the urban futures methodology applied to urban regeneration · ensuring all voices are heard and...

The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regeneration

Chris D. F. Rogers Eur Ing, BSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIHTProfessor of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK

D. Rachel Lombardi PhDResearch Fellow, University of Birmingham, UK

Joanne M. Leach MScUrban Futures Programme Manager, University of Birmingham, UK

Rachel F. D. Cooper PhDProfessor of Design Management, University of Lancaster, UK

Making cities more sustainable is a top priority – for national governments, for cities and for the people who live,

work and visit urban areas. The past decade has seen a concerted UK effort to develop, apply and assess sustainability

solutions for the present and near future; however, little has been done to test urban regeneration solutions beyond

that. This paper describes a methodology that has developed future scenarios for the year 2050 against which to test

the robustness of current engineering solutions, thereby providing unique insights into the potential impacts of

present urban planning and design decisions, and thus financial investments. If a proposed solution delivers a positive

legacy, regardless of the future against which it is tested, then it can be adopted with confidence. When there are very

different outcomes depending on the future, the solution can either be modified to create an improved outcome

regardless of the future or implemented in the knowledge of the likely impacts if the future develops in different

ways. The urban futures methodology has been applied to the Lancaster Luneside East regeneration site, for which

contextual information is described along with a justification for its use as a case study to trial the methodology.

1. Introduction

Global urbanisation is increasing and the majority of the

world’s population now lives in cities (Hopwood and Mellor,

2007). The UK was the first country in the world in which this

happened (Clark, 1996); by the 2001 census almost 80% of the

UK population lived in cities, and this figure has since risen to

90% (Denham and White, 2006; UNPD, 2006), while almost

9% of its land mass was designated as city (Pointer, 2005). With

the world’s urban population predicted to reach 6.3 billion by

2050 (UN, 2010), our current design decisions have an

enormous impact. Moreover, their relevance to the way we

live, work and consume in 2050 is crucial, and yet it is not just

the effect this has on our future lives and wellbeing that must

be considered, it is the effect it has on every other living thing

and on the planet that demands equal consideration.

Owing to this dramatic rate of urbanisation worldwide, urban

sustainability has garnered much attention in the global

environmental debate. This dramatic change to our landscapes

is dominated by concerns over the effects of climate change,

and the resilience of global cities is therefore called into

question (Bai, 2009; Grimm et al., 2008; Owens and Cowell,

2002). There is growing global acknowledgement, backed by

the development of national and international policies, of the

need to make our urban environments more sustainable

through various forms of mitigation and adaptation (ICE,

2009).

The sustainable regeneration of cities is a long-held aspiration

(ODPM, 2006). Actions taken now in the name of sustain-

ability are many and varied – from water-efficient fittings

(Shirley-Smith and Butler, 2008) to mixed use development

(Bramley and Power, 2009), from providing bat boxes

(Donovan et al., 2005) to brownfield regeneration – and much

current research is assessing the sustainability of those actions

(Cooper et al., 2009; Fenner et al., 2006; Leach et al., 2010;

Lombardi et al., 2008, 2011a; Moncaster et al., 2010). In every

case they consider the benefits for what is in place now and

how things might develop on the basis of current trends and

predictions. While this is a classic and valid engineering

approach, what if the future is different to what we anticipate?

That there will be change, uncertainty and unpredictability in

the future are, perhaps, the only future certainties (Alexander,

2009, p. 6). How can we make robust decisions to achieve the

lofty goals of sustainability and resilience when we truly do not

know what the future will bring? Designing in a flexible way is

one possible solution, but before we can do this we must

incorporate change and uncertainty into the decision-making

process, into strategic thinking about urban regeneration and

into our assessment of it (du Plessis and Cole, 2011). This will

facilitate a move from fragmented decision making to the type

of holistic, whole system thinking (Reed, 2007, p. 674) that is

essential if wide-ranging sustainability objectives are to be

achieved, and importantly the achievement of individual

sustainability objectives is not to be potentially compromised

(Lombardi et al., 2011b).

Engineering SustainabilityVolume 165 Issue ES1

The urban futures methodology applied tourban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and Cooper

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Engineering Sustainability 165 March 2012 Issue ES1

Pages 5–20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2012.165.1.5

Paper 1100021

Received 20/06/2011 Accepted 25/10/2011

Keywords: design methods & aids/sustainability/urban

regeneration

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

5

Equally important is that our perceptions about achieving

sustainable regeneration change over time – contexts change

(e.g. climate change, peak oil); thinking advances; methods are

tried and tested; solutions work or fail. Sometimes the goal

itself evolves: sustainable cities, 24-hour cities, resilient cities,

carbon dioxide neutral cities, and one-planet living have

emerged successively over the past decade. The challenge here

is how to incorporate changing priorities and thinking into

what we do now, while ensuring, as best we can, that what we

put in place now will have relevance in the future. The urban

futures methodology seeks to improve this decision making.

This paper describes the methodology and its underlying

thinking, establishes it as a powerful tool to assess the

robustness of investment decisions for urban (re)generation,

and then describes a case study site to which the methodology

has been applied: the Luneside East redevelopment in

Lancaster, UK. A series of parallel papers (Boyko and

Cooper, 2012; Brown and Barber, 2012; Caputo et al., 2012;

Farmani et al., 2012; Hale and Sadler, 2012; Hunt et al., 2012;

Pugh et al., 2012) then applies the methodology to the plans for

Luneside East, thus demonstrating its efficacy.

2. Urban regeneration as driver

Delivery of the sustainability agenda through urban regenera-

tion has evolved. Promotion through design excellence,

environmental and social responsibility, economic investment

and legislative change was introduced by the Urban Task

Force (1999) in their report ‘Towards an urban renaissance’.

This report built upon the concept of (social, environmental

and economic) sustainability and added vibrancy, good design,

high density, compact and thriving cities. Four years later, the

Institution of Civil Engineers entered the field in earnest with

the launch of this journal, ‘to help develop a knowledge base

and an understanding of what sustainability is for our

profession and the wider society’ (Leiper, 2003). It is certainly

true for Engineering Sustainability and elsewhere that when

grappling with the issues of sustainability the environmental

aspect dominated and the social aspect was largely ignored

(Fenner, 2011; Lombardi et al., 2011a). Efforts here and

elsewhere are re-focusing to redress this imbalance.

Interestingly, the economic aspect is still largely taken as a

‘given’ and firmly in the domain of business (businesses must

earn money to survive).

‘Resiliency’ has recently re-entered the urban design debate.

Superficially it is still young enough as a concept to hold the

promise of delivery, and yet if part of the reason sustainability

has struggled to become universally adopted as one of the

defining goals of (re)development is because of its definition

being too ambiguous and its means of implementation being

even less clear (Lombardi et al., 2011a; Owens and Cowell,

2002) then, at least at this point, resilience risks failing for the

same reasons. Common to five ‘spheres of resilience’ in the

academic literature – ecological, economic, infrastructure,

community and social, and government – is the idea of a

system’s ability to withstand shocks, or indeed disturbances of

any magnitude and to continue to operate in some recognisable

form, even if system outputs may be degraded for a time.

Given this background, the urban futures methodology

presented herein seeks to assess the future resilience of a

sustainability solution (something done now in the name of

sustainability); that is, if the world changes in a dramatic way

will the solution – perhaps as a result of it being sufficiently

flexible and adaptable – continue to deliver its intended

benefits? The methodology has been developed across dis-

ciplinary boundaries, incorporating perspectives from civil

engineering, biodiversity, air quality, urban studies, regional

planning, urban design, geography and industrial ecology. The

methodology goes beyond current priorities and geographical

locations, addresses issues regardless of scale (evident in the

parallel papers on the Luneside East case study referred to

above), and is flexible enough to incorporate new disciplines

and different foci of solutions (described in greater detail

below). Moreover, it serves to connect the concepts of

sustainability and resilience by bringing a unique perspective

to the ‘alternative futures’ aspects of design decision making.

The urban futures methodology has arisen from a 4 year

research project, funded by the UK Engineering and Physical

Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, 2011), which began work

in May 2008. The project’s aims are to establish a range of

alternative urban futures, test current urban design solutions in

those alternative futures and to transfer knowledge to

stakeholders, notably policy/decision makers. In meeting the

aims, it seeks to address four high-level objectives

& to establish a variety of futures that cover a range of

plausible alternatives, building on previous research and

predicated on different fundamental assumptions and

priorities

& to assess current urban design solutions in those futures in

terms of design, engineering implementation and perfor-

mance

& to refine them, in terms of mitigation and adapta-

tion measures, so that they perform in as many of the

alternative futures as possible

& and ultimately to provide alternative solutions, with an

associated evidence base and strategies for their imple-

mentation.

To be fully effective the urban futures methodology must be

applied right at the start of the planning process, once a

regeneration scheme (of whatever size) has been conceived. The

net must be cast wide when deciding upon the disciplines and

professional backgrounds to invite to detailed consultation on


The urban futures methodologyapplied to urban regenerationRogers, Lombardi, Leach and

Cooper

6

the regeneration process, and these parties must have a voice

and potential for influence if the best result is to be achieved

(Lombardi et al., 2008, 2011b). Indeed, the urban futures

methodology has been developed such that any, or all, of the

stakeholder groups can apply it to the (re)development project

in question, as evidenced by the parallel papers on the Luneside

East case study in this special issue. The other ‘rules’ of

engagement apply – that is, flexible policies (Cooper et al.,

2009); flexible and informed decision making with awareness of

the trade-offs when objectives conflict (Cooper et al., 2009;

Lombardi et al., 2011b); using local conditions to set local

priorities (Lombardi et al., 2008); considering density, diver-

sity, intensity (Cooper et al., 2009); hindsight and foresight

(Cooper et al., 2009; Lombardi et al., 2008); and, to reiterate,

ensuring all voices are heard and all stories are told (Cooper

et al., 2009; Lombardi et al., 2008).

3. Introduction to the future scenarios andderivation of the urban futuresmethodology

Using future scenarios to describe what the future might be

like, and then drawing implications for current activities, has

been popular since the late 1960s when Kahn described three

oil-related scenarios with a time horizon to the year 2000

(Kahn and Wiener, 1967). Scenarios are seen as a powerful tool

to guide their users (AEA, 2006), but such widespread

acceptance of the method does not make the process of

building or selecting appropriate scenarios a minor task, nor

should it allow the user to underestimate the importance of

getting it right.

The urban futures methodology assesses and optimises the

resilience – that is, the ability to deliver function in the face of

changing circumstances, of decisions being made now in the

name of sustainability (‘sustainability solutions’) by appraising

them in diverse yet plausible future scenarios. It does so by

defining the conditions necessary for the solution to deliver its

intended benefit(s) and exploring whether they are likely to

pertain in each of the futures. Reviewing the extensive future

scenarios literature (see Hunt et al., 2010), it was considered

vital that the following critical dimensions could be fully

explored: UK, urban, regeneration, sustainability (economic,

social and environmental, as well as governance), and a

realistic time horizon (approximately 40–50 years to enable the

impact of decisions made now to become properly manifest,

yet not so far into the future as to be disconnected from the

current situation). The chosen scenarios also had to cover a

sufficient range of possible futures to cover a range of potential

plausible developments. If the scenarios were too alike in their

critical elements, then they could yield similar results and

would not provide a sufficiently robust test. A final considera-

tion was the desire to enable other users to build upon the

methodology – that is, using scenarios that were well

researched and adaptable.

In addition, eight core themes spanning the range of issues to

be addressed in the urban environment are clearly represented

in the chosen scenarios

& ecology and biodiversity

& air quality

& water and wastewater

& subsurface built environment, infrastructure and utility

service provision, including waste and resource reuse

& surface built environment and open spaces, including urban

design and place making

& density and design decision making

& economy, organisational behaviour and innovation

& social needs, aspirations, and planning policy.

While not collectively exhaustive, they are representative of the

professions involved in urban design extending from deep

below the ground surface to the atmosphere above our cities.

Broadly, the themes addressed map onto the Egan wheel,

which is widely considered to be among the most comprehen-

sive lists in the UK for addressing sustainable communities (see

Table 1).

Four clear archetypes emerged that mapped onto four future

worlds proposed by Raskin (2005): new sustainability para-

digm, policy reform, market forces and fortress world. These

four scenarios resulted from a considerable body of research by

the Global Scenarios Group over a 20-year period (Gallopin

et al., 1997; GSG, 2011; Raskin et al., 1998, 2002), are plausible

(i.e. easily recognised in different parts of the world at present),

academically rigorous and internally consistent.

The scenarios are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, and summarised

below as interpreted for a representative Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) region

(Electris et al., 2009; Raskin et al., 2010).

3.1 New sustainability paradigm

The search for a deeper basis for human happiness and

fulfilment is a central theme for human development. Civil

society and engaged citizens become critical sources of change

for the new values: an ethos of ‘one-planet living’ facilitates a

shared vision of more sustainable living and a much improved

quality of life. A new form of globalisation changes the

character of industrial society; the role of business is trans-

formed through the integration of sustainable development as a

business opportunity and a matter of social responsibility. A

labour-intensive craft economy rises alongside the high-tech

base. Integrated settlement patterns place home, work, shops

and leisure activity in closer proximity. Urbanisation increases,



Cooper

7

although development of integrated settlements, ‘town within a

city’, leaves more open space within the cities. There is no net

change in the land occupied by the built environment: sprawl is

contained and land recycling is high. The shift to values

emphasising quality of life, human solidarity and environmental

sustainability supports much greater civic participation.

Class

Great transitions

Conventional worlds

Barbarisation

Variant

New sustainabilityparadigm

Policy reform

Market forces

Fortress world

Population Economy Environment Equity Technology Conflict

Figure 1. Scenarios structure with illustrative patterns of change.

Adapted from Gallopin et al. (1997). Reproduced by permission of

Stockholm Environment Institute

Egan wheel components of sustainable communities Urban futures research themes

Governance Design decision-making

Planning policy

Transport and connectivity Air quality

Services Water and wastewater

Utility service provision, waste and resource reuse

Environmental Ecology and biodiversity

Air quality

Economy Economy and innovation

Housing and the built environment Surface built environment and open spaces

Subsurface built environment, infrastructure

Density and design decision making

Social and cultural Social needs and aspirations

Organisational behaviour

Table 1. Mapping of urban futures research themes on to the Egan

wheel (ODPM, 2004)



Cooper

8

3.2 Policy reform

The government takes the lead with comprehensive and

coordinated action to align markets for poverty reduction and

environmental sustainability, resulting in improved social equity.

Economic reform with high income and economic growth is

achieved concomitantly, and income disparity is reduced. There

is strong emphasis on providing a built environment that will

facilitate social equity and welfare, and integrate services and

public transport in every neighbourhood. Big business comes to

understand sustainable development as a necessary condition for

preserving the stability of world markets. There is no net increase

in the land devoted to the built environment. Dwelling densities

increase as urbanisation continues and more compact settlements

develop, supported by policy. More economic centres are

created. Sprawl is contained by strong policy and high land

recycling. Unfortunately, policies that prioritise long-range

environmental and social wellbeing are undermined by popular

values of consumerism and individualism.

3.3 Market forces

A world of gradual convergence towards a dominant market

model in which policy focuses on developing the global

markets through international frameworks and institutions.

Current demographic, economic, environmental and techno-

logical trends unfold without major surprise. The agents

driving this scenario are global corporations, market-enabling

governments and a consumerist public. The power of the

transnational corporation continues to grow, and the

self-correcting logic of competitive, open and integrated

markets is expected to cope with problems as they arise.

Environmental scarcity is reflected in higher prices that

moderate demand, and in business opportunities that promote

technological innovation and resources substitution.

Generally, however, sustainability issues are addressed more

through rhetoric than action. Materialism and individualism

spread as core human values, income disparity is high, and

social and environmental concerns are secondary. Urban

development is largely unplanned and fragmented, following

market demand. Single use settlement patterns are common.

The built environment expands onto agricultural, forest,

pasture and other land use classes as populations grow and

urbanisation increases. Dwelling densities drop slightly due to

urban sprawl and little land recycling.

3.4 Fortress world

Deepening social and environmental tensions are unresolved,

and civilised norms erode, bringing unwelcome fundamental

social changes and great human misery. Security and

defensibility are the driving values – social and environmental

problems overwhelm market and policy response. Powerful

actors organise an authoritarian response to the threat of

breakdown by forming alliances to protect their own interests:

the separate spheres of the elite and the masses are codified in

legal and institutional frameworks. The world divides into a

kind of global apartheid, with the elite in interconnected,

protected enclaves, controlling access to resources, and an

impoverished majority outside. Businesses focus on resource

and personal security. The built environment sprawls to cover

twice its current land cover, in part to meet the demands of

high population growth. The impoverished majority live in

poor environmental conditions; the privileged elites live in

more favourable circumstances. High urbanisation combined

with population growth lead to more people in urban areas,

but densities manifest differently for the elite and the masses.

It is important to note that the four chosen scenarios are not

predictive, but rather explorative (Borjeson et al., 2006). They

do not attempt to predict the future (such as by means of trend

analysis). Instead, they are internally consistent worlds that

can be used to address ‘what if’ questions, such as ‘what if

certain changes occurred in our societies (and the economies

they create)’? The scenarios are constructed around the

ultimate drivers of values and needs, knowledge and under-

standing, power structure and culture, with changes to these

drivers resulting in different responses from proximate drivers:

population, economy, technology and governance (Raskin

et al., 2002).

From the descriptions of the four scenarios provided by the

Global Scenarios Group, the Urban Futures team collectively

created an extensive list of indicators (such as population, age

Fortressworld

Social–economic equity

Man

agin

g re

sour

ces

sust

aina

bly

Marketforces

Policyreform

Newsustainability

paradigm

Figure 2. Managing resources effectively against socioeconomic

equity of the four scenarios



Cooper

9

distribution, life expectancy, community cohesion and attitudes

to consumerism). To do this, first the UK sustainability indicators

(Defra, 2007) were consulted, and those determined to be

necessary for understanding urban regeneration and sustain-

ability were extracted. Second, key questions were formulated

(from the different disciplinary perspectives) on how to char-

acterise the sustainability performance of the scenario. For

example, the key questions for ‘water and wastewater’ were as

listed below

& From where is water supplied?

& How is water distributed?

& What are the end user demands for the water network?

& How is water being disposed of, or treated?

& How is flooding avoided/dealt with?

Such questions further informed the selection of indicators and,

importantly, enabled identification of those indicators required to

address its critical elements that were not evident in the futures as

described by the Global Scenarios Group or in the UK

sustainability indicators. Measures for each indicator were

agreed, benchmarks of performance were established (when

possible), and the performance of each indicator was then

described in the four future scenarios (thus creating a compre-

hensive list of characteristics for each of the four scenarios (Boyko

et al., 2012)). The indicator performance assessment was based

upon one or more of the following sources

& the performance of the indicator exactly as described in the

Global Scenarios Group literature

& the performance of the indicator derived from the Glo-

bal Scenarios Group literature and adapted to the UK scale

& the performance of the indicator as deduced from the

performance of other indicators.

The resultant list of characteristics (Figure 3) is an important

resource for implementing the urban futures methodology as it

allows comparisons to be easily drawn across the four worlds.

The list also allows for a high-level analysis and/or a detailed,

deeper analysis through its use of arrows to indicate the

performance of indicators alongside more detailed character-

istic descriptions. Importantly, the characteristics list is

designed to be adaptable. Indicators can be added as necessary

(either by means of the Global Scenarios Group literature or

derived from the existing characteristics) and new future

scenarios can be added.

4. Futures analysis: the application of theurban futures methodology

The urban futures methodology addresses the question: will

current sustainability solutions deliver the same benefits

whatever the future brings? The methodology provides

a structured and repeatable process for assessing the

performance of a sustainability solution in the future, although

it is important to note that the method does not assess the

performance of a solution in the present, nor does it address

current barriers to implementation. Broadly, those conditions

necessary for the solution’s success (its ‘necessary conditions’)

are identified and then the likelihood of those conditions being

present in the future is assessed (see Figure 4).

4.1 Step 1: Identify a sustainability solution and

define its intended benefit

Current sustainability solutions derive from a variety of sources,

including planning documents, masterplans and policies.

Examples include passive solar design, biomass systems,

prioritising local sourcing, planting trees, reducing traffic flows

and introducing greywater recycling and/or rainwater harvesting

systems. The solutions are underpinned by an intended benefit,

or benefits, such as reducing energy and/or water demand,

reducing carbon dioxide emissions, increasing biodiversity or

creating jobs. Many solutions deliver multiple benefits (e.g.

planting trees can increase biodiversity, mitigate air pollution,

mitigate heat island effects and provide visual amenity) and as

such may be favoured over those that deliver a single benefit.

Individual assessments must be made for each intended benefit as

the different benefits are likely to require different (necessary)

conditions to deliver the intended function (see step 2).

4.2 Step 2: Identify the necessary conditions

How does the sustainability solution deliver its intended

benefit in the future and what needs to be in place to enable

continued delivery? The following overarching questions and

checklist have been developed to assist users in identifying

those conditions necessary to enable or maintain the delivery of

the solution’s intended benefit. The questions and checklist are

derived from a sequence of trials of the methodology with

different stakeholder groups and are intended to serve simply

as prompts to encourage broad thinking; any specific user of

the methodology would be likely to amend or add to these

prompts. These considerations should be complemented by a

review of the full characteristics list (and are in fact designed to

reflect the categories of indicators in the list) for any indicators

that relate to the solution’s implementation and use (Figure 5).

Overarching questions

(a) How is it used (consumer behaviour) and is it still useful

and relevant in the conditions characteristic of the various

futures?

(b) How is it managed and maintained, and what is required

to manage and maintain it?

(c) What elements of the local context are critical to

delivering the function, and may change in the various

futures?



Cooper

10

Checklist (used to identify a solution’s adaptability to changing

needs under changing circumstances)

(a) Does the solution’s benefit rely on specific governance

structures being in place?

(i) policies?

(ii) regulations/laws?

(iii) standards?

(b) Does the solution’s benefit rely on certain characteristics

of the urban landscape?

(i) pattern of built environment?

(ii) infrastructure (physical, green, social)?

(iii) access (pedestrian, vehicular, species, social/eco-

nomic)?

(iv) aesthetics (spaces, quality thereof)?

(c) Can the solution’s accessibility be ensured in terms of the

following?

(i) economic?

(ii) natural resources?

(iii) environmental/ecosystem services?

(d) Does the solution rely on certain social conditions being

met or maintained?

(i) acceptability?

(ii) equity?

(iii) values?

(iv) attitudes?

(v) behaviours?

(vi) ability to use?

(vii) wellbeing/quality of life?

(viii) crime and safety?

4.3 Step 3: Assess the necessary conditions against

scenario characteristics

Assessing whether the sustainability solution’s necessary

conditions are likely to remain in place in each of the futures

(Figure 6) is done using the characteristics list as follows.

& For each necessary condition scan the indicators for those

that are relevant.

& For each relevant indicator review the performance of that

indicator in each scenario (the characteristic).

Indicators/ descriptors

Measure(where

applicable)

UK (near present) Comments (including research needs) NSP NSP UK characteristic

– urban

Population Million 61.8 (2009 base)

The GSG methodology is based directly on UN high, medium and low variance predictions for 2050 (see http://esa.un.org/unup/). Here the growth rates for Western Europe have been applied to the UK. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=2615. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=6303

Total UK population decreases by 11% as compared to 2010 values (UK: 55 002k). Assuming a growth rate of –0.1% per annum from 2010 to 2025 and –0.4% per annum from 2025 to 2050

Age distribution % over 65 16 (2009 base) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/article.asp?id=2615 Ageing population

Life expectancy Years

77.7 (males), 81.9 (females)

(2007–2009 base)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168

Increases generally for population

Average household size

People/ household 2.4

UK stats indicate a growing trend toward smaller household sizes, down from 3.1 in 1961

Although population is ageing, strong social and environmental drivers mean co-housing and living with extended family or in multiple family units is commonplace

Dem

ogra

phy

Figure 3. Sample of the urban futures characteristics list for the

new sustainability paradigm future scenario



Cooper

11

Identify a solution:

taking each intended benefit in turn:

dead plants are removed and replaced;

Implement sustainability

likely to exist in the future?

If notthen or

Modify solution:

then

intended benefit:

biodiversity

Define the solution’s

For example mixed plant species green wall,attached to building using metal racking and

including automated water and feeding system

For example visual amenity and

Identify the necessary conditions

For example (biodiversity): plants have food, water and light;plant species able to survive in the given climate;wall is undamaged (vandalism, pollution, damage;

from building repairs, fire);

wall is accessible

Assess the necessary conditionsagainst the scenario characteristics:

Are the necessary conditions

If yes

For example, watering and feeding system

inappropriate for climate and die,racking may be damaged

Implement sustainability solution anyway, but with an awareness of its risk of failure

For example ivy green wall grown directly on buildingrequiring only rainwater to survive

solution with confidence

may fail, plants species may be

Figure 4. The urban futures methodology



Cooper

12

& Using this information to assess the impact of the

characteristics upon the necessary condition to answer the

question: ‘will the necessary condition continue to exist in

each future?’.

& Combine the responses to this question for all the solution’s

necessary conditions to answer the question: ‘is the solu-

tion expected to continue to deliver its intended benefit?’.

Table 2 provides an assessment of the necessary conditions

across the four future scenarios for the example of implement-

ing mixed use development to promote economic vitality.

4.4 Step 4: To implement or to modify solutions?

If the sustainability solution is shown to deliver its intended

benefit across all four scenarios, then it can be implemented

with confidence. If, however, the solution does not deliver in all

four scenarios then the particular solution, as formulated, can

be concluded to be not robust to future change if the future

turns out differently to the current paradigm.

Armed with this information, the sustainability solution can

still be implemented in the knowledge that it does not deliver in

all four futures. Other factors, such as political will, client

insistence, cost of implementation and suchlike might override

a concern about the investment’s long-term performance. The

benefit of the urban futures methodology is that if such a

solution is implemented, then at least it is done so knowing it

risks failure and with an insight into why it might fail.

However, the outcome of the assessment might also be used to

modify a solution to make it more robust to future change. In

such cases, the modified solution can be analysed using the

urban futures methodology to determine its likely robustness

(should the adaptation be substantial one may wish to start as

if with a new solution); iteration thereafter is, of course,

possible. Not only will an engineering solution be potentially

refined and improved by means of such a process, the thinking

of the designer will have been forever broadened and deepened

such that any future design will be tackled with a new insight

into its likely vulnerabilities and long-term performance.

In the case of mixed use development to promote economic

vitality, which does not perform well in market forces and

fortress world, recommendations to increase the robustness of

this sustainability solution might include the following.

& Ensure long-term management structures are in place so

that a mix of uses and quality of public realm are

maintained.

& Ensure the mix of uses is compatible (e.g. it would be

inadvisable to place residential units near night clubs

because of the disturbance from loud music).

& Ensure that buildings can be adapted to meet changing

needs (e.g. from office space to live/work units).

& Increase the social desirability of mixed use by designing

attractive, well connected and high quality developments.


Measure (where

applicable)UK (near present) Comments (including research needs)

Settlement pattern (city scale)

(Planning policies tend to promote) Tendency to compact urban form

Current planning policies recommend dwelling densities in new urban development, that lead to thrifty use of land. They also recommend reduced car use and responsible use of resources. These principles correspond to an urban model of a compact city, which is considered sustainable. It is clearly difficult to capture the complexity of urban patterns in a quantitative measure. However, for the purpose of this list dwelling density, and the spatial configuration determined by land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc.) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across

Settlement pattern (neighbourhood

scale)

Urb

an fo

rm

the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006).

Figure 5. Scanning the indicators to identify those that are relevant



Cooper

13

The Urban Futures team specifically scoped the four scenarios

to be relevant to UK urban situations to test sustainability

solutions as applied to regeneration by selecting, and when

appropriate adapting, relevant scenario characteristics from

those created by the Global Scenario Group, which were

themselves created to reflect a ‘western’ (OECD) context. As

such, the urban futures characteristics would be applicable to

any OECD country, perhaps with some degree of country-

specific interpretation. An urban design professional, for

example, will consider the context in which the design is being

created – that is, will take into account societal behaviours and

norms alongside the environmental and built context of the

place; this is what is contained in the characteristics list.

Equally, the urban futures methodology has been applied to

sustainability solutions – that is, interventions that seek to make

the urban environment more sustainable, while recognising that

the criteria for sustainability and sustainability priorities will be

context specific for any given solution, as this thinking lies at the

heart of the activity of the numerous researchers involved in its

creation. For example, the methodology could also be used to

test low carbon dioxide or resource security solutions. The point

here is that any urban solutions can be tested to determine their

likely long-term ability to continue to deliver their function –

that is, their resilience in the face of major change; this is a tool

that, uniquely, assesses the robustness of investment decisions

made at present.


Measure(where

applicable)

UK (near present) Comments (including research needs) NSP NSP UK characteristic

– urban

Settlement pattern (city

scale)

(Planning policies tend to

promote) Tendency

to compact urban form

Current planning policies recommend dwelling densities in new urban development, that lead to thrifty use of land. They also recommend reduced car use and responsible use of resources. These principles correspond to an urban model of compact city, which is considered sustainable. It is clearly difficult to capture the complexity of urban patterns in a quantitative measure. However, for the purpose of this list dwelling density, and the spatial configuration determined by land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than

Policentric

Physical urban expansion is limited. The city pattern is policentric, composed of self-contained, integrated (work/services/residential) settlements. High rate of urban regeneration

Settlement pattern

(neighbourhood scale)

land allocation for buildings (compact, fragmented, etc) are used to connote the urban form. ‘To ensure that outputs are maximised whilst resources used are minimised. For example, by building housing at higher densities on previously developed land, rather than at lower densities on greenfield sites’; ‘local planning authorities should [encourage] patterns of development which reduce the need to travel by private car’ (DCLG, 2005) ‘Local Planning Authorities may wish to set out a range of densities across the plan area rather than one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006).

Medium to high densities. Integrated settlements, almost self-contained and self-sufficient.

Urb

an fo

rm one broad density range although 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy development and decision-making, until local density policies are in place’ (DCLG, 2006)

Figure 6. Reviewing the performance of the indicator in each

scenario



Cooper

14

5. Case study: Lancaster Luneside East

For 2 years the Urban Futures team has worked with the

Planning Department at Lancaster City Council (LCC) on the

regeneration of the Luneside East site. Luneside East was once

a thriving industrial site (Figure 7), but is now unused and

decaying. It forms part of the recently regenerated St George’s

Quay, lying alongside the River Lune to the north east of the

city located between the city centre and the western urban

fringe (Figure 8). The city would like to extend the regenera-

tion of St George’s Quay to include Luneside East and has long

had plans to do so through the creation of a mixed use

neighbourhood. However, the site poses significant challenges,

including managing extant industrial contamination and

fluctuations in the economy and housing market.

Lancaster is an old Roman town in the county of Lancashire,

in northern England. An important trading port from the

sixteenth century, Lancaster eventually became known for

making furniture, candles, ropes, sailcloth and subsequently

ship building. From the mid-twentieth century, the economy of

Lancaster relied on linoleum manufacture and engineering.

Like many other cities in the UK, the city suffered some decline

of heavy industry in the 1990s (see Lambert, 2011). Lancaster

is now a fast growing city of 143 000.

The western part of the city (west of the mainline railway) was

badly hit by this decline and associated job losses. The

industrial area on St George’s Quay (later termed Luneside

East) became underused and part derelict. Further west the

Necessary conditions

New sustainability

paradigm Policy reform Market forces Fortress world

Mix of uses (commercial,

leisure, residential, etc.)

is maintained

Strong social and

environmental values

support mixed use,

both in theory and

practice. Local

production-driven

economy and

sustainability ethos

may result in

increased variety

Policy emphasises

mixed use to achieve

social and environmental

objectives

Weak policy/land-use

controls and social

values of consumerism

and individualism

mean mixed use is

unlikely to be

maintained, as market

prefers class

differentiated single

use or limited mix

There is no policy to

promote mixed use,

although security and

resource concerns may

support it. The poor are

constrained to small

pockets of undesirable

urban land, which

necessitates high levels

of vertical and horizontal

mixing

Mix of uses (commercial,

leisure, residential, etc.)

meets needs/demands

of all user groups

Vibrant mix of uses

evolves to meet

changing community

needs as required, e.g.

co-living, co-working

units, urban agriculture,

or localised energy

production

Mix of uses driven

more by the market

than social or

community needs, so

will only meet some

community needs

Mix of uses is driven

purely by market

demand rather than

social or community

needs

Rich have good access

to local services; poor

may be lacking some

local services

Strong and widespread

willingness to live, work

and recreate in mixed

use area

The ethos of one-planet

living means people

are willing to live, work

and spend leisure time

in mixed use

developments

Neighbourhoods and

cities favour a compact

model of development,

and more people are

willing to live, work

and recreate in a

mixed use area, albeit

with limited social

mixing

Willingness to live,

work and spend

leisure time in

mixed use area is

largely absent

Willingness to live, work

and spend leisure time in

a mixed use

development is generally

low both for the rich and

the poor, although for

the rich, class-

differentiated mixed use

meets security and

resource concerns

Table 2. Assessment of the performance of mixed use

development to promote economic vitality



Cooper

15

even bigger industrial area (Luneside West), accommodating a

low-grade industrial park at its western extremity with a large

wall coverings plant, downsized dramatically. This has resulted

in increasing problems of multiple economic and social

deprivation, evident in some communities located close to

Luneside East and West.

Luneside East is one of the previously developed areas

earmarked as a regeneration priority area, designated as a

mixed use waterfront regeneration (LCC, 2008), and consid-

ered as ‘the Council’s most important physical regeneration

project’ (LCC 2004). Its triangular shape is delimited by two

high green embankments (one supporting an operational

railway and the other a long-disused railway embankment)

and the River Lune. The latest supplementary planning

guidance 4 (SPG4), issued in 2004, is at present subject to

review. In SPG4, Luneside East is seen as key to connect the

city centre with the western ‘disadvantaged’ areas of the city

(LCC, 2004).

In 1988, LCC commissioned the Luneside Regeneration Study,

which identified the need for a regeneration strategy for the

whole western part of the city and identified the potential to

create a ‘new, sustainable mixed use neighbourhood’ at

Luneside East (i.e. a shift away from the traditions of heavy

industry and site-specific approaches to a wider framework).

LCC looked to growth areas such as information and

communications technology/new media, office economy and

tourism (McManus, 2008). At the same time, it invested

substantially to reinvigorate the seaside in neighbouring

Morecambe as a tourist attraction.

At the time of first involvement of the Urban Futures team the

status of the 6.6 ha Luneside East site was that it had outline

planning permission for 350 homes, 8000 m2 of commercial

buildings, a range of leisure opportunities and new public

spaces (LCC, 2004). Progress on the development of the site

had stalled, mainly due to nationwide poor economic condi-

tions. LCC still saw the regeneration of Luneside East as vitally

important to the city, with the potential implications of getting

it wrong reverberating across the entire city.

In an attempt to reinvigorate the regeneration process, a

workshop was co-organised by LCC’s planning department

and the Urban Futures team. The workshop was held on 9

December 2010 and brought together key players in the

regeneration of the site, including: local, regional and national

government representatives, a private sector developer, com-

munity councillors and planners (currently working on the site

as well as those who had done so previously). The workshop

focused on four areas: understanding the site from multiple

perspectives; exploring mixed use development for the site;

exploring water and energy supply and demand for the site;

and options for the disused railway embankment that forms

the site’s southern border. Woven through the discussions was

how to future-proof sustainability for the entire development.

The papers contained in this special issue derive from the

workshop and research conducted on the Luneside East site by

the Urban Futures team, working with the LCC planning team.

The papers explore the regeneration of Luneside East, the

application of the urban futures methodology and the limitation

of the method from eight sustainability perspectives (biodiver-

sity, air quality, regional water supply, local water use and user

behaviour, solar access, density, innovation and planning).

These papers serve a dual purpose: they are being used by LCC

to inform the regeneration of the site and they have provided an

‘acid test’ of the urban futures methodology and its ability to

integrate solutions across the disciplines. LCC used this joint

work to instigate and inform a public consultation, which took

place in January 2011, and subsequently in the formulation, with

the site developer, of a plan for the site’s first stage of

commercial development. Moreover, it invigorated the debate

about this site following the 2-year stagnation, provided the

catalyst for new thinking, and provided the inspiration for those

originally involved in site discussions to engage actively again.

6. ConclusionsThe urban futures methodology was developed to address the

question: ‘how sustainable are the sustainability solutions that

are being put in place today, often with long design lives?’ The

answer that ‘it depends on how the future develops’ no longer

stifles this debate. The future scenarios literature has been

reviewed, four wide-ranging yet plausible scenarios have been

characterised for the UK urban context, and a methodology

that enables any engineering solution to be assessed against

those future scenarios has been developed. This paper describes

Figure 7. St George’s Works, the gas works and Ford Quay, from

the air circa 1950s (now Luneside East). Reproduced by permission

of Lancaster City Council



Cooper

16

the methodology and its formation. It is demonstrated that for

any particular engineering solution that is proposed ‘in the

name of sustainability’, there must be a clear identification first

of its intended benefits. Only then can the necessary conditions

for the delivery of these intended benefits, taking each benefit

in turn, be assessed to determine the solution’s likely success. A

comprehensive list of characteristics has been developed for

each of the four futures (new sustainability paradigm, policy

reform, market forces and fortress world), and this facilitates

an analysis of whether the necessary conditions will remain in

place to deliver the intended benefit in each of the futures.

If the conditions do remain in place, then the sustainability

solution can be implemented with confidence that it is likely to

work in the long term even if the future develops very

differently from now. If it does not work in all four futures,

and yet there is an imperative to implement it as originally

conceived and designed, then at least it can be done knowing it

risks failure and with an insight into why it might fail. The

process allows the engineer to modify a solution to make it

more robust to future change, the modified solution similarly

being analysed using the urban futures methodology to

determine its likely robustness. Such iteration of the analysis

12

5

6 78

9

14

16

29

2830

31

2724

26

25

22

1918

1520

173

4

23

33

131210

21

0 100 Metres

N

Figure 8. Luneside East regeneration site and surrounding area.

Reproduced by permission of Faulkner Browns and Lancaster City

Council



Cooper

17

not only enables an engineering solution to be refined and

improved, but the thinking of the designer will have been

forever broadened and deepened such that any future design

will be tackled with a new insight into its likely long-term

performance. Ultimately, therefore, this paper seeks to inform

and influence the thinking of academics and practitioners on

the likely future performance of what is being proposed and

done now in the name of sustainability.

The acid test of the urban futures methodology lies in its

application to practice. This can be done with a project of any

size and can only definitively be assessed in the long term – that

is, over the 40–50-year horizon for which the methodology was

developed. Accepting this limitation, the urban futures

methodology has been successfully applied to the Luneside

East regeneration site in Lancaster, UK. The context of the site

is presented and the potential for change has been outlined.

The subsequent papers in this special issue of Engineering

Sustainability describe the detailed outcomes of the futures

analysis in a wide variety of disciplinary areas. Adoption of the

urban futures methodology is thus contended to improve the

likelihood of delivering more sustainable urban environments.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to acknowledge the UK Engineering and

Physical Sciences Research Council for their financial support

for this sustainable urban environments research project under

grant EP/F007426. The authors also wish to acknowledge the

support of Lancaster City Council and all those who

participated in the Luneside East study and workshop; its

expert panelists and in particular Peter Braithwaite of CH2M

HILL and Rob Kinnersley of the Environment Agency who

helped in the conceptualisation and trialling of the urban

futures methodology (see ISSUES Project, 2011).

REFERENCES

AEA (2006) Modelling the Impact of Lifestyle Changes on

Household Waste Arisings. AEA Energy and Environment,

The Future Foundation and The Social Marketing

Practice. A project for Defra’s WREP, WR0107. Defra,

London, UK.

Alexander A (2009) The new towns in a new light. Britain’s New

Towns: Garden Cities to Sustainable Communities.

Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Bai X (2009) Integrating global environmental concerns into

urban management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2):

15–29.

Borjeson L, Hojer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T and Finnveden G

(2006) Scenarios types and techniques: towards a user’s

guide. Futures 38(7): 723–739.

Boyko CT and Cooper R (2012) High dwelling density as

sustainability solution in Lancaster. Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability

165(1): 81–88.

Boyko CT, Gaterell MR, Barber ARG et al. (2012) Benchmarking

sustainability in cities: The role of indicators and future

scenarios. Global Environmental Change 22(1): 245–254.

Bramley G and Power S (2009) Urban form and social

sustainability: the role of density and housing type.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(1):

30–48.

Brown J and Barber A (2012) Social infrastructure and

sustainable urban communities. Proceedings of the


165(1): 99–110.

Caputo S, Caserio M, Coles R, Jankovic L and Gaterell MR (2012)

Testing energy efficiency in urban regeneration.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –

Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 69–80.

Clark D (1996) Urban World/Global City. Routledge, London,

UK.

Cooper R, Evans G and Boyko C (eds.) (2009) Designing

Sustainable Cities. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford,

UK.

Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

(2007) Sustainable Development Indicators in Your Pocket

2007. Defra, London, UK.

Denham C and White I (2006) Difference in Urban and Rural

Britain: Socio-demographic Characteristics and Distribution

of the Urban and Rural Populations Based on the 1991

Census. Office of National Statistics Population Trends,

London, UK.

Donovan RG, Sadler JP and Bryson JR (2005) Urban biodiversity

and sustainable development. Proceedings of the Institution

of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 158(2): 105–

114.

du Plessis C and Cole RJ (2011) Motivating change: shifting the

paradigm. Building Research and Information 39(5): 436–

449.

Electris C, Raskin P, Rosen R and Stutz J (2009) The Century

Ahead: Four Global Scenarios Technical Documentation.

Tellus Institute, Boston, USA.

EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council)

(2011) See www.epsrc.ac.uk (accessed 08/06/2011).

Farmani R, Butler D, Hunt DVL, et al. (2012) Scenario-based

sustainable water management and urban regeneration.



Fenner R (2011) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 164(1): 1–3.

Fenner RA, Ainger CA, Cruickshank HJ and Guthrie P (2006)

Widening horizons for engineers: addressing the

complexity of sustainable development. Proceedings of the

Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability

159(4): 145–154.



Cooper

18

Gallopin G, Hammond A, Raskin P and Swart R (1997) Branch

Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. Stockholm

Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. PoleStar Series

Report No. 7.

Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, et al. (2008) Global

change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864): 756–

760.

GSG (Global Scenario Group) (2011) See www.gsg.org (accessed

08/06/2011).

Hale JD and Sadler J (2012) Resilient ecological solutions for

urban regeneration. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers – Engineering Sustainability 165(1): 59–68.

Hopwood B and Mellor M (1996) Visioning the sustainable city.

Capitalism Nature Socialism 18(4): 75–89.

Hunt DVL, Rogers CDF, Lombardi DR, et al. (2010) Using

Scenarios to Explore Urban UK Futures: A Review of

Futures Literature from 1997 to 2010. Urban Futures,

Birmingham, UK, Working Paper 1. Available on http://

www.urban-futures.org (accessed 12/10/2010).

Hunt DVL, Lombardi DR, Farmani R, et al. (2012) Urban futures

and the code for sustainable homes. Proceedings of the


165(1): 37–58.

ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers) (2009) The State of the

Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure. ICE, London,

UK.

ISSUES Project (2011) How Urban Futures Influenced the Design

Decisions of Cities around the World. Heriot Watt

University, Edinburgh. See http://www.

urbansustainabilityexchange.org.uk/media/ISSUES%

20Outputs/BS%20Success%201/urban%20futures.pdf

(accessed 01/06/2011).

Kahn H and Wiener AJ (1967) The next thirty-three years: a

framework for speculation. Daedalus 96(3): 705–732.

Lambert T (2011) A Brief History of Lancaster, Lancashire,

England. See http://www.localhistories.org/lancaster.html

(accessed 11/12/2011).

LCC (Lancaster City Council) (2004) Luneside East Development

Brief (Revised). LCC, Lancaster, UK, Lancaster District

Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4.

LCC (2008) Core Strategy (2003–2021) Adopted July 2008.

LCC, Lancaster, UK, Lancaster District Local

Develoment Framework.

Leach JM, Rogers CDF, Cooper RFD, Cooper I and Luger J (2010)

Sustainable Urban Environments Research Dialogues.

University of Birmingham, Birmingham. See http://

suedialogues.wordpress.com/reports (accessed 04/05/2011).

Leiper Q (2003) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 156(1): 3.

Leiper Q (2004) Editorial. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 157(1): 1–2.

Lombardi DR, Caserio M, Hale J, et al. (2008) Implementing

Sustainability: Lessons Learned for Urban Regeneration.

University of Birmingham, Birmingham. See http://www.

esr.bham.ac.uk/LessonsLearnedFlyer.pdf (accessed 05/09/

2008).

Lombardi DR, Porter EJ, Barber ARG and Rogers CDF (2011a)

Conceptualising sustainability in UK urban regeneration: a

discursive formation. Urban Studies 48(2): 273–296.

Lombardi DR, Caserio M, Donovan R, et al. (2011b) Elucidating

sustainability sequencing, tensions and tradeoffs in

development decision-making. Environment and Planning

B: Planning and Design 38(6): 1105–1121.

McManus H (2008) Untitled. Urban Futures Project Board

Meeting, Lancaster, 6 November 2008.

Moncaster A, Hinds D, Cruickshank H, et al. (2010) Knowledge

exchange between academia and industry. Proceedings of

the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability

163(3): 167–174.

ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2004) The Egan

Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities. HMSO,

London, UK.

ODPM (2006) Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable

Development Strategy. HMSO, London, UK.

Owens S and Cowell R (2002) Land and Limits: Interpreting

Sustainability in the Planning Process. Routledge, London,

UK.

Pointer G (2005) Focus on People and Migration 2005, Chapter

3: The UK’s Major Urban Areas. Office for National

Statistics, London, UK.

Pugh TAM, MacKenzie AR, Davies G, et al. (2012) A futures–

based analysis for urban air quality remediation.



Raskin P (2005) Global scenarios and the millennium ecosystem

assessment: an historic overview. Ecosystems 8(2): 133–142.

Raskin P, Gallopin G, Gutman P, Hammond A and Swart R (1998)

Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability.

Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,

PoleStar Series Report no. 8.

Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, et al. (2002) Great Transition:

The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Stockholm

Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, PoleStar Series

Report no. 10.

Raskin P, Electris C and Rosen RA (2010) The century ahead:

searching for sustainability. Sustainability 2(8): 2626–2651.

See http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/8/2626/pdf

(accessed 14/06/2011).

Reed B (2007) Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration.

Building Research and Information 35(6): 674–680.

Shirley-Smith C and Butler D (2008) Water management at

Bedzed – some lessons. Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability 161(2): 113–122.

UN (United Nations) (2010) United Nations World Population

Prospects: 2010 Revision. UN Department of Economic

and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, USA.



Cooper

19

UNPD (United Nations Population Division) (2006) World

Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision. United Nations

Population Division, New York, USA.

Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance.

DETR, London, UK, The Report of the Urban Task Force

Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-

dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing

papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate

illustrations and references. You can submit your paper

online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,

where you will also find detailed author guidelines.



Cooper

20

the urban futures methodology applied to urban regeneration · ensuring all voices are heard and...

Documents