Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:41:23.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planning the city of tomorrow: bridging the gap between urban planners and subsurface specialists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

Gillian Dick ,
Ingelöv Eriksson ,
Johannes de Beer ,
Helen Bonsor  and
Petra van der Lugt
Gillian Dick*
Affiliation:
Glasgow City Council, Planning and Development, 231 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, UK. Email: Gillian.Dick@glasgow.gov.uk
Ingelöv Eriksson
Affiliation:
City of Oslo, Planning and Building Agency, Vahls Gate 1, 0187, Oslo, Norway.
Johannes de Beer
Affiliation:
Geological Survey of Norway, PO Box 6315 Torgard, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Helen Bonsor
Affiliation:
British Geological Survey, Lyell Centre, Research Avenue South, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK.
Petra van der Lugt
Affiliation:
City of Rotterdam, City Development, Wilhelminakade 179, 3072AP Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
*
*Corresponding author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the process towards the integration of subsurface knowledge into urban planning for three cities – Rotterdam, Glasgow and Oslo – participating in the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action TU1206 Sub-Urban. These cities each have unique challenges in managing conflicts and opportunities in the subsurface in the planning process. The COST Sub-Urban Action has enabled a unique interaction between subsurface specialists and urban planners across over 20 European cities, and has laid the foundations for a new understanding between experts who develop subsurface knowledge and those who can benefit most from it – urban planners and decision makers. Common challenges identified include: improving planning policies, enhancing the level of awareness of the subsurface in city development and the modification of legislation to include the subsurface. The paper provides a review of the current status of subsurface planning in the three cities, each of whom are aiming to adapt their urban planning practice and legislation in light of emerging subsurface knowledge, and the current major knowledge gaps. In our opinion, there are two main routes to raise awareness that lead to improved understanding and the use of subsurface information in urban planning processes: (1) the development of a subsurface policy and (2) providing subsurface information. These measures should enable subsurface knowledge to be widely disseminated in order to manage risks and opportunities, and maximise the economic, social and environmental benefits of the urban subsurface and its services on which cities depend.

Keywords

3D informationintegrated approachlegislationmanagementpolicyspatial developmentsustainabilityunderground
Type
Articles
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 108 , Issue 2-3: The Geosciences in Europe’s Urban Sustainability: Lessons from Glasgow and Beyond (CUSP) , June 2017 , pp. 327 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © British Geological Survey UKRI 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

5. References

Bonsor, H. 2017. NERC policy and practice briefing report – integrating NERC (BGS) subsurface environmental research and data into city development processes and policy: key learning outcomes. Open Research Report, OR/17/005. Keyworth: British Geological Survey. 35 pp.Google Scholar
Dick, G. 2015. Lessons and applications with particular reference to urban planning in Glasgow, Rotterdam, and Oslo. Subsurface Project, ECOST Short Term Scientific Mission Report TU1206-24731. 37 pp.Google Scholar
Eriksson, I., Borchgrevink, J., Sæther, M. M., Daviknes, H. K., Adamou, S. & Andresen, L. 2016. Sub City Case Study of Oslo Report, TU1206-WG1-012.Google Scholar
GCC. 2017. Glasgow City Development Plan. http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/developmentplan (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
Kveldsvik, V., Karlsrud, K. & Løset, F. 2003. Sammenheng mellom grunnvannssenkning og tunnellekasjer. NGI Report, 20031322-1. [In Norwegian.]Google Scholar
Mielby, S., Eriksson, I., Campbell, S. D. G., de Beer, J., Bonsor, H., Le Guern, C., van der Krogt, R., Lawrence, D., Ryżyński, G., Schokker, J. & Watson, C. 2017. Opening up the subsurface for the cities of tomorrow. January 2017, ECOST SubUrban Action TU1206 WG2.0-001.Google Scholar
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management & Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. 2018. Vision on the subsurface [Structuurvisie Ondergrond]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management & Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.Google Scholar
Municipality of Oslo. 2018. Final report – Oslo Subsurface Project 2013–2016. Oslo: Agency for Planning and Building Services, Municipality of Oslo. 75 pp.Google Scholar
Municipality of Rotterdam. 2007. Spatial Development Strategy 2030 [Stadsvisie Rotterdam 2030, Ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsstrategie 2030]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Municipality of Rotterdam. 2013. Rotterdam climate change adaptation strategy. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Municipality of Rotterdam. 2015. Guidance for working on physical projects in Rotterdam [Handleiding RSPW – Werken aan fysieke projecten op z'n Rotterdams]. Rotterdam: Municipality of Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Norwegian Planning and Building Act (2008) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71 (accessed January 2016).Google Scholar
Scottish Government. 2006. Planning. (Scotland) Act 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/17/contents (accessed January 2016).Google Scholar
Scottish Government. 2013. Surface water management planning guidance. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government. 2014a. Scottish planning policy. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government. 2014b. Scottish planning policy framework. https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/ (accessed January 2016).Google Scholar
SubUrban. 2017. ECOST Sub-UrbanToolbox. http://rotterdam.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=5f495157aae84a2780b5e7d87dcd66f2 (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
van Campenhout, I., De Vette, K., Schokker, J. & Van der Meulen, M. 2016. Rotterdam between Cables and Carboniferous. ECOST SubUrban Action Working Group 1 Report, TU1206-WG1-013.Google Scholar
Whitbread, K., Dick, G. & Campbell, S. D. G. 2016. Glasgow state of the art city report. ECOST SubUrban Action Working Group 1 Report, TU1206 COST Report. 35 pp.Google Scholar