Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis

Introduction

When Lowenthal (1985) talked about the past being a foreign country, he discussed how our perceptions of the landscape were shaped by experience, by socio-cultural actions and by our changing commitment to ideas or causes. Similarly, when Benedict and McMahon (2006) emphasised that Green Infrastructure (GI) was, and is, our life-support system, they were reflecting on the growth of sustainability politics and a subsequent rethinking within the environment sector of how best to manage human–environmental interactions. Both Lowenthal and Benedict and McMahon explored the actions of the past to understand those currently visible in landscape planning. They also identified significant problems in how we deal with the landscapes around us and the impact this has on our ability to manage landscape resources sustainably. Neither offered a fool-proof answer to the questions of how we address this growing debate; Benedict and McMahon did, however, synthesise the ideas of parkways, greenways, environmental management and ecological conservation into a more holistic approach to landscape planning: what we now consider as a ‘GI’ approach.

This special issue of Landscape Research takes this debate as a starting point to examine how planners, academics, practitioners and other stakeholders are utilising GI principles. The special issue call asked the growing GI community to examine whether it was a sufficiently developed concept, what best practice could be identified, and to explain the nuances embedded within its implementation in different locations. Taking an overtly broad approach, the special issue provided scope for papers to address a range of thematic, spatial, innovative and conceptual understandings of GI in praxis. We feel that the papers presented in this special issue successfully achieve this by exploring contemporary understandings of the financial, ecological, policy-practice and scalar uses of GI. This does, however, raise a dilemma that is explored through the research articles and doctoral position papers presented. How has GI developed to meet these challenges? Within this debate, a series of key ideas are presented, which have been established in the academic literature as shaping the ways in which we discuss, value,¹ and utilise GI in alterative geo-political landscapes. The introduction draws together the historical discussions of GI to contextualise the papers presented in this special issue, which go on to explore the versatility of GI as an approach to landscape planning, and as a concept which can, as Benedict and McMahon remark, act as a life support system for human and ecological activities.

Throughout this editorial, and the subsequent papers, the meaning of GI will be broadly framed by the definitions proposed by Benedict and McMahon (2006), Natural England (2009) and more recently the European Commission (2013). Each of these definitions utilises a range of socio-economic and ecological principles, landscape resources, and alternative approaches to landscape planning to frame what GI is, how it should be developed and what benefits it should deliver. The key principles within this process are the promotion of social, economic and environmental benefits within an integrated approach to planning that enables different stakeholders to shape the ways that they develop and manage the landscape. Furthermore, the principles of multi-functionality, connectivity and access to nature, supportive ecological networks, and establishing socio-economic values through awareness raising and stewardship are all presented as essential components of the promotion of GI praxis (Countryside Agency & Groundwork, 2005; Davies, Macfarlane, McGloin, & Roe, 2006; Mell, 2010; Weber, Sloan, & Wolf, 2006; Williamson, 2003).

The timing of the special issue is also apt. It comes almost a decade since GI started to be actively discussed by academics and practitioners² in the UK and USA; the initial discussions of Benedict and McMahon (2006) and Davies et al. (2006) being important milestones. These initial explorations led to the development of a burgeoning literature focussed on the impacts as well as the functionality of GI across the globe. A second reason why this issue of Landscape Research is timely is the growing realisation in government that alternative solutions to climate change and urban expansion are needed if we are to plan our landscapes more sustainably. Such a reposition is becoming increasing visible in the UK, North America and Europe, but also in the expanding economies of the BRICS countries: Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa (Moraes Victor et al., 2004; Schäffler & Swilling, 2012). Landscape planning and management therefore needs to be considered as a global discussion, and one where GI offers a suite of options that can, and have been evidenced to, mitigate climate change, alleviate flood risk, improve public health, and promote economic viability (Gill, Handley, Ennos, & Pauleit, 2007; Mell, Henneberry, Hehl-Lange, & Keskin, 2013; Ulrich, 1984; Weber et al., 2006). The same literature also illustrates that GI can be delivered successfully at a number of scales, and across a range of administrative and ecological boundaries (Davies et al., 2006; Forman, 1995; Kambites & Owen, 2006; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). This evidence places our understanding and use of GI in a far more established position than it was for those who first strove to develop the concept in the early 2000s.

Over the course of the last decade, there has been year-on-year growth in the discussion and publication of GI research, guidance and policy, of which the authors of several papers in this special issue of Landscape Research have contributed. Research into GI has been varied, and in a sense, highlights the inherent versatility of the concept, which has both supported and hindered its uptake in different locations. The research of the Conservation Fund (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Lerner & Allen, 2012; Weber & Wolf, 2000) in the USA, and the Community Forest Partnerships (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; Davies et al., 2006) and Natural England (2009) in the UK, and more recently regional landscape administrations in North-West Europe (South Yorkshire Forest Partnership & Sheffield City Council, 2012; Vandermeulen, Verspecht, Vermeire, Van Huylenbroeck, & Gellynck, 2011; Wilker & Rusche, 2013), have all played a significant role in ensuring that positive GI messages are visible within academic/practice debates.

Over the last five years, we have also seen governments engage with these messages: the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued memorandums on GI, whilst the UK government mentions GI in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Department of Communties & Local Government, 2012; EPA, 2014). More recently, the European Commission issued a communique supporting GI (European Commission, 2013), whilst researchers working for the New Zealand government presented a synthesis of GI and its proposed values for planning in that country (Boyle et al., 2013).

Such geographical diversity has enabled GI to develop as a dynamic approach to landscape planning; a process which is reflected in the scope of the discussions presented in this special issue. It has, however, also highlighted the complexity witnessed in many cities and regions in Europe, the USA, and more recently in African (Abbott, 2012) and Asian nations (Merk, Saussier, Staropoli, Slack, & Kim, 2012), where the use of GI has varied in its form and uptake. Variation has been linked directly to the level of understanding and support (political, social and financial) that GI receives from the government and the environmental sector (Siemens, 2011). Whilst this suggests that the uptake of GI at a government level is positive, it has been the promotion of a number of its key principles: multi-functionality, connectivity, ecological networks and integrated approaches to policy-implementation, by a select group of agencies that have driven the transition from policy to practice, for example, England’s Community Forests (cf. Blackman & Thackray, 2007). Such diversity implies that a plurality to GI discussions exists which can be considered to be spatially, temporally and socio-politically constructed (Mell, 2014); dimensions which will be explored within the papers presented in this special issue of Landscape Research.

The three eras of GI: exploration, expansion and consolidation

To frame such a debate, it is necessary, as Lowenthal stated, to understand the past, in this case the historical development of GI as a concept and as an approach to planning. The versatility of GI lies in its synergies between a series of established green space antecedents such as greenways (Little, 1990), the Garden Cities movement (Howard, 2009) and landscape ecology (Jongman & Pungetti, 2004), the key principles of the concept, and the developing consensus between academics, practitioners, delivery agents and policy-makers, each of which has positioned GI as an integrated and cost-effective approach to urban and landscape planning. Although there is a clear line of argument, as discussed by Mell (2010), illustrating how these factors have generated an overarching acknowledgement of what GI is, what it should do, and how it should do it, we can go further and identify three periods of GI development: Exploration (1998³–2008), Expansion (post-2008–2011) and Consolidation (2010–2012 onwards).

GI developed through a process of assimilation and adaption. Its growth utilised the principles outlined in Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Cities project to embed the notion of connectivity, accessibility and integrated planning at the core of GI praxis (Town & Country Planning Association, 2012a). GI has also embraced the notions of linearity and connectivity across and between landscape (and administrative) boundaries central to greenways planning to promote multi-functional ecological and recreational routes (Ahern, 1995; Fábos, 2004; Little, 1990). Moreover, GI has been influenced by complementary principles identified in the landscape ecology and conservation research (Farina, 2006; Forman, 1995; Weber & Wolf, 2000). Linking these issues is a view that GI should act as a holistic approach that integrates the socio-political and environmental concerns of landscape planning (Dunn, 2007; Natural England & Landuse Consultants, 2009; Young & McPherson, 2013).

The current discussions of GI engage with each of these issues, highlighting how it can be used to address a variety of planning mandates. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of landscape planning, GI advocates are continuing to evidence the concept to address climatic and demographic change (Goode, 2006), grey/built environment vs. GI (Mell, 2013) debates, and the growing discussion of ecosystem services (Andersson et al., 2014). However, throughout this process there remains a need to understand how discussions of contemporary GI investment are linked to the history of green space planning.

Exploration (1998–2007)

The initial exploration of GI extended Parris Glendening’s call for it to be used to optimise the ways in which we develop, plan and manage our landscapes (President’s Council on Sustainable Development’s, 1999). Although GI terminology was not initially used, this was what was being referred to through a range of synonyms, such as greenway planning or green space management. Benedict and McMahon (2002) published one of the first papers to consider GI using contemporary terminology. By linking its use to the smart conservation movement in North America, they acted as the catalysts for the expansion of debate surrounding GI. From this point onwards research and practitioner reports started to be populated with the term GI, using it to frame conservation discussions at a local and a regional scale (McDonald, Allen, Benedict, & O’Connor, 2005; Weber & Wolf, 2000). Over time, an acceptance of the terminology, and the ways in which it could be applied to landscape planning became increasingly visible (Benedict & McMahon, 2006).

The initial uptake of GI was seen to be steadily engaging European academics and practitioners. Evidence of this process was reported by Sandström (2002), who discussed the value of GI to Swedish planning debates, whilst Beatley (2000) debated comparable principles in his green urbanist assessment of a number of European cities. In the UK, England’s Community Forest Partnerships (2004), and the Country In and Around Towns (CIAT) programmes of the Countryside Agency & Groundwork (2005) helped to focus GI discussions onto a number of key ideas: connectivity, multi-functionality, interrelated and supportive benefits, and a systematic (i.e. strategic) approach to landscape management. Each of these principles was used to shape how the environment sector and local government in England approached the revitalisation of landscapes across rural–urban boundaries. It also laid the ground work for further investigations into site specific applications of GI, based on the growing consensus of what it should deliver (Mell, 2010).

Each subsequent examination of GI extended these initial conceptualisations illustrating where, and how, it could be used as an effective form of landscape and urban planning. Key reference points in this process include Tzoulas et al.’s (2007) whose work reviews the potential health benefits of GI, work that drew on a wealth of further human-environmental research (Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006; Pretty et al., 2007; Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, & Griffin, 2005; Town & Country Planning Association, 2012b; Ulrich, 1984). Furthermore, Gill et al.’s (2007) and Goode’s (2006) assessment of GI helped to synthesise its role in adapting of cities to climate change; research that has influenced more recent examinations of the utility of urban greenspace and green technology in a number of cities (cf. Bowler, Buyung-Ali, Knight, & Pullin, 2010; James et al., 2009). Ted Weber and the Conservation Fund’s work in Maryland (USA) has also been used to frame contemporary ecosystem service debates, and remains highly influential in promoting links between investment in GI and the conservation of ecological networks (Weber, 2007; Weber et al., 2006; Weber & Wolf, 2000).

The work of each of these authors provided GI advocates with a number of avenues through which to explore the concept. They can also still be considered relevant to policy discussions, as they promote a more detailed appreciation of the varied socio-economic and ecological benefits of GI, and make significant contributions to the current thinking on landscape management. Extending this process, Kambites and Owen (2006) framed a number of these arguments within a discussion of how GI could more effectively engage planning policy debates. They offered one of the first, and potentially still most relevant assessments of what governance and policy structures GI needed to engage with if it was to become grounded in landscape praxis.

Expansion (2005–2010)

Following the initial period of exploration GI development moved into its expansion phase. This reflected an increase in the number of academic, government agencies and practitioners working with GI, and a significant increase in discussions, policy guidance and research projects looking at its benefits. In England, this was strongly linked to the inclusion of GI in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) process, in which advocates used the growing body of research to relate its values to regional government (Horwood, 2011; Thomas & Littlewood, 2010). The RSS brought together a diverse range of partners to discuss the evolving concept, which was framed, to a large extent, by the work of the Community Forest network and their own landscape renewal programmes. However, the success of this process was variable with specific regions (the East of England, North-West, and the North-East), being the most proactive advocates of investment in GI (Blackman & Thackray, 2007; Llausàs & Roe, 2012; North West Green Infrastructure Think Tank, 2006).

Comparable praxis was also witnessed in the USA, where the continued influence of the Conservation Fund, and the release of Benedict and McMahon’s seminal GI book (Benedict & McMahon, 2006), ensured the concept remained visible in landscape debates. One of the key factors contributing to this was the geo-political weight of the Conservation Fund, who have regional chapters, enabling them to initiate GI debates at a national, regional and sub-regional level. Throughout this period, they should be seen as the leading advocates for the development of GI in the USA, both conceptually and spatially. More recently, as an emphasis on stormwater and water catchment dynamics has been mainstreamed within North American GI debates, we have witnessed an increasing engagement by the EPA. They have supported GI through a series of memoranda outlining how GI should be used to manage water resources (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Dunn, 2010; EPA, 2014). This reflects the historic engineered approach to investment in water management but they have also started to think more holistically about how soft or green engineering can be used to promote more sustainable forms of investment (Ahern, 2007; Mell, 2013). Such thinking has also been manifested in how city and sub-regional agencies, such as the Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation Districts (MWRD), have re-evaluated their approaches to urban water management (Mell, 2016).

The second period of GI development also saw a growing regional development of the concept. The research and ‘grey’ literature⁴ saw an elaboration of how GI was being planned through strategic documents, and where investments were taking place at a site, city and sub-regional scale (Mell, 2010). The number of GI strategies increased greatly in the UK at this point, with a similar growth process being witnessed across the USA, where major cities including New York, Chicago and Philadelphia started to explore the possibilities of investing in GI as an effective approach to land management (Mell, 2014). Instigated in parallel to these discussions were examples of Spanish, Scandinavian and Italian explorations of GI utility which addressed climatic, functionality and administrative differences in its use across Europe (James et al., 2009; Lafortezza, Carrus, Sanesi, & Davies, 2009; Llausàs & Roe, 2012). This period therefore witnessed the beginnings of a more refined approach to GI that examined its value as a planning process and was framed using more nuanced interpretations. This differed from the initial stage, as there was a greater level of consensus amongst GI advocates regarding its guiding principles (Beer, 2010; Mell, 2008, 2010). This shift would gain momentum in the third phase: consolidation, currently taking place in GI research.

Consolidation (2010 onwards)

The current phase of GI research can be considered one of consolidation, in the sense that we have now established a relatively common consensus relating to what GI is and how it should be developed (Mell, 2013, 2014; Wright, 2011). This has been supported by the year-on-year growth of specific GI investment strategies, as well as an increasing awareness of its value to a number of thematic planning agendas (i.e. climate change). Therefore, whilst GI in the expansion period looked to assess how, where and why it could be seen as a relevant form of investment, the transition towards consolidation aimed to develop a more detailed, grounded and robust evidence base to support its use.

One factor influencing this process has been the growing realisation, especially within global cities, of the economic, ecological and social value that GI can help deliver (Siemens, 2011). Beatley’s (2000, 2009) research in Europe and Australasia illustrates this broadening trend, as do the consolidation and adoption of GI strategies in the cities of Chicago (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, 2014) and London (Greater London Authority, 2012). Further guidance has also been produced by Merk et al. (2012) and Siemens (2011) reflecting on the opportunities for GI investment in Asia and examining the added-value of greener and more sustainable cities. What each of these strategies and guidance documents argued was that GI is now seen as a more appropriate approach to the delivery of multi-functional landscapes compared to other forms of development. GI is thus being linked to greener, smarter and more efficient methods of urban development (Austin, 2014; Hansen & Pauleit, 2014; Jones & Somper, 2014).

Furthermore, as city and national/international guidance has developed to frame GI investment, there has been a corresponding refinement in more specific thematic applications of the concept (European Commission, 2013). Austin (2014) discussed this process by assessing the potential applications of biodiversity and ecosystems in North America and Sweden to examine how climatic variation could be managed with GI inspired investment in green urban design and ecological corridors. Moreover, Rouse and Bunster-Ossa (2013) addressed the continuing reflection on grey vs. green water sensitive management in the USA. However, whilst both debated on where and how GI could be implemented these discussions have been supplemented by more detailed studies of how the concept can address geographically specific research focussed on financial concerns in North-West Europe (Mell et al., 2013; Vandermeulen et al., 2011; Wilker & Rusche, 2013); conservation and ecosystem services benefits in urban and suburban areas in the USA (Hostetler, Allen, & Meurk, 2011; Young, 2010). Plus the need to develop an evidence base for politicians emphasising the role of GI in adapting urban areas to climate change (Ahern, 2013; Carter & Fowler, 2008; Madureira, Andresen, & Monteiro, 2011).

One further aspect of GI thinking that remains crucial to our understanding of its function is that regardless of what form of investment GI takes, we must consider it to be context specific. Although the big questions of: who, what, when, and how may change, it remains important to reflect on the where and why, and the socio-economic, political and landscape factors that influence development. Furthermore, although we can identify a consensus of which GI principles are considered to be accepted in each of the major GI planning arenas, there is still scope to celebrate the differences between locations (Mell, 2016). Where variation in the use of GI exists, for example, between the UK and the USA (Mell, 2014), we can identify complementary and contrasting implementation that can facilitate increased reflections on best-practice between locations. Given the development challenges facing landscape and urban planners in China and India, there are ecological and economic benefits to understanding such transferability. What we do with GI, as well as how we evaluate these different approaches to investment therefore provides us with a more nuanced appreciation of its value in landscape planning discussions.

The GI special issue

The following set of papers explore a number of issues presented in the discussion above illustrating how GI has developed, and how it is currently being utilised in a number of different geo-political contexts. Each of the papers discusses the subtleties of GI research, making links between various physical, socio-economic and legislative-administrative factors. As a collection, the papers present a snap-shot of the discursive breadth of GI planning, a view which is often overlooked as GI research is prone to focusing on the specificities of individual projects. This special issue of Landscape Research thus adds depth to the evidence base for GI, enabling further examination of the context, content and outcomes of existing GI discussions. Exploring the versatility of GI enables us as commentators, researchers and practitioners to extend these debates into wider planning discussions, as well as extending the evidence base for those who support it.

The papers can be identified as integrating a number of the ideas noted in the three eras presented above, illustrating the growing understanding of GI characteristics, spatial application and thematic focus (cf. Mell, 2015). All seven papers could be considered to highlight the growing knowledge base within the field of GI, as they review the application of specific ecological, water-centric and socio-economic approaches to landscape planning in unique, yet comparable, contexts. The papers thus move beyond a simplistic categorisation of spatial or thematic approaches to GI planning. Alternatively, they report on the increasing use of best praxis to examine the interplay of geo-spatial understandings of landscape investment within the context specific political structures of planning in different locations. The papers also reflect on the interactivity of political, social and ecological systems to examine the complexity of achieving balance between economic valuation, maintaining ecological capacity, and the delivery of appropriate GI investment across urban, urban-fringe and rural/coastal landscapes (Austin, 2014; Rouse & Bunster-Ossa, 2013). Within each paper, this dynamic approach to GI is considered in terms of addressing contextually specific issues, i.e. stormwater management in Canada or how GI is being incorporated into the development process in Ireland, the latter including a reflection on the expanding understanding of how governance and consultation influences understanding of the investment process, and provides new interpretations of the existing principles of GI.

Lennon et al.’s paper focuses on the evolving discussions of GI as an approach to landscape planning in Ireland (Lennon, Scott, Collier, & Foley, 2016). Their paper evaluates the difficulty that planners have encountered in establishing a ‘landscape perspective’ both within the consultation process and in policy at different scales because of existing stakeholder mandates. GI is therefore proposed by Lennon et al. as an alternative approach which can draw on the multi-disciplinary expertise of engineers, planners and ecologists to identify innovative solutions to landscape planning. Moreover, they go on to assess how disciplinary silos are being eroded through an integrated approach to GI planning. However, although the policy landscape at a local and regional level appears to be engaged with the GI agenda, there is reluctance, as in many other countries such as the UK (Mell, 2016), to mandate GI within national level policy.

Sanesi et al.’s paper uses the urban forests of Milan, Italy as the central focus of their examination of GI (Sanesi, Colangelo, Lafortezza, Calvo, & Davies, 2016). Using a historical analysis of the city’s woodland areas, Sanesi et al. discuss how urban woodlands have been promoted as a reaction to increased urbanisation from the 1970’s onwards as an environmental defence mechanism to the loss of urban green space. They argue that GI provides a more nuanced understanding of the connections and fragmentations of urban systems compared with more traditional forms of green space planning. In particular, the paper traces the growing use of urban forest by Milan’s city government as a successful method of providing accessible and functional spaces across the city.

The following paper by Szulczewska et al. discusses the development of GI praxis in Warsaw, Poland (Szulczewska, Giedych, & Maksymiuk, 2016). They examine the development of the multi-functionality focussed Warsaw Green Infrastructure (WGI) approach to investment which moves away from the historical (and inflexible) form of green space management, the Warsaw Natural System (WNS). The application of the WNS used landuse classifications to identify the spatial pattern of Warsaw but lacked further analysis of the functions associated with these spaces. The paper discusses the shift to the WGI model and how the city and its agencies, i.e. Environmental Protection Officers, identify the city’s GI resource base and attempt to clarify how they deliver the socio-economic and ecological benefits associated with it across the city. The paper reports that a joint approach to investment is being used that aims to plan strategically through government policy/initiatives and locally by engaging with non-governmental officers and other agents such as Warsaw’s Architecture and Urban Planning officers, to ensure that an appropriate network of GI is developed.

In contrast to the strategic policy and practice discussions of Sanesi et al. and Szulczewska et al., Dagenais et al.’s paper focuses on the role of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI), in the effective management of urban water systems in Beauport, Quebec City, Canada (Dagenais, Thomas, & Paquette, 2016). The paper explores the use of GSI as a mechanism for environmental, aesthetic and social benefits to both the physical landscape and the population of Beauport. This includes the piloting of the GSI approach in different sites and the potential to scale-up the benefits to a broader geographical region. It also engages with the complexity of consensus building between stakeholders and the difficulties faced by GI practitioners in promoting the benefits of investing in GI to a variety of different partners.

Moving from water to ecology, Gasparella et al.’s paper uses the management of Italian Stone Pines (Pinus pinea L.) in the urbanisation of the greater Rome region as the focus of its GI discussion (Gasparella et al., 2016). Reflecting on landuse change from 1949–2008, the authors use a synthetic index of landscape to outline how the increased use of Italian Stone Pines as a socio-economic amenity has brought it into direct contact with the challenges of managing urban growth. The authors note that planners and developers need to be aware of the complex regulatory framework controlling planning policy and environmental regulations if they are to retain the long-term ecological capacity of the forests. Perhaps, predictably, the paper finds that those areas with greater protection have seen limited change to the size or function of the forests, whilst other areas with less protection have witnessed greater change. Gasparella et al.’s paper does, however, provide historical evidence of the impacts that urbanisation has on forest cover and reflects on a range of protective methods, including buffer zones, which can be employed to ensure the ecological capacity of the forests is not undermined.

In addition to the discussions of praxis, the special issue provides space for two developing voices to enter GI planning debates to extend the existing interpretations of the concept noted previously. Two papers from current/recent doctoral students are presented providing scope for fresh analysis to be made on how we engage different communities at varying scales with GI, and how alternative valuation mechanisms can influence how we value the landscapes around us. Jerome’s paper discusses the role that GI takes when used at a community-scale (Jerome, 2016), examining the complexity of utilising GI where stakeholder knowledge of the concept’s terminology may limit the understanding of the socio-economic and ecological benefits that can be delivered at a neighbourhood or even a street-scale. Drawing on theoretical debates, Jerome links the diverse drivers of engagement with local greenspaces with the wider conceptions of participation to discuss the role of people, place, and context in the successful delivery of GI projects. Where Jerome discusses how GI is being used by community groups to support investment at the micro-scale, Whitehouse presents an analysis asking whether existing GI valuation toolkits make a positive contribution to how we value green spaces (Whitehouse, 2016). Whitehouse’s work on North-West England, but framed in the wider global valuation debates, highlights the inherent complexity GI professionals face in valuing nature. This reflects on the wider conceptual discussions of ‘value’ but focuses on the role that valuation toolkits currently hold in establishing economic values for GI that are acceptable to planners, developers and environmental practitioners.

Both papers examine elements of GI, i.e. more effective engagement, project focus, economic value, which are embedded within wider GI research. They both illustrate, as do the five previous papers that understanding GI is not a simple process. On the contrary, it should be considered as a deeply complex interaction of people, place and politics, where the interactivity of policy and practice are central to the successful delivery of urban and landscape planning needs. The value of these discussions is therefore in highlighting the benefits associated with the value of GI to people outside of the active research-investment community.

Concluding remarks

GI has evolved extensively over the last ten years and has developed from an interesting extension of a number of existing green space planning activities into a defined and flexible approach to landscape planning. What we have witnessed is how GI has become established, along with the more recent promotion of ecosystem services, as one of the most engaging forms of landscape investment and management for planners. Due to its versatility, coupled with an integrated approach to policy-practice debates, GI thinking has set itself apart from other forms of planning (Mell, 2013). The papers in this special issue reflect this dynamism, illustrating how planning at a number of scales (neighbourhood, city and regional) with a range of delivery objectives (water management, urban forestry and community development) can lead to more responsive, and in many cases appropriate form of investment. In spite of such positivity, there is still scope to embed GI further within policy and practice. Planning policy in the UK remains varied in its support for GI, whilst in the USA the water-centric focus of GI still persists. Furthermore, in those locations that are starting out on their GI journey, e.g. India, Bangladesh, China, and South Africa, there is a small, yet growing evidence base of research focussing on socio-ecological connectivity that may develop into a normative form of urban planning. In summary the how, why and what we do in landscape and urban planning is changing, for, in my opinion, the better. However, we must not be reticent in our continual exploration of the evidence base and rationale for investment in GI. We must also continue to engage the public to ensure, as Louv (2005) discusses, that a long-term link between the landscape and people is maintained. Most of all we must continue to illustrate the value of GI to partners, advocates and politicians to ensure that it continues to form part of the discussion of planning delivery mechanisms.

Funding

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Ian C. Mell
Department of Geography & Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
[email protected]

Notes

1. Value in this sense reflects the collective ecological, economic, political and social value presented in the wider GI literature.

2. Although this Editorial recognises that the debates surrounding GI have been visible since the late 1990s, and were based on the antecedents of the greenway, landscape ecology, Garden Cities and sustainable urbanism literature, see Mell (2010) for further details.

3. One of the first reported uses of ‘GI’ terminology was by the former governor of Maryland (USA), Parris Glendening, who discussed its value within the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1999). In the USA GI became increasingly prominent following Benedict and McMahon’s (2002) discussion of the concept, with the UK developing its initial discussion from 2004 onwards (Mell, 2010).

4. The ‘grey’ literature is considered as the practitioner and policy literature developed by government and advocacy organisations. This research is often presented in the form of policy and guidance documents and is less likely to appear to within the academic literature.