Whose fringe is it anyway: prospects and opportunities for integrated management of the rural-urban fringe

reluRural Economy andLand Use Programme


Whose fringe is it anyway: prospects and opportunities for integrated management of the

rural-urban fringe (RUF).

Alister ScottClaudia Carter, Mark Reed, Peter Larkham, Nicki Schiessel, Karen Leach, Nick Morton, Rachel Curzon David Jarvis, Andrew Hearle, Mark Middleton, Bob Forster, Keith Budden, Ruth Waters, David Collier, Chris Crean, Miriam Kennet, Richard Coles and Ben Stonyer


Plan

1. The fringe context 2. Conceptualising the

RUF research problem 3. Emerging narratives

from 6 workshops 4. Discussion: Realising

the opportunity space for RUF

Building interdisciplinarity across the rural domain


Faces of the Fringe • Innovative • Edgelands • Transitional • Fuzzy • Messy • Reactionary

• Ad-hoc • Diverse • Dynamic • Neglected • Valued• Contested



Academic Commentary • Dominant space of 20C

(Mckenzie, 1996)• Misunderstood space

(Gallent et al 2006) • A transition phase/edge

‘placeless’ (Qvistrom, 2005)• Fringe as a ‘weed’ (Cresswell

1997)• Battleground for urban and

rural uses (Hough, 1990) • “Landscape out of order”

(Qvistrom 2007)



Multiple Identities • RUF as geographical identity; crossing boundaries• RUF as professional identity ; spaces for

management/planning goods and services• RUF as stakeholder identity; imagined and

contested space(s) • RUF as policy identity; a dynamic process shaped

by macro drivers (climate change, recession)



The RUF problem “I find the idea of [the RUF as an

area of] transition really useful. I don’t think I have come across a spatial definition [of the RUF].” A

“You find it useful, but I am sure for a planner it is a complete headache.” B

“Yeah, but I mean the planners have nice straight administrative boundaries” A



An interdisciplinary approach to the built environment

• Improve theoretical lens through which we can view both the processes, drivers and dynamics of change in the RUF



Marriage of Spatial Planning and Ecosystem Services

• Cross boundaries between planners and natural resource managers



Converging literatures

• Individual team member reflective policy and practice contributions

• Prioritise key problem areas – Addressing pro-activity and long termism– Increasing connectivity through Green-Grey- Blue

Infrastructure planning – Assessing Values and Effective Decision making



Workshops 1. West Midlands Rural Affairs Forum Improving decision making

for the sustainable management of the RUF; 25 participants2. Green Economics Institute Long Termism and Valuation in the

Built Environment: the RUF and Land Use; 65 participants 3. Birmingham Environmental Partnership Bridging the rural

urban divide; 88 participants 4. Localise West Midlands Meeting Local needs with local

resources in the rural urban fringe; 15 participants 5. BCU Learning the lessons from Strategic planning: resurrecting

institutional memories; 14 participants 6. Forest Research Values and Decision making; 8 participants



“Emergent” storylines from RUF workshops

1. Challenging institutionalised values and practices

2. Integrating and connecting across traditional sectors and different scales

3. Building effective stakeholder involvement 4. Taking a proactive, long term approach



1 Challenging



“Evidence is seen too much in the quantitative and economic sense.....[For decisions]. numbers are more attractive than a complicated line of argument and debate ”. FR

Challenging



Challenging

“How can we bring about a cultural shift to get away from taking it for granted that population and consumption per capita will continue to grow” BEP



Challenging

“..... Green Belt just protects now very affluent commuter belt settlements ........ This culture of negativity and restriction restricts freedom of manoeuvre for planners and the development industry”. WMRAF



Challenging

“Flexibility is [currently] a one-way street: reducing open land and increasing development; but fringe is the chance to shape rural from urban within new patterns of viability”. LWM



Challenging

“Land value is the main barrier to RUF being used for local food production and other innovative things ......” LWM



Key Messages • Economic System(s)

is/are flawed - and main barrier to change

• We value what we measure; as opposed to measure what we value

• Green Belt is part of the RUF problem, not the answer

• Where are the alternative visions?



2 Effective Stakeholder Participation



Effective Stakeholder Participation

“You need to involve the public at the outset ....so building on their traditional knowledge as part of solutions rather than just asking them to endorse a professional solution” GE




“Rather than ....so-called experts we need more creative ideas from school children...public .... mavericks .” GE




“I was recently consulted on the local plan the council asked for views on “your plan”. I wrote back and said it was surely “our” plan.” GE




“Important to .. develop tools ..... that enable people to realise and understand what the changes and actions might really mean” BCU




“Often people might agree a concept but don't deal with the detail and the interlocking pieces .... Then they oppose what they originally supported. ......” BCU




“How will [local communities] be heard and find ears in the existing power landscape [designations and institutional processes]....... We need to create new institutional arrangements” FR



Key Messages

• Broadening of expertise • Role of local knowledge

and ideas • Improve tools for

iterative + participative strategies

• Build collaborative approaches through institutional change



3 Long Termism



Long Termism

“The importance of ...agriculture and forestry in the ruf is really important. With the current recession there is a very real risk of short termism via the selling off of farm land near urban edges” BCU



Long Termism

“A lot of good information can be got from looking at the past and using that; we tend to overlook this. Learning from our historical knowledge and experience is important ....yet we tend to make the same mistakes”. BCU



Long Termism

“How do we value what we don't know exists?”.....”You don’t get people investing when you don’t know what is going to happen”. GE



Long Termism

“What about Ebenezer Howard and his visions these were long term; we don't have this kind of thinking anymore ... Why ?” BCU



Long Termism

“There is a need for better skills training and capacity building amongst policy and decision makers at all levels....not just the public”. WMRAF



Key Messages • Visions are key tools• Adaptive management

via demo projects • Markets rarely value the

long term approach • We ignore past lessons

at our peril • Move beyond spatial

solutions to invest in social capital/skills



4. Integration



Integration

“The RUF is ...... individual reflecting different needs and priorities according to local circumstances. ..... across all sectors from which a suitable model is developed”. BCU



Integration

“Value of food growing in cities and green belts as a means of sustainable development ... Achievement of health ideals.... Education for school children .. Building the cultural links between rural and urban across divides” WMRAF



Integration

“Green infrastructure planning across landscape scale areas crossing administrative boundaries.... The role of infrastructure planning is crucial but needs to be at the right scale”. BEP



Integration

“Many agencies did not have a particular view on the fringe space except when it was part of an actual project.... Although some pieces of work and evidence were commissioned, they only addressed particular features of the fringe landscape” BCU



Integration

“Interdependencies are very important and we should see to make the chain of connections more visible and more apparent” LWM



Key messages • The holy grail of integration • No one size fits all • Identify needs and priorities

of the RUF • Identify connections and

dependencies across boundaries and scales

• Improve transparency and evidence in addressing ‘needs’ and ‘priorities’



Opportunity Spaces in RUF• CHAMPION : to articulate the RUF as a place in

its own right • ADAPT : highlight different thinking and ideas

to change institutional values and planning processes eg urban agriculture

• SCALE : Work on the problem and opportunity at/across the right scale(s)

• RECONSTRUCT: improve lens to view, tell and change the RUF story.
