Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.

Search and filter

Filter by

  • University of the West of England, Bristol
   None selected
  • 13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
Waiting for server
Download currently selected sections for currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Download currently selected case study PDFs (zip) (generating)
Download tags for the currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Currently displaying text from case study section
Showing impact case studies 1 to 5 of 5
Submitting institution
University of the West of England, Bristol
Unit of assessment
13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
Summary impact type
Environmental
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Research at the University of the West of England (UWE) led by Dr Tom Appleby has applied established terrestrial land-management law to marine fisheries. This has significantly changed the understanding and practice of fishery rights on the part of key stakeholders, including government bodies, with long-term benefits for the sector. Research explicitly influenced the development of fisheries legislation in the UK in the context of Brexit reforms. It also questioned the legality of, and contributed to significant changes to, EU fishing practices, including the banning of electric pulse trawling in EU waters ahead of Brexit. Engagement with UWE research by government bodies and environmental NGOs has further contributed to the protection of marine environments in the UK and EU, including the effective management of fishing practices in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and to the creation of new MPAs off the coasts of Ascension Island and Scotland.

2. Underpinning research

The research looks at marine and coastal law, and asks the following questions:

  • What are public and private rights relating to fisheries operating in the sea?

  • How should those rights be reflected in regulation?

Public and private rights form the basis for terrestrial management regimes, but these rights have rarely been interrogated in the context of marine fisheries. The research is relevant not just to the UK and its Overseas Territories, but also to waters controlled by the EU and its member states (around 20,000,000km2).

Public and private rights

UWE research focussed on the UK’s fishery, demonstrating that the fishery was not ownerless, as had often been supposed, but owned by the Crown on behalf of the UK public. The research showed that, as a result, public bodies have a duty to actively manage the fishery for demonstrable public benefit ( G1, R1, R2). The research also indicated that the proper privatisation mechanisms had not been undertaken. The public fishery had been wrongly distributed free to the commercial sector, via quota, with none of the usual terms governing the disposal of a public asset. The result of this unregulated disposal was considerable upset among fishing communities, and a rapid and unpopular consolidation of private ownership of fishing quotas, which give exclusive access to the UK fishery ( R2).

Regulation

UWE research explored the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs) by the UK Government in UK waters. MPAs are areas of the sea with special regulatory protection to allow the sea to recover its fecundity, and are required under international law. UWE research ( G1, R3) found that there were significant obstacles to the creation of MPAs, such as a requirement for expensive scientific evidence before protection from damaging activities could be put in place. This distorts the precautionary approach of the Marine Acts, as if in ‘ a fairground hall of mirrors’ ( R3, p76). The creation of MPAs can be extremely politically sensitive; the UK Government’s creation of a huge MPA in the Chagos Archipelago led to international litigation with neighbouring Mauritius. UWE research noted that the UK’s prior sale of fishing rights in the area had not led to litigation, but that both MPA creation and the sale of fishing rights were unequivocal acts of UK sovereignty - the real point of contention leading to the Mauritian complaint about the Chagos MPA ( R4).

The adoption of EU environmental law in the terrestrial sector is relatively mature; key European Directives were established in the early 1990s. There is no explicit exemption for fisheries from EU environmental law, and yet the key conservation law, the Habitats Directive, is yet to be properly applied in EU waters over 12 nautical miles from the coast because of a purported exemption under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This region of sea covers the vast majority of EU member states’ waters. The research ( R5) discovered that the exemption did not apply to member states, and that member states were acting illegally by permitting their vessels to fish using destructive fishing gears in offshore MPAs. These sites should have been protected under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and member states should not have licensed destructive fishing practices there. The research further found that at the end of the Brexit transition period, the UK Government will have a clear and direct legal obligation to protect offshore MPAs ( G2, R4, R6).

3. References to the research

R1 Agnew, C., Appleby, T. and Bean, E. (2019) The ownership of inshore fisheries in Scotland: an opportunity for community ownership? Journal of Water Law, vol 26(3), pp.70-77. https://www.lawtext.com/publication/the-journal-of-water-law/contents/volume-26/issue-2

R2 Appleby, T., Cardwell, E. and Pettipher, J. (2018) Fishing rights, property rights, human rights: the problem of legal lock-in in UK fisheries. Elementa: The Science of the Anthropocene, vol 6(1). http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.295

R3 Appleby, T. and Jones, P. (2012) The marine and coastal access act - A hornets’ nest? Marine Policy, 36 (1). pp. 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.009

R4 Appleby, T. (2015) The Chagos marine protected arbitration — A battle of four losers? Journal of Environmental Law, vol 27(3), pp. 529-540. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqv027

R5 Appleby, T. and Harrison, J. (2019) Taking The Pulse Of Environmental And Fisheries Law: The Common Fisheries Policy, The Habitats Directive And Brexit. Journal of Environmental Law, vol 31(3), pp 443-464. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqy027

R6 Appleby, T., & Harrison, J. (2017). Brexit and the future of Scottish fisheries – key legal issues in a changing regulatory landscape. Journal of Water Law, 25(3), 124-132. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/898784

Evidence of the quality of the underpinning researchG1 Staddon, C. The Lloyd's Register Educational Trust International Water Security Network, Lloyds Register Educational Trust, 2013 – 2020, £2,538,205. G2 Appleby, T. A legal Assessment of Scottish, Welsh and English Inshore Fisheries, Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust, 2016 – 2017, £12,662.

R1, R2 and R3 were funded by a grant of £160,000 to investigate costal laws, as part of G1. R1 and R6 were funded by G2.

4. Details of the impact

Recognition of the UK fishery as a public assetIn highlighting the lack of clarity about the ownership of the UK fishery ( R1, R3, R6), UWE research has underpinned a new recognition by government bodies and NGOs of the UK fishery as a public asset.

The New Economics Foundation, a leading political think tank, noted that UWE research:

has been critical in highlighting the importance of this issue… As a result of this work, in collaboration with the NEF and fisheries stakeholders, for the first time fishing quota is now widely viewed as a public asset and fisheries administrations are taking steps to bring it back into public control’ ( S1).

Environmental NGO the Blue Marine Foundation (BLUE) relied on UWE research to influence the development of the government’s fisheries legislation in the context of Brexit. The CEO of BLUE noted that UWE research on the ownership of fisheries ( R1, R2) was central to one of ‘ four key asks of government from BLUE’ over Brexit ( S2). Drawing on UWE research, BLUE lobbied the government for the ‘ treatment of the UK’s fishery as a public asset to be distributed on the basis of sustainability’ ( S2).

As a result of this pressure, the UK Government have now clarified the ownership position. Lord Gardiner, presenting the Fisheries Bill in Parliament in June 2020 stated:

‘the Government are clear that there is a public right to these fish. Indeed, lawyers have advised me that UK case law recognises that fish are a public asset, held by the Crown for the benefit of the public’ ( S3).

Commenting on this statement by Lord Gardiner, former UK Fisheries Minister and chair of the Government’s review of highly protected marine areas, Richard Benyon, noted that ‘ UWE research was a key driver for the Government taking this view’ ( S4).

Electric pulse trawling banned throughout EuropeUWE research indicating that EU member states were in breach of the Habitats Directive ( R5, R6) was used in a campaign by BLUE and French NGO Bloom, to ban the destructive practice of electric pulse trawling in UK marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North Sea. This fishing method was used by nearly 100 European vessels. In 2018, R5formed the basis of a complaint to the European Commission’ by BLUE and Bloom ( S5) and led to public scrutiny of the EU for permitting such practices (see article in The Times, October 2018 ( S6)).

Bloom’s Scientific Director acknowledged that ‘ UWE’s research demonstrated that this [electric pulse trawling in MPAs] was illegal under EU law’ ( S5). In August 2019, with the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241, the EU ensured that electric pulse trawling would be phased out, not only in MPAs but in all EU waters by 2021 - a ‘ significant victory for marine conservation’ ( S5).

NGO campaign to ban bottom-towed gears from Marine Protected AreasIn 2018-2019, BLUE lobbied for the removal of bottom-towed gears from European offshore MPAs via their complaints to Directorate General Environment, focused on destructive fishing practices at the Dogger Bank MPA (around 17,000 km2 of relatively shallow water in the North Sea). The complaints were based on UWE research ( R5), and written by UWE’s Dr Tom Appleby ( S7). The BLUE complaints maintained that, notwithstanding the Common Fisheries Policy, there was a legal requirement contained in the Habitats Directive that ruled out the use of bottom-towed gears in MPAs such as the Dogger Bank.

In June 2019, a coalition of European NGOs led by WWF Netherlands lodged a further legal complaint to the European Commission, also based on UWE research ( R5). A marine biologist at WWF commented:

‘The central legal argument of our combined complaint is that fishing activities [on the Dogger Bank] should be suspended by the Commission and member states until they can demonstrate they do not harm the site. The arguments stem straight from the Appleby & Harrison paper [ R5] ( S8).

In March 2020, the EU’s Directorate-General Environment notified BLUE and the WWF coalition that it was investigating the UK, Dutch, Belgian and German governments for failure to implement management measures on the Dogger Bank under the Habitats Directive. BLUE’s CEO noted:

On the strength of our complaint, based on UWE research, the UK and Dutch governments are being investigated by DG Environment for failing to regulate their fishing fleets’ ( S2). The WWF noted that ‘ DG Environment are now actively investigating the complaints, and have accepted key arguments they contain’ ( S8).

NGO campaign for effective post-Brexit management of UK Marine Protected AreasDespite the UK’s departure from the EU, the Habitats Directive will continue to apply, because it has already been incorporated into UK law. This means that any exemption contained in the EU Common Fisheries Policy from meaningful management measures for commercial fishing vessels, expires at the end of the transition period ( R5, R6). Relying on UWE research, BLUE made it a key plank of their Brexit policy to ensure that effective management measures are brought in from January 2021 ( S2). In September 2020, BLUE threatened to seek judicial review of the UK Government’s actions unless the Habitats Directive is applied to the Dogger Bank offshore MPA from January 2021 ( S9).

A New Marine Protected Area around Ascension IslandEnvironmental NGO BLUE was instrumental in creating an MPA around Ascension Island, a UK Overseas Territory in the Atlantic. The MPA was established in March 2019. BLUE’s CEO noted that ‘ BLUE has run a successful campaign to persuade the Ascension Island Government to declare the largest marine reserve in the Atlantic (170,000 km2). A key part of the campaign strategy was to learn from UWE’s research [ R4] into the failure of the Chagos MPA and undertake very deep stakeholder engagement, as a means of unlocking political support for the reserve’ ( S2) .

A New Marine Protected Area in ScotlandThe Marine Acts around the UK created various MPAs. MPAs are usually promoted by government bodies, but one of the most effective was put forward by a community group, the Community of Arran Seabed Trust (COAST). The former chair of COAST noted that the Trust ‘ made use of UWE research [ R3] to help frame its proposal’ ( S10), which led to the management measures being brought into force in 2015. These measures are binding on commercial fishing in 80% of the MPA. The former chair observed that ‘ the South of Arran MPA is one of the most effective MPAs in Scotland’ and that ‘ the area is already showing huge benefits for the island as a nursery area for fish stocks and other biodiversity benefits’ ( S10).

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

S1 Testimonial from Senior Programme Manager at the New Economics Foundation

S2 Testimonial from CEO Blue Marine Foundation

S3 Hansard – Fisheries Bill (House of Lords), Vol 804, debated Monday 22nd June 2020

S4 Testimonial from former Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Natural Environment and Fisheries

S5 Testimonial from Scientific Director, Bloom Association NGO

S6 The Times article 01.10.2018 Dutch Devastate Marine Life with Electric Shock Trawling. Available: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dutch-devastate-marine-life-with-electric-shock-fishing-x9hpqc6hv

S7 Blue Marine Foundation supplementary complaint to European Commission

S8 Testimonial from Marine Biologist at World Wildlife Fund Netherlands

S9 Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs press release 23.09.2020 (see penultimate paragraph) https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/09/23/our-response-to-greenpeaces-action-at-dogger-bank/

S10 Testimonial from the former Chair of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust

Submitting institution
University of the West of England, Bristol
Unit of assessment
13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
Summary impact type
Societal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

The University of the West of England’s (UWE) Centre for Transport and Society has contributed significantly to a shift in attitudes and professional practice within transport planning and policy making, both in the UK and globally. Its research has enabled the profession to respond to unprecedented dynamics of technological innovation and behaviour change, and considerable uncertainty about the future. The research has led to:

  • changes in government perspective in countries including New Zealand and the UK around uncertainty and the need to address it;

  • changes in strategic planning behaviour in national and city-region governments, improving resilience;

  • the development, adoption and sector-wide sharing of a new vision-led planning approach to uncertainty offered by a global engineering consultancy and used by transport authorities spanning four continents;

  • application of the approach to planning of new development sites;

  • a comprehensive review of, and revisions to, the professional competencies expected in transport planning practice.

2. Underpinning research

Since 2002, Glenn Lyons, Kiron Chatterjee and other colleagues at the Centre for Transport and Society (CTS) have been examining the direct and indirect effects of the digital age on travel behaviour and transport planning.

Following the advent of the Web, EPSRC-funded CTS research (2003-2006) showed how digital connectivity introduced new ways of gaining access to people, jobs, goods, services and opportunities alongside physical connectivity through transport ( G1). In relation to both forms of connectivity, CTS research challenged the established mentality in the transport profession of connectivity serving society (demand-led supply - provide what is predicted to be needed). CTS contributed to a growing realisation that connectivity shapes society (supply influences demand) and should indeed be developed in such a way that it supports society (supply that helps shape a preferred future). In short, connectivity and society are co-evolving and strongly intertwined ( R1).

This understanding of co-evolution was key to CTS contributions to several transport futures exercises during its first decade of existence. An ESRC-funded study (2009-2013) with sociologists examined how technologies outside the immediate purview of transport (e.g. refrigeration or monitoring devices) could influence social practices and thereby indirectly influence travel demand ( G2). This revealed that if transport policies are being developed to limit, change, or reduce people's travel, then non‐transport technologies may thwart transport policy ambitions in unanticipated ways.

Embedded image Working with other researchers in the UK and the Netherlands, CTS applied the ‘Multi Level Perspective’ (a framework for examining stability and change in socio-technical systems) to explore how the digital age was affecting the transport sector (and particularly the regime of automobility) ( R2). The hypothesis was set out that we are in the midst of a fundamental regime transition away from the motor age, towards a future for mobility that is much more significantly defined by the digital age ( R3). Evidence of a regime transition was highlighted by empirical research (2016) funded by the Department for Transport ( G3) showing generational change among young people and their travel behaviour (using cars far less over time), which could be explained by digital technology and other interacting factors such as having children later, less-secure jobs and reduced home ownership ( R4).

Being in a process of transition (exacerbated now by the pandemic) causes deep uncertainty that must be addressed in forward planning. In several projects, CTS has applied the methodology of scenario planning in which plausible and divergent future states are developed against which to test policy thinking. Scenario planning can be remote from policymaking and investment decisions, and CTS has worked (through Lyons on part-time secondment, 2014-15) with the New Zealand Ministry of Transport ( G4) to address this by putting forward a new transport planning paradigm called ‘decide and provide’ ( R5). The paradigm emphasises the importance of ‘triple-access planning’ (see right) in place of transport-only planning. Moving away from the forecast-led paradigm of transport planning (the ‘predict and provide’ model), decide and provide is a vision-led paradigm: decide on the preferred future and then provide a means of working towards it that can, through scenario planning, accommodate deep uncertainty. A national workshop-based study (2015-16) led by Lyons for the Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation ( G5), referred to as CIHT FUTURES, engaged with over 200 UK transport professionals and revealed strong support for a shift in transport planning towards decide and provide ( R6). Lyons was appointed to the Mott MacDonald Chair in Future Mobility at UWE from the start of 2018 (seconded for half his time into this global consultancy firm) to help bring about such a shift.

3. References to the research

R1 Lyons, G. (2004) Transport and Society. Transport Reviews, 24(4), pp 485-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000206079

R2 Geels, F., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (Eds) (2012) Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport. New York: Routledge. Available on request.

R3 Lyons, G. (2015) Transport’s Digital Age Transition. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 8(2), pp 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v0i0.751

R4 Chatterjee, K. et al. (2018) Young People’s Travel – What’s Changed and Why? Review and Analysis. Report to the Department for Transport. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/34640/

R5 Lyons, G. and Davidson, C. (2016) Guidance for transport planning and policymaking in the face of an uncertain future. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88, pp 104-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.012

R6 Lyons, G. (2016) Uncertainty Ahead: Which Way Forward For Transport? Final Report from the CIHT FUTURES Initiative, Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, August, London. http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/knowledge/futures/

Evidence of the quality of the supporting research

G1 Lyons, G. INTERNET: Investigating New Technology's Evolving Role, Nature and Effects for Transport, EPSRC, 2003 – 2006, £202,187.

G2 Lyons, G. The impact of non-transport technologies on travel demand, ESRC, 2009 – 2013, £171,039.

G3 Chatterjee, K. Young people’s travel behaviour, Department for Transport, 2016, £98,615.

G4 Lyons, G. Strategy Director secondment to investigate future demand, Ministry of Transport (New Zealand), 2014 - 15, £36,432.

G5 Lyons, G. Future Uncertainty in Transport - Understanding and Responding to an Evolving Society, Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, 2015 – 2016, £14,850.

4. Details of the impact

In the face of a transition taking place in the mobility system, research by UWE’s Centre for Transport and Society (CTS) has contributed significantly to shifting attitudes and professional practice within transport planning and policy - equipping transport planners and decision makers to cope with uncertainty.

**Changes in government perspective
Embedded image Supported by CTS research, the New Zealand Ministry of Transport, for the first time, in 2014 completed a strategic scenario planning exercise (illustrated right) - as part of examining uncertainty in future demand for car travel ( S1). This contributed in turn to the country’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee undertaking an inquiry into the ‘Future of New Zealand’s Mobility’, which subsequently reported in August 2017. Meanwhile, the Ministry’s work (led by Glenn Lyons on secondment from UWE) brought about a change in perception over the Ministry’s stewardship of the future. The then Deputy Chief Executive, New Zealand Ministry of Transport noted:

thanks to the richness of research insights … harnessed through Glenn’s secondment, we have changed significantly the mindset within the Ministry on engaging with the future. We have also strengthened the thought-leadership standing of the Ministry at a time when multi-billion dollar investment decisions are being made in New Zealand that will shape our future’ ( S2, p3).

With transport and society in transition, the UK Department for Transport (DfT) in Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 (which references R4S3, p41) noted that: ‘[while] uncertainty in road traffic demand has always existed, it is perhaps now more uncertain than ever’ ( S3, p27). Significantly, this forecasting exercise that frames and informs policy and investment decisions in England and Wales, has moved from a fan of forecasts around a central (most likely) projection, to a set of *plausible scenarios ( S3, e.g. p10). Lyons has sat on the DfT’s Joint Analysis Development Panel since its formation in 2015, providing strategic advice on the forecasts and focussing on how uncertainty was handled in the draft Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 report. His advice helped shape the published report, with the Department’s response to his advice detailed in the Panel’s 2018/19 annual report ( S4, p32).

Changes in strategic planning behaviourTransport Scotland pioneered the development of a scenario planning tool and process, inspired by, and based on, the work led by Lyons in CIHT FUTURES ( G5, R6) and with significant direct input from Lyons. This shaped its revised National Transport Strategy, reconciling risk and yield associated with policy measures under consideration (Strategy published in February 2020) ( S5). Scenario analysis is, as a result, being adopted across the Scottish Government, including informing its Strategic Transport Projects Review. Director of Transport Strategy and Analysis, Alison Irvine noted in September 2020 that: ‘ it is a testament to the work done that as we look afresh at our strategy following COVID19 that we still feel the strategy is robust and does not require any significant change’ ( S5).

The UK Department for Transport’s Office for Science is leading the introduction of futures methods and culture change to add resilience across the Department’s areas of strategic policy and investment. Lyons (in his role, on half-time secondment, as Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility – see further below) is technical lead in supporting this, and work has included addressing and influencing the 2019 Williams Rail Review, support for city region strategies seeking investment from the GBP1,280,000,000 Transforming Cities Fund, developing pathways for the decarbonisation of all UK domestic transport by 2050, and development of guidance for a consistent approach to scenario analysis in transport appraisal ( S6, p7). Mark Ledbury, Head of Transport Analysis and Strategic Modelling at DfT, notes:

‘Glenn’s research, advisory input and his constructive challenge on handling uncertainty has played a significant part in influencing the Department’s thinking and practice regarding forecasting and appraisal’ ( S7).

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), informed by the CIHT FUTURES initiative ( G5), has introduced a vision-led approach for its 2040 Strategy aligned to ‘decide and provide’ ( S8). Transport for the North (advised by Lyons) has adopted ‘decide and provide’ for its strategic planning (as set out in its December 2020 publication Future Travel Scenarios - Adaptive planning to deliver our strategic vision in an uncertain future, in which Lyons was asked to write the Overview ( S9, p16-17)). It is also being adopted by Transport for the West Midlands (where Lyons has been facilitating TfWM’s Modelling Advisory Panel sessions).

**Sector-wide sharing of a new vision-led planning approach to uncertainty
Embedded image Mott MacDonald is a global engineering consultancy with c.17,000 staff and one of the world’s largest transport planning teams. It sought to respond to the challenges and opportunities of future mobility by funding a Chair in Future Mobility from 2018 onwards, held by Lyons. In collaboration with UWE, Mott MacDonald has developed a six-stage approach to vision-led strategic planning for an uncertain world called FUTURES (depicted right) that embodies the ‘decide and provide’ methodology. Launched in April 2019, FUTURES is now offered to, and used with, clients globally (global business turnover annually is GBP1,400,000,000). Transport authorities engaging with FUTURES include those in: Seattle; New York; Abu Dhabi; Dubai; Prague; and Queensland (as well as several UK cities and regions) ( S10). FUTURES has been placed in the public domain, to signal Mott MacDonald’s encouragement and support of ongoing change in the sector ( S10).

Application of vision-led planning to new development sitesBeyond the ‘decide and provide’ model now being applied by Mott MacDonald in cities nationally and internationally ( S10), the planning and transport sector is also now adopting ‘decide and provide’ in place of the ‘predict and provide’ model. For example, Basford Powers consultancy is using the vision-led ‘decide and provide’ approach to advise private sector clients involved in land promotion regarding new housing developments totalling 8,500 dwellings and 6,000 jobs ( S11). The organisation responsible for the national database of trip rates for developments used in the United Kingdom, TRICS, has commissioned and developed new guidance for their users concerning the practical implementation of the ‘decide and provide’ approach ( S11).

**Revision of professional competencies Lyons’ work for the Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) (see Section 2 and ( R6) and ( G5)), led directly to a revision of the professional competencies overseen by CIHT and the Transport Planning Society (TPS).

In response to Lyons’ recommendations from the CIHT FUTURES initiative ( R6), the CIHT and the TPS – who jointly oversee the Chartered Transport Planning Professional (the only professional qualification of its kind for transport planning) – undertook a fundamental review between 2018 and 2020. This led to a revised set of professional competencies associated with the qualification to ensure that transport planning remains fit for purpose in the digital age ( S12). The CIHT Chief Executive remarked that Lyons’ recommendations ‘ provide CIHT, the wider sector and key stakeholders a route to facing the future with increased confidence, despite the uncertainty ahead’ ( R6, p4).

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

S1 New Zealand State Services Commission, the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet - Performance Improvement Framework: Follow-up Review of the Ministry of Transport, August 2014

S2 Testimonial from the former Deputy Chief Executive, New Zealand Ministry of Transport S3 UK Department for Transport - Road Traffic Forecasts 2018: Moving Britain Ahead, July 2018 S4 UK Department for Transport - Joint Analysis Development Panel – Annual Report 2018/19, November 2019 S5 Testimonial from the Director of Transport Strategy and Analysis, Transport Scotland S6 Mott MacDonald – Vision-led strategic planning for an uncertain world - FUTURES (Future Uncertainty Toolkit for Understanding and Responding to an Evolving Society), April 2019 S7 Testimonial from the Head of Transport Analysis and Strategic Modelling, Department for Transport

S8 Testimonial from the Head of Strategic Planning and Research at Transport for Greater Manchester and 2017 Transport Planner of the Year

S9 Transport for the North - Future Travel Scenarios - Adaptive planning to deliver our strategic vision in an uncertain future, December 2020

S10 Testimonial from the Global Practice Leader for Transport Planning, Mott MacDonald S11 Testimonial from Co-Founder, BasfordPowers S12 CIHT Website news article on TTP qualification 10-year review

Submitting institution
University of the West of England, Bristol
Unit of assessment
13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
Summary impact type
Environmental
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Flood resilience measures can significantly reduce loss and damage to property due to flooding. Historically, however, uptake of such measures has been low. Research conducted at the University of the West of England (UWE) has identified factors which lead to low uptake of Property Flood Resilience (PFR) measures and provided recommendations to promote their acceptance. This research has influenced UK policy and long-term plans to tackle the effects of flooding as well as the budget to achieve this. It has provided the evidence needed to help convince insurers that they should recognize and reward PFR and help policy holders become more flood resilient by building back better, resulting in changes to practice within the industry. The UK construction industry and global real estate interests have also benefited from better guidance, standards and codes of practice based on UWE thinking. Finally, around 50% of eligible policy holders in the UK have benefitted from better advice to improve their resilience to flooding: more households and businesses are taking up property flood resilience, gaining peace of mind, and suffering less damage and disruption.

2. Underpinning research

Property flood resilience (PFR) is a key aspect of integrated flood risk management. With such measures, individual properties are adapted to reduce water ingress (resistance) and steps are taken to limit the damage from flood water to individual properties (recoverability). PFR can reduce loss and damage and is encouraged by policy makers. A 2019 government report, Long-term investment scenarios, shows that we could reduce future flood damages in England by 18% if over 200,000 cost effective schemes were put in place, and up to a quarter if PFR was adopted by all residential properties at risk. Uptake has, however, been low historically. New research at UWE led by Professor Jessica Lamond, has identified the underlying factors accounting for low uptake and has identified potential ways in which this can be increased.

Previous research has focused on the societal costs and benefits of adaptation. It has identified the lack of information available to households and businesses as a barrier to uptake. Vested industry interests have also resulted in the promotion of specific resistance technologies and approaches which have not necessarily been optimal in particular contexts. In collaboration with national and international academic partners, consultants and practitioners, UWE has carried out research for a range of industrial and governmental bodies. This has taken a multi-stakeholder perspective and has revealed the pivotal role of insurance, the wide range of actors that influence uptake, and the complexity of the barriers, enablers and incentives impacting uptake.

Property level adaptation and insurance for post-flood recovery are the responsibility of, and decided by, individuals with the support of commercial insurance companies. UWE research ( G1) developed a novel cost-benefit appraisal method for property owners and insurers. In 2015, published new findings revealed the benefits of installing resilience, including willingness of households to pay to remove distress and disruption of flooding, and showed PFR to be more cost beneficial than previous estimates ( R1).

This new research highlighted:

  • the benefit of installing PFR measures during the recovery period following a flood (resilient repair);

  • the importance of recoverability approaches within PFR;

  • and, for the first time, the quantifiable impact of adaptation on the psycho-social impacts of flooding ( R2).

Subsequent research for the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ( G2) and Flood Re (the national flood re-insurance pool formed in 2016) ( G3) demonstrated a stronger financial case for resilient repair, particularly for some low-cost widely-applicable adaptations such as cement sand and render ( R3).

Research on the link between behaviour on the one hand and the incentives provided by insurance on the other was also carried out on an international basis for the World Bank between 2010 and 2012 ( G4), and was further developed for the Dutch Knowledge for Climate organization. Findings included the importance of ensuring insurance incentives for households, but also the lack of motivation for direct insurers to act, and the need for private public cooperation ( R4). Lessons learned from frequently flooded communities and businesses revealed that individuals with flood experience and flood memory employ diverse insurance strategies. Small businesses (in contrast to households) were found to be willing and able to absorb small losses in order to maintain their insurance against more significant future events ( G2, R5).

Understanding of multi-stakeholder perspectives was further developed through research projects for DEFRA ( G2) and for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in 2015/16 ( G5). Novel findings included: the pervasiveness of informational barriers extending to industry and professionals; the understanding that capacity building for local networks of suppliers and advisors would be needed to support communities; that peer to peer learning and targeted expert advice were both helpful in encouraging action and expert advice or guidance was essential for appropriate choice and implementation of many measures ( R3). The lack of appropriate standards and guidance was identified through UWE research as a fundamental barrier to increasing uptake. UWE research ( R6) has also demonstrated the need for professionals and insurers to be motivated by insurance terms and conditions to engage with capacity building in this area.

3. References to the research

R1 Joseph, R., Proverbs, D. & Lamond, J. 2015. Assessing the value of intangible benefits of property level flood risk adaptation (PLFRA) measures. Natural Hazards, 79 , 1275-1297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1905-5

R2 Lamond, J. E., Joseph, R. D. & Proverbs, D. G . 2015 An exploration of factors affecting the long-term psychological impact and deterioration of mental health in flooded households. Environmental Research, 140, 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.04.008

R3 Lamond, J., McEwen, L., Twigger-Ross, C., Carly Rose, C., Rotimi, J., Wragg, A., Papadopoulou, L., White, O and Proverbs, D. 2017. Supporting the uptake of low-cost resilience: Final report (FD2682). London: Defra. http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19221

R4 Lamond, J. & Penning-Rowsell, E. (2014). The robustness of flood insurance regimes given increased risk resulting from climate change. Climate Risk Management, 1 (2) pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2014.03.001

R5 Bhattacharya-Mis, N, Joseph, R., Proverbs, D. & Lamond, J. (2014) An overview of the grass-root preparedness against potential flood risk among residential and commercial property holders. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6 (1) pp. 44-56 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-08-2014-0059

R6 Lamond, J., Bhattacharya-Mis, N., Chan, F. K. S., Kreibich, H., Montz, B. E., Proverbs, D. & Wilkinson, S. 2017. Flood risk mitigation and commercial property advice: An international comparison. In: PITMAN, K. (ed.) RICS Research report. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/890695

Evidence of the quality of the supporting research

G1 Lamond J, Flood Memory project, EPSRC, 2012-2016, £145,619

G2 Lamond J, Supporting the uptake of low-cost resilience, DEFRA, 2014-2017, £138,900

G3 Lamond J, Evidence Project phases 1 & 2, Flood Re Ltd, 2016- 2018, £79,723

G4 Proverbs D, Global Urban Flood Risk Management Handbook, World Bank, 2010-12, £9,374

G5 Lamond J, An International Evaluation of the Role of Chartered Surveyors in Providing Professional Flood Risk Advice on Commercial Property, RICS, 2015-2016, £19,995

4. Details of the impact

Government engagement with industry

UWE research has significantly impacted national policy on flood risk management. From 2014 onwards there has been an increased focus in government policy on property level flood resilience (PFR) and a broader definition of the issues. A DEFRA representative confirmed that:

‘the evidence and approach to property flood resilience put forward by UWE since 2014 has been highly influential. It has contributed to a new understanding of resilience and to the higher priority given to integrated resistant and recoverable approaches’ ( S1).

In July 2020, the UK government announced a multi-billion-pound investment and policy statement setting out its long-term plan to tackle the effects of flooding. An emphasis on the adoption of PFR drove the government’s strategy: ‘ We need to see an increase in the uptake of property flood resilience to limit the damage and disruption flooding can cause’ ( S2). Recent emphasis on multi-stakeholder co-operation was also in part a response to UWE findings on insurance barriers and incentives: ‘ UWE research showed that more work was needed on engaging the industry’ ( S1). As a result, the industry (supported by DEFRA) is engaged, through a series of task and finish groups, in implementing a PFR action plan, with UWE invited to the main steering board ( S1). Partly as a direct result of the UWE/DEFRA action research project, in 2018, the Budget allocated GBP2,900,000 to pilot projects that draw directly on UWE research recommendations ( S1). The 2020 Budget went further and reserved GBP200,000,000 between 2021 and 2027 for a resilience programme that covers 25 urban, coastal and rural areas, and features PFR ( S2).

Changes in insurer practices

UWE research on insurance ( R4) and property level cost benefit ( R1, R5) led to an invitation to work with Flood Re, the high-profile flood-risk reinsurance scheme involving insurers and government, to inform their approach to encouraging measures in 350,000 properties most at risk. From a neutral position on PFR in 2016, the current position in the 2018 transition plan is highly pro-active and was directly influenced by UWE’s recommendations. The underpinning Flood Re report on encouraging uptake states:

Flood Re worked with the University of the West of England in a substantial research programme…Conclusions to date have led Flood Re to the view that PFR measures are beneficial. Flood Re considers that homeowners should be encouraged to put PFR measures in place’ ( S3).

A 2018 report by the influential Social Market Foundation think-tank on incentives on flood resilience, drew heavily on an understanding of barriers and supporting uptake from UWE research to recommend normalising resilient repair and a multi-organisational approach to building local resilience ( S4).

The lead of a DEFRA roundtable SME/Insurance task force confirmed that UWE’s research is reaching wider within the industry: ‘ We have used the results of UWE research...to inform insurers about the benefits of resilience during reinstatement’ ( S5).

Insurers are increasingly accepting of PFR and some have introduced a policy of providing extra funding for resilience:

Providing evidence to insurers that PFR has a role to play and can make a significant difference in the cost of claims is crucial. The UWE research has played a significant role in providing that evidence. This is distinctive because they take a different approach to valuing’ ( S6).

In its policy statement, the government highlighted the importance of insurers changing their practices by:

‘encouraging insurers to price their policies to reflect reductions in risk as a result of property flood resilience – for example by enabling discounted premiums to be available to households which have been fitted with flood resilience measures’ ( S2).

Industry, government and professional practice

UWE research is distinct in also recognising the need to inform the construction and restoration industry. Direct briefing of loss adjusters and local authorities in the aftermath of 2015/16 floods helped to support the high uptake of recovery grants. DEFRA used UWE outputs in their guidance documents for the Flood Recovery Framework information sent to local authorities participating in the scheme ( S1). Scheme participation was nearly 66% (11,000 flooded households took up the grant offer), amounting to nearly GBP44,000,000 in government assistance for these households ( S1).

Professor Lamond has contributed to the development by Construction Industry Research and Information Association code of practice on PFR measures ( S7) which has been supported by the Environment Agency and the Scottish Government ( S8).

An international body of real estate professionals has benefitted from better guidance for advising owners and occupiers of flood-prone buildings. The guidance comes by way of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) environmental guidance note, published in 2018 ( S9), which uses material from and cites the UWE/RICS research report ( R6).

UWE research and guidance has also helped loss adjuster professionals enhance the resilience of properties flooded in 2014-2016. The largest UK loss adjuster stated:

‘in 2014/15: we offered resilient surveys to all our customers that were eligible for the government Repair and Renew grants. We developed an industry-leading tool for our surveyors to use…the cost-benefit methodology for households developed by UWE, was key. In the 2015/16 flooding we refined this even further and briefed our surveyors even more thoroughly using the new Defra guidance that was based on UWE research. We estimate that 50% of domestic policyholders have benefitted from this advice’ ( S5).

This viewpoint is particularly significant given that uptake of PFR can potentially have highly positive impacts on 5,000,000 UK households living with flood risk, even where direct damage avoided is lower than costs because of the reduction of intangible, and psycho-social impacts ( S1, R1, R2).

UWE research and knowledge exchange activities have contributed to high profile UK guidance including Homeowners Guide to Flood Resilience and the Business Guide to Flood Resilience ( S10). One of the country’s foremost advocates for flood-hit communities, and lead author of these two guides, summed up the impact of UWE’s research:

‘UWE’s work on PFR has been hugely influential throughout the UK. There’s been a big shift in the past decade towards PFR, promoted by the likes of DEFRA and the Environment Agency off the back of UWE thinking. The UK has moved on from hard engineered flood defences to flood risk management and PFR. UWE research has encouraged and brought about this holistic, long term change, towards tackling flooding’ ( S10).

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

S1 Testimonial from Policy Adviser (Flood and Coastal Erosion Policy), Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

S2 HM Government, Flood and coastal erosion risk management: policy statement, July 2020 (p.30, 31, 37)

S3 Flood Re: Incentivising Household Action on Flooding and Options for Using Incentives to Increase the take up of Flood Resilience and Resistance Measures (March 2018) (p.2)

S4 Social Market Foundation report on flood resilience (March 2018)

S5 Testimonial from National Technical Manager, Sedgwick International UK

S6 Testimonial from Managing Director, GJB Consultancy Oxford Ltd

S7 CIRIA: Code of Practice for Property Flood Resilience (2019)

S8 Scottish Government, Living with Flooding: Action Plan , November 2019

S9 Environmental Risks and Global Real Estate: RICS guidance note (November 2018)

S10 Testimonial from MDA, Flood Resilience Consultants

Submitting institution
University of the West of England, Bristol
Unit of assessment
13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
Summary impact type
Environmental
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Green infrastructure, broadly defined as a multifunctional network of green and blue spaces, including measures to achieve flood resilience, is recognised globally as an essential component of healthy, liveable and sustainable places. UWE research between 2013 and 2020 addressed the challenges of defining its quality, planning and delivery. This had impact through the development of a national benchmark for green infrastructure, formal industry guidance, training and techniques, and widespread dissemination of knowledge and practical implementation. Initial development of a local benchmark supported by a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) expanded, with funding from the Natural Environment Research Council, into national benchmarking and support for green infrastructure with the establishment of a new body, Building with Nature. This led to the implementation of standards, promoting and supporting best practice on a national scale. Across the UK, benchmarking and accreditation through Building with Nature has extended to 30 local authorities, over 30,000 new homes, a hospital and other building developments, and has been promoted by both the UK government and professional bodies.

2. Underpinning research

There is now a substantial evidence base outlining the benefits of green infrastructure for people and nature ( R1, R2). Despite this, it is often challenging to define and deliver high quality green infrastructure, particularly in new developments, and there has been no overarching approach to standards. UWE research between 2013 and 2020 focused on working with stakeholders to understand what the challenges are, how they can be overcome, and developing tools to enable built environment professionals to raise the quality of green infrastructure.

The underpinning research revealed:

  • The long-term performance, perception and quality of green infrastructure is often compromised due to shortcomings in planning policy, lack of enforcement, poor understanding amongst built environment professions and poor quality delivery of specific features, for example sustainable drainage systems and landscaping ( G1, G2, G3, R3, R4);

  • The importance of articulating the multiple benefits of green infrastructure to secure buy-in from different sectors and stakeholders ( G1- G5, R1, R3, R4);

  • That lack of expertise and guidance for planners and other built environment professionals responsible for designing and implementing schemes at building, neighbourhood and city scales, was hampering progress towards the delivery of high-quality green infrastructure in new developments ( G1, G3, G4, G5, R4, R5, R6);

  • That it is essential that local communities are involved during planning and maintenance stages of green infrastructure to ensure effective long-term performance, and that social learning among professionals can overcome barriers to implementation by creating shared knowledge ( G4, G2, R3, R6);

  • The importance of long-term maintenance and education activities and the role of different communities and practices in sustainable spaces ( G4, G2, R3, R6);

  • That existing built environment assessment systems do not adequately address green infrastructure, because they: a) do not have mandatory requirements for green infrastructure; b) miss opportunities for the additive benefits that can be provided through a multifunctional network by focussing on individual features; c) fail to require the delivery of a multifunctional network operating at the landscape-scale; d) are awarded design masterplans, failing to recognise that the planned green infrastructure is often not delivered ( G1, G3, G4, R1, R6, R7);

  • That, in order to overcome some of the barriers identified above, there was both a need and an appetite for a national benchmark for green infrastructure in the UK ( G1, R6).

Using this body of research, UWE researchers developed and tested a number of tools to enable professional stakeholders to improve the quality of green infrastructure, including a conceptual model of potential benefits for stormwater management and a methodology for evaluation of green roof retrofit potential in city centres ( R1). Building on this research, a replicable framework for initiating Learning and Action Alliances for setting citywide multi-stakeholder vision for G1 was developed in Newcastle ( G5, R6) and tested in Ebbsfleet ( G2). In addition, a KTP with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust supported initial locally-focused work to develop a new framework of principles, standards and two user guides for policy and new development, and their application to demonstration projects ( R2, G3, S1). Follow-on funding from NERC then enabled further development of standards and benchmarking in collaboration with stakeholders and end-users to ensure that it was suitable for use nationally ( R6, G1). Internal funding from UWE provided support for further stakeholder consultations and demonstration projects in Scotland ( S2, S11).

3. References to the research

R1 Lamond, J.E., Wilkinson, S.J., Rose, C.B. & Proverbs, D.G., 2014. ‘Sustainable urban drainage - retrofitting for improved flood mitigation in city centres.’ RICS research report. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Available on request.

R2 Jerome, G., Sinnett, D., Smith, N., Burgess, S., Mortlock, R., 2019. ‘A framework for assessing the quality of green infrastructure in the built environment in the UK,’ Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 40, pp. 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.001.

R3 Everett, G, Lamond, J.E, Morzillo, A.T. Matsler, A.M. & Chan, F.K.S., 2018. ‘Delivering green streets: An exploration of changing perceptions and behaviours over time around bioswales in Portland, Oregon.’ Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(52) pp. S973-S985 https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12225

R4 Calvert, T., Sinnett, D., Smith, N., Jerome, G., Burgess, S., & King, L., 2018. ‘Setting the Standard for Green Infrastructure: the need for, and features of, a benchmark in England.’ Planning Practice & Research 33(5), pp. 558-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2018.1531580.

R5 Wilkinson, S., Lamond, J., Proverbs, D.G., Sharman, l., Heller, A. & Manion, J., 2015. ‘Technical considerations in green roof retrofit for stormwater attenuation in the central business district.’ Structural Survey, 33, pp. 36-51.   https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-07-2014-0031

R6 O’Donnell, E.C., Lamond, J.E. & Thorne, C.R., 2018. ‘Learning and action alliance framework to facilitate stakeholder collaboration and social learning in urban flood risk management.’ Environmental Science & Policy, 80, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.013.

R7 Sinnett, D., Calvert, T., & Smith, N., 2019. ‘Do built environment assessment systems include high quality green infrastructure?’ In F. Lemes de Oliviera, & I. Mell (Eds.), Planning Cities with Nature: Theories, Strategies and Methods. Springer. pp.169-186 https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/855790

Evidence of the quality of the supporting research

G1 Sinnett, D. A national benchmark for green infrastructure, NERC, 2016-2017, £29,200

G2 Lamond, J. Delivering and Evaluating the Multiple Benefits of Blue-Green Cities, EPSRC, 2013-2016, £156,697

G3 Sinnett, D. Knowledge Transfer Partnership with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Innovate UK, 2015-2018, £179,857

G4 Lamond, J. Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future, ESPRC, 2016-2019, £282,101

G5 Proverbs, D. Retrofit of Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) RICS research trust, 2013-14, £7,400

Building with Nature was the winner of the 2018 Royal Town Planning Institute Planning Research Excellence Award – Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement.

The KTP between UWE and Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust was a finalist in the 2019 Innovate UK KTP Awards in the ‘Best of the Best’ category, where our work was recognised as an exemplar of the voluntary sector developing a new business.

4. Details of the impact

The underpinning research leading to the development of Building with Nature (BwN) and other guidance has:

  • increased knowledge and certainty about the characteristics of green infrastructure;

  • enabled more effective planning policies to implement green infrastructure;

  • ensured high quality green infrastructure is delivered in new developments and through retrofitting existing places;

  • benefited residents and communities through provision of high-quality infrastructure -improving quality of life, health and well-being and environmental quality;

  • improved environmental quality, biodiversity and climate-change resilience.

Building with Nature leads to better knowledge and certainty regarding the characteristics of high-quality green infrastructure**

Impact and the findings of UWE research with stakeholders ( R4) established a framework of principles for high quality green infrastructure ( G1, G3, R2). The KTP with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (GWT) supported the initial development of the Building with Nature framework and two BwN user guides; one focussed on benchmarking policy, and the other on new developments and a set of demonstration projects. This resulted in a benchmark for green infrastructure in the UK. This included a suite of standards, along with detailed criteria for planners, development surveyors, landscape architects and ecological consultants ( S1, S2). It also positioned GWT and the wider wildlife trust movement as leaders in green infrastructure, planning and delivery. BwN’s Director noted that:

‘It has triggered a complete turnaround in our approach to the built environment and the quality of our [GWT’s] engagement with planners and developers’ ( S2).

Follow-on funding to UWE from NERC (2016-17) supported the expansion of this initial work with GWT into a national benchmark for green infrastructure, working with end users to ensure fitness for purpose. This led to the establishment of Building with Nature, a dedicated charitable organisation, owned by GWT, with core employees, a board of trustees chaired by Professor Peter Madden OBE, former CEO of Future Cities Catapult and Forum for the Future, and a Standards Board of industry and public sector professionals to oversee robust standards. In 2017, further consultation with end-users and demonstration sites, funded by UWE, led to the adoption of BwN in Scotland ( S3, S4, S5).

Operating nationally, BwN ( S5) has developed standards, best practice guidance, training and accreditation processes based on UWE’s initial research, UWE’s partnership with GWT, and subsequent collaboration with wide-ranging partners and stakeholders. BwN aims, nationally, to support and encourage planning authorities, professional experts and developers, to deliver high quality green infrastructure in wide-ranging development contexts.

UWE research extends the reach of green infrastructure quality improvement

Since 2019, BwN is referenced in the English National Design Guide by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( S6). It has been highlighted as a tool for achieving high quality design in garden communities by Homes England ( S7) and climate action by the Royal Town Planning Institute ( S8). It has also been recommended for use by housing associations by Linc Cymru ( S9), and formed the basis of a review of the planning policies across the Central Scotland Green Network ( S3).

Policy makers have used UWE’s research to develop more effective policies, enabling them to specify their expectations for green-blue infrastructure at a local level in a range of contexts. Newcastle City Council (NCC) issued a declaration, along with multiple actors, in which they committed to changing their approach to infrastructure development in the city to include a greater focus on green infrastructure and more emphasis on listening to local voices ( R6, G5). In this they explicitly acknowledged UWE’s research in making a distinct and material contribution to this declaration ( S10). In December 2020, Newcastle City Council became the first local authority to undertake BwN training.

UWE’s work also impacted directly on the inception of Learning and Action Alliances (LAAs) and city redevelopment plans in both Newcastle and Ebbsfleet ( R6, S10).

The ‘ research supported us [NCC] in beginning to develop a £87.5m transformative surface water management plan for the urban core’ between NCC and Northumbrian Water Limited, informed by the LAA and Blue-Green cities research ( S10).

The report Sustainable urban drainage - retrofitting for improved flood mitigation in city centres (produced by UWE for the Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors (RICS) research trust G4, R1), contributed to the development of a business case for Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) ( S10). A leading figure for several years in NCC praised the report as:

the first independent evidence that this was a potential game changer for the city...invaluable in making the case for implementing blue-green infrastructure in Newcastle’ ( S10).

Thirty local authority planning policies are being certified with BwN ( S2, S12). For example, West Cheltenham’s Cyber Central Garden Community Supplementary Planning Document and West Dunbartonshire’s Local Development Plan have been awarded BwN ‘Excellent’ accreditation as ‘ an exemplar in policy making with regards policy commitment and clear policy requirements for high-quality green infrastructure through the planning and development process’ ( S4, S11, S12). The framework is also referenced as supplementary guidance in the Essex Design Guide, covering fourteen local planning authorities ( S12).

By the end of 2020, BwN had certified fourteen developments in Scotland and England, with a further 44 underway across the UK ( S2, S5, S12). The certified developments amount to: 9,158 homes, where green infrastructure is a key aspect of the design; 108 hectares of employment land, including a 10 hectares new business park and two motorway service areas; and an 860 inpatient bed hospital with 28 hectares of woodland ( S2, S5, S12). The additional 44 developments will bring this total to over 30,000 new homes ( S12), and include those delivered by volume housebuilders. The benchmark is now also supported by a training package for BwN Assessors to further increase knowledge in the sector, resulting in a network of 50 assessors in the UK ( S2).

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

S1 Jerome, G., Sinnett, D., Mortlock, R., Burgess, S., Studholme, C., Calvert, T., Smith, N., Bloomfield, S., 2019. Building with Nature User Guide, version 1.4. Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Gloucester, UK

S2 Testimonial from the Director, Building with Nature

S3 Scottish government: Green Infrastructure Policies in the CSGN – A Review of Local Authority Policies on Green Infrastructure in Built Development

S4 West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan August 2020

S5 Building with Nature Case Studies.

S6 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government: National Design Guide.

S7 Homes England Garden Communities Toolkit

S8 Royal Town Planning Institute: Guide to Climate Action Tools.

S9 Linc Cymru and National Resources Wales: Green Space and Wellbeing: A good practice guide for Housing Associations.

S10 Testimonial from the former Policy and Communications Business Partner, Newcastle City Council

S11 West Cheltenham Cyber Central Garden Community Supplementary Planning Document July 2020

S12 Building with Nature Funding Progress Report to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, February 2021

Submitting institution
University of the West of England, Bristol
Unit of assessment
13 - Architecture, Built Environment and Planning
Summary impact type
Societal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

Research conducted by the Centre for Transport and Society (CTS) at UWE Bristol has produced a significant body of evidence relating to cycling, road-user interactions with cyclists, the effectiveness of different forms of cycle infrastructure provision, and its impacts on travel behaviour. This has had wide-ranging impacts in terms of policy, cycle planning guidance, infrastructure provision, tools and design standards at a local and national level in the UK and internationally across Europe. CTS research has helped ensure that investment in cycling is well-directed, and it has helped maximise the renaissance in cycling, and the benefits of cycling, both across the UK and internationally. CTS has also developed and promoted good planning and design practice and professional practitioner capacity, to help create effective interventions through research-informed training and development programmes.

2. Underpinning research

Research into travel behaviour and road user interactions conducted by the Centre for Transport and Society (CTS) at UWE has produced a body of evidence relating to the effectiveness of, and required specifications for, networks of cycle infrastructure. The findings demonstrate the need for the speed of cycling to determine geometric design of routes for cycle traffic, and the need for cyclists to be provided with attractive and comfortable networks that keep them separated from motor traffic ( R1).

Travel behaviour research Between 2009 and 2013, CTS undertook original research investigating the underlying reasons people start, stop or significantly change their amount of cycling. Interviews were conducted with residents of 12 towns and cities in England that were experiencing an unprecedented scale of investment in cycling, via the Cycling City and Towns programme (2008-11). The research found that life events usually prompted people to consider cycling, but that new and improved cycle routes were key to giving people the confidence needed to actually start cycling ( R2, G1).

To understand whether interventions to promote cycling produced changes in long-term travel behaviour in the Bristol travel-to-work area, CTS tracked commuters’ travel choices during a 15-month period (2014-15), when investment was being made into cycling infrastructure ( R3, G2, and linked with G3). The panel study dispelled the notion that commuters have one fixed way of travelling to work, and showed that many commuters who drive to work also cycle one or more days a week. The researchers found that 10% of commuters who drove to work increased their use of alternatives to driving, especially cycling, during the investment period; this change was more likely among commuters who were aware of local sustainable transport measures. CTS concluded that the investment programme had succeeded in increasing cycling levels. This finding for a specific region of Bristol was corroborated by CTS research that evaluated the impact of the Cycling City and Towns (CCT) programme (which included 11 towns and Greater Bristol and ran 2008-11) and the Cycling Demonstration Towns (CDT) programme (six towns, running 2005-11). The evaluation found that the annual rate of growth in cycling for the programmes overall was 5.3% and 8.0% respectively , which are comparable to rates of growth seen in international cities with long-term commitments to cycling ( R4).

In 2014-15, CTS collaborated with three other universities to consider cycling behaviour in older adults – the Cycle BOOM project. Unlike other parts of Northern Europe, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, older adults are severely under-represented amongst those that cycle in the UK. Yet, cycling has the potential to improve physical and mental health for the over fifties population in England ( R5, G4). CTS led the Cycle BOOM project team in conducting in-depth biographical interviews of 236 participants in four different locations in England, which gave a deep understanding of factors that can encourage people to continue cycling or re-start cycling in later years. The project’s recommendations on what is needed to move towards ‘age-friendly cycling mobility’ included: reducing the fear of cycling by providing more cycle routes that are separate from motor traffic; and low-speed traffic zones, to create safer, more pleasant cycling conditions for all.

Road user interactionsCTS has been an innovator in undertaking empirical research relating to car driver, cyclist and pedestrian behaviour. We found that drivers overtake more slowly in the presence of narrower lanes, lower speed limits, and the absence of centre-line markings ( R6). Drivers also overtake further away from cyclists on roads with more than one lane in the direction of travel. With respect to pedestrian and cyclist interactions, CTS research has discovered varied and conflicting views about how these two groups should interact on shared routes; we concluded that different routes are needed for each type of user ( R1).

In a systematic review, we identified that: cycle lanes do not reduce the rate of cycle collisions; 20mph speed limits may reduce cyclist collisions; cycle lanes marked on the carriageway of a roundabout increase cycle collisions; but cycle tracks around them may reduce collisions ( G5).

The conclusions from this research were that, for the benefit of all users, cycle traffic interactions with other road users should be limited, but where interactions are unavoidable, speeds and volumes of motor traffic should be low.

3. References to the research

R1 Parkin, J. (2018) Designing for cycle traffic: international principles and practice. ICE Publishing, London. https://doi.org/10.1680/dfct.63495 R2 Chatterjee, K., Sherwin, H. and Jain, J. (2013) Triggers for changes in cycling: The role of life events and modifications to the physical environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.02.007 R3 Chatterjee, K., Clark, B. and Bartle, C. (2016) Commute mode choice dynamics: Accounting for day-to-day variability in longer term change . European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 16 (4). pp. 713-734. https://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2016.16.4.3167 R4 Sloman, L., Cope, A., Kennedy, A., Crawford, F., Cavill, N. and Parkin, J. (2017) Summary of outcomes of the Cycling Demonstration Towns and Cycling City and Towns programmes. Report to the Department for Transport. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/2964/2964.pdf R5 Jones, T., Chatterjee, K., Spinney, J., Street, E., Van Reekum, C., Spencer, B., Jones, H., Leyland, L.A., Mann, C., Williams, S. and Beale, N. (2016). cycle BOOM. Design for Lifelong Health and Wellbeing. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations. Oxford Brookes University, UK. https://www.cycleboom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/cB_Summary_Report_Sept2016_Digital.pdf R6 Shackel, S. and Parkin, J. (2014) Measuring the influence of on-road features and driver behaviour on proximity and speed of vehicles overtaking cyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 73 pp100-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.08.015

Evidence of the quality of the underpinning research G1 Chatterjee, K. Evaluation of Investment in Cycling, Department for Transport, 2009 – 2013, £175,075. G2 Chatterjee, K. Local Sustainable Transport Fund Evaluation Framework: Case Study theme ‘Strategic Employment Sites and Business Parks’, Department for Transport, 2013 – 2018, £85,100. G3 Parkin, J. Local Sustainable Transport Fund, Evaluating LSTF, funded by Department for Transport via Bristol City Council, 2012 – 2017, £219,725. G4 Chatterjee, K. cycle BOOM: Design for Lifelong Health and Wellbeing, EPSRC, 2013 – 2016, £194,349. G5 Parkin, J. Cochrane review: Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists, National Institute for Health Research, 2014 – 2016, £7,528.

4. Details of the impact

CTS research has helped ensure that investment in cycling is well-directed; maximizing the renaissance in cycling and therefore maximizing the benefits of cycling across the UK and beyond. We define the impact of CTS research under two headings: implementation of cycling infrastructure programmes of work; and cycle planning guidance, design standards and tools.

Implementation of cycling infrastructureCTS research has influenced government provision of cycling infrastructure at regional, national and international scales. Research has contributed to programme designs in six European cities, through the EU Horizon 2020 FLOW project (2015-2018). This aimed to address urban congestion by creating more opportunities for walking and cycling, using modelling techniques to assess the effectiveness of cycling (and walking) measures. In particular, CTS research had an impact on the design of the public bike share scheme in Budapest, design solutions for College Green in Dublin, the museum quarter in Munich and street re-designs in Lisbon ( R1, R5, R6). The Project Manager at FLOW confirms the impact on the schemes developed in the project as a result of the ‘ responsible and informed use of transport modelling tools’ which came from CTS ‘insights of … research to the infrastructure design’ ( S1). Building on the work, CTS research was also 'instrumental in shaping the FLOW project’s final recommendations' for congestion reduction ( S1), now being implemented in Budapest, Dublin, Gdynia, Lisbon, Munich and Sofia.

CTS research has demonstrated, in a UK context, the effectiveness of well-designed cycle investment programmes for increasing confidence of people to cycle ( R2) and the numbers of people cycling ( R3, R4). It also identified factors which reduced levels of cycling among older adults compared with mainland Europe ( R5, G4). This evidence has helped local councils in the Bristol city-region (combined population 1,100,000) justify continued and expanding investment in cycling ( S2). The lead authority, Bristol City Council, reports that CTS research on cycling infrastructure and behaviours has been:

‘a material factor in our continued success in winning extension funding, and latterly the £8 million of Access Funding (2017/18 to 2020/21) for continued investment in promotion and behaviour change measures linked with cycling’ ( S3).

Embedded image Findings also supported decisions on cycle infrastructure in Wales. In 2018, CTS reviewed 22 active travel network investment plans produced by Welsh authorities to help the Welsh Government decide which to fund. The Head of Active Travel and Road Safety at the Welsh Government noted the value of UWE research into ‘ factors which make cycling networks attractive and comfortable for cycle users’, and which help minimise ‘ interactions between cycle users and pedestrians and motor traffic’ ( R4, R5, R6, S4). As a result of the review by CTS, a number of local authorities were directed to undertake further work on their network plans. The same source commented that:

‘the review by the Centre for Transport and Society therefore helped us target limited resources to the areas and schemes which would have maximum impact on uplifting cycling (and walking) levels’ ( S4).

Cycle planning guidance, design standards and toolsGuidance and design standards have been an important influence on policy change, investment decisions and the provision of cycling infrastructure. CTS co-authored cycle planning guidance published in 2014 by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) – a body of transportation professionals from around the world ( S5). The guidance, accessible to CIHT’s 13,000 members, draws on CTS research, suggesting the need for attractive and comfortable networks for cycling separated from motor traffic and pedestrians ( R6). At a national level, CTS research has informed tools and guidance developed by the UK’s Department for Transport (DfT). Research underpinned advice to the DfT on infrastructure provision included in the web-based Cycle Infrastructure Prioritisation Toolkit (CyIPT) developed in 2018. This tool allows scheme planners to identify where cycle infrastructure is needed, and CTS research (e.g. R1, R6) informed the specification for cycle infrastructure to be provided (e.g. cycle tracks, stepped cycle tracks, and different levels of separation) ( S6). CTS also contributed to the development of DfT’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans guidance and tools, through work commissioned by DfT ( S7). All 343 English local authorities are required to comply with these methods for planning and designing cycle networks.

CTS was a principal author of the standard for designing for cycle traffic on major A-roads ( S8). This was developed over the period 2014-16 as part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, a suite of documents containing requirements and advice relating to the strategic road network operated by, or on behalf of, the devolved nation governments of the UK. It is also used by highway authorities as a reference source for local roads. CTS contributions drew on research about driver and cyclist interactions, and helped shape design standards, including, for example, separation needed between cycle and motor traffic (as summarised in R1). The Head of Road Safety at Highways England commented that:

‘CTS research made a particularly important contribution to determining the specifications of horizontal and vertical geometry and stopping sight distances for the design of cycle tracks’ ( S9).

CTS contributed to Transport for London’s international cycling infrastructure best practice study ( S10) which in turn was influential in the comprehensive revision and update of the London Cycle Design Standards, used to implement cycle infrastructure schemes in London. At UK-wide level, and as part of a DfT commissioned team, UWE researchers influenced the selection and writing of 10 case studies for developing innovative cycling infrastructure, used to stimulate improvements in design ( S11).

UWE’s Professor John Parkin is a member of DfT’s Cycle and Walking Infrastructure Group which provides advice on cycling to the UK government and local authorities ( S2). That group commissioned the recently published and substantially revised and updated Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20 Cycle infrastructure design. Parkin was also a member of a consultancy team that re-drafted the LTN. As an example of the contribution of CTS research, specific reference is made in the Note (p104) to Embedded image design parameters for traffic signal control design developed by Parkin in his monograph ( R1).

Finally, CTS has made significant contributions to planning and design practice through extensive provision of training and development activities for professional practitioners. This has included pedagogical and content development for the e-learning package on designing for cycle traffic published by Highways England ( S12, see also S8). This package was used by 3,000 designers in its first two years (to September 2018) ( S9). CTS also delivers MSc’s in Transport Engineering and Planning, and Transport Planning, underpinned by CTS research including work on transport behaviour, cycling and infrastructure provision and its application in practice.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

S1 Testimonial from the Project Manager at EU FLOW project S2 Testimonial from the Head of Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and Policy, Department for Transport S3 Testimonial from the Head of Local and Sustainable Transport, Bristol City Council S4 Testimonial from the Head of Active Travel and Road Safety Policy, Welsh Government S5 Gallagher, R. and Parkin, J. and (2014) Planning for cycling. London: Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation S6 Department for Transport (2018) Cycling Infrastructure Prioritisation toolkit https://www.cyipt.bike/ S7 Department for Transport (2017) Local Cycling and walking infrastructure plans. Technical guidance for local authorities https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-cycling-and-walking-infrastructure-plans-technical-guidance-and-tools S8 Highways England (2019) CD 195 Designing for cycle traffic (formerly IAN 195/16 published in 2016) https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/search/5bb8f60c-737b-49f8-8c40-522a49038eff S9 Testimonial from the Head of Road Safety, Highways England S10 Transport for London (2014) International cycling infrastructure best practice. S11 Department for Transport (2016) Ten case studies developing new cycling infrastructure S12 Highways England (2016) E-learning package linked with Interim Advice Note 195/16 Cycle traffic and the strategic road network https://cycletraffic-elearning.com/

Showing impact case studies 1 to 5 of 5

Filter by higher education institution

UK regions
Select one or more of the following higher education institutions and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No higher education institutions found.
Institutions

Filter by unit of assessment

Main panels
Select one or more of the following units of assessment and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No unit of assessments found.
Units of assessment

Filter by continued case study

Select one or more of the following states and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by summary impact type

Select one or more of the following summary impact types and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by impact UK location

UK Countries
Select one or more of the following UK locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No UK locations found.
Impact UK locations

Filter by impact global location

Continents
Select one or more of the following global locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No global locations found.
Impact global locations

Filter by underpinning research subject

Subject areas
Select one or more of the following underpinning research subjects and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No subjects found.
Underpinning research subjects