1. Mapping the Mersey Forest Exploring the significance of community-scale green infrastructure Gemma Jerome | PhD Student | University of Liverpool| ESRC Studentship 2011-2015 This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J500094/1]

2. Contents  Situating community-scale green infrastructure/Identifying gaps in literature  Methodology: Mapping The Mersey Forest  Findings  Defining the community-scale  Identifying four distinct types  Conclusions

3. Situating green infrastructure  Green infrastructure is ‘ the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban areas, which together enhance ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and benefit human populations through maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services’ (Naumann et al, 2011: 14)  Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living … sometimes separated into ‘goods’ and ‘services’. (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011)  Community-scale green infrastructure (CSGI) is ‘the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban areas, providing ecosystem goods and services, which are managed and maintained principally by the work and investment of voluntary community groups’. These spaces are multi-functional in their output, and pluralistic in their membership and activities / outcomes.  However… current literature presupposes a picture of homogeneity at the community-scale, highlighting the contemporary focus of local food production, and diminishing established spaces whose focus is wider.  Therefore… this paper explores the nuances of CSGI within a predetermined geographical boundary, with the aim of re-establishing a picture of plurality and localised, adaptable approached to meeting ‘green infrastructure need’.

4. Methodology: Mapping The Mersey Forest

5. Community-scale green infrastructure Population 200+ Formal Group Green Infrastructure focus Constituted Regular volunteer days – multiple/parallel interventions Limited demography (SOA) Spatial focus – one site focus Formal Project Created/Managed by est’d sector organisation Organised around a theme/user group Short term/seasonal Activity rather than site focus Informal Ad hoc organisation Campaigning/political nature One main intervention Findings  Summary of characteristics:  Voluntary membership  managed by volunteers or set up to enable volunteers  Green infrastructure groups  formal (constituted)  informal (ad hoc)  Green infrastructure projects  led by community sector organisations  Spatial focus ( place -based community) or activity focus ( interest -based community)

6. Type – Formal Groups Formal – green infrastructure Friends groups Woodland groups Park groups Other Allotment societies Community gardens Community woodlands Other Formal groups: Formally constituted as a group (except Incredible Edible groups = ‘simple governance’) Regular volunteer days/events Spatial focus (one site) Sample size – 100 approx.

7. Type - Formal Projects Formal – green infrastructure project Health and wellbeing project Mental health and wellbeing Physical health Community / social health Environmental Education project Allotment / Edible growing project Community cohesion / neighbourhood project Environmental degradation / regeneration project Formal projects: Supported / managed by community organisation Initially organised around a theme, funding stream or set of needs relating to user groups Short term / seasonal Interest focus more common than site focus Sample size – 100 approx.

8. Type – Informal Groups Informal – green infrastructure groups ‘Guerrilla’ planting Tree planting Front garden planting Alleyway Greening Other Informal groups: Ad hoc organisation Campaigning nature/political in nature (changes in land use) Site specific OR one-off activity e.g. street tree planting Pluralist demographic Often highlighted by awards ceremony or recognised in hindsight by formal initiative Sophisticated use of social networks/social media Population size – unknown

9. Conclusions  The picture of homogeneity at the local, ‘community-scale’ lacks nuance  Community-scale green infrastructure is pluralistic in outcomes and membership  There are three main types of CSGI; and key differences include governance structure, and spatial or interest focus  An in depth case study approach would enable a richer discussion of the needs and capacities of each type to deliver and develop green infrastructure assets over time