The Government Office for Science has published two new papers examining construction materials used to build cities and supporting/linking infrastructure, and how to improve the health and wellbeing of people in towns and cities through the use of ‘green infrastructure’as part of the Foresight future of cities project.

 Future Materials in Cities considers the challenges posed by the need to use low-carbon and sustainable materials. The paper says that the bulk materials mix in cities will not change significantly. However, increased use of ‘trace’ materials crucial for low-carbon technologies will expose cities to critical materials supply issues. Much of the materials will never physically cross city boundaries – the paper says that cities must be therefore considered as nodes in a wider infrastructure network. The low-carbon and resource conservation agendas will also place pressure on supply and disposal of bulk materials. Reuse of components to recover function and urban mining must be given equal prominence to traditional materials recycling.

The paper also says that the manufacture of construction materials is one of the largest sources of anthropogenic CO2 and the inevitable increase in severity of carbon mitigation regulations around the world will have a profound impact on their use. This will drive innovations in development of alternative materials, recycling and recovery, and reduced material use through better design of structures. Significant ‘overdesign’ caused by conservative design codes and practices almost doubles use of materials; addressing this could reduce materials use (and hence CO2 emissions) across the board.

Cities, green infrastructure and health explores how green infastructure can support and encourage healthy lifestyles.

The paper looks at how the health and wellbeing of people can be improved in towns and cities through the use of ‘green infrastructure’. It defines this as the network of natural features - green spaces, rivers and trees - that provide us with ecological services, such as flood protection.

While infrastructure is a familiar term, traditionally denoting networks and systems that provide us with essential services such as water, electricity and transport, the paper says that GI is more than just delivering each of these services in greener ways. It stresses multifunctionality, using urban networks of natural and semi-natural features, such as sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), green spaces, rivers, street trees and parks, to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services.

The paper highlights a number of barriers which currently preclude greater uptake of Green Infrastructure, including:

•  A number of local authorities do not have GI strategies in place. Many local authorities still have no identifiable policies or documents which refer to GI and many appear not to be working strategically with neighbouring authorities. Others use the term GI to mean green space, which ignores other types or functions of GI and may result in missed opportunities.
• No statutory duty upon local authorities to protect or maintain their green infrastructure assets.
• Reduced public spending has had a number of negative impacts, including a lack of funding for maintaining existing assets, let alone the delivery of new GI close to where people live. It has also reduced the number of individuals within local authorities with the skills necessary to demand GI interventions and undermines the ability of authorities to act as an ‘intelligent client’.
• The natural environment is still seen as a ‘nice to have’, and as a result of budgetary pressures which have seen some local authorities predicting they will not be able to fund statutory responsibilities, GI is afforded a lower priority;
• Recent planning reform, despite references to GI, has not given the concept equal priority to other forms of infrastructure. This lack of concern at a national level is demonstrated through recent Government action which has archived Natural England guidance on GI;
• A failure to plan in the long-term and the lack of interest in strategic planning. This is particularly pertinent to GI as the benefits it delivers accrue over time; GI, in the real sense of the term, is multifunctional and therefore the organisations/teams who could be taking an interest in its planning/design and delivery need to act together. A failure to coordinate/collaborate properly undermines GI’s potential to deliver public health outcomes.
• A lack, despite potential, of public health involvement in place making.

Click here to download Future Materials in Cities

Click here to download Cities, green infrastructure and health