Green-spaces as components in green infrastructure
Fig.4.3.3 provides a non-exhaustive, roughly categorised listing with examples of the different terms for ´green´ components that can form part of, or develop into, green infrastructure, such as a green space, park, street or recreational corridor. These do not, however, neces-sarily provide a green infrastructure in or by themselves (Benedict and McMahon, 2006, pp. 280–285). For example, a greenway takes its depar-ture point in recreation, whereas a green infrastrucdepar-ture originates in ecology. According to Benedict and McMahon, green infrastructure may often, however, take its starting point in, e.g. a greenway, which is then further developed into green infrastructure, inclusive of further benefits (Benedict and McMahon, 2006, p. 35; Hellmund and Smith, 2006, pp.
2–3). At a general level, what connects these components is their config-uration as infrastructural bands of ´green´ (vegetation) using ´nature´ as the foundational approach and focusing on achieving multiple benefits at an infrastructural and societal level.
Green infrastructures as multipurpose networks
Drawing on the work of Jack Ahern, green infrastructure is defined as a land-based network that makes use of natural processes to provision for human (cultural), biotic and abiotic needs. It is a multifunctional and multipurpose approach that supports both ecological and cultural values.
A widely accepted resource model used in landscape planning and GI is the ABC (Abiotic, Biotic, Cultural), which takes its starting point in the relations between human, biotic and abiotic systems (Ahern, 2007, p.
268). Green infrastructure originates from ecological goals (Benedict and McMahon, 2006, p. 15), implying long-term time perspectives, cross-scale geographic implications, and multi-functionality attached to land use. As such, the term green infrastructure covers a broad span of stra-tegic approaches to using ´green´ systems while serving human interests.
Substantial work on assessing ecological benefits is being carried out with attention on creating multiple values through green infrastructure.
Some important factors in this endeavour are size, diversity, and distribu-tion, together with their design and how they are managed (Werquin et al., 2005, p. 135). According to Benedict and McMahon, the concept is inherently interdisciplinary, evolving from various disciplines and rooted in studies of land and the relationship between human and nature (Bene-dict and McMahon, 2006, p. 23). Moreover, Jack Ahern is explicit in his belief that Green Infrastructure planning has to be practised in a trans-disciplinary manner (Ahern, 2007, p. 282).
Figur 4.3.3: shows examples of different names for green strategies that can form part of, or which designates, green infrastructre. In addition to this, comes the specific blue-ap-proaches , such as LAR /- WSUD – Water Sensitive Urban Develop-ment, Sponge City, Water-centric cities, which do/can form a foundational element in green infrastructure strategies - or vice versa.
Green infrastructure and ecosystem services
“[Green Infrastructure is] 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.”(European Commission, 2013, p. 3)
Green infrastructure is often described as an ecological framework with social, environmental and economic benefits, thus supportive of the three E´s of the Brundtland Report of 19872. The European Commis-sion provides a definition of Green Infrastructures in the above quote, with attention paid to environmental features and ecosystem services.
Multimodality, expected multiple benefits and the need for assigning land to provide green infrastructures all generate a focus on measur-able results and the cost-benefits of green infrastructure. As the depar-ture point is in ecological functions as systems, thus ecosystems, green infrastructure is often closely tied to ecosystem services. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment report of 2005 describes ecosystems as “the dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit”, whereas ecosystem services are the benefits derived from such an ecosystem;
benefits on which humans are ´fundamentally dependent´ (Program) 2005, 5).
Ecosystem services3 are an important part of the EU’s strategy and policies on green infrastructure, as the notion allows a quantitative translation of the wide span of benefits that can be achieved from green infrastructure into pecuniary terms of ´investment´, thus a standard of measurement comparable to other investments. In this sense, ecosystem services benchmark and measure, supporting decision-making by, e.g.
municipalities and professionals, as they provide a monetary valuation, translating natural assets into the same currency as other concerns of local governments (Ahern et al., 2014, p. 254,256). Ecosystem services also provide performance indicators that can link planning, designing and management ´in a spatially explicit manner´(Ahern, 2013, p. 1212).
However, it is beyond the scope of this research to go further into this topic. Part 4 Value, Chapter 4.2, touches upon how the standard meas-urement of ´nature´ as provided by ecosystem services can be disputed when considering different attributions of value.
2പ Environmental protection, Economic growth, Social equity
3പ The Millenium Ecosystem Assesment 2ϬϬ5, defines ecosystems in 4 categories wherein the Supporting services are considered as fundamental to the others: Supporting services, e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling / Provisioning services, e.g. food, fresh water, fiber, fuel, (genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals) / Regulating services e.g. air quality, climate, water and erosion regulation, water purification, waste treat-ment, disease- and pest regulation, pollination and natural hanjard regulation / Cultural services, e.g. services that provides spiritual-, religious- , aesthetic-, educational and recreational bene-fits/values.
The European Environment Agency and Landscape Convention on green infrastructure
“GI [green infrastructure] is a successfully tested tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. It helps us to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society […]”(European Commission, 2013, p. 2)
Currently, 60% of the EU population live in urban areas, and the Euro-pean Environmental Agency (EEA) states that green infrastructure solutions have an important role to play in urban areas. In line with this, EU has policies targeted at developing green infrastructures, expected to benefit individual and communities at physical, psychological, emotional, and socio-economical levels. The multiple benefits relate to, e.g. health (clean air, water quality), a greater sense of community and civil society, the combat of social exclusion, education, climate adaptation, mitiga-tion, and the boosting of biodiversity. Green infrastructures are expected to have the potential to strengthen urban development, including at a regional scale, with attention to the connection between rural and urban areas. The EEA also addresses values such as job creation and
´appealing places to live and work´, with GI forming part of ´protecting, conserving, and enhancing the EU´s natural capital´ (European Commis-sion, 2013, p. 4; European Environment Agency, 2017). In this way, the benefits of GI expected by the EU cover a broad span of values. More-over, the European Commission on Environment considers GI important in flood management, referring to the Natura 2000 network as a central part of the European green infrastructure (Europakommisionen, 2010;
Jørgensen et al., 2016; Thorén and Jørgensen, 2016; Thorén and Ruggeri, 2016). From this departure point, GI strategies are important to support other key policies in the EU. Furthermore, it is stated that it is a cost-ef-fective strategy4 (European Commission, 2013, p. 3). This relates to the focus on ecosystem services as a means to calculate the (pecuniary) benefits gained from sound ecosystems.
“The European Landscape Convention commits the signatory states to emphasize the development and protection of urban green in order to enhance the quality of life and well-being of the population. It states that a qualitative urban landscape supports European values like democracy and human rights, and that the authorities have a special obligation to increase the awareness of the value of the urban landscape.” (Jørgensen et al., 2016, p. 13). According to Jørgensen, principle issues in the current European Landscape Convention resemble the agenda of the attribution of values achieved through public green spaces suggested by C. C. L. Hirschfeld in the 1790s (see the quote, section 3.3.3). Jørgensen mentions; (1) the promotion of landscape as part of a common, shared, local heritage and identity; (2) the understanding of landscape as a crucial factor contributing to well-being and quality of life; (3) the principle of the right to engage and take part in landscape development (Jørgensen et al., 2016, pp. 13–15).
4പ The European Commission refers to a cost-benefit ratio of approximately 3-ϳ5