Derrimut Google maps 2016

Making greening happen in

consolidating cities Joe Hurley, Kath Phelan, Marco Amati - RMIT University

Alex Saunders, Bryan Boruff – University of Western Australia

Clean Air and Urban

Landscapes research hub

Issue Context - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

Issue Context - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

https://urban.melbourne/opinion/2013/11/12/ivan-rijavec-on-a-question-of-urban-character

Issue Context - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

Issue Context - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

Work Program - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

Source: Melbourne Urban Forest Strategy

1. Policy Review: • review of current policy and strategy for

urban forest enhancement with respect to land-use planning.

2. Spatial analysis: • Analysing urban development scenarios

under consolidation pressure. • Comprehensive city scale assessment of

urban forest against land-use. 3. Scenario modelling:

• Model land-use and urban forest policy/regulation, and urban development; test implications of different policy and urban development scenarios.

Policy Review

Policy Review

National level:

• Limited role in city management, but growing interest in ‘liveable’ cities

• Expressed need for increased greening (2016)

• Smart Cities and Suburbs; City Deals.

State level:

• Primary control of land-use planning.

• Little reference to urban forest in state planning strategies.

• Little to no coverage in state planning regulation.

• However, increasing efforts in some jurisdictions to address the urban forest:

• Data and information provision

• Policy review

• Regulatory mechanism review

Policy Review

Local Government:

• Most active level of government when it comes to action of urban

forest and land-use planning

• Most of the activity is about LG managing trees on their own land

(esp open space and council properties); and the street network.

• Many have relatively loose engagement with ideas to ‘encourage’

trees on private land.

• But there are an increasing number of strategies looking at the formal

role LG can play as a critical actor in land-use planning and

development assessment.

Policy Review

Research question: To what extent do local government urban forest policies make a clear connection to land use planning policies to protect and enhance the urban forest?

Final sample comprised 18 urban forest strategies produced by local governments since 2008 in four Australian mainland states and available online

Policy Review

Goals:

• Variable: managing their urban trees;

protecting the urban forest; and

protecting and enhancing urban forest.

• One municipality would generally like

its jurisdiction to be “well-treed”

• Others are more comprehensive in

their vision for a resilient, healthy and

diverse urban forest. Defining the

urban forest as an “integrated canopy”.

City of Perth

Policy Review

Framing the problem:

• Most adopt the language of sustainability to describe the value of urban forests.

• A number refer to liveability and health; two refer to spatial social justice, identifying

equitable tree distribution as an important goal.

• Most frame urban development as one of the rationales for producing forest policies.

• 4 talk generally about urbanisation and development pressure;

• 12 cite variations of density, urban consolidation or urban intensification as

impacting negatively on urban forests.

• But framing is variable: prominence variously given to biodiversity, heat island,

amenity, health, equity, urban development pressure.

Relationship between planning policies and urban

forest strategy

Local government urban forest strategies

1. Planning policies sit above urban forest strategy Banyule City Council, Vic: Urban Forest Strategic Plan (2014)

City of Belmont, WA: Urban Forest Strategy (2014)

2. Planning policies integrated / inform / are aligned

with urban forest strategy

City of Armadale, WA: Urban Forest Strategy (2014)

City of Bayside, Vic: Tree Strategy (2011)

City of Greater Geelong, Vic: Urban Forest Strategy 2015-2025 (2015)

City of Newcastle, NSW: Urban Forest Policy (2008)

City of Perth, WA: Urban Forest Plan (2016 draft)

3. Planning policies and urban forest strategy align

with other policy areas

Town of Bassendean, WA: Urban Forest Strategy 2016-2026 (2016 draft)

City of Melbourne, Vic: Urban Forest Strategy 2012-2032 (2011)

4. Urban forest goals similar to planning, but strategy

does not include ref to planning policies

City of Burnside, SA: Urban Tree Strategy 2014-2025 (2014)

City of Sydney, NSW: Urban Forest Strategy (2013)

5. Urban forest goals similar to those in planning, but

strategy only refers to very specific programs or

regulatory controls rather than planning policies

City of Marrickville, NSW: Urban Forest Strategy (2011)

City of North Sydney, NSW: Urban Forest Strategy (2011)

6. Urban forest strategy is a tree management plan,

connection to land use planning is regulatory

City of Darebin, Vic: Urban Forest Strategy (2013)

City of Mitcham, SA: Tree Strategy 2016 – 2025 (2016)

City of Port Phillip, Vic: Greening Port Phillip (2010)

City of Unley, SA: Regenerating Unley's Urban Forest (2015)

7. Trees-first approach to all policies Brimbank City Council, Vic: Urban Forest Strategy 2015-2045 (2015)

Policy Review

Key strategies to integrate urban forest and

planning:

• Connect urban forest policies to land use

planning framework.

• Highlight where planning policies do/should

identify the role of trees.

• Address planning’s current treatment of

trees as an “unconsidered back end

constraint”.

• City-wide review of planning policies to

increase urban forest objectives’ integration.

City of Armadale

Policy Review

Brimbank:

• Proposes that trees should be “at the

forefront of Council’s decision making

process, to improve liveability throughout

Brimbank”.

• Proposes a strong planning regulatory

approach to require developers to plant

trees.

• Council should work closely with developers

“to apply a vegetation first approach to

increase canopy cover”.

Policy Review

Recent State initiatives - Victoria

• Lots of pressure on state government to act on

urban forest.

• Metro strategy – Plan Melbourne Refresh –

release in March 2017. First inclusion of urban

forest and urban green objectives.

• Immediately followed by amended zone rules

with new minimum garden requirements.

• However, not much stronger than existing.

Policy Review

Key lessons:

• Despite ongoing trend to centralise planning control at state level, a lack of

state engagement on the intersection of urban planning and the urban forest.

• Local government leading strategy and policy innovation, but lack ability to

influence at metro scale.

• Of the leading LGAs, there is significant diversity in approach to objectives,

monitoring, strategy and action.

• Lack of information to inform strategy making, especially for suburban

councils; and a lack of information other than on council controlled land.

• Lack of state support for action though assessment tools; policy frameworks

and regulatory mechanisms.

Spatial Analysis

National framework for green space mapping and monitoring

Our objectives for green space mapping and monitoring:

• Viable as a nationally consistent, comparable approach.

• Scalable from metro to local; with fine grained analysis possible.

• Allocate green cover to major land ownership/use categories and

street networks to inform policy and strategy response.

• Set baselines, benchmarks, targets and allow monitoring and

evaluation over time, based on available data.

• Investigate relationship between urban greening and other spatial

information such as land-use to inform policy and strategy

development.

Sampling vrs Census

• Sampling (e.g. i-Tree or field sampling) is low cost and

robust, but lacks detail and cannot translate cover to land-

use.

• Census options include LiDAR, satellite imagery and 3D

photography.

• LiDAR has high accuracy, but expensive and limited data

availability.

• Satellite imagery lacks sufficient detail for land-use analysis

• 3D photography is cost effective, allows for detailed cover

analysis, is readily available (inc historical archive to 2008).

National framework for green space mapping and monitoring

Perth Pilot - method

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Grass Shrubs Trees (3 - 10m) Trees (10 - 15m) Trees 15m plus

Area of Greenness by Type (ha)

24

Area (ha) Percentage

Total Study Area (ha)

170,700 100%

Total Measured Green Area (ha)

48,000 28%

Grass (ha)

17,900 10%

Shrubs

11,100 6%

Trees (3 - 10m)

13,700 8%

Trees (10 - 15m)

3,800 2%

Trees (15m Plus)

1,600 1%

Perth Pilot – sample results

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Distribution of Greenness by Land Use (ha)

Grass Shrubs Trees (3 - 10m) Trees (10 - 15m) Trees 15m plus

Perth Pilot – sample results

- 10 20 30 40 50

Mundaring (S)

Armadale (C)

Kalamunda (S)

Peppermint Grove (S)

Cambridge (T)

Nedlands (C)

Claremont (T)

Waroona (S)

South Perth (C)

Subiaco (C)

East Fremantle (T)

Mosman Park (T)

Melville (C)

Victoria Park (T)

Bassendean (T)

Perth (C)

Stirling (C)

Bayswater (C)

Wanneroo (C)

Cottesloe (T)

Joondalup (C)

Rockingham (C)

Gosnells (C)

Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S)

Mandurah (C)

Cockburn (C)

Swan (C)

Kwinana (T)

Murray (S)

Vincent (T)

Canning (C)

Fremantle (C)

Belmont (C)

LGA Comparison

Tree Percentage Shrub Percentage Grass Percentage

Perth Pilot – sample results

Residential areas, percentage cover of trees over 3m Transport land use, percentage cover of trees over 3m

Change over time: 2009 - 2014

All land uses, change in cover by type of greenness

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Grass Shrubs Trees 3- 10m

Trees10 -15m

Trees15mPlus

AnyTree

AnyGreen

2009 2014

2009

2014

Change over time: 2009 - 2014

All land uses, loss of cover + new dwellings

Questions

Dr Joe Hurley, RMIT University joe.hurley@rmit.edu.au

Work in progress

Proximity Analysis

Local Planning Scheme

R-Code Boundaries

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS)

Mesh Blocks

Combined LPS and MRS

Reclassification of Zones

Reclassification of Reserves

Reclassified LPS

Reclassified MRS

LPS Based Greenness Model

LPS/MRS Based Land

Use

CSIRO Greenness

Local Planning Scheme Approach

Alex Saunders, Centre for the Built Environment and Health, University of Western Australia 34

LPS in Original format Simplified Local Planning Scheme

Local Planning Scheme Approach

4: Local Level Data Comparison of Mesh Block and LPS Land-use

35

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

City of Stirling – Local Model

Grass Area (ha) Shrubs Area (ha) Trees (3 - 10m) Area (ha) Trees (10 - 15m) Area (ha) Trees (15m Plus) Area (ha)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Residential Commercial Industrial Education Hospital/Medical Parkland TransportInfrastructure

Other Water

City of Stirling - Regional Model

Grass Area (ha) Shrub Area (ha) Trees (3 - 10m) Area (ha) Trees (10 - 15m) Area (ha) Trees (15m Plus) Area (ha)

• Uses mean property age less 1.5 standard deviations to designate age of street blocks (Mesh Blocks)

• Then uses these defined street blocks as the basis of defining the age of SA1s. Uses Mean MB less 1.5 SDs.

• Use defined SA1s to define age of SA2.

• Ages a neighbourhood by the age of the street block rather than the property.

• Ages a larger neighbourhood by the age of sub-neighbourhoods rather than current property age profile.

Stratified Aging of Street Blocks, then neighbourhoods

Aging of suburbs

• Pre 1955

• Stevenson-Hepburn Plan 1955

• Corridor Plan – 1970

• Metroplan - 1990

• Liveable Neighbourhoods - 1997

Aging suburbs based around major planning eras

Aging of suburbs

Modelling policy scenarios

End

Dr Joe Hurley, RMIT University joe.hurley@rmit.edu.au

3a: LGA Level Analysis

Comparisons by vegetation type

LGA_NAME_2011 Tree Percentage Shrub Percentage Grass Percentage Overall Green

Percentage

Mundaring (S) 24 10 12 46

Armadale (C) 17 9 12 38

Kalamunda (S) 18 8 11 37

Peppermint Grove (S) 20 7 9 35

Cambridge (T) 14 8 13 35

Nedlands (C) 15 7 12 34

Claremont (T) 16 6 12 34

Waroona (S) 17 6 10 33

South Perth (C) 12 6 13 31

Subiaco (C) 17 5 8 30

East Fremantle (T) 13 7 9 29

Mosman Park (T) 13 7 10 29

Melville (C) 11 6 10 28

Victoria Park (T) 11 5 12 28

Bassendean (T) 12 6 9 27

Perth (C) 13 5 9 27

Stirling (C) 10 6 11 27

Bayswater (C) 9 6 12 27

Wanneroo (C) 7 7 12 27

Cottesloe (T) 11 6 9 27

Joondalup (C) 9 7 10 26

Rockingham (C) 7 7 13 26

Gosnells (C) 11 6 10 26

Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S) 12 4 9 25

Mandurah (C) 9 6 10 25

Cockburn (C) 8 6 10 24

Swan (C) 9 5 10 24

Kwinana (T) 10 6 8 24

Murray (S) 12 4 6 23

Vincent (T) 11 5 7 23

Canning (C) 8 5 9 23

Fremantle (C) 8 5 7 20

Belmont (C) 7 4 7 19

Total 11 6 10 28

40 - 10 20 30 40 50

Mundaring (S)

Armadale (C)

Kalamunda (S)

Peppermint Grove (S)

Cambridge (T)

Nedlands (C)

Claremont (T)

Waroona (S)

South Perth (C)

Subiaco (C)

East Fremantle (T)

Mosman Park (T)

Melville (C)

Victoria Park (T)

Bassendean (T)

Perth (C)

Stirling (C)

Bayswater (C)

Wanneroo (C)

Cottesloe (T)

Joondalup (C)

Rockingham (C)

Gosnells (C)

Serpentine-Jarrahdale (S)

Mandurah (C)

Cockburn (C)

Swan (C)

Kwinana (T)

Murray (S)

Vincent (T)

Canning (C)

Fremantle (C)

Belmont (C)

LGA Comparison

Tree Percentage Shrub Percentage Grass Percentage

41

0

50,000

100,000

Greenness in Relation to Non-Green Area (ha)

Non-Green Area 2009 Grass Area 2009

Shrub Area 2009 Trees (3 - 10m) Area 2009

Trees (10 - 15m) Area 2009 Trees (15m Plus) Area 2009

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Education

Residential

Hospital/Medical

Infrastructure

Industrial

Transport

Proportion of Greenness by Land-use

Green (%) Non-Green (%)

Monitoring and mapping

Monitoring and mapping

Issue Context - Making greening happen in consolidating cities

NRZ 17%

GRZ 46%

RGZ 1%

LDRZ, MUZ 36%

Proportion of municipalities’ residential areas zoned NRZ, GRZ and RGZ