Hina Development of a Simple Method

8/6/2019 Hina Development of a Simple Method

1/8

DEVELOPMENT OF A SIMPLE METHOD FOR SITE SURVEY AND

ASSESSMENT IN URBAN AREAS- CLAIRE FREEMAN

CONTENTS:

INTRODUCTION :planning and the pressure for development

SITE SELECTION

SITE SURVEY

SITE EVALUATION

CONCLUSIONS

PRESENTATION BY:

HINA FATHIMA, NARASIMHA, NIDHI JOSHI, SONIKA SHETTY, UMA


2/8

Planners are coming under increasing pressure to conserve and enhance natural environment and protectit from development where appropriate.

The planners often have to make decisions on whether to approve development of sites which are basedon limited or no ecological information.Therefore research was undertaken in which a site survey and evaluation method was developedto provide planners with the information necessary to evaluate the ecological value of sites.

The methodology developed comprised two parts: a site survey and a site evaluation method, in which numerical values were given to all sites ecological,

amenity and development value.The methodology was developed and tested on 30sites in Leeds, UK.A site record, evaluation matrix and a set of associated values were developed for each site.

These values were then used to identify and compare sites.

Three types of sites were identified:

1. sites with significant ecological value that need to be protected from development.2. sites on which development could be accommodated.3. sites where a compromise between development and conservation could be achieved.

This study suggest that it is possible to develop a simple methodology for planners use to identify andcompare the ecological and amenity value of sites proposed for development.

INTRODUCTION :


3/8

PLANNING AND THE PRESSURE FOR DEVELOPMENT:PLANNING AND THE PRESSURE FOR DEVELOPMENT:

y The problem of how to maintain economic growth without making excessive demand on natural resources is onewhich has long concerned the planning profession.

y The growing focus of development on informal green space has been prompted by a combination city centre de-

industrilization, expanding commercial and residential pressures, continuing green belt restrictions and private sectororiented redevelopment grants. As a consequence in many urban areas land that had been vacant often for decadeswas suddenly targeted for development.

y It was almost as if there was pressure to eradicate all waiting space in towns. Much of these waiting space containsvibrant natural habitat, which can be ecologically significant in the urban context.

y This development pressure highlights the need to identify not only the location of significant urban habitat but alsoto establish some way of valuing eco systems.

y To target scarce conservation resources planners need to access to a methodology that can assist them in establishingthe comparative values of urban habitat.

y A research was undertaken in LEEDS, a large metropolitan area in Northern England with a population exceeding7,00,000. The aim was to develop a site evaluation methodology for planners to use which would provide sufficientinformation to enable them to make rational decisions on the future of naturally regenerating sites proposed fordevelopment.


4/8

y In developing the LEEDS method it was necessary to adopt a broad approach which takes into account notonly the ecological but also the amenity and development values of urban sites.

y The methodology developed comprised of two parts :

1. SITE SURVEY

2. SITE EVALUATION

1. SITE SELECTION :1. SITE SELECTION :

- Thirty sites, all with naturally regenerating habitat and all subject to development proposals were identified.

- The process of site identification clearly revealed the need for a comprehensive, regularly updated inventoryof urban open space.

METHODOLOGY

2. SITE SURVEY:In developing a site evaluation methodology the first area of focus on is the survey.The process through which basic site data are obtained.The aim of the research was to provide a rapid response survey to use on sites where there are no or very limitedecological data available and where there are constraints such as limited access to ecologists to undertake ecological

surveys.The survey provides for the recording of ecological amenity and development attributes and a simple site map.


5/8

Criteria traditionally usedin site surveys for assessingvalue.

Limitations in the application of traditional survey andevaluation methods to urban sites.

Characteristics of urban sites. Alternative criteria that could be used in assessingvalue of urban sites.

Size: the bigger the better. Tendency to focus on pockets of relic/rural landscapes. Presence of urban species which are highly mobile

opportunists.

Dynamism (as indicated by the ability of the

vegetation and wildlife to respond to changes)

Unf ragmented. Tendency to focus on slivers of countrys ide at the edge of town.

Species and habitat that are often viewed asunsightly and undesirable.

robustness (ability to withstand human pressure)

Typicalness(habitat shouldhave experienced aminimum of modification)

Traditional ecological criteria such as rarity, naturalness etc.can have limited applicability in urban a reas.

Appears unkempt and may contain large amountsof dead plant material.

Location (e.g. proximity to a s chool or residentialhome)

Rarity(presence of rare orendangered species)

No recognition is given to the value of urban species e.g.goats.

Includes a number of allien species some may beregarded as pest species. e.g. grey squirrel .Temporary duration.

Amenity and use value.

Diversity (number ofspecies often used asindicator)

Areas of habitat that are robust and well suited to urbanconditions may score low values.

A diverse range of habitat types. Urban species.

Fragility(sensitivity tochange and use)

No recognition is given to educational, leisure and othervalues.Value of the site is not fixed but can vary according tolocation, e.g. inner city site may be more valuable thansimilar site on periphery.

-------- Variety (typicalness is generally an alien concept asall sites are significantly different)Special features (these include footpaths, walls etc)

Age. Many sites are young and would score low on maturitycriteria. It may be necessary to look at the sites potential in

addition to its current character.

Historical links may be evident in the habitat andspecies type e.g. shoddy plants in mill areas.

Ecological position (inrelationship to habitat)

------ Debris, including garden debris and garden plantswhich may establish diverse landscapes includingwalls, buildings and other human remains.

Rarity that is with regard to the location andnumber of comparable sites.

Record history. ----- --- ----

Naturalness. ---- Robust habitats demanding low maintenance andable to stand up to frequent use and abuse.

----

Intrinsic appeal. ---- Local character and local species. ----

REQUIREMENTS FOR AN URBAN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:


6/8

SITE EVALUATION:

A site evaluation based on the site survey was then constructed.Quantitative values were assigned based on ecological, amenity and development criteria.

The need to evaluate sites in urban areas especially when dealing with a scarce resource such asNatural open space is becoming inescapable.Planners can use these values to compare the relative ecological and amenity merits.office and the ecological advisory service as warranting a protective nature conservation designation.These sites were; Stourton Marsh, Hawthorn Farm, Kirkstall Canal and Osmondthorp Sidings, The Leeds method also effectivelyidentified sites with substantial amenity value.Four of the five sites with highest amenity values were the focus of local support groups which were active in opposing thedevelopment proposals.Sites that are of greatest concern as indicated by their site values, are those with a high use value comprising a high ecological and/ or

amenity value and high development values.The sites that were identified as most urgently in need of conservation were: Stourton Marsh ( developed in 1996) Kirkstall (developed in mid 1995) the Oaklands( developed mid 1995 onwards) and Hawthorn Farm ( future still uncertain.

Sites of low ecological on which development could be accommodated:

These are sites with low ecological value whose protection cannot be supported.Examples of such sites included South Accomodation road sites and Wortley Junction, all had been developed by mid- July 1996

Sites where a compromise between development and conservation could be achieved.Such an approach necessitates either identifying and protecting those parts od the site with highest ecological and amenity value orundertaking development which can be complatable with the sites existing value.One example of where a compromise is possible is that od Pontefract Road proposed for development as part of a road wideningscheme. The ecological value of the site margins ( mainly mown grass, derelict hardcore and rubble), where the road widening is tooccur, is low.The reminder of the site where the ecological value is higher ( mixed scrub with mature trees) could be retained and enhanced bynatural landscaping which builds on the existing habitat.


7/8

CONCLUSION:

y The success of the leeds methodology will depend on the extent to which it can be replicated and madeapplicable to the land-use planning in a range of contexts.

y These might include, for example local authority planning and leisure services departments, community

groups, specific intrest groups, and utilities such as water companies.

y The strength of the leeds methodology lies in its simplicity and its flexibility.

y Though designed for and tested on sites in leeds, its simple structure and the range of criteria it includesmeans that it should be general enough to be applied to a range of situatuions, and organizations.

y Flexibility is also evident in the way the survey and evaluation matrix can be amended to incorporate additionalor alternative criteria as necessary, or to include additional data such as species lists or planning decisionnotices.

y A central concern in devising the methodology was to develop a means of quantifying the relative amenity,development and ecological merits of sites. again the site evaluation matrix and the scoring guide were keptsimple. The scoring guide and consequently criteria scorescan be amended to reflect local circumstances.the siteevaluation matrix also adopted elements of standard ecological recording techniques, most notably the targetnote technique which allows for the identification of significant features.

y The value and applicability of the evaluation method has considerable potential for furthur development whenused in conjunction with a geographical information system ( GIS) GIS could facilitate the adjustments of

criteria and values ( by adjusting weightings) to reflect differing ecological, developmental and geographicalcircumstances. It broadens the range of potential users by facilitating dat transfer and thus supporting the typeof interdisciplinary work now being increasingly undertaken in the field of biodiversity conservation andsustainable development.

Hina I didnt understand so I just typed out the whole thing. Dekh lena pls.

. And I didnt know what pics to insert too!!!!


8/8

y The leeds methodology is only the first step in what should become a more detailed andcomprehensive process of land-use planning, biodiversity conservation and decision makingresearch.

y It demonstrates how an interdisciplinary methodology for the evaluation od sites with multiplevalues can contribute to the land-use planning process. The methodology was developed through theanalysis of 30 naturally regenerating sites in leeds. To evaluate the wider validity of the leedsmethodology it needs to be evaluated wit hregard to its replicability and applicability to a muchmore extensive range of planning circumstances. This could be achieved by undertaking a

comprehensive evaluation of all the naturally regenerating land in an urban area, rather than applyingthe evaluation just to selected sites.

y Furthur research could focus on the evaluation and application of the methodology to the full rangeof biological contexts, not just to naturally regenerating land.

y Biodiversity conservation is a major concern for planners, andd conflicts between development andconservation will tremain a central planing issue. Methodoligies such as leeds one can take a positivecontribution to natural land-use planning in urban areas. However, the methodology is only a tool.

Its success depends on its being used by planners, land-use management who are able to interpretand apply the methodology in an informed and ecologically aware way. The development of practicalplanning conservation tools is essential if the loss of sites such as Stourton, with its orchids andcuckoos to developers is to be avoided in the future.

CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:

Documents

Hina Development of a Simple Method