanarea;withactivitiesfocusedonthesouth,northandwestofthecity.Naturedevelopmentandwaterwereimportantelementsinthereconstructionofthezone.

Thiswasdoneby:

• developingpoliciesandinvestmentschemesfortheurbanfringeinEnschedeandthesurroundingarea

• workingwithpartnerSaxionUniversityintheproductionofastudyonthefinancialbenefitsofinvestmentsin urbanfringesinEnschede

• creatingaregionalstrategyonurbanfringeswithneighbouringcitiesintheTwenteRegionandestablishinga commonvisionandimplementationprogramme

• participatinginapilotprojectforthecitygovernmenttotakeoverruralcontrolfromtheprovincialgovernment, bringingmorecontrolonurbanfringematters

• usingart,sportandculturalengagementactivitiestobuildawarenessanduseofnewrouteRondjeEnschede (RoundEnschede),arecreationalroutearoundtheoutskirtsofthecity

Website:www.enschede.nl


City of AlmeloNorthernParkProject

With72,000residents,Almeloisamedium-sizedmunicipalityintheTwenteregion,themosteasternpartoftheNetherlands,neartheGermanborder.NeighbouringtownsareHengeloandEnschede.

AsAlmelohasexpandedithasretainedfourgreenspaceareasknownasgreenlungs,whichformaconnectionbetweentheurbanfringes,ruralareasandthecitycentre.TheNorthernParkisoneofthefourgreenlungsintheinnercityarea.

Almelohasa largenumberof industrialsitesandconsidersbiodiversityanimportantissuetothedevelopmentofthesesites.Thisallowsbusinessesandtheirworkerstobenefitfromacleaner,greenerenvironmentandinturnattractsnewbusinessesmakingtheseareasmoresustainable.

Theprojectaimedto:Developwalkingandcyclingconnectingroutestolocalgreenspaceareastoincreasetourismandrecreationalpotentialandreducecartraffictoandfromthecityfringes.Theconnectingroutewouldcreaterecreationalfocalpointsandincreasetheattractivenessofthearea.Itwouldalsoincreaseaccessibilityfromthecitycentretourbanfringesandtwoofthecity’sgreenlungs.

Thiswasdoneby:

• workingonpreparingthevisionfortheconnectionofAlmelo’snortherngreen lung, Noorderpark,withthegreenlungsintheeasternpartofthecity

• workingwithSURFpartnersHengeloandEnschede,toproducearegionalvisionandmanagementoftheurban fringesintheTwenteRegion

• producingareportonslowmovingtrafficconnectionsthroughtheNoorderpark

• involvinganexternalorganisationLandschapOverijssel,lookingatcombiningnaturalareaswithbusinessareas inthecity

• hostingaregionalurbanfringeworkshoptodiscussthefuturepotentialofAlmelo’surbanfringeareas

• exploringthepotentialofanartrouteasanengagementtooltoencouragepeopletousetheconnectingroute fromurbanfringetocitycentre

Website:www.almelo.nl

61Appendix 2

Municipality of Härryda WalkingTracksProject

ThemunicipalityofHärryda,with34,000inhabitants,belongstothewesternregioninSwedenandisacloseneighbourofGothenburg.HärrydaissituatedalongRoute40betweenthecitiesGothenburgandBorås.Stretchingalmost15kmfromnorthtosouthand30km fromwest to east, it has an area totalling 268 square km.Forestscoverabouthalftheareaandlakesaboutonetwelfth.

Theprojectaimedto:InvestigatetheconditionsforrestoringwalkingtrackstomakethemmoreconvenientandattractivebothforpeoplelivinginHärrydabutalsotoincreasethevalueoftourismforpeoplelivinginGothenburgaswellasforpeoplelivinginneighbouringmunicipalities.

Thiswasdoneby:

• preparingandengaginginnegotiationswithmultiplelandownersandholdinginformationmeetingswithmore than100landownersalongthewalkingtrail

• analysingtheuseoflandwithrespecttoregulationsatlocal,regionalandnationallevel,resultinginacompilation ofknowledgeoftheSwedishlegislativeprocess

• creatingadditionalvalueandaplatformfor futurework,withtherefurbishmentanddevelopmentofexisting walkingroutes

• producingtheGreenCorridorsintheGothenburgRegionreport

• increasingcooperationwithGothenburgplanningcolleagues

• participatingintheSURFprojecthasstimulatedfurtherfundingopportunitiestodeveloprecreationalroutesin thearea.Fournewprojectsrecentlyreceivedafundingcommitmentof800,000Euros,withhalfofthiscoming fromtheEURuralFund

Website:www.Härryda.se


Province of East Flanders – GhentSpatialQualityProject

TheProvinceofEastFlandershas1.445million inhabitantswith247.486ofthemlivinginthecapitalGhent.Theperi-urbansurroundingmunicipalitiesofGhenttotalanother166,606people.GhenthasaninlandseaharbourandtheLeieandScheldtrivers.TwoofEurope’smajormotorways,theE40andE17,aresituatednearGhentwithSint-NiklaasandAalstalsoformingtwomajorcitiesfortheprovince.

Theprovincialauthoritieshaveaground-tied responsibility in thespatialplanningprocess. The Spatial Structure Plan of East Flanders makes a distinction in thecontextbetweenurbanandrural.Thereisanexplicitpreferenceforfunctionalzoningofopenspace/countryside,especiallysafeguardingspacefortheeconomicgrowthofagriculture,natureandforestry;withalimitationindevelopmentofothereconomicactivitiesinthecountryside.

TheDepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment isactively involved intheProvincialSpatialPlan, landscapeplanningandintegration,co-operation,adviceandfinancingprojects.

Theprojectaimedto:Develop an integrated view for the project urban fringe area; testing and implementingtransnationalapproachesonplanningandpublicpolicymaking.

IncreasetheuseoftheProvincialQualityChamberforperi-urbanareas.TheProvincialQualityChamberisamethodwhichbringstogetheravarietyofexperts,suchasspatialplanners,architectsandlandscapearchitects,todiscussandplanfutureapproachesonbuildingand

landscapeintegrationprojects.

Thiswasdoneby:

• discussing about and experimenting onmethodologies for the involvement of stakeholders in the planning process

• transnational learning: methodology for 3D visualisation in stakeholder participation and communication is testedinthespatialstructureplanningprocessofthegreenhouseareaBeveren(peri-urbanareaofAntwerp)and intheeasternperi-urbanareaofGhent

• consultingwithvegetablegrowersonthefuturedevelopmentplansforthearea

• producingarticlesontheurbanfringeforprovincialpublications

• buildinginterestandcommitmentfromrelevantstakeholders

• making use ofworkshops, forums, information points and theProvincialQualityChamber. This groupwas involved inspatialplanning,architectureand landscape integrationandmet toadviseon theenvironmental buildingqualityofprojects

Website:www.oost-vlaanderen.be

63Appendix 2

The Province of AntwerpLaarseBeekProject

TheurbanfringeinthenortheastofthecityofAntwerpisconsideredas“anareawheregreenspaceisimportant,onalevelexceedingthelocallevel,andwithaconcentrationofactivitiesthatarelinkedtothepresenceoftheurbanarea”(ProvincialSpatialStructurePlan). Although thearea is relatively forest-rich, theurbanisationdegree is35%.Theurban fringecontainsanetworkofwatercourses,withtheLaarseBeekstreamflowingcentrally.TheareaischaracterisedbyahighdegreeofprivateownershipandatransportnetworktoandfromAntwerpanditsport.Thiscreatesseveralproblems:

• alimitedamountofareawhichsuffersfromaveryhighrecreationaldemand

• largedistancesbetweenlocalconcentratedresidentialareasandaccessible greenspaces

• openspaceclosetoconcentratedresidentialareaswhichis strongly influenced by the inhabitants of these areas - gardens, space forhorsesetc

• pressureonthebiodiversityoftheurbanfringe

• negativeperceptionofpartsofthearea

Thecomplexgovernmentstructureandthemultifunctionalcharacteroftheurbanfringefurtherincreasethecomplexity.

ThesteeringcommitteeoftheWaterBoardHetSchijn,thewiderareatowhichthewatercourseLaarseBeekbelongs,officiallyexpressedinterestinimplementinganintegratedprojectinthevalleysystemoftheLaarseBeek.ThissteeringcommitteeconsistsofdelegatesoftheprovinceofAntwerp,localauthoritiesandwatermanagers. Theprojectaimedto:The Province of Antwerp aims to create accessible green spacesaroundthemajorcities.Becauseofthetypicalcharacteristicsoftheurban fringe surrounding these cities, theprovincial government hasneeded to develop integrated and interactive processes with relevantauthorities,residentsandstakeholders.Theprojectisworkingtoestablishamultifunctionalprojectintheurbanfringeinordertoimprovetheopenspaceinthearea.

Thiswasdoneby:

• forminga steeringgroupof local authoritiesandstakeholders, inorder tobridge theexistinggapbetween governmentandgovernance

• determining landscapequalityobjectives togetherwith relevantstakeholders throughquestionnaires,SWOT andaninteractivecommunicationtool

• startingalearningprocesstotranslatetheseobjectivesintospatialplanning

• Makingagroundwatermodelanddesigningfishstairstosolveexistingfishmigrationproblems.Thesefishstairs serveasaquickwintokeeppeopleengagedduringthislong-termprocess

• increasingtheaccessibilityofgreenspace

• using best practicemodels from a former project in the river KoudeBeek and best practices that can be obtainedthroughregionalandtransnationallearning

Website:www.provant.be


Scientific Partners

School of the Built Environment at Leeds Metropolitan UniversityCUDEM(CentreforUrbanDevelopmentandEnvironmentalManagement)

TheUrban Fringe StudyGroup (URBAN FRINGESG)within CUDEM at LeedsMetropolitan University undertakesresearchandanalysisofperi-urbanspaces.Thishas includedstudiesofgreen infrastructure in theUKandearlierInterregprojectsonurbanfringespace,mostnotablySOSIandII.

TheUrbanFringeStudyGroupcoordinatedtheresearchandanalysiselementsofSURFandcontributedtoarangeofoverarchingSURFoutputs.

Inaddition,theteamundertookastudyofurbanfringegovernanceintheLeedsCityRegion,whichwasoneoftheSURFcasestudylocalitiesforcomparisonagainstotherselectedEUcityregions.AspartofthisstudyitwasintendedtodevelopanetworkintheregiontoexploretheissuesandstrategiesaroundthecoreSURFthemesofurbanfringesustainabilityandcompetitiveness.Theaimwasthatthelessonsfromthisnetworkwouldbesharedwithcityregionsinternationallytodevelopideasforfuturestrategies.

Finally,thestudygroupprovidedsupporttotheAireValleyofBradfordCityCouncilinlookingatengagingcommunitiesintheurban/ruralfringeofAiredaleincontributingtothecompetitivenesstheLeedsCityRegion.

Projectaims:BeyondthecityregionstudyandsupporttoBradfordCouncil,CUDEM’sworkunderWorkpackage3(reviewingandanalysing)aimedtoprovideabodyofknowledgecontainingthepresentstateofacademicandpracticalknowledgeconcerningtheplanninganddevelopmentofurbanfringes.Thiswouldbeusedtoconstructaconceptualframeworkwhichwouldsteertheprojectandshowtherelevantthemes,issues,processesandtheirrelationship. Thiswasdoneby:

• providingatemplatefor‘theme’analysisfortestingandimplementationwithinSURF.The4SURFthemeswere:

- Greenspaces

- EconomyandCompetitiveness

- Governance

- SpatialPlanning

• formingthematicgroupsandenablingnetworkingacrossthemes

• reviewinganddisseminatingabaselineinventoryofpreviousInterregandotherrelevantprojects

• organisinganexpertnetworkthatwasconsultedthroughoutthedurationoftheproject

• identifyingurbanfringepolicynetworks

• givingabroaderresearchcontexttothework,includingproducingreportsandpapersreflectingthefindings ofSURF

Website:www.lmu.ac.uk/as/cudem/

65Appendix 2

Saxion University of Applied Sciences

SaxionUniversityofAppliedScienceshasmorethan22,000studentsbasedatthreecampuses intheeastoftheNetherlandsinDeventer,EnschedeandApeldoorn.

SaxionprovidedSURFwithanacademicarmtotheprojecttoassistwiththedeliveryoftheproject’sconceptualandanalyticalframework.SaxioncontributedexpertiseinthefieldofpracticallyassessingtheurbanfringeandengagedtheSURFpartnersinaseriesofImplementationLabs.DuetothepracticalapproachfromSaxionandtheexpertiseinthedevelopmentandmanagementoftheurbanfringe,SaxionledthecreationoftheSURFToolkit.

SaxionalsofacilitatedexchangeandguidancewithanumberoftheSURFpartnerstosupportandassisttheirprojectdevelopment.StudentsfromSaxionalsoparticipatedinanumberoftheSURFprojectsandoffereddifferingapproachestourbanfringedevelopmentandmanagementtechniques–suchasofferinginnovativeideasontheuseoftechnology.

Website:www.saxion.edu/


Appendix3

GLOSSARY

City Region Theareaaroundacitywhichservesandisservedbythecity(notjusttheadministrativeareaofacity/conurbation, butalsotheurbanandruralfringes/hinterlandhenceusuallyfarlarger). (Scott, A. (2001) Global City-Regions, Oxford University Press.)

Civil Society The arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. Activity involving the voluntary,civicandsocialorganisationsthatformthebasisofafunctioningsocietyasopposedtostateormarket institutions.(LSE Centre for Civil Society)

Conurbation Anaggregationorcontinuousnetworkofurbancommunitieswhichhavephysicallymergedthroughpopulation growthandexpansion.Itisapolycentricformofagglomeration. (CEMAT (European Conference of Ministers responsible for spatial/regional planning) (2006) glossary of key expressions used in spatial development policies in Europe, Lisbon.)

Ecosystem Services EcosystemsServicesaredescribedasastrategyfortheintegratedmanagementofland,waterandlivingresources thatpromotesconservationandsustainableuseinanequitableway,andwhichrecognisesthatpeoplewiththeir culturalandvariedsocialneeds,areanintegralpartofecosystems. (Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2007): The Ecosystem Concept and the Identification of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the English Policy Context. Review Paper to Defra, Project Code NR0107, 21pp)

Governance Theprocesswherebyelementsinsocietywieldpowerandauthority,andinfluenceandenactpoliciesanddecisions concerningpublic life,andeconomicandsocialdevelopment. It isabroadernotionthangovernment involving interactionbetweenformalinstitutionsandthoseofcivilsociety. (The Governance Working Group of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences 1996)

GreenInfrastructure Astrategicallyplannedanddeliverednetworkofhighqualitygreenspacesandotherenvironmental features. It shouldbedesignedandmanagedasamultifunctionalresourcecapableofdeliveringawiderangeofenvironmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. GI includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotmentsandgardens.(Natural England)

Green Lungs Anareaofgreenspaceinatownorcityconsideredintermsofthehealthierenvironmentitprovides.

GreenSpace Aplotof vegetated landseparatingor surroundingareasof intensive residential or industrial useanddevoted primarilytorecreationalorparkuses.(EEA Glossary of key terms)

Infrastructure Thebasicnetworkor foundationofcapital facilitiesorcommunity investmentswhicharenecessary tosupport economicandcommunityactivities.(EEA)

67Appendix 3

ImplementationLabs TheImplementationLab(IL)isaninteractivesessioninwhichhostpartnersworktogetheronthespotwithproject partnersandtopicalexperts.TheImplementationLabismeanttogivemomentumto local/regionalprojectsby implementing concepts like Multifunctional and Intensive Land Use (MILU), combining local knowledge with externalexpertiseandultimatelygainingafreshperspectiveandpotentiallygeneratenewideasand/orapproaches. (International Federation of Housing and Planning - http://www.ifhp.org/content/implementation-labs)

Land-use Plans Land-useplanningcreatespoliciesatthelocal/municipallevelthatguidehowtheland(insidetheadministrative bordersofamunicipality)anditsresourceswillbeused.Themaininstrumentof land-useplanningiszoningor zoningordinances,respectively.Land-useplanningissituatedbelowtheregionalplanninglevel. (ESPON Glossary of key terms)

Land-useplanningisabranchofpublicpolicywhichencompassesvariousdisciplinesseekingtoorderandregulate theuseof landinanefficientways.Itmeansthescientific,aestheticandorderlydispositionof land,resources, facilitiesandserviceswithaviewtosecuringthephysical,economic,socialandenvironmentalefficiency,health andwell-beingofurbanandruralcommunities.(CEMAT Glossary)

Mono-functionality Functioningwithonefocus,purposeorgoal.

Multifunctional Describesadiversityofactivitiesoccupyingthesameoradjoiningspace.

NGO A non-governmental organization is a legally constituted organization created by natural or legal persons that operatesindependentlyfromanyformofgovernment.

NIMBY Termreferringtothestatement‘notinmybackyard’wheresomeoneoranorganisationmaysupportaproposalin principal,butnotiftheyaretosacrificeontheirpart.

Peri-UrbanAreas Areasinsomeformoftransitionfromstrictlyruraltourban.Theseareasoftenformtheimmediateurban-ruralinterface andmayeventuallyevolveintobeingfullyurban.Peri-urbanareasareplaceswherepeoplearekeycomponents: theyarelived-inenvironments.Themajorityofperi-urbanareasareonthefringeofestablishedurbanareas,but theymayalsobeclustersofresidentialdevelopmentwithinrurallandscapes.Peri-urbanareasaremostfrequently anoutputoftheprocessofsub-urbanisationorurbansprawl.(CEMAT)

Real Estate Propertyconsistingoflandand/orbuildings.

Rurban Describingtheruralandurban–whereruralandurbanmeetbutitishardtodefineifthespaceissolelyurbanorif itisrural.

Rural-Urban Fringe Transitional zones between distinctly urban and unambiguously rural areas. (Simon, D., ‘Urban Environments; Issues on the peri-urban fringe’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol 33)

SME Smallormediumsizedenterprisesusuallydefinedbyworkforce,turnoverandindependence.Whendefinedby workforce,smallbusinessesemploylessthan50andmediumlessthan250employees.(Europa Glossary)


SpatialPlanning Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the developmentanduseoflandwithotheramenitiesandinfrastructureandincludesthemethodsusedbythepublic sectortoinfluencethedistributionofpeopleandactivitiesinspacesatvariousscalesaswellasthelocationofthe various infrastructures, recreation and nature areas. Spatial planning activities are carried out at different administrativeorgovernmentallevels(local,regional,national),whileactivitiesofcooperationinthisfieldarealso implementedincross-border,transnationalandEuropeancontexts.(CEMAT)

“Regional/spatial planning gives geographical expression to the economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society. It is at the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy developed as an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical organisation of space according to an overall strategy.” ‘Torremolinos Charter,’1983(CEMAT)

Thesystematicassessmentoflandandwaterpotential,alternativepatternsoflanduseandotherphysical,social andeconomicconditionsforthepurposeofselectingandadoptingland-useoptionswhicharemostbeneficialto landuserswithoutdegradingtheresourcesorenvironment.

Stakeholder Aninstitution,organisationorgroupthathassomeinterestinaparticularsectororsystem. (EEA)

Suburbia Usedas the terminology todefine theurban fringe/peri-urbanenvironmentwithin theFreeandHanseaticCity ofHamburg.

SustainableDevelopment Developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeet theirownneeds. (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)

SWOT AstrategicplanningmethodusedtoevaluateStrengths,Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandThreats

Urban Fringe Anurbanfringe isanarea inbetweenruralandurbanwithmultifunctionalspacesandcomplexstructures.The urbanfringecansometimesbereferredtoastheoutskirtsofatownorcityorasanurbanhinterland.Anurban fringeispredominantlyopenlandontheedgeofasettlement.

Thezoneoftransitionandinterfacebetweentownandcountrywhereabroadvarietyoflandusesandactivities cometogetherandwheredevelopmentpressureisoftenintense.(Gallent, N. et al., 2004)

[Someofficialdefinitionsaremoreminimaliste.g.aresidentialdistrictsituatedontheoutskirtsofacityortown. (15b)e.g.predominantlyopenlandontheedgeofanexistingurbanarea(UK Planning Portal Glossary of Planning Terms)]

Urbanscape Thetraits,patternsandstructureofacity’sspecificgeographicarea,includingitsbiologicalcomposition,itsphysical environmentanditssocialpatterns.(TOE)

UrbanOverspill Elementsoftheurbanenvironmentstretchingintothesurroundingurbanfringe/peri-urbanarea.

UrbanSprawl Theuncontrolledorunplannedextensionofurbanareasintothecountryside.(EEA)

69Appendix 3

Appendix4

REFERENCES

1. Gallent,N.etal2004.InspiringEngland’sUrbanFringes:Multi-functionalityandPlanning,LocalEnvironment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability,9:3,217-233

2. Brandt,J.&Vejre,H.2003.MultifunctionalLandscapes-Motives,ConceptsandPerspectives,in:J.Brandt &H.Vejre(Eds)Multifunctional Landscapes. Volume 1: Theory, History and Values(Southampton,WITPress) citedinGallent,N.etal, (2004)

3. EuropeanCommission2009.White Paper Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for ActionBrussels.Availableat http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0147:FIN:EN:PDF(Accessedon5/5/2012)

4. http://www.purple-eu.org/home/events/speeches/

5. StrootmanandRadar,2011.UrbanFringes:Network,RegioTwente

6. AberdeenCityandShireStrategicDevelopmentPlanningAuthority(2009). Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan

7. Sepp,DennisandKok2010.Onderzoek demografische veranderingen Twente. De invloed van demografische veranderingen op de ruimtelijke ontwikkeling van de Twentse gemeenten. (Inventory of Demographic Changes in the Region of Twente. The influence of demographic changes on the spatial development in municipalities in the region of Twente).Yacht,Hengelo.

8. Meijers2011.‘IntegratingtheFragmentedMetropolis’,papertoForumofFederations&Committeeofthe Regions(2011),pp.95-110

9. ESDP,1999–EuropeanSpatialDevelopmentPerspective–TowardsBalancedandSustainableDevelopment oftheTerritoryoftheEuropeanUnion.PublishedbytheEuropeanCommission

10. Baert,T2011.‘CitiesCooperatingBeyondtheirBoundaries’papertoForumofFederations&Committeeof theRegions(2011)pp.125-134

11. METREX 2011.Urban-rural Relationships in Metropolitan Areas of Influence: Best Practice Examples of Metropolitan-rural Cooperation,Hamburg,MinistryofEconomy,Transport&Innovation

12. SURFApplication,InterrgIVB,2009


Additionalsourcesreferenced:• DeBruijn enLier 2009.Economischeeffecten stadsrandgebied, ( Economic effects in theurban fringes), KenniscentrumDuurzameleefomgevingSaxion

• Nieuwemelkkoeienindestal,(Newmilkcowsinthestable),Bügge,Lier,Eijsink,Schuerink,2011Kenniscentrum DuurzameleefomgeingSaxion

• Bügge,Lier,Eijsink,Schuerink,2011.Nieuwemelkkoeienindestal,(NewMilkcowsintheStable),Kenniscentrum DuurzameleefomgeingSaxion

• LeaderZuidTwenterendementvanprojecteneindrapportage:(LeaderSouthTwenteProfitofProjectsFinal Report) byLier,deBruijnDeterdOudeWemeSaxionKenniscentrumLeefomgevingMarch2012 ISSNnr 1872–441812

• ForumofFederations&CommitteeoftheRegions(2011)GovernanceofMetropolitanRegions:Europeanand GlobalExperiences,ReportofaWorkshopBrusselsJune20-21,2011

• HaughtonandAllmendinger2008.TheSoftSpacesofLocalEconomicDevelopment,LocalEconomy,23(2), pp.138-148

• Herrschel andNewman2002.GovernanceofEurope’sCityRegions:Planning,Policy&Politics, London, Routledge

• LawsandRein2003.ReframingPractice,in:Hayer,M.andWagenaar,H.(eds)DeliberativePolicyAnalysis: UnderstandingGovernanceinaNetworkSociety,pp.172-206(CambridgeUP)

• Leinfelder2009.‘Formalisationof‘OpenSpace’as‘PublicSpace’inZoning’:theBelgianExperience’,invan derValk,A&vanDijk,T.(eds)RegionalPlanningforOpenSpace,London,RTPILibrarySeries,pp.225-247

• SURF Project 2010. The SURFConceptual & Analytical Framework; InterimOutput ofWork Package 3, producedbytheScientificPartners,Leeds,LeedsMetropolitanUniversity

• ThomasandLittlewood2010.FromGreenBeltstoGreenInfrastructure?TheEvolutionofaNewConceptin theEmergingSoftGovernanceofSpatialStrategies,PlanningPracticeandResearch,25(2)203-222

• Scott2001.GlobalCity-Regions,OxfordUniversityPress

• Haines-YoungandPotschin2007.TheEcosystemConceptandtheIdentificationofEcosystemGoodsand ServicesintheEnglishPolicyContext.ReviewPapertoDefra,ProjectCodeNR0107,21pp

• Simon, 2008, ‘Urban Environments; Issues on the peri-urban fringe’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources,Vol33)

71Appendix 4

Connecting Urban and Rural Report

Documents

Transcript of Connecting Urban and Rural Report