According to Yin,414 assembling key events in chronological order begins to produce insightful descriptive pattern and possibly even hint at possible relationships or patterns. The five case studies have been presented in chronological order to permit cross-case synthesis to capture and discover whether broader patterns across the cities can be distilled. This case study analysis technique uncovered three dominant economic pathways that appeared to instigate the business case for biophilic urbanism in each city, namely: urban-related challenges implying recognising the need to tackle negative externalities in the built environment; champion-led initiatives referring to an influential figure advocating biophilic urbanism; and inherent understanding referring to the inherent recognition of the importance and value of urban nature. Some cities followed one dominant pathway, whilst one case study, Singapore, demonstrated patterns of all three. This is discussed further in the following sections, with Table 4-1 summarising the economic pathway for each city.
Table 4-1: Identified economic pathways
City Biophilic element(s) ‘Economic’ pathway
Portland Green streets policy Urban related challenge
Chicago Millennium park Champion led initiatives
Toronto Green roofs bylaw Urban related challenge
Berlin Biotope Area Factor Inherent understanding
Singapore Garden city
City in a garden
Champion based, Inherent understanding
• The role of urban-related challenges: this refers to negative externalities in the built environment.
Portland and Toronto followed a very similar pattern to mainstreaming green streets and green roofs, respectively. Identifying the negative externality, each city set up demonstration projects and commissioned economic studies identifying the viability of the biophilic element. With positive results, a city-wide policy was thus issued.
Portland recognised the rising issues and costs of stormwater runoff. Portland’s average rainfall per year generates approximately ten billion gallons of stormwater runoff. 66 per cent of that stormwater runoff has been reported to be collected from streets and rights of way.415 This called for the need for a comprehensive urban stormwater management plan. Explorations into alternative, holistic and cost-effective solutions, governmental committees were formed to pioneer the feasibility of green streets. The Sustainable Infrastructure Committee (SIC) was formed in 2001 to coordinate efforts by City Staff to interrogate options such as street trees and porous pavements. Soon after, the Sustainable Stormwater Management Program (SSMP) was formed within the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) to address stormwater quality and quantity issues at a planning, policy, design and implementation level.416 Hence this urban externality, stormwater management, served as the economic pathway that led to the 2007 Green Street Policy in Portland.
Similarly, Toronto recognised the numerous environmental challenges commonly associated with urbanised environments, such as poor air quality, increased urban heat island effect and stormwater management issues. Hence, the city wanted to tackle these challenges, in particular stormwater management, with the use of green roofs. Toronto, like many North American cities, has a combined pipe for stormwater runoff and sanitary sewer. During dry weather, this combined sewer system works by carrying both stormwater runoff and sanitary sewage treatment plants. During wet weather, however, the increased volume of stormwater exceeds the treatment plant’s capacity, causing the release of untreated sewage into rivers and lakes. This combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem was identified as an urban related challenge that required immediate attention. The City of Toronto estimated that to cover the cost of stormwater management, a storm water utility of over a billion dollar in capital expenses and $233 million in operating expenses would be required for 25 years.417 Alternative options were thus explored, where green roofs presented themselves as viable and holistic solutions to this externality. For this reason, this has been identified as the economic pathway to the 2009 Green Roof Bylaw in Toronto.
• The role of champion led initiatives: this refers to a prominent figure in the political economy actively invested in promoting biophilic element(s).
When elected, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley set out an ambitious vision in the 1990s to make Chicago one of the greenest cities in the United States.418 One of his plans was to transform a ground-level parking lot and rail yard section of Grant Park into a world-class park, Millennium Park. This 0.99 ha park located between Chicago’s lakefront and in the midst of Chicago’s central business district, the ‘loop’ now boasts an array of renowned works of architecture, sculpture, foundations and a skating rink, as well as performance facilities, restaurants and botanic garden spaces.419 Millennium Park was a bold and ambitious undertaking which reflects a willingness on behalf of the Mayor’s office and the City of Chicago to take risks. This champion-based approach was thus identified as the ‘economic’ pathway for Chicago’s Millennium Park.
• The role of inherent understanding: this refers to the inherent appreciation of the role and value of biophilic elements in the built environment.
Berlin’s current biophilic state was not an accident; policies related to environmental protection and conservation have been mainstreamed in all areas of the City’s economic activity. These current policies are a result of a history of urban greening which Berlin has enjoyed. During the 19th century, the allotment-garden system commenced in Berlin to help the needy to grow their own food, as well as help the city mitigate against the implications of the industrial revolution and rapid growth. With an understanding of the significance of vegetation, the allotment-garden system was able to successfully improve the “self- sufficiency and the health conditions of the lower population stratum”.420 Over the course of time, and particularly more recently, the economic utility of allotment gardens was complemented by their leisure-time and recreational element, as well as by their urban planning function in providing the public with green and open spaces.
The 1980s saw the Federal and Berlin’s Nature Conservation Acts officially in place.421 The 1965 Land Use Plan was also revised, paving the way for the first 1984 Landscape Programme. With the reunification of Germany in 1990, urban planning for Berlin had to be discussed anew and the 1994 Landscape Programme including Nature Conservation was developed. The Landscape Programme is a tactical urban planning instrument developed to promote precautionary environmental protection measure. A lot of work was put into collecting the basic information on the nature and landscape in Berlin and into building stringent evaluation methods and processes to keep a record of the vegetative state of Berlin. In addition to analysing and evaluating the condition of nature and landscape in Berlin City, the Programme, in conjunction with the Land Use Plan, binds authorities by enforcing
precautionary environmental pressure considerations when an extensive urban plan is being developed. The Programme is also a very useful source of information for the community by providing a comprehensive on the “green” state of their City.422
This history cultivated a culture that innately appreciates and expects urban nature. For this reason, the ‘economic’ pathway to the Biotope Area Factor (BAF) program was classified as inherent understanding as the program was a result of meeting the demands of the community, as well as satisfying political pressures.
• The role of a mixed method approach: this refers to the manifestation of the previous three pathways as some cities have shown to have multiple pathways underway.
This section discusses that whilst some cities have exhibited just one of the pathways as dominant, others have suggested multiple pathways were underway. This was certainly the case for Singapore. Biophilic urbanism would not have been possible in Singapore without visionary politicians. A vision by a political figure in particular was an essential turning point in transforming Singapore from a city crowded with buildings into a city that is predominately green. Former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), now Senior Minister, understood that an internationally significant country needed to “look like one”.423 This ultimately generated policies that honoured this ideology424 and LKY commenced this city-state’s first tree- planting campaign on June 16 1963 by planting a Mempat Tree marking the start of a tradition that exists till this day.425 Soon after, the Garden City vision was launched426, well before the 1987 Brundtland report427 mainstreamed the concept of sustainable development.
With such awareness within government, dedicated teams to maintain, protect and enhance natural reserves and streetscapes emerged. The Garden City Action Committee (GCAC) was created in 1973 to coordinate agencies from the public sector, such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), Housing Development Board (HDB), Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Land Transport Authority to ensure their projects were all well-aligned with this vision of a “Garden City”. Hence, a major success of Singapore’s current biophilic state is attributed to the government’s pioneering role and structure that promotes communication across departments ensuring all areas of government are well-aligned, working towards a common goal.428
This champion-based pathway helped revitalise Singapore’s economy as well as cultivate a culture that appreciates urban nature. Recognising urban related challenges such as UHI, prompted this vision to evolve into the ‘City in a Garden’ program. Skyrise Greenery came into place and explored the feasibility of green roofs and green walls in Singapore. Analysis of Singapore’s biophilic elements identified that a formal economic case was not presented. Rather, an informal case championed by politicians instigated biophilic urbanism, which also
cultivated a culture that appreciate urban nature and developed government departments that continuously identity opportunities to tackle urban-related issues with biophilic elements.