Next Article in Journal
Performance Analysis and Soil Quality Indexing for Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Grown in Marginal and Degraded Land of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Monitoring of Protected Cultural Heritage Environments in Norway: Development of Methods and First-Time Application
Previous Article in Journal
Increasing Sugar Production in Indonesia through Land Suitability Analysis and Sugar Mill Restructuring
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tick Bite Risk as a Socio-Spatial Representation—An Exploratory Study in Massif Central, France
 
 
Article

Implementing Green Infrastructure in Spatial Planning in Europe

Nordregio, Box 1658, 11186 Stockholm, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 5 March 2019 / Revised: 8 April 2019 / Accepted: 11 April 2019 / Published: 13 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue European Landscapes and Quality of Life)

Abstract

Interest in green infrastructure (GI) has grown in research, policy and planning in recent decades. The central idea behind GI is the understanding of the physical non-built-up environment as an infrastructure capable of delivering a wide variety of benefits to society, including the ability to preserve biodiversity; to provide food, feed, fuel and fibre; to adapt to and mitigate climate change and to contribute to enhanced human health and quality of life. The European Union (EU) has had a GI strategy since 2013, and member states are involved in several strategic and applied GI initiatives and projects. The aim of this study is to explore if and how the European strategy has been implemented. The study adds to the body of knowledge of current GI policies and measures in Europe via an online survey and insights into previous research. The survey reveals that GI is integrated into one or more policy sectors in all 32 countries covered. In 11 of the 32 countries, GI-specific policies are already in place or are being drawn up at a national level. In general, the respondents see the responsibility for GI policy and strategy as a matter of national governments and the implementation as a matter of local governments. They also see the LIFE+ and Horizon 2020 project funds, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), as the most important EU funding sources for the implementation of the GI strategy. The study also identifies availability of georeferenced information, zoning and biotope area factor as three of the spatial planning tools used to implement GI.
Keywords: green infrastructure; policy; spatial planning; Europe green infrastructure; policy; spatial planning; Europe

1. Introduction

Interest in green infrastructure (GI) has grown in research, policy and planning in recent decades [1,2,3]. The central idea behind GI is the understanding of the physical non-built-up environment as an infrastructure capable of delivering a wide variety of benefits to society [4], including the ability to preserve biodiversity; to provide food, feed, fuel and fibre; to adapt to and mitigate climate change and to contribute to enhanced human health and quality of life [1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Although no global definition has been agreed upon, the concept has a number of key components or ideas: connectivity (e.g., between green areas, non-built-up land and water), multifunctionality (e.g., areas that have multiple functions and social values tied to them) and “increased greenery” (e.g., the ambition to enhance the quantity and/or quality of green and blue areas) [3,12,13,14,15].
The European Union (EU) has had a GI strategy since 2013 [16], and member states are involved in several strategic and applied GI initiatives and projects [2,17,18]. The European GI strategy seeks to balance “people, planet and profit” [6]. It states that there is no need for legislation exclusively designed to enforce implementation, and calls instead for existing legislation, policy instruments and funding mechanisms to be used [16]. Although GI can be considered a new aspect of policy and governance, especially in EU policy, research has been conducted into it since the 1970s in the fields of landscape ecology, conservation biology and nature protection [2,19]. Research reveals that the focus of GI implementation in European countries has been on measures to enhance ecological networks, and that the conservation of green space is more common than the restoration and creation of new green areas [1,4,20]. This implies a focus on nature protection and biodiversity.
The aim of this study is to explore if and how the European GI strategy has been implemented. It addresses the following research questions: Other than environmental policy, what policy sectors are covered? Who is seen to be responsible for developing and implementing GI policy? Which European funds and policy tools are being used to implement the GI strategy? To answer these questions, a Europe-wide questionnaire-based survey was conducted and the results have been analysed in the light of previous research.

2. Background and Theoretical Framework

As a spatial planning concept, GI is intended to be a systemic and holistic approach. GI helps the preserve non-built-up land by highlighting the range of societal benefits (e.g., land uses) associated with green areas. Using this approach as a governing strategy can make spatial planning sustainable [21]. GI also represents a solution-oriented and cross-sectoral approach to spatial planning. Before deploying the concept holistically, it is important to acknowledge that GI also has shortcomings. Since the 1970s, studies of the relationships between humans and the environment have focused predominantly on ecosystem resilience and/or ecological networks [22]. Attempts to include human beings and societies in ecosystem thinking [23,24,25] have failed to take sufficient account of spatial restrictions (e.g., that land is a limited resource) [26,27,28,29]. Any defined space in the physical environment is subject to a variety of competing interests and activities [29,30,31,32], which makes conflicts between different users of land and water the rule rather than an exception [33,34]. Any realistic assessment of the potential for implementing GI at an institutional level must take these conflicts about land use into consideration.
Other researchers also highlight some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the concept of GI. Davies and Lafortezza (2017) call it a neoliberal concept because the value of ‘green’ is mainly seen in economic terms and because promoting more green space in cities may contribute to gentrification [1]. Garmendia et al. (2016) argue that it is no surprise that GI initiatives are increasingly linked to business interests in an era when economic growth is considered one of the most important policy goals [2]. Wolch, Byrne and Newell (2014) report that in America and China, paradoxes have been evident in urban green space strategies: the creation of new green space can make neighbourhoods healthier and more aesthetically attractive, but it may also push up housing costs and property values [35].
Including a wide range of policy goals under the GI umbrella has both pros and cons. While holistic concepts make it possible to connect the wide range of goals linked to green areas, there is a risk of the conflicts between different goals being neglected. This risk has been highlighted by previous studies of sustainability as a governing concept [36,37].
To provide a framework for the policy analyses that follow, the next two paragraphs consist of a review of policy synergies and policy conflicts for GI.
Several policy themes complement GI. In the academic literature, three sectors or policy themes provide the greatest synergies with GI in Europe; ‘biodiversity’ [2,17], ‘rural development and agriculture’ [38,39,40] and ‘urban development and green areas’ [5,8,9,13,41,42]. In their policy analysis of 14 European countries, Davies and Lafortezza [1] report that four synergetic policy themes were prominent in national policies: social cohesion, green economy, biodiversity and health. The themes of social cohesion and green economy were poorly represented in policy documents related to GI on the EU level and in the 14 EU member states studied, while health and biodiversity were well represented [1].
The land uses that conflict most in terms of habitat fragmentation with GI preservation and development are ‘transport infrastructure’, ‘energy generation’ and ‘agricultural intensification’ [5]. Continued low-intensity use of land for built up areas, commonly referred to as ‘urban sprawl’, is also fragmenting habitats and decreasing the amount of land that is not built on in Europe [15,43,44]. At the same time, ‘denser urban structure’ and land cover changes in urban areas are often at the expense of green areas and the ecosystem services they preserve [13,45,46].

3. Method and Approach

3.1. Studying Green Infrastructure in Europe via an Online Questionnaire

The survey covered 32 European countries, i.e., the 28 EU member states and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland (the 32 countries in the ESPON programme). The recipients were mainly government experts in territorial development linked to European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON) [47]. They either filled in and returned the questionnaire themselves or forwarded it to somebody else in their country who they considered a more relevant respondent. Whenever responses were not forthcoming, searches at the peer-reviewed literature database Scopus Elsevier were used to identify researchers and academics in the relevant country who had published research into GI.
The questions were based on insights gained from previous studies. For instance, the policy sectors included in the questionnaire were based on factsheets on GI produced by the European Commission in 2013 [48]. The questions emerged from an iterative process involving the research team and officials working at ESPON. The online platform SurveyMonkey was used to circulate the questionnaire. The link was included in a covering e-mail. 41 respondents filled in the online questionnaire. Six respondents replied directly by e-mail or provided additional information by e-mail and/or telephone. Reminders were e-mailed once a fortnight until at least one response had been received from each country.
Originally, the time frame for responses was 22 January 2018 until 31 March 2018, but the deadline was extended until 10 May 2018 so that responses could be elicited from all 32 countries. The respondents consisted of advisors, experts or officials of national, regional or local governments (34), mainly in the fields of spatial planning or environmental resource management. In countries where these types of experts did not respond, the respondent(s) were academics (12) or a private consultant (1). As the topic of GI is cross-sectoral and spans multiple institutional levels, it was a challenge to find respondents capable of answering all of the questions. To remedy this, respondents were encouraged to answer at least parts of the questionnaire and forward it to others to answer the rest. Due to the nature of the process it is impossible to say with certainty how many actors were asked to fill in the questionnaire, but it is possible to say how many actually did so and who they were. Even though the length of the questionnaire was designed to encourage a good response rate, some text boxes for long-form answers were left empty. This shortcoming was resolved by sifting through relevant policy documents and official reports and filling in the blanks. This procedure was adopted for questions regarding policy sectors that include GI principles in Austria, Finland, Italy and Malta.

3.2. Analyses of the Empirical Material

The survey questions focused on three major themes: (1) strategy, policy and actors responsible for GI, (2) good practice examples of GI on a regional and local level in each country and (3) governance measures and approaches to GI. This article presents results for the first and third theme, which include both facts and opinions (see Appendix A for the survey).
The results of questions regarding facts were analysed and presented by country, those regarding opinions were analysed and presented as individual responses. For the facts per country, policies for GI and georeferenced information (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5), the respondents consisted of experts from the country in question. In cases where several answers reflecting different opinions were received, the answers from national government agencies were chosen as representative of the country.
The rankings for responsibility and financing are based on individual responses. This reflects the nuances in the data because the answers to these questions reflect the respondents’ opinions rather than simple facts. The rankings for responsibility for the development and implementation of GI (questions 6 and 7) are based on individual replies and presented as spider-web diagrams (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The spider webs are based on data summarised per actor group to facilitate comparisons. The summarised score was determined by multiplying the number given (ranging from 1 to 7, question 6 and 7 in the survey) with the number of times that number was given. For example, the actor group ‘European authorities’ was ranked as follows: most important six times = 6, second seven times = 14, third 3 times = 9, fourth 5 times = 20, fifth twice = 10, sixth 3 times = 18 and seventh 4 times = 28. The N/A alternative was given a score of 8, and the number of respondents that thought this actor group was non-relevant were seven = 56. The total score for this group was 161. The lower the score, the more responsibility the group of actors was perceived to have. This method facilitated Europe-wide comparisons of the different actor groups.
The results for financing GI via EU funds are also based on individual responses, not countries (Figure 4). The questions regarding georeferenced information on protected areas and its use in spatial planning are presented per country (Figure 5). These questions were answered by 40 respondents online (questions 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the survey).
The results were analysed on the basis of insights from previous studies of GI. Eurostat data for population and per capita GDP have been used to provide explanations for the results.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Policies for Green Infrastructure in Europe

Eleven of the 32 countries have adopted or are developing GI-specific national policies (Figure 1). Nine of the national policies implemented were in countries with a per capita GDP above the EU average in 2017 (Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, UK and France). This may indicate that countries with prosperous economies are more capable of evolving national GI policies. However, due to the lack of any clear pattern, these results should be treated with care. Some countries had a an above-average per capita GDP and no GI specific policy (Finland, Austria, Ireland, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). This suggests that political willingness is also crucial for the development and implementation of a GI policy.
The respondents saw GI as the physical expression of a network of ecosystems associated with areas that are not built up. Respondents from all of the countries included green areas and the interconnectivity between them in their answers. Some acknowledged blue areas. Respondents from two countries, the UK and Iceland, did not see GI as related to actual green and blue areas but primarily to the immaterial infrastructure (planning and policy work) by public bodies for a ‘green transition’ of societies, e.g., in a more environmentally friendly manner. The respondents’ answers identified the tools used by official agencies to promote energy efficiency and the use of public transport as examples of GI good practices [49]. All of the countries used GI in one or more policy sector(s). One way to determine what GI consists of in policy and planning practices is to build an understanding of which sectors it is used in. The survey covered 13 policy sectors (Figure 1). Firstly, note that respondents tended to be more willing to include GI in a policy sector than not, i.e., there are more ‘yes’ than ‘no’ answers.
Secondly, note that some policy sectors include GI principles more than others. Land use and spatial development planning; water management; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; climate change mitigation and adaptation; environmental protection and rural development are policy sectors that often include GI principles (i.e., had more than 20 “yes” answers in the survey). This means that GI was perceived as wider ranging than protecting biodiversity, which is what the European GI strategy from 2013 intended and what has been identified in previous studies of the integration of GI into policy work [2,5,8,9,12,16,38,39,40,41].
The third thing to note is that the results indicate that GI principles are not prominent in some sectors: finance, energy, health and social services did not include GI principles (i.e., had more than 10 “no” answers in the survey). This result differs somewhat from the results presented by Davies and Lafortezza (2017), who found that health is a policy sector in which 14 of the member states integrate GI [1]. In the comments to the question regarding policy sectors that include GI (question 5 in the survey), three additional policy sectors were mentioned: nature conservation, urban development and building.

4.2. Who Is Responsible for Green Infrastructure in Europe?

The survey sent to the 32 countries included two questions about responsibility for GI (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The respondents were asked to rank the actors and/or institutions that they perceived as being responsible for developing a policy or strategy for GI in their country (Figure 2) and the actors and/or institutions that they perceived as responsible for implementing GI in their country (Figure 3).
Figure 2 indicates that national governments were perceived to have the main responsibility for developing a policy and strategy for GI in Europe (score: 106). Local governments were ranked second (137), regional governments third (156) and European institutions fourth (161). Other non-public actors were also considered responsible for GI development in terms of policy or strategy, but not to the same extent. Of these, researchers were ranked highest (189), followed by non-governmental organisations (211) and, finally, the business community (237).
Figure 3 indicates that local governments were seen as having the main responsibility for implementing GI in Europe (score: 137), followed by national governments (142), European institutions (154) and regional governments (156) just behind. Researchers (189) and NGOs (211) were considered more responsible than the business community (237).
Summarising the results for all 32 countries, various levels of government were seen as having the main responsibility for both policy development and the implementation of the GI approach. Previous studies of GI implementation also showed that it is mainly driven by the various levels of government, but which one is considered the most influential or responsible differs from country to country [1] and [20].

4.3. Financing GI in Europe

Financial measures are important for preserving, restoring and developing green and blue areas and for enhancing their qualities and uses [15,50,51]. The respondents ranked the importance of different funding sources for implementing GI measures based on a list of seven European funds (Figure 4).
Text comments added to the questionnaire stated that subsidies, investments and tax breaks were used as land management incentives for ‘greening’ agriculture, for establishing and managing nature trails and nature reserves, for renewing urban parks and building green roofs. As examples, the five structural funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)) were used, together with national environmental funds, in Cyprus and Slovakia. EAFRD was used for agro-environmental subsidies in Belgium and to improve environmental quality in Natura 2000 areas in Denmark. CF was used for enhancing urban green areas in Slovenia. The results indicate that funding flowed mainly from public funding sources to public actors and institutions. There was also a certain amount of private green investment.
All of the funds listed in the questionnaire were considered important to some degree (Figure 4). The three EU funds considered ‘Very important’ for implementing GI in Europe by most respondents were LIFE+ and Horizon 2020 project funds (18 of 40 respondents), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (13) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (12). Note that nine respondents stated that European funds were not used for implementing GI and 12 respondents did not know if the funding originated from the European Union or not. Some respondents also added comments about other funds, in particular national funding and co-funding from various sources depending on the primary aim of the GI in question.

4.4. Georeferenced Information on Protected Areas and Its Use in Spatial Planning

One of the basic prerequisites for preserving and restoring networks of green and blue areas, is geographical knowledge of the existing GI and its environmental qualities. Although GI includes a wider range of green areas than just protected land, the respondents were asked if information was easily accessible about the location of protected areas and about their environmental qualities (see Figure 5). Another prerequisite is that this knowledge was used as the basis for decisions in spatial planning, such as where to locate new housing, commercial areas, industries, roads, waste disposal and so forth. The respondents were asked how often the information was used in decision-making processes in spatial planning on regional and local levels (Figure 5).
Out of the 32 countries, 30 had georeferenced information about where protected areas were located that is accessible online.
Nineteen countries stated that georeferenced information was available about the environmental quality of protected areas, e.g., biodiversity rates, ecosystem services and/or other quality measures. Six country representatives said that this information was sometimes available. Three representatives said that it was rarely available, and four representatives did not know.
Nineteen country representatives stated that the information was used in all decision-making processes in spatial planning at regional and local levels, seven representatives said that it was used sometimes, and six representatives stated that they did not know.
The results indicate that information about the location and size of the protected areas, in terms of coordinates, boundaries and hectares, was more readily accessible for decision-making processes than the qualities of these areas. Although it is positive that georeferenced information on land cover and land use patterns is available, in several countries there were multiple sources, which means that the responsibility for providing georeferenced information regarding land and water use is shared between several institutions and online platforms. In planning practice, this can present an obstacle to practitioners and planners in finding and using the most accurate information. The majority of the respondents said that continued mapping of land cover and land use patterns in terms of zoning and monitoring is important for the ongoing implementation of GI. This includes protected areas, production forests, agricultural land, level of fragmentation, urban sprawl and ecological status.
When asked directly if the planning system included innovative ways of calculating GI requirements for new urban developments, 12 respondents from 12 countries explicitly mentioned that such incentives are used to some extent in their national planning system. As this information has not been validated, it should be treated with care and not be used as evidence that this planning tool is definitely in use in 12 European countries. Instead, it should be seen as an indication of a certain level of awareness of the opportunities to include such tools in planning procedures. The planning tools have different names throughout Europe, such as biotope area factor, green space factor, blue green area factor, max density of built-up area, coefficient of vegetation area, or green-area-per-capita factor [51,52]. These tools are used in varying forms and to a varying degree in the different countries. What they share in common is that the planning processes include a calculation of ‘a factor’ of space that must left as land that is not built up or designed as green space. The point of this is to ensure that the actors responsible for the building phase incorporate areas and elements for GI into their work.

5. Conclusions

Previous studies highlighted that the GI concept was not yet being implemented in an integrated manner and that it was being interpreted slightly differently depending on context [1,5,6]. Some even noted a growing number of sub-national and local variations for GI assessments and outcomes [3]. The results presented in this study indicate similar trends, which should come as no surprise, given the range of different governance structures and national policies in Europe. Whether this is necessarily a problem remains an open question. On the one hand, strict definitions of concepts, goals and associated measurements are important for quantifying how effective policies are on the ground. On the other hand, openness of political goals on pan-European levels facilitate contextualization and adaptation of pan-European policies. This openness can be seen as necessary for a policy to be legitimately implemented on national, regional and local levels and have real effects, not only in financial terms but also in terms of the environment and social benefits, or—in the words of the GI strategy—“to balance people, planet and profit” [6,16].
Despite different ways of implementing the European GI strategy, the respondents in this study indicated a common understanding of the concept. Respondents from most countries included green areas and the interconnectivity between them. Some respondents mentioned blue areas. Respondents from Iceland and the UK also included policy measures for green transition. The study indicates that the 32 European countries integrate GI in one or more policy sectors, especially in the 11 countries that have developed or are developing GI-specific national strategies. The analyses in this article suggest that a more systematic coordination of policy could lead to a further and wider implementation of GI in various policy sectors. Targeted coordination per sector and national GI-specific policies would help achieve the multifunctional nature of GI to a greater extent. Further study is needed of whether sectoral policy coordination would be best achieved by focusing on the five sectors that already seem to include principles for GI (water management; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; climate change adaptation and mitigation; environmental protection; rural development) [1,2,17,38,39,40] or by focusing on the policy sectors that seem to lack such principles (finance, energy, health, social services) [5].
A parallel route to further implementation of GI—even with further policy integration—is to make use of existing spatial planning procedures. Criticism has been raised of the tendency not to acknowledge spatial restrictions (e.g., that land is a limited resource for which several uses and policy sectors compete) [26,27,28,29]. This is indeed relevant for a concept such as GI, which has an ambition of combining multiple goals and policy sectors. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that even though the georeferenced information on protected areas and their environmental qualities is provided at a national level and used as part of the basis for decisions in spatial planning on regional and local levels, the decisions on where to invest in socio-economic developments (e.g., build new housing, commercial areas or industries) are not always based on this information. This means that the spatial planning on a regional, local and city level does not always prioritise GI. This challenge, which can be seen in the GI implementation in Slovenia, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Austria but which is also indicated elsewhere in Europe, is related to one of the fundamental issues of governance of land and resources, i.e., the balance between knowledge and power. Regardless of the level of government involved, relevant and up-to-date knowledge is one of the fundamentals for decision making—using the information to make decisions is another fundamental [33].
The responses about responsibility for both policy development and the implementation of GI in this study confirm that GI is mainly considered to be the responsibility of the various levels of government [1,20]. Which level is seen as having the main responsibility differs from country to country. The responsibility of the actor group of land owners (e.g., gardeners, foresters and farmers) is not explicitly included in the questionnaire. Although not indicated by our respondents, indications from media debates in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the UK suggest that it is important to acknowledge the role of land owners in analyses regarding the responsibility for implementing GI and maintaining the environmental qualities of their land. Farmers, foresters and other private land owners were assumed to be part of the actor group ‘business community’ in this questionnaire. As agriculture has been called ‘the elephant in the room’ [53], to not focus the questionnaire more on this actor group is a shortcoming that future studies of GI are recommended to address.

Author Contributions

The authors worked together on the scope and design of the article, including the introduction, discussion and conclusions. E.S. was responsible for the background and theoretical frame, the method and approach, and most of the analysis. E.T. was responsible for the data processing, as well as analysis of policies for GI in Europe, georeferenced information on protected areas and its use in spatial planning. K.N. was responsible for the design of the method and approach, the results and analysis, and for the quality assurance of the article as a whole.

Funding

This research was funded by ESPON 2020 Programme (2014TC16RFIR004).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the respondents for spending time filling in the questionnaire. As the study is a part of the ESPON-project GRETA (“GReen infrastructure: Enhancing biodiversity and ecosysTem services for territoriAl development”), we would also like to thank the whole GRETA team for working with us and the ESPON 2020 Programme (2014TC16RFIR004) for funding the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Survey on Green Infrastructure
Land 08 00062 i001
Land 08 00062 i002
Land 08 00062 i003
Land 08 00062 i004
Land 08 00062 i005
Land 08 00062 i006
Land 08 00062 i007
Land 08 00062 i008

References

  1. Davies, C.; Lafortezza, R. Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Garmendia, E.; Apostolopoulou, E.; Adams, W.M.; Bormpoudakis, D. Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure in Europe: Boundary object or ecological trap? Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mell, I.; Allin, S.; Reimer, M.; Wilker, J. Strategic green infrastructure planning in Germany and the UK: A transnational evaluation of the evolution of urban greening policy and practice. Int. Plan. Stud. 2017, 22, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andreucci, M.B. Progressing green infrastructure in Europe. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 179, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Borgström, S.; Kistenkas, F.H. The compatibility of the habitats directive with the novel EU green infrastructure policy. Eur. Energy Environ. Law Rev. 2014, 23, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  7. Faivre, N.; Fritz, M.; Freitas, T.; de Boissezon, B.; Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Giedych, R.; Maksymiuk, G. Specific features of parks and their impact on regulation and cultural ecosystem services provision in Warsaw, Poland. Sustainability 2017, 9, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ponizy, L.; Stachura, K. Future of Allotment Gardens in the Context of City Spatial Policy—A Case Study of Poznań. Quaest. Geogr. 2017, 36, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nilsson, K.; Sangster, M.; Gallis, C.; Hartig, T.; de Vries, S.; Seeland, K.; Schipperijn, J. (Eds.) Forests, Trees and Human Health; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Vandermeulen, V.; Verspecht, A.; Vermeire, B.; Van Huylenbroeck, G.; Gellynck, X. The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Beery, T.H.; Raymond, C.M.; Kyttä, M.; Olafsson, A.S.; Plieninger, T.; Sandberg, M.; Stenseke, M.; Tengö, M.; Jönsson, K.I. Fostering incidental experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. Ambio 2017, 46, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Lafortezza, R.; Davies, C.; Sanesi, G.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest Biogeosci. For. 2013, 6, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liquete, C.; Kleeschulte, S.; Dige, G.; Maes, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Olah, B.; Zulian, G. Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Maes, J.; Barbosa, A.; Baranzelli, C.; Zulian, G.; Batista e Silva, F.; Vandecasteele, I.; Hiederer, R.; Liquete, C.; Paracchini, M.L.; Mubareka, S.; et al. More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use change in Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital: /* COM/2013/0249 final */ 2013. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 (accessed on 13 April 2019).
  17. Blasi, C.; Capotorti, G.; Alós Ortí, M.M.; Anzellotti, I.; Attorre, F.; Azzella, M.M.; Carli, E.; Copiz, R.; Garfì, V.; Manes, F.; et al. Ecosystem mapping for the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy at the national level: The case of Italy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 78, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sanesi, G.; Colangelo, G.; Lafortezza, R.; Calvo, E.; Davies, C. Urban green infrastructure and urban forests: A case study of the Metropolitan Area of Milan. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Čivić, K.; Jones-Walters, L.M. Implementing green infrastructure and ecological networks in Europe: Lessons learned and future perspectives. J. Green Eng. 2014, 4, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mazza, L.; Bennett, G.; De Nocker, L.; Gantioler, S.; Losarcos, L.; Margerison, C.; Kaphengst, T.; McConville, A.; Rayment, M.; ten Brink, P.; et al. Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency; Final Report for the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium; London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  21. Slätmo, E. Jordbruksmark i Förändring. Drivkrafter Bakom och Förutsättningar för Offentlig Styrning i Sverige och Norge; Meddelanden från Göteborgs universitets geografiska institutioner: Göteborg, Sweden, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Berkes, F., Folke, C., Colding, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  24. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Odum, H.T. Energy, ecology, and economics. Ambio 1973, 2, 220–227. [Google Scholar]
  26. Anderies, J.M.; Walker, B.H.; Kinzig, A.P. Fifteen weddings and a funeral: Case studies and resilience-based management. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hägerstrand, T. A look at the political geography of environmental management. In Sustainable Landscapes and Lifeways. Scale and Appropriateness; Buttimer, A., Ed.; Cork University Press: Cork, Ireland, 2001; pp. 35–58. [Google Scholar]
  28. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. (Eds.) Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  29. Stenseke, M.; Lindborg, R.; Dahlberg, A.; Slätmo, E. System or arena? Conceptual concerns around the analysis of landscape dynamics. In Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments; Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 80–94. [Google Scholar]
  30. Henle, K.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Cobb, P.; Firbank, L.; Kull, T.; McCracken, D.; Moritz, R.F.A.; Niemelä, J.; Rebane, M.; et al. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Niemelä, J.; Young, J.; Alard, D.; Askasibar, M.; Henle, K.; Johnson, R.; Kurttila, M.; Larsson, T.B.; Matouch, S.; Nowicki, P.; et al. Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy Econo. 2005, 7, 877–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pacione, M. Private profit, public interest and land use planning—A conflict interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgow’s rural-urban fringe. Land Use Policy 2013, 32, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Slätmo, E. Preservation of Agricultural Land as an Issue of Societal Importance. Rural Landsc. Soc. Environ. Hist. 2017, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Elden, S. The Birth of Territory; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Slätmo, E.; Fischer, K.; Röös, E. The Framing of Sustainability in Sustainability Assessment Frameworks for Agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 2017, 57, 378–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Weitz, N.; Persson, Å.; Nilsson, M.; Tenggren, S. Sustainable Development Goals for Sweden: Insights on Setting a National Agenda; Working Paper No. 2015-10; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Grashof-Bokdam, C.J.; Cormont, A.; Polman, N.B.P.; Westerhof, E.J.G.M.; Franke, J.G.J.; Opdam, P.F.M. Modelling shifts between mono- and multifunctional farming systems: The importance of social and economic drivers. Lands. Ecol. 2017, 32, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hodge, I.; Hauck, J.; Bonn, A. The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 996–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Schmidt, J.; Hauck, J. Implementing green infrastructure policy in agricultural landscapes—scenarios for Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 18, 899–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brudermann, T.; Sangkakool, T. Green roofs in temperate climate cities in Europe—An analysis of key decision factors. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Matthies, S.A.; Rüter, S.; Prasse, R.; Schaarschmidt, F. Factors driving the vascular plant species richness in urban green spaces: Using a multivariable approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nilsson, K.; Nielsen, T.S.; Aalbers, C.; Bell, S.; Boitier, B.; Chery, J.P.; Fertner, C.; Groschowski, M.; Haase, D.; Loibl, W. Strategies for sustainable urban development and urban-rural linkages. Eur. J. Spat. Dev. 2014, 2014, 25. [Google Scholar]
  44. Piorr, A.; Ravetz, J.; Tosics, I. Peri-Urbanisation in Europe: Towards a European Policy to Sustain Urban-Rural Futures; Academic Books Life Sciences; University of Copenhagen: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bergström, I.; Mattsson, T.; Niemelä, E.; Vuorenmaa, J.; Forsius, M. Ecosystem Services and Livelihoods—Vulnerability and Adaptation to a Changing Climate; The Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki, Finland, 2011; p. 74. [Google Scholar]
  46. Niemelä, J.; Saarela, S.R.; Söderman, T.; Kopperoinen, L.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Väre, S.; Kotze, D.J. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 3225–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. ESPON. ESPON Contact Points (ECPs) and the Monitoring Committee (MC). Available online: https://www.espon.eu/contact/espon-contact-points; https://www.espon.eu/contact/monitoring-committee (accessed on 2 February 2018).
  48. European Commission. Appendix 1: Factsheets for Final Report “Supporting the Implementation of Green Infrastructure”. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/policy/index_en.htm (accessed on 10 October 2017).
  49. Thomé, A.M.T.; Ceryno, P.S.; Scavarda, A.; Remmen, A. Sustainable infrastructure: A review and a research agenda. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mell, I.C.; Henneberry, J.; Hehl-Lange, S.; Keskin, B. Promoting urban greening: Valuing the development of green infrastructure investments in the urban core of Manchester, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fronczek-Wojciechowska, M.; Kopacz, K.; Padula, G.; Wianiewski, S.; Wojnarowska, A. Proposal for a Method of Constructing Inclusive Urban Green Infrastructure. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2017, 24, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Sikorska, D.; Sikorski, P.; Hopkins, R.J. High biodiversity of green infrastructure does not contribute to recreational ecosystem services. Sustainability 2017, 9, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Werner, R.; Peters, D.; Lenz, R.; Pauleit, S. Farmland—An Elephant in the Room of Urban Green Infrastructure? Lessons learned from connectivity analysis in three German cities. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 94, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Green infrastructure in policy sectors in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland). Based on a summary of 41 survey responses, e-mail and phone correspondences, face-to-face interactions and document analysis. The filled boxes indicate “yes”, and the white boxes indicate “no”.
Figure 1. Green infrastructure in policy sectors in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland). Based on a summary of 41 survey responses, e-mail and phone correspondences, face-to-face interactions and document analysis. The filled boxes indicate “yes”, and the white boxes indicate “no”.
Land 08 00062 g001
Figure 2. Groups of actors responsible for developing a policy for green infrastructure in the 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 41 online survey responses. The actors/institutions with the lowest score were considered to have the greatest responsibility.
Figure 2. Groups of actors responsible for developing a policy for green infrastructure in the 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 41 online survey responses. The actors/institutions with the lowest score were considered to have the greatest responsibility.
Land 08 00062 g002
Figure 3. Groups of actors responsible for implementing green infrastructure in the 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 41 online survey responses. The actors/institutions with the lowest score were considered to have the greatest responsibility.
Figure 3. Groups of actors responsible for implementing green infrastructure in the 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 41 online survey responses. The actors/institutions with the lowest score were considered to have the greatest responsibility.
Land 08 00062 g003
Figure 4. The importance of European funding for the implementation of green infrastructure in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 40 online survey responses to the question.
Figure 4. The importance of European funding for the implementation of green infrastructure in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) based on a summary of 40 online survey responses to the question.
Land 08 00062 g004
Figure 5. Availability and usage of georeferenced information on location and environmental quality in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).
Figure 5. Availability and usage of georeferenced information on location and environmental quality in 32 European countries (EU28 and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).
Land 08 00062 g005
Back to TopTop