Analysis of Strategic Green Infrastructure Planning Guided by Actors’ Perceptions: Insights at the Regional Level in the Netherlands and Spain

Abstract

The European Commission promotes the inclusion of green infrastructure (GI) in spatial planning across member states. For strategic GI planning to be effective and ensure long-term sustainability and functionality, it must involve collaboration among relevant actors at all governance levels. However, less attention has been given to the required tools and decision-making processes necessary to foster such collaboration (particularly at regional scale) that determine the success of GI implementation. This study addresses this gap by analyzing two strategic planning projects carried out at the regional level within the Vallei en Veluwe and the Arnhem–Nijmegen regions (The Netherlands) and in Galicia (Spain). The aim was to explore the role of stakeholders in the strategic GI planning process and identify factors that promote their effective collaboration by using an analytical framework based on qualitative interviews and grounded theory (GT). The findings provide insights into how stakeholders influence decision-making and outcomes, highlighting the factors that foster their active participation, commitment, and collaboration. Trust-building initiatives, continuous communication throughout the process, network creation, hopeful narratives, as well as inclusive, flexible, and adaptable frameworks were identified as key elements for implementing sustainable GI strategies.

1. Introduction

Green infrastructure (GI) planning has been widely advocated for over a decade [1] as a planning tool focused on biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services [2,3,4]. There is also growing recognition of the value of GI in supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies [5]. For these measures to be effective, and ensure their long-term sustainability and functionality, integrating GI in strategic spatial planning is essential [6].

At the European level, the European Commission approved a GI strategy in 2013 [7,8] to coordinate efforts for GI implementation among European member states, which are required to develop specific national strategies. While GI planning approaches vary across Europe depending on the context [9], this variation can lead to ambiguities, unintended consequences, or unmet expectations [10], ultimately affecting the implementation and outcomes of GI initiatives [11]. However, there are common elements of strategic planning that should underpin all approaches. Specifically, it is strongly based on the participation of all relevant actors and a collective effort focused on decision-making and the essential actions required to fulfil the desired medium- and long-term visions [12]. This process involves defining objectives, measures, and priorities [13] through continuous collaborative social organization, which, from a governance perspective, fosters the development and promotion of a constantly evolving territorial strategy [14]. Thus, to achieve truly sustainable GI development strategies, new approaches, decision-making processes, institutional structures, and ways of working [15] are crucial to ensure that stakeholders are involved and engaged at the appropriate stages of the strategic planning process [16].

Although significant efforts have been made to develop tools and methodologies for strategic GI spatial planning, the literature suggests that decision-making approaches and tools intended to facilitate the inclusion of GI in spatial planning and policy frameworks have received less attention [15,17,18], particularly regarding regional GI governance [16,18] and the required tools and decision-making processes to foster the active participation and collaboration of multiple stakeholders, with most examples focusing on the urban level [19,20,21,22].

In this regard, given the need to develop and implement successful GI strategies that respond to current environmental challenges and needs, this study explored the role of stakeholders and their interactions, as well as the key factors involved in promoting effective collaboration to facilitate its inclusion in planning practice. To fill this gap, the present study aimed to analyze two strategic planning procedures carried out at the regional level within the Vallei en Veluwe and the Arnhem–Nijmegen regions (in the Netherlands) and in Galicia (Spain). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the relevant actors involved in each process to address the following research questions:

• What role do stakeholders play in the strategic planning process in practice, and how does their interaction, influenced by context-specificity, affect decision-making and the final result?
• What are the key factors or conditions that promote effective participation of stakeholders in developing successful strategies and ensuring their implementation?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection Criteria for Strategic Planning Case Studies

To address these research questions, we focused on procedures characterized as follows: (a) strategic planning processes addressing climate change adaptation, in which the capacity of GI as a strategic spatial planning instrument able to respond to the current challenges is assumed [23]; (b) processes that have actually been implemented with verified public participation processes, as successful strategic planning requires participation and collaboration between multiple actors and levels [24,25,26]; (c) processes conducted at the regional level, which is often considered the intermediate layer of governance, acting as a bridge between national policies and local needs [27]. Effective communication and coordination among diverse stakeholders is essential [28], making regional level processes crucial to ensure such cooperation.

2.2. Case Studies Selected

In this regard, the two procedures presented below met the aforementioned criteria. The selection was also guided by the representativeness and relevance of the cases to the study’s objectives, ensuring they would provide meaningful insights toward achieving the project’s ultimate goal.

2.2.1. The Vision for 2120

The process we refer to as “the Vision for 2120” is a landscape-based process designed to develop a long-term vision for the next 100 years, proposing an inspiring future scenario through strategic planning that address various challenges, including climate change in the Netherlands. To guide this process, five key points were established: a focus on natural delta systems, optimization of water use, promotion of an inclusive society within nature, encouragement of a circular economy, and the implementation of adaptive spatial planning. These points were first proposed in A nature-based future for the Netherlands in 2120 (NL2120), a project developed by landscape architects and planners at Wageningen University and Research (WUR) [29]. Following the publication of NL2120, various regional and local authorities across the Netherlands asked WUR to develop a more specific vision for the 2120 proposals tailored to their areas (e.g., [30,31]). For this study, we selected two projects: Vallei en Veluwe vision 2120 (V&V2120) and Groene Metropool Region vision 2120 (GMR2120), carried out in the Vallei en Veluwe and the Arnhem–Nijmegen regions, respectively (see Figure 1).

The Netherlands consists of 12 provinces. Within these provinces, municipalities collaborate in “regional partnerships”, which can vary in composition depending on the topic. The V&V2120 process was developed in the Vallei en Veluwe region. Several authorities work together in this regional partnership: 28 municipalities, the 2 provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland, the Vallei en Veluwe Water Authority, the drinking water company Vitens, the regional public health services, the Safety Region, and Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch Directorate-General for Public Works and Water of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. Together, these partners have taken on the responsibility of ensuring that the Vallei en Veluwe region will be climate-resilient by 2050. The region occupies an area of 2456.44 km² and has approximately 1.2 million inhabitants [32]. The GMR2120 project, developed in the Arnhem–Nijmegen region, operates as an association of 18 municipalities under the Law of Common Agreements [33]. The region includes all municipalities in the province of Gelderland as well as the municipality of Mook en Middelaar in the province of Limburg. It covers an area of approximately 1019.37 km² and has a population of around 801,000 inhabitants [34].

In addition to addressing climate change and being part of a regional arrangement, the V&V2120 and GMR2120 processes involved participatory processes with multiple stakeholders, as we will see in Section 3. Since they follow the same principles and methodology, and most of the actors interviewed were involved in both projects, we will refer to them collectively as the Vision for 2120, although in some cases, we will highlight particular aspects of each.

2.2.2. The Galician GI Strategy

The other strategic planning process, known as the Galician Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy, was developed for the Autonomous Community of Galicia, in northwestern Spain (Figure 1). The autonomous community of Galicia has a population of 2,696,177 inhabitants [35], covers an area of 29,570.1 km², and is administratively divided into four provinces, which encompass 313 municipalities.

As indicated by its name, this process involved the development of a regional GI strategy. The Galician GI Strategy arose from the need to align with the policies and guidelines of the European Union (EU), such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [36] and with the Strategy of the EU and the States on GI [7,8,37]. These policies promote the creation of GI as essential for biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change. In this respect, as part of the EU, Spain and, therefore, Galicia (national and regional levels, respectively) are committed to meeting these objectives and contributing to global sustainability efforts. According to this, the Galician GI strategy establishes 2050 as the date for achieving its objectives and goals.

The Galician GI strategy aimed to reduce loss and fragmentation, ensure ecological connectivity, control non-native species, promote the sustainable use of natural resources to maintain key ecosystem services, mitigate climate change effects, and enhance resilience. In this respect, the Galician GI Strategy involved the creation of a foundational ecological framework through territorial planning to guarantee ecological connectivity, restore degraded ecosystems, improve existing GI elements and harmonize territorial and sectoral planning to maximize functionality. This should be accomplished while addressing the impacts of climate change by mitigating risks and adapting strategies.

In addition, the Galician GI strategy, developed at the regional level with the involvement of multiple actors, featured a strong public participation process as a key characteristic.

2.3. Data Gathering for Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative interviews were used to collect information and empirical material, and grounded theory (GT) was applied as the analytical framework. GT defines a methodology designed to develop a theory based on the systematic collection and analysis of empirical data, without relying on any pre-existing theory or hypothesis [38]. Thus, empirical data is mainly obtained by interviews with actors, and the theoretical saturation principle [39] is applied to determine when to discontinue data collection if further interviews no longer provide additional insights to what is already known [38]. Thus, the number of actors interviewed was ultimately determined by the level of information saturation; that is, the point at which the interviews began to generate repetitive answers or when new relevant contributions decreased significantly.

For implementation of the GT methodology, the process began by creating a list of all relevant actors involved in the decision-making process. This was accomplished with the assistance of the project leader in the Vision for 2120 and of one of the university group coordinators for the Galicia GI strategy. Once the initial list was compiled, we contacted potential participants via email to schedule interviews.

A total of 12 actors involved in the Vision for 2120 project were contacted and interviewed. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 min, with the last ones being shorter due to information saturation. Interviewees also suggested speaking to key actors who had already been interviewed or who were already on the list.

For the Galician GI strategy, we initially contacted 10 actors who were directly involved in the project. To ensure comprehensive representation, snowball sampling was used, particularly to reach individuals for whom we lacked contact information (especially public officials) or when information was missing. This led to the inclusion of 10 additional actors. In total, 16 actors were interviewed, with the interviews lasting between 30 and 110 min. Of the four actors who did not participate, one did not respond to our email, two were suggested during interviews but claimed that they had not participated in the project, and one suggested an alternative contact.

Overall, the interviews, consisting of open-ended questions, were conducted between November 2023 and May 2024. Although the questions were open-ended, they focused on characterizing the process, including the institutions involved, formal aspects of the project, actor engagement, and the actors’ perspectives and opinions of the process (see Appendix A). The interviews were audio-recorded, and the transcribed texts provided the input to characterize the process through interviewee’s perceptions. It was carried out in 4 steps (see Figure 2):

▪

Phase 1: Audio recording and transcription: Due to the large number of audio recording hours, an AI-based transcription model called Whisper version 20240930 [40] was initially used, followed by a review of the transcripts to enhance their accuracy.

▪

Phase 2: Data was then organized and prepared for data categorization by inductively selecting key terms from the transcripts (26 for the Galician GI strategy and 27 for the Vision for 2120)

▪

Phase 3: These keywords were grouped into categories based on their semantic similarities. For instance, keywords related to process details (e.g., start, framework, aim) were grouped together while terms related to decision-making (e.g., produce knowledge, communication, agreements) formed separate categories. The categories were reviewed and compared between interviews and across two projects to ensure they reflected similar concepts and maintained consistency in the analysis.

▪

Phase 4: The primary goal was to describe how the actors interacted during the process using their opinions and perspectives to create a joint narrative that reflects the reality across the different stages and aspects of the process. Therefore, the categories helped condense the information into three main groups or themes, which capture the narratives and contribute to building the Results section of the document while addressing the research questions posed. Additionally, the interconnections between actors in each case study were graphically represented by a basic social network analysis (SNA) (see [41,42]). SNA enables visualization of networks as graphs, in which elements are depicted as nodes (or vertices) and relationships as links (or edges) [43]. In this study, each actor was represented as a node, and any mention of another actor was recorded as a link in the network. As actors could be mentioned by others without reciprocating, the network was modeled as directed, so that links could be unidirectional or bidirectional. Moreover, the degree of connectedness of each node (i.e., the number of connections with other actors) was calculated to estimate each actor’s centrality, distinguishing between in-degree (number of incoming citations) and out-degree (number of outgoing citations). Special attention was given to the sentiments expressed, identifying and distinguishing links where references to other actors were of a negative nature. In addition, other centrality metrics, such as betweenness and eigenvector centrality, were also calculated. Betweenness centrality measures the extent to which an actor connects different segments of the network. Eigenvector centrality estimates the level of connection an actor has with other highly connected actors (i.e., those with higher degrees). For a more comprehensive explanation of centrality and its measures, see [41,43]. All network visualizations and metric calculations were performed using Gephi software, version 0.10 [44].

3. Results

We examined the transcripts of the interviews in order to extract information describing how the actors operate within each specific context as well as their roles and interactions. Additionally, to help readers understand these dynamics, we quoted the actors responses about how the process was carried out. The interviews with participants in the Vision for 2120 project were conducted in English and the responses are quoted verbatim. The interviews with the actors in the Galician GI strategy project were conducted in the Galician language and the responses were translated into English.

3.1. The Vision for 2120 Process

3.1.1. Setting the Scene for the Vision for 2120

As mentioned before, inspired by the study NL2120 published by WUR, and at the request of the Delta commissioner in V&V2120 as well as the Arnhem–Nijmegen Green Metropolitan Region (GMR), an institution responsible for spatial planning within GMR2120, both sought to integrate this vision into their spatial planning efforts. The goal was to align the national government’s plan of building one million houses while addressing needs such as transport, green spaces, and landscape preservation, while also fostering public support for the plans.

WUR worked based on proposals submission to a research call for urban and regional climate adaptation as part of the Top Consortium for Knowledge and Innovation (TKI). The call included a funding requirement that businesses and governments would cover half of the research costs, partly in cash and partly in kind. The proposals were established as a collaborative research program, including different projects, together with regional authorities and businesses. After approval of the TKI projects, including V&V2120 and GMR2120, a consortium agreement that included a project proposal was reached in broad terms, along with an agreement on financing. The overall budget for the project amounted to approximately 2 million euros for a five-year period (2020–2024). In contrast, the total budget for the V& V2120 and GMR2120 projects was about 500,000 euros. V&V2120 was developed between 2020 and 2023, while GMR2120 was formulated and presented between 2021 and 2022. Additionally, GMR2120 is included in the GMR Regional Arrangement as one of the guiding principles in spatial and programmatic considerations up to 2040, based on the changing climate. No strategic choices have yet been made in the regional strategy for the period after 2050, but GMR has stated that they aim to apply the insights gained from the GMR2120 project. The institutions responsible for the development of both projects included WUR, the Vallei en Veluwe Water Authority, and the provincial government of Gelderland, as well as experts, politicians, and ambassadors involved in the process. GMR was also involved in GMR2120 (See Figure 3).

Figure 3 gives us an idea of the position each institution holds at a formal level. However, each of them adopted a different position during the process, as well as the actors involved in the development of the project from these institutions (see Figure 4). This provides an overview of the actors interviewed and their roles within the process, depicted according to their level of commitment. Each participating institution was assigned a color and ranked according to the degree of involvement in the process. The closer to the center, the greater the involvement. This includes four people from WUR (light green), one from GMR (green), three from the Vallei en Veluwe Water Authority (blue), three from the provincial government of Gelderland (yellow), and a deputy mayor (of one of the municipalities), who acted as an ambassador (orange).

Thus, although the idea originated at WUR and the project was formally and administratively managed by this institution, substantive decisions were made by a core group. This core group, shown in the center of Figure 4, consisted of representatives from WUR, the provincial government, the water agency, and the GMR (in the case of GMR2120). When asked about the role of each partner institution, the interviewees explained that WUR was the knowledge provider, while the provincial government acted as a reflector and communicator, the Water Authority provided guarantee of safety, and GMR acted as the communicator and connector between the municipalities and the province. These roles, as well as the actors forming the core group, remained consistent throughout the process. Therefore, as one interviewee stated, the combination of WUR’s academic rigor and the practical knowledge of the governmental and organizational partners ensured that the vision of the project was theoretically sound and applicable in real-world scenarios. Furthermore, within each institution, many actors held dual roles, both formal and informal. For example, the project leader was both an informal director and also an inspiring thinker, and the content product leader played a pivotal role in guiding the project. The interviewees also highlighted that the leadership of these influential actors, together with the commitment of the ambassadors, facilitated alignment with broader priorities and secured the necessary support.

One ambassador explained that he was inspired by the Vision for 2120 because “my daughter has a little baby and I want that she can also live in this country with enough flowers and plants and animals and biodiversity. But that’s only possible when we change our way of development of our country (…) We have to work through the world and not to destroy it. So I believe in this story, and so I became an ambassador”. Thus, he assisted in the process by trying to engage people and make them understand the reason and importance of this project: “My style is to tell what’s necessary, what I think is necessary, because I believe in it. It’s not a story I learned in my head, it’s in my heart”. Moreover, even though they are not represented in Figure 4, as they were not interviewed, the core group brought in a wide variety of experts and external advisors who also contributed to the development of the outcome while creating a network committed to the project.

Thus, we can see how the role assumed by the project leader was crucial for the correct development of the process, making the network of people stronger and more cohesive. Likewise, in addition to being the most important actor in the project, the project leader was also the most frequently mentioned during the interviews, followed by the members of the core group. As shown in Figure 5, the high betweenness centrality values highlight the project leader’s key role in facilitating information flow within the network. Similarly, the project leader’s high eigenvector centrality indicates strong connections with other well-connected team members. In turn, these members—particularly the content project leader, water management advisor 1, responsible for climate action, and connector 2—also exhibit relatively high eigenvector centrality, further reinforcing the strength and cohesion of the team network. All of the mentions highlighted the positive atmosphere created during the project (e.g., It’s also a very emotional thing”, “everybody is enthusiastic about it. And everybody is eager to talk about the future”, “a lot of enthusiasm with the partners”, “we have a lot of fun, actually”, as well as positive aspects of the colleagues (e.g., “good on the content”; “good speaker”, “big influence”, “very important key player”).

3.1.2. Behind the Scenes of the Vision for 2120

The process [31] began by clarifying the stakeholders’ needs and how these could be met. The project framework was then established on the basis of the stakeholders’ experience. The process then focused on understanding the soil and water system through literature reviews, landscape analysis, trend studies, and SWOT analysis. The final design phase was more collaborative. During this collaborative phase, information was gathered using drawings and notes from general discussions to be later used by designers and landscape architects as references. Participants were asked to envision the future of the area in the next 100 years. In V&V2120, small design workshops were organized, predominantly attended by policy officers and subject matter experts, where they reflected on the future in 2120 surrounding various themes such as housing, economy, nature, agriculture, and water. A more integrated, participatory approach was adopted in GMR2120. Considering soil, subsoil, and water as the starting points, administrators, policy officers, and experts co-designed a vision for 2120 at two large meetings, each of which was attended by more than a hundred individuals.

As a result, both projects resulted in the publication of a booklet [31,45], a map with perspectives and a report on literature and landscape analysis [46,47,48]. However, the approach was not about making decisions but expressing opinions and ideas to collect for future visions as emphasized one interviewee: “It was food for thought and food for the future vision. It’s not right or wrong. It’s a reflection of our discussion we have” one said. “Is not the vision as itself, but the discussion that is following the presentation of it. And we want everyone to discuss different scenarios and to discuss different possible futures together, where this vision is instrumental for that discussion”. Another commented “the first thing that makes the 2021 visions very strong is that it’s based on landscape data (…), something inevitable. The second ingredient is climate, something that’s very dynamic. And then the third ingredient is people, basically, which is the ultimate dynamic (…), and this is the fourth most important ingredient, the vision”.

In addition, a flexible and open approach was emphasized, with the vision map serving as a tool to stimulate ongoing discussions (rather than a definitive plan) that would enable adaptability and responsiveness to emerging ideas. Interviewees also highlighted the importance of fostering a positive, safe, and inclusive environment within the teams to exchange ideas, which, together with the timely participation of actors, ensures “Free space where you can have a good discussion about things (…) You have to create a kind of safe space”.

In line with these comments, many of the interviewees stated that the success of the project mainly depended on the people involved, i.e., committed participants with the necessary skills, where “Basically, it’s all about the people. And if people are involved with a positive attitude and they will make a success of a project, then half the job is done”. Likewise, all of the partners were involved in co-financing the project, favoring commitment to the objectives and results. Also highlighted was the importance of inclusion, trust, and ongoing dialogue among actors in generating a shared vision, as one interviewee states, “I think this trust issue was the most important thing which helped the product work out very well”. In addition, rather than formal directives, a shared approach was promoted, in which energy and enthusiasm were harnessed to drive the project forward, not only improving teamwork, but also motivating participants to contribute effectively. They also pointed out that the use of established networks facilitated the flow of decisions. Knowing the right people to invite and having direct access to them made it easier to organize workshops and meetings, one concluded. Meanwhile, another interviewee highlighted that the process itself was a valuable learning experience that fostered networking.

Additionally, key guiding principles were established to prioritize discussions, emphasizing the importance of climate change acceptance and sustainable land use. This positive, forward-looking narrative was crucial to the process, inspiring hope and facilitating strategic planning towards a desirable future. One interviewee noted that “There is often a storyline with it to sort of take people along in the story, what do you see, how do you experience it, what does this future look like, and then supported by photo visualizations, and sometimes more diagrammatic figures to say, ‘this is what you see and why we chose for this kind of solutions’”. Another added that this hopeful narrative “really mobilizes and energizes people and also involving them in the process”, recognizing that it gave them a sense of purpose and agency to address climate change: “engaging them in a participative process makes them part of the solution as well”. Another highlighted the positive energy from the approach, uniting people and opening doors to change and adapting to climate change.

In addition, participants advocated for clear, concrete communication about the project, especially since it is about abstract concepts such as long-term climate scenarios. Using visual aids and detailed communication was important to make the project more relatable and understandable to stakeholders, stressing that the project was designed to involve an ongoing dialogue throughout the process. Participants took advantage of seminars and congresses to present intermediate results, and they held small scale workshops where people could contribute their reflections and questions. Some newspapers began to show interest in publishing information about the project, which led to more presentations and talks. In this regard, some interviewees reflected that effective communication, involving scientific reports, media participation, and social platforms, was also a key factor in conveying a positive message about climate management.

However, the project participants also faced challenges, including navigating complex regulations, multiple organizational procedures, and financial management issues that led to significant challenges. In addition, bureaucratic delays, political changes, and shifts in stakeholder positions, such as elections or changes in key personnel, often disrupted progress and required adjustments being made. The need to secure the support of the central government as well as that of all actors, including high-level decision makers, was also critical. Many interviewees also agreed that while formulating long-term visions was inspiring, translating these into concrete, practical plans was challenging or that balancing visionary ideas with practical implementation often required significant effort and close collaboration with stakeholders who focused on execution. Finally, interviewees also commented that the complexity and intensity of the project often led to high levels of stress and risk of burnout among team members, and navigating these pressures therefore required resilience and support from colleagues.

3.2. The Galician GI Strategy Process

3.2.1. Setting the Scene for the Galician GI Strategy

As mentioned before, the Galician GI Strategy aimed to reduce habitat loss, ensure ecological connectivity, and promote sustainable resource use, aligning with European and Spanish guidelines ([7,8,37]). Thus, in 2017, with a total budget of €320,000, the regional government of Xunta de Galicia, through the Department of Environment, Territory and Housing, promoted a 16-month agreement to prepare a technical document that would serve as the basis for the development of the Galician GI Strategy. An agreement was reached between the Directorate of Natural Heritage, the department of Environment and Territorial Planning, the Institute of Territorial Studies (IET), and researchers from the university of A Coruña (UDC) and the university of Santiago de Compostela (USC) (see Figure 6).

In Galicia, Law 5/2019 of 2 August on natural heritage and biodiversity [49] mandates that relevant departments collaborate in developing a Galician GI strategy, ensuring alignment with the Spanish GI strategy within three years of the latter’s approval in 2021. The process resulted in a foundational technical document that incorporated the findings from ecological, social, and economic analysis, which served as the basis for the Galician GI strategy, along with the accompanying cartography and databases. The Galician GI strategy serves as a foundation for adjusting and improving future initiatives, focusing on overcoming identified barriers and maximizing the potential impact of the proposed strategies. The Galician GI strategy was officially approved on 10 February 2025, under the ORDER of 4 October 2024, which establishes the Galician Green Infrastructure Strategy and Ecological Connectivity and Restoration [50] and the strategy’s document is available online as an attachment of the aforementioned order.

Although the strategy was framed within a legal framework, our focus involved development of a technical document, rather than the subsequent legal procedures. In this case, the elaboration of the technical document involved two groups from UDC, three groups from USC, and IET, an institution in charge of the field of territorial planning. Additionally, a specialized company for the preparation of the public participation process, as well as local authorities and the public who were also involved in this process.

Figure 7 shows the actors who were interviewed and those who were contacted, but not interviewed, and the role within the process (displayed according to their level of commitment). The actors who were contacted but not interviewed are highlighted in red. Each participating institution was assigned a color and ranked according to its degree of involvement in the project. The closer to the center, the greater the involvement in the process. Nine of the individual actors were from the universities (light green), three were from IET (green), two were from the Regional Government (yellow), two were participants in public activities (orange), one was from a company specializing in public participation activities (blue), and three were involved in a pilot project (purple). The pilot project, developed and promoted by the same institution in a metropolitan area, parallel to the Galician GI strategy, was mentioned in some interviews due to the lack of clarity around certain aspects. Therefore, although these individuals did not have a direct role and did not participate directly in the project, they provided key insights for the analysis. Finally, although the Directorate of Natural Heritage and various bodies of the regional government, as well as instrumental entities of the regional public sector, participated in the institutional process, actors from some of these bodies were not interviewed, as the analysis focused on preparation of the technical document rather than on the legal approval.

Thus, although the legal agreement was promoted by the regional government, within the area of Environment and Territorial Planning, the responsibility for preparing the technical document lay with the IET and researchers in the five groups from the two universities. The IET formally managed and coordinated the technical document, while the universities handled scientific-technical aspects, such as mapping biodiversity and ecosystem services, delineating GI elements and implementing socioeconomic aspects. The coordinators of each university group, along with several experts, were each responsible for a specific area, and at the end of the agreement, they had to combine the findings in a single document. In addition, although a private company was responsible for the public participation activities, the universities and IET also collaborated in the participatory events through the active involvement of researchers and technicians.

In this regard, although each entity and actor had a formally defined role (e.g., coordinator or expert), some groups exhibited greater leadership or influence, which overlapped with the leadership of IET. Furthermore, at the end of the agreement, the final technical document passed through the hands of different IET coordinators. In this context, one university group took a leadership role beyond its formal responsibilities in guiding the process and finalizing the technical document. In addition, some interviewees noted an imbalance in the efforts made by each group. All of these dynamics are reflected in the network of relationships shown in Figure 8. Higher values of degree centrality are clearly observed in Coordinator IET T1a, who exhibits the highest in-degree centrality, exclusively associated with positive comments. High eigenvector and betweenness centrality values further indicate a recognized leadership role. However, the graph also reveals other dynamics: negative sentiments, represented by red arrows, can be observed in nodes with high out-degree centrality, such as Coordinator G3. This individual’s relatively high betweenness centrality may suggest a general disagreement with the team’s behavior. Additionally, nodes with a relatively high in-degree centrality associated with negative sentiments, coupled with high eigenvector centrality values, suggest criticism from multiple well-connected actors in the network, further highlighting disagreement.

In this case, one of the most frequently mentioned individuals was Coordinator IET T1a, followed by one of the coordinators of a university group (Coordinator G5), coinciding with the greater influence of these actors. The members of each university group generally spoke positively of their colleagues. However, some interviewees expressed concerns about the behavior of certain people, highlighting issues such as a failure to meet responsibilities, which led to conflict and distrust among colleagues. Interpersonal tensions, particularly during presentations of results were also mentioned in a negative manner when disagreements arose. Furthermore, the performance of some university colleagues was described in derogatory terms. Such comments were mainly directed at other group coordinators (Coordinator G2) and Coordinators IET T2 and IET T3. Many interviewees preferred not to name individuals directly and instead referred to the institution/task when discussing negative aspects (e.g., “Communication worked better with some groups than with others”). Additionally, some interviewees were not clear who motivated the project or who was responsible for monitoring and coordination. Thus, the absence of clear leadership and the constant need for difficult consensus also slowed progress and demotivated many actors, making them dissatisfied with the work done. As one interviewee explained, “It was a nice project, and it would have been even better if, well, if we had been willing to lay all the cards on the table, engage in dialogue and reach common agreements, but that wasn’t the case. There was no willingness to dialogue. What mattered there was ego”.

3.2.2. Behind the Scenes of the Galician GI Strategy

During the process, as we have mentioned, each university group was responsible for a specific part of the project, while IET coordinated and supported the teams. Additionally, a public participation process was planned, starting in 2018, with the aim of gathering the suggestions and information provided for incorporation in the technical document. This process combined meetings, workshops, and online participatory platforms. “The truth is that the project was conceived with public participation and dissemination as a priority element” explained one of the interviewees. Thus, the strategy was presented in the City of Culture of Santiago de Compostela along with organizations, public, and private institutions, and associated sectoral bodies and was followed by regional and sectoral meetings. The regional meetings aimed to inform and involve the public, technical staff, and municipal politicians from all over Galicia about the development of the strategy. The process was “very ambitious both quantitatively and territorially because it was carried out throughout the entire territory (…) We divided the territory to be able to reach local actors”. Of the 7948 entities contacted, 957 participated in the 47 regional meetings. The seven sectoral meetings provided a platform for experts in specific thematic areas to contribute their knowledge, with 150 participants out of a total of 858 contacted. The large number of contacted organizations reflects the considerable effort made to involve various entities from the social, environmental, business, and administrative fabric, as also noted by one of the interviewees.

Additionally, the meetings were designed to be more interactive and less formal than traditional meetings, with conversation, debate, and active listening dynamics. This aimed to promote synergy and collaboration among the participants. Moreover, the events were open to anyone who wanted to participate; civil citizen participation was low, possibly due to the technical and academic terminology used, as one of the interviewees commented. Additionally, some suggested that greater decentralization of some sessions could have improved civil participation, as holding meetings in various locations would have facilitated attendance by citizens who otherwise could not travel to Santiago de Compostela. Likewise, public participation was also conducted through an online form available at the beginning of the process on the website created for this purpose to receive suggestions for consultations where many people participated and a Facebook page was also created. One of those responsible for the process commented that this “allowed the contributions to be made during the drafting phase, that is, not during the regulatory stage”. Also, most of the interviewees noted that the public participation process was ambitious, fruitful, and well organized. “The first process was clearly a fantastic experience as well as the most innovative”. All interviewees agreed that the process appeared effective in gathering and utilizing input from a wide range of actors, with some noting that citizen participation and group dynamics during sectoral meetings helped reorient debates towards the main theme, facilitating the adaptation of proposals to needs.

However, many of the interviewees pointed out that the process was not easy and faced some challenges. Firstly, some changes in the direction took place within the IET and the Department of Environment, Territory, and Housing before the agreement ended. These changes would continue from October 2018 to 2022, involving at least three main directors, with the most recent change occurring in the Directorate of Natural Heritage in 2024. Along with the change in IET direction, there were multiple variations and modifications to the technical document before and after the agreement was finalized. Some interviewees also noted that the Galician GI strategy had been continuously modified since 2019, with 10 to 12 versions of the document mentioned, indicating a lengthy and inefficient review process. “The timing is not ideal for this type of documents because it makes them age quickly”, as mentioned by one interviewee.

In addition to having to align with both the Spanish Strategy and the evolving requirements established by each new director, one interviewee pointed out that this “led to some dysfunction in content and scope”. Likewise, after the agreement was finalized, coordination of the document passed into the hands of the Directorate of Natural Heritage. “The project was not without difficulties. First, because the National Strategy had not yet been approved, and second, because there was quite a bit of lack of coordination, especially because the leadership within the IET also changed”, one of the university coordinators said. “There was a lack of coordination between the university groups, and that was what delayed the final document for a long time”, added another. In addition, the administration’s response was described as slow and uncoordinated, and the lack of clear guidelines contributed to this situation. Moreover, as noted by one interviewee, GI-related regulations were inconsistent and contradictory across different laws and government levels in Galicia.

In addition to inadequate coordination and monitoring, interviewees perceived the project as complex and with very limited time available. “Time was very limited, we were going at a rate of knots—suddenly we had to do this tomorrow. There were times when it was a bit like that, when we had to move fast”, one remarked.

Furthermore, some of them noted that each partner had their own priorities and often disagreed. Problems also arose from divergent interpretations of the GI concept among them. “There were terrible discrepancies, between us [university groups] and the Xunta. It wasn’t clear what we were working on” one said. “Each group had its vision, and reaching a consensus on the concept of green infrastructure was also difficult. At all levels, that is, from the highest to the lowest, including the Ministry itself; there was a lack of understanding about what green infrastructure entailed”, other added. As one interviewee recalled, this led to meetings becoming marathons of endless debates, where a lack of prior preparation resulted in prolonged, and sometimes fruitless, discussions. The fatigue of actors due to these problems made it difficult to reach productive agreements.

The lack of balance in performance between the different groups was also mentioned, with some groups presenting late results or not meeting established objectives. One of the interviewees compared the process to a table with some legs longer than others. Consequently, this situation complicated integration of the various inputs into the project. “The idea was to create a master document and then embed everything in it. We wanted the IET to do it, but they didn’t want to. That was outside the agreement. That’s where the conflict came from, you know? So, we ended up stitching everything together according to the structure that the IET wanted. (…) I remember everyone left that meeting really upset. Mainly because they… well, they implied that we hadn’t done our job, that we needed to change the structure of the document, you know? Unify it. I understand where the IET was coming from because they found that some things weren’t properly articulated since everyone did things their own way. We gathered everything together and sent it away”.

Another interviewee noted that the project seemed improvised to meet deadlines and to appear to make progress rather than to achieve real long-term objectives. “That route led to prejudices, reservations, conflicts of interest with everyone having a superficial vision and unwilling to collaborate in a global vision. It was too divided, the Ministry on the one hand and the Institute of the Territory [IET] on the other, and back to the Academy on the other hand”. Additionally, most interviewees pointed out that the passivity of the Directorate of Natural Heritage management, along with the various directors of IET showing little interest or did not like the idea, meant that finally only one university group continued preparing the final document after the agreement ended.

Moreover, as this process was conducted within a legal framework, the decision to approve the strategy was political and subject to priorities and deadlines not always aligned with the technical urgency of the document. “It is not a technical problem; it is a political problem.” Similarly, one interviewee felt that “the political process of approval was the most uncertain”. Moreover, another pointed out that “the corporate egos of professionals and the fear of mayors and city councils of additional conditions are additional obstacles”. “There was perhaps the difficulty of not being able to fit it into a very specific competence and the transcendence of several perhaps administrative competences”, another added. Finally, some interviewees doubted that the Galician GI strategy would translate into tangible actions benefiting the environment and society, questioning whether the efforts invested in document preparation were proportional to the environmental improvements or effective policies achieved. Most interviewees agreed that, despite potential limitations and challenges, any strategic research and development work provides a valuable opportunity for learning.

4. Discussion

4.1. What Role Do Stakeholders Play in the Strategic Planning Process in Practice, and How Does Their Interaction, Influenced by Context-Specificity, Affect Decision-Making and the Final Result?

Although both projects are based on the principles of strategic planning, where multiple involved actors collaborate and participate to achieve a set of common goals, the role played by these actors and their collaboration dynamics differ significantly, affecting the decision-making process and the final outcome.

On one hand, the Vision for 2120, where the stability of the core group, together with the participation and involvement of key actors such as the project leader and the ambassadors, promoted a collaborative and positive environment, as reflected in the participants’ perception of the process and its outcomes. In line with previous studies, the engagement of stakeholders, particularly the commitment of the project ambassadors, who captured the attention of politicians and other influential stakeholders to ensure support and understanding, with some core group individuals played a fundamental role [51]. Furthermore, clear roles and effective leadership were crucial to the success of the process, fostering a stronger and more cohesive network of individuals capable of addressing and adapting to the challenges that emerged during the process. Consistent with previous studies, successful collaboration in complex environments with multiple actors requires reaching an agreement on the distribution of responsibilities and tasks [52] as this willingness to assume responsibilities and take action greatly influences collective efforts [53], empowering and engaging actors [54].

Additionally, the inclusive environment fostered an atmosphere where all ideas were valued, helping to create procedural equity and also generating results perceived as effective, with satisfactory participation [55]. This was coupled with a positive narrative that contributed to enthusiasm, participation, and commitment from the actors. As a result, the Vision for 2120 followed a bottom–up approach with the participation and collaboration of multiples stakeholders, including institutional bodies, ending in the co-construction of the concept of the GI itself and the co-development of a narrative for it. This horizontal collaboration allowed the project to remain inclusive and participatory, with all individuals genuinely working towards a common goal. On completion of GMR2120, a more vertical approach emerged with the intention of incorporating the proposals in the provincial government planning strategies. As a result, the combination of horizontal and vertical dynamics enabled this project to emerge from the ground up, while gaining the necessary support from authorities for implementation.

In contrast, in the Galician GI strategy, although there was an initial assignment of roles, changes in leadership, along with some interpersonal conflicts, created uncertainty and internal tensions that demotivated the involved actors. Thus, opposing visions, differing mindsets, and poor communication and transparency increased the complexity of the process [56]. As a result, reaching agreements became very difficult, which aligns with previous research highlighting the negative effects of fragmented governance and poor communication in collaborative process [57]. Conflicts during meetings, pre-existing conflictive relationships, and a lack of commitment or active participation by institutional actors also affected development of the document [55], especially during the final stages and its later approval. Additionally, the lack of coordination was intensified by weak leadership, instead of the creative solutions and strong guidance, which, as noted by Van Dijk (2021), are necessary to progress through complex situations [58]. A similar observation was made by Gandrita et al. (2023), who noted that changes in leadership, staffing, or resource availability can result in significant delays or outdated results [59]. Consequently, although the process began with an ambitious effort of participation and collaboration among actors at different levels, facilitated by well-organized participatory workshops and websites engaging representative stakeholders, the Galician GI strategy ultimately became an attempt to merely move a document forward. This shift led to a missed opportunity to establish a strong, shared narrative among stakeholders regarding the meaning of GI, which is essential for its successful future implementation. As a result, the Galician GI strategy process, which followed a top–down approach, with fixed European and national guidelines and roles defined by the institutions, highlights the complexity of both horizonal and vertical relationships. The absence of unity and strong networks led each entity to prioritize its own interests, creating disparate objectives, one-way communication in many cases, and loss of information. In addition to leadership changes that complicated the project’s direction, this created tensions that weakened vertical relationships, leading to disillusionment, especially toward the end of the process. Horizontal relationships within university groups also suffered due to interpersonal conflicts and unmet expectations. Ultimately, the lack of communication and coordination at both levels, combined with general disinterest, led to conflicts and distrust, negatively impacting the final document. Thus, the Galician GI strategy, despite being framed within a legal framework to include steps that could delay the process further, the strategy was not considered a political priority and was ultimately approved (in 2025, i.e., after 8 years).

As we have seen, the participation of all stakeholders is crucial [60,61]. Beyond the role that each actor may play during the process, several factors or conditions facilitate decision-making, further reinforced by the role these actors play.

4.2. What Are the Key Factors or Conditions That Promote Effective Participation of Stakeholders in Developing Successful Strategies and Ensuring Their Implementation?

Although strategic planning projects are context-dependent, there are some basic characteristics common to all. In this regard, we have identified an empirical planning approach as emerging from the most successful elements of the Vision for 2120, which align closely with the key attributes for effective collaboration highlighted in the relevant literature (see e.g., [55,62]). Specifically, these include a mutual willingness to collaborate, treating all participants as equals, respecting different opinions and interests, empowering one another through open dialogue, building consensus, and fostering trust [63]. While evident in the Vision for 2120, these attributes were absent or scarce in the Galician GI Strategy, particularly those aimed at fostering trust or, at the very least, addressing the distrust in institutions, leading to conflicts that, as pointed out elsewhere, reduce the likelihood of effective agreements being reached [64,65]. In fact, Kwok et al. (2018) highlighted that individuals who trust the system are more likely to engage in planning processes and that trust and participation are complementary factors that facilitate effective dialogue [66].

Furthermore, Johns (2019) highlighted that communication must be fostered in order to improve the efficiency of knowledge exchange and develop trust and cooperation among actors [67]. In this regard, it is evident that in the Vision for 2120, clear and continuous communication throughout the process was a key factor, whereas in the Galician GI strategy, the discontinuous communication approach led to a flawed process, hindering cooperation among stakeholders. In addition to the challenges and problems mentioned before between actors, the situation was exacerbated by a rigid framework with fixed deadlines and legal objectives, which limit collaboration and adaptability [58].

Moreover, as we have seen, creating effective collaborations often relied on establishing effective governance through networks (see, e.g., [68,69,70,71]). Thus, collaborative learning among stakeholders (at expert and political or decision-making levels) is central to successful strategic planning [62], particularly continuous learning and flexibility [72]. Furthermore, participatory processes must promote trust, learning, and empowerment, so that stakeholders feel their voices are heard, valued, and influential [73] from the outset of the decision-making process [74]. Similarly Karlsson et al. (2024) highlighted time, trust, and leadership as crucial factors that could have had a critical impact on the process [18].

Finally, as shown, the approach used, influenced by the governance system and its associated institutional arrangements, constitutes a key differentiating factor. While both cases share certain similarities, such as the strict deadlines (which are very tight in both cases), and the uncertainty and challenges arising from involving multiple actors in medium- and long-term planning, these aspects were addressed differently. Consequently, the system’s attributes ultimately determine the outcomes [75]. As a result, the Vision for 2120 achieved an outcome that ensured the engagement of actors and institutions at different levels (assumed to be equal during the process), thus managing and responding to the proposed national objectives. The flexible framework provided by the bottom–up approach enabled fruitful debate and creativity in a safe and trusting environment. This created an increasingly larger network of people with the same energy and motivated by a common goal: change for a better future. Furthermore, by not being involved in addressing regulations, laws, and guidelines (which can be restrictive or conditional), the Vision for 2120 was able to be more flexible, innovative, and adaptable. All of this allowed the process to become a narrative learning experience, and the exchange of ideas and opinions in all directions and levels culminated in institutionalization of the vision, exemplifying how local transition initiatives may help test, improve, and institutionalize sustainable solutions [76]. In the case of the Galician GI strategy, we observed a normative and less flexible institutional framework, in which public participation was primarily used as a means of gathering information. As a result, it proved ineffective in managing uncertainty, as well as the lack of consensus and dialogue among actors, ultimately leading to dissatisfaction with the process, insecurity, distrust, and a perceived lack of transparency. This situation may be due to the fact that institutions often struggle to adopt new conditions or solutions that do not align with established approaches and structures [77]. As a result, the current system hampers the effective planning of new strategies to provide sustainable solutions to current challenges.

Therefore, if successful GI strategies that meet the proposed sustainable objectives are really desired, measures or changes that help the process must be adopted, e.g., by applying top–down approaches with the participation of stakeholders who are really committed to current problems. However, there is a lack of narratives that mobilize actors and governance agreements that facilitate significant change [78]. Additionally, as Mell et al. (2017) pointed out, the formal institutional context is not sufficient to stimulate stakeholders to act on climate adaptation, which can be made extensive to the correspondent GI measures [22]. Thus, greater emphasis must be placed on understanding the informal institutional context to motivate key stakeholders, engaging them in adaptation plans and establishing effective governance. In addition to the conflicts and challenges involved in top–down approaches, implementation of the Galician GI strategy process was hindered by several barriers, which coincide with those identified by Johns (2019) [67]. Such barriers include the lack of organizational units within institutions. Dialogue between levels within institutions can also be difficult, and the lack of institutional, intergovernmental, interdepartmental, and interdivisional integration remains a problem, especially when the GI covers multiple areas. In some cases, this can be coupled with a lack of knowledge or experience or by cultural barriers. Thus, Johns (2019) argued that the shift from “grey” to “green” is extremely slow and may not be adaptable enough to address current and future challenges [67]. Moreover, the actual integration of the GI approach in spatial planning takes time, especially when existing sectoral planning traditions are strong and/or inflexible [21]. In this context, the importance of institutional flexibility in adopting new planning perspectives in uncertain environments must be emphasized, particularly in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and especially in GI. The need to challenge traditional policy-making practices and adopt innovative new ideas within established policy networks is an important driving force behind the top–down restructuring of governance frameworks [79]. It is therefore essential to respond more effectively to current challenges in order to foster a shift in the planning system. The transformative shift must go beyond planning and institutional frameworks and must also incorporate innovative governance approaches that are integrative, inclusive, informed, adaptive [80], and transparent, as well as deliberative and conversational [81]. In this regard, learning must be fostered at all levels to facilitate effective change and collaboration among diverse actors [28] through a participatory process that mobilizes the participation [61] of networks.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we analyzed two empirical approaches to strategic planning with the aim of learning from them to guide the development of future successful GI strategies and facilitate their inclusion in planning. Throughout the document, we observed that although the studied cases represent different realities, in both, the level of commitment and active participation of all stakeholders at all levels play a crucial role, and their contributions shape both the process and the desired medium- and long-term outcomes. As a result, what we can learn from these case studies to foster collaboration and improve decision-making to facilitate the incorporation of GI into planning is:

(a)

Promote trust

Building trust and respect among involved actors is essential for effective collaboration, better engagement, and increased willingness to participate. This requires the creation of safe spaces for interaction, transparency in information sharing, and activities that strengthen interpersonal and inter-institutional relationships, such as trust-building initiatives.

(b)

Foster continuous communication

Continuous communication is crucial for improving knowledge exchange and fostering cooperation among stakeholders at all levels. Medium-term presentations, workshops, and dissemination activities throughout the process can contribute to this goal.

(c)

Encourage active participation and commitment of stakeholders

To ensure enthusiasm, partnership, and commitment, it is recommended to establish mechanisms for participation that guarantee real commitment and joint decision-making, such as the use of narrative storylines. Specifically, co-constructed GI narratives that are easily perceived by participants as leading to improvements in their immediate environment and having intergenerational consequences may help secure the engagement of a diverse range of actors.

(d)

Enhance collaborative learning

It is essential to make the participation process inclusive in order to create procedural equity and effective results. This helps to foster collaboration and co-creation processes, such as creating networks of individuals, which may be particularly important for concepts like GI that often start without a concrete and shared vision.

(e)

Strengthen leadership and coordination

Being still a novel concept with numerous linkages to different administrative bodies, GI may challenge existing institutional and governance frameworks. Strong and effective leadership should be promoted to coordinate and mobilize stakeholders in a collaborative decision-making process. Additionally, governance structures should be designed to enable efficient coordination between different levels and actors. This fosters creative solutions and strong guidance necessary for navigating complex situations. It is required to set roles from the outset.

(f)

Develop a flexible, inclusive, and adaptable decision-making framework

Given that conditions and contexts change rapidly, especially for a GI supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, a flexible and adaptable decision-making framework that encourages fruitful debate, creative thinking, and sustainable solutions. It should enable the resolution of complex problems that take into account diverse perspectives and experiences.

(g)

Foster the shift towards more flexible and collaborative institutional models

To address current challenges, supporting a shift toward more adaptable and collaborative institutional models is critical. This involves reviewing and adjusting existing legal and organizational frameworks to ensure they can accommodate changing realities and foster greater cooperation among stakeholders. This includes fostering collaborative learning at all levels and promoting more participatory and inclusive processes.

However, it is important to highlight that the lessons learned are based on the perceptions of the actors interviewed. Although an effort was made to interview all the stakeholders involved in the process, this was not fully achieved, and as such, not all perspectives and opinions are represented. These may, in certain aspects, differ from the narratives presented in this document. Furthermore, as the interviews were conducted using open-ended questions, the responses are inherently influenced by what the interviewee chose to disclose, as well as by the potential influence of the interviewer (although care was taken to minimize this influence). Consequently, while efforts were made to accurately reflect the reality of the interviewees, these factors must be considered when interpreting the results, as they could impact the generalizability of the findings. Despite the challenges that remain around GI governance, it is essential to continue advancing in this area to develop successful GI strategies that are truly sustainable in the medium and long term.