1、AbstracthasgreenoffirstauthoritiesfundamentalwhetherconsiderthatK1.hasfmyok0169-2046/$20.00Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 125142Temporal changes and local variations in thefunctions of Londons green beltMarco Amati, Makoto Yokohari1University of Tsukuba, Graduate School of Systems and Inform
2、ation Engineering, Tsukuba-Shi,305-8573 Tennodai 1-1-1, JapanReceived 2 June 2004; received in revised form 14 December 2004; accepted 15 December 2004Available online 19 February 2005A green belt is a zone of land around the city where building developmenta history of being effective in achieving i
3、ts purposes, recently plannersbelts reformers propose renewing the green belts function. HoLondons green belt. The aim of this research is to explore whichinvestigate the history of the green belts functions. We then analysein relation to their green belt policies using cluster analysis.values that
4、lie behind the green belts functions. Usingthey use the green belt to: control urban growth, enhance landscapethe green belt to be a minor issue. Overall we argue that aexplicitly refers to the green belts role in restoring landscapes.2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.eywords: Green belt; Local
5、 plans; Local authorities; Landscape protection;IntroductionOne of the central tenets of post-war UK planningbeen the strict separation of countryside and urbanCorresponding author. Tel.: +81 90 8332 9540;ax: +81 29 853 5572.E-mail addresses: mamatisk.tsukuba.ac.jp (M. Amati),osk.tsukuba.ac.jp (M. Y
6、okohari).1Tel.: +81 29 853 5376; fax: +81 29 853 5376.areas,greenspacelartheopenFirstlydehousing 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.12.007is severely restricted. Although Londons green belthave started debating how it could be reformed. Thewever no recent research
7、has shown the current distributionfactors influence the functions of Londons green belt. Wethe green belts current functions by grouping localThe history of the green belts establishment reveals thecluster analysis we group the local authorities according toprotection, improve the landscape or wheth
8、er theynew green space planning concept should be implementedDevelopment pressure; Planning reformachieved largely through the implementation ofbelts. The preservation of a wide band of opento surround the urban area partially explains whyge cities such as London have stopped growing sinceSecond Wor
9、ld War (Longley et al., 1992).Despite the green belts success at conservingspace it has been criticised in recent years., the London green belts proscription onvelopment is linked to a chronic shortage ofin the SouthEast, one of Europes most126 M. Amati, M. Yokohari / Landscape and Urban Planning 75
10、 (2006) 125142economically buoyant areas (Barker, 2004). Thisis understandable when the size of Londons greenbelt is considered. The latest figures show that Lon-dons green belt covers 508,500 ha and has largelyremained undeveloped during the post-war period(Fig. 1, Table 1, Office of the Deputy Pri
11、me Minister,2003).Secondly, Londons green belt has been criticisedfor being outdated. For example, studies have revealedthat the ecological and amenity value of wasteland in-side the city can often be higher than the farmland andgolf courses preserved by the green belt (Davidson andWibberley, 1977,
12、p. 118). Yet, the wasteland does notenjoy the same level of protection. In fact, the green beltFig. 1. Green belt areas in England (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).TGreenMinisterGreenEnglandTYSouthNorthStokNottinghamBurtonWCambridgeGloucesterOxfordLondonASWmayvment1998;fgreenurbanandhaint
13、olink(unfproposalsningtutegreen2002;seeneedstatementsceptsgreenM. Amati, M. Yokohari / Landscape and Urbanable 1belt surface area in England (Office of the Deputy Prime, 2003)belt Area (ha) Change (%)1997 20001,652,600 1,677,400 1.5yne and Wear 53,350 66,330 24.3ork 25,430 26,190 3.0and WestYorkshir
14、e249,240 255,620 2.6West 253,290 257,790 1.8e-on-Trent 44,090 44,080 0.0and Derby 62,020 61,830 0.3andSwadlingcote730 730 0.0est Midlands 231,290 231,530 0.126,690 26,690 0.0andCheltenham7,030 7,030 0.035,010 35,000 0.0513,420 513,330 0.0von 68,660 68,780 0.2Hampshire and SEDorset82,340 82,500 0.2ca
15、use such brownfield sites of higher ecologicalalue to be developed sooner by turning the develop-pressure inwards towards the urban areas (Wyatt,Lock, 2000; Bovill, 2002).Finally, research has shown that Londons green beltails to achieve a compact city. At the local level thebelt is effective at lim
16、iting development in thefringe. At the regional scale, Hall et al. (1973)subsequent works (e.g. Bibby and Shepherd, 1997)ve shown that development leapfrogs the green beltdeeper rural areas. Such development has beened to a higher car use and longer car journeysCurtis, 1996).The feeling among planne
17、rs that the green belt isair, outdated and inefficient has led to a variety offor its reform. The Town and Country Plan-Association and the Royal Town Planning Insti-both recently issued statements on the future of thebelt (Town and Country Planning Association,Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI),
18、2002;Elson, 2002 for a review). Both acknowledge theto control development. At the same time, bothstress the need to explore green space con-that have new functions: e.g. green corridors andwedges (Turner, 1995; Frey, 2000 and Office oftheofnumberpast1993thetionsarefinedDepartmentlandfulfillinggreen
19、inggreentionshiptionning.beltoferenceweemphasisWPlanning 75 (2006) 125142 127Deputy Prime Minister, 2001). Despite the numberproposals for new green belt functions and a largeof works that have studied the green belt in the(Thomas, 1970; Munton, 1983 and Elson, 1986,) no recent research has attempte
20、d to investigategreen belts current functions. Instead, the func-of the green belt as expressed in local planscommonly assumed to follow those that are de-in Central Government guidance (Great Britainof the Environment, 1995). These are:to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up ar-eas;to pr
21、event neighbouring towns from merging intoone another;to assist in the safeguarding the countryside fromencroachment;to preserve the setting and special character of his-toric towns; andto assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging therecycling of derelict and other urban land.In addition the gove
22、rnment suggests that the use ofin the green belts has a positive role to play ina number of objectives:to provide opportunities for access to the open coun-tryside for the urban population;to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and out-door recreation near urban areas;to retain attractive landsc
23、apes, and enhance land-scapes, near to where people live;to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;to secure nature conservation interest; andto retain land in agricultural, forestry and relateduses.The purpose of this study is to contribute to thebelt debate by examining the green belts var
24、y-functions. We specifically aim to show how thebelts function has varied over time and the rela-between the present distribution of this func-in local plan policies and central government plan-First, we briefly review the works on the greenup to present. Second, we trace the developmentthe green be
25、lts function through history by ref-to primary historical archive material. Third,cluster the local municipalities according to theiron the different functions of the green belt.e discuss the distribution of this clustering in rela-128 and Urbantionplans.2.historyimplementedis“whodescribed(1962)Roge
26、rsgreen14),aroundshogreen(1983)greenparticularuse,proofoficthedepth.wofimportantfunctionstheloose-planningsurethealloderstandingwhattiassumethatguidance.greehanoresgreention.3.gr3.1.underlyingCenturycitybanchangedlandtoM. Amati, M. Yokohari / Landscapeto secondary data and other central governmentRe
27、view of previous green belt worksStudies on the green belt have combined green beltwith present-day case studies to show how it isin practice. The history of the green beltwell known and reads, as Gault (1981) notes, like as who” of UK planning. This whos who has beenin several well-known works. Man
28、delker, Thomas (1970, pp. 7783) and Cherry and(1996, pp. 6669) look in some detail at thebelts initial implementation. Gault (1981, pp.describes how green belts were implementedthe country during the early post-war years,wing the rough way in which the location of thebelts boundaries were initially
29、decided. Muntonprovides a geographical overview of Londonsbelt implementation at the time. He focuses inon the impacts of the green belt on land-land price and development. Elson (1986, 1993)vides the most comprehensive and recent accountsgreen belt implementation focusing on a numbercase studies an
30、d reviews of the future of the pol-y.Despite the scope of these works, none exploreorigins of the current green belt functions inThe studies have largely ignored the inter-ar period, which saw the original implementationthe green belt. Studying this formative period isbecause it reveals how the gree
31、n beltswere developed. In addition, it shows howgreen belt was implemented during a period ofcontrol and high development pres-(Fig. 2). We aim to show that the flexibility ofgreen belts function played an important role inwing the green belt to be implemented. An un-of this process will aid underst
32、anding ofwill be necessary for implementing an alterna-ve to the green belt. Furthermore, the above worksthat the green belts function simply followswhich is laid down in the Central GovernmentSuch an assumption ignores the large de-of discretion that local authorities in the UKve for making policie
33、s in local plans. It also ig-the variety of development pressures that thegrodeclinedeathinthetheclassesOwnersand37%.shortertocessleisurepp.portimposedarePublic4/33533.2.ofwhereapp.agriculturalThisplanPlanning 75 (2006) 125142belt is subjected to and how these affect its func-Background: historical
34、development of theeen belts objectivesUrban growth in the early 1920s: thereason for introducing the green beltThe aim of urban planning at the end of the 19thwas to improve health and to beautify the(Cherry, 1974). However, the unprecedented ur-growth that occurred during the inter-war periodthis i
35、dea. For example, the area under urbanuse in England and Wales increased from 6.78.0% between 1931 and 1939 (King, 1984). Suchwth was caused by a number of factors. Agriculturalfrom 1880, rising tax and death duties, and theof heirs after the First World War, all resultedlarge land estates being bro
36、ken up and sold during1920s and 1930s. These changes greatly increasedsupply of land, allowing the middle and workingand tenant farmers to buy land for the first time.occupied 10% of agricultural land in EnglandWales in 1914. By 1927, this figure had risen toAt the same time, a rising standard of li
37、ving, aworking week and improved transportation, leddemands from the middle and working classes to ac-the countryside for holidays, rambling and otherpursuits (Sheail, 1981, pp. 13; Booth, 2003,105). As a 1926 Surrey planning consultants re-notes, this was a time when the natural restraintsby distan
38、ce and the difficulty of obtaining landnow largely swept away (The National Archives:Records Office Housing and Local Government).The changing function of the green beltThe first green belt purchases were made as partthe founding of Letchworth Garden City in 1909,500 ha of agricultural land were pur
39、chased asbuffer between Hitchin and Baldock (Elson, 1986,89). Howards green belt was intended to have anfunction to supply produce for the town.aim was later repeated in the London Societysfor London (Webb, 1921), which also assumedthatrents.wcountyandsomeforSocietyM. Amati, M. Yokohari / Landscape
40、and UrbanFig. 2. Important events in UK greenthe green belt could be paid for through agriculturalDuring the inter-war period the Ministry of Healthas charged with planning along with a number ofand district councils and a number of societiesgroups. As well as the local and county councils,influenti
41、al amenity societies such as the Councilthe Preservation of Rural England and the Londonwere also able to influence the green belts aim.andningpurelyPublic4/3764JointallomentsPlanning 75 (2006) 125142 129belt planning 19002004.A key disseminator of professional planning ideasopen space plans, were t
42、he Joint Town Plan-Committees. These were described as having aadvisory function (The National Archives:Records Office Housing and Local Government), taking a broader view of town planning. TheseTown Planning Committees benefited planning bywing the different local authorities to reach agree-and to
43、exchange ideas on a wide range of issues.130 and UrbanBycouldofbelt.hadwhichwereNationalLocalPublic4/3239aPlanningdonlishedities,theremorecruitmentturycalalsowNationallishedernmentspaces.Committeefunctionmorefieldstals.somethatPublic4/3241ninggionalfindingmentation.bementation.foraimplayingmostField
44、sbeltgionalprobablyproIntribspacesPublic4/3239bLondonwhenPublic52/1217agionalM. Amati, M. Yokohari / Landscapejoining these Committees, local district councilsparticipate in determining the aim of a varietyregional open space schemes including the greenBy 1923, 16 Joint Town Planning Committeesbeen
45、established in the whole of the UK, 4 ofwere in the London area. Three years later, thereeight such committees around London alone (TheArchives: Public Records Office Housing andGovernment 4/3129; The National Archives:Records Office Housing and Local Government).The largest and most influential of
46、the Joint TownCommittees at the time was the Greater Lon-Regional Planning Committee. This was estab-in 1927 and was composed of 138 local author-controlling an area of 2952 km2(Thomas, 1970).In the 1920s, among planners and the government,was a widespread recognition of the need foropen space for t
47、he urban working classes. Re-for the Boer War at the turn of the 20th Cen-, had been thrown into crisis by the poor physi-state of the recruits and the First World War hadrevealed the importance of maintaining a healthyorking-class population (Harrison, 1981). Though thePlaying Fields Association ha
48、d been estab-in 1927, it was clear to planners and the gov-that more needed to be done to provide openIn 1927, the Greater London Regional Planningbegan to question the purely agriculturalof the proposed green belt. Unwin proposed aflexible use, i.e. the land could be used for playingas well as for
49、institutions such as mental hospi-Nor was the green belt meant to be continuous. Inplaces, development could be permitted, such asrequired for arterial roads (The National Archives:Records Office Housing and Local Government).Though at the time, the importance of effective plan-was gaining recognition, the Greater London Re-Planning Committee encountered difficulty inmoney to purchase land for green belt imple-To counter this difficulty, the Committeegan a campaign to argue for the green belts imple-Arguing that the green