Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England

Abstract

In England, Green Belt policy primarily aims to prevent urban sprawl and maintain openness. This contrasts globally with a new generation of multi-goal Green Belts which contribute to climate action and ecosystem services provision. Recently, there have been calls from researchers and practitioners for England to follow suit and widen the scope of Green Belts to provide multifunctional benefits around towns and cities. Although some secondary objectives to encourage wider benefits of Green Belt exist in English national planning policy, it is unclear if, and how, these objectives are implemented by planning authorities. Responding to this research and policy gap, this paper assesses the extent to which Green Belt policy in England promotes multifunctional benefits for people and nature. A bespoke multi-criteria policy assessment framework was designed and used on a purposive sample of 69 planning authorities across England, reflecting different governance structures and urban, peri-urban and rural locations. The results show there is considerable variation in the way benefits from Green Belts are promoted in planning policy, which can be categorised into four typologies. Where policies score high for coverage, they often had weak policy wording. Assessment criteria for protecting natural capital across scales scored highest, whilst multifunctionality, mainstreaming of ecosystem services and equitable policy delivery scored lowest of the criteria overall. Key policy hooks identified which increase assessment scores include Green Infrastructure and regional tier of government. Additionally, our results echo international literature suggesting the importance of a regional tier of government in catalysing more ambitious Green Belt policy. Whereas, some local and regional authorities perceive and treat Green Belts as positive natural capital assets capable of providing multifunctional benefits to people, their full potential has not yet been fully realised or mainstreamed in English planning policy.

Full text

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
0264-8377/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts
wider functions in England
Matthew G. Kirby
*
, Alister J. Scott
Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Green belts
Planning policy
Mainstreaming
Ecosystem services
Multifunctionality
Green Infrastructure
ABSTRACT
In England, Green Belt policy primarily aims to prevent urban sprawl and maintain openness. This contrasts
globally with a new generation of multi-goal Green Belts which contribute to climate action and ecosystem
services provision. Recently, there have been calls from researchers and practitioners for England to follow suit
and widen the scope of Green Belts to provide multifunctional benets around towns and cities. Although some
secondary objectives to encourage wider benets of Green Belt exist in English national planning policy, it is
unclear if, and how, these objectives are implemented by planning authorities. Responding to this research and
policy gap, this paper assesses the extent to which Green Belt policy in England promotes multifunctional
benets for people and nature. A bespoke multi-criteria policy assessment framework was designed and used on a
purposive sample of 69 planning authorities across England, reecting different governance structures and
urban, peri-urban and rural locations. The results show there is considerable variation in the way benets from
Green Belts are promoted in planning policy, which can be categorised into four typologies. Where policies score
high for coverage, they often had weak policy wording. Assessment criteria for protecting natural capital across
scales scored highest, whilst multifunctionality, mainstreaming of ecosystem services and equitable policy de-
livery scored lowest of the criteria overall. Key policy hooks identied which increase assessment scores include
Green Infrastructure and regional tier of government. Additionally, our results echo international literature
suggesting the importance of a regional tier of government in catalysing more ambitious Green Belt policy.
Whereas, some local and regional authorities perceive and treat Green Belts as positive natural capital assets
capable of providing multifunctional benets to people, their full potential has not yet been fully realised or
mainstreamed in English planning policy.
1. Introduction
Since their inception in the early 20th century, Green Belts (GBs) are
perhaps one of the most widely known, yet contentious planning policies
in the public realm. They have been described as a “powerful brand
name that garners broad support, often without a deep understanding of
its role and function” (Bishop et al., 2020, p. 156), with their endurance
attributed to their simplicity (Taylor, 2019). In their most basic itera-
tions, they are urban growth management policies (UGMPs) which are
designated as a zone where urban land-uses are prohibited and there-
fore, at least in theory, separated from rural land-use (Amati, 2008).
However, in reality, the landscapes they cover are peri-urban, complex
and often underutilised landscapes which are the product of the inter-
play between myriad processes and drivers (Scott et al., 2013; Shaw
et al., 2020). Internationally, the GB approach to growth management
has evolved and diverged, alongside comparable policies such as Green
Wedges and Urban Growth Boundaries, as well as in different spatial and
land-use planning systems, political contexts and social climates (Amati,
2008; Kirby et al., 2023).
Despite the reported success of GBs in preventing urban sprawl
(Pourtaherian and Jaeger, 2022), there has been calls from researchers,
practitioners and politicians for the improved mainstreaming of nature
in GBs to deliver multifunctional land-use and associated benets to
society, especially in England (Amati and Taylor, 2010; Bishop et al.,
2020; Campaign to Protect Rural England, and Natural England Agency,
2010; House of Lords, 2022; Kirby et al., 2023; Mace, 2018; Taylor,
2019; Thomas and Littlewood, 2010; Thrift, 2022), boosted by the ur-
gency of the climate and biodiversity emergencies. In some parts of the
world this ambition is already a reality, where a new generation of GBs
have evolved beyond UGMPs and are characterised by multiple
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: matt.kirby@northumbria.ac.uk (M.G. Kirby), alister.scott@northumbria.ac.uk (A.J. Scott).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106799
Received 21 December 2022; Received in revised form 31 May 2023; Accepted 24 June 2023

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
2
objectives including climate mitigation/adaptation, economic develop-
ment, ecosystem services and regional identity (Macdonald et al., 2021).
Indeed, a recent review showed that internationally GBs provide a wide
range of unintended benecial functions and effects to people beyond
growth management (Kirby et al., 2023).
England is one such country where GB policy does not have formal
purposes to improve quality and functions of the land it covers, instead
acting as blanket policies to prevent sprawl (Amati and Taylor, 2010).
However, wider benets are encouraged in the National Planning Policy
Framework
1
(NPPF) as secondary considerations (MHCLG, 2021). Pre-
vious research has also shown GBs in London were implemented for
broader and diverging reasons (Amati and Yokohari, 2006) and much of
the public support for the GB was the result of functions other than its
formal purposes (Elson et al., 1993). Developing and testing a bespoke
policy assessment tool, this paper seeks to establish the extent to which
English planning authorities are designing planning policies to promote
wider functions in the GB, and in doing so, gain a better understanding
of how nature and multifunctional land-use may be better promoted in
and through English GB policy. Such assessments of policies can also aid
in understanding the limitations of policies, especially when best per-
forming policies are identied (Hislop et al., 2019).
1.1. English Green Belts: the policy context
GB policy, as known today is widely regarded to have originated
from around London in the early 20th Century (Bishop et al., 2020)
evolving from Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities (Howard, 1902) and
later in Abercrombie’s post-war London Plan (Abercrombie, 1944). In
1955 the basic principle behind GBs were formed in national policy,
which saw their implementation outside London (Ministry of Housing
and Local Government, 1955) and implemented through a plan-led
approach regionally and locally. Historically the detailed assessment
of such land-use is a neglected area (Murdoch et al., 1999). Some
research has investigated the wider policy objectives and wording of
English GBs, summarised in Table 1; the scope of which is mostly
regional focused not nationally. Notable works include research on
different local authority (LA) policy objectives for GBs throughout
Greater London (Amati and Yokohari, 2006), the political discourses for
GB policy in Liverpool (Dockerill and Sturzaker, 2020), and the devel-
opment control of GB (Gant et al., 2011).
The revision of Planning Policy Guidance
2
(PPG) 2 in 2001 marked a
key juncture for the broadening of GB policy, as for the rst-time sec-
ondary objectives for the use of GBs, including for recreation, nature
conservation, agriculture, and landscape enhancement, promoted a
more positive and functional vision for GBs (Ofce of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 2001). Today GBs main aim is to still “prevent urban sprawl by
keeping land permanently open” (MHCLG, 2021, p. 41). However,
multiple policy hooks to promote the positive planning of GBs and their
wider functions have evolved from PPG2, including in its replacement:
the NPPF, shown in Table 2 below. This includes positive planning to
enhance benecial uses and notably, requirements for LAs who remove
land from GB to provide compensatory improvement to the environ-
mental quality of the remaining GB (MHCLG, 2021, para. 142). Notably,
a recent House of Lords Select Committee enquiry on land-use in En-
gland recommended GB should be used to deliver multiple benets
(House of Lords, 2022). However, to date, no academic research has
been undertaken to understand how these hooks and wider benecial
uses of GBs are incorporated and implemented in English LA plans.
Therefore, our paper addresses this policy and research gap by adapting
a tool (Scott and Hislop, 2020) originally for green infrastructure (GI) to
create a multi-criteria GB policy assessment tool where a purposive se-
lection of English planning authorities plans are assessed to establish;
what extent does GB policy in England promote the enhancement of GB
zones for nature, people and multifunctionality.
1.2. Multifunctional Green Belts – key concepts
Central to the presented GB policy assessment are several key socio-
ecological concepts including: natural capital (NC), ecosystem services
(ES) and multifunctionality, as well as policy mainstreaming. NC is
dened as the “part of nature which directly or indirectly underpins value to
people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, soils, minerals, the air and
oceans, as well as natural processes and functions” (Natural Capital Com-
mittee, 2019, p. 3). The NC approach is championed by multiple na-
tional (e.g. UK), regional (e.g. Greater Manchester), and international (e.
g. EU) institutions. ES are linked to NC and are the “the ecological char-
acteristics, functions, or processes that directly or indirectly contribute to
human wellbeing: that is, the benets that people derive from functioning
Table 1
Notable English GB Policy Research.
Study Region (s)
Studied
Scope of Research Main Findings
Amati and
Yokohari
(2006)
Greater
London (UK)
Assessed existing
London LA GB policies to
identify the key
perceived functions of
GB.
LAs differed in their
policy priorities
divided into using it
to: (1) control urban
growth, (2) enhance
landscape protection,
(3) improve the
landscape.
Dockerill
and
Sturzaker
(2020)
Liverpool
(UK)
Analysis of land-use
plans to identify
narratives for GB
preservation and
development around
Liverpool.
GB policy has “baked
in” arguments about
limiting urban sprawl
and resentment to
growth resulting in a
policy challenge
during housing
shortages.
Gant et al.
(2011)
Greater
London (UK)
A detailed case study of
the London
Metropolitan GB,
including analysis of
planning registers to
establish land-use
change.
Long-term trends in
GB land-use change
linked to the
development controls.
GB policy does not
guarantee landscape
requiring additional
plans.
Goode
(2022a)
West
Midlands
(UK)
Studies the extent to
which GB is still seen as
a regional concept by
West Midlands
stakeholders.
Institutional theory
shows that planners
and campaigners
maintain that GB as
being regionally and
strategically
important to its vision.
Han and Go
(2019)
UK, Canada,
Australia, US
and Korea
Explored why different
countries have achieved
varied levels of GB
policy implementation.
Case studies across a
spectrum of state-
controlled growth
control and
decentralised
privatisation shows
political and social
regimes have impact
the uptake and
success.
Mace
(2018)
Greater
London (UK)
Approaches the London
GB as an ‘policy
institution’ to
understand how it might
be changed.
Identied rationalist
and normative
traditions to why
stakeholders treat GB
as an institution.
Presents the idea for a
“one off” strategic
urban extension.
1
A framework setting out central governments planning policies for England
and an expectation of how they should be applied by local and regional plan-
ning authorities.
2
The predecessor to the NPPF which set out central government guidance on
planning policy
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
3
ecosystems” (Costanza et al., 2017). Importantly many functions and
benets provided in GB zones can be translated into the ES categories
(Kirby et al., 2023). The ability of land to deliver several such functions
is known as multifunctionality, dened more specically as “the capacity
of a landscape or ecosystem to provide multiple socio-economic and ecolog-
ical benets to society” (H¨
olting et al., 2019, p. 226). The use of these
concepts underpins a more holistic understanding and vision for how
landscapes can be benecially used. The explicit need for multi-
functionality is driven by the increasing intensication of land for pro-
duction which reduces the diversity of functions they provide (EEA,
2017).
Whereas NC and ES have been widely researched and quantied
more generally (Albert et al., 2016), there has been less attention given
to their use to understand areas of policy deciencies for nature. How-
ever, some notable exceptions do exist (Kieslich and Salles, 2021;
Ransom and Scott, 2020; Scott and Hislop, 2020; Uittenbroek, 2016).
Here the concept of “mainstreaming” dened as an “interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary endeavour of normalising an idea from one policy domain
into the decision-making and routine activities of other policy domains
necessary for effective delivery over the long term” (Scott et al., 2021) is
important. The growing body of literature around “mainstreaming”
nature into policy (Ronchi, 2018; Scott et al., 2018, 2021) shows the
importance of embedding key concepts such as ES, multifunctional and
place-based approaches in planning policy outside environmental
chapters. One such example for practice, arising from a transdisciplinary
research effort is the “Building with Nature” Framework; the rst UK
benchmark to deliver high-quality GI in developments where it cham-
pions the importance of place-based and equitable approaches to
embedding nature in planning policy and practice (Building with Na-
ture, 2021; Jerome et al., 2019).
2. Methodology
Content analysis has increasingly been applied to environmental
policy topics (Hall and Steiner, 2020; Jaligot and Chenal, 2019),
including multi-criteria policy assessments used to establish the effec-
tiveness and scope of environmental policies (Jaligot and Chenal, 2019;
McWilliam et al., 2015; Oulahen et al., 2018). To answer our research
question, we employed a multi-criteria content analysis approach, in
combination with a bespoke excel-based GB policy assessment tool,
which scored policies from a purposive sample of development plans
with respect to the degree of coverage across the assessment criteria, and
associated strength of policy wording. This approach and tool were
adapted and modied from the “Green Infrastructure Policy Assessment
Tool” (Hislop et al., 2019; Scott and Hislop, 2020), which has been
effectively adapted and applied to other environmental planning policy
topics (Ransom and Scott, 2020).
2.1. Planning Authorities Assessed
In England 183 Local Authorities (LAs) have designated GBs
(DLUHC, 2021), covering 12.5% of England’s landmass, as shown in
Fig. 1. A purposive sample of 67 LAs (37% of all GB LAs) were selected
for the assessment, as shown in Fig. 2. The selection was based on
different (1) LA models,
3
(2) LA typology
4
(Lord et al., 2020), (3) change
in boundary since 2012 and (4) LAs regional planned. See Appendix 1
(supplementary materials) for further details. As the policy assessment
was part of a wider research project looking at the North-East, these LAs
were also included in the assessment. To have a workable but varied
Table 2
Multifunctional English GB Policy Hooks.
National Planning Policy Framework (2021):
“once Green Belts have been dened, local planning authorities should plan
positively to enhance their benecial use, such as looking for opportunities to
provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain
and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged
and derelict land” (MHCLG, 2021, p. 43)
Local authorities “should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land
from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the
environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land” (MHCLG,
2021, p. 42).
Planning Practice Guidance (2019):
“Where it has been demonstrated that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for
development, strategic policy-making authorities should set out policies for
compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of the
remaining Green Belt land…including those set out in local strategies, and could for
instance include:
- new or enhanced green infrastructure;
- woodland planting;
- landscape and visual enhancements (beyond those needed to mitigate the
immediate impacts of the proposal);
- improvements to biodiversity, habitat connectivity and natural capital;
- new or enhanced walking and cycle routes; and
- improved access to new, enhanced or existing recreational and playing eld
provision” (MHCLG, 2019, para. 002)
Levelling Up White Paper (2022):
“The UK Government will develop plans for: a. further greening the Green Belt in
England; ”greening the Green Belt” and “enhancing and maintaining protection of
the Green Belt” (DLUHC, 2022, p. 211).
Fig. 1. Extent of GB in England - 2021.
3
(1) Metropolitan districts, (2) London boroughs, (3) Unitary authorities, (4)
County councils, and (5) District councils.
4
Local authority families classication (Lord et al., 2020), of English Local
Planning Authorities (LPAs) into six classications (1) Urban England, (2) Rural
Town, (3) London, (4) Rural England, (5) Established Urban Centres, & (6)
Commuter belts.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
4
sample of LAs, where possible, two LAs from each “group” were selected;
one whose GB boundaries has changed since 2012
5
and one which had
not, as shown in Fig. 2. Selection was further rened based on having a
varied geographical distribution and those LAs with the largest changes
to GB boundaries. In addition, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) were included in the
sample to explore the differences and role of regional governance
frameworks and plans. Therefore, the LAs which overlapped within
these planning areas were also included.
Relevant planning policy documents suitable for assessing were then
retrieved from the 67 LA and 2 Regional Authority websites. As adopted
up-to-date plans were not available for many of the LAs assessed, due to
the timeframes for plans to be produced in England, a pragmatic
approach was taken to include plans released through the production
period, including: preferred options, draft, publication, and adoption
stages. Respective plan evidence bases were also screened for any rele-
vant supplementary or supporting planning documents. Key word
searches for “Green Belt” and “Greenbelt” aided identication of rele-
vant policies and supporting text for the assessments, however, all plans
were read and coded manually.
2.2. Policy Assessment Tool
The assessment criteria which formed the foundation of the policy
assessment tool was developed from (1) key concepts in the academic
literature (Section 1.2) that demonstrate the benets to people from
nature, (2) industry best-practice such as Building With Nature (Building
with Nature, 2021), and the (3) academic discourse around more
multifunctional and environmentally productive GBs (Section 1), much
of which build on a new generation of international GBs with broader
policy objectives (Amati and Taylor, 2010; Macdonald et al., 2021;
Taylor, 2019). Mapping of the literature to the criteria can be found in
Appendix 2 (supplementary materials). This resulted in ve main cate-
gories (1) Mainstreaming Concepts & Benets in GB Policy, (2) Protec-
tion & Enhancement, (3) Ecosystem Services, (4) Multifunctionality, and
(5) Policy Extent and Context. More detailed criteria were then devel-
oped within these groups, as outlined fully in Fig. 3.
Following the approach outlined by Hislop et al. (2019) and Scott
and Hislop (2020), the policy assessment tool scores both the extent to
which policies cover the assessment criteria and the strength of policy
wording. A simple 0–3 scale is used (Fig. 4). Policy coverage relates to
the degree to which the assessment criteria is contained in the policy,
and is scored as 0 =none, 1 =some, 2 =most and 3 =full, as shown in
Fig. 4. Policy strength accesses the required degree of compliance with a
policy. Strength of policy wording is ranked 0 =none, 1 =weak,
2=medium and 3 =strong, also shown in Fig. 4. Importantly the
strength of policy wording cannot score higher than the policy coverage
score.
Strength of wording is scored based on the words used in a policy or
policies that encourage or require compliance. Common words used
include ’may’, ’should’, “encouraged’, ’must’, ’avoid’ and ‘shall not be
permitted’ (Hislop et al., 2019; McWilliam et al., 2015; Ransom and
Scott, 2020). Words such as “should” hold less strength, than words like
“must” for example, which denotes a non-optional requirement to
comply. These differences are reected by the scoring.
The assessment required the interpretation of the criteria in relation
to the respective policies. Like many forms of qualitative analysis, there
is a level of subjectivity, which can result in inconsistencies towards
assessments (Holloway and Todres, 2003). Therefore, steps were taken
Fig. 2. Purposive sample of English Local Authorities with GB responsibilities categories by Local Authority Type (Lord et al., 2020) and Local Authority Council
Model. LAs in red indicates change GB area since 2012. Included regional authorities also show.
5
2012 was the year National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was pub-
lished and set the basis of all new and recently adopted Local Plans. Changes to
boundaries were derived from annual GB statistics (DLUHC, 2021).
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
5
to reduce subjectivity and inconsistency in the assessment. First, a
scoring guide was developed to limit inconsistency in applying the
criteria. For example, this established explicit and implicit references to
ES to be scored the same. This is important as research shows planning
has historically accounted for the benets from nature which are now
termed “ecosystem services” without explicit mention of the terms
(Wilkinson et al., 2013). The guidance document was further rened
through a testing and piloting stage on a sample of 10 plans resulting in
further sub-division of some criteria groups and wording. Secondly, to
improve consistency and validity of the method, additional policy
assessors from research and practice were recruited. Here a 15% sub-set
of the plans were assessed by other assessors not directly involved in the
design of the criteria. Scores were then compared, and inconsistencies
resolved between the assessors. Importantly, this resulted in an agreed
consensus to interpreting and applying the criteria, and further rened
the assessment guide. See Appendix 1 for more details.
For each policy document assessed, the initial content analysis of
policy documents was done in QSR Nvivo where coverage criteria and
strength scores were coded as nodes against relative scores. Assessment
worksheets were created for each policy document in the excel based
tool and subdivided by chapter or section. Scores were then recorded for
relevant policies in each chapter and a copy of the policy wording
assessed recorded in the sheet as notes per respective scoring cells. See
Appendix 3 for an example scoring sheet. Coverage and strength scores
were aggregated in the tool to produce an overall policy score and
percentage score. An illustrated example of an assessed and scored
policy is shown below in Fig. 5.
Fig. 3. : GB policy assessment criteria including categories headings, sub-categories headings and full sub-criteria descriptions.
Fig. 4. Policy assessment scoring scale.
Adapted from Hislop et al. (2019).
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
6
3. Results
3.1. Overview
In total 67 LA plans, and 2 Regional level plans throughout England
were assessed in relation to the wider functions and benecial use of
GBs. Fig. 6 below provides a spatial overview of the overall percentage
coverage and strength scores for the plans assessed. A full list of scores
per respective sub-criteria for each document can be found in Appendix
4. Overall, there was a surprising level of variation between policies and
authorities assessed. As shown on Fig. 6, there was considerable varia-
tion in coverage scores of the authorities assessed, ranging from 0% to
58% with a median score of 31% and standard deviation of 13%. Policy
strength scores also varied, although to a lesser extent than coverage,
ranging from 0% to 44% with a median score of 24% and standard de-
viation of 10% (Fig. 6).
The two regional plans assessed scored well above average (Greater
Manchester Combined Authority =47% coverage & 36% strength;
Greater London Authority =58% coverage and 40% strength), and those
LAs whose plans were required to take account of the regional plans or
developed alongside them also scored above average for coverage. Plans
which scored higher on coverage, often score proportionally lower on
strength, when compared with lower scoring plans on coverage, which
often had less variation between coverage and strength scores. Inter-
estingly, some LAs such as Newham scored 0% (coverage & strength)
with no relevant GB policy identied in their 2018 adopted Local Plan.
Likewise, several LAs (Stoke-on-Trent, West Oxfordshire, Manchester
City, Greenwich, and Southend-on-Sea) also scored very low (below
10%) due to their plans having very little coverage of the GB assessment
criteria. It is important to stress that the assessment tool does not assess
the efcacy of GB policy in relation to its primary growth management
purpose.
The planning policy documents assessed ranged from 2012 to 2022.
Therefore, as stated in Section 2.1, plans at all stages of production were
considered where appropriate. It is notable that some “preferred op-
tions” plan scored high on coverage, but low on strength due to detailed
policy strength wording not being fully developed at this stage. Thus, the
results should not be used to rank or compare local authorities against
each other, but instead understand how, if, and to what extent different
planning authorities promote wider benets through GB policy and
identify best practice at a moment in time. Additionally, it is important
to stress that promoting such benets through GBs is of secondary pri-
ority to the ve GB purposes (MHCLG, 2021). Therefore, these scores are
not reective of GB policy implementation more broadly.
3.2. Sub-criteria variation
Of the plans assessed, no single plan had complete coverage (or
strength) scores at either the “full” “most” or “some” levels across the
suite of assessment sub-criteria (Appendix 4), meaning every plan has
gaps in coverage. However, a complete set of coverage scores,
combining the highest score across the sub-criteria from all plans is show
in Fig. 7. In addition to showing the highest coverage scored for each
sub-criteria, Fig. 7 also shows the corresponding number of plans which
achieved that sub-criteria coverage score. Fig. 8 shows the mean com-
bined coverage and strength scores derived per each sub-criteria from 69
plans assessed. As with the overall scores Fig. 8 shows that, on average,
policy strength scored lower than coverage scores. It was also found that
there are also a wide and uneven variations in coverage and strength
scores across the 15 sub-criteria, as shown in Fig. 8. These differences in
the criteria and sub-criteria scores are reported in more detail in the
following sub-sections.
3.2.1. Mainstreaming
The “mainstreaming” criteria were the lowest scoring of all the
criteria, both in terms of coverage and strength of policy wording. The
sub-criteria “Ecosystem Services & Natural Capital Concept” scored a
maximum score of “most” in two policy documents and had the lowest
average coverage of any sub-criteria scoring 0.12 out of 3, showing it
was rare for concepts such as ES or NC to be explicitly or implicitly
associated or linked to GBs in our sample. Likewise, the sub-criteria
“Cross-Sector Integration & Benets of GB” also scored an average of
0.13 out of 3 and was the second lowest score of all sub-criteria. The
benecial role of GB as a natural asset was almost never acknowledged
outside of GB or natural environment chapters of the plans. However,
one example of making a wider cross-sector link was: “The Green Belt
makes up a considerable proportion of land in the Plan area, and it is
therefore vital that its various parts play a benecial role that supports the
environmental, social and economic wellbeing of the city-region’s residents”
(GMCA, 2021, p. 165). Here, whereas neither NC or ES were explicitly
mentioned, the wording implicitly describes these concepts and wider
sectoral benets. For both sub-criteria, average policy strength scores
were even lower, showing that in the limited examples there was some
coverage, it did not have comparable policy strength.
3.2.2. Protection and enhancement
The “protection & enhancement” criteria was the highest scoring
group on average amongst the plans assessed. The sub-criteria “protects
natural capital” was the third highest scoring on average of all sub-
criteria, with 26 of the plans assessed scoring “full”, showing that
plans often considered and made provision for the protection of GBs in
Fig. 5. Example partial assessment of The Salford Publication Local Plan (Salford City Council, 2020) GB policy.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
7
policy. Positively, “protects natural capital” scored highest of all sub-
criteria on policy strength, scoring 2 out of 3 on average, showing that
the protection of GB was given the highest weighted policy strength
comparatively of the sub-criteria assessed. Whereas not scoring as high:
“Enhances and Manages Natural Capital” scored an average of 1.44 out
of 3, showing the enhancement of GB was considered in many plans.
However, enhancement was often referenced in relation to requirements
for “compensatory improvement” (see Table 2), which reduced the
scores for these sub-criteria.
6
Compensatory improvement policies
differed in their degree of coverage. For example, one of the higher
scoring policies was: “Proposals that will enhance the benecial use of the
Green Belt and/or will provide opportunities to mitigate or provide compen-
sation enhancements against losses to Green Belt, will be supported.
Particular proposals include those that encourage healthy lifestyles… improve
access as part of Trafford’s Green Infrastructure Network and create and
improve habitats, including…through biodiversity net gain.” (Trafford
Council, 2021, p. 121). Others, such as Solihull (2021) provided a hi-
erarchy of how compensatory improvement might be met including
rstly within close proximity to development, then settlement area, GI
opportunity mapping, and nally through developer contributions.
Higher scores for policy strength of this sub-criteria were associated with
requirements for loss of GB to be compensated with enhancement, and
only two plans scored “full” on coverage and strength.
Those plans which encouraged the enhancement of GB independent
of any compensatory loss scored higher, as shown by 9 plans which score
“full” for this sub-criteria. For example, “The Council will work proactively
with developers, and landowners to enhance the benecial uses of the Green
Belt” (Central Bedfordshire Council, 2021, p. 103) and “the Plan seeks to
ensure that the Green Belt rural economy can thrive…and aims to add value
to Green Belt areas as a resource for visitors…Proposals that support a
Fig. 6. Spatial overview of total percentage coverage and strength scores per local and regional authority assessed. Coverage scores range from 0% to 56%, and
Strength scores range from 0% to 44% as represented in the respective colour gradients. For both variables plans could achieve a maximum percentage score
of 100%.
Fig. 7. Maximum coverage scores per induvial sub-criteria group across all plans assessed. Showing highest scores achieved across all plans cumulatively. Number of
plans which achieved each respective highest score are shown in brackets.
6
Plans which promoted enhancement through compensatory improvement
and not independent of development were not scored higher than “some (2)”.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
8
positive use in the Green Belt will be encouraged” (Northumberland, 2019,
p. 48).
3.2.3. Ecosystem services & benets
The “ecosystem services & benet” group was the third lowest
scoring of the criteria groups. However, there was variation in the de-
gree to which plans acknowledged the sub-criteria in relation to GBs.
Cultural services were the most covered, scoring an average of 1.17 out
of 3, with 22 plans achieving “most” coverage. The most common cul-
tural ES mentioned in plans were recreational and visual amenity ben-
ets. Less frequently reported cultural services where health and
wellbeing benets. “Ecosystem Functioning” was the second most
covered sub-criteria in the group scoring 0.64 out of 3 on average. It was
common for plans to acknowledge the contributions of GB to biodiver-
sity, however, less common for plans to identify functions such as
habitat connectivity, reected in only 3 plans scoring “most”. Provi-
sioning services scored an average of 0.45 out of 3 for coverage, often
being linked to provision of agriculture or forestry infrastructure, but
rarely linking the benets of agriculture or forestry themselves. One
exception was “…. the potential use of the land [GB] for food production or
community gardening” (Harrow Council, 2013, p. 52). Regulating services
were the least promoted of the sub-criteria scoring an average of 0.23
out of 3 for coverage. However, one plan did score “full”, recognising a
range of regulating services from GB, notably, ood regulation, tem-
perature regulation and carbon sequestration. For example Redbridge
acknowledge GB, “play an important role in helping to control ood risk and
mitigating the risks of climate change” (Redbridge, 2018, p. 137) and“…
performs multiple benecial functions for London, such as combating the
urban heat island effect” (Mayor of London, 2021, p. 315). Across all these
sub-criteria, strength scores were low, reecting the way most plans
recognised these benets, but didn’t actively encourage their provision
in policies.
3.2.4. Multifunctionality
The “multifunctional” criteria group was the second lowest scoring
on average. Specically, the sub-criteria “promoting multifunctional
land-use” scored an average of 0.61 out of 3 and only 2 plans assessed
scored “full”. However, in some plans that did promote multi-
functionality, GI was used as a common policy hook, as well as linking
with the wider “enhance and manage…” sub-criteria. One example of a
policy was: “…the potential to deliver additional green infrastructure ben-
ets is particularly signicant, and increasing public access will be an
important way of ensuring that all residents are able to directly benet from
the Green Belt” (Salford City Council, 2020, p. 193). The explicit use of
the term “multifunctionality” regarding GB was less common but not
fully absent from the assessed plans. For example: “.the enhancement of
the Green Belt to provide appropriate multi-functional benecial uses for
Londoners should be supported” (Mayor of London, 2021, p. 314). The
“integrated issues” sub-criteria scored comparably less on average, with
few examples of linking biodiversity, climate and health agendas
through GB, and when this did, for example the one plan which score
“full”, it rarely backed up with weight to policy wording.
3.2.5. Context & extent
The nal criteria group “Policy Extent & Context” contained the rst
and second highest average coverage scores from the “urban growth
management policy” and “site scale” sub-criteria respectively. This is
perhaps not surprising given 53 assessed plans scored “full” for the
former, attributed to having dedicated GB policies. This was also re-
ected in the relatively high scoring of policy strength. However, it was
less common for policies to fully consider the wider landscape scale
deliverability of GB, but nearly all did consider this to “some” degree as
reected in the 1.83 out of 3 average score. For example, it was common
for policies to say: “Maintain a strong rural landscape character by retaining
the physical separation, setting, scale and character of rural villages” (Pen-
dle, 2021, p. 38).
The “context and place-based” sub-criteria scored an average of 0.57
out of 3, with a shortage of plans seeking to use GB to address specic
local issues. An exception was the in Durham (2020, p. 65) which
mentioned “deal with any existing environmental issues” with regards to
prioritising compensatory improvement. However, it was more common
for plans to acknowledge the contributions of GB to wider setting and
Fig. 8. a) Mean GB nature policy assessment coverage scores per each sub-criteria derived from all 67 plans assessed. b) Mean GB nature policy assessment strength
scores per each sub-criteria derived from all 67 plans assessed.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
9
character. The fourth least covered sub-criteria were “social equitable”
scoring 0.15 in coverage and 0.10 (out of 3) in strength. Very few plans
considered how GB policies, may be delivered in an equitable way and
address issues such as greenspace inequality. Reected in only one plan
scoring “most”. An example of linking GB to green space deciency was
identied in Luton Council (2017, p. 28) “Luton’s Green Belt also provides
a secondary purpose for benecial uses such as amenity for the urban pop-
ulation and providing opportunities for…informal high quality outdoor rec-
reation and green space, which is lacking in Luton”. However, even here the
policy does not state that GB policy should target those which who have
least access to greenspace.
4. Discussion
The results show that across the plans assessed, there is considerable
variation in the way benets from GBs are acknowledged and promoted
in English planning policy, including how those functions are promoted
in national planning policy. This is surprising given the way national
policy tries to ensure consistency in approach. Ultimately, the results
suggest that whilst some LAs seek to promote the benecial use of GBs in
England, they are largely underutilised in planning policy as mechanism
to promote land-use which benets people and nature. Therefore, GB
policy in England is currently a neglected opportunity space for pro-
moting multifunctional land-use. Given this variation as a point of de-
parture, our ndings raise two key questions which form the basis of our
discussion; (1) Why is there such variation, and why do some authorities
go beyond what is expected whilst others do not? and (2) How can
barriers be overcome to mainstream nature and multifunctionality in GB
policy?
4.1. Barriers and variation in Green Belt policy amongst planning
authorities
The variation identied in our assessment is consistent with the
limited body of previous policy research on GBs, including in the London
Metropolitan GB, where a number of different policy priorities for GB
were shown to exist amongst local authorities, including GB as
enhancing and improving landscape protection (Amati and Yokohari,
2006), much of which is still mirrored in our results today, and extends
across England. Likewise, internationally, the policy implementation of
the Portland Urban Growth Boundary has been shown to also be
implemented differently, including delivering and embedding ES
(Woodruff and BenDor, 2016). Similarly, in the Greater Golden Horse-
shoe (GGH) GB in Ontario, inconsistency in municipal GB policy
implementation was found to affect delivery of the regional GB policy
goals (Macdonald et al., 2021). Our ndings also have parallels to other
environmental policy assessments in the literature which also found
local authority GI policies were highly variable when assessed collec-
tively (Hislop et al., 2019).
Based on the variation found in our results, a typology of how
planning authorities incorporate the benecial use of GB is proposed and
outlined in Table 3. Here the assessed planning authorities fall into at
least one typology: 1) Develop some Green Belt, 2) Develop and
enhance, 3) Protect Green Belt, 4) Protect and enhance. Here planning
authorities are shown to perceive GB benets in different ways,
including the degree benecial use of GB is promoted. In the “Develop
Green Belt” typology, a key policy gap was identied in many GB pol-
icies, in that several recently produced plans which released GB for
development did not include a policy requiring or encouraging
compensatory improvement of GB as promoted in the NPPF (MHCLG,
2021, para. 142).
Whereas the research method does not allow specic contextual
barriers to higher scoring GB policies, and reasons for this variation to be
identied, it is important to discuss and suggest possible barriers and
limitations, in order to understand how the wider benets of GB can be
mainstreamed in future English policy using hooks and bridge (Section
4.2). General barriers are proposed and shown in Fig. 9. Firstly, and
perhaps most obvious limitation was the relative weakness of the
strength of policy wording. Notably research on the strength of policy
wording is scarce compared to policy coverage, but our results reect
ndings of other UK environmental policy assessments in regards to
overall comparatively weak policy wording (Hislop et al., 2019; Scott
and Hislop, 2020). In our assessment ambitious examples of GB policy
are rarely backed up with strong wording. In Canada, environmental
policy analysis highlighted weak and vague policy wording (McWilliam
et al., 2015) as well as the lack of regulatory mandate to implement ES in
Table 3
A typology of the benecial use of green belt in planning including example authorities from the policy assessment.
Typology Description Example Authorities
1) Develop some
Green Belt
These planning authorities scored low on coverage and strength, with little to no
coverage of the benecial use of green belt. This typology used the local plan making
process to review the green belt boundary and accommodate development without
compensatory improvement of remaining Green Belt.
Manchester City
Greenwich
Gateshead
Lancaster
West Oxfordshire
2) Develop &
Enhance some
Green Belt
Like type 1 they used the local plan making process to review green belt boundaries
and develop growth but used this as a catalysis to acknowledge wider benet of
Green Belt and require future enhancement, through compensatory improvement.
Often linking to concepts such as green infrastructure networks.
GMCA
Salford
Trafford
Solihull
Durham
GLA
Bexley
3) Protect Green Belt Green Belt is left mostly unchanged. These local authorities have good coverage and
strength on protection of green belt, but have low to no coverage of enhancement,
multifunctionality and promoting ecosystem services. Thereby, protecting but not
actively promoting the enhancement.
Elmbridge
Guildford
Cheshire East
Hillingdon
Pendle
4) Protect & Enhance
Green Belt
Like “protect Green Belt” these planning authorities scored high on protection
policies and did not seek to use the local plan process to amend Green Belt. However,
they actively seek to enhance the benecial use of Green Belt, regardless of
development, scoring higher on many of the criteria groups including
multifunctionality and responding to local contexts and needs.
Central Bedfordshire
Harrow
Hounslow
Northumberland
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
10
planning as a barrier to strong wording (Kerr et al., 2021). Conversely,
analysis of GI planning across Scandinavia found mixed coverage, but
multiple policies and strategies with strong wording (Nordh and Olafs-
son, 2021). This is important because without strong policy wording, GB
policies to promote wider functions may not materialise into positive
enhancement on the ground, therefore requiring an ambition to go
beyond what is required, or stronger weight to GB policy.
Furthermore, there may be several explanations, or barriers which
explain the variation and diversity of approaches found in our results. As
mentioned, compared with other international GBs (Amati and Taylor,
2010), English GBs are not formally required to provide these benecial
functions. Thus, planners and local politicians will differ in policy pri-
orities depending on how the GB is perceived and other relevant policy
hooks. These decisions are likely results of several interrelated factors,
including politics, and context as key potential barriers. Firstly, GBs
cover a wide variety of landscapes across England, with different de-
grees of existing access, habitat types and interventions to improve the
landscapes (Campaign to Protect Rural England, and Natural England
Agency, 2010). Therefore, it is likely that existing perceptions of GB
differ contextually across England. GB is also a highly contentious policy
area, which the general public have strong attachment too (Bradley,
2019; Goode, 2022b), and as such they are politically charged and
sensitive to local politicians (Dockerill and Sturzaker, 2020). Both in
England and internationally these politics affect how GB policy is
applied, and is often a key barrier (Dockerill and Sturzaker, 2020;
Eidelman, 2010; Mace, 2018). Indeed, resistance to GB development is
enough to sway elections in many politically conservative heartlands
and a topic that politicians navigate with extreme care, often resulting in
polarised positions (Lund, 2015). It is argued that the development of
the GGH GB in Ontario was to gain support in key peri-urban electoral
districts (Eidelman, 2010). Therefore, the importance of leadership and
political buy in to mainstream nature in such policies is key to over-
coming barriers (Scott et al., 2018).
More broadly other barriers may help explain the variations in re-
sults. Even though NC is of cross-cutting relevance across government
(Maes et al., 2020) the environmental agenda is still not effectively
mainstreamed into wider planning policy (Scott et al., 2018). This is due
in part, to the complex pathways required, problems in their wider
communication and understanding, and silo mentality that pervades
much of planning policy (Scott et al., 2021). In addition, different
environmental concepts have been subject to their own separate main-
streaming efforts, such as GI (Hislop et al., 2019) and NC (Defra, 2018)
which themselves are not effectively mainstreamed. Thus, main-
streaming nature in GBs may still be at the beginning of its own journey
requiring more integration with NC, ES and GI, to overcome this barrier.
Here the concept of socio-ecological systems may help unite these
concepts together and in the context of GB (Colding and Barthel, 2019).
Our results show some encouraging evidence of some LPA overcoming
this barrier, with links between GI and GB in higher scoring plans.
Additionally, Scott et al. (2021) emphasise the need for transdisciplinary
efforts from the start using key hooks to build traction with audiences
outside the environmental camp. Furthermore, contextually there is a
wider policy and research neglect of peri-urban landscape, which GB in
part cover. Further research to better understand the potential institu-
tional, political and knowledge barrier suggested, merits attention.
4.2. Overcoming barriers to mainstream Green Belts policy
Given the intended and unintended benets and functions of GBs
internationally (Kirby et al., 2023) and the discussed variations in
approach in English GB policy, as well as potential barriers, it is perti-
nent to explore how such benets may be overcome to mainstream
benets more widely in English GB policy. Here two important concepts
are policy “hooks” and “bridges”. “Policy hooks” describe a link to a key
policy, legislative term, duty or priority that relate to a particular group,
whereas “policy bridges” are similar to “hooks”, instead they link terms,
concepts or policy priorities that are used and understood across mul-
tiple groups and publics (Scott et al., 2018). Hooks and Bridge act as key
mechanisms to overcome several of the barriers outlined in Section 4.1.
4.2.1. Green Belt Policy Hooks
Multiple policy hooks exist to mainstream the benecial use of GBs.
Firstly, as highlighted in the results, GI is a key policy hook with some
authorities seeing GB as a multifunctional asset within the wider GI
network. However, we argue that the wider reluctance to frame GB as
part of the GI network is a key barrier which seriously hinders the wider
multifunctional objectives of GB at present. Thomas and Littlewood
(2010) proposed early in the inception of GI its potential to contribute
and link to GBs, an idea which was gaining momentum at the regional
level through spatial strategies before their abolishment in 2010 by the
then government. Indeed, other research suggest that this strategic GB
vision still holds importance for planners (Goode, 2022a) and even
informal regional visions can be powerful, as seen in the longevity of the
Copenhagen Finger Plan in Denmark (Vejre et al., 2007). This is espe-
cially relevant given our results that suggest the existence of a strategic
tier to planning (GMCA & GLA) may be an important factor in higher
scoring plans. The regional tier may also reduce political tensions and
cross-border issues as seen in the Portland Metro (Thiers et al., 2018).
Therefore, in widening the functions of GB policy, planners may wish to
look at the new generation of GB policies internationally, where it is
argued that without effective and joined up regional governance the
ability to deliver multiple goals through GB policy is reduced (Mac-
donald et al., 2021). Additionally, as evidenced by Thomas and Little-
wood (2010) such tier may be more receptive to policy hooks, and
resilient to some of the barrier, such as local politics as discussed in 4.1.
One of the most signicant hooks is the NPPF requirement that loss
of GB is compensated by improvement to the environmental quality and
accessibility of the remaining GB (MHCLG, 2021, para. 142) as illus-
trated in the typology 2 (Table 3). The implementation of this policy in
local and regional plans is important as it requires planners to think
about GB as a benecial natural asset. Those local authorities which
have well developed policies for compensatory improvement has also
often undertaken specic studies to explore potential improvement to
GB, within their local context, including Greater Manchester, Barnet,
Blackburn, and Worcester. Such work is not only important for
extending thinking around GB, but also provides a key resource to target
locally relevant GB improvement. Planning authorities could build on
this through dedicated supplementary planning guidance. Additionally,
another potential hook is the reference to “greening the green belt” as
part of the pride in place section of the Levelling Up White Paper
(DLUHC, 2021, p. 211), however it is unclear how this ambition may be
Fig. 9. Potential general barriers and limitations to higher scoring Green Belt
Policies. Barriers shown in red and often interrelated.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
11
delivered. A key catalyst and policy hook for multifunctional use of GB is
the House of Lords Select Committee recommendations on Land Use for
the enhancement of GB for delivering multifunctional benets, and that
it should be a central priority for England’s future land use framework
(House of Lords, 2022).
4.2.2. Green belt policy bridges
Given the nexus of climate change with societal issues and disciplines
it is a key policy bridge (Chiabai et al., 2018), and one which may reduce
barriers such as silo working. Many ESs relating to climate change
scored low in the GB assessments, but internationally zones of UGMPs
including GBs have been shown to provide a range of regulating ES
(Kirby et al., 2023) including in the US as important zones for seques-
tering carbon (Han, Daniels and Kim, 2022). Indeed, internationally
climate mitigation and adaptation are considered as primary aims of the
GGH GB (Taylor, 2019). As a “bridge” climate change is an issue other
stakeholders can also support in relation to GB (Goode, 2022b). Such
examples of comparative GB policies may themselves also act as key
bridges for the English context. Notably, north of the border in Scotland
7
the recent draft planning guidance provides an example of broader GB
policy, with notable differences including supporting nature networks
and explicit use of GB for GI (Scottish Government, 2022).
The timing of the COVID-19 pandemic alongside increasing impacts
of climate change and decline of nature provides the opportunity for
transformational change at the global scale (McNeely, 2021). As such,
another potential bridge is health and wellbeing; the importance of
which in relation to greenspace has been illustrated in the pandemic
(Labib et al., 2022). Evidence also suggests that in light of the pandemic,
strategies should seek to equalise access to green spaces (Astell-Burt and
Feng, 2021). This is notable given the prominence of health in the early
inception of the GB concept in England (Bishop et al., 2020) and the
positive effects GB has been shown to have on human health in Korea
(Jeon et al., 2020). Thrift (2022) makes the argument that the rationale
GB have huge potential to improve physical and mental health, if inte-
grated with multiple agenda holistically.
Given that compensatory improvement is dependent on develop-
ment of GB, much of which is in private ownership (Campaign to Protect
Rural England, 2022) and the importance of joined up plans (Taylor,
2019) and policies (Daniels, 2010) internationally for GBs, the raft of
emerging environmental policies (Defra, 2018) in England may lay
important bridges for delivery of GB multifunctionality. Specically
offsite Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), Local Nature Recovery Strategies
and the Environmental Land Management Schemes as summarised in
Table 4. Again, supplementary planning guidance may aid in setting out
how these policies may interact with GB in a place-based context. For
example, habitat creation from BNG could be complemented with access
improvement through GB compensatory improvement, compounded by
the statutory requirements weight of BNG. And perhaps critically, op-
portunities to pool nancial capital to deliver more ambitious in-
terventions. What is essential is that these policies are integrated
together, rather than being delivered in separate policy silos. Currently
there is little evidence of this happing (House of Lords, 2022).
4.2.3. Model green belt policy
Whereas a full scoring suite of policies was not identied across the
criteria (Fig. 7) an amalgamation of the best scoring policies has been
developed into a ‘model’ secondary GB policy for English authorities
(Fig. 10) which incorporates the ndings of our study and builds from
the policy hooks and bridges needed to overcome the limitations dis-
cussed (Fig. 9). However, it is important that this is adapted to the local
context, addressing key local land-use priorities and ESs in demand,
opposed to a one-size-ts all policy which may result in operational
challenges.
4.3. Study limitations
Whereas this study aimed to objectively assess GB policies from the
perspective of nature, multifunctionality and benets to people, the
study has several limitations. Firstly, this study assesses a purposive
sample of 67 planning authorities, but 183 LAs in England have GBs, and
therefore not all eligible plans were assessed. Whereas we sought to
assess a broad range of plans, there may be examples of plans which
score higher than those accessed in our study. Therefore, our average
scores reect the plans assessed, and are not a denitive average for all
GBs policies across England. Secondly, documents which were assessed
were not all at the same publication date, and range considerably over a
10-year period. Therefore, some plans did not include policies which
reected current national guidance for GBs. This means LAs should not
be directly compared. Thirdly, our criteria were based on previous
literature on GBs and wider concepts to account for nature in policy.
Therefore, this is our interpretation of what elements a GB policy which
promotes benecial use and multifunctionality could look like, and
others may agree or disagree that certain elements of the criteria are
merited. Finally, whereas steps were taken to reduce subjectivity and the
increase replicability of applying the criteria in the assessment, as
described in Section 2.2, interpretation is always required.
5. Conclusions
Society is experiencing climate, nature, health, and inequality
tipping points, much of which comes into stark view in peri-urban areas
around our towns and cities. With GB being a rare example of a policy
covering much of these peri-urban landscapes in England, means they
may be an important opportunity and action space to help address these
challenges. Our results show that at present the wider and multiple
functions of GB are not yet fully realised or mainstreamed in planning
policy, and planning authorities treat and view GB differently. Plans
tended to score higher on protection of GBs and its consideration of the
site scale, whereas elements such as multifunctionality, ES and social
equality tended to score lower, and were less common in plans. Some
higher scoring plans treat GB as more than UGMPs and show key policy
hooks exist, such as GI, and requirements for GB compensatory
improvement and strategic planning. Additionally, it is argued that
opportunities exist through key policy bridges of health, climate change
and through emerging environmental policy to realise the wider
multifunctional potential of GB in England. These may help address key
barriers to mainstreaming the wider benets of GB in policy. Notably,
that GB are politically and socially contentious in England, with strong
pressure for parts of them to be developed, which also requires trade-offs
with wider benets. Building on current debates we agree with others
that there is a need for a wider national GB conversation, to rethink its
purposes (Thrift, 2022), especially around the potential need for the
strategic planning of GB (Goode, 2022b), which have been successful for
Table 4
Natural environment policy bridge for Green Belt Enhancement.
Local Nature Recovery Strategies
(LNRS): identify and prioritise areas
for specic actions to drive nature’s
recovery.
By including GB within the scope of
LNRS, compensatory improvement can
be directed to areas where they can be
most benecial
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG):
Requirement for 10% gain in
biodiversity in developments, ideally
on-site but also off-site.
The proximity of the GBs as open space
close to development means it is ideally
placed as a BNG receptor.
Environmental Land Management
(ELMS): agri-environmental schemes
for farmers and land managers to enter
into agreements to be paid for
delivering ecosystem services.
Much of green belt is agricultural land -
Payment for to provide environmental
improvement in the
the green belt.
7
Planning is a devolved matter in the UK with the government in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland responsible for their own guidance and policy.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
12
multifunctional GB internationally. Thereby aligning English GB with
the new generation of GBs which not only protects land due in proximity
to the urban area, but also promotes the functional and positive
enhancement of these zones for people and society.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research
Council funded ONE Planet Doctoral Training Partnership [NE/
S007512/1] and Mainstreaming Green Infrastructure [NE/R00398X/1].
We would like to thank Catriona Riddell, Gayle Wootton and Clive
Gowlett who acted as practice-based second assessors on a sub-set of
policy assessments, which further rened the application of the assess-
ment criteria to the policies. Additionally, we would like to thank Claire
Walsh and Jason Luger for their support and advise in the early for-
mation of this work.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106799.
References
Abercrombie, P. , 1944. Greater London Plan 1944. H.M. Stationery Ofce.
Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., Lovett, A., 2016.
Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: the
ES-in-Planning framework. Ecol. Indic. 61, 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.03.029.
Amati, M., 2008. Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-rst Century. Routledge.
Amati, M., Yokohari, M., 2006. Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of
London’s green belt. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75 (1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2004.12.007.
Amati, M., Taylor, L., 2010. From green belts to green infrastructure. Plan. Pract. Res. 25
(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740122.
Astell-Burt, T., Feng, X., 2021. Time for ‘Green’ during COVID-19? inequities in green
and blue space access, visitation and felt benets. Article 5 Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 18 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052757.
Bishop, P., Perez, A.M., Roggema, R., Williams, L., 2020. Repurposing the Green Belt in
the 21st Century. UCL Press https://doi. org/10.14324/111.9781787358843.
Bradley, Q., 2019. Combined authorities and material participation: the capacity of
Green Belt to engage political publics in England. Local Econ. 34 (2), 181–195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094219839038.
Building with Nature. , 2021. Standards Framework (BwN 2.0).
Campaign to Protect Rural England, & Natural England (Agency). , 2010. Green belts: A
greener future. CPRE; Natural England.
Fig. 10. Model secondary Green Belt policy developed from best scoring policies assessed and key ndings from the results.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
13
Campaign to Protect Rural England. , 2022. Countryside Next Door. https://www.cpre.
org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CPRE_Countryside_Next_Door.pdf.
Central Bedfordshire Council. , (2021. Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan
2015–2035: Adopted. Central Bedfordshire Council.
Chiabai, A., Quiroga, S., Martinez-Juarez, P., Higgins, S., Taylor, T., 2018. The nexus
between climate change, ecosystem services and human health: towards a
conceptual framework. Sci. Total Environ. 14.
Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years
later. Ecol. Soc. 24 (1) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S.,
Grasso, M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and
how far do we still need to go. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2017.09.008.
Daniels, T.L., 2010. The use of green belts to control sprawl in the United States. Plan.
Pract. Res. 25 (2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740288.
Defra. , 2018. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment.
Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs. https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/
693158/25-year-environment-plan.pdf.
DLUHC, D. for L. U., Housing and Communities. , 2021. Local authority green belt
statistics for England: 2020–21 - statistical release. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/
government/statistics/local-authority-green-belt-statistics-for-england-2020-to-
2021/local-authority-green-belt-statistics-for-england-2020–21-statistical-release.
DLUHC, D. for L. U., Housing and Communities. , 2022. Levelling Up White Paper.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/le/1052064/Levelling_Up_White_Paper_HR.pdf.
Dockerill, B., Sturzaker, J., 2020. Green belts and urban containment: The Merseyside
experience. Plan. Perspect. 35 (4), 583–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02665433.2019.1609374.
Durham, 2020. County Durham Plan ADOPTED. County Council, Durham.
EEA. , 2017. Landscapes in Transition—An account of 25 years of land cover change in
Europe (EEA Report No 10/2017). European Environment Agency.
Eidelman, G., 2010. Managing urban sprawl in Ontario: Good policy or good politics?
Polit. Policy 38 (6), 1211–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00275.
x.
Elson, M.J., Walker, S., Macdonald, R., Edge, J. , 1993. The effectiveness of Green Belts.
The Effectiveness of Green Belts. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/
19941802940.
Gant, R., Robinson, G., Fazal, S., 2011. Land-use change in the ‘edgelands’: Policies and
pressures in London’s rural–urban fringe. Land Use Policy 28 (1), 266–279.
GMCA, G.M.C.A. , 2021. Places For Everyone Joint Development Plan Document –
Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan:
Publication Stage. Greater Manchester Combined Authority. https://www.
greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning-and-housing/places-for-
everyone/the-plan/.
Goode, C.E., 2022a. The enduring importance of strategic vision in planning: The case of
the west midlands green belt. Plan. Perspect. 0 (0), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02665433.2022.2040383.
Goode, C.E., 2022b. Planning principles and particular places: planners’ and
campaigners’ perspectives on motivations for popular support of the green belt.
Town Plan. Rev. 93 (3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2021.37.
Hall, D.M., Steiner, R., 2020. Policy content analysis: qualitative method for analyzing
sub-national insect pollinator legislation. MethodsX 7, 100787. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mex.2020.100787.
Han, A.T., Go, M.H., 2019. Explaining the national variation of land use: a cross-national
analysis of greenbelt policy in ve countries. Land Use Policy 81, 644–656. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.035.
Han, A.T., Daniels, T.L., Kim, C., 2022. Managing urban growth in the wake of climate
change: revisiting greenbelt policy in the US. Land Use Policy 112, 105867. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105867.
Harrow Council. , 2013. Development Management Policies Adopted. Harrow Council.
Hislop, M., Scott, A.J., Corbett, A., 2019. What does good green infrastructure planning
policy look like? developing and testing a policy assessment tool within central
Scotland UK. Plan. Theory Pract. 20 (5), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14649357.2019.1678667.
Holloway, I., Todres, L., 2003. The status of method: exibility, consistency and
coherence. Qual. Res. 3 (3), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468794103033004.
H¨
olting, L., Beckmann, M., Volk, M., Cord, A.F., 2019. Multifunctionality assessments –
more than assessing multiple ecosystem functions and services? a quantitative
literature review. Ecol. Indic. 103, 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2019.04.009.
House of Lords, L. U. in E. C. (2022). Making the most out of England’s land (HL Paper
105; Report of Session 2022–23). Land Use in England Committee.
Howard, E. , 1902. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. S. Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd.
Jaligot, R., Chenal, J., 2019. Integration of ecosystem services in regional spatial plans in
Western Switzerland. Article 2 Sustainability 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11020313.
Jeon, J., Kim, S., Kwon, S.M., 2020. The effects of urban containment policies on public
health. Article 9 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph17093275.
Jerome, G., Sinnett, D., Burgess, S., Calvert, T., Mortlock, R., 2019. A framework for
assessing the quality of green infrastructure in the built environment in the UK.
Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.001.
Kerr, G.L., Holzer, J.M., Baird, J., Hickey, Gordon, M., 2021. Ecosystem services decision
support tools: exploring the implementation gap in Canada. FACETS 6, 1864–1880.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2020-0090.
Kieslich, M., Salles, J.-M., 2021. Implementation context and science-policy interfaces:
implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 179,
106857 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106857.
Kirby, M.G., Scott, A.J., Luger, J., Walsh, C.L., 2023. Beyond growth management: a
review of the wider functions and effects of urban growth management policies.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 230, 104635 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2022.104635.
Labib, S.M., Browning, M.H.E.M., Rigolon, A., Helbich, M., James, P., 2022. Nature’s
contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: a narrative review of
evidence during COVID-19. Sci. Total Environ. 833, 155095 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155095.
Lord, A., Dunning, R., Buck, M., Cantillon, S., Burgess, G., Crook, T., Watkins, C.,
Whitehead, C., 2020. The incidence. Value Deliv. Plan. Oblig. Community
Infrastruct. Levy Engl. 2018-19 135.
Lund, B., 2015. The electoral politics of housing. Political Q. 86 (4), 500–506. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12205.
Luton Council. , 2017. Luton Local Plan 2011–2031: Planning and Economic Growth
Place and Infrastructure. Luton Council.
Macdonald, S., Monstadt, J., Friendly, A., 2021. Rethinking the governance and planning
of a new generation of greenbelts. Reg. Stud. 55 (5), 804–817. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00343404.2020.1747608.
Mace, A., 2018. The Metropolitan Green Belt, changing an institution. Prog. Plan. 121,
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2017.01.001.
Maes, M.J.A., Jones, K.E., Toledano, M.B., Milligan, B., 2020. Accounting for natural
capital has cross-cutting relevance for UK public sector decision-making. Ecosyst.
Serv. 44, 101127 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101127.
Mayor of London. , 2021. The London Plan: THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
FOR GREATER LONDON. Mayor of London/ Greater London Authority.
McNeely, J.A., 2021. Nature and COVID-19: the pandemic, the environment, and the
way ahead. Ambio 50 (4), 767–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01447-0.
McWilliam, W., Brown, R., Eagles, P., Seasons, M., 2015. Evaluation of planning policy
for protecting green infrastructure from loss and degradation due to residential
encroachment. Land Use Policy 47, 459–467.
MHCLG. , 2019. Guidance: Green Belt. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-
belt.
MHCLG. , 2021. National planning policy framework. Ministry of Housing Communities
and Local Government.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government. , 1955. Green Belts, Circular 42/55. London,
HMSO. http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1955-
Circular.pdf.
Murdoch, J., Abram, S., Marsden, T., 1999. Modalities of planning: a reection on the
persuasive powers of the development plan. Town Plan. Rev. 70 (2), 191–212.
Natural Capital Committee. , 2019. Natural Capital Terminology (p. 16). Natural Capital
Committee.
Nordh, H., Olafsson, A.S., 2021. Plans for urban green infrastructure in Scandinavia.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 64 (5), 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09640568.2020.1787960.
Northumberland C.C.2019. Northumberland Local Plan January 2019 Publication Draft
Plan (Regulation 19). Northumberland County Council.
Oulahen, G., Klein, Y., Mortsch, L., O’Connell, E., Harford, D., 2018. Barriers and drivers
of planning for climate change adaptation across three levels of government in
Canada. Plan. Theory Pract. 19 (3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14649357.2018.1481993.
Pendle B.C. , 2021. Pendle Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Policies
Preferred Options Report. Pendle Borough Council.
Pourtaherian, P., Jaeger, J.A.G., 2022. How effective are greenbelts at mitigating urban
sprawl? a comparative study of 60 European cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 227, 104532
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104532.
Ransom, M., Scott, A., 2020. A planning policy assessment method for Aotearoa/New
Zealand based on ecosystem services. J. N. Z. Plan. Inst. 219, 52.
Redbridge. , 2018. Redbridge Local Plan 2015 – 2030 March 2018. London Borough of
Redbridge.
Ronchi, S., 2018. Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning: Innovative Approaches and
Challenges for Practical Applications. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-90185-5.
Salford City Council, 2020. A Fairer City. Publ. Salford Local Plan: Dev. Manag. Policies
Des. (2020).
Scott, A., Hislop, M. , 2020. What does good green infrastructure policy look like?
(PERFECT Expert Paper 3, p. 28).
Scott, A., Holtby, R., East, H., Lannin, A., 2021. Mainstreaming the Environment:
exploring pathways and narratives to improve policy and decision-making. People
Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10276.
Scott, A., Carter, C., Hardman, M., Grayson, N., Slaney, T., 2018. Mainstreaming
ecosystem science in spatial planning practice: exploiting a hybrid opportunity
space. Land Use Policy 70, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.10.002.
Scott, A., Carter, C., Reed, M.R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., Waters, R.,
Collier, D., Crean, C., Curzon, R., Forster, R., Gibbs, P., Grayson, N., Hardman, M.,
Hearle, A., Jarvis, D., Kennet, M., Leach, K., Middleton, M., Coles, R., 2013.
Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning
theory and practice. Prog. Plan. 83, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
progress.2012.09.001.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott

Land Use Policy 132 (2023) 106799
14
Scottish Government , 2022. National Planning Framework 4—Revised Draft. The
Scottish Goverment.
Shaw, B.J., van Vliet, J., Verburg, P.H., 2020. The peri-urbanization of Europe: a
systematic review of a multifaceted process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 196, 103733
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103733.
Solihull M.B.C. , 2021. Solihull Local Plan – Draft Submission Plan A Plan for People and
Places; Where Wellbeing and the Environment Matter. Solihull Metropolitan
Borough Council.
Taylor, L. , 2019. The future of greenbelts. In The Routledge Companion to Rural
Planning. Taylor & Francis Group.
Thiers, P., Stephan, M., Gordon, S., Walker, A., 2018. Metropolitan eco-regimes and
differing state policy environments: comparing environmental governance in the
Portland–Vancouver metropolitan area. Urban Aff. Rev. 54 (6), 1019–1052. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1078087417693321.
Thomas, K., Littlewood, S., 2010. From green belts to green infrastructure? the evolution
of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Plan. Pract.
Res. 25 (2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740213.
Thrift, J., 2022. Solutions hiding in plain sigh—the potential of England’s green belts.
Town Ctry Plan. 22022, 164–173.
Trafford Council. , 2021. Trafford Local Plan: Regulation 18 Consultation Draft. Trafford
Council.
Uittenbroek, C.J., 2016. From policy document to implementation: organizational
routines as possible barriers to mainstreaming climate adaptation. J. Environ. Policy
Plan. 18 (2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1065717.
Vejre, H., Primdahl, J., Brandt, J., 2007. The Copenhagen Finger Plan: Keeping a green
space structure by a simple planning metaphor. Europe’s Living Landscapes: Essays
Exploring our Identity in the Countryside. KNNV Publishing, pp. 310–328.
Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G., Colding, J., 2013. Strategic spatial planning and
the ecosystem services concept – an historical exploration. Ecol. Soc. 18 (1) https://
doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137.
Woodruff, S.C., BenDor, T.K., 2016. Ecosystem services in urban planning: comparative
paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landsc. Urban Plan. 152, 90–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003.
M.G. Kirby and A.J. Scott