Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice

Disintegrated

development

at

the

rural–urban

fringe:

Re-connecting

spatial

planning

theory

and

practice

§§

A.J.

Scott

*

,

C.

Carter

,

M.R.

Reed

,

P.

Larkham

,

D.

Adams

,

N.

Morton

,

R.

Waters

,

D.

Collier

,

C.

Crean

,

R.

Curzon

,

R.

Forster

,

P.

Gibbs

,

N.

Grayson

,

M.

Hardman

,

A.

Hearle

,

D.

Jarvis

,

M.

Kennet

,

K.

Leach

,

M.

Middleton

,

N.

Schiessel

,

B.

Stonyer

,

R.

Coles

a

BirminghamCityUniversity,BirminghamSchooloftheBuiltEnvironment,UnitedKingdom

b_{NaturalEngland,UnitedKingdom} c_{NationalFarmersUnion,UnitedKingdom}

d_{LocaliseWestMidlands,UnitedKingdom} e_{WestMidlandsRuralAffairsForum,UnitedKingdom}

f_{DavidJarvisAssociates,UnitedKingdom} g_{BirminghamEnvironmentPartnership,UnitedKingdom}

h_{GreenEconomics,UnitedKingdom} i_{WestMidlandsRegionalAssembly,UnitedKingdom}

j_{BirminghamCityUniversity,BirminghamInstituteofArtandDesign,UnitedKingdom}

Abstract

Thespaceswherecountrysidemeetstownareoftenamongstsociety’smostvaluedandpressuredplaceswhichtogetherform therural–urbanfringe(RUF).A‘messy’yetopportunisticspaceinpolicyanddecisionmakingprocesses,theRUFremains confusedand‘disintegrated’lackingsufficientunderstandingandexplicitattentionforsustainablemanagementasplacesin theirownright.Thispaperexposesthescope,natureandreasonsleadingtowardspolicydisintegrationwithintheRUFwith criticalattentionontheseparatelensesoftheEcosystemApproachandSpatialPlanningframeworksreflectingamarkednatural andbuiltenvironmentdivide.UsingresearchfundedbytheRuralEconomyandLandUseprogramme,three‘bridging’concepts were identified within which improved integration is explored: Time, Connections and Values. Using team member thoughtpiecesandworkshops,togetherwithvisioningexercisesintworural–urbanfringes,aseriesofnarrativesarepresented withinwhichtheRUFopportunityisre-discoveredsetwithinahybridisedtheoryofspatialandenvironmentalplanning.Inso doingthepaperchallengesestablishedeconomicandplanningmodelsofurbandevelopmentandexpansionwithmoreholistic ideasandapproaches.Onesize-fits-allsolutionssuchasgreenbelts,regionalismorlocalismarerejectedwithinanapproachthat championsmulti-scalarandsectoralperspectivessetwithinagovernanceframeworkthatachievessocialandeconomic well-beingthroughmaintainingandenhancingecosystemfunctionsandservices.Weconcludebyarguingthatpolicystrandswithin

www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann

§§_{Theresearchreportedherehassecuredinformationandinputfromallthecontributorslistedabove.However,theviewsandideasexpressed}

withinthispaperdonotreflecttheviewsofthefollowingorganisations(NaturalEngland,NationalFarmersUnion,BirminghamCityCounciland BirminghamEnvironmentPartnership)andremainthoseoftheauthorsthemselves.

*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+441213317551. E-mailaddress:[email protected](A.J.Scott). 0305-9006 #_{2013TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.}

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001

environmentandplanningmustbebetterconnectedallowingtheRUFtobedevelopedasanopportunityspacefortestingand experimentation.

#_{2013TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.}

Keywords:Spatialplanning;Ecosystemapproach;Policydisintegration;Rural–urbanFringe;Transdisciplinarity

Contents

1. Introducingdisintegrateddevelopmentandtherural–urbanfringe... 2

1.1. Introduction... 2

1.2. Spatialplanning... 4

1.3. Theecosystemapproach... 4

1.4. Exposingthebuiltandnaturalenvironmentdivide... 7

2. Therural–urbanfringe:problemoropportunityspace?... 8

3. Learningthelessons1:ahistoricalurban-lednarrativeofRUFevolutionanddisintegration... 11

3.1. Ringsandcities1:BurgessandChicago ... 12

3.2. Ringsandcities2:fringebelts... 12

3.3. Ringsandcities3:greenbelts... 13

3.4. Fragmentationattheurbanedge? ... 14

3.5. Lessons... 15

4. Learningthelessons2:ahistoricalrural–lednarrativereconnectingtheRUFwithinthe countrysidemanagementapproach... 15

5. Doingtransdisciplinaryresearch:managingthe‘messiness’oftheRUF... 17

6. Results:tellingstoriesabouttheRUF... 25

6.1. Storyline1:disintegratedtheoriesbetweenthenaturalandbuiltenvironment ... 25

6.2. Storyline2:disintegratedpolicyanddecisionsintheRUF ... 27

6.3. Storyline3:reconnectingtheRUF... 30

7. Discussion:fromnarrativestowardsinterdisciplinarytheoryforintegratingEAandSP... 36

7.1. ConfrontingdisintegratedpolicyanddecisionmakingintheRUF... 36

7.2. Afocusontime:learningfromthepastandlookingtothelongtermfuture... 38

7.3. Afocusonconnectivityandcrossingboundaries... 39

7.4. ManagingcontestedvaluesandtheartofgooddecisionmakingintheRUF... 41

7.5. NurturingtheSPandEAdimensionsofplanningtheoryandpractice ... 42

7.6. Conclusion ... 43

Acknowledgements ... 45

References ... 45

1. Introducing disintegrateddevelopmentand therural–urbanfringe

1.1. Introduction

Thispaperre-discoverstherural–urbanfringe(RUF) as a positive opportunity space within which we advancenewideastore-connectthetheoryandpractice ofspatialplanning.Ourstartingpropositionisthatthe RUFrepresentsaneglectedandforgottenpolicyspace, rarelybeingconsideredasaplaceinitsownrightwith its own needs and priorities. Current academic and policy concern champions either the urban (see, for example,Bridge&Watson,2011;Fainstein& Camp-bell, 2011; LeGates &Stout, 2011) or rural (see, for

example, Cloke, Marsden, & Mooney, 2005; Curry, 2010;Goodwin,2000;Halfacree,1994;Phillips,2010) domainsattheexpenseofthespacesand interrelation-ships between them which, arguably, is where policy and decision making need to be improved and prioritised (Hodge & Monk, 2004; OECD, 2011). Consequently, governance arrangements are firmly entrenched and polarised between the built (urban) and natural (rural) environment within what we term ‘disintegrated’policy anddecision making(Fig.1);a conceptfirstusedbyShucksmith(2010)toproblematise theevolutionofruraldevelopmentpolicyandpractice. We argue that this phenomenon is now endemic in wider policy and decision making processes and exacerbatedinfringespaces.

Fig.1illustratesthisdisintegrationculture schema-tically. Particular information and data are selected, valued and used according to the ‘lens’ of the user. Information flow is controlled and managed through key ‘gatekeepers’ whose frameworks ensure that supportive forms of information are allowed to pass through.This‘filtered’informationisthenanalysedand used toinformpolicyanddecision makingprocesses. However, the sectoral nature of policy and practice meansthatmanyseparateandindividualdecisionsare made in isolation. Each decision brings with it both intended and unintended consequences. Thus, the cumulative impact of all these decisions shapes the chaotic,complexandcontradictoryspacesthatarenot easily deconstructed (Curry, 2008; Ilberry, 1991). Furthermore,top-down impositionof change canalso occur through the active intervention of government and/orpowerfulstakeholderswhomanipulateorbypass themaininstitutionalgatekeepersandsystemsthrough theirpowerandinfluence,therebyfurthercomplicating thedecisionmakingpicture(e.g.Cowell,2003;Phelps & Tewdwr-Jones, 2000). Finally, there is also the occurrenceofchanceorrandomeventsordisastersthat generatepolicychangesuchasthe2001footandmouth outbreak (Scott, Midmore, & Christie, 2004). This

resultant‘sea’ofcomplexityinhibitssociallearningdue tothelackof effectiveandopenevaluationsbuiltinto the decision/policy making interventions (Hodge & Midmore, 2008). Thus we witness an institutional landscape characterised by uncertainty and conflict (Rauws &de Roo, 2011), whereinstitutional change merelyaddsfurtherlayerstoexistinggovernancerather thantransformingit(Ward,2006,chap.3).Curry(1993)

has captured this within what he calls the fallacy of creeping(institutional)incrementalism.

Inresponsetosuchthinking wecanchartacademic andpolicycommentatorscallingformoreintegratedand joinedupdevelopmentresponses(Curry,1993;Edwards, Goodwin,Pemberton,&Woods,2001;Ward, Donald-son,& Lowe,2004).This resonateswith much ofthe discourseassociatedwithintegratedruraldevelopmentin the1980s(e.g.Shucksmith,2010;Ward,2006,chap.3) andcanbetracedthroughthesubsequentdiscoursesin ruralrestructuring,sustainabledevelopmentand multi-functionality(Scott,Gilbert,&Gelan,2007).

Incontemporaryparlance,twoparadigmshavebeen advanced andoperationalised within interdisciplinary thinking and frameworks. Both represent alternative andcompetinglenseswithinwhichtoview,manageand improvepolicyanddecisions;aseachchampionstheir

Fig.1. DisintegratedPolicyandDecisionMaking.

Source:Grayson,N.,Irvine,K.,Scott,A.J.,Stapleton,L.,&Willis,C.A.(2012).VNNbridgeworkshop:Valuesanddecisionmaking,13June2012. London.

particular approach with academic and professional alliances.Thusthebuiltenvironmentlensisarticulated through the concept of spatial planning (SP) (Nadin, 2007;Tewdwr-Jones,Gallent,&Morphet,2010),whilst thenaturalenvironment lensisarticulatedthroughthe ecosystem approach (EA) (NEA, 2011; UNCBD, 2010).Giventhe centralityof theseparadigmstothis paper,theyarenow brieflyunpacked.

1.2. Spatialplanning

Spatialplanning(SP)hasbeendescribedasnothing more than ‘applied common sense’ (Collier, 2010). However, its rather uncritical use as an overarching term for a panoply of planning regimes and approaches, with its attendant definitional variants, has resulted in conceptual vagueness and highly variable application and understanding amongst the planningandbuiltenvironmentprofessionsandwider public(s)(Allmendinger&Haughton,2009).Thishas ledtosomecommentatorsevenclaimingthatthe‘SP project’ has failed (Scott, 2010a; Taylor, 2010). In theorySPrepresentsatransformationfromtraditional notionsofplanningdrivenbyland-useallocationand design emphasising control and restraint, towards more proactive, positive and holistic emphases involvingmulti-scalarandmulti-sectoralperspectives (Table1).

Thusplanningistransformedintoaproactiveagent ofpositivesocial,economicandenvironmentalchange (Albrechts,2004;Tewdwr-Jonesetal.,2010).Thishas been crystallised by Healey (2010, p. 19) in her definition:

‘‘Anorientationtothefutureandabeliefthataction nowcanshapefuturepotentialities.

Anemphasisonliveabilityandsustainabilityforthe many,notthe few.

 An emphasison interdependences and interconnec-tivitiesbetweenonephenomenonandanother,across timeandspace.

 Anemphasis onexpanding the knowledgeability of publicaction,expandingthe‘intelligence’ofapolity.  A commitment to open, transparent government processes, to open processes of reasoning in and aboutthepublic realm.’’

StemmingfromtheEuropeanSpatialDevelopment Perspective (ESDP) and implemented in England within the 2004 planning reforms (Planning and CompensationAct),theseideas,arguably,represented amajorculturechangeintheprocessandoutcomesof planningsetwithinthe‘makingofplaceandmediation of space’ (RTPI, 2001).Thisposed keychallenges in integratingspatialpolicybetweendifferentsectorsand scales,breakingdowndepartmentalandorganisational barriers(Morphet,2010;Nadin,2007).Theimportance ofthe‘spatial’issignificanthere;signifyingbothstatic anddynamicinterpretationsofthe‘where’ofthings,the creationandmanagementofplace(placemaking); the interrelationsbetweendifferentactivitiesinanarea,and significantintersectionsandnodeswithinanareawhich arephysicallyco-located(Albrechts,2004).Thisshifts the focus of attention on to the networks and connectionsbetweenplacesandpeoplefromtheplaces themselves(Hodge&Monk, 2004).

1.3. The ecosystemapproach

The Ecosystem Approach (EA) is defined by

UNCBD(2010,p.12)as‘‘astrategyfortheintegrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitableway’’.

UndertheConventiononBiologicalDiversitythere are 12coreprinciplesthatunderlie theEA.

Table1

Aspatialplanningframework(Kidd,2007,p.167,Fig.2).

Sectoral Cross-sectoralintegration Integrationofdifferentpublicpolicydomainswithinaterritory

Inter-agencyintegration Integrationofpublic,privateandvoluntarysectoractivitywithinaterritory Territorial Verticalintegration Integrationbetweendifferentspatialscalesofspatialplanningactivity

Horizontalintegration Integrationofspatialplanningactivitybetweenadjoiningareasorareas withsomesharedinterest

Organisational Strategicintegration Integrationofspatialplanningwithotherstrategies,programmesand initiativeswithinaterritory

Operationalintegration Integrationofspatialplanningwiththeirdeliverymechanismsinall relevantagencieswithinaterritory

1‘‘Theobjectivesofmanagementofland,waterand livingresourcesare amatter ofsocietalchoice. 2Management shouldbe decentralizedtothelowest

appropriatelevel.

3Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent andotherecosystems.

4Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand andmanage theecosystem inaneconomiccontext.

5Conservationof ecosystem structureand function-ing,inordertomaintainecosystemservices,should beaprioritytargetof theecosystemapproach. 6Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of

theirfunctioning.

7Theecosystemapproachshouldbeundertakenatthe appropriatespatial andtemporal scales.

8Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be setforthe longterm.

9Managementmustrecognize thechangeis inevita-ble.

10Theecosystemapproachshouldseektheappropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation anduseofbiologicaldiversity.

11Theecosystem approachshouldconsiderallforms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

12Theecosystemapproachshouldinvolveallrelevant sectorsofsocietyandscientific disciplines’’.

http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml

accessed 12May2013.

Waters (2010, p. 2) argues that this represents a fundamental culture change in the way we manage, valueandpayforournaturalandbuiltenvironments:‘‘it will involveamoveawayfromspecies andsitebased conservation, in which nature is fitted in around the otherthingspeopledo,totrulyintegratedlandandsea managementforthebenefitofpeopleandsociety’’.The importanceofholism,long-termism,complexadaptive systems, social inclusion and social learning are stressedwithintheliterature(e.g.Bull,Petts,&Evans, 2008; Fazey &Schultz, 2009; Gunderson&Holling, 2001; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2007; Plummer & Armitage, 2007).

Within the EA, the natural environment has been conceptualisedinrelationtothegoodsandservicesthat nature provides for humans as ‘ecosystem services’ (e.g. NEA,2011) which appears to have become the

dominant term, though some distinguish between ecosystemfunctions,goodsandservices(e.g.deGroot, Wilson,etal.,2002).Ecosystem servicesaregrouped as:supportingservices(necessaryfortheproductionof other ecosystem services; e.g. soil formation, photo-synthesis and nutrient cycling); provisioning services (ecosystem products; e.g. food, fibre and water); regulatingservices(includingprocessessuchasclimate stabilisation, erosion regulation and pollination); and cultural services (non-material benefits from ecosys-tems;e.g. spiritual fulfilment,cognitive development, landscape and recreation) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; NEA, 2011). The ecosystem servicesliteratureemphasisesthedependenceofhuman well-being on‘natural capital’.Thishighly anthropo-centric approach focuses on what humansdepend on andcan get from nature. In this way,it connectsthe humanpopulation,includingthemajoritywhonowlive inurbanenvironments,withtheirwiderenvironment.It emphasiseshumandependencyupontheenvironment, viewingnatureasalifesupportsystemwhichhumans disruptattheirperil,ratherthanaluxurytobeenjoyed bythosewhocanaffordtoprotectit(Box1).Yetthereis alsoaninherent dangerthatthe conceptofecosystem servicesisusedinahighlysuperficialwaytomaskor avoid the need for more fundamental changes in thinking and behaviour. Norgaard (2010, p. 1219f)

considers the ‘‘transition from metaphor to scientific framework’’andwarnsofitspotentiallyblindingeffect throughtoo-simplisticassumptions andpersistenceof an economic growth-driven policy model and limited useofecologicalandsystems-basedframeworkstodeal with the actual problems of overconsumption. He arguesfortheneedforsubstantialinstitutionalchanges tosignificantlyreducehumanpressuresonecosystems and to invest in/develop multi-scalar environmental governancestructures.

Ratherthanjustfocusingonecosystemservices,we needtorealisethat,crucially,theEAcontainswithinit thenotionthathumansareanintegralpartofnatureand not separated from it. Although the impacts of urban areasonecosystemserviceshavebeenwelldocumented (e.g.Lorenz&Lal,2009;Sanford,Manley,&Murphy, 2009;Schneider,Friedl,&Potere,2010),therehavebeen veryfewattemptstouseanecosystem-basedframework in a spatial planning context to consider how future development may minimise negative effects on the provision of ecosystem services (Nowicki, Young, & Watt,2005).

Although the ecosystem services concept aims to conceptualisethecomplexlinksbetweenecosystemsand humanwell-being,itonlycoversnaturalcapitalanddoes

notconsider theroleof adaptationstrategiesbased on human, physical, social or financial capital to protect humanwell-being inthefaceoffuturechange (Spash, 2008).TheEA,therefore,attemptstoconsiderthesocial, economic and political–cultural context of ecosystem services. This recognises that different stakeholders valueecosystemservicesdifferently,andemphasisesthe importance of incorporating stakeholder perceptions, property rights and institutions within the sustainable managementofecosystemservices(Spash,2008).This requirestheadoptionofmoreparticipatoryapproaches incorporating ideas of community governance and ownership over particular ecosystem service manage-ment (e.g. Bryden & Geisler, 2007; Marshall, 2005;

Quirk, 2007). However,themushrooming of plans set againsttheartificialreductionismofdifferentecosystem servicesthatmightensueraisesimportantissuesoverthe lossofthe‘biggerpicture’(Scott,2006).

Theconceptualchallengeisthereforetobroadenthe planningprocessthroughnewenvironmentalemphases toconsiderlikelyimpactsofdevelopmentsonamuch wider range of ecosystem services than is currently done.Here,appropriate assessmentsthroughStrategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Habitat Regulations Assessments (HRA) provide a useful role measuring impactswheretheyarelikelytobefelt;e.g.considering downstreameffectsandhabitatconnectivitytofacilitate

Box1. Theecosystemapproachconcept.

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press: Washington,p.9.

movement of species under climate change, whilst retaining high levels of stakeholder engagement (Therivel, 2009). This may include the prioritisation of ecosystemservicesbythepublic toreflectregional differencesinpeople’svalues(Christieetal.,2010).It mayalsorequirecollaborationbetweenlandownersand managers across property boundaries to ensure that appropriatemeasuresaretakentomanagethepotential effects of developments at a wider landscape scale (Selman,2006;Prager, Reed,&Scott,2011).

1.4. Exposingthebuiltandnaturalenvironment divide

Significantly, both SP and EA paradigms have evolvedseparately,rootedwithintheirwell-established disciplinaryandinstitutionalhistoriesandsilos.These have shaped distinctive policy responses and institu-tional architectures which have exposed a significant urban/built versus rural/natural environment divide (Curry, 1993, 2008; Scott, 2012). This is at its most marked and pernicious in the RUF where both frameworks coincide in daily practice and decision making (Scott&Carter,2012).Fig.2 highlights how this divide is embedded in governance arrangements withinEnglandatallscalesand,inparticular,howthe newinstitutionalresponsesmerelyaddtothecomplex governancepatterns.Thisfurtherfragmentspolicyand decision making into particular silos and elites, exacerbatingthedisintegrationofthinkingacrossboth sectorsandscales.Thustheseedsofconflictaresownas strategiesandplansaredeveloped inagency orsector isolation(Scott,2012).Understandingtherootsofthis divide within the UK context provides an important

narrative from which we might attempt to intervene positivelyusinginterdisciplinarythinkingandpractice. However, such research endeavours and policy pro-cessesarethemselveshamperedbycompartmentalised thinking concomitant with the need to continue to champion particular disciplinary approaches (Tress, Tress,&Fry,2005).

The artificial separation of the built and natural environment inthe UK was manufacturedprincipally through post-Second World War planning legislation (TownandCountryPlanningAct,1947)whichcreated twoplanningsystems:townandcountryplanning(now associatedwithSP ideas)andresourceplanning(now associatedwiththeEA)(Curry,1993,2008).Here,the imperativetocontrolurbandevelopmentwasvestedin townandcountryplanningprocedures,motivatedbythe rapid pace of suburbanisation in the inter-war period whichgenerated asignificant anti-urbanethic (Sharp, 1940;Williams-Ellis,1938).Thecontrastingimperative wastorevitaliseruralareasbyincentivisingagricultural andforestryintensification,throughresourceplanning functions motivated by wartime concern over food security (Curry & Owen, 2009; Scott & Shannon, 2007). These opposing philosophies of controls and incentivesmanufactured a clear divide, which subse-quentlyhascreatedsignificanttensionsand incompat-ibilitiesinplanningtheoryandpracticeacrossthetwo planningsystemswhenandwheretheycoincideatthe RUF(Ilberry,1991).Thisdividestillpersiststodaywith integratedpoliciesandactionsremainingtheexception ratherthanthe rule(Scott,2012).Indeed,theseparate institutionalarchitecturesandlandscapesofthedivide have shaped much of the spatial complexity and challenge facing the RUF itself, where these two

systems convergeandoften conflictindaily planning practice(Fig.2;Scottetal.,2007).

Thislonghistoryandcontinuingproblemof separa-tion means that the connections between SP and EA remain poorly developed and explored, which has hindered effective communication, management and resolution of environment conflicts and opportunities, furthering polarisationbetween development and con-servation viewpoints,prioritiesandgoals(Cowell,2003). Surprisingly,fewattemptshavebeenmadetoexplorethe synergies and interdependencies between SP and EA approachestomanagingthe builtandnatural environ-mentalthoughNowickietal. (2005),Opdam, Foppen, and Vos (2002)and Harris and Tewdwr-Jones (2010)

haveallbrieflyflirtedatthispolicyinterface.Sharpand Clark(2008)believethatthisisduebothtothelackof researcherswho actively locatetheir workwithin this interfaceandtothelackofstudiesonthefringeandthe publicswhoresideandworktherewhich,initself,isa further manifestation of the disintegrated nature of academicresearch.Thecontinuedpolicy‘disintegration’ hasobfuscatedanyvisionofwhatkindofRUFwewant andhowwemightfacilitatethisinpractice.

The quest for improvedunderstanding of the RUF becomesallthemorecompellinggiventhattheRUFnow representsone of the dominantspaces of the contem-porary landscape both in UK and global contexts (McKenzie, 1997; OECD, 2011; Rauws & de Roo, 2011).YetthecontextwithinwhichtheRUFislocatedis rootedinstrongseparatistforceswhichincreasinglylead to these spaces becoming forgotten and marginalised (Qvistro¨m,2010).Ourapproachinthispaper,therefore, is to confront this management challenge directly throughusingtheexperienceandinsightfromresearch fundedby theRural EconomyandLandUse (RELU) programmeonenvironmentalchangeintheRUF.1Using coreevidencefromliteraturereviewsandprimaryfield data from visioning and workshops, we unpack the disintegratedcharacterandnatureoftheRUF.Thepaper proceeds with a literature review highlighting the challenges for the RUF space, identifying important lessonsfrom pastpolicy interventions. Wethendetail how our transdisciplinary approach can address these challenges,presentingtheresultsinaseriesofnarratives

highlightingbothdisintegratedandintegratedexamples. Theconceptual frameworkbehind thisresearch, incor-poratingTime,ConnectionsandValues,isthencritically discussed and posited as a means to developa meta-theory within which to improve policy and decision making across the built and natural environment in generalandtheRUFinparticular.

2. Therural–urban fringe:problemor opportunity space?

‘‘If we want tochange the landscape in important waysweshallhavetochangetheideasthathavecreated andsustainedwhatwesee’’(Meinig,1979,p.42).

Thezonewhereacityortownmeetsthecountryside isubiquitous,dynamicandhighlydiverse(Low-Choy, Sutherland, Gleeson, Dodson, & Sipe, 2008; Pryor, 1968;Ravetz,2010).Gallent,Andersson,andBianconi (2004, p. 223) suggest that the key attributes of the rural–urbanfringeare asfollows:

 ‘‘a multi-functional environment, but often charac-terisedbyessentialservice functions;

 adynamicenvironment,characterisedbyadaptation andconversionbetweenuses;

 low-density economic activity including retail, industry,distributionandwarehousing;

 anuntidylandscape,potentially richinwildlife’’. TheseminalpaperbyPryor(1968,p.206)provides both an informative and comprehensive definition of thisclassicspaceof transition:

‘‘Therural–urbanfringeisthe zoneoftransitionin land use, social and demographic characteristics, lying between (a) the continuously built-up urban andsub-urbanareasof thecentral city,and(b) the rural hinterland, characterised by the almost com-plete absence of non-farm dwellings, occupations and land use, and of urban and rural social orientation; an incomplete range and penetration of urban utility services; uncoordinated zoning or planning regulations; areal extension beyond al-thoughcontiguouswiththepoliticalboundaryofthe centralcity;andanactualandpotentialincreasein population density, with the current density above thatofsurroundingruraldistrictsbutlowerthanthe central city. These characteristics may differ both zonallyandsectorally,andwillbemodifiedthrough time’’.

Rather than containing any clear boundaries, the fringe is characterised by ‘fuzzy’ and permeable

1_{‘ManagingEnvironmental Changeat theRural-Urban Fringe’}

(RES-240-25-0016)wasfundedbyRuralEconomyandLandUse Programme(RELU)whichisacollaborationbetweentheEconomic and Social Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Counciland theBiotechnology and BiologicalSciences Research Council,withadditionalfundingfromDefraandtheScottish Gov-ernment.

boundaries within whichad hoc, iterative and hapha-zard development processes and changes occur at a varietyofspatialandtemporalscales(Qvistro¨m,2007; Rauws&deRoo,2011;Sullivan&Lovell,2006).Itis these extremes of change and continuity that differ-entiate thisspacefromotherrural andurbandomains and,giventherangeofinterestsaffected,canengender significant local contestation (e.g. Friedberger, 2000; Friedland, 2002; Scott & Carter, 2011; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). According to Ravetz (2010), such complexityanddiversityreflectsitsmulti-level, multi-sectoral, multi-functional and multi-scalar attributes, therebyrenderinganygeneralitiesoftheRUFfallacious (Bryant, 1995;Qvistro¨m,2007).

Deconstructingthe RUF, isacomplexundertaking and can become a self-defeating exercise (Qvistro¨m, 2007).Indeed, thereis aburgeoningnumberof terms advanced inthe pursuitof adefinitional ‘holygrail’; rangingfromlandscapesattheedge(Gallent,Bianconi, &Andersson,2006);placesoftransition(Whitehand& Morton,2004); heterogeneousmosaics (Allen, 2003); landscapes of disorder (Qvistro¨m, 2007); chaotic landscapes (Gant, Robinson, & Fazal, 2011); new geographyofurbansprawl(Micarelli&Pizzoli,2008); thelastfrontier(Griffiths,1994);ephemerallandscapes (Qvistro¨m & Saltzman, 2006); edgelands (Farley & Roberts,2012;Shoard,2002);andforgottenlandscapes (Scott, 2012). Collectively, these terms all signify an implicit‘otherness’,heavilyladenwithnegative over-tones,implyingthatitisa‘‘spacewaitingforsomething bettertocomealong’’.AsQvistro¨m(2007)laments,the landscapesoftheRUFoftenremainuncertain;inlimbo, waitingforplanstobefulfilled,decisionstobemade, andideastobe realisedordevelopment tobestarted. ThisnegativityassociatedwiththeRUFalsoservesto obscure its true nature and potential, hindering more strategic andintegratedpolicy responses (Scottet al., 2012a; Whitehand & Morton, 2006). This is exacer-bated by a rapidly changing political, economic, environmental and social climate generating uncer-tainty, loose andrather simplistic definitions (Gallent et al., 2006), confused terminology (Sharp & Clark, 2008)andlackof cleardelineationinresearchdesign and publications (Pryor, 1968; Qvistro¨m, 2007). Nevertheless, accordingto Gallent etal.(2006), such diversity and assemblage of different land uses and interestsreflectits‘uniqueness’andcreativity;apoint reinforced by Spedding in a rare positive assessment

Spedding(2004,p.1):

‘‘Thefringeisnotjustthe placewheretownmeets countrybutacollectionofdynamicandproductive

environments set in inspiring cultural landscapes, meetingtheneedsofboththepresentandhelpingto changethewaywe liveinthefuture’’.

Significantly, many definitions identify the RUF from the juxtaposition of land usecharacteristics and changealone,focussingonthehardandnarrow‘edge’ spacewheretownmeetscountry:butthereisemerging workthatlooksmorecriticallyattheroleofurbanand ruralinterrelationships,valuesandperceptionsthat re-define and re-shape the RUF (e.g. Hodge & Monk, 2004; Phillips, 2010; Scott & Carter, 2011). Ravetz (2010,p.3)observes:

‘‘It has many definitions: e.g. urban fringe: urban hinterland: functional territory: urban–rural inter-face: rural–urban-region,etc. It is subject tomany layersof influence from localto regional,national andglobal:itinvolvesawidevarietyofstakeholders, actors and institutions: and it shows levels of complexity, innovation, transition and emergence. Itisshapedasmuchbysocio-culturaldiscoursesas directfunctionalrelationships:andtheperi-urbanis often difficult to define with geographical bound-aries’’.

SuchthinkingtransformsandexpandstheRUFzone ofinfluenceintoareaswhicharegenerallyseenasrural. However, rural and urban interests now coincide through the changing social structures and dynamics ofcountrysideandurbanchange(Phillips,2010).Here, rural land use functions and landscapes can be transformed by urban values and interests within a fusionofnewcommuter-styleincomersor,perversely, canbe recognisedwithin citiessuchas Detroitwhere newrural-basedlifestylesareemerginginthecontextof urbandecline(Giorda,2012).

Thisfocusoneithertheurbanorruralhasresultedin twodifferentliteraturesassociatedwiththeurban–rural fringe (Elson, 1986; Kirkey & Forsyth, 2001; Piorr, Ravetz,&Tosics,2011)andtherural–urbanfringe(e.g.

Gallentetal.,2004;Gantetal.,2011;Qvistro¨m,2007). This switch of emphasis from urban–rural fringe to rural–urbanfringeisimportantasitsignalsachangein the way the space is viewed, challenging prevailing urban-centric values which portray the fringe as a transitory space for an ever-increasing set of urban-centred demands for housing, retail development, tourism, recreation and transport infrastructure. The rural-centric perspective opens up new narratives of developmentwithinthechangingnatureofrural–urban relationships,withinreconstructionsoffringespacesas opportunitiesforwoodlands,communityfoodgrowing

andbio-energyas part of widerregeneration agendas (Rauws&deRoo,2011;Scottetal.,2012a,b;Scott& Collier,2012)(Fig.3).

However, such rural-centrism is strictly limited in practice(Ambrose-Oji,Carter,Lawrence,&Moseley, 2012), further compounding the fragmented institu-tional interfaces and power relations that shape the contemporary landscape (Bryant, 1995; Friedland, 2002; Low-Choy et al., 2008). Hough, 1990, p. 88 observes:

‘‘Ithaslongbeenthefateoftherurallandscapeatthe edgeof thecitytobethe rawmaterialfor housing subdivisions, industrial estates, and mobile-home parks. The notion that urban development is the highest andbest use for non-urban land is written into the lexicon of every urban planner. The changing scene at the edge and the placelessness thatgoes along with it has becomea battleground between efforts to preserve rural land and the relentlessforcesofurbanisation’’.

Given the dominance of the RUF in geographical space,its neglectin research and policy is surprising.

SharpandClark(2008,p.64)attributethistoitsedgeand boundary mentality which does not accord well with current agency organisation, disciplinary foci and

specialisations and resultant work programmes. This alsohinderseffectivedatacaptureandknowledgeabout thequalityandpotentialofthefringespaceandtheneeds andprioritiesofthepeoplewholivethere.ExistingRUF research tends to be dominated by a US literature focusingontheex-urban(Brownetal.,2008;Sharp& Clark,2008)andbyaUKliteratureandpolicycentredon thegreenbeltandurbansprawl(Bovill,2002;Gantetal., 2011;Whitehand&Morton,2003).Rarelyisthefringe considered in its entirety (see work by Gallent et al. (2004, 2006) as an important exception). This is all positionedwithinanurban-centricideologyfocussingon urban chronologies, evolution, containment and form (Gant et al., 2011; Jenks, Burton, & Williams, 1996; Thrall, 1987; Whitehand & Morton, 2003, 2004). In particular,theconceptsofthecompactcity(Jenksetal., 1996; Neuman, 2005), city regions (Ward, 2004) and SMARTgrowth(Daniels,2001)arebecoming increas-ingly influential (Piorret al., 2011) but, accordingto some,anunwelcomedistraction(Qvistro¨m,2007).Much of this research hasbeen onchronologies of develop-ment, especially over long periods, with little attempt made to explore fringe belts in relation to decision-makers and decision making, or in relation to plan-makinganddevelopmentcontrol(Whitehand&Morton, 2004,p.276).Significantly,Gantetal.(2011)recognise

this withinawidernarrativeof RUFdevelopmentand evolutionusinganalysesofdevelopmentcontroldata.

The core RUF literature, therefore, collectively provides important evidence of a RUF besieged by problemsof disintegratedpolicy anddecisionmaking set within a confused identity and character. Specific researchcasestudiesfurtherilluminatethe sometimes perversepolicycontradictionsandtensions causedby this. For example, Ilberry’s (1991) research on diversification in the Birmingham RUF revealed that agricultural change and diversification were simulta-neously both encouraged (agricultural policy) and resisted(planningpolicy)throughamarkedfailure of policyco-ordination.Low-Choyetal.(2008),observing peri-urbanisation in Australia, reveal a significant disconnect between the current direction of planning approaches towards sustainable development and SMARTgrowth,andthecontinued spatial fragmenta-tion of landscape associated with new dispersed residentialdevelopmentsoccurringinthe ruralfringe. Similarly, Scott, Shorten, Owen, and Owen (2009), drawing from a range of field-based visioning case studies across Wales, found that although there was marked convergence between the desires of RUF inhabitantsandthegeneralthrustofnationalplanning policy, actual planning decisions on the ground were perceived to be ‘out of order’due firstlyto the large scale nature of developments and secondly the poor quality ‘homogenised’ and placeless nature of such developments. Here powerand political influence are key drivers leading to the disintegrated nature of decision making in the RUFand which are vital yet neglected components in the understanding of con-temporary landscape governance arrangements (Piorr etal., 2011;Scott,2011a, 2011b).

In the quest for integration and simplification, however, Qvistro¨m (2007) sounds a note of caution about using professionally-led solutions that try to impose aparticularorderonthe RUF,alandscape he seescharacterisedbyinherentdisorderandmessiness. He argues thatplanners’ quest for spatial conformity might stifle the very innovation and creativity that adaptive management strategies now promote ( Hard-man,Larkham, Curzon,&Lamb, 2012). Here,actual andpotential useswithin theRUFcan readilyescape simple categorisation, being something in between; wherethecharacterandqualitiesdonotreadilyconform toplanners’orecologists’professionalvalues,yetthey offerintrinsic valueandbenefitstosociety(Lefebvre, 1991; Adams,Hardman,&Scott,2013).TheChemin deFerinParisrepresentsaclassicexampleofsuchRUF use(Foster,2011).Afterthirtyyearsofneglect,thisrail

linecirclingtheinnerrimofParishasevolvedintoa 32-km long ecological feature attracting significant resident wildlife, forming a network of ecological habitatthat hasclaimedformer industrialsitesacross thecity.Thisrailline’s‘vacant’statusenablescreative andunsanctioned(illegal)formsofhumanoccupation; usesthatareotherwisebeunavailableinthecity.This presents a unique urban, environmental and social ecosystem, rich indiversity andvalue. However, it is currentlysetwithinacontemporaryplanningdiscourse thatseekstore-establish conventionalplanningorder, accordingtozonedusesandconventionalregeneration plans.

Itis,hardlysurprisingthattheRUFisoftenportrayed as anegative space reflectingthe failure of planning, ratherthanasapositiveopportunityspacewithinwhich more creative and innovative things might happen (Gallent&Shaw,2008).Qvistro¨m(2010,p.220)argues that‘‘reinterpretations of the landscapediscourse can reveal changing or competing ways of viewing the urban fringe. An investigation into the dichotomous idealsofUrban/RuralandNature/Cultureoffersapoint ofdeparturefor anunderstandingofthisdiscourse’’.

Indeed,itisherethatweseeproponentsofSMART growth arguingfor a densificationmodel of the RUF that avoids suburban sprawl (Lainton, 2012). Recent initiatives such as Incredible Edible at Todmorden indicatethattheconceptofurbanagriculturemayhave strongcurrencyandresilienceintheRUF,evenserving asanexemplarforintegrateddevelopment(Piorretal., 2011).The starting point,however, isto considerthe specificneedsofthepeopleandplacethemselvesrather thanimposeparticularsolutionsanditisthisonebasic tenetthathasescapedmuchofthediscourseaboutthe futuredirectionofresearchintheRUF(Sharp&Clark, 2008). In order to address this we need to learn the lessons from past policy interventions and research. Thisformsthefocusof thenexttwochapters. 3. Learningthelessons1:a historicalurban-led narrativeofRUFevolutionanddisintegration

Thischapterlooksbackwithinanhistoricalnarrative of RUF evolution,seeking to learnlessons frompast policyapproachesbothinglobalandwesterncontexts inorder toshape improved responses.The RUF as a conceptisgenerallyacceptedasoriginatinginthe inter-warliteratureinthefieldsofsociology,geographyand planning (Gant et al., 2011; Qvistro¨m, 2010; White-hand, 1988), and within a decade it was receiving explicitacademic attentioninthe USA (e.g.Burgess, 1925;Smith,1937;Wehrwein,1942,p.217);thelatter

describeditasthe‘twilightzone’.Thisdescriptionisa powerful reminder that the RUF is a theoretical construct, rather than – in many urban or rural landscapes – a tangible reality. There are several theoriesormodelsthatclearlyexplaintheevolutionof the RUF but, in reality, the RUF is a disintegrated collectionof landusesand adhocpoliciesapplied in policy and practice; the true inheritorof the Burgess model’s‘zone oftransition’.

3.1. Ringsandcities1: Burgessand Chicago Burgess,HoytandtheChicagoSchoolofsociology are still dominant in discourses on urban form and structure,withBurgess’s‘concentriczone’diagramof urban land uses still featuring heavily in aspects of education in urban form (Larkham, 2003). Although latermodified(assectorsbyHoyt(1939)andmultiple nucleibyHarrisandUllman(1945))theoriginalmodel ofconcentriczones,fromtheCentralBusinessDistrict through‘zone intransition’ toworking-class housing andresidentialandcommutingzones,remainsasimple andpowerfulconcept(Burgess,1925).Itwasdeveloped withreferencetourbanChicago,thelaboratoryofthe ChicagoSchool’sempiricallydrivenresearch,andwas firmlylinked tothe historical processes of this city’s developmentand expansion. Burgess builtthismodel onabroadrangeofsociologicalresearch,leadinghim tothinkaboutrelationshipsbetweensocialprocessand land use. He suggested ‘‘the phenomena of urban growthwere aresultof organizationand disorganiza-tion...Disorganizationispreliminarytoreorganization ofattitudesandconduct...Intheexpansionofthecity a process occurs which sifts and sorts and relocates individuals andgroups by residenceand occupation’’ (Martindale,1958,p.23).

Nevertheless,thismodel has been characterised as ‘‘sketchy and muddled’’ (Carter, 1995, p. 127) and roundly criticised (for example by Sjoberg, 1965) especially in terms of its lack of universality. The model’ssimplicityhidthecomplexityofrealcities,and therealitiesofchangingpatternsoflanduseovertime whichtendtoresult infragmentation,sometimesover relatively short periods. The model depended largely ‘‘onthoseprocesseswhichhumanecologistscalled sub-social...butwhichseemtohavesimplybeeneconomic competitionforascarcecommodity,thatis,centralcity land’’(Carter,1995,p.129). Theoutermostzonewas poorlyconceptualised:itwasbeyondtheadministrative citylimits,andcomprisedsurburbsorsatellitecities.Its probleminthisrespectmightbetheUSadministrative structures whereby suburbs are often politically and

sociallyseparateentities,distinctfromtheparentcity. Its limitation in respect of the present urban fringe research, despite its popularity, is that planning and land-use policy outweigh sociological processes and direct economicland-usecompetition.

One of Burgess’s most relevant points was his application to urban (and, by extension, peri-urban) phenomenaoftheecologicalprincipleofsuccession.In any location, over time, there is asuccession of land uses:whatwas oncetheurban edgebecomeswealthy residential,working-classresidential,industrial,andso on. Likewise his parallel of social organisation and disorganisation to metabolic processes reinforces the picture of the city as ever-changing; and the social processes have clear implications for organised and disorganisedpatterns oflanduse.

Infact,thesectordevelopmentofthemodelmaybe more useful in contemporary contexts, given the popularityof planning forcorridorsof movementand developmentintheregional,nationalandtrans-national context, and the application of theoretical models of developmentwithinthem(Pratt,Chapman,Dickins,& Larkham, 2005). The late-1940s Copenhagen ‘finger plan’ is a useful city-scale exemplar (Denmark Egnsplankonteret, 1947) but true linear cities, on a larger scale,havenot beenimplemented. On the sub-regional scale of a major city and its hinterland, the multiple nuclei model also has uses. The increasing development of edge- and out-of-town retail and business parks, for example, producing the phenom-enonofthe‘edgecity’(Garreau,1991),ismoreakinto this; and, on a smaller scale, the effects of farm diversification also result in small nuclei of more ‘urban’ usesinthe ruralhinterland.But thesemodels stillsufferfromtheiroriginallimitations,andthe‘beads onastring’model,whichHallandWard(1998)discuss inarangeofcontextsfromthe1965/1969Parisstrategy tothe‘cities’ofMercia,AngliaandKent,maybemuch moreusefulinconceptualising patternsof appropriate landuses, includingdevelopment andprotection. 3.2. Ringsand cities2:fringebelts

Inthecaseoftheacademicinvestigationoffringesas structuralphenomena,thereisasubstantiveand long-establishedliteratureexploringtheformationprocesses and later fate of relict urban fringes now embedded withinbuilt-upareas.Inparallelwiththeemergenceof thegeneralconceptoftheRUF,theexistenceoffringe belts, or Stadtrandzone, was first discussed by Louis (1936)inrelationtothegrowthofBerlin.Inparticular thisrelatestoastrandofresearchwithingeographical

urban morphology, as pioneered by Conzen (for example, in his ground-breaking 1958 study of the form of Whitby) and more recently developed by Whitehandandcollaborators (Whitehand,1967,1988, 2001; Whitehand &Morton, 2003,2004, 2006).It is thusrootedinstructuralconceptualisationsoftheform of cities, explaining that,at timesof lulls inbuilding activity, land-extensive uses tend to accumulate, forming ‘fringe belts’ around the edge of the urban area.Conzen(1969,p.125)describesthisphenomenon as ‘‘abelt-like zone originatingfrom the temporarily stationaryorveryslowlyadvancingfringeofatownand composedofacharacteristicmixtureofland-useunits initiallyseekingperipherallocation....Intownswitha longhistorythisgeographicalresultemerginggradually from these dynamicsis oftena systemof successive, broadlyconcentricfringebelts moreor lessseparated byother,usuallyresidentialinteguments’’(seeFig.4). This model has been shown to be applicable to a varietyoftimeperiods,fromthemediaevalfringe-belt ofAlnwick(Conzen,1960)totheEdwardianfringe-belt of Birmingham (Whitehand & Morton, 2003, 2004, 2006), and, increasingly, different socio-cultural con-texts;see,forexample,theworkofVilagrasa(1990)in Spain; Rodrigo Cervantes (1999) in Mexico; Ducom (2005) in France; Gu (2010) in New Zealand; and

Whitehand, Gu, and Whitehand (2011) in China. Formative influences reach their zenith during eco-nomic downturns such as the early-twentieth century whenlandpricesaredepressedandlow-densityusesare lesslikelytobecompetitivelypricedoutofthemarket. Theseusesareofteninstitutionalinnaturebutmayalso

includethedesignationofopenspacesortheexpansion ofindustrialor utilityfacilities.WithinaUK context, the Edwardianperiod is oftenconsidered tobe akey exemplarofsuchaprocess;beingtheendoftherapid Victorianindustrialisationandurbanisation,andbefore thewartimeandinter-warsocialandfinancialcrises.

Whitehand (2001, p. 108) observes that, in this historical context, fringe belts are not products of coherent plan-making or decision making, whether formalisedor not.

‘‘They are products of large numbers of separate decisions about individualsites. Indeed the decision-makersfrequentlyhadnoknowledgeofoneanotherand almost invariably no conceptionof the wayin which theirdecisionsandthoseofotherswouldin combina-tionhavethe effectthatwe refertoasafringebelt’’.

Muchoftherecentworkonsuchbelts deliberately examines not only the historic processes of their formation,butajourneythroughamorerecentplanning history, one which is likely to be much more interconnected than would have been the case under the circumstances of earlier historical periods. In particular,itrecognisesthatextensivefringe-beltplots are, by their very nature, likely to have come under increasing pressure for redevelopment more recently (Whitehand & Morton,2006). Whilst acknowledging that this transition is inevitable (and to a significant extentencouragedbyrecentUKplanningpolicy),this school of thoughtalso emphasises the significanceof suchfringe-beltsinthephysicalunderstandingof,and orientationaround,manyUKtownsandcitiesandhas calledfortheirrecognitionwithintheplanning frame-workasanadditionaldecisionmakingtool(Whitehand &Morton,2003).Therehasbeenlittleresponsetothis call.Yetthepotentialoffringebeltsintermsofstrategic value, ecological significance (Hopkins, 2012) and developmentpotentialishigh,ifonlythesesitescanbe identified and treated in policy terms as coherent wholes,ratherthanasdiscrete‘windfall’sites. 3.3. Ringsandcities3: greenbelts

Oneofthefeaturesthathavehadamajorimpacton historical processes of continued urban outward development in the UK has been the concept of the greenbelt.Originatinginthe1930s,advocatedforthe LondonregioninAbercrombie’slandmark reconstruc-tionplansofthe mid-1940s,andgivennationalpolicy backing in a government Circular of 1955,they now coversome1.6millionhectares,about6%oftheland areaofEngland(DCLG,2011).Noteverytownorcity hasaformalgreenbeltdesignation,butatatimeofhigh

Fig.4. HistoricFringeBelts,InnovationandBuildingCycles( White-hand,2001,p.105).

pressurefor newhousebuildingthosethatdoare now underpressure for newoutward expansionas well as targeteddevelopmentwithin theirurbanboundaries.

The classic study of urban containment by Hall, Gracey,Drewett,andThomas(1973)discussedarange ofcasesofurbangrowthandcontrol.Thegreenbeltwas an important, and relatively new, policy; and urban containmentamajor(althoughnotthesole)intention. Yet, particularly as individual transportation became easier, belts were being ‘leap-frogged’. Containment generated significant social and economic costs, with development pressure being displaced, not reduced. Neverthelessthegreenbeltbecameawidelyaccepted planningpolicy,‘‘oneofthegreatesttangible achieve-ments of post-war social-democratic planning’’ (Edwards,2000)andwidelyadoptedworldwide(Ward, 2002).

However, local authorities differ in how they interpret green belt policies (Amati & Yokohari, 2006). The green belt plays a role in changing agricultural practice in designated areas (Munton, Whatmore, & Marsden, 1988) and thus, potentially, inchanging the landscape.It may bemore azone of transitionthanconservation:‘‘ambivalentandflexible’’ asTang, Wong,andLee(2007)sayof HongKong.

Abbott(2002),amongstothercritics,arguesthatthe greenbeltsactuallydefeattheirownstatedobjectiveof saving the countryside andopen spaces. If towns are preventedfrom expanding ‘normally andorganically’ (although both concepts are debatable), there are necessarilymoreland-extensivehousingdevelopments furtherout, beyond the green beltboundaries. ‘Leap-frogging’, of necessity dependent on cars and com-muting, and thus less sustainable, will continue. The ChairofNaturalEngland,SirMartinDoughty,argued in2007forareviewofgreenbelts,saying:‘‘Thetime has come for a greener green belt. We need a 21st centurysolutiontoEngland’shousingneedswhichputs inplaceanetworkofgreenwedges,gapsandcorridors, linkingthenaturalenvironmentandpeople’’(Doughty, quotedinNaturalEngland,2007).Likewise,andbased onaEuropeanstudyWerquinetal.(2005)havesoughta reconceptualisation of green space, urban and other, articulated as ‘‘the spatial network that links open spaces,publicandprivategardens,publicparks,sports fields,allotmentgardensandrecreationgroundswithin the city to the networks of woodlands and river floodplainsinthesurrounding countryside.’’

Thisintroducestheconceptof‘greeninfrastructure’; appropriateplanningatthestrategiclevel,ofanurban areaanditshinterland,could resultinamoreflexible approachtolandscapeconservation,characteranduse.

‘‘Greeninfrastructureplanning is thereforeseento be morecomplex,inbothsubject matterandprocess, than conventional open space planning—and poten-tially more effective in enhancing ‘liveability’ for humancommunitieswhilenurturingtheintrinsicvalues ofthenaturalenvironment’’(Kambites&Owen,2006, p. 484).

3.4. Fragmentationattheurbanedge?

Theories of ideal andSMART urban development andspread havenotbeen realisedinpractice. Instead the past eight decades have been characterised by a discourseoffearanduneaseaboutwhatishappeningat the urban edge: sprawl (Bruegmann, 2005; Duany, Plater-Zyberk,&Speck,2000)andedgecity(Garreau, 1991).Postmodernurbanismhasresultedinurban(and suburban,andperi-urban)formsthatdirectlycontradict the Burgessmodel (Dear&Flusty,1988).Despitethe massiveinvestmentoffunds,timeandeffortinplanning activities,planning hasbeen characterisedasfailing – whetherspecificallyorattheurbanedge,intheUKand elsewhere(Cullingworth,1997;Hogan,2003).Detailed morphologicalstudieshaverevealedcomplexpatterns ofdiscontinuousdecisionmakingspreadoverdecades, resultinginequallycomplexpatternsofurbanlanduse andlandform.Acarefulplan(orseriesofplans)made in the circumstances of one period is likely to date quickly and, especially if not fully implemented, to produce unintendedconsequences including a loss of faith in planning, with partially implemented and abandoned schemes on the ground. Hence Hebbert’s (1998)classic studyof London, includingitsregional planningandthusitsRUFareas,issubtitled‘moreby fortune thandesign’.

The messy and complex spaces of the RUF are clearly problematic for plan making and plan imple-mentation. Yet this can provide, under the right governance arrangements,important opportunities for innovation. Associated with this is the dimension of landscapechange;evenwherepoliciesseektoreduceor minimise change (for example through rhetorics of conservation orprotection,includinggreen belts).Yet all landscapes change. Perhaps the most powerful concept to apply to the RUF is that of ‘non-plan’ (Banham, Barker, Hall, & Price, 1969), which was favourablyre-assessedatitsthirtiethanniversary–itself over a decade ago (Barker, 1999; Hughes & Sadler, 2000).Rigidplanningstructureshavehelpedneitherthe citynorthefringe,asgreen-beltleap-froggingshows: theyoftendatequicklyandarerarelyimplementedin full.

3.5. Lessons

Fromtheurbanperspective,thelessonsoftheRUF canbesummarised as:

 Mosturbanperspectives havebeen inward-focused, producing simple models often based on land use. Theseareoflimitedusegiventhemulti-dimensional andmulti-functionalcharacterof theRUF.

 Many models assume continued outward urban expansion.‘Sprawl’isamajorconcern.

 Some conceptualise changing land uses over time, andthe fateof RUFareas when absorbedby urban expansion; and patterns of lower-density develop-mentofformerRUFspacecanstillbetraceddecades orcenturieslater.Thisemphasisestheimportanceofa longtimeperspective.

 Greenbeltshavestoppedurbanexpansion(forsome cities)buthaveresultedinphenomenasuchas higher-density development at the urban fringe, including ‘edge cities’, and ‘leapfrogging’ the green belt. Urban-related activities such as recreation have changedthecharacterof greenbeltspaceanduse.  More sophisticated concepts including wedges and

corridors, some penetrating the built-up area, are beingsuggestedtoreplacerigidandcontinuousgreen belts, and implementation of green infrastructure planningmayhelpthis.

 TheRUFisaflexiblestrategicopportunityspace,but too-rigidplanningstructurescanreducethis flexibil-ity.

Thischapterhasbeenfocussedonthelessonsofthe RUF from the urban perspective; the next chapter switchesemphasistoconsiderthelessonsfroma rural-centricperspective.

4. Learningthelessons2:a historicalrural–led narrativereconnecting theRUFwithinthe countrysidemanagementapproach

This chapter revisits the countryside management projectsoftheearly1980sintheUK.Inthecontextof this paper they are significant as they represent a dedicatedandexplicitpolicyinterventionintheRUFas part of a multifunctional strategy to deliver environ-mentalandcommunitybenefits.Unfortunatelythereisa dearth of academic papers critiquing these RUF experiments, albeit with the notable exception of the work by Gallent et al. (2006) which was fuelled by research programmesof the CountrysideCommission andCountrysideAgency.Consequently,weareoverly

reliant upon a ‘grey’ policy literature and the lead author’s own reflective experiences as a pioneer in developing countryside management courses and programmes.2 The resulting narrative, however, pro-videssalutatorylessonsforRUFresearchandpractice. TheCountrysideCommission3inthelate1970sand early 1980schampioned a new‘countryside manage-ment’ approach (CMA) within which its main work programmesandfundingweretobelocated(Bromley, 1990; Countryside Commission, 1981, 1987). CMA emerged from a series of successful pilot projects focussedontheRUF(e.g.‘TheBollinValley:Astudy oflandmanagementintheurbanfringe’,1976).Fig.5

shows the essentialcomponentsof the approach with the countryside manager positioned at the interface betweentheneeds,impactsandpoliciesofthevisitors, residents and place. This role as mediator, negotiator andenablerwas newinthissetting andonebased on buildingcommunitycapacityandskills,whereprocess wasseenasofequalimportanceasoutcomes(Buller& Wright, 1990). Countryside project officers were financed through Countryside Commission grant aid programmes within local authorities to implement small-scale community-based projects addressing

Fig.5. Thecountrysidemanagementapproach(adaptedfrom Coun-trysideCommissionCSTAGreport1987).

2_{TheleadauthorwasHead ofCountrysideManagement atthe}

WelshAgricultural College andUniversity ofWales Aberystwyth from1988to2004.

3_{TheCountrysideCommission,formerlythegovernment’sadviser}

onlandscape andrecreation matters,isnow subsumedwithinthe widernon-departmentalpublicbodycalledNaturalEngland.

emerging problems and opportunities as cities and townsexpandedintoruralspaces.Keytothesuccessof the CMAwasthe role of the projectofficer andtheir interaction with local communities and key stake-holderssuchasfarmersandlandownersinidentifying andaddressingproblemsandprioritiesandtranslating theseintoresultantcountrysidestrategies(Countryside Commission,1987).Thiscreatedanewprofessionwith itsattendantskillsagenda,leadingtomanyagricultural colleges and universities creating new degree and diploma programmes in Countryside Management to satisfythegrowingdemand(CountrysideCommission, 1987;WelshAgricultural College,1988).

Significantly, the theory of the CMA challenged sectoralthinkingwithinthe RUFthroughitsfocus on integration,joiningupdifferentpolicyprioritiesbased on the needs of the communities and environment themselves. The demand for such integrated thinking shaped a significant Countryside Agency research programme(2001–2006)illuminatingtheRUF oppor-tunity space. Here, background papers provided comprehensivestate-of-the-art reviewson keydrivers of change in the RUF: waste, minerals, energy, recreation, green belt, transport, nature conservation, archaeology, commercial development, landscape, housing and agriculture (Countryside Agency, 2002). Subsequent policy development and grant incentives heralded a panoply of projects within the RUF, set within a re-branding and positive vision for the management of the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) (Countryside Agency and Groundwork Trust, 2004,2005;Gallentetal.,2004,2006).ThetermCAT was used here to counter perceived negativity asso-ciated with the word ‘fringe’. A range of policy recommendationswas forthcoming supported by aca-demicresearch(Gallentetal.,2004,2006)withsupport for regional coalitions, partnerships,audits, dedicated strategiesandplans.Theuseofexemplarsandfurther researchwasseenasthekeystepstowardsrealisingthis visionsetwithintencorethemes(CountrysideAgency andGroundwork Trust,2005):

‘‘A bridgetothe country Agatewaytothe town Ahealthcentre Aclassroom

Arecyclingandrenewable energycentre Aproductivelandscape

Aculturallegacy

Aplaceforsustainableliving Anenginefor regeneration Anaturereserve’’

However,theirexplicitfocusonexperimentationand innovation was, and remains, significantly under-realised, failing tobecome embedded in policy; thus perpetuatingtheRUF/CATasalargelyforgottenspace. Thereasonsforthisare unclearandarenotevidentin academic literature. However, drawing on personal communications with the Countryside Agency and personalreflectionasacountrysidemanagertherewere significantinstitutional,financialandcredibilitydrivers atwork.First,andperhapsmostimportant,thelaunch ofCATcoincidedwiththecreationofNaturalEngland involving the merger of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and parts of the Rural Development Commission within a new government Non-De-partmental Public Body. This involved significant re-structuringofstaffwithnewfunctionsand responsibili-tiesresulting inahiatusinexistingprogrammes.4

Second,manycountrysidemanagerswerepioneers intheirfield,withconsiderableflexibilityandfreedom topursuetheirworkwithlimitedmanagerial interven-tions. They were located in different local authority departments across the UK (e.g. tourism, planning, recreation and environment). As these were new appointments,5 senior managers were ill-equipped to understand their work role, exacerbated by the rapid turnoverofstaffintheseCMApositions.Theinfluence of Countryside Commission grant aid budgets was crucial in driving appointments which provided a significant income stream to stressed local authority budgets. Mather, Hill, and Nijnik’s (2006) work on farmers’responsestofarmandforestrygrantincentives is highly informative here in revealing how financial incentives may generate a shallow buy-in from participants to the underlying principles of particular schemes, meaning that they were vulnerable to any change in the economic incentives driving them. In CMAwe arguethiswas importantas, when grantaid was switchedawayfrompoststowardsoutputs,many countryside management projects in the RUF were phasedout(seeCountryside Commission,1987).

Third, although CMA was championed as a new modelworkingacrosstraditionalboundariesandsilos with active involvement of communities and stake-holders, this was increasingly seen as parochial, boundedwithininterventionsthathadnegligibleimpact

4_{ItwassignificantthatlibrarycopiesofCATmaterialhadbeen}

shreddedaspartofare-organisationprocess.

5_{Thereasonforthisdiversitywasunclearbutbasedontheprincipal}

author’sownexperiencesthis hadmoreto dowith thepriorityof securingthegrantaidinthefirstplaceandthenhavingtomeetthe budgetaryrequirements.

on local authority statutory policies and decision making associated with planning, health, education, transportandsocialservices.Ineffectthiswasaparallel intervention in keeping with the idea of creeping incrementalism(Curry,1993).ThusCMAinterventions werebeingcarriedoutseparatelytothestatutorywork ofthelocalauthorities,resultinginCMAbeingan add-on to the conventional statutory functions and hence vulnerable to cutting when resources were scarce (Riding,2011).

The overriding lesson from this experience high-lights the importance ofembedding new approaches into existing governance arrangements as well as securing behaviour change across the key stake-holders. It is clear that CMA was valuable for the peoplethatwereinvolvedin,anddirectlyaffectedby, projectsbutitsinfluencewaslimitedastheapproach was not embedded across other local authority departments which continued working in their own silos,particularlyinthedeliveryofstatutoryplanning functions.HenceCMAwasperipheralandultimately vulnerable to cuts with all the loss of expertise and intelligence that entails (Scott, 2011b). This has importantimplicationsfortheconductofourresearch whereweseektoembedmoreintegrativethinkingin order to address a systemic culture of disintegrated policy anddecisionmaking.

5. Doingtransdisciplinaryresearch:managing the‘messiness’ oftheRUF

Thecomplexityand‘messiness’oftheRUFoutlined inthepreviouschapterspresentasignificanttheoretical, policyandpracticechallengewithinwhichthispaperis located. Ourresponse waschannelledthroughagrant within the RELU IV programme which promotes interdisciplinaryresearchsolutionsinconjunctionwith policy and practice communities (Relu, 2012). A transdisciplinary research approach was adopted to facilitate the integration of both academic and non-academic perspectives within and across the RUF domain.Eachperspectivebringsitsparticular‘lens’to the research process, but through the embedding of social learning via reflexive communication and interaction between participants as the research proceeds, the research process itself becomes part of developing the RUF solution (Glass, Scott, & Price, 2013;Reedetal.,2010;Tressetal.,2005).Usinga co-productionphilosophyitbecomespossibletocombine theoreticalandexperientialknowledgeinadeliberative manner, searching for mutually acceptable processes and outputs (Blackstock & Richards, 2007; McCrum

etal.,2009).Inthisway,non-academicsinvolvedinthe researchbecome‘activeteamparticipants’ratherthan ‘passivecontacts’;theyactinananalogousmannerto theresearchersandallteammembersjointlylearnand developknowledgeforsolvingproblems(Astleithner& Hamedinger,2003).

Consequently, a research team was assembled comprising both academic and non-academic partici-pantsasco-investigatorswithasimplebrieftotacklethe ‘disintegrated’natureofpolicyanddecisionmakingin theRUFthroughthefusingofSPandEAframeworks.In this way interdisciplinarity was embedded into the research atthe outsetas recommendedby Tressetal. (2005).Ratherthanpre-selectcertainorganisationsand agencies,apurposiveapproachwas usedsecuringkey individualswhoseworkcutacrosstheRUFboundaries and/orwhowerechampionsofSPtheoryandpracticeor theEA(Table2).

A key criterion for selection was participant pre-dispositiontoworkoncomplexproblemsoutsideusual comfort zones using interdisciplinary perspectives as evident in the organisations’ remits and individuals’ researchandpracticerecords.Recruitmentwasbyletter andtelephone conversationand, significantly, did not involve individuals with whom the PI had previously collaborated, with only one exception.6 The full researchteamislistedinTable2 and,whilstcovering arangeofinterests–acrossnaturalandsocialsciences; across economic, social and environmental sectors; across national to local scales of operation; across public, private and voluntary sectors – was rather pragmaticthanbeingrepresentative.

Participant deliberation was embedded into the researchprocessandtheprojectdevelopedorganically inresponsetodebateanddiscussionamongsttheteam rather than through fixed stages and pre-determined pathways. In thiswaysocial learning was maximised whichinitselfwasakeyrequirementforthe research (Shortall,2008).Deliberationviameetings,conference callsandMicrosoftSharepointprovidedtheplatforms for building mutual understanding anddebate among the participants, allowing the joint development and endorsementof outputs andaction strategies. Signifi-cantly, these mechanisms did not always work effectivelythuspromotingchangesindirectionthrough

6_{Thiswasmoreaccidentalthandeliberate.HoweverthePIhadjust}

startedanewpostandhadnotworkedwithanymemberoftheteam beforeexcept one personfrom a previousjob role.Thebringing togetherofsuchadiversegroupacrosstheUKheraldednewinsights thatmayhave beenrestrictedbyworkingexclusivelyor predomi-nantlywithpastresearchcollaborators.

group social learning, allowing a step to be taken beyondinteractionbetweengroupstofacilitatelearning within groups to maximise progress within limited resources(Glassetal.,2013;McCrumetal.,2009;Reed etal.,2010).

Through active collaboration transcending normal boundaries this eclectic research team had environ-mental,planning, academicandpolicycredibilityand experience embeddedintheresearch fromthe outset; something that is rare in contemporary research

Table2

Theresearchteam.

Name Organisation Rolewithintheproject

AlisterScott BirminghamCityUniversity(BCU) Principalinvestigator BenStonyer BCU(secondedfromDavidJarvisAssociates) Researchofficer

RachelCurzon BCU Co-investigator

ClaudiaCarter BCU(initiallyForestResearch;from2011 jobchangetoBCU)

Co-investigator

NickiSchiessel BCU Co-investigator

NickMorton BCU Co-investigator

PeterLarkham BCU Co-investigator

MarkReed UniversityofAberdeen(from2011BCU) Co-investigator BobForster WestMidlandsRuralAffairsForum Co-investigator DavidCollier NationalFarmersUnion Co-investigator DavidJarvis/PaulGibbs DavidJarvisAssociates Co-investigator KeithBudden(2010,then

changedjob/organisation)

BirminghamEnvironmentalPartnership Co-investigator NickGrayson(from2011) BirminghamEnvironmentalPartnership Co-investigator KarenLeach/ChrisCrean LocaliseWestMidlands Co-investigator MarkMiddleton WestMidlandsRegionalAssembly

(WorcestershireCountyCouncil)

Co-investigator MiriamKennet GreenEconomicsInstitute Co-investigator RuthWaters NaturalEngland Co-investigator AndrewHearleHayleyPankhurst NaturalEngland Co-investigator

Fig.6. MECRUFProjectComponentsandOutputstoInformaDecision-MakingFrameworkforManagingEnvironmentalChangeattherural– urbanFringe.

approaches.Furthermore,throughadeliberatelyfuzzy researchprocesstheactualresearchjourneybecamea critical part of the research process in collectively unpackinganddecidingthetrajectorythroughtheartof doing, learning and reflecting (Astleithner & Hame-dinger, 2003; McCrum et al., 2009).Fig. 6 diagram-maticallychartsthestages,outputsandactivitiesinthe researchwhichevolvedfromthesedeliberations.

The projectinvolvedseveraliterativephases.First, members of the team produced their own separate reflective‘thoughtpieces’based ontheirexpertiseand experienceson eitherSP and/or EA.Thesewerethen integrated within conventional literature reviews and state of knowledge assessments as internal working papers.7 The PI then synthesised all the individual ‘thoughtpieces’ into one coherentdocument outlining optionsfor thefusion ofSP andEAframeworks.The subsequentdeliberationsanddiscussionsidentifiedand reinforcedsynergiesbetweenthetwoapproacheswith eventually three‘bridging’conceptsselectedthatbest captured core principles from both approaches; Con-nections, Time and Values. Crucially, these ‘simple’, thoughconceptually-richtermswereseenaspowerful intranslatingabstractideasfromSPandEAintomore accessible and intelligible language to aid both decision-makers andwider publics(Fig.7).

Having agreed these concepts, we then unpacked them within the RUF arena through our primary researchactivities.First,usingthenetworksofselected research team members, we held nine themed work-shops involving over 250 participants (Table 3). The themeswereidentifiedcollaborativelywithoneofthe team members leading andadapting the theme(s), as appropriate,reflectingtheexpertiseandmotivationsof their organisation and/or member networks. This maximisedturnout andlively discussionswhichwere capturedinavarietyofpaperandrecordedoutputs.A summary report was produced and circulated to participantswithfurtherquestionsaddedtoallowone further round of deliberation via e-mail. This extra phase was seen as useful in allowing some critical reflection(e.g.Table4)asrecommendedbyGlassetal. (2013).

The second method involved field-based visioning exerciseswithintwocasestudiesoftheRUF,adaptinga methodpioneeredbyScottetal.(2009)fortheWelsh AssemblyGovernment.Thecasestudieswerecarefully selectedtoreflectdifferentscalesandfocioftheRUF, aswellasresearchteamexpertiseandexperience.The firstcasestudywasinHampton(anurbanextensionof Peterborough), a mixed housing and employment developmentof7000newhomesand12,000newjobs, forming part of a sustainable urban extension onto brownfieldland(aformerbrickworkssite).Themaster planforthisdevelopmentwasproducedin1991andall stages of design and implementation have been deliveredbyoneofourresearchteammembers(Fig.8).

Fig.7. Bridgingtheenvironmentalplanningdivide.

7_{AllworkingpapersareontheMECRUFsharepointsystemwhich}

providescaptureofalldatainthisresearch.Papersareavailableon requestalthoughtheywerewrittenasinternaldocumentsonly.