Retrofitting for resilience: green infrastructure and its impact on urban health

RETROFITTING FOR RESILIENCE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON URBAN HEALTH

By Anvita Linnea Sodermark MSc Urban Design University of Strathclyde

RETROFITTING FOR RESILIENCE: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON URBAN HEALTH

By Anvita Linnea Sodermark MSc Urban Design University of Strathclyde

August 2020 Word count: 13061

ABSTRACT In recent years, green infrastructure has become a commonly used urban design tool providing multi-faceted benefits, including the improvement of environmental-, mental-, and physical health, resilience, and increased social interactions. Consequently, understanding how to implement such a tool in the spatial constraints of dense and historic cities while improving the health of city populations is interesting. Retrofitting may be considered as a low resource-intensive solution to urban development which itself has many adverse environmental outcomes. As local authorities and urban practitioners are becoming more interested in the long-term success of urban development, the research looks further into resilient urban design, recommending retrofitting rather than redevelopment.

Consequently, the purpose of this research is to examine the impact of green infrastructure on urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience. The research realises the following four objectives: (1) To explore seminal literature surrounding green infrastructure, resilience, and urban health within urban design; (2) To establish an understanding of the Avenues project and their impact on urban health using Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow as a case study; (3) To evaluate the Avenues project in conjunction to its impact on health in the area surrounding Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow; and (4) To recommend suggestions for local authorities and urban practitioners to better promote health through green infrastructure in dense and historic UK cities.

The research is centred around mapping the health impacts of the Avenues project in Glasgow, UK. This project retrofits one of the main shopping streets in Glasgow, namely Sauchiehall Street, by implementing street trees and segregated active travel routes. The research focuses strictly on mapping aspects of the street network in the surrounding area to signify impact on health and combats oversimplifying the complicated concept of health. Furthermore, the research observes outcomes from this retrofit, utilising a thematic analysis framework to evaluate the descriptive and visual data gathered about the Avenues project.

Findings from this study show that the project has had a positive impact concerning the urban form, encouraging active travel, traffic calming, the vibrancy of the street, beautification, wider community, and planning initiatives of the city. However, it was less successful in connecting other forms of green infrastructure and providing environmental benefits. Finally, the research recommends, local authorities and urban practitioners to, pose nine questions which aid in starting the assessment of their own retrofitting projects.

DECLARATION Declaration of Authorship

AB947 Dissertation project

Declaration

“I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and has been composed by myself. It contains no unacknowledged text and has not been submitted in any previous context. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information, text, illustration, tables, images etc. have been specifically acknowledged.

I accept that if having signed this Declaration my work should be found at Examination to show evidence of academic dishonesty the work will fail and I will be liable to face the University Senate Discipline Committee.�

Name:

Anvita Linnea Sodermark _____________________________________________________________

Signed: _____________________________________________________________

Date:

14/8/2020 _____________________________________________________________

Similarity score: 5%

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing this piece was undoubtedly challenging to complete in lockdown (COVID-19) due to the limited availability of literary sources and my confined workspace. Therefore, I want to thank several people for their support throughout this process. I want to extend acknowledgements to Dr Sergio Porta for his excellent advice. Lastly, I want to thank Emma, Sarah, Carys, and Hamish for their continuous encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

INTRODUCTION

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Rationale 1.2 Aims and objectives 1.3 Method 1.4 Thesis structure

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Green infrastructure

2.2.1 Overview 2.2.2 Defining green infrastructure 2.2.3 Origin 2.2.4 Types 2.2.5 Benefits 2.2.6 Considerations

2.3.1 Overview 2.3.2 Defining resilience 2.3.3 Urban resilience 2.3.4 Considerations 2.3.5 Recommendations

2.4.1 Overview 2.4.2 Background 2.4.3 Urban health trends 2.4.4 Urban health initiatives 2.4.5 Considerations 2.4.6 Recommendations

2.3 Resilience

2.4 Urban health

2.5 Conclusion

3

METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Research design 3.2.1 Approach

3.2.2 Case study 3.2.3 Analysis

3.3 Limitations 3.4 Conclusion

4

CASE STUDY 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Glasgow 4.2.1 Overview

4.3 Sauchiehall Street

4.3.1 4.3.2

Case study area Avenues project

4.4 Mapping health 4.5 Conclusion

5

FINDINGS

6

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

7

REFERENCES

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Green infrastructure 5.3 Direct impact on health 5.4 Indirect impact on health 5.5 Conclusion

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Recommendations 6.3 Aims and objectives 6.4 Limitations 6.5 Further research

7.1 Bibliography 7.2 List of illustrations 7.3 List of tables

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 RATIONALE The built environment has a poor impact on human, environmental and social health, which is widely recognisable in urban literature (Lawrence & Fudge, 2009; Siri, 2016).

Since over half of the world’s population live in cities, the health of people is undoubtedly essential to explore (Galea & Vlahov, 2005). Moreover, urbanisation has exacerbated stressors to health, e.g. higher greenhouse gases (GHGs), extreme weathers, and excess creation of waste (Lawrence & Fudge, 2009). As a result, practices to improve the city population’s health need to consider the detrimental impact on environmental health that follows urbanisation.

Ecological thinking has, since the 20th century, become part of mainstream urban research (Pincetl, 2012; Green et al., 2016). Within this trend, the notion of resilient urban design allows cities to prepare for future conditions (Dowling et al., 2014). While there are contradictory theories in whether urban development is ecologically advantageous: Green Infrastructure (GI) provides benefits such as lower urban heat island, improve mental health, encourage active travel, and reduce air and noise pollution (Wu & Wu, 2013; Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Gill et al., 2007; Scottish Government, 2011).

Implementing sufficient GI in cities is dependent on multiple variables including, e.g. economic viability, safety concerns, funding, or contention from local authorities (UK Green Building Council, 2015; Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020).

Consequently, GI may not be easily implemented in cities with a higher value of land or strict policies on heritage conservation (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012; Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). A more resilient alternative to urban redevelopment is retrofitting the existing urban form (Dowling et al., 2014).

Consequently, there is a need to understand how GI can impact urban health in efforts to retrofit cities in the context of resilience.

1

1.2

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This research utilises the rationale to propose further the aim and objectives used throughout this paper. As noted above, this pertains to whether GI can impact urban health, especially under spatial limitations, which ensures the GI project is a retrofit and not a redevelopment. The key concepts in this research can be further understood in figure 1.

To clarify the trajectory of this research, see the aims and objectives below.

Aim: To examine the impact of green infrastructure on urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience.

Objective 1: To explore seminal literature surrounding green infrastructure, resilience, and urban health within urban design.

Objective 2: To establish an understanding of the Avenues project and their impact on urban health using Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow as a case study.

Objective 3: To evaluate the Avenues project in conjunction with its impact on health in the area surrounding Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow.

Objective 4: To recommend suggestions for local authorities and urban practitioners to better promote health through green infrastructure in dense and historic UK cities.

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

PRINCIPLE

RESILIENCE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

URBAN HEALTH RETROFITTING PRACTICE

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

Figure 1. Visualising the research concepts.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

AIM: TO

EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE

ON

URBAN

HEALTH

IN

EFFORTS TO RETROFIT CITIES FOR RESILIENCE

OBJECTIVE 1:

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE

2

TO

EXPLORE

SURROUNDING

SEMINAL GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE, RESILIENCE, AND URBAN HEALTH WITHIN URBAN DESIGN.

OBJECTIVE

2:

TO

ESTABLISH

AN

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

1.3 METHOD The research uses a case study to outline how GI may impact urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience. This research sets in the spatial context of Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow, UK, as this is a dense and historic area of the city. This research utilises an observational approach to answer the research question, as it observes the real impact on urban health. Additionally, the research question is explanatory and uses an inductive approach to collecting and analysing data for the case study. The Avenues project is a recent GI project in Glasgow for which Sauchiehall Street was the pilot. The addition of this project is analysed to understand how GI can impact urban health. This research defines the street network, street hierarchy, and active travel routes as the urban health characteristic in this research to combat oversimplification of the concept itself. The research uses urban mapping as the main form of data collection to visualise GI and their connections to urban health. The conjunction of descriptive data and urban maps are analysed.

1.4

THESIS STRUCTURE

This section outlines the structure of the paper following this introductory chapter.

Chapter 2 serves as the theoretical framework used in the following chapters. It firstly discusses the challenges in defining the concept, its origin, benefits, and considerations for applying GI in urban design practice in the UK. Secondly, the chapter explores resilience in an urban context, considerations, and recommendations for resilient urban design. Thirdly, the chapter discusses urban health, its background, urban health trends, considerations, and recommendations of promoting urban health in urban design practice. Lastly, the chapter concludes by stating assumptions gathered throughout the chapter.

Chapter 3 outlines the used methodology of this research. It discusses in depth the research design, methods of data collection, selection of case study, and limitations specifically concerning the research question asked throughout this research. By doing so, it allows for this research to be easily understood and reflective.

Chapter 4 summarises the case study utilised in this research, namely the Avenues project implemented on Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, UK. The chapter outlines descriptions of the selected area, notable statistics, and maps which visualise GI and their connection to urban health on a city-wide and street-level scale. The following chapter uses this chapter as a framework for representing data.

Chapter 5 evaluates the Avenues project using Chapter 4 as a foundation for analysis. The chapter looks at the impact of the project on the GI network. Following this, the chapter evaluates the direct impact on health, focusing on the impacts on the street network and the health implications that follow. Lastly, the chapter discusses the indirect impacts on

3

SPATIAL CONTEXT: DENSE AND HI

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

URBAN HEALTH RETROFITTING PRACTICE

health, looking closely at the impact on the wider community, governance, and planning issues. Literature from Chapter 2 theoretically supports the findings from this chapter.

SPATIAL CONTEXT:this DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES SPATIAL DENSE HISTORIC Chapter 6 concludes research.

Firstly, it discusses how thisCONTEXT: research hasAND achieved itsCITIES objectives. Secondly, the chapther outlines recommendations on how to better promote health through GI projects in the context of dense and historic settings. The findings from Chapter 2 and 4 supplements this chapter. This research discusses its limitations using Chapter 3 as a guide to assess the claims made in the previous chapter.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

AIM: TO

EXAMINE THE IMPACT OF GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE

ON

URBAN

HEALTH

IN

EFFORTS TO RETROFIT CITIES FOR RESILIENCE

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

OBJECTIVE 1: LITERATURE

TO

EXPLORE

SEMINAL

SURROUNDING

GREEN

INFRASTRUCTURE, RESILIENCE, AND URBAN HEALTH WITHIN URBAN DESIGN.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE

2:

TO

UNDERSTANDING OF THE

ESTABLISH

AVENUES

AN

PROJECT

AND THEIR IMPACT ON URBAN HEALTH USING

SAUCHIEHALL STREET, GLASGOW AS A CASE STUDY

CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY

OBJECTIVE 3: TO EVALUATE THE AVENUES PROJECT IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITS IMPACT ON HEALTH IN THE AREA SURROUNDING

SAUCHIEHALL STREET, GLASGOW

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS OBJECTIVE

4:

TO

RECOMMEND

SUGGESTIONS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND URBAN PRACTITIONERS TO BETTER PROMOTE HEALTH THROUGH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION

DENSE AND HISTORIC

Figure 2. Thesis structure and its ties to the research aims and objectives.

4

UK CITIES

EXT: DENSE AND HISTORIC CITIES

RESILIENCE

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter aims to explore seminal literature surrounding green infrastructure, resilience, urban health within the context of urban design; achieving the first objective of this research. Based on an understanding of these concepts, conclusions will be made regarding the potential of GI to positively impact urban health in dense and historic cities through retrofitting practices driven by resilience.

2.2

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

2.2.1 Overview This section uncovers the concept of GI in an urban context. It discusses the difficulties in defining the term, origin, types, benefits, and considerations for GI application in the UK. 2.2.2

Defining green infrastructure

“Practitioners do not know whether green infrastructure is a philosophy or a tree, when in effect it could be both of these things.” (Wright, 2011, p.1012) The task of defining green infrastructure is becoming increasingly complex (UK Green Building Council, 2015; Wright, 2011). Various researchers, governmental bodies, and practitioners have attempted to define the term (Wright, 2011). The European Commission’ (2013, p. 3) definition of GI is:

“A strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings.”

Most research agrees on three core principles repeated throughout various definitions, namely multi-functionality, connectedness, and a “green” approach (Wright, 2011; Mell, 2017). GI can be described as a tangible product to design, an example of designing for sustainable development, an approach in built environment work, and natural features that already exists in our cities (European Commision, 2013; Benedict & McMahon, 2006; UK Green Building Council, 2015; Gill et al., 2007).

5

2.2.3 Origin The origin of GI explains the concept well (Mell, 2017; Wright, 2011). Mell (2017) writes about the past, present, and future of GI, outlining the primary literature which has helped shape the concept. Wu & Wu (2013) argue that the merging of urban design and ecological thinking has not been effortless since human decisions mostly provided adverse outcomes on an ecological standpoint. Nevertheless, preceding and well-known concepts such as garden cities, new towns, sustainable urbanism, have undoubtedly influenced its development (Pincetl, 2012; Wright, 2011; Mell, 2017).

Wright (2011) notes how the interpretation and application of the concept differ in the US and UK. In the US, Benedict and McMahon (2006) coined the term and published the most established literature on GI. Their work is contextualised in the UK, although responding to different GI needs. Primarily, they adopt socio-economic views on GI and developed the GI approach (Mell, 2017). It includes the compilation of various types of green and natural features, and the combined approach to connecting these features to facilitate ecosystems services and conservation of natural spaces. In the UK, Davies et al. (2006) published work that serves as a foundation for future GI literature. Similarly to Benedict & McMahon (2006), their work showcases an informative narrative, and explains the types of GI, implementation, and studied through geographical studies (Davies, et al., 2006).

2.2.4 Types Literature discusses multiple types of GI. Since the definition of GI is open to interpretation, the following figure (3) does not show the comprehensive account of all types of GI that exist. The graphic is a summary of all types of GI noted by the UK Green Building Council (2015), Natural England (2009) and Eaton (2018).

6

Figure 3. Types of GI (UK Green Building Council, 2015; Natural England, 2009; Eaton, 2018)

7

2.2.5 Benefits GI is multifunctional, and consequently has numerous benefits to cities. Compiling research from UK Green Building Council (2015), Benedict & McMahon (2006), Building Better Building Beautiful Commission (2020), Eaton (2018), European Commission (2013), Gill et al. (2007), Green et al. (2016), a comprehensive outlook on the benefits of GI can be seen in figure 4.

BENEFITS OF GI

1

RESILIENCE Green Infrastructure provides carbon storage, shelter from extreme weather, stormwater drainage, urban heat reduction, energy savings, and local timber supply.

3

SOCIAL

5

HEALTH

Green infrastructure provides environments for social gathering, improved connections between communities, areas for learning and growing food, and volunteering opportunities

Green Infrastructure promotes physcial activity, active travel, healing natures which improve mental health, healthy and locally sourced food

2

ENVIRONMENT Green Infrastructure provides a reduction in pollution through SUDs, species movement, protection of aquatic species, biodiversity, and diverse and well-connected habitats.

4

ECONOMIC

6

PLACE MAKING

Figure 4. Benefits of GI (Scottish Government, 2011).

8

Green Infrastructure provides an increase in property values, improved appearance of places, viability to development proposals, cheaper alternative to grey stormwater management, and attracts businesses

Green Infrastructure promotes identity, attractiveness and landscape character of places

2.2.6 Considerations A common trend in GI literature is around the various considerations in the concept’s definition, approach and implementation, and valuation (Wright, 2011; UK Green Building Council, 2015; Eaton, 2018; Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020; Green et al., 2016) Firstly, Wright (2011) argues that the definition of GI should be ambiguous to encourage future development of the concept. For instance, recent developments in literature show the impact of GI on resilience. Wright (2011) further notes that practitioners in the built environment see GI as a corruptible concept as it is easily misunderstood, e.g. through the utilitarian understanding of traditional forms of infrastructure. Wright’s (2011) main argument for embracing the ambiguousness of the term is due to its uneven priority on socio-economic benefits instead of its environmental benefits. Notably, an environmental focus and socio-economic focus of GI is prioritised, in theoretical literature and grey literature, respectively (Wright, 2011). Accounting for this, this paper will adopt an open approach to GI and its definition to add to the existing green infrastructure literature.

GI literature recommends a holistic approach (UK Green Building Council, 2015; Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). This could be completed by acknowledging the issues and apply the appropriate solution. Eaton’s (2018) research examines the best combinations of various GI types and how to maximise benefits in surface water runoff reduction. The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (2020) outlines ways in which GI implementation is not effective, namely: token planting, sightlines, solving poor urban form, low funding, uncooperating local authorities, and conflicting with existing utilities. Doing so can result in feelings of unsafety, and tensions between communities and local authorities (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). Lastly, Pincetl (2013) considers if ecological services in a city are different to those in a forest and if ecological services such as tree planting can be adequately designed and planned in a manner which provides the benefits that a forest can. Consequently, there is scope to study the ecological value of GI in cities and whether it can be adequately delivered in higher density areas.

Valuing GI may be lucrative when implementing it in urban design practice to understand environmental, economic, and social benefits better. UK Green Building Council (2015) note four types of values of GI, namely: direct, indirect, cost reduction and resilience management. Green et al. (2016) outline GI’s value in resilience management. Nonetheless, they strongly advise against monetising GI as it may diminish the indirect values of the social and environmental benefits mentioned beforehand.

9

2.3 RESILIENCE 2.3.1 Overview This section uncovers the concept of resilience in an urban context. It discusses its definition, urban context, considerations, and recommendations for urban design practice.

2.3.2

Defining resilience

Resilience as a concept is challenging to define as it is widespread across multiple disciplines such as sociology, engineering, and psychology (Lennon et al., 2014; Wu & Wu, 2013). Due to this, the current understanding of resilience often abandons its ecological origin (Wu & Wu, 2013). Holling’s (1973, p. 14) definition of ecological resilience reads “measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables”. Lennon et al. (2014) discuss the second definition of resilience which focuses on returning to the equilibrium state following a disturbance. Their difference lies in the ability to cope with the given disturbance, where ecological resilience adopts and readjusts to the disturbance, and promotes a positive view on future change (Lennon et al., 2014).

Illustrating resilience allows for a better understanding of the concept and its stages.

Stable states may be known as basins of attraction or regimes, and in ecological resilience, the principle lies in the existence of multiple regimes. The disturbance or change which Holling (1973) notes is better known as a regime shift and is known as the shift from one stable state to another as seen in figure 5 (Wu & Wu, 2013). Moreover, Holling’s (1973) ecological resilience is better understood in an urban context as it accounts for multiple regimes and ability to adapt to regime shifts (Lennon et al., 2014; Wu & Wu, 2013) 2.3.4

Urban resilience

Since the 20th century, there has been a shift in interest towards sustainability with the publication of various reports, e.g. Our Common Future by the Brundtland Commission and Agenda 21 by the UN (Pincetl, 2012). In urban design, works such as Garden Cities by Ebenezer Howard and Broadacre city by Frank Lloyd Wright signified the shifting trend in ecological interest (Howard, 1985; Legates & Stout, 2011). Consequently, understanding the underlying concepts of sustainability such as resilience in an urban context has been vital for researchers to evaluate design decisions, where the valuation of ecological services often occurred in the start of the 21st century (Pincetl, 2012; UK Green Building Council, 2015; Green et al., 2016).

There has been much debate about whether a city is an organism or an ecosystem.

However, viewing the city as a system or urban metabolism is deemed by ecologists too simplistic. Therefore, the city is better understood in ecological terms as an ecosystem; in this sense, resilience and its multiple stages can be easily understood in this context.

10

1

A resilient city which may experience a regime shift if a disaster occurs

2

A less resilient city due to disasters e.g. environmental degredation, inequalities etc.

4

An un-resilient city, with e.g. poor environmental conditions, crime, and soulless streets

THRESHOLD

BASIN B BASIN A

3

A city which suffers from substantial violence, poverty, civil unrest etc.

REGIME SHIFT

Figure 5. Regime shifts and their application in an urban context, adapted from Wu & Wu (2013).

Alberti et al. (2003) discuss urban resilience as “the degree to which cities tolerate alteration before reorganising around a new set of structures and processes”, building on Holling’s (1973) ecological definition. Since cities experience disturbances similar to other ecosystems, resilience theory allows for the adequate incorporation of ecological ideas into urban design theory and practice (Wu & Wu, 2013).

2.3.5 Considerations There are several considerations to applying resilience theory in an urban context. Firstly, the debate of cities being ‘of nature’ or ‘in nature’ shapes the understanding of cities and their elements. Wu & Wu (2013) argue that cities are socio-ecological systems, which is supported by ecological services, i.e. the city is ‘in nature’. They further argue that urban development and its consequential loss in ecological services reduces the city’s resilience and investing in ecological services is the way resilient cities can be built.

Contrastingly, Pincetl (2012) argues that thinking of cities as nature, built from natural resources such as minerals, sand and metal allows us to understand the dependence on earth’s resources, services, and the ecological cycles which govern environmental regimes and their shifts.

11

Secondly, there is a dissonance between urban resilience policy and the principles surrounding urban resilience, as noted above. Eames et al. (2013) note that reaching zero carbon targets to improve urban resilience is not enough; instead, they recommend a systemic change in cities to promote anthropogenic aspects of urban resilience such as health and economic security. Additionally, there is not an adequate framework for placing resilience in practice (Eames et al., 2013). Pincetl (2012) argues that resilience, coupled with reduced public funding, may bring about a new way of governance with businesses, the community, and non-profit organisations have influence. In addition to these disparities, improving resilience may be further challenged as existing building codes, and public health policy may be resistant to change (McLeod, 2020).

Despite the debate surrounding urban resilience, cities are a human product with human intentionality; therefore, urban policymakers and practitioners can improve resilience in cities (Pincetl, 2012). Eames et al. (2013) suggest exploring historic changes and their impact on the built environment. Transition management has emerged from issues surrounding resilience and sustainability in cities (Eames et al., 2013). One strategy from managing resilience is ‘backcasting’, which refers to setting a vision for the future and looking backwards to form a strategy to reach the vision. Wu & Wu (2013) argue that the urban development process should nonetheless tackle all social, economic, and environmental issues as they overlap with urban resilience issues.

2.3.6 Recommendations While it is difficult to respond to uncertainty in the built environment, it can also be seen as a driver for change (Rotmans, 2006). Eames et al. (2013) argue for a systemic and long-term approach to addressing uncertainty, with urban retrofitting as the most appropriate approach. Retrofitting is defined as the “direct alteration of the fabric, form or systems which comprise the built environment in order to improve energy, water and waste efficiencies” (Eames, 2011, p. 2). Retrofitting especially in dense and historic cities is important for resilience purposes; however, the challenge in this are strict regulations in place to changing the built environment (McLeod, 2020; Novotny, 2013).

It is essential to challenge the existing built environment and alter it to better suit the various national, regional, and local resilience strategies and goals that are in place (Eames et al., 2013). However, Naess & Vogel (2012) write that enabling change in the built environment is difficult and robust policies are key in doing so. Contrastingly, McLeod (2020) argues for small interventions to be made by communities to increase resilience in cities. They suggest interventions such as painting rooftops white or planting rooftop gardens. Notably, nature-based solutions such as rooftop gardens are preferred as it provides benefits to the environmental cycles (McLeod, 2020). Notably, Dowling et al. (2014) discuss that retrofitting is a social and technological issue as it involves, e.g. individuals, neighbourhoods, urban form, local authorities, energy production, and building stock. Consequently, retrofitting practices adopted throughout several disciplines, including urban design may benefit cities and their resilience (Eames et al., 2013; Dowling et al., 2014; Naess & Vogel, 2012).

12

Retrofitting in urban design may differ. Lennon et al. (2014) note that green infrastructure project may be an example of retrofitting in urban design as there are challenges in mitigating flooding in dense and ‘grey’ cities. Additionally, Retrofit2050 is an example of a British organisation aiming to develop knowledge around the practice of retrofitting the built environment (Eames, et al., 2013). Whilst there are many ways of retrofitting a city, they have developed three visions of a retrofitted city, namely the: smart-networked city, compact city, self-reliant green city (figure 6). Within these visions, there are different approaches and outcomes to the retrofitted city, e.g. the smart-networked city involves little change to urban form whereas the self-reliant city requires a high change to urban form to sustain food growing. In this paper, green infrastructure projects and the compact city vision will be explored further.

SMART CITY Little change to urban form No change to density Energy efficient Market-oriented Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to understand resource use

COMPACT CITY Moderate change to urban form Higher density City-wide energy production Localist Recovery of resources

SELF-RELIANT CITY

High change to urban form Lower density Reduction in energy demand Collectivist Fully circular approach

Figure 6. Variations to retrofitted cities, based on descriptions from Wu & Wu (2013).

13

2.4

URBAN HEALTH

2.4.1 Overview This section explores health in an urban design context by looking at the concept’s background, trends in cities, local practices, considerations, and recommendations for urban health, specifically through an urban design lens.

2.4.2 Background Health has become an ongoing issue in urban design theory and practice due to urbanisation and the challenges that emerge from this shift (Galea & Vlahov, 2005; United Nations, 2017). Urban health operates on several scales of intervention ranging from global to local scale (Forsyth, 2020). For instance, on a regional scale, health issues may relate to mortality rates, whereas on a local scale, the health issue may be inadequate green space. Forsyth (2020) notes that it is crucial to acknowledge the scale of intervention of urban health to better address health issues. As this paper focuses on the green infrastructural projects and its impact on urban health, considering the local level in depth.

Health is rooted in multiple disciplines, such as medicine, psychology, and sociology (Forsyth, 2020). Due to this, there may be disparities in how the concept is approached and practised. In urban design theory, the concept includes a wide variety of practices such as place-based, people-based, cross-disciplinary, and systems-based approaches (Galea & Vlahov, 2005; Forsyth, 2020; Barton, et al., 2003; Siri, 2016). Barton et al. (2003) argue that a systems-based approach provides the most holistic comprehension of urban health issues which works on various scales of intervention. Chapter 3 includes further evaluation of approaches considered for this research.

Forsyth (2020) notes that health is challenging to define due to its many uses. The most notable definition of health was provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2020, p.1) which states that “health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. This definition explains the principles of health and is applicable in numerous disciplines and scales of intervention.

2.4.3

Urban health trends

The global population residing in cities is increasing, along with congestion and increased consumption and use of natural resources (Galea & Vlahov, 2005). These trends magnify environmental detriment, e.g. increased greenhouse gas emissions, sea level, extreme weather, and waste (Siri, 2016; Lawrence & Fudge, 2009). Additionally, they note that a higher urban population may negatively impact mental, physical, and social wellbeing and lead to increased crime, disease, and obesity (Hague, 2016; Siri, 2016; Lawrence & Fudge, 2009; NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, 2014). Consequently, it is imperative to improve the health of city residents in addition to reducing the negative environmental impact (Barton et al., 2003; Galea & Vlahov, 2005). Locally, the built environment has an immense impact on health (NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, 2014; Barton

14

URBAN HEALTH AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1

Design Accessiblity Living conditions Mix and affordability Overcrowding, unhealthy living conditions, deaths due to interior temperatures, injuries, social isolation and poor mental health

3

2

HEALTHY HOUSING BUILT ENV.

HEALTH OUTCOME

Disturbance by construction and noise, respiratory disease, health risks due to contaminated land, physical illness, food poverty, fatalities due to overheating, and mental health benefits & physical activity from green space.

Walking and cycling Safety Connectivity Reducing car use Physical inactivity, physical illness, traffic accidents, poor mental health and social isolation, noise and air pollution

4

HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT Construction Pollution Recreational space Biodiversity Food growing Regulation

ACTIVE TRAVEL

BUILT ENV.

HEALTH OUTCOME

BUILT ENV.

HEALTH OUTCOME

VIBRANT NEIGHBOURHOODS Healthcare Cultural infrastructure Employment opportunites Affordable food shops Public buildings and spaces

Inequalities in accessing essential services, poor mental health due to unemployment & poverty, limited access to healthy food linked to poor health, physical inactivity, and social isolation

BUILT ENV.

HEALTH OUTCOME

Figure 7. The built environment and impact on urban health, adapted from NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (2014).

et al., 2003; Hague, 2016). See figure 7 for a comprehensive overview of how urban design issues impact health and wellbeing, adapted from the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (2014). Hague (2016) notes that mental health and inclusive design is an emerging trend in urban design. Here, planners and designers are getting increasingly aware of the importance of accessibility, green spaces, scenic-ness, and sense of place, especially in responding to needs of all age groups (Hague, 2016).

2.4.4

Urban health initiatives

Recognised health initiatives that operate on an urban level include, e.g. the UN’s Sustainable development goals, UN’s New Urban Agenda, and the WHO Healthy Cities initiative. This literature review will focus on works of the UN due to its governmental reach and implementation in the UK. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the

15

UN General Assembly (2015) encourages global and sustainable development through 17 goals. The goals that primarily focus on urban health are the ‘health and wellbeing’ goal (third) and the ‘sustainable cities and communities’ goal (11th). Nevertheless, as noted in figure 7, there are several components, e.g. education, which impacts health outcomes.

Additionally, the provision of healthy urban design may benefit other SDGs, as Vukmirovic et al. (2019) note that public spaces can positively impact five SDGs. Therefore, urban design practice should not neglect the complexity and interconnectedness of urban issues. In the UK, many local authorities have their measures and practices which aim to promote urban health, whether it is through people-based initiatives or place design.

Due to the UK signing onto the SDG’s many of the local initiatives focus on the delivery of these goals (Public Health England, 2018).

2.4.5 Considerations There are several considerations in delivering good health through urban design practices. With the shift towards privatisation in cities, health outcomes may worsen as returns on public health infrastructure are prioritised (Lawrence & Fudge, 2009; Siri, 2016). One of the main challenges of healthy urban design is access to funding and governmental interest in health issues (Forsyth, 2020). Because health initiatives are considered less profitable compared to other forms of development, they may be difficult to justify (Siri, 2016). Therefore, the timing of healthy urban design is critical to their implementation (Forsyth, 2020). Often when funding or interest is lost or targeted elsewhere, the provision of healthy urban design becomes compromised (Siri, 2016; Forsyth, 2020). Therefore, there is an interest in noting how private and public bodies can deliver satisfactory urban health benefits to cities and neighbourhoods, when funding may not be readily available (Siri, 2016).

It is essential to note the unequal wealth distribution and its impact on health outcomes in cities. Siri (2016) note how poor neighbourhoods often experience poorer health compared to wealthy areas. This pattern can be noted in several other measures such as low quality of life and deprivation (Siri, 2016). Consequently, it is necessary to consider systemic issues in neighbourhoods and tackle these in combination with healthy urban design.

2.4.6 Recommendations Based on the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (2014), there are several ways in which urban design can aid health. Four subsections of health can be observed in examining the impact urban developments have on health, namely: mental health, physical health, healthy environment, and healthy behaviour. Urban design techniques which bring the most health benefits should naturally be considered in the design process. Many of these include mixed-use developments, medium-high housing density, open green spaces, connectivity, accessibility, healthy food markets, local employment opportunities, safe streets, and affordability. Nevertheless, realising all these components of what makes a healthy city is challenging. Forsyth (2020) writes how a participatory approach to design and decision-making can aid in understanding communities’ needs.

16

By doing so, urban design practices should have a comprehensive knowledge of how to fulfull the requirements to better the populations’ health (Forsyth, 2020).

2.5 CONCLUSION The research in this literature review has explored seminal literature surrounding green infrastructure, resilience, urban health, and retrofitting practice within urban design theory. This chapter makes several conclusions throughout. Firstly, it can be concluded that resilience is a driver for change in cities. It is understood that retrofitting is the most sustainable way of improving global resilience, as it involves the reconstruction of existing cities. Secondly, it is understood that retrofitting may involve various urban design techniques, where nature-based solutions are praised highly for their multifaceted approach. Therefore, GI is a recommended design element to consider in the urban design process. Lastly, urban health is imperative to consider in urban design practice as the built environment directly impacts the wellbeing of communities in neighbourhoods and cities. It was found that the natural environment has a significant role in improving mental health, physical health, and healthy behaviours, e.g. an active lifestyle. Based on these conclusions, the following question can be asked? Can GI impact urban health in efforts retrofit cities for resilience? The subsequent chapters will aim to clear up the debate around this question within the scope of this research.

17

3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter outlines the methodology used in this research. It will discuss the research design, methods of data collection, and limitations with how it applies to the research question set out in this paper, namely “to examine the impact of green infrastructure on urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience�.

3.2

RESEARCH DESIGN

3.2.1 Approach The research question involves the understanding of urban health and GI. As noted in figure 7, the study of urban health is complex and requires a holistic approach where possible. However, such an approach may carry the risk of oversimplification.

Therefore, acknowledging the complexity of the concepts of interest ensures they are understandablewithin the spatial and time restraints of this research. An observational research design entails observation of a phenomenon in a real setting rather than a controlled setting (6 & Bellamy, 2012). An observation is suitable for this research as the real impact of health by GI is to be observed in a real setting. See figures 8 and 9 for a visual summary on the complexity of GI and urban health, using the literature review and the Place Standard as a guideline to understanding urban health (Scottish Government, 2020).

An explanatory research question is used when the researcher wishes to clarify an identified problem (Farthing, 2016). This research clarifies whether GI impacts health within the context of dense and historic cities by applying the explanatory approach.

Since the issue of urban health and GI are open to multiple factors, an explanatory approach is preferred to allow for understanding the significance of the relationships between GI, urban health, and resilience (Barton et al., 2003).

Explanatory research may apply an inductive or deductive approach (6 & Bellamy, 2012). While the deductive approach involves a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon, an inductive approach adopts an open-ended approach to developing an explanation (6 & Bellamy, 2012; Farthing, 2016). Because Wright (2011) notes that GI research should be open to interpretation to better contribute to the discourse around this subject, an inductive approach is more suitable. Due to the various factors involved in GI and urban health, it is again more appropriate to utilise an inductive approach to the research (6 & Bellamy, 2012). The inductive approach tends to be favoured in social research since social situations are, in nature, unpredictable and dependent on their context (Farthing, 2016).

18

THE GI AND URBAN HEALTH NEXUS

URBAN HEALTH

GI

URBAN HEALTH

Figure 8. The GI and urban health nexus.

19

Figure 9. Connections between various components of urban health (Scottish Government, 2020).

20

3.2.2

Case study

This research will use a case study to achieve the second objective. Yin (1994) writes that case studies are useful in community planning and changes to neighbourhoods.

Consequently, the use of a case study for this research aim is precedented. While case studies are not replicable, they allow for a comprehensive understanding of relationships and phenomena within the cases (Zainal, 2007). Notably, this research seeks to define a relationship between GI and urban health within a case. An investigation into one case study allows for a fuller understanding of the relationships between theoretical concepts, in comparison to a broad insight into several case studies (6 & Bellamy, 2012; Yin, 1994).

This case study utilises a mixture of data, namely, quantitative and qualitative ways of data collection and analysis. The main form of data collection utilised in this research is urban mapping. This form of data collection is beneficial for visualising and analysing urban characteristics; they are especially useful for visualising urban networks. Since GI performs as an interconnected network, mapping GI can provide insight into how connected GI are in any area. Quantitative and quantitative data in the form of population statistics, description of the street network, land use data, and green space data provided by the Scottish Government and Digimap.edina.ac.uk, are used to create multiple maps (Digimap, 2020; Statistics.gov.scot, 2020). Maps, statistics, and descriptive data of the case study area are then analysed to understand how GI may impact health.

As mentioned above, the concepts studied in this paper are immensely interlinked, and therefore, only a few aspects of health and GI will be considered. For instance, figure 9 notes the numerous ways in which only one segment of the Place Standard impacts another segment in the same wheel. Because of this, the street network, including street hierarchy and availability of dedicated active travel routes, will be looked at carefully.

These components of health will be investigated for the chosen case study area, as they are commonly visualised and analysed in urban design research (Feliciotti et al., 2016; Cervero & Duncan, 2003). Whilst this research maps key concepts, it will only map health and GI; not resilience as this is due to the difficulties in mapping such an intangible concept.

Dense and historic cities in the UK are interesting to study in the context of retrofitting practices; this is because cities of this nature may experience challenges in introducing GI projects due to land-value or conservation efforts (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012). Consequently, the selection of Glasgow as the case study city was made based on population size, population density, and an overview of listed heritage within the city, see Chapter 4 for relevant statistics relating to density, population, and heritage. The case study area chosen within Glasgow is Sauchiehall Street; this is due to the building density and readily available data and resources for this area (UOdocent, 2015).

21

3.2.3 Analysis This research analyses the descriptive data collected from the case study using Braun & Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework. The framework uses six steps to identify common trends and the categorisation and construction of themes relating to the collated data. The six steps include familiarisation, generating codes, theme construction, reviewing themes, defining themes, and producing results (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method of analysis combines spatial analysis of GI- and street network, as mentioned above. This form of analysis has been commonly used in urban planning research and serves as a vehicle to analyse spatial characteristics of cities (Påez et al., 2010). Urban mapping and spatial analysis of networks, especially concerning transport, can provide insight into travel behaviours, the priority of travel modes, and connections to and from various areas within a city (Påez et al., 2010). The interpretation of all maps created supplements the process of the thematic analysis framework; this allows for all forms of data to be understood and interpreted consistently and ensures its relevance to the research question and its objectives.

3.3 LIMITATIONS Accounting for the limitations of social research and the chosen research design is imperative not to exaggerate the findings or to make false conclusions from the data collected. Firstly, within the scope of this research, the explanatory and inductive approach carry similar limitations (6 & Bellamy, 2012; Farthing, 2016). The main disadvantage of this approach is that it is difficult not to have preconceived ideas on the relationship between GI and health (Farthing, 2016); this is especially challenging as the literature review serves as the theoretical framework, outlining the principles between the relevant concepts.

Secondly, Gorard (2013) argues that case studies should be supplemented with additional case studies or data to allow for comparisons and analysis for the bold claims that commonly arise from a more in-depth study into a single case study. However, within the limits of this research, supplementing with similar case studies is time-consuming to complete. Similarly, claims which come from studying a situation or case in depth also impact the generalisability of the research. Therefore, the insight gathered from this case study can only be recommended for a city-wide basis as most of the regulations which Sauchiehall Street is affected by, apply to the Glasgow City Council boundary as well.

Thirdly, the method of data collection in this research is variations of urban mapping.

Its limitations include the omission of the local community and their opinions (Patelli, 2014). For instance, mapping active travel routes indicate where close routes can be found; however, they do not indicate, e.g. how safe they are perceived to be. Therefore, this research does not discuss the claims surrounding the subjective aspects of urban characteristics (Patelli, 2014). There are also technical errors to urban mapping for this paper. The research utilises ArcGIS, which categorises and represents urban characteristics in various ways. This process of representing urban characteristics

22

based on columns and or criteria from the data sets may not fully represent reality. For example, within the data gathered for green space in Glasgow, green spaces are broken up by paths and roads which makes their area size smaller than the total area of the park or garden (Digimap, 2020). This incident can be noted in figure 10, as one residential park in the city centre of Glasgow consists of 10 shapes. It is, therefore, not registered as a public green space which is larger than 2ha, or a public park or garden since it holds the ‘residential garden’ category.

Figure 10. technical errors in mapping visualised.

There is a risk of misinterpreting literature and maps when attempting to establish a relationship between GI and health. Because there are several ways of interpreting the various concepts studied within this research, there is scope for producing vague claims and assumptions (Wright, 2011; Mell, 2017; Barton et al., 2003). The thematic analysis framework is more commonly used with qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data used in this research include a visual representation of quantitative data and qualitative data. The interpretation of the visualisations is, however, strictly qualitative as they identify trends throughout the urban maps. Therefore, an additional step of interpretation of maps is conducted. As mentioned previously, this is to ensure a holistic understanding of the Avenues project, nearby GI, and their health impact. Lastly, Chapter 6 will discuss further how the findings from the case study may be challenged.

23

3.4 CONCLUSION This chapter aimed to outline the methodology used for this research. It has done so to ensure the research is reflective and ensure that results from this research are credible. To summarise, this research uses an explanatory and inductive approach to understanding GI and its health impact. Moreover, the case study frames the data collected for this research; data collated for this research includes a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data which will be represented through descriptive and visual means. The sampling of the case study area is relevant for this research as it aims to understand retrofitting and GI in dense and historic settings; due to this, Sauchiehall Street and the Avenues project is discussed in the following chapter. The thematic analysis framework is utilised to evaluate the GI project in Chapter 5 further. The following chapter will provide an overview of the case study area, its wider surroundings and health impact.

24

4

CASE STUDY

4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter outlines the case study illuminated in this research to establish an understanding of green infrastructure projects and their impact on urban health in dense and historic UK cities, realising the second objective of this research. Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, UK is the selected case study area due to its population, building density, and concentration of listed buildings and conservation sites interjecting the street. As the street features these characteristics, it is worth studying in the context of retrofitting practices.

Figure 11. Glasgow, UK.

25

4.2 GLASGOW 4.2.1 Overview Glasgow City is in the west of Scotland, UK. It is a densely built city with several listed buildings and conservation areas set by Glasgow City Council (GCC). The city centre consists of a grid structure which is cut off by High Speed Roads (HSR), separating the city centre from the west and east of Glasgow. Beyond the HSRs, the urban form is irregular and features many forms of GI through city parks, smaller neighbourhood parks, green boulevards, terraces, and crescents. Within the city centre, little green space is available for the wider public, as seen in figures 12-13.

Table 1. General statistics of Glasgow City (Statistics.gov.scot, 2020).

Population:

626,410 (from 2018 estimates)

Population density:

3,587 people per km2 (from 2018 estimates)

Listed buildings:

over 1800 (GCC, 2020d)

Conservation areas:

25 (GCC, 2020b)

Many of the data zones and their respective population does not have accessible green space within 300m in the city centre. Using ArcGIS and information from Digimap (2020), an estimate of populations of data zones with no accessible green space within 300m in the city centre is 24,287; see figures 14-15 to observe how the city centre has little accessible green space.

Table 2. GI and their accessibility in Glasgow and its city centre (Digimap, 2020).

Percentage of population who live in a 2011 data zone which is (442780/626410) x 100 = 70.7% (to within 300m distance from public green space larger than 2ha = the nearest first decimal)

People who live in a 2011 data zone which is within 300m distance 442780 from public green space larger than 2ha People who live in a 2011 data zone which is within 300m distance from public green space larger than 2ha =

Population which does not have accessible green space in the 52386 – 28099 = 24,287 city centre

26

LEGEND

SCALE

Allotments or community growing Spaces

Cemetery

Play space

Amenity - residential or business

Golf course

Playing field

Amenity - transport

Institutional grounds

Private garden

Land use changing

Natural

Public park or garden

Bowling green

Other sports facility

School grounds

Camping or caravan Park

Religious grounds

Tennis court

Figure 12. Green spaces by their primary function in the wider region.

27

1:150,000

LEGEND

SCALE

Allotments or community growing Spaces

Cemetery

Play space

Amenity - residential or business

Golf course

Playing field

Amenity - transport

Institutional grounds

Private garden

Land use changing

Natural

Public park or garden

Bowling green

Other sports facility

School grounds

Camping or caravan Park

Religious grounds

Tennis court

Figure 13. Green spaces by their primary function in the city centre of Glasgow.

28

1:12,000

LEGEND

SCALE

2011 Data Zones

1:150,000

2011 Data zones with accessible green space Green Space (any green space over 2ha and public park or gardens) 300 metre buffer

Figure 14. Data zones with available open green space in the wider region of Glasgow.

29

LEGEND

SCALE

2011 Data Zones

1:12,000

2011 Data zones with accessible green space Green Space (any green space over 2ha and public park or gardens) 300 metre buffer

Figure 15. Data zones with available open green space in the city centre of Glasgow.

30

4.3

SAUCHIEHALL STREET

4.3.1

Case study area

The case study area selected for this research is a section of Sauchiehall Street. The street itself stretches over 3 miles west from Buchanan Street (Crawford, 2013). Joining up with Argyle street in the west of Glasgow, the street reaches local town centres and residential neighbourhoods. As described by Crawford (2013, p.231), the street was in the 18th century known as a “common country road, of the worst type�. Despite this, it was mainly used as a street for retail and impressive architecture from all eras. Now, the street is mostly known for its mixed-uses, housing mostly retail, residential and commercial properties along the chosen stretch as seen in figure 16. Consequently, the street is lively during all hours of the day. On the other hand, it also features vacant properties, with some stretches of the street feeling unsafe and derelict. Additionally, the street has continuously had problems with traffic accidents, as many modes of transport intersect on this street (Crawford, 2013). As a result, the eastern segment of the street has become pedestrianised as it links up with Buchanan Street. Because the street is a main thoroughfare through Glasgow city centre, for pedestrians and car users, several attempts to improve safety and attractiveness have been made. The following section will discuss a recently completed project and its goals of improving safety, economic viability, and attractiveness.

4.3.2

Avenues project

TThe Avenues project, otherwise known as the Enabling Infrastructure - Integrated Public Realm (EIIPR) programme is a development scheme which aims to encourage sustainable drainage and active travel, beautify streets, and to improve local businesses

Figure 16. Case study area (green) and pilot area (pink) retrofitted through the Avenues project.

31

(GCC, 2020a). These aims are part of what ensures good urban health and are therefore noteworthy to study within the scope of this research. It is part of the Glasgow City Region City Deal and has a funding of ÂŁ115m to retrofit 21 key areas within the city (GCC, 2020a).

It has links with realising the City Centre Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2019, in which a comprehensive active travel network is suggested (Glasgow City Centre Strategy, 2020).

Additionally, the project is set to aid achieving a strategic pillar, namely unlocking placebased solutions, in Our Resilient Glasgow: A city strategy by Resilient Glasgow (2016).

The project is expected to be complete in 2027 and uses a phased approach to tackle the selected streets of the city centre (GCC, 2020a). This project is considered the most ambitious infrastructure project in the UK (GCC, 2020f).

The project is to be strengthened by public consultations with residents on nearby streets, businesses, and organisations which are ongoing from 2018-2022; see a complete list of the consultations in table 3. The project contacted over 700 residences to ensure that the local community have an opportunity to influence the project (GCC, 2017). GCC (2020e) writes that consultations have been helpful to note the concerns expressed by key stakeholders, and due to this, final proposals include changes from the initial proposals of the project.

Table 3. A list of all consultations taken place thus far for the Avenues project (GCC, 2020a).

Glassford Street/Stockwell Street Avenues

February 2020

Renfrew Street, Killermont Street and North Summer 2019 Hanover Street Elmbank Street and Holland Street

Summer 2019

Sauchiehall Street precinct, Cambridge Street and Autumn 2018 New City Road (the Underline) Argyle Street, Trongate and Dixon Street

Summer 2018

Figure 17. Street trees on Sauchiehall Street.

32

LEGEND

SCALE

Pilot

1:12,000

Block A Block B Block C Block S

Figure 18. Phasing map for the Avenues project, adapted from GCC (2020a).

33

The pilot of the Avenues project retrofits of the western part of Sauchiehall Street to assess the impact of the project objectives. It spans from Charing Cross and Rose Street, as seen in Figure 18. The project includes aspects such as free Wi-Fi, smart lighting, street trees, segregated lanes for cyclists, increased width of pavements, Caithness stone paving, continuous pedestrian paving over crossing points, less onstreet obstructions, parking only on branching streets, and restricted traffic through one-way lanes (Glasgow City Centre Strategy, 2020; GCC, 2017). The pilot cost ÂŁ7.2m out of the ÂŁ115m allocated funds for the entirety of the Avenues project (The Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership, 2018). The implementation of street trees is particularly intriguing to this research as street trees is a common form of GI praised for its applicability to city centres where there are spatial limitations (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). The pilot was started in 2018 and completed in 2019 (GCC, 2020a). Consequently, it is possible to establish how the form of GI, implemented on Sauchiehall Street, impacts urban health; the following section of this chapter visualises this in greater detail.

It is worth discussing the changes arising from consultations from the initial proposals, final proposals, and the realisation of the project. However, only the visualisations for the initial proposals are available for the chosen stretch of Sauchiehall street (GCC, 2020e).

Therefore, figure 19-27 notes the comparisons of the initial proposal and realisation.The previous conditions of the street additionally supplement these comparisons. They will be used to discuss changes to the street in the following chapter, using images gathered from (GCC, 2020e) and (Urban Movement, 2020).

34

1

Figures 19-21 (left to right).

Street view before retrofit, intial proposal, and street view post retrofit.

2

Figures 22-24. (left to right).

Street view before retrofit, intial proposal, and street view post retrofit.

3 Figures 25-27. (left to right).

Street view before retrofit, intial proposal, and street view post retrofit.

35

4.4

MAPPING HEALTH

This section visualises and describes the changes arising from the Avenues project by looking at the surrounding GI network and street network. As street trees are a common form of GI in city centres, it is worth understanding the potential health impacts of their implementation through an urban design lens (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). Chapter 3 notes how health is immensely complex, and therefore, it is difficult to account for all aspects of health on a practical level. Consequently, the following chapter discusses the changes to the street network in greater detail, specifically concerning its health impacts. Deliberately, the street network is assessed in placement of health due to the Avenues project retrofitting the composition of the street. Of course, changes to the street network also has an impact on other aspects of health as visualised in figure 9.

Firstly, figure 28 outlines the implemented street trees through the Avenues project. It also includes the street trees that were planted during the pedestrianisation of the most Eastern part of Sauchiehall Street. Other forms of green space have also been overlaid as to not discount the availability of other nearby forms of GI. Notably, the proposal for the project specified that trees were to be planted on the western part of the pilot area.

Figures 27 and 28 notes how no trees were planted in the western stretch.

AVENUES PROJECT: TREES NOT PLANTED

EXISTING STREET TREES PRIOR TO AVENUES PROJECT

AVENUES PROJECT: TREES PLANTED

Figure 28. Implemented GI on Sauchiehall Street.

36

Trees planted are of the following species: Acer platanoides ‘Deborah’, Acer campestre ‘William Caldwell’, Ulmus ‘Columella’, Carpinus betulus ‘Fastigiata’, Ginkgo biloba`, and Metasequoia glyptostroboides (GCC, 2017). The tree specification report for the Avenues project also notes that the planted trees do not successfully establish steady drainage within the rooting environment (GCC, 2017). However, in terms of long-term maintenance, the chosen species have an adequate score for improving drainage and pollution (GCC, 2017).

Aspects of the street network can be visualised in several ways. In this section, the street networks’ form, hierarchy, and inclusion of active travel will be visualised and described to understand better how these impact health. Firstly, the street network around Sauchiehall street features a grid pattern, as seen in figure 29. Some blocks along Sauchiehall Street are longer than the typical block seen in the city centre. There are several diagonal and direct streets leading to the West end. The grid pattern of the city centre often entails direct routes from A to B, many corner retail properties, and easy to navigate (Cervero & Duncan, 2003). However, they have many disadvantages when applied areas with varying topography. The result of this includes difficulties for active travellers to reach certain areas as hills are steep (Cervero & Duncan, 2003).

Figure 29. Street pattern around the case study area.

37

The street hierarchy explains the prioritisation of streets. It also describes the conditions around those streets based on its categorisation. The street hierarchy consists of four categories, namely, HSRs, Urban Main streets, Local Main streets, and Local streets (Feliciotti et al., 2016). HSRs are motorways which connect cities and often operate at higher speeds to make vehicular travel efficient. Due to this, they occupy a large area and act as a barrier or movement for people and wildlife (Natural England, 2009; Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). Urban Main streets connect city districts. They are streets primarily known for carrying much vehicular and pedestrian traffic (Feliciotti et al., 2016).

Moreover, they are streets carrying many retail and commercial properties. Local Main streets are the streets which connect Urban Main streets. They are streets which occupy local services for adjacent neighbourhoods (Feliciotti et al., 2016). Finally, local streets are mostly residential streets and branch out from all local main streets (Feliciotti et al., 2016). Figure 30 shows the street hierarchy for the case study area. Most notably, Sauchiehall Street is an urban main street. Sauchiehall Street is also enclosed to the west by several high-speed roads which arguably cuts off pedestrian movement. Before the Avenues project was realised, the street was split into two pedestrian footpaths next to the buildings. Additionally, four lanes were dedicated to vehicles, with two of them used for parking, bus stops and loading purposes; the lanes only allow travel towards the east. While these conditions have primarily changed due to the Avenues project, the street hierarchy remains the same for the area.

LEGEND HSR

Local main street

Urban main Street

Local street

Figure 30. Street hierarchy surrounding Sauchiehall street.

38

Figure 31. Street composition before and after the Avenues project.

Lastly, the active travel network is indicative of the priority given to cyclists and pedestrians. The map shows the paths which are segregated from vehicular movement, have traffic calming measures in place and are for active travellers only (GCC, 2020c). It also indicates the frequency of cycle parking and sharing availability in the surrounding area. Segregated paths include the clear separation of pedestrian space, cycling space, and vehicular space. Traffic calming paths may involve lower speed limits, speed cushions, chicanes, or cycling space on the road to slow down vehicular traffic (Global Designing Cities Initiative, 2016). Active travel only paths are noted for only allowing cyclists and pedestrian movement, i.e. there is strictly no vehicular traffic on these streets (Global Designing Cities Initiative, 2016). As a result of the Avenues project, the western section of Sauchiehall street contains a bi-directional cycle lane on the northern side of the street; making the northern part of the street wider and sacrificing two vehicular lanes. In its place, street trees, and smart lighting was introduced to encourage safety and attractiveness of the street (GCC, 2020a).

39

LEGEND Traffic calming

Cycle parking

Segregated paths

Cycle sharing points

Active travel only

Figure 32. Active travel map adapted from GCC (2020c).

4.5 CONCLUSION This chapter outlined the case study to establish an understanding of green infrastructure projects and their impact on urban health in dense and historic cities in the UK, realising the second objective of this research. It has done so by firstly providing an overview of the Glasgow as a whole, its GI network, and the accessibility of the GI network. Secondly, a description of the case study area of Sauchiehall Street was provided. Thirdly, the Avenues project was described to explain the implementation of GI on the street and the changes which occurred on Sauchiehall Street. Lastly, aspects of health were mapped to provide a better understanding of the available street network, hierarchy, active travel paths available surrounding the case study area. This chapter will be used as a framework for the following chapter, where the health impacts of the Avenues project and the surrounding GI network will be discussed in greater detail.

40

5

FINDINGS

5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the Avenues project and their impact on urban health, realising the third objective of this research. It evaluates the project through the addition of green infrastructure, direct impacts on health, and indirect impacts on health. The direct impacts on health relate to the street network, whereas the indirect impacts on health relate to the wider impacts of the project.

5.2

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

The Avenues project and its impact on GI will be discussed in the following ways: the form of GI introduced, accessibility and network, and amendments to the proposal.

The main form of GI introduced in the project were street trees, altogether forming a green corridor along Sauchiehall Street. The implementation of street trees is praised in city centres as there are spatial limitations applied when retrofitting (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). As noted by GCC (2017), the street trees do not improve drainage on site. Improved drainage is one of the main environmental benefits to GI, which improves environmental resilience (Lennon et al., 2014; Gill et al., 2007).

Consequently, it is understood that the street trees implemented on Sauchiehall Street are primarily for improving the attractiveness of the street; this is noted where the project introduces several different tree species, creating interest and variation on the street. However, some trees on the street have been felled, which may be due to maintenance purposes. Without replanting of trees, the street looks bare and feels less cared for. The Scottish Government (2020) explain the importance of attractive and wellmaintained streets and their positive impact on health and identity of communities. To synthesise, the project introduces an appropriate type of GI used to retrofit Sauchiehall Street while improving social resilience in a dense and historic setting.

Implementation of the safe active travel route and street trees on Sauchiehall Street has improved access to other forms of GI such as the eastern tree-lined section of Sauchiehall Street, Kelvingrove Park, and Garnethill Park. Natural England (2009) note that ensuring that types of GI are connected can improve biodiversity, permeability, place-making, and has recreational benefits. Despite this, the project is arguably less ambitious in its GI application where fewer trees cover the western stretch of the street in comparison to the eastern stretch, as noted in figure 28. As the street still has vehicular lanes, street trees help separate vehicles and cyclists, making it safer and more attractive to reach other forms of GI (Global Designing Cities Initiative, 2016). Altogether, the project is positive in connecting and improving the existing GI network in the city centre. Noted by the NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (2014), this can further improve mental health and encourage healthy behaviours such as exercising.

41

Finally, there have been several changes to the project from its initial proposal to its realisation. For instance, figure 28 notes the trees which have not been planted towards the east. This choice could be due to opinions voiced in community consultations, where they could have potentially noted that the HSR was a barrier to movement and therefore continuing the GI network would be inefficient and tokenistic (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020). Additionally, grass strips are noted in visualisations for the initial proposals alongside street trees for the pilot, as observed in figures 20, 23, and 26.

Here, it can be assumed that key stakeholders opposed to the grass strips, potentially due to the area being in a flood-free zone, require higher levels of maintenance, conflict with utilities, or hindering movement (Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020; GCC, 2017). The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (2020) further notes that uncooperating local authorities and low funding could be a reason to why GI implementation is complicated. However, as the GCC proposed the Avenues project and have a considerable budget for it, these reasons seem unlikely.

5.3

DIRECT IMPACT ON HEALTH

The Avenues project has had a direct impact on health. As mentioned previously, the assessment of health will look only into the street network, relating to urban form, active travel, and traffic calming and safety. In terms of the street pattern, no changes were made to the urban form because of the project. The grid pattern allows for easy travel and corner retail properties; therefore, this pattern is already functional and appropriate for the street (Cervero & Duncan, 2003). The avenues project changed mainly the street composition, including the replacement of 2 vehicular lanes on the northern side to make room for a cycle track, as seen in figure 31 (GCC, 2017). Changing only one side of the street is undoubtedly a conscious decision to reduce negative externalities, e.g. time and cost, associated with construction. Consequently, the development can be defined as a retrofitting project as it can easily be applied to several 4-lane streets with similar density and historic conditions. As of this, the street still functions as an Urban Main street, while improving commerce and social gathering aspects of the street (Feliciotti et al., 2016).

The addition of the cycle lane and improved sidewalk space encourages active travel to and from the city centre. More successful when paired with spaces to sit and park bicycles, the needs of active travellers are fully met through this project (NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, 2014; Hague, 2016). The cycle lane, furthermore, links up with key areas branching out from Sauchiehall Street, e.g. the bridge going towards the West end, traffic-calmed routes going towards the north of Glasgow, and the pedestrianised area of Sauchiehall street going towards the city centre. These connections make travel around Glasgow easier and safer for the active traveller (GCC, 2020). The increased size of pavement space on the street and the ease of travel ensures the active traveller feel more prioritised and may further encourage the local community to use active travel modes more often (Scottish Government, 2020). Nevertheless, it may be confusing for the active traveller to exit the segregated lane on Sauchiehall Street to continue onto other branching streets, as lanes are not continuous throughout the city centre (Global

42

Designing Cities Initiative, 2016). Therefore, this research recommendeds to analyse cyclist behaviour and ensure that key routes throughout the city centre are provided throughout the development of the remaining avenues.

The Avenues project involves many initiatives used for traffic calming and safety and, therefore, will be discussed in greater depth. Continuous pavements over intersecting streets are recognised as a traffic calming initiative and ensure that pedestrians have a priority in movement (Scottish Government, 2020). Pedestrian priority is again exemplified through raised intersections over the vehicular space on the street and crossings over cycle lanes (Global Designing Cities Initiative, 2016). Other traffic calming measures are further introduced through chicanes on merging streets and preserving the one-way traffic on the street. The street does not allow parking at any time, except for taxis and disabled parking spaces. Parking occurs on branching streets where drivers must have a residential parking permit or purchase vouchers which allow for limited visits. These are all conducive to ensure safety and traffic calming on Sauchiehall Street, as noted by the Global Designing Cities Initiative (2016).

5.4

INDIRECT IMPACT ON HEALTH

The Avenues project has also had an indirect impact on health. This section discusses beautification, security/vibrancy, and the implications on the wider community and citywide initiatives. Several initiatives on the street have had an impact on beautifying the street. For instance, paving of the street is of Caithness stone which is used throughout prominent streets of the city centre; in turn, this enforces the local identity (GCC, 2017).

Tactile paving ensures that the project is age-friendly and accessible (Hague, 2016). The street furniture on the street includes litter bins, benches, banners, street art and smart lighting. Therefore, the project supports spaces to linger, rest and socialise, catering to all age groups. Enforcing local identity and ensuring accessibility for all is part of current trends in urban design trends and consequently improves resilience (Hague, 2016; Wu & Wu, 2013).

The changes to the street network have had intangible impacts on Sauchiehall street, relating to the sense of place. For instance, shops are more accessible on the project stretch, making it more welcoming to walk along the street. Additionally, this stretch has limited clutter on the street, which was one of the aims of the street (GCC, 2020).

However, this has led to the eastern stretch looking less prioritised, and therefore, feelings of lower maintenance on the street can be noted (Scottish Government, 2020).

Nevertheless, the eastern stretch is due to be retrofitted to comply with the objectives of the Avenues project in the first phasing period. Moreover, the street experiences high usage throughout the day and night, allowing the street to feel more secure and ensuring that local economy is vibrant (NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, 2014; Scottish Government, 2020). As a result, the project adequately considers safety and has positive benefits on health in an urban design context.

43

The project has provided significant opportunities for stakeholders to get involved as consultations have taken place and are set to take place in the future, as seen in the changes between figures 19-27. As of this, it is evident that local business and residents have been able to impact the trajectory of the retrofitting project of Sauchiehall Street and have some of their wishes fulfilled. Often, developments which conduct multiple consultations and take into consideration the opinions of the wider community are more successful in the long term and in improving health (Forsyth, 2020). Therefore, a project like this is undoubtedly resilient (Wu & Wu, 2013). The project is part of several city-wide initiatives for Glasgow, thus ensuring other planning objectives and long-term resilience goals are realised through the completion of the Avenues project.

5.5 CONCLUSION This chapter has evaluated the Avenues project and its impact on urban health. To conclude, the project positively impacts health. The project retrofits street composition.

It also includes smart lighting, street trees, bi-directional cycle lane, increases the width of the northern pavement, uses Caithness stone paving, continuous pedestrian paving over crossing points, less on-street obstructions, and restricted traffic through one-way lanes.As a result, the street has become more attractive, safe, and vibrant. It also encourages active travel and has an immense impact on the realisation of other strategies developed by GCC, including Glasgow’s resilience framework and City Centre Strategy. However, some aspects of this retrofitted street are not positively impacted.

These mostly relate to connecting to the peri-urban GI network, drainage, maintenance, and negligence towards surrounding street segments. The next chapter will discuss these findings to provide recommendations and limitations within the research.

44

6

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter concludes this research. It does so by providing recommendations for local authorities and urban practitioners to better promote health through green infrastructure in dense and historic UK cities. It also discusses to what extent the aims and objectives have been realised and the limitations to this research. Here, recommendations for further research will be summarised.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Following Chapter 4 and 5, it is understood that the Avenues project has been successful in impacting health on a theoretical basis. From the findings, recommendations, for impacting health through GI in dense and historic cities in efforts to improve resilience, will be summarised through nine questions. It is recommended that local authorities and urban practitioners try to answer these questions when assessing their retrofitting project, in the aim of improving urban health aspects and resilience. The questions feature a mix of intangible and tangible aspects to health as supported by the literature review.

Does the retrofit respond to the environmental needs of the area?

The primary goal of the retrofit is to introduce GI in dense and historic cities. When the environmental needs of the area are met, the project ensures that it is climatically resilient. As the natural space itself is part of our common understanding of health, this question is vital to ask.

Does the retrofit respond to spatial limitations of the area?

This paper mainly discusses GI projects imposed in dense and historic settings due to the difficulties in implementing them. Therefore, the GI project needs to fully support and respond to any listed buildings, land-value and opportunities that arise from the local area. Doing so ensures the project is resilient as it utilises the assets of the city.

Does the retrofit merge to the surrounding area?

Communities are aware of how well-maintained and prioritised their neighbourhood are.

Therefore, it is recommended that the retrofit considers how the project is perceived to merge into the existing urban fabric.

Does the retrofit encourage active travel?

Active travel is a primary component of healthy urban design. Therefore, it should not be discounted. Urban design which accounts for the needs of active travellers, can help

45

promote the use of the infrastructure itself. When coupled with GI, active travel becomes more attractive. Therefore, posing this question can help local authorities and urban practitioners to ensure their project enforces healthy behaviours.

Does the retrofit consider the safety of people?

People will not use streets which feel unsafe. Ensuring that the project considers the safety of people whether this refers to daytime and night-time conditions, reducing traffic accidents, or feelings of safety. These are the aspects of safety gathered from the case study and findings; however, other aspects should not be discounted.

Does the retrofit encourage users of all age groups?

Literature on urban design and health often discusses accessibility and inclusivity; this refers to the built environment being moulded to encourage users of all ages. Concepts such as age- and child-friendly cities refer to this phenomenon. Prioritising safe spaces to gather, rest and play ensure that all age groups are considered to improve end-user satisfaction of the project.

Does the retrofit enforce local identity?

The local identity of a place is a key asset to consider in any development. Including elements which make the community feel proud of their neighbourhood is becoming increasingly popular in urban design practice, where practitioners aim to enforce a ‘sense of place’. For instance, this may be through public art, community spaces or initiatives, wayfinding, landmarks, and public space.

Does the retrofit apply the opinions of key stakeholders?

When key stakeholders are involved in the decision-making progress, the project is moulded better fit their interests. As noted above, this correlates to a more resilient project. Therefore, this question is fundamental to pose if health is to be impacted in a resilient manner.

Does the retrofit impact wider resilience strategies/planning initiatives?

Lastly, when choosing to retrofit rather than to redevelop, the resiliency of the project is a key priority. Consequently, the project should aspire to reach other resilience and planning initiatives. As cities often adopt strategic frameworks to improve the tangible and intangible conditions of a city, the project must contribute to these initiatives.

46

6.3

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This section outlines the extent to which the aims and objectives have been achieved throughout this research.

Objective 1: To explore seminal literature surrounding green infrastructure, resilience, and urban health within urban design.

This objective was reached solely from Chapter 2, namely the literature review. Seminal literature surrounding the studied concepts outline the following: the need for resilient development in urban design practice, nature-based solutions are a common and appropriate method of ensuring resilient developments, Urban health and GI are strongly correlated and delivering urban health to neighbourhoods is becoming increasingly important due to urbanisation.

Objective 2: To establish an understanding of the Avenues project and their impact on urban health using Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow as a case study.

The second objective was achieved through Chapter 4, which specifically looked at the GI network in Glasgow, described the local conditions of Sauchiehall Street, and looked further into the impact of the Avenues project developed by GCC. This retrofitting project included GI and strongly encourages active travel. As mentioned in Chapter 3, urban health was studied only through the impact on the street network. It was found that little change was done to the urban form of the area, as assumed when conducting a retrofit.

Nevertheless, the project should have objectively improved active travel conditions, thus improving urban health to an extent.

Objective 3: To evaluate the Avenues project in conjunction with its impact on health in the area surrounding Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow.

This objective was achieved through Chapter 5. It evaluated the Avenues project, relating to GI and direct impact on health. Since this research studies health by analysing the street network; therefore, the indirect impacts of the retrofit were also discussed.

Overall, the project is strongly successful in improving health when assessing the street network. Once the entirety of the Avenues project is completed, the city centre of Glasgow will utilise nature-based solutions in combination with a well-connected active travel network. One could only assume this will have a positive impact on health overall as active travel is to be safe and convenient.

Objective 4: To recommend suggestions for local authorities and urban practitioners to better promote health through green infrastructure in dense and historic UK cities.

The fourth objective was reached in the section above. It is recommended that local authorities and urban practitioners pose nine questions when thinking about how their retrofit can improve health through GI in dense and historic UK cities. From these nine questions, practitioners should have improved insight into how their project can better improve resilience and urban health. These considerations pertain to the success of the

47

project on a long-term basis, and it is assumed that practitioners hold a similar interest.

Aim: To examine the impact of green infrastructure on urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience.

To answer the aim, the impact of GI on urban health in efforts to retrofit cities for resilience is mainly positive. The findings show that there are direct and indirect benefits to health through the discussed GI retrofitting project. Since urban health is multi-faceted, this research limits its understanding of health to the street network and its implications on health. Nevertheless, the direct impacts on health pertain to the importance of form, encouraging active travel, and traffic calming and safety. The indirect impacts pertain to sense of security and vibrancy, beautification, and wider community and planning initiatives.

6.4 LIMITATIONS This research is not without any limitations. Firstly, the case study discusses only the pilot of the Avenues project. As the project retrofits 21 street sections in the city centre of Glasgow, little can be said about how the project will improve health in the future. A significant limitation of this research is that it does not include accounts from residents in the surrounding area of the case study. Ideally, descriptions from residents could provide further insight into the realised impact on health. However, due to COVID-19, there is limited scope for the kind of research that is possible during these times. As of this, an objective study was more appropriate. Studying any other component of health or research would yield different results into the health impacts on the chosen study area. Therefore, this research cannot be replicated.

Nevertheless, the recommendations posed from this research does provide a glimpse into what can be considered when retrofitting dense and historic UK cities through GI. To clarify, the recommendations from this research is not a definitive list of how to provide a resilient retrofitting project. Instead, it acts as a guide to investigating further into how resilience, GI and urban health interact in urban design practice, primarily through retrofitting projects in dense and historic settings.

6.5

FURTHER RESEARCH

The following topics include recommendations for further research: Can effective GI be introduced in dense and historic cities? Do strict resilience policies influence the development of GI projects? Are GI projects through retrofitting measures more effective than GI projects that are introduced through redevelopment of urban areas? What areas of health are mostly impacted by GI projects? Are there any aspects of health that are not improved through GI projects?

48

7 7.1

REFERENCES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Cover page: Illustration created by author.

Back of cover page: Illustration created by author.

1-18: Illustration created by author.

19-20: Retrieved from Urban Movement (2020).

21: Photograph taken by author.

22-23: Retrieved from Urban Movement (2020).

24: Photograph taken by author.

25-26: Retrieved from Urban Movement (2020).

27: Photograph taken by author.

28-32: Created by author.

7.2

LIST OF TABLES

1. Information from Statistics.gov.scot (2020).

2. Information from Digimap (2020) 3. Adapted from GCC (2020a).

49

7.3 BIBLIOGRAPHY 6, P. & Bellamy, C., 2012. Principles of methodology: Research design in social science.

Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Barton, H., Grant, M. & Guise, R., 2003. Shaping Neighbourhoods: A guide for Health, Sustainablity and Vitality. s.l.:Taylor & Francis.

Benedict, M. A. & McMahon, E. T., 2006. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research, 3(2), pp. 77-101.

Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, 2020. Living with Beauty: Promoting health, well-being and sustainable growth, London: Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.

Cervero, R. & Duncan, M., 2003. Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco bay area. American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), pp. 1478-83.

Crawford, R., 2013. On Glasgow and Edinburgh. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard UP. Davies, C., MacFarlane, R., McGloin, C. & Roe, M., 2006. Green Infrastructure Planning Guide, Anfield Plain: North East Community Forest.

Digimap, 2020. Digimap. [Online] Available at: https://digimap.edina.ac.uk/ [Accessed 15 July 2020].

Dowling, R., McGuirk, P. & Bulkleley, H., 2014. Retrofitting cities: Local governance in Sydney, Australia. Cities, 38(2014), pp. 18-24.

Eames, M., 2011. Developing urban retrofit scenarious: An outline framework for scenario foresight and appraisal. [Online] Available at: http://www.retrofit2050.org.uk [Accessed 26 6 2020].

Eames, M., Dixon, T., May, T. & Hunt, M., 2013. City futures: exploring urban retrofit and sustainable transitions. Building research & information, 41(5), pp. 504-516.

Eaton, T. T., 2018. Approach and case-study of green infrastructure screening analysis for. Journal of Environmental Management, 209(2018), pp. 495-504.

European Commision, 2013. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe’s natural capital. Brussels, European Commission.

Farthing, S., 2016. Research design in urban planning A student’s guide. London: SAGE Publications.

50

Feliciotti, A., Romice, O. & Porta, S., 2016. Design for change: Five proxies for resilience in the urban form. Open House International, 41(4), pp. 23-30.

Forsyth, A., 2020. What is a healthy place? Models for cities and neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 25(2), pp. 186-203.

Galea, S. & Vlahov, D., 2005. Urban Health: Population, Methods, and Practice. In: S. Galea & D. Vlahov, eds. Handbook of Urban Health: Populations, Methods, and Practice. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 1-18.

GCC, 2017. 17/00240/DC | Public Realm works. [Online] Available at: https:// publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails. do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKT65HEXMXU00 [Accessed 28 July 2020].

GCC, 2020a. Avenues. [Online] Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/avenues [Accessed 23 July 2020].

GCC, 2020b. Conservation Areas in Glasgow. [Online] Available at: https://www.glasgow. gov.uk/article/17163/Conservation-Areas-in-Glasgow [Accessed 21 July 2020].

GCC, 2020c. Cycling Information. [Online] Available at: https://glasgowgis.maps. arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8eb9f600ed154ae58b09c2c5902ce7f0 [Accessed 3 August 2020].

GCC, 2020d. Listed Buildings. [Online] Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/ article/17771/Listed-Buildings [Accessed 21 July 2020].

GCC, 2020e. Past Avenues Consultations. [Online] Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov. uk/article/25730/Past-Avenues-Consultations [Accessed 2 August 2020].

GCC, 2020f. Sauchiehall Avenue now complete. [Online] Available at: https://www. glasgow.gov.uk/article/25020/Sauchiehall-Avenue-now-complete [Accessed 2 August 2020].

Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R. & Pauleit, S., 2007. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), pp. 115-133.

Glasgow City Centre Strategy, 2020. Glasgow City Centre Strategy. [Online] Available at: https://www.glasgowcitycentrestrategy.com/project/city-centre-avenues [Accessed 23 July 2020].

Global Designing Cities Initiative, 2016. Global Street Design Guide. s.l.:Island Press.

Gorard, S., 2013. Research Design: Creating robust approaches for the social sciences.

London: SAGE Publications.

Green, T. L. et al., 2016. Insurance Value of Green Infrastructure in and Around Cities.

Ecosystems, 2016(19), pp. 1051-1063.

Hague, C., 2016. The conscious city is on the rise. Planning (UK), Volume 12.

51

Hancock, T., 2014. The Little Idea That Could: A Global Perspective on Healthy Cities and Communities. National Civic Review, 103(3), pp. 29-33.

Holling, C., 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Volume 4, pp. 1-23.

Howard, E., 1985. Garden Cities of Tomorrrow. New rev. ed. ed. Eastbourne: Attic Books.

Lawrence, R. & Fudge, C., 2009. Healthy Cities in a global and regional context. Health Promotion International, 24(1), pp. i11-i18.

Leeds City Council, 2018. Leeds.gov.uk. [Online] Available at: https://news.leeds.gov.uk/ news/leeds-to-host-king-s-fund-2018-healthy-cities-conference [Accessed 30 March 202].

Legates, R. T. & Stout, F., 2011. Broadacre City: A New Community Plan. In: R. T. Legates & F. Stout, eds. The City Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 432-437.

Lennon, M., Scott, M. & O’Neill, E., 2014. Urban Design and Adapting to Flood Risk: The Role of Green Infrastructure. Journal of Urban Design, 19(5), pp. 745-758.

McLeod, K. B., 2020. Building a Resilient Planet: How to Adapt to Climate Change From the Bottom Up. Foreign Affairs, 99(3), pp. 54-59.

Mell, I. C., 2017. Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present. Landscape Research, 42(2), pp. 135-145.

Naess, P. & Vogel, N., 2012. Sustainable Urban Development and the Multi-level Transition Perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 4(2012), pp. 36-50.

Natural England, 2009. Green Infrastructure Guidance, London: Natural England.

NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit, 2014. Healthy Urban Planning Checklist, London: NHS. Novotny, V., 2013. Water–energy nexus: retrofitting urban areas to achieve zero pollution.

Building Research & Information, 41(5), pp. 589-604.

Páez, A., J, L. G., Buliung, R. N. & Dall’Erba, S., 2010. Progress in Spatial Analysis: Introduction. In: A. Páez, L. G. J, R. N. Buliung & S. Dall’Erba, eds. Progress in Spatial Analysis. Advances in Spatial Science (The Regional Science Series). Berlin: Springer, pp. 1-13.

Patelli, P., 2014. Post-Optimal Cities or: How Architects Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Network and Vice Versa. In: A. Contin, P. Paolini & R. Salerno, eds. Innovative Technologies in Urban Mapping. Web: Springer, pp. 157-166.

Pincetl, S., 2012. Nature, urban development and sustainability – What new elements are needed for a more comprehensive understanding?. Cities, 29(2012), pp. S32-S37.

52

Public Health England, 2018. Healthy High Streets: Good place-making in an urban setting, London: PHE Publications.

Ragin, C., 1994. Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Resilient Glasgow, 2016. Our Resilient Glasgow: A City Strategy, Glasgow: Glasgow City Council.

Rotmans, J., 2006. A complex systems approach for sustainable cities. In: M. Ruth, ed.

Smart growth and climate change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Scottish Government, 2011. Green infrastructure: Design and Placemaking, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Scottish Government, 2020. Place Standard tool: Strategic Plan 2020-2023, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Siri, J. G., 2016. Sustainable, healthy cities: Making the most of the urban transition.

Public Health Reviews, Volume 37.

Statistics.gov.scot, 2020. Council Area: Glasgow City. [Online] Available at: https://statistics. gov.scot/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.gov.scot%2Fid%2Fstatisticalgeography%2FS12000049 [Accessed 15 July 2020].

The Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership, 2018. Glasgow City Centre Avenues Project Plants its First Tree. [Online] Available at: https://www.mgsdp.org/ index.aspx?articleid=23641 [Accessed 2 August 2020].

Town & Country Planning Association, 2012. Planning for a healthy environment - good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity, London: Town & Country Planning Association.

Trancik, R., 1986. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: J Wiley.

UK Green Building Council, 2015. Demystifying Green Infrastructure, London: UK Green Building Council.

UN General Assembly, 2015. Transforming: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. s.l., UN General Assembly.

United Nations, 2017. New Urban Agenda. s.l., Habitat III Secretariat.

UOdocent, 2015. Glasgow Population Density. [Online] Available at: https://www.arcgis. com/home/item.html?id=34540cf0e81f4867b041bd0285e124ae [Accessed 18 July 2020].

Urban Movement, 2020. Sauchiehall Street Avenue | Glasgow City Council. [Online] Available at: http://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/sauchiehallstreet.html [Accessed 2 August 2020].

Vukmirovic, M., Gavrilovic, S. & Stojanovic, D., 2019. The improvement of the confort of

53

public spaces as a local intiative in coping with climate change. Sustainability, 11(23), pp.

1-20.

World Health Organisation, 2020. Frequently asked questions. [Online] Available at: https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions [Accessed 16 March 2020].

Wright, H., 2011. Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested.

Local Envrionment, 16(10), pp. 1003-1019.

Wu, J. & Wu, T., 2013. Ecological Resilience as a Foundation for Urban Design and Sustainability. In: S. T. A. Picket, M. L. Cadenasso & B. McGrath, eds. Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities. New York: Springer, pp. 211-230.

Yin, R., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

Zainal, Z., 2007. Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, Volume 9.

54

55