GREEN BELT

A green belt is a policy and land-use zone designation used in land-use planning to retain areas of
largely undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighboring urban areas. Similar
concepts are greenways or green wedges, which have a linear character and may run through an
urban area instead of around it. In essence, a green belt is an invisible line designating a border
around a certain area, preventing development of the area and allowing wildlife to return and be
established.

Contents

 1Purposes
 2History
 3Criticism
o 3.1House prices
o 3.2Increasing urban sprawl
o 3.3United Kingdom
 4Notable examples
o 4.1Australia
o 4.2Brazil
o 4.3Canada
o 4.4Dominican Republic
o 4.5Iran
o 4.6Europe
o 4.7New Zealand
o 4.8Thailand
o 4.9South Korea
o 4.10United Kingdom
o 4.11United States
 5See also
 6References

Purposes[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve
this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may be challenged and removed. (May 2016) (Learn
how and when to remove this template message)

In those countries which have them, the stated objectives of green belt policy are to:

 Protect natural or semi-natural environments;

 Improve air quality within urban areas;[1][2]
 Ensure that urban dwellers have access to countryside, with consequent educational
and recreational opportunities;
 Protect the unique character of rural communities that might otherwise be absorbed by
expanding suburbs.[3]
The green belt has many benefits for people:
  Walking, camping, and biking areas close to the cities and towns.
 Contiguous habitat network for wild plants, animals and wildlife.[4]
 Cleaner air and water[1][2]
 Better land use of areas within the bordering cities.
The effectiveness of green belts differs depending on location and country. They can often be
eroded by urban rural fringe uses and sometimes, development 'jumps' over the green belt area,
resulting in the creation of "satellite towns" which, although separated from the city by green belt,
function more like suburbs than independent communities.

History[edit]
In the 7th century, Muhammad established a green belt around Medina. He did this by prohibiting
any further removal of trees in a 12-mile long strip around the city.[5] In 1580 Elizabeth I of
England banned new building in a 3-mile wide belt around the City of London in an attempt to stop
the spread of plague. However, this was not widely enforced and it was possible to buy
dispensations which reduced the effectiveness of the proclamation.[6]
In modern times, the term emerged from continental Europe where broad boulevards were
increasingly used to separate new development from the centre of historic towns; most notably
the Ringstraße in Vienna. Green belt policy was then pioneered in the United Kingdom confronted
with ongoing rural flight. The term itself was first used in relation to the growth of London by Octavia
Hill in 1875.[7][8] Various proposals were put forward from 1890 onwards but the first to garner
widespread support was put forward by the London Society in its "Development Plan of Greater
London" 1919. Alongside the CPRE they lobbied for a continuous belt (of up to two miles wide) to
prevent urban sprawl, beyond which new development could occur.

The green belt around the city of York, in England

There are fourteen green belt areas in the UK covering 16,716 km² or 13% of England, and 164 km²
of Scotland; for a detailed discussion of these, see Green belt (UK). Other notable examples are
the Ottawa Greenbelt and Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt[9] in Ontario, Canada. Ottawa's 20,350-
hectare (78.6 sq mi) instance is managed by the National Capital Commission (NCC).[10] The more
general term in the United States is green space or greenspace, which may be a very small area
such as a park.
The dynamic Adelaide Park Lands, measuring approximately 7.6 km² surround, unbroken, the city
centre of Adelaide. On the fringe of the eastern suburbs, an expansive natural green belt in
the Adelaide Hills acts as a growth boundary for Adelaide and cools the city in the hottest months.
The concept of "green belt" has evolved in recent years to encompass not only "Greenspace" but
also "Greenstructure" which comprises all urban and peri-urban greenspaces, an important aspect of
sustainable development in the 21st century. The European Commission's COST Action
C11 (COST – European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is undertaking "Case studies in
Greenstructure Planning" involving 15 European countries.
An act of the Swedish parliament from 1994 has declared a series of parks in Stockholm and the
adjacent municipality of Solna to its north a "national city park" called Royal National City Park.

Criticism[edit]
House prices[edit]
When paired with a city which is economically prospering, homes in a green belt may have been
motivated by or result in considerable premiums. They may also be more economically resilient as
popular among the retired and less attractive for short-term renting of modest homes.[11] Where in the
city itself demand exceeds supply in housing, green belt homes compete directly with much city
housing wherever such green belt homes are well-connected to the city.[11] Further, they in all cases
attract a future-guaranteed premium for protection of their views, recreational space and for the
preservation/conservation value itself.[11] Most also benefit from higher rates of
urban gardening and farming, particularly when done in a community setting, which have positive
effects on nutrition, fitness, self-esteem, and happiness, providing a benefit for both physical and
mental health, in all cases easily provided or accessed in a green belt.[12] Government planners also
seek to protect the green belt as its local farmers are engaged in peri-urban agriculture which
augments carbon sequestration, reduces the urban heat island effect, and provides
a habitat for organisms.[13] Peri-urban agriculture may also help recycle urban greywater and other
products of wastewater, helping to conserve water and reduce waste.[14]
The housing market contrasts with more uncertainty and economic liberalism inside and immediately
outside of the belt:[11] green belt homes have by definition nearby protected landscapes.[11] Local
residents in affluent parts of a green belt, as in parts of the city, can be assured of preserving any
localized bourgeois status quo present and so assuming the green belt is not from the outset an
area of more social housing proportionately than the city, it naturally tends toward greater economic
wealth. In a protracted housing shortage, reduction of the green belt is one of the possible solutions.
All such solutions may be resisted however by private landlords who profit from a scarcity of
housing, for example by lobbying to restrain new housing across the city. The stated motivation and
benefits of the green belt might be well-intentioned (public health, social gardening and agriculture,
environment), but inadequately realised relative to other solutions.
Inherently partial critics include Mark Pennington and the economics-heavy think tanks such as
the Institute of Economic Affairs who would see a reduction in many green belts. Such studies focus
on widely inherent limitations of green belts. In most examples only a small fraction of the population
uses the green belt for leisure purposes. The IEA study claims that a green belt is not strongly
causally linked to clean air and water. Rather, they view the ultimate result of the decision to green-
belt a city as one to prevent housing demand within the zone to be met with supply,[15] thus
exacerbating high housing prices and stifling competitive forces in general.

Increasing urban sprawl[edit]

Another area of criticism comes from the fact that, since a green belt does not extend indefinitely
outside a city, it spurs the growth of areas much further away from the city core than if it had not
existed, thereby actually increasing urban sprawl.[16] Examples commonly cited are
the Ottawa suburbs of Kanata and Orleans, both of which are outside the city's green belt, and are
currently undergoing explosive growth (see Greenbelt (Ottawa)). This leads to other problems, as
residents of these areas have a longer commute to work places in the city and worse access
to public transport. It also means people have to commute through the green belt, an area not
designed to cope with high levels of transportation. Not only is the merit of a green belt subverted,
but the green belt may heighten the problem and make the city unsustainable.
There are many examples whereby the actual effect of green belts is to act as a land reserve for
future freeways and other highways. Examples include sections of Ontario Highway 407 north
of Toronto and the Hunt Club Road and Richmond Road south of Ottawa. Whether they are
originally planned as such, or the result of a newer administration taking advantage of land that was
left available by its predecessors is debatable.