See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347558297

Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review

Article in Land · December 2020

DOI: 10.3390/land9120525

CITATIONS READS
146 2,840

3 authors, including:

Renato Monteiro José Carlos Ferreira

Universidade NOVA de Lisboa Universidade NOVA de Lisboa
6 PUBLICATIONS 283 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 700 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Renato Monteiro on 22 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Green Infrastructure Planning Principles:

An Integrated Literature Review
Renato Monteiro 1,*, José C. Ferreira 1 and Paula Antunes 2
1 MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Environmental Sciences and
Engineering, Campus de Caparica, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; jcrf@fct.unl.pt
2 CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Department of Environmental Sciences

and Engineering, Campus de Caparica, NOVA School of Science and Technology,

NOVA University Lisbon, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; mpa@fct.unl.pt
* Correspondence: rmc.monteiro@fct.unl.pt

Received: 25 November 2020; Accepted: 14 December 2020; Published: 16 December 2020

Abstract: Green infrastructure is a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas,
including green and blue spaces and other ecosystems, designed and managed to deliver a wide
range of ecosystem services at various scales. Apart from the ecological functions, green
infrastructure, as a planning tool, contributes to social and economic benefits, leading to the
achievement of sustainable, resilient, inclusive and competitive urban areas. Despite recent
developments, there is still no consensus among researchers and practitioners regarding the concept
of green infrastructure as well as its implementation approaches, which makes it often difficult for
urban planners and other professionals in the field to develop a robust green infrastructure in some
parts of the world. To address this issue, an integrative literature review was conducted to identify
which green infrastructure planning principles should be acknowledged in spatial planning
practices to promote sustainability and resilience. As a result of this literature review, the most
common eight green infrastructure planning principles were selected—connectivity,
multifunctionality, applicability, integration, diversity, multiscale, governance, and continuity.
These principles intend to promote and simplify the development and use of green infrastructure
by different academic and implementation organizations and provide a more defined model for
sustainable landscape management in order to help practitioners and decision makers during the
conceptualization and planning of green infrastructure.

Keywords: green infrastructure; spatial planning; principles; integrative literature review

1. Introduction
In 2018, more than 4 billion people lived in urban areas, and, according to the United Nations
[1], the urban population will increase by 2.5 billion by 2050. This, however, creates enormous social,
economic and environmental pressures in cities [2,3], like poverty, unemployment, criminality
increase, political crisis, biodiversity loss, pollution and natural resources depletion. Urban areas also
contribute significantly to climate change, since they are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions
[4], as well as other man-made activities, such as agriculture. To address these challenges, several
nature-based solutions and ecosystem services strategies have been developed across the world, that
simultaneously contribute to human well-being and environmental protection [5–9], such as, for
example, green infrastructure implementation.
Green infrastructure assumes an important role regarding the challenges previously presented,
since it comprises a network of green and blue spaces, designed and managed to deliver different

Land 2020, 9, 525; doi:10.3390/land9120525 www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2020, 9, 525 2 of 20

kinds of ecosystem services [6,10–12]. These ecosystem services—particularly important when it

comes to green infrastructure planning in urban areas—are described as direct or indirect benefits
humans obtain from ecosystem functions [13–15], and can be grouped in four categories, namely
provision, regulation, support and cultural [11,16,17]. However, to overcome the different existing
ecosystem services classifications, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES) was proposed in 2009 and revised in 2013 [18]. Similar to other classifications, this document
groups ecosystem services in the categories previously presented—provision, regulation and
cultural—but the “support” category is not considered. This does not mean the supporting services
are less important, but such narrowing down of the assessment scope is essential to avoid the double
accounting when valuing the ecosystem services [19]. In this sense, provisioning services are
products, goods and services obtained from ecosystems that provide direct utilitarian value to
people, that include food, water, and raw materials. Regulating services are the ones related to the
maintenance of valuable ecological processes, which include climate regulation, diseases, and flood
control or even erosion prevention. Cultural services are all the non-material outputs that affect the
physical and mental state of human beings, like recreation activities, spiritual experiences or aesthetic
appreciation. Supporting services underpin all the other services and include habitat for species, soil
maintenance or nutrient cycles, for example.
Green infrastructure planning has been increasing worldwide since the end of last century
[20,21]. However, there is still no consensus regarding the concept, planning principles and/or
implementation measures of green infrastructure among researchers, political actors, and
practitioners. Although several studies have pointed out some green infrastructure planning
principles to follow in planning procedures [22–24], some of those principles are too theoretical and
do not entirely capture the execution and implementation of the green infrastructure in spatial
planning. In addition, due to the rapid transformation of planning methods and the new challenges
that are changing the way decision-making processes are executed, such as population increase,
environmental degradation and socio-economic difficulties, new principles must be considered in the
green infrastructure planning, in order to meet today’s reality and future prospects regarding
environmental and urban planning.
For these reasons, the purpose of this research is to identify green infrastructure planning
principles through an integrative literature review, in order to identify the principles that green
infrastructure must consider to promote sustainability and resilience at the local scale. To achieve
this, a brief overview of green infrastructure is presented, as well as its concept evolution, then the
methods section highlights the review and selection process of the green infrastructure principles.
The paper continues with a description and analysis of the literature sample, and concludes with the
final remarks, research gaps and future research directions.

2. Green Infrastructure: Earlier Concepts

Green Infrastructure is a term that has received great attention in land conservation, landscape
design and land development since the end of the last century [25]. Nevertheless, this concept can
have different definitions, depending on which context is used [25–28] and by whom the concept is
used. Even though its historical roots go back to the 19th and 20th centuries [29,30], the “green
infrastructure” concept is widely considered new [31].
The green infrastructure idea is based on much earlier concepts like parkways, green belts or
garden cities [6,23,29,32]. However, it was with the appearance of the “greenway movement” in the
1990s decade that this issue started to gain special attention, not only among planners, urbanists and
landscape architects [33], but also among environmental groups, ecologists [34], and politicians [34–
36].
The word “greenways” has its origin in North America and acquired great attention in the late
1980s and 1990s with the release of remarkable and important books like Greenways for America by
Charles Little [29,32,37,38] in 1990, Ecology of Greenways by Daniel Smith Paul Hellmund or A Guide
to Planning, Design and Development by Charles Flink and Robert Searns, both in 1993 [34].
Furthermore, numerous greenway-type projects were implemented [29,39] and several papers were
Land 2020, 9, 525 3 of 20

published in the same period, which contributed to the greenway movement in the United States.
With the publication of Greenways: The Beginning of an International Movement in 1995, Fabos & Ahern
[40] present a large range of international literature and research, as well as case studies about this
issue, contributing to the beginning of an unprecedented international movement at the time.
However, it was probably the statement of President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1987
that started that movement [34].
The President’s Commission [41] was responsible for stimulating the interest in this topic, since
it recommended a network of greenways in order to bring people together and provide outdoor
recreation opportunities and open spaces close to their homes [30,33,34,39,42]. Nevertheless, Little
[43] might have been the first person to present a clear definition of greenways in his book, in 1990.
Here, greenways were “…described broadly as linear parks, open spaces, and protected areas in
cities, suburbs, or the country-side…”. Fabos, [34], however, went further and addressed greenways
as “[nature] corridors of various widths, linked together in a network in much the same way as our
networks of highways and railroads have been linked” and categorized them in three groups:
ecological greenways, recreational greenways, and historical heritage and cultural corridors. For him,
greenways were not simply open spaces and corridors with environmentally significant natural
systems that meant to be protected, but also areas and places that could have a recreational,
educational, and scenic use. Ahern [31] even added that “greenways are networks of land containing
linear elements that are planned, designed and managed for multiple purposes, (…) including the
ones compatible with the concept of sustainable land use”.
Greenways were described as planning tools with the potential to serve both human and nature
purposes [29]. But what were exactly the arguments that supported this greenway movement and
why was it so important at that time? According to Searns, [29], in the second half of the 20th century,
the increase of human population and development of urban settlements have contributed to
environmental degradation and ecosystem alteration. Besides all the environmental problems
originating due to the rapid urbanization and economic growth, negative externalities such as
poverty, congestion, unemployment and crime [44,45] started to arise as well. As a result, greenways
started to be seen as an adaptative response to the physical and psychological pressures of
urbanization, as they pursued multiple environmental and ecological purposes [29,39,46], along with
cultural and social ones [47].
Although the greenway movement was starting to spread around the globe, due to different
geographical, political, and scientific systems [37], different definitions of this concept have arisen. In
Europe, for example, the term ecological networks was prevalent [36,37]. Ecological networks were
defined by Jongman [36] as “systems of nature reserves and their interconnections that make a
fragmented natural system coherent, so as to support more biological diversity than in its non-
connected form”. Opdam, Steingröver, & Rooij [48] complemented this definition referring to
ecological networks as “(…) a set of ecosystems of one type, linked into a spatially coherent system
through flows of organisms, and interacting with the landscape matrix in which it is embedded.
Hence, the ecological (or ecosystem) network is a multi-species concept, linking ecosystems (…)”.
Both these definitions reinforce the perception that ecological networks have specific functions and
objectives related to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, as well as wildlife conservation
and respective habitats [49,50]. Additionally, ecological networks were seen also as planning tools
that contributed to improving urban areas aesthetics, as well as cultural identity, to create more
sustainable and greener communities [6].
In fact, according to Ignatieva et al. [6] and Walmsley [32], the greenway movement contributed
widely to the development of ecological networks in Europe and helped to provide an inclusive
urban green infrastructure, along with greenbelts and green wedges. However, it was not until 2001
that the concept of green infrastructure was introduced by Benedict & McMahon [10] as an
“interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions and
provides associated benefits to human populations”. One year later, Sandström [51] reinforced this
idea, emphasizing the multifunctional role of the green infrastructure and its importance for urban
planning, stating even this planning instrument was as important as any other “technological
Land 2020, 9, 525 4 of 20

infrastructure” for people’s life quality. The green infrastructure should, therefore, be seen as
essential in every urban area, as opposed to something nice to have [32] and must be planned,
designed and financed like other “regular” infrastructures.
The green infrastructure concept has, since then, gained attractiveness among researchers and
decision-makers, and its definition has evolved significantly over the years, with hundreds of papers
being published with multiple approaches [52]. As a result, in 2013, the European Commission
presented its definition of green infrastructure in order to enhance it and to become an integral part
of spatial planning and territorial development in all its member states [53]. Green infrastructure is
thus referred to as “a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other
environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It
incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features
in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings”.
This definition captures the role that green and blue spaces take regarding ecosystem services
provision at different spatial scales [12]. However, according to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency [54], “green infrastructure is a cost-effective, resilient approach to managing wet
weather impacts that provides many community benefits (…) designed to move urban stormwater
away from the built environment, green infrastructure reduces and treats stormwater at its source
while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits”. This definition, contrary to what
happens in Europe, highlights the focus of many American planning strategies on stormwater
management and water flows control [55–57] and influences a majority of planning practices in
America. However, even though green infrastructure started as a tool to address urban stormwater,
today it is seen as an instrument that provides other environmental benefits, such as climate
regulation. According to Salmond et al., [17] that has been a number of initiatives to promote the
‘greening’ of cities through urban reforestation and protection programs to increase thermal
comfort—such as the New York City ‘Million Trees’ program and other initiatives that can be found
in other North American cities, as stated by EPA [58].
Despite the ecological functions being often the main focus of green infrastructure planning,
social benefits are also very important criteria in the planning interventions. Not only do green spaces
allow numerous recreational activities—which have a positive impact in people’s health [59] and
well-being—but they also contribute to increasing the connectivity between urban and rural areas,
and, therefore, local distinctiveness, social inclusion, and sense of community [28]. Apart from that,
due to a decrease in health expenses, the capacity of attracting skilled workers and tourists and the
increase of property value [28,60], green infrastructure can promote economic growth in urban areas
[59,61]. However, to fulfill these multifunctional purposes, both the quantity and quality of urban
and peri-urban green spaces must be addressed in planning processes [59] and the development of
green infrastructure planning principles is fundamental. Green infrastructure principles are, in fact,
underlying grounds that help guide and facilitate the planning procedures of green infrastructure, in
order to ensure that it contributes to a network of quality and functional green spaces, capable of
meeting the needs of a determined urban area, contributing in the best way to the sustainability of a
given region or local area, depending on its scale.
Even though the green infrastructure, and all its elements, compensate for many flaws in the
traditional planning models, this instrument can only be identified as a “good practice” for achieving
urban sustainability when it is combined with traditional grey infrastructure [62]. How well other
planning instruments are designed and put into practice and the political agenda is developed
directly influences the conservation of green spaces and the functionality of green infrastructure.
Understanding the mechanisms between urban design and human actions on ecological functions
are significant to achieve sustainability, at a time where effective urban planning is needed. By
ensuring green infrastructure planning follows the planning principles that guarantee the right
functioning of green spaces, it is possible to meet the growing needs of the population for recreational
spaces and natural environments, as well as increasing resilience in urban areas.
Land 2020, 9, 525 5 of 20

3. Methods
There are several methods used for literature reviews processes that are helpful to address new
or already known issues, and each provides different insights for knowledge creation, text
development, and individuation [63]. As a growing research topic, green infrastructure planning
principles is an issue that would highly benefit from a synthesis of the literature, since there is still
no consensus among researchers, practitioners, and political actors on what principles should be
taken into consideration in green infrastructure planning [64]. To do so, this research focuses on an
integrative literature review on green infrastructure planning principles. An integrative literature
review of a growing topic like this provides the opportunity for a holistic conceptualization and
synthesis of the literature to date; that is, an initial or preliminary conceptualization of the topic [65].
The choice to conduct an integrative literature review to select the principles to take into
consideration in green infrastructure planning is appropriate, as it allows the selection of relevant
studies through a broad sampling of diverse sources, including theoretical and empirical sources, or
experimental or non-experimental studies [66,67].
The integrative literature review conducted in this research was structured using a combination
of several procedures inspired by Klein et al. and Pickering et al., among other authors, [66,68–72],
that assure the quality and effectiveness of the review. As presented in Figure 1, to define the
sampling frame, the methodological approach relied on three main phases: planning of the research;
screening and selection of the publications; and content analysis of the remaining documents.

Figure 1. Overview of the methodological approach adapted from Klein et al. [66].
Land 2020, 9, 525 6 of 20

The first phase consisted of two steps. The first one was to identify and define the research topic,
to ensure that it is original and appropriate, as well as to identify what the questions are that should
be addressed in the literature [69]. Since the focus of the research question is what principles green
infrastructure planning must consider to promote sustainability and resilience at the local scale, a
combination of two sets of terms were selected to ensure a high level of relevance of the resulting
documents. Firstly, the expression “green infrastructure planning” was included to make sure that
the articles were consistent with the main topic, and then, the terms “principles”, “urban”, “local”
and “practices” were added using the operator “and” in between them in the search expression to
incorporate terms related to green infrastructure planning principles at local scale in urban areas. It
is important to refer that all these words were selected due to their correlation with the topic studied
and the query was designed to search in all fields in the databases, which means the information was
screened in all fields (including title, abstract, topic, authors, affiliations, etc.). It is important to state
that no filter was applied for the year of the papers, so the sample extracted from the databases
included all publication years.
Using Scopus and Web of Science databases, the search query returned a total of 200 documents
(at the time this research was conducted), which were then run through a screening and selection
process (phase II). This process consisted of the development of specific criteria to scrutinize the
papers and, thus, select only the relevant ones [66,73]. The titles, abstracts, and the full text of the
resulting sample were screened for relevance according to the criteria presented in Table 1: (1)
conceptual and empirical studies on green infrastructure planning practices; (2) inclusion of explicit
or implicit green infrastructure planning principles. Although all the criteria were chosen based on
their relevance for the research topic, the specific reasons are as follows. First, the inclusion of both
conceptual and empirical studies is important to understand not only the theorical concepts around
the topic of research, but also the actual practices conducted worldwide, in order to understand the
implementation developments regarding green infrastructure planning principles. Although there is
a relation between ecosystem services and green infrastructure, all studies only focused on ecosystem
services integration in spatial planning were excluded. Since the main focus on this integrative
literature review is to understand what the principles that should be considered in green
infrastructure planning are, the inclusion of green infrastructure planning principles in the full text
of the papers is a valid and essential criterion. The principles could be either explicitly represented in
the full text of the article, or implicitly (that is, when even not clearly expressed in the text, the authors
approach the principles in a more subtle yet comprehensive way). In addition to the database results,
to obtain a larger sample beyond peer-reviewed sources, a total of 9 publications were added to the
initial sample, including peer review papers, as well as other non-academic studies, that were
considered relevant for this research and did not appear in the sample obtained from the databases.
These 9 additional papers were identified based on the authors’ knowledge of various sources outside
of the scope of the search query. Only documents written in English were considered in this analysis.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the screening process.

Criteria Description
Conceptual and empirical
The paper may focus on the theory of the topic, or may include
studies on green infrastructure
evidences from practical application
planning practices
The paper contains explicit information regarding green
Inclusion of explicit or implicit
infrastructure planning principles or may briefly describe a
green infrastructure planning
green infrastructure planning principle without using the word
principles
“principle”

After the screening and selection of the final sample, the 104 documents were scrutinized
through a qualitative content analysis to summarize the content of the selected data [74]. Content
analysis is a research method used to test theoretical issues to enhance understanding of the data,
where it is possible to obtain a condensed number of concepts or categories describing a
Land 2020, 9, 525 7 of 20

phenomenon, a theory or a research topic [75]. For the purpose of this study, the main objective of
the content analysis of the final sample of papers is to build up a number of green infrastructure
planning principles based on theorical studies, evidences, and implemented projects. So, during the
analysis of the papers, the word “principle” was located in each document and, from there, the
authors identified what other words or phrases appear next to it, that were organized into categories
(principles). As the research went further, more words were searched in the documents each time an
item was reported that did not fit into existing words that were being searched. Through a careful
interpretation of the documents and the all the resulting categories, the authors were, then, able to
identify the most common green infrastructure planning principles in the literature.

4. Results and Discussion

From the 104 documents it was possible to identify several principles that integrate both the
ecological and social components into green infrastructure planning. Some studies only focused on
one or two principles, whereas others went even further and were able to identify up to 23 green
infrastructure planning principles. Still, as much as some of the concepts presented by these studies
were well developed and consistent with other studies, some principles found in the literature were
discarded, and only eight were selected. The reasons for the exclusion of those principles relied on
two criteria, which are the number of papers mentioning the principles and the execution of the
explanation of that principle. As for the first one, principles that were mentioned few times were not
selected and, on the other hand, the ones mentioned in several papers were selected. As for the second
criteria, the exclusion reasons were: (1) some concepts presented in some papers did not entirely
represent the idea of green infrastructure planning; (2) some of the principles were too vague and
lacked clarity (for example “sustainability” or “advocate led policy formation” [76]); (3) some
principles were too simplistic and the information provided was not sufficient to understand what
that principle refer to, as for example “promote natural resources and open space” [77]; (4) others
were rather too complex to understand and did not align with the scope of the paper (e.g.,
“coordination” [64]), which is to present a set of simple yet robust principles to help practitioners and
decision makers during the development of green infrastructure; (5) and finally, other were excluded
for the fact that were intrinsically considered in the green infrastructure planning, such as
accessibility or evidence-based. These reasons conditioned the selection of green infrastructure
planning principles, and only a total of eight principles were identified in this research, which include
the more traditional ones, addressed in the early stages of green infrastructure research (e.g.,
connectivity and multifunctionality), as well as new principles that arise from recent developments
regarding green infrastructure planning. These principles intend to promote and simplify the
development and use of green infrastructure by different academic and implementation
organizations and provide a more defined model for sustainable landscape management. The
principles identified in Table 2 are: connectivity; multifunctionality; multiscale; integration; diversity;
applicability; governance; and continuity.

Table 2. Green infrastructure planning principles identified in the integrated literature review.

Principles Interpretation References

Connectivity is crucial to sustain species interactions and diversity as
well as to maintain the values and services of natural systems. Small
parks and urban forests are not large enough to sustain, by themselves,
a diverse fauna and flora, however connectivity within urban areas
enables the migration of certain species, the dispersion of seeds, or even [10,21,22,24,2
Connectivity the repopulation of some patches in heterogeneous landscapes. 8,31,51,59,64,
Connectivity also serves as transit and recreation corridors for humans 76,78–113]
contributing to the system stability and several ecosystem services, and
to connect different landscapes. In this way, connectivity aims to create
a well-connected green space network that can serve both humans and
other species.
Land 2020, 9, 525 8 of 20

Multifunctionality assumes significant importance because it directly

connects green infrastructure with a wide number of ecosystem
services, namely provision, regulation, support, and cultural. A [11,21,24,28,3
multifunctional green infrastructure is capable to provide multiple 1,59,64,76,78–
social, ecological and economic functions and possess a much higher 80,82,85–
Multifunctionality
resilience when compared with similar instruments that do not 96,98,99,101–
encompass this principle. Multifunctionality not only promotes 105,107,108,1
multiple functions and increases synergies within green spaces, but 10–134]
also increases the effectiveness of this spaces, spatially in urban areas
where space is limited and scarce.
[6,10,11,21–
Due to its flexibility and adaptability, green infrastructure can be 24,31,51,64,79
planned from a building perspective (e.g., green roofs), to a more ,80,82–
regional and integrated perspective, which includes landscape 84,88,91,95,98
Multiscale
interactions and larger natural areas. In this sense, green infrastructure ,99,103–
planning should take into account all different scales, so that the 105,107,111–
interactions between and in these spaces can be enhanced. 114,124,129,1
32,135–141]
Integration mainly concerns the interaction and links between green
infrastructures and other urban structures—the so-called grey
[21,77,79,80,8
infrastructures. Usually, this principle regards structures specially
5–87,91,102–
developed for stormwater management or mobility purposes,
104,111,113,1
Integration however, this statement is reductive and does not account the full
20,124,128,13
potential and the multifunctionality of green infrastructure. Integration
4,136,142–
is thus a principle that considers all connections and synergies between
144]
green and grey infrastructures, as well as the landscape interactions
with the building environment.
Green infrastructure emphasizes the quantity, the quality of urban
green spaces and the diversity of the solutions presented to solve a [6,59,64,77,79
specific issue. In fact, there are a wide number of typologies of nature- ,80,82,89,92,9
based solutions that can be implemented within an urban area, meant 7,99,101,103,1
Diversity to address the same or different issues, that can have a more natural or 05,108,110,11
managed approach and can have a larger or smaller extent. Besides the 1,113,115,120,
type of structure (managed or natural) and their size (small or large), 125,134,138,1
the diversity principle also enhances the role and importance of blue 41,145–151]
infrastructures in green infrastructure planning.
Several municipalities have developed green infrastructure plans and
have made great investments in nature-based solutions in urban areas
in recent years. In some places, however, even though plans have been
[23,77,80,85,9
made and exist, with bold and ambitious goals and actions, the
1,95,97,117,12
majority of projects end up not being accomplished. To avoid these
Applicability 0,126,128,140,
situations, green infrastructure planning must consider the
147,150,152–
applicability, adaptability and implementation of the projects, which
154]
accounts if the plan (and the green projects) are realistic, can be
implemented and developed, and if the solutions presented and
adaptable to the considered area or not.
[10,21,24,77,7
Governance aims at the collaboration between the government actors
9,80,84–
and the citizens in the planning processes. This principle assumes great
88,90,91,94–
importance to the development and implementation of green
96,100,102–
Governance infrastructure because green spaces offer a wide range of recreational
105,107,114,1
functions, focused on people, and their management and maintenance
19–
depend directly on the population. If the community does not feel
124,128,130,1
integrated into the planning process, green infrastructure will not
31,135,138,13
Land 2020, 9, 525 9 of 20

succeed which will not be appreciated and supported by the local 9,143,146,150,
population and its objectives and goals will not be accomplished. 155–166]
A major flaw of green infrastructure projects has been a lack of post-
implementation monitoring or empirical measurements of outcomes of
the ecosystem services and functions they claim to provide. In this [21,23,77,78,8
sense, to be effective, green infrastructure must require frequent 0,88,90,91,105
investment, management and updates, and municipalities must be able ,114,117,124,1
Continuity
to frequently release new information about their projects, their goals, 28,135,139,14
what was accomplished and what are their prospects regarding 0,146,150,154,
green/blue spaces. In this sense, green infrastructure plans must have 157,167]
a monitoring system well identified, or periodic reports with the
evolution of the planned green projects.

By examining the results, it is possible to identify the connectivity, multifunctionality, and

multiscale as the principles that are the most frequently mentioned in the literature. In fact,
multifunctionality is mentioned in more than half of the papers analyzed (58), and connectivity and
multiscale are mentioned in 46 and 38 publications, respectively. Although the number of citations
may be relatively high when compared with other principles, these results do not come as a surprise.
Multifunctionality, as well as connectivity, are pointed by several authors as the core elements (or
principles) of green infrastructure [92,106,125], being the ones that are the most mentioned in the
literature. Since the beginning of the green infrastructure research (e.g., greenways), both of these
principles were used by the pioneers of this research field, such as Ahern in 1995 or Benedict &
McMahon in 2001 [10,31], as key principles for green spaces and greenways development. Table 2
shows these are the only principles that are mentioned in such early literature, apart from multiscale,
which is another key principle considered by many. If we examine closely the definition of green
infrastructure—“a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas designed and managed to
deliver a wide range of ecosystem services”—it is possible to see that both multifunctionality and
connectivity principles are embedded in this description, which reinforces the important role these
principles have in green infrastructure planning.
The multifunctionality and connectivity principles are indeed the ones that are more cited in the
literature. However, through the content analysis on the selected publications, it was possible to
understand that both principles were mentioned in more theoretical studies, as opposed to what
happens to other principles (e.g., governance). Even though these principles call for spatial
integration of environmental, social, economic, cultural, and aesthetic functions, some concerns and
criticisms have been expressed in recent years about their applicability [127]. In reality, there has been
an increase of studies that focus on understanding how such theorical concepts can definitely be
implemented and evaluated [81,86,106,111,125], and this research clearly has shown that. The number
of studies regarding ecosystem services in spatial planning and biodiversity enhancement in urban
areas have been increasing and attempts to materialize these principles have been equally studied.
This is explained by the evolution of the green infrastructure concept which, as previously discussed,
started to incorporate ecosystem services very clearly in its definition. Nevertheless, this is still an
emerging research field that is growing and must require further investigation, which was
perceptible by the number of publications screened regarding that topic.
Other principles that are well established in the literature are diversity and integration.
Although considered by some authors as key principles for green infrastructure planning, diversity
and integration are still relatively new concepts when compared with multifunctionality and
connectivity. In fact, only a few authors were able to explicitly identify integration and diversity as
green infrastructure planning principles, and different concepts were sometimes used for the same
principle. The integration principle was frequently mentioned as “green-grey integration” and the
diversity one appeared several times as a “multi-object” principle. Nevertheless, when these
principles were not explicitly identified as green infrastructure planning principles, they would
frequently be mentioned implicitly in the studies analyzed. For these reasons, both diversity and
integration were considered key green infrastructure planning principles in this study.
Land 2020, 9, 525 10 of 20

Because the rapid urbanization is affecting the availability of green open spaces in urban areas,
the ecological functions of ecosystems and the provision of ecosystem services are at risk. So, the need
to incorporate nature-based solution into the building environment (grey infrastructure) has become
more urgent. As a result, the implementation of green infrastructure to deal with environmental
problems in urban areas has been growing, especially the problems related with stormwater
management and flood control [85,87]. Although it can also be applied to other functions [87], in the
literature, the integration principle is frequently mentioned in studies related to stormwater systems.
However, despite green infrastructure practices in North America having a clear focus of stormwater
management, compared to other regions [55,57], it was interesting to observe that only three out of
the 21 publications that mentioned the integration principle were conducted in American Institutions
or have American sites as case studies. These results do not mean, however, that there has been a
decreasing trend in green infrastructure planning studies in North America, but rather that other
regions in the world are becoming more aware of the benefits of green infrastructure planning as a
tool to manage water flows in urban areas sustainably and are considering the integration principle
as a key component to be included in their planning strategies.
Public participation has become an important element in spatial planning. The involvement of
citizens and local actors in spatial planning processes is an opportunity to take into consideration
their knowledge into decision-making, which could be lost in cases where public participation is
lacking [156]. Stakeholder engagement in green infrastructure planning is an important issue that is
discussed in several studies, as shown in Table 2. In fact, in this study, governance was mentioned in
50 papers out of the 104 analyzed, which is consistent with the findings of Dorst and Davies &
Lafortezza [21,120], that is, social inclusion is increasingly considered a key feature of green
infrastructure planning. These results suggest that strategic approaches to green infrastructure
planning must include stakeholders inputs and considerations, which could involve new planning
processes, knowledge and resources [21].
Although citizen engagement in green spaces planning has been recognized as crucial for the
success of green infrastructure implementation, few authors considered this a key green
infrastructure planning principle. Even though governance, similar to integration and diversity
principles, is related to more practical studies, from the 50 papers where it was mentioned, only 10
of them actually defined governance (or social inclusion) as a key principle for green infrastructure
planning. The remaining publications acknowledge its importance in spatial planning, especially for
green space planning and ecosystem services integration in policy making, but they do not consider
it as a core principle. These results, however, may be linked to the fact that most of the literature
concerning green infrastructure still focuses on the theorical fundaments of this topic, where
multifunctionality, connectivity, and multiscale are the prevalent principles in green infrastructure
planning. In addition, the involvement of multiple actors in the management of green infrastructure
is mentioned by some authors as fundamental to improve other principles of green infrastructure,
such as multifunctionality, for example [114]. As much as governance may in fact contribute to the
success of other principles, for example continuity, governance has gained such an importance in
planning procedures in recent years that it must be considered by itself a core principle of green
infrastructure planning. In reality, governance intends to facilitate more equitable access to green
space services [87] and strengthen green infrastructure resilience. Even though the majority of papers
analyzed concerning governance focused on implementation practices, the importance in considering
governance in policy making process is unanimous.
One of the findings of this research was the fact that some authors pointed out several green
infrastructure principles in their studies that were not seen in any others. For that reason, they were
not selected for this study, as they were not mentioned and validated by other peers in different
studies. However, there were two principles in particular that stood out in more than one study and
seemed to be mentioned by several authors. Those principles were accessibility [91,100,115,139,147]
and evidence-based approaches [10,24,105]. The accessibility principle refers to the guarantee that all
people can use, enjoy, and positively contribute to green infrastructure [91], and it is an important
ground to be acknowledged in green infrastructure planning. However, in the eyes of the authors of
Land 2020, 9, 525 11 of 20

this study, when it comes to green spaces planning, accessibility is something that is already intrinsic
in the concept of green infrastructure. Since one of the most well-known functions of green spaces is
recreation and leisure, accessibility is already considered in the planning process of these areas, as
well as other public spaces in urban areas. Besides that, other green infrastructure principles that
were considered in this research already contemplate (even if indirectly), the accessibility of people
to green spaces. In addition, green infrastructure includes not only urban and manmade green spaces,
but also natural areas and spaces, green or otherwise, for non-recreational purposes, that are not
accessible to everyone. For those reasons, accessibility was not identified as a core green
infrastructure principle and was not included in the results in Table 2. As for the evidence-based
approached, some studies defended the idea that green infrastructure planning must be based on
robust scientific knowledge gained from a number of different fields [105]. Nonetheless, as much as
this is important and crucial for a successful green infrastructure planning and implementation, this
principle applies to every planning process or project. Nothing can be planned without sufficient
evidence-based knowledge and, for that reason, the authors of this research also considered this an
implicit green infrastructure principle, and for that, it was not considered as a core principle of green
infrastructure planning.
Unlike the previous principles (accessibility and evidence-based approach), none of the 104
papers analyzed in this research directly mentioned the applicability or the continuity principles as
core green infrastructure principles. Similar to the findings of Lennon and Scott [95], there is still
limited attention in the literature regarding practical procedures and implementation strategies of
green infrastructure. In addition, some studies also mentioned the lack of detailed action strategies
or policies, as well as implementation approaches in most of green infrastructure plans already
developed [77], and how much this was a problem for the application of green infrastructure. For
these reasons, the authors of this research consider that the applicability should be considered a core
green infrastructure principle that must be recognized in the planning processes. As stated
previously, green infrastructure planning must consider the applicability, adaptability and
implementation of the projects, which accounts for whether the plan (and the green projects) are
realistic, can be implemented and developed, and if the solutions presented and adaptable to the
considered area or not.
Similar to applicability, the lack of post-implementation monitoring or empirical measurements
of the outcomes and benefits of green infrastructure was also referred by several authors as
something that damaged the implementation of green infrastructure. As stated by Kim and Tran [77]
local plans should reflect changes as well as follow a monitoring process to ensure plan consistency
and future green infrastructure plans should include a continuously monitoring performance and
identify barriers to implementing green infrastructure planning. These issues, brought in 21
publications out of the 104 analyzed, made the authors of this research consider continuity as a core
and important principle of green infrastructure planning.

5. Conclusions
Due to its multiple benefits, which include climate change adaptation, risk mitigation, social
cohesion human well-being improvement, and urban regeneration, green infrastructure planning has
seen an increase around the world. Nevertheless, due to the ambiguity of the term, there is still no
uniform process of green infrastructure development. Additionally, some of the existent planning
procedures are too complex and difficult to put in practice, and some policymakers may not consider
green infrastructure viable as a planning tool. For those reasons, the purpose of this research was to
identify the most common green infrastructure planning principles through an integrative literature
review of relevant studies and diverse sources, including theoretical and empirical sources, or
experimental or non-experimental studies. Those principles are connectivity, multifunctionality,
multiscale, integration, diversity, applicability, governance, and continuity, and identify important
factors that need to be addressed in future green infrastructure planning procedures.
The literature has pointed out several strategies, guidelines and principles for innovative green
infrastructure planning. The integration of the principles presented in this research in the green
Land 2020, 9, 525 12 of 20

infrastructure planning procedures is crucial to evaluate and understand the level of commitment of
policymakers regarding green infrastructure planning. The analysis of the publications in this
research shows different approaches to identify, select, and evaluate green infrastructure planning
principles, that may be explained by the different priorities in the pollical agendas, which may be
influenced by different geographical locations and cultural dynamics. Still, future research should be
conducted to understand the reasons of such different principles presented in the literature and how
the principles selected can be evaluated and how can they be put into practice.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, and writing was carried out by R.M.; J.C.F. and P.A.
reviewed and edited previous draft versions and provided supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge and thank the support given to MARE and CENSE by the
Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the strategic projects UIDB/MAR/04292/2020
and UIDB/04085/2020, respectively.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest in the manuscript, or in the decision to publish
the results.

References
1. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. In World Urbanization
Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-92-1-148319-2.
2. Grimm, N.B.; Foster, D.; Groffman, P.; Grove, J.M.; Hopkinson, C.S.; Nadelhoffer, K.J.; Pataki, D.E.; Peters,
D.P. The changing landscape: Ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and
societal gradients. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 264–272, doi:10.1890/070147.
3. Kalnay, E.; Cai, M. Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature 2003, 423, 528–531,
doi:10.1038/nature01675.
4. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.
Midgley (eds.). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018, 1535 p.
5. Fedele, G.; Locatelli, B.; Djoudi, H.; Colloff, M.J. Reducing risks by transforming landscapes: Cross-scale
effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, 1–21,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195895.
6. Ignatieva, M.; Stewart, G.H.; Meurk, C. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landsc.
Ecol. Eng. 2011, 7, 17–25, doi:10.1007/s11355-010-0143-y.
7. Lafortezza, R.; Chen, J.; van den Bosch, C.K.; Randrup, T.B. Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes
and cities. Environ. Res. 2018, 165, 431–441, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038.
8. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C.
A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008.
9. Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.C. Green Infrastructure Planning as a Climate Change and Risk Adaptation Tool
in Coastal Urban Areas. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 95, 889–893, doi:10.2112/SI95-173.1.
10. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew.
Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17.
11. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliu,
E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of
green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage. 2014, 146, 107–115, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.025.
12. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol.
Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
13. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; Groot, R. de; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill,
R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387,
253–260, doi:10.1038/387253a0.
14. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available online:
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Synthesis.html (accessed on 26 December 2018).
Land 2020, 9, 525 13 of 20

15. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.;
Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
16. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301,
doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
17. Salmond, J.A.; Tadaki, M.; Vardoulakis, S.; Arbuthnott, K.; Coutts, A.; Demuzere, M.; Dirks, K.N.;
Heaviside, C.; Lim, S.; Macintyre, H.; et al. Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street
trees in the urban environment. Environ. Health 2016, 15, S36, doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6.
18. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services V 5.1—
Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Eur. Environ. Agency 2018.
19. Ruskule, A.; Vinogradovs, I.; Pecina, M.V. The Guidebook on “The Introduction to the Ecosystem Service
Framework and Its Application in Integrated Planning”; University of Latvia: Rīga, Latvia, 2018.
20. Mell, I.C. Green infrastructure: Reflections on past, present and future praxis. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 135–
145, doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875.
21. Davies, C.; Lafortezza, R. Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy
compliant? Land Use Policy 2017, 69, 93–101, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.018.
22. Benton-Short, L.; Keeley, M.; Rowland, J. Green infrastructure, green space, and sustainable urbanism:
Geography’s important role. Urban Geogr. 2017, 1–22, doi:10.1080/02723638.2017.1360105.
23. 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, doi:10.1080/13563475.2017.1291334.
24. Llausàs, A.; Roe, M. Green Infrastructure Planning: Cross-National Analysis between the North East of
England (UK) and Catalonia (Spain). Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 641–663, doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.665032.
25. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-59726-764-9.
26. Lennon, M. Green infrastructure and planning policy: A critical assessment. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 957–
980, doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.880411.
27. Marino, M. di; Lapintie, K. Exploring the concept of green infrastructure in urban landscape. Experiences
from Italy, Canada and Finland. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 139–149, doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1300640.
28. Wright, H. Understanding green infrastructure: The development of a contested concept in England. Local
Environ. 2011, 16, 1003–1019, doi:10.1080/13549839.2011.631993.
29. Searns, R.M. The evolution of greenways as an adaptive urban landscape form. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995,
33, 65–80, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)02014-7.
30. Zube, E.H. Greenways and the US National Park system. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 17–25,
doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)02011-4.
31. Ahern, J. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 131–155, doi:10.1016/0169-
2046(95)02039-V.
32. Walmsley, A. Greenways: Multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 76,
252–290, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.036.
33. Walmsley, A. Greenways and the making of urban form. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 81–127,
doi:10.1016/0169-2046(95)02015-L.
34. Fabos, J.G. Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 1–13, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(95)02035-R.
35. Erickson, D.L. Connecting corridors: Implementing metropolitan greenway networks in North America.
In Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design, Implementation; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp.200–221.
36. Jongman, R.H.G.; Pungetti, G. Introduction: Ecological Networks and Greenways. Available online:
https://core/books/ecological-networks-and-greenways/introduction-ecological-networks-and-
greenways/7D22F1640CCBA2A96AEE934E795D3D9E (accessed on 21 November 2018).
37. Ahern, J. Greenways in the USA: Theory, trends and prospects. In Ecological Networks and Greenways;
Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 34–55,
ISBN 978-0-511-60676-2.
38. Ryder, B.A. Greenway planning and growth management: Partners in conservation? Landsc. Urban Plan.
1995, 33, 417–432, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)02032-B.
Land 2020, 9, 525 14 of 20

39. Bueno, J.A.; Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Alvarez, L. South Florida greenways: A conceptual framework for the
ecological reconnectivity of the region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 247–266, doi:10.1016/0169-
2046(94)02021-7.
40. Fabos, J.G., Ahern, J.Greenways: The Beginning of An International Movement; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 1995; ISBN 978-0-444-82464-6.
41. President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (US). Americans Outdoors: The Legacy, the Challenge, with
Case Studies: The Report of the President’s Commission; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1987; ISBN 978-
0-933280-36-6.
42. Lindsey, G.; Maraj, M.; Kuan, S. Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory Investigation. Prof.
Geogr. 2001, 53, 332–346, doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00288.
43. Little, C.E. Greenways for America; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1990; ISBN 978-0-8018-5140-7.
44. Rukumnuaykit, P. Urbanisation, Poverty and Subjective Well-Being: Empirical Evidence from Thailand.
Urban Policy Res. 2015, 33, 98–118, doi:10.1080/08111146.2014.980901.
45. State of World Population 2007|UNFPA—United Nations Population Fund. Available online:
https://www.unfpa.org/publications/state-world-population-2007 (accessed on 23 November 2018).
46. Linehan, J.; Gross, M.; Finn, J. Greenway planning: Developing a landscape ecological network approach.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 179–193, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)02017-A.
47. Bischoff, A. Greenways as vehicles for expression. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 317–325, doi:10.1016/0169-
2046(94)02025-B.
48. Opdam, P.; Steingröver, E.; Rooij, S. van Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of
sustainable landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 322–332, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015.
49. Council of Europe. The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy: A Vision for Europe’s Natural
Heritage; Council of Europe: St. Trasbourg, France, 1996; ISBN 978-90-802482-4-3.
50. Verboom, J.; Rogier, P. Ecological functioning of ecological networks: A species perspective. In Ecological
Networks and Greenways, Concept, Design, Implementation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2004; pp.4–72.
51. Sandström, U.G.; Angelstam, P.; Khakee, A. Urban comprehensive planning—Identifying barriers for the
maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 43–57,
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.11.016.
52. Lafortezza, R.; Davies, C.; Sanesi, G.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial
planning in European urban regions. iForest Biogeosciences For. 2013, 6, 102, doi:10.3832/ifor0723-006.
53. 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; Brussels. Available online: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-
4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 14 August 2020).
54. United States Environmental Protection Agency. What is Green Infrastructure? Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure (accessed on 13 May 2019).
55. Dunn, A. Siting Green Infrastructure: Legal and Policy Solutions to Alleviate Urban Poverty and Promote
Healthy Communities. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 2010, 37, 41.
56. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in
Detroit. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 62–75, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005.
57. Mell, I.C. Green infrastructure planning: A contemporary approach for innovative interventions in urban
landscape management. J. Biourbanism 2011, 1, 29–39.
58. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect. Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-island-effect (accessed on 10 December
2020).
59. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting
ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
60. Matthews, T.; Lo, A.Y.; Byrne, J.A. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation:
Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 155–163,
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.010.
Land 2020, 9, 525 15 of 20

61. Jones, S.; Somper, C. The role of green infrastructure in climate change adaptation in London. Geogr. J. 180,
191–196, doi:10.1111/geoj.12059.
62. Li, F.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, D.; Liu, H.; Zhou, C.; Wang, R. Urban ecological infrastructure: An
integrated network for ecosystem services and sustainable urban systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, S12–S18,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.079.
63. Pickering, C.; Grignon, J.; Steven, R.; Guitart, D.; Byrne, J. Publishing not perishing: How research students
transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews. Stud. High. Educ.
2015, 40, 1756–1769, doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.914907.
64. Grădinaru, S.R.; Hersperger, A.M. Green infrastructure in strategic spatial plans: Evidence from European
urban regions. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.018.
65. Torraco, R.J. Writing Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.
2005, 4, 356–367, doi:10.1177/1534484305278283.
66. Klein, N.; Ramos, T.B.; Deutz, P. Circular Economy Practices and Strategies in Public Sector Organizations:
An Integrative Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4181, doi:10.3390/su12104181.
67. Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 52, 546–553,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.
68. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, T.P. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097,
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
69. Pickering, C.; Byrne, J. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD
candidates and other early-career researchers. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 33, 534–548,
doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.
70. Suprayoga, G.B.; Bakker, M.; Witte, P.; Spit, T. A systematic review of indicators to assess the sustainability
of road infrastructure projects. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, doi:10.1186/s12544-020-0400-6.
71. Teles da Mota, V.; Pickering, C. Using social media to assess nature-based tourism: Current research and
future trends. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 30, 100295, doi:10.1016/j.jort.2020.100295.
72. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed
Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222, doi:10.1111/1467-
8551.00375.
73. Ledda, A.; Di Cesare, E.A.; Satta, G.; Cocco, G.; Calia, G.; Arras, F.; Congiu, A.; Manca, E.; De Montis, A.
Adaptation to Climate Change and Regional Planning: A Scrutiny of Sectoral Instruments. Sustainability
2020, 12, 3804, doi:10.3390/su12093804.
74. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qual. Soz. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2000, 1, doi:10.17169/fqs-
1.2.1089.
75. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115,
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
76. Mell, I.C. Aligning fragmented planning structures through a green infrastructure approach to urban
development in the UK and USA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 612–620, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.007
77. Kim, H.W.; Tran, T. An Evaluation of Local Comprehensive Plans Toward Sustainable Green Infrastructure
in US. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4143, doi:10.3390/su10114143.
78. Ahern, J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology
with urban planning and design. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1203–1212, doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z.
79. Ahmed, S.; Meenar, M.; Alam, A. Designing a Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) network: Toward water-
sensitive urban growth planning in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Land 2019, 8, 138, doi:10.3390/land8090138.
80. Artmann, M.; Kohler, M.; Meinel, G.; Gan, J.; Ioja, I.-C. How smart growth and green infrastructure can
mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96,
10–22, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.001.
81. Bolliger, J.; Silbernagel, J. Contribution of connectivity assessments to green infrastructure (GI). ISPRS Int.
J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 212, doi:10.3390/ijgi9040212.
82. Coutts, C. Green Infrastructure and Public Health; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016.
83. Do, D.T.; Huang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Truong, T.C.T. Da Nang green space system planning: An ecology landscape
approach. Sustain. Switz. 2018, 10, 3506, doi:10.3390/su10103506.
Land 2020, 9, 525 16 of 20

84. Ferrari, B.; Quatrini, V.; Barbati, A.; Corona, P.; Masini, E.; Russo, D. Conservation and enhancement of the
green infrastructure as a nature-based solution for Rome’s sustainable development. Urban Ecosyst. 2019,
22, 865–878, doi:10.1007/s11252-019-00868-4.
85. Girma, Y.; Terefe, H.; Pauleit, S.; Kindu, M. Urban green infrastructure planning in Ethiopia: The case of
emerging towns of Oromia special zone surrounding Finfinne. J. Urban Manag. 2019, 8, 75–88,
doi:10.1016/j.jum.2018.09.004.
86. Hansen, R.; Olafsson, A.S.; van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S. Original Articles: Planning
multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: What is the state of practice? Ecol. Indic. 2017,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.042.
87. Hansen, R.; Rall, E.; Chapman, E.; Rolf, W.; Pauleit, S. Urban green infrastructure planning: A guide for
practitioners. Green Surge. 2017. Available online: http://greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp5/ (accessed
on 1 June 2017).
88. Hislop, M.; Scott, A.J.; Corbett, A. What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like?
Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool within Central Scotland UK. Plan. Theory Pract. 2019, 20,
633–655, doi:10.1080/14649357.2019.1678667.
89. Hrdalo, I.; Tomić, D.; Pereković, P. Implementation of green infrastructure principles in Dubrovnik, Croatia
to minimize climate change problems. Urbani Izziv 2015, 26, S38–S49, doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-
supplement-003.
90. Iojă, I.-C.; Osaci-Costache, G.; Breuste, J.; Hossu, C.A.; Grădinaru, S.R.; Onose, D.A.; Nită, M.R.; Skokanová,
H. Integrating urban blue and green areas based on historical evidence. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34,
217–225, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.001.
91. Jerome, G.; Sinnett, D.; Burgess, S.; Calvert, T.; Mortlock, R. A framework for assessing the quality of green
infrastructure in the built environment in the UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 174–182,
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.001.
92. Kim, D.; Song, S.-K. The multifunctional benefits of green infrastructure in community development: An
analytical review based on 447 cases. Sustain. Switz. 2019, 11, 3917, doi:10.3390/su11143917.
93. Kim, M.; Choi, Y.E.; Chon, J. Key coastal landscape structures for resilient coastal green infrastructure to
enhance the abundance of migratory birds on the Yellow Sea. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 243, 1617–1628,
doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.081.
94. Lennon, M.; Scott, M.; Collier, M.; Foley, K. Developing green infrastructure ‘thinking’: Devising and
applying an interactive group-based methodology for practitioners. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 843–
865, doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1042152.
95. Lennon, M.; Scott, M. Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning: Reviewing the possibilities and
implications of a green infrastructure approach. Town Plan. Rev. 2014, 85, 563–587, doi:10.3828/tpr.2014.35.
96. Lennon, M.; Scott, M.; Collier, M.; Foley, K. The emergence of green infrastructure as promoting the
centralisation of a landscape perspective in spatial planning—The case of Ireland. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 146–
163, doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1229460.
97. Lynch, A.J. Is It Good to Be Green? Assessing the Ecological Results of County Green Infrastructure
Planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2016, 36, 90–104, doi:10.1177/0739456×15598615.
98. Mejía, C.V.; Shirotova, L.; De Almeida, I.F.M. Green infrastructure and German landscape planning: A
comparison of approaches. Urbani Izziv 2015, 26, S25–S37, doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-
supplement-002.
99. Mell, I. Green infrastructure planning: Policy and objectives. In Handbook on Green Infrastructure; Edward
Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015.
100. Mell, I.C. Greening Ahmedabad—Creating a resilient Indian city using a green infrastructure approach to
investment. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 289–314, doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1314452.
101. Papageorgiou, M.; Gemenetzi, G. Setting the grounds for the green infrastructure in the metropolitan areas
of athens and thessaloniki: The role of green space. Eur. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 8, 83–92,
doi:10.14712/23361964.2018.12.
102. Pauleit, S.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Andersson, E.; Anton, B.; Buijs, A.; Haase, D.; Mattijssen, T. Advancing urban
green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban For.
Urban Green. 2018, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006.
103. Perini, K.; Paola, S. Urban Sustainability and River Restoration; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.
Land 2020, 9, 525 17 of 20

104. Rall, E.; Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS)for urban green
infrastructure planning. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 264–274, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016.
105. Roe, M.; Mell, I. Negotiating value and priorities: Evaluating the demands of green infrastructure
development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 650–673, doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.693454.
106. Rusche, K.; Reimer, M.; Stichmann, R. Mapping and assessing green infrastructure connectivity in
European city regions. Sustain. Switz. 2019, 11, 1819, doi:10.3390/SU11061819.
107. Schiappacasse, P.; Müller, B. Planning green infrastructure as a source of urban and regional resilience—
Towards institutional challenges. Urbani Izziv 2015, 26, S13–S24, doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-
supplement-001.
108. Selman, P. Landscape planning—preservation, conservation and sustainable development. Town Plan. Rev.
2010, 81, 381–406, doi:10.3828/tpr.2010.13.
109. Snäll, T.; Lehtomäki, J.; Arponen, A.; Elith, J.; Moilanen, A. Green Infrastructure Design Based on Spatial
Conservation Prioritization and Modeling of Biodiversity Features and Ecosystem Services. Environ.
Manage. 2016, 57, 251–256, doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0613-y.
110. Söderman, T.; Saarela, S.-R. Biodiversity in strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of municipal spatial
plans in finland. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2010, 28, 117–133, doi:10.3152/146155110 × 498834.
111. Szulczewska, B.; Giedych, R.; Maksymiuk, G. Can we face the challenge: How to implement a theoretical
concept of green infrastructure into planning practice? Warsaw case study. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 176–194,
doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1240764.
112. Wang, J.; Banzhaf, E. Towards a better understanding of Green Infrastructure: A critical review. Ecol. Indic.
2018, 85, 758–772, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.018.
113. Wirth, P.; Chang, J.; Syrbe, R.-U.; Wende, W.; Hu, T. Green infrastructure: A planning concept for the urban
transformation of former coal-mining cities. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2018, 5, 78–91, doi:10.1007/s40789-018-
0200-y.
114. Anderson, E.C.; Egerer, M.H.; Fouch, N.; Clarke, M.; Davidson, M.J. Comparing community garden
typologies of Baltimore, Chicago, and New York City (USA) to understand potential implications for socio-
ecological services. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 671–681, doi:10.1007/s11252-019-00855-9.
115. Bartesaghi Koc, C.; Osmond, P.; Peters, A. Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: A
systematic review of approaches, methods and typologies. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 15–35,
doi:10.1007/s11252-016-0578-5.
116. Beery, T. Exploring the role of outdoor recreation to contribute to urban climate resilience. Sustain. Switz.
2019, 11, doi:10.3390/su11226268.
117. Brears, R.C. Blue and Green Cities: The Role of Blue-Green Infrastructure in Managing Urban Water Resources;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; p. 318.
118. Courtenay, C.I.; Lookingbill, T.R. Designing a regional trail network of high conservation value using
principles of green infrastructure. Southeast. Geogr. 2014, 54, 270–290, doi:10.1353/sgo.2014.0023.
119. Dennis, M.; James, P. Urban Social-ecological Innovation: Implications for Adaptive Natural Resource
Management. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 153–164, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.005.
120. Dorst, H.; van der Jagt, A.; Raven, R.; Runhaar, H. Urban greening through nature-based solutions—Key
characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620.
121. Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Yamelynets, T.; Dawson, L.; Gebrehiwot, M.; Stryamets, N.; Johansson, K.-
E.; Garrido, P.; Naumov, V.; Manton, M. A bottom-up approach to map land covers as potential green
infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural settings: A case study from Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2017, 168, 72–83, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.031.
122. Everett, G.; Lawson, E.; Lamond, J. Green infrastructure and urban water management. In Handbook on
Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015;
pp. 50–66.
123. Ibrahim, A.; Bartsch, K.; Sharifi, E. Green infrastructure needs green governance: Lessons from Australia’s
largest integrated stormwater management project, the River Torrens Linear Park. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121202.
124. Jayasooriya, V.M.; Ng, A.W.M.; Muthukumaran, S.; Perera, C.B.J. Optimization of green infrastructure
practices in industrial areas for runoff management: A review on issues, challenges and opportunities.
Water Switz. 2020, 12, 1024, doi:10.3390/W12041024.
Land 2020, 9, 525 18 of 20

125. Lähde, E.; Khadka, A.; Tahvonen, O.; Kokkonen, T. Can we really have it all?-Designing multifunctionality
with sustainable urban drainage system elements. Sustain. Switz. 2019, 11, 1854, doi:10.3390/su11071854.
126. Lennon, M.; Scott, M.; O’Neill, E. Urban Design and Adapting to Flood Risk: The Role of Green
Infrastructure. J. Urban Des. 2014, 19, 745–758, doi:10.1080/13574809.2014.944113.
127. Madureira, H.; Andresen, T. Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: Promises and
challenges. Urban Des. Int. 2014, 19, 38–49, doi:10.1057/udi.2013.11.
128. Molla, M.B.; Ikporukpo, C.O.; Olatubara, C.O. Evaluating Policy and Legal Frameworks of Urban Green
Infrastructure Development in Ethiopia. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2019, 21,
doi:10.1142/S1464333219500169.
129. Payne, S.; Barker, A. Implementing green infrastructure through residential development in the UK. In
Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing:
Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 375–394.
130. Rolf, W.; Pauleit, S.; Wiggering, H. A stakeholder approach, door opener for farmland and
multifunctionality in urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 73–83,
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.012.
131. Scott, A.J.; Carter, C.; Reed, M.R.; Larkham, P.; Adams, D.; Morton, N.; Waters, R.; Collier, D.; Crean, C.;
Curzon, R.; et al. Disintegrated development at the rural-urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning
theory and practice. Prog. Plan. 2013, 83, 1–52, doi:10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001.
132. Xiu, N.; Ignatieva, M.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. The challenges of planning and designing urban
green networks in Scandinavian and Chinese cities. J. Archit. Urban. 2016, 40, 163–176,
doi:10.3846/20297955.2016.1210047.
133. Zhang, F.; Chung, C.K.L.; Yin, Z. Green infrastructure for China’s new urbanisation: A case study of
greenway development in Maanshan. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 508–524, doi:10.1177/0042098018822965.
134. Zwierzchowska, I.; Fagiewicz, K.; Poniży, L.; Lupa, P.; Mizgajski, A. Introducing nature-based solutions
into urban policy-facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań. Land Use Policy 2019, 85, 161–175,
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.025.
135. Artmann, M. Urban gray vs. urban green vs. soil protection—Development of a systemic solution to soil
sealing management on the example of Germany. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 59, 27–42,
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.004.
136. Dover, J.W. Green Infrastructure: Incorporating Plants and Enhancing Biodiversity in Buildings and Urban
Environments; Routledge: Abingdon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 311. ISBN 9780415521246
137. Gill, S.; Nolan, P.; Butlin, T.; Ferguson, T.; Olver, C. Planning green infrastructure at a strategic level:
Experience from The Mersey Forest. In Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and
Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 124–144. ISBN: 978 1 78347 399 1
138. Lovell, S.T.; Taylor, J.R. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure
in the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1447–1463, doi:10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y.
139. Mell, I.; Clement, S. Progressing Green Infrastructure planning: Understanding its scalar, temporal, geo-
spatial and disciplinary evolution. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2019, doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1617517.
140. Rall, E.L.; Kabisch, N.; Hansen, R. A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of
ecosystem services in urban planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 230–242, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.005.
141. Zalejska-Jonsson, A.; Wilkinson, S.J.; Wahlund, R. Willingness to pay for green infrastructure in residential
development-a consumer perspective. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 152, doi:10.3390/atmos11020152.
142. Mell, I.C. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of Green Infrastructure
development. Local Environ. 2013, 18, 152–166, doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.719019.
143. Prior, A.; Raemaekers, J. Is green belt fit for purpose in a post-Fordist landscape? Plan. Pract. Res. 2007, 22,
579–599, doi:10.1080/02697450701770100.
144. Qiao, X.-J.; Liao, K.-H.; Randrup, T.B. Sustainable stormwater management: A qualitative case study of the
Sponge Cities initiative in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101963.
145. Arshad, H.S.H.; Routray, J.K. From socioeconomic disparity to environmental injustice: The relationship
between housing unit density and community green space in a medium city in Pakistan. Local Environ.
2018, 23, 536–548, doi:10.1080/13549839.2018.1442424.
146. Burton, C.; Rogerson, J.M. The making of green urban infrastructure: The Klipriviersberg Urban
Biodiversity Corridor. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2017, 6. ISSN: 2223-814X
Land 2020, 9, 525 19 of 20

147. Cilliers, E.J. Reflecting on Green Infrastructure and Spatial Planning in Africa: The Complexities,
Perceptions, and Way Forward. Sustainability 2019, 11, 455, doi:10.3390/su11020455.
148. Collier, M.J.; Nedović-Budić, Z.; Aerts, J.; Connop, S.; Foley, D.; Foley, K.; Newport, D.; McQuaid, S.; Slaev,
A.; Verburg, P. Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities 2013, 32, S21–
S28, doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.010.
149. Greed, C. Ensuring green infrastructure for all. In Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and
Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 203–223.
150. Shifflett, S.D.; Newcomer-Johnson, T.; Yess, T.; Jacobs, S. Interdisciplinary collaboration on green
infrastructure for urbanwatershed management: An Ohio case study. Water Switz. 2019, 11,
doi:10.3390/w11040738.
151. van der Walt, L.; Cilliers, S.S.; Du Toit, M.J.; Kellner, K. Conservation of fragmented grasslands as part of
the urban green infrastructure: How important are species diversity, functional diversity and landscape
functionality? Urban Ecosyst. 2015, 18, 87–113, doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0393-9.
152. Johns, C.M. Understanding barriers to green infrastructure policy and stormwater management in the City
of Toronto: A shift from grey to green or policy layering and conversion? J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62,
1377–1401, doi:10.1080/09640568.2018.1496072.
153. Reimer, M.; Rusche, K. Green infrastructure under pressure. A global narrative between regional vision
and local implementation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1542–1563, doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1591346.
154. Taramelli, A.; Lissoni, M.; Piedelobo, L.; Schiavon, E.; Valentini, E.; Xuan, A.N.; González-Aguilera, D.
Monitoring green infrastructure for naturalwater retention using copernicus global land products. Remote
Sens. 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/rs11131583.
155. Anguelovski, I.; Brand, A.L.; Connolly, J.J.; Corbera, E.; Kotsila, P.; Steil, J.; Langemeyer, J. Expanding the
Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination,
Intersectional, and Relational Approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 2020, doi:10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579.
156. Chaffin, B.C.; Garmestani, A.S.; Gunderson, L.H.; Benson, M.H.; Angeler, D.G.; Tony, C.A.; Cosens, B.;
Craig, R.K.; Ruhl, J.B.; Allen, C.R. Transformative Environmental Governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2016, 41, 399–423, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817.
157. Everett, G.; Lamond, J.E. Considering the value of community engagement for (Co-)producing blue–green
infrastructure. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2018, 184, doi:10.2495/FRIAR180011.
158. Feltynowski, M. Spatial information systems—A tool supporting good governance in spatial planning
processes of green areas. J. Urban Reg. Anal. 2015, 7, 69–82.
159. Gulsrud, N.M.; Hertzog, K.; Shears, I. Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne? Investigating
“green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environ. Res. 2018, 161, 158–167,
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005.
160. Magaudda, S.; D’Ascanio, R.; Muccitelli, S.; Palazzo, A.L. “Greening” green infrastructure. Good italian
practices for enhancing green infrastructure through the common agricultural policy. Sustain. Switz. 2020,
12, 2301, doi:10.3390/su12062301.
161. Marot, N.; Golobič, M.; Müller, B. Green infrastructure in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe: A
universal solution to current environmental and spatial challenges? Urbani Izziv 2015, 26, S1–S12,
doi:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-000.
162. Moffat, A.J.; Sinnett, D.; Smith, N.; Burgess, S. The future of green infrastructure. In Handbook on Green
Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp.
445–463.
163. Suškevičs, M. Legitimate planning processes or informed decisions? Exploring public officials’ rationales
for participation in regional green infrastructure planning in Estonia. Environ. Policy Gov. 2019, 29, 132–143,
doi:10.1002/eet.1836.
164. van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Smith, M.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Konijnendijk, C.C.; Giannico, V.; Haase, D.; Lafortezza,
R.; Nastran, M.; Pintar, M.; Železnikar, S.; et al. Co-creating urban green infrastructure connecting people
and nature: A guiding framework and approach. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 233, 757–767,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.083.
165. Wild, T.C.; Dempsey, N.; Broadhead, A.T. Volunteered information on nature-based solutions—Dredging
for data on deculverting. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 254–263, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.019.
 Land 2020, 9, 525 20 of 20

166. Wilker, J.; Rusche, K.; Rymsa-Fitschen, C. Improving Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning. Plan.
Pract. Res. 2016, 31, 229–249, doi:10.1080/02697459.2016.1158065.
167. Taguchi, V.J.; Weiss, P.T.; Gulliver, J.S.; Klein, M.R.; Hozalski, R.M.; Baker, L.A.; Finlay, J.C.; Keeler, B.L.;
Nieber, J.L. It is not easy being green: Recognizing unintended consequences of green stormwater
infrastructure. Water Switz. 2020, 12, 522, doi:10.3390/w12020522.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats