In response to the historical neglect among planners of ecosystem service provision, there has been a re-examination of the way cities are planned, and particularly to the role of green spaces in urban resilience-building (MEA, 2005: 820). Rapid urbanisation has also stimulated an upgrading of interest in urban green space, and the ways in which this space can benefit cities have become key issues in urban planning (Sandström, 2002: 373). However, the inclusion of green space planning and
56 ecosystem service provision in decision-making agendas is by no means widespread. This is part of a broader trend within the practice of sustainable development where environmental concerns are seldom sufficiently integrated with economic sectors and decision-making (Sneddon, Howarth & Norgaard, 2006: 256). Disregard for the benefits that urban green spaces can provide to both social and ecological systems overlooks the multifunctional role that urban ecosystem services can play in urban systems. Oleyar (2008: 290) notes that research has often been single-minded in its approach to valuing natural amenities, despite the fact that when research efforts are viewed collectively, the multiple functions of such amenities become clear.
To elevate ecosystem service provision in cities to a more prominent position in planning, a more robust case therefore needs to be made for including urban green spaces in planning agendas. A revitalisation of the current approach to urban green spaces is also needed if isolated pockets of green areas in cities and unequal access to ecosystem services are to be addressed. This section explores a more systemic approach to urban green spaces in order to assess the potential of ecosystem services to contribute to broader system resilience rather than exclusively to social or ecological functions (Barthel, 2010: 1). Revitalised urban green space and ecosystem service planning therefore includes multi-functional assessment, which is an important response to the multiple and interconnected nature of contemporary urban challenges. In other words, this chapter’s focus is on how urban green areas can be acknowledged as sites of social-ecological interaction that can nurture ecological knowledge, value creation processes and human agency to improve both urban ecological and social processes (Ernstson, 2008).
2.8 Green infrastructure
An approach that is gaining increasing attention with the view of appreciating the multifunctional benefits of ecosystem services is the concept of green infrastructure (Tzoulas et al, 2007: 169; Pickett et al, 2008: 9; Stucki & Smith, 2010; de Groot et al, 2010: 3; City of New York, 2010: 1). The term infrastructure is defined as the substance or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community depends (Webster’s New World Dictionary in Walmsely, 2006: 253; 257). Walmsely (2006: 257) explains that most people associate infrastructure with roads, sewers, and utility lines (the “grey infrastructure”) or hospitals, schools and prisons (the “social infrastructure”) which are collectively seen as “built infrastructure”. Conventional urban engineering infrastructure is planned, built and maintained as a system of interconnected parts whereas most conservation programmes protect individual parks or isolated natural amenities (Yeang, 2008: 131; Benedict et al, 2002: 16). Mounting arguments are therefore being made for viewing the ecological assets of a social-ecological system as “green infrastructure”
57 or eco-infrastructure that parallels the “grey” human-made infrastructure of roads, drainage systems and utilities (Yeang, 2008: 128).
Green infrastructure is becoming commonly increasingly used by planners to refer to among other things, green roofs, green open space, community gardens and urban forests (Benedict et al, 2002: 12; Dunn, 2010: 47-48). Despite its diverse application and different contextual meanings, there is consensus that green infrastructure is underpinned by a systemic logic in that it is seen to deliver both social and environmental services (Wolf in Kollin, 2003: 1). In line with this view, Kambites & Owen (2006: 484) define green infrastructure as encompassing “connected networks of multifunctional, predominately unbuilt, space that supports both ecological and social activities and processes”. As a result, green infrastructure can be seen as an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, and provides associated benefits to human populations (Benedict et al, 2002: 12).
Green infrastructure is therefore an interconnected framework of both conservation and development prospects that can be used by ecologists and land use planners alike (Kambites et al, 2006: 484; McDonald et al, 2005: 7-9). By focusing on the multifunctional system of urban green space, green infrastructure serves as a bridge between a system’s ecological and social capacity (Sandström, 2002: 380; Söderman & Saarela, 2010: 129). Linkages and connectivity are viewed as overriding characteristics of green infrastructure and render it an increasingly appropriate approach to mutual resilience building in urban landscapes faced with system-wide challenges (Kambites et al, 2006: 490). The connectivity between social and ecological function, as one of the linkage levels encompassed by green infrastructure, is underpinned by the logic of “mutual advantage” (Kambites et al, 2006: 490). This logic, which views conservation values, land development, growth management and the built environment on par with each other, is why green infrastructure differs from conventional open space planning. It means that the linkages between ecological and social functions should be included explicitly in green infrastructure planning (Kambites et al, 2006: 490). Green space systems revitalised as “green infrastructure” are therefore to be designed as built infrastructure is, to link elements into a system that functions as a whole rather than as separate, unrelated parts (Benedict et al, 2002: 15). This includes planning for multi-functionality of the ecological, social and economic benefits, functions and values of ecological assets (Benedict et al, 2002: 15).
By pre-identifying ecologically significant lands and suitable development areas, green infrastructure establishes a new connectivity between a system’s landscape and its built form (Yeang, 2008: 128; Benedict et al, 2002: 13). The green infrastructure approach therefore sees spatial connectivity as
58 the nexus between ecological and social function. Using this approach as a framework for shaping urban form extends in strategies in terms of space, beyond administrative boundaries (Kambites et al, 2006: 484). In doing so, green infrastructure rehabilitates the ecological connectivity of the immediate environment and turns human intervention in a landscape from a negative into a positive (Yeang, 2008: 128). This landscape-scale focus also distinguishes green infrastructure from conventional conservation planning by providing solutions for increasing land fragmentation that incorporate land uses for both ecological needs, such as biodiversity enhancement, and human purposes, such as working or recreational landscapes (McDonald et al, 2005: 7). The Landscape Institute (2009: 4) explains that although the connectivity between ecological and social functions takes many forms, the physical connections make the most impact by unlocking the range of opportunities provided by natural assets.
The social connectivity of green infrastructure is nevertheless important in planning for green infrastructure as ecological assets function at different scales in terms of stakeholder need and administrative jurisdiction. As Kambites et al (2006: 490) explain, various stakeholders have different needs, which may coincide or be in conflict, and the connectivity between different users needs to be prioritised (Kambites et al, 2006: 490). Furthermore, as nature and ecosystems do not recognise administrative boundaries, green infrastructure needs to be connected across different government levels and incorporated across multiple scales (Benedict et al, 2002: 15; Kambites et al, 2006: 490) At a strategic level, administrative connectivity requires the embedding of policy at multiple governance levels so that green infrastructure is strategically similar to traditional built infrastructure (Landscape Institute, 2009: 8; Benedict et al, 2002: 15). Benedict et al (2002: 15) explain that green space systems therefore need to be rolled out across multiple jurisdictions and incorporate green space elements at each level of government.
Affording green infrastructure the same status as other physical urban structures such as buildings and highways is an increasingly common research and planning priority (Sandström, 2002: 380). As a coherent planning entity, green infrastructure should be planned, managed and implemented publicly as roads and other “grey” infrastructure or schools and other “social” infrastructure are (Walmsley, 2006: 257; Benedict et al, 2002: 15). Green infrastructure should also be financed in the same way as traditional infrastructure is, as a primary public investment, funded upfront with other essential services rather than with surplus government funds (Walmsley, 2006: 257; Benedict et al, 2002: 17). Van der Ryn & Cowen (in Walmsley, 2006: 247) elaborate on the conceptual basis of green infrastructure: “*t+he name “green infrastructure” implies something that we must have instead of green space that is something nice to have”. Seen in this way, green infrastructure is a
59 critical public investment that is embedded in statutory planning process (Benedict et al, 2002: 17; Kambites et al, 2006: 490). As Wolf (2004: 33) states:
“A city would never build a road, water or electrical system piece by piece, with no advanced planning or coordination. Green infrastructure is the idea that nature in cities should be administered in an integrated way, just as grey infrastructure systems have been.”