Pi

Ia

b

a

KGEUUU

I

bpssa

(hloUoiW

1h

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /u fug

romoting urban greening: Valuing the development of green infrastructurenvestments in the urban core of Manchester, UK

an C. Mell a,∗, John Henneberryb, Sigrid Hehl-Langeb, Berna Keskinb

Department of Geography & Planning, School of Environmental Science, University of Liverpool, Gordon Stephenson Building, 74 Bedford Square South, Liverpool L69 7ZQ, UKDepartment of Town & Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:reen investmentconomic evaluationrban planningrban greeningrban trees

a b s t r a c t

The attribution of economic value to landscape resources is fraught with technical and methodologicaldifficulties. Little is mandated in UK planning policy explaining how economic value should be estab-lished. As a result landscape resources have been undervalued, underfunded and marginalised in favourof larger grey infrastructure development. The UK NEA however outlined for the first time a nationalscale economic evaluation of environmental resources. The Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the UrbanEconomy (VALUE) Interreg IVB project examined this issue by establishing a toolkit of economic eval-uation methodologies for green investments across North-West Europe. Focussing on the returns thatinvestments in green infrastructure can deliver to cities and city-regions, the VALUE project identifiedeconomic values that can be used to influence future policy-making. This paper presents an analysis ofVALUE street tree investments in Manchester, UK. Using a contingent valuation survey preferences forgreen investments and associated willingness to pay (WTP) for them were generated. Analysis suggeststhat willingness to pay is directly related to the size and greenness of the proposed investment and

participant perceptions of added value. 75% of respondents were WTP for investments in green infra-structure. Analysis indicates increased WTP and a marked preference for larger and physically greenerinvestments. Payment values ranged from £1.46 to 2.33, a 59.5% variance, between the preferred invest-ment option and the status quo. The paper concludes that although green investments vary in size andfunction, respondents consider the specific and wider value of green infrastructure resources when askedhow much they willing to pay to fund and maintain such investments.

ntroduction

The attribution of economic ‘value’ to landscape resources haseen fraught with constraints. Little is mandated in UK planningolicy at a regional or national level explaining how economic valuehould be established for ecological resources. As a result land-cape resources have historically been underfunded, undervaluednd marginalised in favour of grey infrastructure.

With the release of the UK National Ecosystem AssessmentUKNEA), the UNEP-WCMC (2011) produced the first compre-ensive national guidance establishing the economic value of

andscape resources. Where previous research assessed the valuef specific green investments, such as street trees or local parks, theKNEA differs by attributing economic values to a broader range

f both terrestrial and marine resources. Significantly, this processs applied at a number of scales. By producing guidance the UNEP-

CMC and partners have re-positioned the landscape valuation

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0151 7943 262.E-mail address: I.C.Mell@liverpool.ac.uk (I.C. Mell).

618-8667/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.04.006

© 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

debate to ensure that environmental resources are discussed withequal attention as other infrastructure development. The guidancealso arrives at an opportune moment where central government,local authorities (LAs) and environmental organisations in theUK are making difficult financial decisions regarding current andfuture funding for green infrastructure (GI). Green Infrastructureis defined by Natural England (executive non-departmental publicbody responsible to the secretary of state for environment, food andrural affair) as strategically planned and delivered network of highquality green spaces and other environmental features. It shouldbe designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable ofdelivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefitsfor local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, openspaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens(2009: 7).

An evaluation framework assessing the economic value of greeninvestments is a useful tool for landscape professionals. In a

period of austerity the production of economic data that identifiesprojected economic returns provides a prudent delivery mech-anism for infrastructure planning. Debates though exist withinthe planning literature analysing why landscape resources have

Urba

bdtpiwrtmufi

it(trssiaplheto

csrIpspaittmvacrtbeGs

G

art(rutappc(t

I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry &

een undervalued. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) alsoiscussed this issue in legislative terms (CoE, 2007). However,ranslating legislation and debate into robust economic data hasroved more difficult. The UKNEA stresses that ‘in the past, the

mportance of these [landscape] areas for the health and generalell-being of society was not appreciated and their potential not

ealised’ (UNEP-WCMC, 2011: 74). While it would be disingenuouso suggest that planners are incognisant of the role green invest-

ents can play in promoting more liveable and economically viablerban areas, it can be suggested that these debates are often super-cial (Greed, 2011).

Given the constraints of developing robust economic evidence;dentifying discreet projects for evaluation, establishing evalua-ion parameters and controlling the variables under investigationBateman et al., 2002), this paper examines research that aimedo establish the economic value of GI in high-density areas. Thiseflects the proposition that GI resources provides ecologically,ocially and economically sustainable infrastructure as part of atrategically orientated approach to landscape management, whichdentifies both the policy and practice perceived as most appropri-te for investment. However, the grey and academic GI research hasredominately focussed on identifying its characteristics of GI or its

inks with other green space planning concepts (Horwood, 2011),owever, within the current economic climate establishing robustconomic data is becoming increasingly important to planners ifhey are to balance the conceptual development with the deliveryf GI (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

Within this paper GI is identified as providing the physicalontext for investment (design and composition) which can sub-equently be used to investigate the willingness to pay (WTP) ofesidents, business owners and commuters for green investments.t discusses how WTP differs depending on the attachment anderceptions of GI utility within urban areas. Using data from a large-cale survey conducted in Whitworth Street West, Manchester, thisaper examines how stated preference testing (SPT) can be used tonalyse the relation between GI and willingness to pay (WTP). Thiss addressed in three-stages. First, the growth in attention given tohe economic value in GI is considered followed by a discussion ofhe economic evaluation process developed to assess the invest-

ents in Manchester. This highlights the structure of the economicaluation tool used to identify the value of GI in the case studyrea. Finally analysis of the large-scale survey is presented, indi-ating how SPT can be used to provide economic evaluations of GIesources in central Manchester, before assessing the relation withhe wider debate focussing on perceptions of green investmentsy local residents, users and businesses. The aim of this paper is tostablish a robust economic case for future investments in urbanI based on WTP and personal valuations, which can be used toupport business cases promoting future GI developments.

reen investments in urban environments

Demographic change, housing and infrastructure development,nd fiscal constraints all impact upon the value of landscapeesources. Furthermore, as migration to urban areas continueshe capacity of cities to support increased use becomes stretchedGill et al., 2007). The pressures being exerted upon ecologicalesources support the call of Beatley (2000) to rethink the value,tility and spatial configuration of urban and assess the propor-ion of GI compared to other infrastructure. Unfortunately, greennd open spaces have historically been vulnerable to developmentressures due to the under-valuation of ecological resources by

lanners and developers, who have placed a far greater value on thereation or enhancement of grey rather than green infrastructureBenedict and McMahon, 2006). Grey infrastructure is classified ashe resources in urban areas that are man-made and do not serve an

n Greening 12 (2013) 296–306 297

overt or primary ecological function. Although grey infrastructurecan be ‘greened’ it relates most frequently to buildings, roads andother transport infrastructure. Mell (2013) presents a more detaileddiscussion of the meanings of grey and green infrastructure. Thedominant development native of the UK (and globally) exacerbatethis process as housing and transport infrastructure are deemednecessities, rather than luxuries, offering greater financial returnsthan GI.

Such discussions of GI value come at a pertinent time as theNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the UK has installeda presumption within urban planning in favour of economic growthsupported through sustainable development. Economic evalua-tions of GI could thus be proposed as addressing this issue (DCLG,2012). However GI is still considered by many as a develop-ment luxury or afterthought (Mell, 2009). In an attempt to resolvethis disequilibrium landscape practitioners have called for a moreprominent ecological perspective to be embedded within the pro-cess of urban planning (Benedict and McMahon, 2002). However,balancing the utility, composition and value of landscape resourcesis difficult, with many landscape professionals considering fundingfor environmental management insufficient (CABE Space, 2004),and has led to a marginalisation of ecologically focussed man-agement in urban planning (Mell, 2009). In practice this is seenin changing urban land budgets, which highlight the proportionaldecreases in GI and public open space as allocations for housingand commerce increase. Consequently, the protection of landscaperesources within planning policy, at least in the UK, could be con-sidered as being of secondary importance (Wilson and Hughes,2011).

To address this challenge planning professionals have engagedin a global debate of GI assessing its ecological, as well as the eco-nomic and social value, alongside discussions of capital costs andprojected economic returns (Kambites and Owen, 2006). Unfortu-nately, whilst this process occurs the values placed upon ecologicalresources are still predominately lower than those identified as eco-nomic or social resources (Tyrväinen, 2001). Economic evaluationshave also historically failed to take into account the true value oflandscape resources due to a lack of clarity in assessing the value(market and non-market) of GI (Stenger et al., 2009; UNEP-WCMC,2011). Establishing an evaluation framework to address this issueproviding equal consideration to ecological, as well as, economicand social needs is therefore seen as a prerequisite if a balancedunderstanding of GI is to be made (Mell, 2010; Underwood, 2011);promoting the ‘visibility of GI benefits’ is central to achieving this(Lorenzo et al., 2000).

Establishing the economic case for investment in GI is importantif LAs and developers are to continue to invest in urban greening.However, increased awareness is needed of how personal engage-ment with urban areas influences the rationalising process andWTP for green investments.

Valuation can be interpreted through examinations of placeattachment (identity and place), which explores the interactionbetween physical setting of a landscape and personal interpre-tations of that place (Proshansky, 1978). Subsequently, use of GIsupports the view that through interaction spaces become imbuedwith deeper meanings and become places (Tuan, 1974), values areendowed and place valuation or dependency can develop (Brownand Raymond, 2007). The relationship people have with urbanlandscapes though are also influenced by its physical composition,utility and psychological meaning. Consequently, the economicvalue of a place is constructed through a combination of social andecological understandings and how it is situated in the surround-

ing environment (Winter and Lockwood, 2004). Investments inurban greening therefore modify the physical, ecological and socialstructure of a place and may reshape the relationships betweenlandscape preferences, WTP and GI.

2 Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

ogamss(p2ami(tbaiws

pha2eioepaToIEIErRpAS

V

dtplambga

•

•

98 I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry &

A further issue facing LAs investing in GI is balancing socialr ecological needs with economic viability. Whilst new parks,ardens and greenways provide functional resources, residentsnd developers are occasionally less aware of the on-goingaintenance costs (Defra, 2011). Users understand that capital con-

truction costs are incurred, however, they are less aware thatustained revenue is needed to support on-going managementHebbert, 2008). In the UK LAs have attempted to highlight the pro-ortion of local taxes used to fund green space management (MCC,011). The analogous nature of urban landscapes thus providesplatform where evaluations of landscape design and manage-ent can be made. A review of the benefits of GI suggests that

t could hold a central role to play in supporting economic growthKambites and Owen, 2006). Benefits include, but are not limitedo, increased access to nature, sports/recreation facilities, increasediodiversity, improvements in landscape and communal aestheticnd well-being (Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Mell, 2009). It alsoncludes the role of GI in delivering ecosystem and regulatory (air,

ater and food) and cultural (cohesion, aesthetics and heritage)ervices in urban environments (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

Variations in GI size, composition and location have all been pro-osed as major advantages of investments in urban greening. Thisas been articulated predominately through social values in the UKnd ecological values in North America (Benedict and McMahon,006; Mell, 2010). There is a less well-defined debate regardingconomic value (Wilson and Hughes, 2011). Consequently, theres a need to move away from the perceived fragmented approachf urban green space planning in order to adopt a more coher-nt framework for investment based on an understanding of therinciples of GI: multi-functionality, connectivity, integrated man-gement, strategic investment and economic value (Mell, 2009).he development of a database of evidence supporting the valuef green investments could be used to address this issue; the EUnterreg IVB project Valuing Attractive Landscapes in the Urbanconomy (VALUE) is one programme directly engaging this debate.nterreg provides funding for interregional cooperation acrossurope. It is implemented under the European Community’s ter-itorial co-operation objective and financed through the Europeanegional Development Fund (ERDF). VALUE was a multi-partnerroject, bringing together academic and delivery organisations inmersfoort (NE), Bruges (BE), Manchester (UK), Sheffield (UK),tuttgart (GE) and Liege (BE).

aluing Attractive Landscapes in the Urban Economy (VALUE)

The central aim of VALUE was to address the lack of economicata associated with GI development. Issues of scale, investmentype, the availability of funding and opportunities to implement GIrojects were all addressed. The challenge of VALUE was to estab-

ish a toolkit of economic assessment techniques to enable LAscross North-West Europe to identify locations for future invest-ents. These locations needed to deliver the greatest economic

enefit, whilst ensuring that high quality GI resources remain inte-ral to functional and attractive urban environments. This wasrticulated in the project’s objectives:

To promote transnational actions that enhances the economicand social performance of cities, towns and rural areas; includingthe economic potential of local and regional assets.To identify and develop collective actions that will improve the

environmental quality and attraction of towns and cities includ-ing the sustainable use of the cultural heritage, tourism, thecreative economy and sustainable and innovative energy prac-tices.

Fig. 1. Whitworth Street West – status quo.

One of the central assumptions proposed by VALUE was that, asstated in the ELC, all investment in urban greening has an economicvalue in spite of variation in size, function or location; a view some-times undermined in evaluations of GI (Benedict and McMahon,2006). Approaching VALUE within a multi-agency structure madeit possible to develop a theoretical understanding of the constraintsplaced upon GI development, whilst generating economic data thatcould be used to support future investments in GI.

Case study: Manchester

Two VALUE projects were undertaken in England, one inSheffield (Mell et al., 2012b) and one Manchester (Mell et al.,2012a). The Manchester research was conducted in conjunctionwith Community Forest North West/Red Rose Forest (CFNW-RRF).This paper discusses street tree investments in Manchester, whichtested Lorenzo et al.’s assumption that: ‘urban and communityforests have become widely recognised as an important componentof the infrastructure of urban communities’, thus people becomeattached to places and are subsequently WTP to support greeninvestments (2000: 319). The street tree investments were locatedon Whitworth Street West, which was identified as an area of GIdeficiency (see Fig. 1). The installation of street trees tested CABESpace’s (2004) assumption that residents and users prefer to liveand use streetscapes with a higher proportion of trees. It also showssimilarities to research undertaken by Soares et al. (2011) in Lisbonand Tyrväinen (2001) in Finland, highlighting the social, as well asthe economic value of urban street trees.

The VALUE project aimed to establish comparable economicvalues for investments in Manchester to research conducted byTyrväinen and Väänänen (1998) who identified respondent WTP,174FIM (approximately £29/D 32) per year for access to areas witha greater visible proportion of tree cover. Lorenzo et al. (2000) alsofound that residents in Mandeville (LA, USA), would pay $6–12 peryear to protect/enhance urban woodlands. Consequently, devel-oping a better understanding of the economic value of GI wouldenable planners to locate investments where they can promotegreater economic returns. In a UK context this could form part ofthe £2.2–3.0 billion per year that GI can add to the UK economy(UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

The VALUE project in Manchester holds an additional impor-tance for CFRW-RRF and Manchester City Council (MCC) followingthe UK Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in 2010. In the2011–2012 financial year MCC made £109 million worth of oper-ational savings rising to £170 million in 2012–2013, a budgetary

saving of 23%. As a result funding for GI and public open space,which is currently less than 5.5% of the environmental services bud-get, is expected to decrease significantly (MCC, 2011). In practicethe outcome of the CSR will mean that services are being subjected

Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306 299

tap

(

M

afd(otfaetgbwtWiL

WcTb

Table 1aBreakdown of Whitworth Street West respondent population categories.

Category Interviewsachieved

% of sample

Resident 140 27Employee 47 9Business owner/senior manager 25 5Commuter 91 18Passing through 108 21Visiting family/friends 45 9Customer of shop/restaurant/other business 45 9Some other reason 11 2

I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry &

o increasingly stringent economic tests assessing capital spendgainst revenue received. In light of this the aims of the VALUEroject in Manchester were:

(a) To generate a robust economic evidence base for street treeinvestment that CFRN-RRF could use to support further greeninvestment in the city;

b) To examine how GI can promote a better sense of place andincreased well-being through an assessment of different qual-itative characteristics.

ethodology

A contingent valuation (CV) experiment was developedssessing the WTP of commuters, residents and business ownersor street tree investments on Whitworth Street West. An expandediscussion of study’s methodology is outlined in Mell et al.’s2012a) report to the VALUE project. The experiment focussedn four main areas; general attitudes to green space; preferenceso tree and landscaping options based on one real image andour visualisations; WTP; and attitudes towards the LA servicesnd green spaces provided in Manchester – see Figs. 2–4 (Mellt al., 2012a). This guided respondents through a series of ques-ions focussing responses on increasingly discreet aspects of urbanreening (personal–communal value; ecological–social–economicenefits), and finally the development scenarios. Visualisationsere used to present four alternative development scenarios (plus

he current status quo). The use of visualisation in conjunction withTP has been considered one of the most appropriate methods

n effectively gauging respondent valuations (Greenspace, 2005;aing et al., 2005).

The survey design was derived from an extensive review of the

TP literature and feedback provided by two focus group events

onducted in Manchester (O’Garra et al., 2007; Stringer, 2010).he structure of the questionnaire enabled respondents to thinkroadly before focusing on their personal uses of green spaces, the

Q2. SHOWCARD B (R) Which of the things shown onimportant in making somewhere a good place tothe most important things to you. MULTI-CODE

(66)A Access to nature 1B Activities for teenagers 2C Affordable decent housing 3D Clean streets 4E Community activities 5F Cultural facilities 6G Education provision 7H Facilities for young children 8I Health services 9J Job prospects 10K The level of pollution 11L The level of traffic 12M Parks and open spaces 13N Public transport 14O Race relations 15P The level of crime 16Q Road and pavement repairs 17R Shopping facilities 18S Sports and leisure facilities 19T Wage levels & local cost of living 20U Trees 21

Other (PLEASE WRITE IN AND CODE ‘22‘)

22

Fig. 2. Question 2: Manchester Whitworth

Total (N) 512 100

values of ecological resources in these sites and the utility of GI inmaking Manchester a more liveable place. Atkinson et al. (2008),however, suggested that CV tests are only valid if the constructedmarket and payment vehicle are a recognisable representationof the landscape under investigation. The survey addressed thisby ensuring that sufficient data was available to participants tosupport informed choices between the investments under exami-nation. It also provided details of the financial allocations of taxesto fund environmental services (Mell et al., 2012a). The constructedWTP market was considered realistic rather than hypothetical, ascomparable greening projects had previously been completed byCFNW-RRS (Bateman et al., 2002; ODPM, 2006).

Interviews were conducted face-to-face generating a sample of512 respondents (N: 512). Interviews were conducted on Whit-worth Street West by a professional survey team in 32 shifts. Thedata collection was undertaken over 23 days (11th April–3rd May2011); an average of 16 surveys was conducted per shift. A break-down of the structure of the sample is shown in Tables 1a and 1b.Cue cards were used to aid responses to attitudinal scales (Lik-

ert scales) and the investment options (Tyrväinen and Väänänen,1998). The economic value (WTP scale) was established using aconstructed market for street trees. The WTP scale was based on

the card would you say are most live? Just read out the FIVE letters of UP TO FIVE ONLY

(66)

Street West questionnaire survey.

300 I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

Q5. SHOWCARD D (R) AGAIN I’m going to read out a number of statements about the green spaces in near your home. For each please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the statement. READ OUT a) to d). ROTATE ORDER – TICK START. SINGLE CODE ONLY FOR EACH QUESTION.

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

a) The green spaces in my local area are maintained to a high standard

1 2 3 4 5 (16)

b) The green spaces in my local area are of a high quality

1 2 3 4 5 (17)

c) The green spaces in my local area are useful for local people

1 2 3 4 5 (19)

d) The green spaces in my local area make a difference in tackling climate change

1 2 3 4 5 (23)

Fig. 3. Question 5: Manchester Whitworth Street West questionnaire survey.

Q8a

On average each person in a local area pays £2.20 per month for street cleaning and £1.50 per month to maintain green spaces. This is paid through their council tax. How much extra each month would you be willing to pay to maintain the street as shown in the picture? DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE CODE ONLY. ENCOURAGE ESTIMATE IF REPSONDENT NOT SURE.

ASK IF NO AT Q7a, OTHERS GO TO NEXT CONCEPT. Q9a On average each person in a local area pays £2.20 per month for street cleaning and

£1.50 per month to maintain green spaces. This is paid through their council tax. How much extra from the council tax do you think should go towards maintaining the street as shown in the picture? DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE CODE ONLY. ENCOURAGE ESTIMATE IF REPSONDENT NOT SURE.

(67) £0.00 1 £2.20 12 £6.50 23 £0.20 2 £2.40 13 £7.00 24 £0.40 3 £2.60 14 £7.50 25 £0.60 4 £2.80 15 £8.00 26 £0.80 5 £3.00 16 £8.50 27 £1.00 6 £3.50 17 £9.00 28 £1.20 7 £4.00 18 £9.50 29 £1.40 8 £4.50 19 £10.00 30 £1.60 9 £5.00 20 £10.00+ 31 £1.80 10 £5.50 21 No figure given 32 £2.00 11 £6.00 22 Would not pay

extra 33

worth

awcwLt

TD

Fig. 4. Manchester Whit

n extensive review of existing WTP research studies and used theork of Bateman et al. (2002) and Atkinson et al. (2008) as spe-

ific reference points in its development. Personal communications

ith Professor Guy Garrod (Newcastle University) and Professor

iisa Tyrväinen (Finnish Forest Research Institute) were also soughto provide additional information to construct the WTP scale. The

able 1bemographic structure of Whitworth Street West respondent population.

Sex % Ethnicity % Age %

Male 58 White 78 <20 8Female 42 BME 20 20–29 49

Other/not stated 2 30–39 1740–49 1450–59 860–69 4

70> 1

Street West WTP scale.

WTP elicitation question was complemented by contextual ques-tions allowing the survey to establish a deeper understanding ofpreferences as ‘. . .cost is not ‘just money’: it is an expression ofresources that could be used for all kinds of other, perhaps equallydeserving, purposes’ (Bateman et al., 2002, p. 19).

Two WTP questions were developed; the first asked how muchrespondents were WTP in extra taxes for green investments, whilstthe second question posed whether people would be WTP morefrom existing council tax payments to meet these costs. The secondquestion was asked only if respondents had recorded a zero (£0.00)or ‘no payment’ value to the first question and was used to addressthe potential issue of protest zero payments (Mell et al., 2012a).

The WTP elicitation question was framed as a regular monthly

council tax payment. The incremental payment range reflected theactual costs of investing in street trees shown in previous CFNW-RRS research. This was consistent with the argument presentedby Stenger et al. (2009) that trees provide direct ecological and

I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306 301

sTabd7p

1

2

3

4

ciaaUts(olTVtwe

Fig. 5. Whitworth Street West – small trees.

ocio-economic benefits that can be perceived by respondents.yrväinen also suggested that the use of a regular payment mech-nism ‘enables the comparison of provision costs and receivedenefits both at the land use planning and management level’ wheniscussed in conjunction with other aspects of CV surveys’ (2001:6). A council tax payment vehicle was proposed such a regularayment method because:

. It is a tax most respondents in Manchester (and England) arefamiliar with and pay;

. It is a cost that people can interpret against their perceptions oflocal service provision;

. It would draw responses, both positive and negative, as respon-dents are likely to have formed opinions on council tax charges;

. Regular or monthly payments potentially elicit a more realisticWTP value than a one off payment.

The constructed market and the WTP questions were used inonjunction with a set of five 2D visualisations of the proposednvestments. Text based descriptors were not used. Fig. 1 presents

no change/status quo option, whilst Figs. 5–8 present fourlternative options for street tree and landscaping investments.sing Visualise2D in combination with Photoshop was an effec-

ive technique to present Whitworth Street West with a variety oftreet trees planting conditions with and without grass underneathFigs. 5–8). See Mell et al. (2012a) for a more detailed descriptionf how the visualisations were integrated into the survey. Simi-ar research using photomontage simulations were undertaken byodorova et al. (2004) highlight methodological similarities to theALUE research additional greening options, including different

ree species, floral arrangements or public amenities (i.e. benches)ere considered, however, additional features would have broad-

ned the variables under consideration too widely.

Fig. 6. Whitworth Street West – small trees and grass verges.

Fig. 7. Whitworth Street West – large trees.

The images used were developed by CFNW-RRF/University ofSheffield to show realistic investment opportunities but were notperfect representations of the proposed investment. Despite theselimitations, 98% of respondents found the images useful aids inattributing WTP values. Analysis focussed on examining respon-dent preferences for the various options, WTP and their attitudesto green space in Manchester. This allowed an exploration of theinfluence of the design of the different development options and ofpersonal attitudes towards green spaces on WTP.

Results

The construction of a realistic valuation market based on knowncosts for street tree investments facilitated the establishment ofa robust economic value for green investment options on Whit-worth Street West. The results indicate that there is a relationshipbetween the size and type of greenness of an investment and peo-ple’s WTP for it. Furthermore, larger or more visible GI investments,which refer to the level of perceived greenery in each invest-ment option including the size of each element and the widercomposition within the image, elicit higher payment values thaninvestments perceived as presenting lower levels of visible green-ery. Figs. 9 and 10 highlight two different patterns for WTP extracouncil tax and WTP more within existing payment values. Firstly,the results suggest that the majority of respondents (72%) werewilling to support the installation of the proposed green invest-ments with extra financial contributions. Analysis indicates thatonly 25% of respondents would pay to maintain the status quo,whilst approximately 72% of respondents would pay for some

form of additional urban greening.128 respondents were not WTP,whilst 369 were WTP to support the green investment options, 15respondents did not answer the question (Mell et al., 2012a). Fig. 9

Fig. 8. Whitworth Street West – large trees and grass verges.

302 I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

Fig. 9. Whitworth Street – willingness to pay/not willing to pay and preference.

illing

ibitiTaae

wadvwtwrmttq

pe

tional factors. Whilst each of the other respondent types presentsa clear investment preference, in contrast, businesses show similarWTP values for each of the greening investments without iden-tifying a clear preference. This can be compared to Fig. 11 and

Table 2Preference percentage per user category.

Residents Business Employees Commuters Other

Status quo 1%a 0%a 6% 1%a 3%a

Small trees 3% 20% 2%a 3% 6%Small trees and grass 17% 24% 11% 13% 15%Large trees 14% 20% 19% 22% 13%

Fig. 10. Green assessment and w

ndicates that greener investments, in terms of tree size and visi-le street greening, return higher payment values, a 59.5% (£0.87)

ncrease in WTP values is indicated between the status quo andhe preferred option (Fig. 8). This compares to an 11.6% (£0.17)ncrease between the status quo and investments in small trees.his suggests that the perceived size, shape and composition ofn investment have a significant impact on WTP. Fig. 10 proposessimilar relationship exists between perceived greenness, prefer-nces and increased WTP for them.

In contrast, where respondents were not WTP extra but wereilling to allocate a greater proportion of existing payments for GI

n alternative pattern was evident. Analysis indicates that respon-ents showed preferences for, and were, WTP higher amounts forisibly and physically smaller investments. The values generatedhen asked to allocate additional financial resources from existing

axes were also substantially lower than those when respondentsere asked to pay additional taxes. This may demonstrate that

espondents include other factors (i.e. assessments of the costs ofaintenance) within their perception of whether they would use

he investments. It may also indicate a reticence to pay for GI ashey were being asked both WTP (extra and additional allocations)

uestions.

A relationship is seen between the differences in how peopleerceive and interact with the environment, investment prefer-nces and WTP. This is highlighted when assessed against payment

ness to pay – Whitworth Street.

type. Table 2 highlights preferences for visibly larger GI invest-ments in street trees across each of the five user classifications.The classifications were: resident, business owner, employee (workon street), commuter and other. Residents, employees and com-muters preferred larger trees and grass investment options, whilstbusiness respondents were less likely to indicate preferences forthis investment; 32% compared to an average of 62%. This sug-gests a relationship between interpretations of each investmentand how respondents perceive its value in terms of visual and func-

Large trees and grass 65%b 32%b 62%b 59%b 63%b

Other 0% 4% 0% 2% 0%

a Lowest preference for each user category.b Highest preference for each user category.

I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306 303

Fig. 11. Characteristics of a high quality environment.

Table 3Reported factors influencing WTP.

Characteristic Focus: environmental, economic or social %

Makes the street attractive Social 93Makes the street cooler Environmental/social 29Increases property values Economic 25Decreases the level of pollution Environmental 27Increases local business revenue Economic 11Improves water run-off Environmental 5Encourages dog fouling Social/economic/environmental 4Blocks off the light to my home and/or business Social/economic 7Increases bird fouling Social/economic/environmental 5Increases leaf drop/makes my car dirty Social/economic/environmental 4Makes it harder to see other people Social/economic 4Other Social/economic/environmental 3Not stated 0

Table 4WTP/Not WTP by user category.

Resident Business owner Work on street Commuter Other

TecantG

‘onesedrtp

daf

in higher WTP values.A reading of Tables 4 and 5 suggests that residents (who may

or may not be working) were WTP more for green investments

Table 5WTP, frequency of use of local green infrastructure resources and work status.

Working Retired Not working Education

Frequent 59% 80% 65% 47%

Willing to pay £1.88 £1.26Not willing to pay £0.40 £0.80

able 3, which outline the factors noted by respondents as influ-ncing preferences and WTP. Whilst the analysis does not show aausal relationship between each characteristic and WTP, Table 3nd Fig. 11 indicate that people assess social (landscape attractive-ess, utility), economic (house prices) and environmental (accesso GI, nearby nature) factors when asked to indicate preferences forI investments.

Analysis also highlighted the following pattern relating togreen’ infrastructure preferences and WTP. Within the investmentptions there was a clear preference and related WTP for the sce-arios deemed greenest. Fig. 10 is indicative of this showing whereach transition in greening (small to large and no grass to grass)ees an increase in the respondent perceptions of greenness. Whenxamined against WTP this supports the view that the greener aevelopment scenario is perceived the higher the WTP value. Withegards the objectives of VALUE this suggests that a strong rela-ionship exists between WTP, scenario preferences and respondenterception of greenery.

Table 4 presents comparable data to Fig. 9 with business respon-ents stating lower monetary values where they were WTP. Theyre, however, willing to provide the greatest financial supportrom existing taxes compared to the other respondent groups.

£1.71 £1.76 £1.80£0.37 £0.34 £0.47

Therefore, although business users are WTP significantly loweradditional taxes (minimum difference of −23%) they are WTP pro-portionally more from current council taxes (minimum difference+41%). The data indicates that residents (who are likely to havethe closest attachment to the area) are prepared to pay the mostto improve their local environment (£1.88 more per month) withcommuters and employees being WTP 12–15% (£1.60–1.65) less.This supports the suggestion that residents show greater placeattachment due to their proximity to the study area, and is reflected

Regularly 29% 13% 23% 41%Infrequent/never use 11% 7% 13% 12%WTP £1.84 £2.10 £2.32 £1.62NWTP £0.43 £0.26 £0.39 £0.45

304 I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urba

Table 6Perceptions of GI’s contribution to urban landscape value.

Agree Disagree

Local green space is maintained to a high standard 69% 14%Local green space is of a high quality 61% 18%Local green space provide useful amenities for

local people80% 8%

Local green spaces make a positive contribution to 40% 21%

tpcsptb

ltwisuhaimtCgmc

aibFbrrcairas(aat

tcy6hmi5alcrh

would range from £564,171 to £3,057,445 a year (Table 8).

climate change control

han other users. Thus, we can hypothesise that the monetary valuelaced upon street trees and landscaping reflects respondent per-eptions of Whitworth Street West in relation to frequency of use,ize and composition of GI resources. Therefore the greater theerceived amenity value, the higher its reported preference andhe more respondents were WTP. This pattern also appears trueetween GI proximity to homes, places of employment and WTP.

Whilst use and place attachment appear to influence WTP theength of respondent tenure (owner occupied, social tenant, privateenant and student housing) did not show a significant relationshipith WTP. Although resident WTP was highest; average WTP var-

ed (£1.50–1.99). None of the Chi2 calculations were found to beignificant at the 95% confidence level (0.05) as a result the tab-lations are not reported in this paper. A closer relationship canowever be identified if WTP, frequency of use and work status aressessed. Table 5 indicates that people who are retired or not work-ng visit green and open spaces most frequently and are also WTP

ore for them. This supports Tyrväinen and Väänänen (1998) viewhat valuation is closely linked with frequency of use. Research byABE Space (2006) also suggested that specific social and ethnicroups, including the retired and unemployed are more likely toake use of green spaces because they are not subject to the same

onstraints (time or financial) as other people.Further analysis suggests that respondent characteristics and

ttachment to Whitworth Street West influence WTP. It is howevermportant to assess whether the preferences identified can alsoe supported though respondent discussions of landscape quality.ig. 11 and Table 3 presents a number of characteristics identifiedy respondents as influencing perceptions of a high quality envi-onment. When analysed alongside WTP, the breadth of respondenteasoning suggests that valuation is based on interpretations of aombination of social, ecological and economic variables. Fig. 11nd Table 3 both show a number of issues including street clean-ng, access to nature, employment and crime, which supports theesearch of CABE Space (2006) arguing that these characteristicsffect the ways in which people perceive the value of urban streetcenes. It could also be suggested that although ‘green’ influencespublic and open space: 39%, access to nature: 20% and trees: 22%)re not the most prominent factors (clean streets: 48%: crime: 40%nd transport: 43%), they do influence the process of value attribu-ion.

Respondents were also asked to rate their local environment inerms of value, quality and utility (Table 6) to enquire whether WTPould be linked to positive perceptions of other GI resources. Anal-sis indicates that there is a positive interpretation of the local GI,9% reported it being maintained to a high standard, 61% being of aigh quality and 80% proposing GI as useful resources for local com-unities. When reviewed alongside an assessment of respondent

nterpretations of local authority services the analysis indicates that9% of respondents felt that their LA provided high quality servicesnd a further 47% value for money (63% (No. 323) of respondentsived within an MCC controlled LA area). Thus, there appears to be

onsistent positive view for WTP, interpretation of the local envi-onment and respondent perceptions of the LAs ability to manageigh quality GI resources.

n Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

Discussion

The analysis of the VALUE survey demonstrates that residents,businesses and commuters are all WTP for green investments inurban areas. This supports the research of CABE Space (2004) andBenedict and McMahon (2002) who stated that the developmentof a functional, attractive and visibly greener urban environmentis fundamental in establishing WTP values for greening projects.However, payment values and the preferred mechanism, extracouncil tax or an additional percentage of existing council tax, tofund vary among user groups. The findings of the Manchester casestudy though compare favourably with the research of Gensler andLand Use Institute (2011) who reported that 95% of European plan-ners and developers would be WTP a 3% increase in taxes or rent forGI development. Scarpa et al. (2000) though sounded a note of cau-tion, reporting that there are issues to comparing stated WTP values(potential future payments) against the actual economic costs ofimplementation or maintenance. Thus, whilst WTP surveys provideindications of potential revenue returns that can be used by LAs tobuild business cases for GI investments, it may prove difficult touse this information for funding for development.

Participants in the VALUE survey concurred with the CABESpace view stating that in highly urbanised locations, with highproportions of grey infrastructure investments in GI provides areattributed higher WTP values. CABE Space extends this argu-ments suggesting this is due to GI providing greater personal orcommunal benefits within environments perceived as being eco-logically restrictive (CABE Space, 2006). Analysis presented in thispaper support this highlighting the relationship between visiblylarger investment in street trees, preferences and WTP extra forsuch investments. However, when respondents were reluctant orperceived lower utility values, smaller investments (i.e. small trees)were the preferred investment option. Throughout investments inGI were seen as preferable to the status quo. This variation reflectsa number of issues (size, utility and cost), therefore this analy-sis and the existing practitioner research literature proposes thatrespondents may identify that investments in urban greening actas an improvement to the physical landscape; although smallergreen investments could provide more cost-effective returns tolocal residents and businesses than larger projects. Moreover, Irwin(2002) noted that increased distance from a GI resource has a neg-ative impact on WTP, whereas a residential view of high qualityGI increases WTP. Thus the development of GI in highly urbanisedlocations could have a proportionally greater impact for local com-munities due to the increased population density. A view reinforcedin the Whitworth Street West survey. Willis and Garrod (1992)and CABE Space (2006) also proposed that the type of GI (tree andlandscaping species, size, design and relative greenness) influencedWTP.

To highlight the value of WTP data a process of grossing up wasundertaken based on the generated WTP values to extrapolate thepotential economic value of GI at a ward and city scale. This wasconducted as a theoretical exercise to highlight the potential rev-enue returns for MCC. A basic calculation methodology was usedand the figures presented should be considered indicative; a moreextensive appraisal would be needed for these figures to be applied.Based on ward and citywide demographic data (MCC, 2011) it waspossible to estimate potential yearly increases in council tax pay-ments of between £43,540 and £190,361 from residents in the CityCentre Ward, where Whitworth Street West is located, using theWTP values of £0.43–£1.88 (scenario averages) (Table 7). At a cityscale (151,659 eligible households) additional council tax returns

The attribution of value to green investments should be consid-ered as a nuanced process. As discussed throughout this paper thereis a relationship between the visible greenery in specific urban

I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 296–306 305

Table 7Estimated grossing-up based on 8438 eligible households for council tax in Manchester City Centre ward.a

Manchester City Centre ward population: 8438

Total WTP Average (sample size 140) Per month WTP Per year WTP

SQ £60.00 £0.43 £3628.34 £43,540.08ST £157.20 £1.12 £9450.56 £113,406.72ST&G £183.80 £1.32 £11,138.16 £133,657.92LT £238.20 £1.71 £14,428.98 £173,147.76LT&G £268.20 £1.88 £15,863.44 £190,361.28

a This uses the total household figure of 9427 and withdraws 637 properties noted as ‘void’ by Manchester City Council and a further 352 households that receive counciltax benefits.

Table 8Estimated grossing-up based on total number of eligible households for council tax in Manchester Metropolitan area: 151,659.a

Manchester City Centre ward population: 151,659

Total WTP Average (sample size 323) Per month WTP Per year WTP

SQ £99.30 £0.31 £47,014.29 £564,171.48ST £347.30 £1.08 £163,791.72 £1,965,500.60ST&G £392.50 £1.22 £185,023.98 £2,220,287.70LT £500.90 £1.55 £235,071.45 £2,820,857.40LT&G £541.10 £1.68 £254,787.12 £3,057,445.40

a The total number of households in the Manchester Metropolitan area is 215,251, however, Manchester City council note that 63,592 households received council taxbenefits or are exempt from this charge.

Table 9Results of previous studies of WTP of urban greening.

Location Investment type Average monthly WTP(current prices)

Yorkshire Dales National ParkWillis and Garrod (1992)

National Park resources andvisitor facilities

£2.19 (residents) £1.6 (visitors)

North Carelia, Finland Tyrväinenand Väänänen (1998)

Urban trees/forests £2.42

New York Peper et al. (2007) Urban/street trees £0.34–0.67Guangzhou Jim and Chen (2006) Urban greenspace and trees £1.70London Olympics Atkinson et al.

(2008)Olympic games venues,greenspace and infrastructure

London – £1.83Manchester – £1.00Glasgow – £0.92

UK Botanical Gardens Garrod et al.(1993)

Access and maintenance ofbotanical gardens

Edinburgh – £1.29Sheffield – £1.12

ebiaiFslsetsabpWtapcdW

nvironments, preferences for GI investments and WTP. Additionalenefits including alleviating crime, improving health, increas-

ng biodiversity and supporting economic development were alsottributed to GI in the research literature but were not analysedn-depth in this study (Tuan, 1974; Benedict and McMahon, 2006).urthermore, an extensive range of benefits were discussed in thetudies outlined in Table 9, indicating that the WTP values calcu-ated for the VALUE investments compare favourably to previoustudies. Although the survey focusses primarily on establishingconomic values for street trees, Tables 3 and 6 illustrate that addi-ional value was identified for the ecological characteristics of theite. The objective of this research though was not to develop anssessment of the ecological benefits of investments in street treesut to show whether economic values are supported by positiveerceptions of a sites ecological and social context. Respondents onhitworth Street West also highlighted that the process of valua-

ion is based on a number of personal and communal preferencesnd the nature of the investment. Thus, WTP for GI can be pro-

osed as reflecting the complexity of evaluating physical landscapeharacteristics alongside the principles of place attachment andiscussions of the social and economic value (Proshansky, 1978;inter and Lockwood, 2004).

Cambridge – £0.86Westonbirt – £2.23

Conclusion

The impacts of green investment in urban areas are many.Reports from two focus groups held prior to the WTP research inManchester made reference to improvements in health, well-being,additional recreation spaces and tackling climate change as bene-fits of GI. The analysis presented in this paper supports a numberof these issues, as respondents noted clean streets, reduced crime,climate control and less pollution as reasons to financially supportinvestment in GI. The data also suggests that the physical size ofa resource is not necessarily as important as its function, relativelevel of additional greenery or payment type. Overall a perceivedincrease in the proportion of GI has been shown to attract higherWTP values. Investments in urban greening though appear to beevaluated against the physical characteristics, i.e. greenery, of aninvestment site. Street tree investments should therefore be con-sidered as economically viable, in terms of investment options, aslarger public parks. However, they potentially offer greater bene-

fits at a local scale. Economic evaluations of GI investments shouldbe encouraged as planners are attempting to identify implemen-tation mechanisms to integrate multi-functional GI in urban areas.This view meets the proposals of the EEA who stated that ‘Green

3 Urba

ia

natfmiuratbdf

A

liDEP

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

CC

D

D

E

G

G

G

G

G

H

06 I.C. Mell et al. / Urban Forestry &

nfrastructure is an important part of territorial identity and capital’nd should be used to enhance the urban landscape (EEA, 2012:20).

In urban locations where land availability is limited, open spaceeeds to be thought of in creative terms so that street greeningnd new forms of public space meet local needs. The analysis forhe VALUE research highlights that residents and users are WTPor green development; although the level of financial commit-

ent varies responses were predominately positive. What is clears that a greener environment is viewed more favourably than anrban area with low levels of accessible and visible GI. The VALUEesearch in Manchester also provides evidence to support fundingpplications for investment in GI by identifying potential councilax returns. The development of GI should therefore not be limitedy the quality of the existing urban environment but should beeveloped with an understanding of how it is distributed and itsunctions endow meaning and economic value.

cknowledgements

This paper is based on work undertaken for an international, col-aborative research programme on ‘Valuing Attractive Landscapesn the Urban Economy’ (VALUE) funded by the European Regionalevelopment Fund (ERDF) under its INTERREG IVB, North-Westurope, Community Initiative concerning Promoting Strong androsperous Communities at Transnational Level 2007–2013.

eferences

tkinson, G., Mourato, S., Szymanski, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., 2008. Are We Willing toPay Enough to ‘Back the Bid’?: Valuing the Intangible Impacts of London’s Bid toHost the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. Urban Studies 45 (2), 419–444.

ateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, H., Jones-Lee,M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swan-son, J., 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

eatley, T., 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press,Washington, DC.

enedict, M.A., McMahon, E.D., 2002. Green infrastructure: smart conservation forthe 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal 20 (3), 12–17.

enedict, M.A., McMahon, E.D., 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes andCommunities. Island Press, Washington, DC.

rown, G., Raymond, C., 2007. The relationship between place attachment andlandscape values: towards mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 27,89–111.

ABE Space, 2004. Green Space Strategies: A Good Practice Guide. CABE Space,London.

ABE Space, 2006. Does Money Grow on Trees? CABE Space, London.oE (Council of Europe), 2007. Draft Guidelines for Implementation of the European

Landscape Convention, T-FLOR (2007) 8. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.epartment for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2012. National Plan-

ning Policy Framework. HM Stationary Office, London.epartment of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2011. The Natural

Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. HM Stationary Office, London.uropean Environment Agency (EEA), 2012. Green infrastructure and territorial

cohesion: The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policiesusing monitoring systems. EEA Technical Report No. 18/2011. Publications Officeof the European Union, Luxemburg.

arrod, G., Pickering, A., Willis, K., 1993. The economic value of botanic gardens: arecreational perspective. Geoforum 24 (2), 215–224.

ensler, Urban Land Institute, 2011. Open Space: An Asset without a Champion.Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.

ill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R., Pauleit, S., 2007. Adapting cities for climatechange: the role of green infrastructure. Climate Change and Cities 33 (1),115–133.

reed, C., 2011. Planning for sustainable urban areas or every day life and inclusion.Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning 164

(DP2), 107–119.

reenspace Project Team, 2005. Greenspaces – Final Report, Retrieved fromhttp://www.ucd.ie/greensp/docs/final1.pdf (August 5).

ebbert, M., 2008. Re-enclosure of the urban picturesque: green-space transforma-tions in postmodern urbanism. Town Planning Review 79 (1), 31–59.

n Greening 12 (2013) 296–306

Horwood, K., 2011. Green infrastructure: reconciling urban green space and regionaleconomic development: lessons learnt from experience in England’s north-westregion. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustaina-bility 16 (10), 963–975.

Irwin, E.G., 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. LandEconomics 78 (4), 465–480.

Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2006. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation ofurban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(1–2), 81–96.

Kambites, C., Owen, S., 2006. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planningin the UK. Planning Practice and Research 21 (4), 483–496.

Laing, R., Davies, A.-M., Scott, S., 2005. Combining visualization with choice exper-iment in the built environment. In: Bishop, I., Lange, E. (Eds.), Visualization inLandscape and Environmental Planning. Technology and Application. Taylor andFrancis, London/New York, pp. 212–219.

Lorenzo, A.B., Blanche, C.A., Qi, Y., Guidry, M.M., 2000. Assessing residents’ willing-ness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study.Journal of Arboriculture 26 (6), 319–325.

Manchester City Council (MCC), 2011. Council Tax: Your Services Explained. Man-chester City Council, Manchester.

Mell, I.C., 2009. Can Green Infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedingsof the ICE – Engineering Sustainability 162 (ES1), 23–34.

Mell, I.C., 2010. Green Infrastructure: Concepts, Perceptions and Its Use in SpatialPlanning. University of Newcastle, Newcastle (Ph.D. thesis).

Mell, I.C., Keskin, B., Hehl-Lange, S., Henneberry, J., 2012a. Valuing Attractive Land-scapes in the Urban Economy: Action 4.2 Case Study Report – Street TreeInvestments on Whitworth Street. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, Manchester.

Mell, I.C., Keskin, B., Hehl-Lange, S., Henneberry, J., 2012b. Action 4.2 Level II Report: AContingent Valuation of Green Investments in The Wicker Riverside. Universityof Sheffield, Sheffield, Sheffield.

Mell, I.C., 2013. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the‘green’ of Green Infrastructure Development. Local Environment: The Interna-tional Journal of Justice and Sustainability 18 (2), 152–166.

Natural England and Landuse Consultants, 2009. Green Infrastructure Guidance.Natural England, NE176. Natural England, Peterborough.

O’Garra, T., Mourato, S., Garrity, L., Schmidt, P., Beerenwinkel, A., Altmann, M., Hart,D., Graesel, C., Whitehouse, S., 2007. Is the public willing to pay for hydro-gen buses? A comparative study of preferences in four cities. Energy Policy 35,3630–3642.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2006. Enhancing Urban Green Space.National Audit Office – The Stationary Office, London.

Peper, P.J., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Gardner, S.L., Vargas, K.E., Xiao, Q., 2007.City of New York municipal forest resource assessment. InternalTech. Rep. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,Davis, CA.

Proshansky, H.M., 1978. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior 10,147–169.

Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Chilton, S.M., Biongiorno, J., 2000. Importance of forestattributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation studyof Irish forests. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 315–329.

Soares, A.L., Rego, F.C., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Peper, P.J., Xiao, Q., 2011.Benefits and costs of street trees in Lisbon, Portugal. Urban Forestry and UrbanGreening 10, 69–78.

Stenger, A., Harou, P., Navrud, S., 2009. Valuing environmental goods and servicederived from woods. Journal of Forest Economics 15, 1–14.

Stringer, P., 2010. Work Package 4, Action 4.1 – Report on Focus Group Interviewsin Manchester. Community Forest North-West, Oxford Road, Salford.

Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towardsstreet flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 69,403–416.

Tuan, Y.-F., 1974. Topophilia. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Tyrväinen, L., 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal

of Environmental Management 62, 75–92.Tyrväinen, L., Väänänen, H., 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an

application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning43, 105–118.

Underwood, J.G., 2011. Combining landscape-level conservation planning andbiodiversity offset programs: a case study. Environmental Management 47,121–129.

UNEP-WCMC, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the KeyFindings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., 1992. Assessing the value of future landscapes. Landscapeand Urban Planning 23, 17–32.

Wilson, O., Hughes, O., 2011. Urban green space policy and discourse in England

under new labour from 1997 to 2010. Planning Practice and Research 26 (2),207–228.

Winter, C., Lockwood, M., 2004. The natural area value scale: a new instrument formeasuring natural area values. Australasian Journal of Environmental Manage-ment 11 (1), 11–20.