provided by the author(s) and university college dublin ... › bitstream › 10197 › 7835 › 1...
Post on 07-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher
policies. Please cite the published version when available.
Title Green Infrastructure and Planning Policy: A Critical Assessment
Authors(s) Lennon, Mick
Publication date 2015-01-24
Publication information Local Environment, 20 (8): 957-980
Publisher Taylor and Francis
Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/7835
Publisher's statement This is an electronic version of an article published in Local Environment 20(8): 957-980.
Local Environment is available online at:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2014.880411.
Publisher's version (DOI) 10.1080/13549839.2014.880411
Downloaded 2020-06-13T16:58:56Z
The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access
benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa)
Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page1of46
TITLE:
GreenInfrastructureandPlanningPolicy:ACriticalAssessment
AUTHOR:
MickLennon
SchoolofGeography,PlanningandEnvironmentalPolicy
UniversityCollegeDublin
Ireland
Abstract
Advocates of the green infrastructure (GI) concept claim it offers a progressive
planningapproachthatfacilitatessynergiesbetweeneconomicgrowth,environmental
conservation and social development. Although widely endorsed by both planning
practitionersandacademics, littleacademicliteratureexistscriticallyevaluatingwhat
GI entails or the potential implications of its institutionalisation within planning
practice. This paper addresses this deficit by critically examining the interpretation
and representation of the GI concept in planning policy. The paper first critically
analysesinternationalinterpretationsofGI.Followingthis,theparticularattributesof
GI’sinterpretationintheRepublicofIrelandareinvestigated.Thepaperdemonstrates
how the emergence of GI in Ireland relates to broader debates on attempts to
reconcileenvironmentalconcernswithdevelopmentaspirationsinplanningpolicy.It
isdeducedthatGImayrepresentanapproachtoplanningpolicyformulationwherein
habitat conservation initiatives are primarily designed and justified relative to the
ecosystems services they are seen to provide to society. The paper also cautions
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page2of46
against the risks posed by confining GI debates to the deliberations of technical
specialist. The paper concludes by identifying some issues that may arise in the
implementationofaGIapproachandsuggestswaystoenhancethepotentialbenefit
oftheconcept’suseinspatialplanning.
Keywords:GreenInfrastructure,Planning,Sustainability,Ireland
Introduction
Howtobothinterpretanddeliversustainabilitythroughtheplanningsystemhaslong
been a preoccupation of land use governance debates (Owens and Cowell, 2011).
Much of this has centred on finding newways to address the perceived imbalance
between economic growth and nature conservation by raising the profile of the
environment in policy activity (Carter, 2007;Dryzek, 2005). Such efforts have often
focused on devising and presenting new initiatives that promise to reconcile
environmental protection and economic growth in away that ismutually beneficial
(Cowell and Owens, 2006). These have included such concepts as “environmental
compensation”(BoucherandWhatmore,1993),“thecompactcity”(Jenksetal.,1996),
and “socio-ecological systems” (Selman, 2012). Such initiatives have often enjoyed
widespreadsupportupontheir initialpresentation. However, theyarecharacterised
by difficulties in implementation as their interpretation becomes a matter of
disagreement.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page3of46
A comparably recent development in such activity has been the emergence of the
“green infrastructure” (GI) concept. Although understandings of GI vary (Wright,
2011),whatinterpretationsoftheconceptshareisabeliefintheabilityandnecessity
of planning, designing, constructing andmanagingnature todeliverdesiredbenefits
fromparticular“environmentalresources”,betheywatercourses,greenopenspaces
or tree lined streets (Mell, 2013; Rouse and Bunster-Ossa, 2013). Thus, thosewho
advocate GI presuppose the requirement for land use intervention so as to supply
and/orenhancethespecificbenefitsthatmaybeprovidedbytheenvironment.
TheRepublicof Irelandhasnotbeen immune fromtheproblemsof squaringnature
conservationwitheconomicdevelopment,norhasitbeenimpervioustothevarietyof
policy initiatives proposed to remedy this issue (O'Mahony and Keohane, 2011).
Accordingly, GI has become a popular topic in Irish land-use planning debates.
However,what’smoststrikingaboutGIinIrelandisthespeedwithwhichithasgained
traction amongplanners and alliedprofessionals. Although largely unknownamong
theplanning fraternity prior toNovember 2008, theGI concept has since enjoyed a
meteoric rise in popularity among Irish land use planners and allied professionals.
Indeed, over the courseof just three years, from2008 to 2011, the conceptmoved
fromobscuritytofrequentreferenceinIrish landusepolicyatnational,regionaland
locallevels.
Despitethismeteoricriseonthepolicyagenda,GIhasbeensubjectedtolittlecritical
assessment in Ireland. This reflects a broader lack of debate on the issue at an
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page4of46
international level, with critical deliberation on GI conspicuous by its absence.
Consequently,thereisagapinourknowledgeregardingthepotentialimplicationsof
institutionalising the GI concept in a planning policy context. This paper seeks to
addressthisdeficitbycriticallyexaminingtheinterpretationandrepresentationofthe
GIconceptinIreland.Thisinvestigationisthenrelatedtobroaderdebatesinplanning
andenvironmentalpolicy.
The paper draws upon the detailed analysis of one hundred and thirty-one policy
documentsidentifiedaspotentiallyrelevanttothestudyandcollatedasan‘archive’1.
‘Initialcoding’ofthisarchivewasundertaken.Thisformofanalysiswasemployedto:
(a) explore ‘theoretical possibilities’ (Charmaz, 2006, 47) in the collated
documentation; (b) facilitate sensitivity to recurring ‘themes’ in it (Rapley, 2007); (c)
assist intheidentificationof intervieweesand;(d) informtheproductionofamaster
interview guide. As a result of the initial documentary analysis it was possible to
develop a ‘purposive sample’ (Hennink et al., 2011; Patton, 2002) of interviewees
drawnfromacross-sectionofnational,regionalandlocalgovernment,aswellasfrom
thevoluntaryandprivatesectors.Asemi-structuredinterviewformatwasadoptedas
itenabled‘opennesstochangeofsequenceandformsofquestionsinordertofollow
uptheanswersgivenandthestoriestoldbythesubjects’ (Kvale,1996,124). Inthis
sense, the interview format invited interviewees to ‘express themselves openly and
freely and to define theworld from their own perspective’ (Hancock andAlgozzine,
2006,40). Attheclosingofall interviews,participantswereaskedtosuggestothers
who they thought relevant to the advocacy ofGI in Ireland. This formof ‘snowball
sampling’(Flick,2007)wasemployedasitwasconsideredunlikelythatthepurposive
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page5of46
sampleofintervieweeswouldhavecomprehensivelyidentifiedallagentspertinentto
the advancement of the GI policy approach. Such snowball sampling thus enabled
boththeexpansionoftheintervieweesampleandthethoroughidentificationofthose
involvedintheemergenceandevolutionoftheGIconceptinIreland.However,care
wastakentoavoid‘enmeshingtheresearcherinthenetworkoftheinitialparticipant
interviewed...leading to or reinforcing the silencing of other voices’ (Schwartz-Shea
and Yanow, 2012, 87). This risk was offset by ensuring a sufficient variety of non-
associated and professionally diverse interviewees in the initial purposive sample.
Theseprocessesof intervieweeidentificationandcontactcontinueduntil ‘saturation’
(Rubin and Rubin, 2005) was reached wherein it was determined that additional
interviews would not add any new insights or perspectives significant to an
understandingoftheemergenceandevolutionofGIplanninginIreland.Theresearch
processassembledasubstantialarchiveofdocuments,notesandinterviewtranscripts.
Fromthis,abroadly representative selectionof interviewmaterialanddocumentary
citationsareemployed inthispaper. Suchreferenceshavebeencarefullychosento
speak for views shared by the majority of interviewees and commonly detailed in
various documents. Hence, all references employed are an effort to negotiate the
limitations of space by remaining vigilant of the need to appropriately represent
sharedinterpretationswithouteclipsingindividualityordiverseperspectives.
This information is employed to first examine non-Irish interpretations of GI. This
providesthebackdropagainstwhichtheparticularattributesofGI’sinterpretationin
an Irish context are then investigated. The paper subsequently discusses how the
emergence of GI in Ireland relates to broader debates on attempts to reconcile
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page6of46
environmentalconcernswithdevelopmentaspirationsinlanduseplanningpolicy.In
particular, it is suggested that Irish interpretations of GI may reflect an implicit
internationalturntowardsreappraisinghowhabitatconservationinitiativesshouldbe
justified in land use governance. The paper proposes that this may constitute an
instantiation of the ecological modernisation paradigm in planning policy. It also
identifiessomeissuesthatmayariseineffortstoimplementGIandcriticallyappraises
the potential of the concept to facilitate more sustainable forms of planning. The
purpose of the paper is not to condemn or condone GI. Rather, it endeavours to
stimulategreatercritical reflectionon thedeploymentofGI thinkingandoffersome
suggestionsonhowthismaybeundertaken.
WhatDoesGIMean?–InternationalInterpretations
At the international level, academic literature specificallyemploying the term“GI” is
limited but growing (Butler, 2012; Grant, 2012; Kruuse, 2011). What does exist
suggests that GI has a varied heritage. Many academics locate its precursor in
attempts to tackle habitat fragmentation (Karhu, 2011; Sandström, 2002, 2008).
Othersidentifyitsoriginsinanemergingconsciousnessinthenineteenthcenturyofa
needtosupplyrecreationalspacesforurbanpopulationswhilesimultaneouslyattend
to public health and flooding problems (Benedict andMcMahon, 2006;Mell, 2008).
However,commontomostinterpretationsofGIisreferenceto“networks”.Thismay
be manifested in policy discussion wherein reference is made to GI as “ecological
networks”2andgroundedinlandscapeecology(JongmanandPungetti,2004;Opdam,
2002; Opdam et al., 2006), recreation-focused “greenway networks” (Fábos, 2004;
Little,1990),orvaryingcombinationsof these (Walmsley,2006). Suchcombinations
oftenexpandecologicalandrecreationnetworks-focusedplanningconceptstoinclude
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page7of46
climate change adaptation functions (Ahern, 2007;Gill et al., 2007;Gill et al., 2009;
Handley et al., 2007) and/or urban growth management (Amati and Taylor, 2010;
ThomasandLittlewood,2010).
This shared focus on networks suggests common ground for a unanimous
interpretation of GI’s meaning. Therefore, it is surprising to note that academic
literature citing GI reveals significant differences in understandings as to what it
entails. This is reflected in the fact that much of the academic literature on GI
frequently allots considerable attention to a discussion on how to define what GI
means(BenedictandMcMahon,2002;Mell,2009;Sandström,2002,2008;Tzoulaset
al.,2007;Wright,2011). Inmanycases, sucheffortsassumethe formofcomparing
and contrasting several competing definitions in an effort to formulate an all-
encompassing description (Allen, 2012; Kambites and Owen, 2006). Nevertheless,
locating such a description has proved elusive, with efforts to synthesise varying
definitions serving as much to expand and add vagueness to interpretations of the
term’ssignificationastheyhavetoclarifyitsmeaning.
Indeed, variations of interpretation emanate from numerous sources, with limited
academicreferencemadetotheterminDutch(Hajer,2003)3,Swedish(Erixonetal.,
2013; Sandström, 2008), German (Hasse, 2010), Brazilian (Herzog, 2010) and New
Zealand (Ignatieva, 2010) contexts regarding ‘networked’ approaches to nature
conservationplanning.CitationofGIhasalsobeenmadeinanAustraliancontextwith
regardto theofengineering ‘greenwallsandroofs’ (Rayneretal.,2010;Williamset
al.,2010)andtheprinciplesof landscapeecology(Kilbane,2013),andontheAfrican
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page8of46
continent with respect to models for urban water and waste management (Abbot,
2012). However, the term ‘GI’ ismost frequentlyemployed innorthernhemisphere
Anglophonenations,primarilytheUSAandtheUK.Ithasalsoemergedasaconcept
advancedbytheEU.Thus,thisreviewfocusesattentionontheUSA,theEUandthe
UK.
TheUSA
ThegreatestvolumeofplanningactivityspecificallytermedGIhasbeenundertakenin
the USA. Here, a desire to reconcile environmental conservation with growth
facilitation has been a consistent focus since the concept’s endorsement in 1999by
the federal government through the auspices of The President’s Council for
Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD interprets GI as a departure from
“environmentalrestorationandpreservation”inseeking“toguidemoreefficientand
sustainablelanduseanddevelopmentpatternsaswellasprotectecosystems”(PCSD,
1999, 64). Thus, the interpretation of GI offered by the PCSD does not prioritise
ecological preservation above other objectives, but rather seeks to advance new
modesof (“sustainable”)development. This viewof social, economicandecological
commensurabilitywasechoedinanacademiccontextwhenin2002GIwasproclaimed
as “the ecological framework needed for environmental, social and economic
sustainability” (Benedict and McMahon, 2002, 12). With specific reference to the
environmental,economicandcommunitybenefitsprovidedbyGI,RouseandBunster-
Ossa (2013, 19) have more recently echoed such views by foregrounding the
multifunctionalpotentialofferbyGIwhenassertingthat“thesebenefitsderive from
themultipleandoverlappingfunctionsprovidedacrossdifferentsystems–hydrology,
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page9of46
transportation, energy, economy, and so on – that can intersect in green
infrastructure”. While interpretationsofGI in theUSAvary in focus fromecological
conservation (Marcucci and Jordan, 2013), to recreation space provision (Erickson,
2006) and aesthetic enhancement (Pincetl, 2013), they most frequently show a
concern for stormwatermanagement (Brown andCaldwell et al., 2011; Chau, 2009;
Novotny et al., 2010; NYC, 2010; USEPA, 2004). Here, practice examples seek to
illustrate the viability and cost effectiveness of a biomimicry approach to drainage
design (CF,2007;EPA,2010; Stenning,2008) thatpromotesbroadmultifunctionality
andconnectslocalinitiativeswithstatepolicy(Allen,2012;Weberetal.,2006).Inthis
sense,aGIapproachisadvancedasameanstoenhancelocalecologicalandcultural
distinctiveness so that it becomes “both “effective” as an agent of environmental
qualityand“affective”asanexpressionoflocalconditions”(RouseandBunster-Ossa,
2013, 6). Consequently, deployment of the term inNorthAmerica has led some to
conclude that GI is not so much a design concept as it is “a philosophy or
organizational agenda strategy that provides a framework for planning conservation
and development” (Benedict andMcMahon, 2006, 15). However, the particulars of
such a “philosophy” are left largely unspecified with understandings of what green
infrastructureinvolves“tailoredtoappealtodiverseconstituentswithmessagepoints
thataddressaparticularprofessionaldisciplineorresourceissue”(William,2012,17).
TheEU
TheEU4ostensiblypromotesalessdiffusearrayofinterpretationsofGIthanisevident
in literature emanating from the USA. In the EU, GI is primarily interpreted as a
“networked”approach (Silvaetal.,2010) to thesafeguardingofecosystemsservices
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page10of46
provision for the mutual benefit of socio-economic and ecological requirements
(Sundseth and Sylwester, 2009). While noting that “no single widely recognised
definitionofgreeninfrastructureisidentifiedintheliterature”(EEA,2011,6),theEU
has advanced the view that, “The concept of Green Infrastructure emphasises the
importanceofensuringtheprovisionofecosystemgoodsandservicesforsocietyand
the valueof functionally and spatially connected,healthyecosystems” (Karhu, 2011,
7). This focus on the society “servicing” dimensions of GI resonates with other
initiatives endorsed and engaged in by Directorates-General of the European
Commission that seek to reconcile ecological conservation with growth. The most
notable of such initiatives is a programme on “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity” of which the EU is a partner with a number of governments and
international organisations in seeking to apply “economic thinking to the use of
biodiversityandecosystemsservices”(TEEB,2010,3).Inthissense,GIisseentooffer
“win-win,or ‘no regrets’ solutions...withina financially viable framework” (EC, 2012,
1). Whilst at first thismay appear to differ from American comprehensions of the
concept,interpretationofGIbytheEUencompassesthemultitudeofunderstandings
ofAmericanacademicsandpractitionersbyfocusingonGIasameanstoensurethe
provision of ecosystems services in facilitating more sustainable forms of growth.
Accordingly,theEUadvocatesabroadlyencompassingversionofGIsimilartothatof
someUSAadvocates (BenedictandMcMahon,2002,2006;RouseandBunster-Ossa,
2013), by including a broad array of functions beneath the aegis of “ecosystems
services” (Karhu, 2011). These include stormwater management, biodiversity
conservation, climate change adaptation and recreational space provision. In this
sense,GIisinterpretedasameanstofacilitateefficient,yetenvironmentallysensitive,
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page11of46
economicgrowth(EEA,2011,35).TheEUdoesnotspecifyamethodonhowtoplan
the GI that it is claimed can permit such development. However, it supports the
concept through collating and publicising various projects considered to represent
exemplarsofGIactivities(Sylwester,2009).Manyoftheprojectsindicatedaspossible
prototypes for application throughout EU member states vary in the issues they
addressandrarelyemploytheterm“GI”(SundsethandSylwester,2009).
As such, the understanding of GI forwarded by the EU is more an aspiration for
“networked” focused planning activities (Silva et al., 2010) that facilitate
commensurabilitiesbetweenecologicalconservationandeconomicdevelopmentthan
itisacurrentlyexercisedsetofdefinedpractices(EEA,2011).Itisinthiscontextthat
the European Commission has formally endorsed GI (EC, 2013), conceiving it as a
meanstomeetitstargetsforbiodiversityprotection(EC,2011)inamannerthatdoes
notcompromiseeconomicdevelopment(Silvaetal.,2010).However,aswiththecase
of the USA, there is an absence of academic literature critically appraising
interpretation(s)oftheconceptinanEUcontext.
TheUK
Whatisspecificallytermed“GI”inEuropeismostprolificallyrepresentedinliterature
emanatingfromtheUK.Here,thetermGIhasbeenadvancedundervariousreadings
in Northern Irish (DoE(NI), 2013),Welsh (TEP, 2011) and English (CGIF, 2011; LCRP,
2010; PCC, 2010) planning policy and proposed statutory guidance (DCLG, 2010), as
wellas innon-statutoryguidancebyTheScottishGovernment (SG,2011,2012),and
the advocacy activities of planning-focused QUANGOs (CABE, 2009; LI, 2013; NE,
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page12of46
2009). Despite this, a surprisingly limited quantity of academic literature has been
published concerning GI in the UK, with the particular interpretation of GI varying
betweenauthors.Notwithstandingsuchvariations,themajorityofthisworksharesa
focusonurbanareas,althoughDaviesetal.(2006)haveadvocateditsapplicabilityto
the rural environment, with Amati and Taylor (2010) noting its potential as a peri-
urban planning mechanism to contain metropolitan growth. Perhaps the most
restricted interpretation of GI in the UK centres on its understanding as a planning
strategy to facilitate climate change adaptation (Gill et al., 2007; Kazmierczak et al.,
2010).However,KambitesandOwen(2006)representamorecommonreadingofthe
conceptbyforwardingabroadandencompassinginterpretationoftheterm.Indeed,
theseauthorssupplyalonglistofGI’sadvocatedfunctionsandbenefits,rangingfrom
educationalandrecreational resourceprovisionthroughto landscapeprotectionand
localeconomicdevelopment.Insodoing,theyconcludethatspatial,socio-ecological,
userandadministrative“connectivityisaninherentattributeofgreeninfrastructure”
(KambitesandOwen,2006,490).
Whileconsiderableeffort isexpendedonadvocatingthebenefitsofGI,vaguenessas
towhatitsignifiesisevidentinmuchUKpractitionerliterature(LI,2013;TCPA,2011),
government sponsored advocacy (CABE, 2009), and national planning policy (DCLG,
2012).Suchambiguityiscompoundedbythepropensityofmanyoftheconcept’sUK
advocates to label celebrated historic planning publications as GI, or to classify
selected planning programs fromother countries asGI, even though such programs
are not normally referred to as such by those engaged in their formulation and
implementation (KambitesandOwen,2006;Mell,2008). Thishas increased latitude
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page13of46
for interpretation of the term, with for example, some studies employing “GI” to
primarilydescribeplanningforenvironmentallysensitiveaccesstogreenopenspaces
inurbanareas(GLA,2012),whileotherslargelyinterpretingitasameanstofacilitate
regionaleconomicdevelopment(AGMA,2011;LCRP,2010),andyetothersendorsing
itprincipallyinthecontextofclimatechangeadaptation(NWCCP,2011).
InthelimitedacademicliteratureacknowledgingtheuncertaintyofGI’ssignification,it
hasbeensuggested that the lackofa fixeddefinition isapositive traitbyproposing
that, “Ambiguity hasbeen an attribute in that it allows the concept to adapt to the
variedrequirementsofdifferentspatialandtemporalsituations”(Wright,2011,1014).
Withanatypical focusontheanalysisofGIpolicydiscourseratherthan itsuncritical
promotion, Horwood cautions against framing green space in terms of economic
benefit,suggestingthatthismayimplysuchspaces“areonlyofvalueinsofarasthey
contributeeconomically”(2011,972).ThomasandLittlewood(2010)alsoinferamore
critically reflective interpretationofGIbyexamining it not in termsof its advocated
multifunctionality, but instead choosing to investigate its potential “as a strong
discursivecompetitorforthegreenbelt”(ThomasandLittlewood,2010,204).These
authors present a more nuanced appraisal of what GI implies. Specifically, they
conjecture that GI may be conceived of as a form of “ecological modernization”
(Dryzek, 2005), that offers a means of “lubricating the frictions” (Thomas and
Littlewood,2010,212) foundbetweeneconomicdevelopmentand theprotectionof
nature. However, these authors fail to develop this line of examination, with their
analysis on the potential role of GI’s discursive constitution in advancing ecological
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page14of46
modernisationconcludingthatGIisunlikelytoeasilydisplacethe“politicalresilience”
ofgreenbeltpolicyapproachestocontainingurbansprawl. Consequently,withrare
exceptions,bothacademicandpractitionerliteratureintheUKis largelyuncriticalof
GI. As with that emanating from the USA and the EU, UK literature specifically
addressingGIseeksmoretopromote itsbenefits thancriticallyappraisethereasons
foritsemergence,theformofitsrepresentation,orthepotentialconsequencesofits
institutionalisation.
In summary, what these different perspectives on GI indicate is a variety of
interpretations addressing an array of issues. This diversity reflects the range of
disciplines that GI thinking seeks to synergistically integrate. Whilst a desire to
enhancethe ‘multifunctional’potentialof landscapes isacommonfeatureofalmost
all GI discourses (EC, 2012; LI, 2013; Rouse and Bunster-Ossa, 2013), most
interpretations are positioned relative to a particular discipline, be it engineering,
ecologyorothers.Consequently,mostinterpretationsshowatendencytoemphasise
issuesofspecificdisciplinaryconcernwhendiscussingGI.Hence,approachestermed
GImayrangefromafocusonecologicalnetworksgroundedintheoriesof landscape
ecology (Silva et al., 2010), to those primarily concernedwith regional development
foundedontheoriesofeconomiccompetition(AGMA,2011),or tothosedirectedat
recreation facilitation rooted in perspectives regarding accessible green spaces
provision (NE,2010). However,what theseapproaches share isa conviction thatGI
supplies a ‘framework’ to reconcile divergence between ecological conservation,
economicdevelopmentandsocialequity.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page15of46
HavingthusbrieflyreviewedthepredominantinternationalunderstandingsofGI,this
papernowturnstotheemergenceofGIinIreland.Thepaperthencriticallyassesses
IrishinterpretationsofGIandrelatesthesetothespectrumofinternationalreadings
ofconcept. Fromthis,anumberofconclusionsaredrawnonhowthe IrishGIstory
mayofferinsightsintothewayslandusepolicymayunintentionallybiasgrowthover
environmental conservation and privilege specialist ‘engineering’ discourses at the
expenseofinclusivedeliberation.
TheEmergenceandEvolutionofGIinIreland
TheGIconceptwasinitiallyintroducedintoIrishlanduseplanningdebatesbyaloose
coalitionofecologists,plannersandheritageofficers5workingwithorwithinthelocal
authority system (Tubridy and O Riain, 2002; UCD et al., 2008). Their desire to
introduce the conceptwasmotivated by a concern about the sustained attrition of
ecosystems integrity perceived to result from ongoing habitat fragmentation. This
issuewasrenderedmoreproblematicbythefactthatpreviouseffortstoaddresssuch
fragmentation inplanningby the conceptof “ecologicalnetworks”wasperceived to
have had little success consequent of a failure to communicate the importance of
biodiversityamongtheplanningfraternity(IntervieweeA4),andassuch,“theredidn’t
seemtobethatmuchdonewithit”(IntervieweeB10).Thislooselyalignedcoalitionof
actors thus assumed that biodiversitywas not a priority for the planning system as
“oftenwhat has occurred is that primary infrastructure...the roads, drainage, water
supply,getspriorityandafter thateverything isaweaksecondcousin” (Interviewee
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page16of46
B11). Locatingameans togivegreaterprofile tobiodiversity inplanningpolicywas
thus seen as essential to redressing the perceived imbalance between growth and
conservation.Tomanyinthiscoalition,remedyingsuchanimbalancewasthoughtto
restoncommunicatingtheimportanceofhabitatstosociety.Rebrandinghabitatsas
green“infrastructure”wasthoughttofacilitatethis.AsnotedbytheIrishSustainable
DevelopmentCouncil(Comhar),
There is general dissatisfaction with the mechanisms currently
available to input information on biodiversity to spatial plans.
Respondents,towhomtheconceptwasintroduceddirectlyforthefirst
time, considered that the concept of Green Infrastructure and
mechanism of Green Infrastructure planning will be more attractive
than ecological networks because of the clearer focus on benefits to
people.(Comhar,2010,22)
Separate to the initial coalition of ecologists, planners and heritage officers, but
equallyfrustratedbythelackofattentiongiventotheirissuesofconcern,wasanarray
of actors such as local authority park superintendents, transport planners and
landscape architects. Such actors sought to raise the profile of their planning
objectives, which included, “recreation, tourism, visual amenities, sense of place,
sustainable mobility, food, timber, other primary products, regulation of
microclimates” (IntervieweeB12). These actors viewed connotationswith theword
“green” in the term GI as addressing their particular issues of concern. This
interpretivelatitudewasencouragedbytheloosecoalitionofecologists,plannersand
heritageofficers,asexpandingtheconcept’sapplicabilitywasseentoboost itsvalue
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page17of46
by furnishing the “strength in numbers” (IntervieweeA10) considered necessary for
placement on the decision agenda. Consequently, the perception emerged that GI
offered“abrand,aconceptwhichpullstogetherthingsthatplannershavestruggledin
gettingbuy-in foratan individual topicby topic level” (IntervieweeC10). Asa large
coalitionof planning andalliedprofessional disciplines emerged, the rangeof issues
seen as encompassed by the GI concept became increasingly grouped together by
theirbroadassociationwith“greenspaces”(IntervieweeB2). EmployingthetermGI
was thereby seen to raise the profile of various green space issues as it shifted
perceptions “away from this idea...that land that isn’tbeingdeveloped is just sitting
there doing nothing...it isn’t just sitting there doing nothing, it’s doing something”
(IntervieweeB20).
This reframing of green spaces from “doing nothing” to “doing something” was
facilitatedbyemphasisingtheirpotentialasa“multifunctionalresource”(SDCC,2010,
257)andwaswidelyattributedtoperceptionsof“useinthisgreenstuff”(Interviewee
A5) promptedby their labelling as “infrastructure”. Widespread familiaritywith the
word“infrastructure”and itsnormative inferencesas“somethingyouhave tohave”
(IntervieweeC3)wasperceivedasgeneratinga“narrativeofnecessity”whereinthose
promotingtheGIconceptstressedthat it“shouldbeviewedascritical infrastructure
for Ireland in the same way as our transport and energy networks are as vital to
sustainabledevelopment”(Comhar,2009,39).Consequently,theGIconceptwasseen
asadvancingtheargumentthatgreaterconsiderationforgreenspaceplanning“isn’t
just a potential discretionary or stylistic approach” (Interviewee A7), but rather is
“somethingyouhavetohave”(IntervieweeC3).
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page18of46
This opinion reflected shared interpretations of GI’s signification by analogy with
conventionally conceived “infrastructure”, but it also resonated with conventionally
conceived planning. In Ireland, planning activity related to such “infrastructure” is
generally predicated on a “technical-rational model” (Owens et al., 2004, 1945) of
knowledgeacquisitionandsolutionspecificationsummarisedas“surveyingit,mapping
it and capturing it and then on that basis you proceed forward” (Interviewee A10).
Accordingly, GI policy formulation was also viewed as following “a typical rational
planningmethodology”(Comhar,2010b,61)comprising“theoldprocessesofsurvey,
analysis,plan”(IntervieweeB17).Inthissense,theconnotationsthathelpedtoconvey
theimportanceofhabitatconservationspecifically,andanarrayofgreenspaceissues
more generally, shaped conceptions of GI as “the planning, management and
engineering of green spaces and ecosystems in order to provide specific benefits to
society”(UFandIEEM,2010,2).
Insummation,aloosecoalitionofecologists,plannersandheritageofficersseekingto
promote the consideration of habitat conservation in planning policy sought to
establish a means to elevate the degree of consideration assigned it in land use
governance. They initially advanced the term “green infrastructure” in referencing
habitats. This was viewed as facilitating greater attention for nature conservation
resultant from widespread familiarity with the word “infrastructure” and the
connotations of indispensability ascribed to it. However, by virtue of the word
“green”,thetermGIwas increasinglyseentoencompassabroadspectrumof issues
associatedwithgreenspacethatwereperceivedasneglectedinplanningpolicy.Thus,
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page19of46
GIwasemployedasa linguisticdevice facilitating the reconceptualisationofbroadly
conceivedgreen spaces from residual areas to locationsproviding crucial services to
society. In this context, the view that GI supplies a problem remedying “proactive
term”(IntervieweeB10)showsneatlyhow“(t)hestruggletodefine[a]situation,and
thereby to determine the direction of public policy, is always both intellectual and
political”(Schön,1991,348).
ACriticalAssessmentofGIinIreland
(Re)valuingNature?
The emergence and ascension of GI on the policy agenda has undoubtedly given
greaterrepresentationtoarangeofformerly“weaksecondcousin”(IntervieweeB11)
issuesinplanningpolicyactivity.Thisismostnotableattheregional(DRAandMERA,
2010;SERA,2010)andlocallevelsoflandusegovernance(DCC,2010;FCC,2011;KCC,
2011). Suchsuccesshasinvolvedstressingthemultifunctionalityofgreenspaces. In
doing so, the GI approach has advanced the perception of these areas as
“environmental resources” (IntervieweeA2)capableofdeliveringa rangeofservices
to society. Given the presentation of GI as analogous to conventionally conceived
infrastructure,expoundingthebenefitsofgreenspacesisthoughttorequireameans
ofquantifiablydemonstratingtheirvalue.ThishasresultedintheentanglementofGI
discourseswithnascentIrisheffortstoadvancehabitatconservationbyaneconomic
evaluationof their services to society (DoEHLG,2008). Suchaphenomenonmaybe
observed in the efforts of the Irish Sustainable Development Council (Comhar) to
forward a GI discourse focused on the monetarisation of “natural assets”, where
priority is stressed on the “Identification, quantitatively and qualitatively of the
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page20of46
economicandsocialbenefitsofecosystemservicesdeliveredbyGreenInfrastructure
inmonetary terms and also the social gains to health and quality of life” (Comhar,
2010,23).
This foregroundingof economic arguments for theallocationof greater attention to
nature in policy formulation resonates with broader international discourses that
advancefinancialjustificationsforenvironmentalconservationbyseekingtopromote
“the utilitarian framing of beneficial ecosystems functions as services in order to
increasepublic interest inbiodiversity conservation” (Gómez-Baggethunet al., 2010,
1209). Suchreasoningisreflectedinthegrowthofliteratureonecosystemsservices
(Fisher et al., 2009), the international endorsement of this logic by way of the
Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MEA, 2005), and the development of market-
based instruments for conservation, such as Bio-prospecting (Heal, 2000; Herring,
2007), Payments for Ecosystems Services Schemes (Engel et al., 2008; Robertson,
2004),andtheaforementionedTEEBapproachadvocatedbytheEU(TEEB,2010).
However, unease exists in the fields of political ecology (Peet and Watts, 2004),
ecologicaleconomics (O'Neill,2007)andconservationscience (Petersonetal.,2010)
regardingtheappropriatenessofmainstreamingsuchecosystemsservicesarguments
in policy provision. Here concern is expressed that the ambiguity of sustainable
development discourses (Hannigan, 2007)may facilitate the “reinvention of nature”
(Escobar, 2011, 211). Such debates question “how utilitarian framing of ecological
concerns andmarket strategies canmodify theway humans perceive and relate to
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page21of46
nature in a way that in the long run may be counterproductive for conservation
purposes” (Gómez-Baggethunet al., 2010, 1209). Here, apprehension regarding the
growth of such economically focused discourses centres on a concern that the
perceived value of “ecosystems services do not follow changes in the quantity or
qualityoftheseservices,buttheyaresociallyconstructedandreflecttheintensityof
social preferences towards them” (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010, 1234). Therefore,
attemptingtojustifyGIplanningactivitiesbycostbenefitassessmentsofhowtheycan
“maximise ecosystem services” (UF and IEEM, 2010, 3), may conceal cultural
prejudicesandrisksfailingtoassisttheconservationofhabitatsseenaslessvaluable
relative to contemporary economic, social or aesthetic aspirations6 (Barry, 2007).
Nevertheless, concern for this is largelyabsent frombothacademicandpractitioner
literature discussing GI, nor was it evident among those interviewed regarding the
emergenceandevolutionofGIinIreland.
RepositioningtheBurdenofProof?
AdvocatesoftheGIconceptclaimthatitgivesgreaterweighttotheconsiderationofa
broad spectrum of green space issues in planning policy formulation through
connotations with “things that we need” (Interviewee B1) prompted by the word
“infrastructure”. However, by blurring the boundaries between a model “of” a
situation and a model “for” it (Yanow, 2000, 43), the GI metaphor may implicitly
reposition the burden of proof regarding green space planning. Here, a tacit
reallocationofemphasismayarisesuchthatasubtleshiftoccursfromarequirement
thatpolicyproposalsdemonstratenoornegligibleadverseeffectsontheenvironment
towardsanexpectationthattheenvironmentshoulddemonstrateecosystemsservices
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page22of46
forsociety(KCC,2011;UFandIEEM,2010).Inthissense,GImaybeseentofurnisha
“discourse of reassurance” wherein “No tough choices need to be made between
economicgrowthandenvironmentalprotection”(Dryzek,2005,172)asanexpectation
emerges that planning for nature can and should be tailored so that ecosystem
functionsfacilitatedevelopment.Thispossibilityisrenderedmorerealbythelackof
criticalattentionaffordedGI in Irishacademic literatureand itsuncritical supportby
planningandalliedpractitioners.
Thus, whereas GI emerged in Ireland as a response to the perceived low profile of
ecological issuesinplanningpolicyformulation,ratherthanaddressingthisbysimply
endowingsuchissuesgreaterweightofconsideration,itmaystimulateare-evaluation
onhow such issuesshouldbeconsidered. Thismayentaila repositioningofnatural
heritagepolicyfromaperspectivethatprioritisestheprotectionofecologicalintegrity
foritsintrinsicvaluetowardsafocusonanthropocentricutility.Here,amodification
ofplanningperspectivesmayoccurwhereinthejustificationforconservationpolicyis
increasinglyseenasrelativetotheperceivedcapacityofecosystemstodeliverhuman
centred services. In this sense, and given the range of issues encompassed by the
greenspacestowhichGI isdeemedapplicable,“GIplanning”maybesubstitutedfor
traditional formsof“natureconservationplanning”suchthatGIplanningbecomesa
matter of anthropocentric functional selectivity as opposed to binding habitat
conservation. Hence,GImaypromptanadjustment toplanningactivity so that “no
distinguishablelinecanbedrawninpracticebetweenecologicalknowledgeandvalue
judgments” (Evans, 2007, 147). Such an amendment may be assisted by the
presumptionsoflandusecompatibilityimplicitinthepromotionofGIas,
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page23of46
...multi functional at every scale...All environments have potential to
restore biodiversity and this can be enhanced with GI planning. GI
projects generate tourism and employment dividends by improving
accesstoexistingnaturalassetsandopeningupnewrecreationaland
leisureopportunities.(UF&IEEM,2010,4)
Accordingly,theanthropocentricfunctionalefficiencyofnaturalenvironmentsmaybe
appraised,andmayevenbejustifiably‘improved’byGIplanning.Here,themeaning
makingactivitythatgivesnewstatustogreenspacesmay“shiftthetermsofdebate
away from environmental protection towards environmental management” (Taylor,
2005, 170) as a “technical-rational model” (Owens et al., 2004, 1945) of planning
practiceobscuresthevaluejudgmentsinherenttodecisionmaking(Kallioetal.,2007).
Thus, compromising the existing ecological integrity of an area by intentionally
transformingorconsciouslyaffecting itsecologicalcharacteristicsmaybe legitimated
relative to the principles of a GI planning approach should such compromising
activities be deemed to enhance the provision of services to society. This reflects
assertions by Hajer with regard to Dutch environmental politics during the 1990s,
whenheconcludedthat,“Ifnatureisseenasinfrastructure,wecanalsomakeamove
from conservation to the actual creationof new (andbetter?) nature” (Hajer, 2003,
106).SuchapossibilityisimplicitinIrishplanningdocumentationreferencingGI(e.g.
UF& IEEM, 2010; and KCC, 2011), and is lucidly illustrated by a consultant planner
whenasserting,
It’stheforwardplanningofresourcesthatappealstome.It’stheidea
thatyoucancreateresourceswhereasinthepastwe’vealwaysspoken
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page24of46
ofthesethingsasresourcesthatmustbeprotectedorconservedatall
cost and act against their diminishment. What appeals tome is the
idea that we can enlarge and improve upon the functionality of
environmentalresourcesandcreatesystems...weneedtomakebetter
systems,weneedtomakecomplementarysystemstonaturalones...it’s
likewe canmake engines of environmental services basically. Using
these building blocks, physical building blocks and proper policies,
correctpolicies,anycitiescanbeenginesforenvironmentalresources,
iftheydesignandmanagethemproperly.(IntervieweeA2)
In this sense, “statements about the naturalworld represent social and institutional
constructions” (Irwin, 2001, 74) wherein GI discourses reflect an epistemology
favourable to aspirations for anthropocentric utility (Forsyth, 2003). Here, lack of
critical attention to the associations and implicit assumptions informing GI may
reposition theprinciples underpinning planning policy onhabitat conservation. This
may unintentionally intensify the original impetus for the introduction of the GI
concept by expediting habitat attrition through viewing green spaces as “what
facilitatesdevelopment”(IntervieweeB18).
GIasEcologicalModernisation?
Although,IrishGIpolicyremainsinitsinfancy,itsfocusontheprovisionof“benefitsto
society” (UF and IEEM, 2010, 2) may be seen as one national manifestation of an
ascending internationalapproach in conservationpolicy concernedwithemphasising
the instrumental value of environments as ameans by which to advocate for their
preservation. At a global level, the narratives embodying this paradigm focus on
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page25of46
highlightingthevarietyofgeneralisedecosystemsservicesprovidedtosociety (MEA,
2005). However, at supranational and national tiers of governance, such narratives
frequentlystresstheneedtofacilitatethemultifunctionalbenefitsofgreenspacesso
as to obtain socio-political and economic support for the advancement of issues
associatedwiththeseareas(EEA,2011).Itisinthiscontextthattheemergenceofthe
GI concept in Irelandmay be understood as furnishing amechanism to address the
profileproblemofgreenspaceissuesinplanningpolicyformulation.Thisisconveyed
byonelocalauthorityofficerwhennoting,
...thewholenatureconservationistotallychanged[sic],it’snowabout
ecosystemservices, youknowwe’vemoved intoadifferentplace, it’s
not just aboutmaking sure everything is ok andwe’re not damaging
it...so the green infrastructure paradigm...or ecosystem services
paradigm is about how do we continue to provide these viable
functions for society,whiledoingwhatweneed todo, likebuildinga
road,notjusthowdowedominimaldamage...(IntervieweeB20)
Theprominencegiventoargumentscentredon“useinthisgreenstuff”(Interviewee
A5)asamethodtoassistconservationechoestheGIapproachtoplanningadvocated
in the USA, with several authors assuming compatibilities between biodiversity
conservationand thehumanuseof environments soas to garner support for green
space consideration in policy formulation (Erickson, 2006; Rouse and Bunster-Ossa,
2013). Similarly, such an approach is advanced by the supranational European
Commission (EC, 2012, 2013) via the concept of GI, whose essential features the
EuropeanEnvironmentAgencyidentifiesas“connectivity,multifunctionalityandsmart
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page26of46
conservation” (EEA, 2011, 30). This confirms previous discussions by the European
CommissiononthepotentialforGIplanningtoprovidearangeofecosystemsservices
to society concurrent with the protection of ecosystems (Karhu, 2011; Sylwester,
2009). Such a turn to accentuating themultifunctional potential of green spaces in
seeking their conservation is also evident in Ireland’s closest neighbour, the United
Kingdom. For example, Kambites and Owen (2006) and Amati and Taylor (2010)
describethemultifunctionalandsocietyservicingpotentialofGI,withMellsurmising
that theGI concept conceives “connectivematrices of greenspaces” that provide “a
number of complementary benefits for ecological, economic and social
spheres…increasinglyviewedas [a] concept thatbothplannersandpractitioners can
draw on” (2008, 69). Other authors identify emerging arguments in England for a
departure from traditional green belt policy and a move towards a more
multifunctionalapproachtoperi-urbangreenspaceplanningasameanstorealisethe
potentialservicesprovidedbysuchareasforurbanresidents(ThomasandLittlewood,
2010;Wilson and Hughes, 2011). Echoing such assertions, those advocating the GI
concept in Irish planning policy discussions stress the anthropocentric
multifunctionalityofgreenspacesbyarguingthat,“attheendofthedaypeoplehave
tobenefitfromthis”(IntervieweeB9).
By appealing to such suppositions on anthropocentric “use” as a prerequisite for
“conservation”, the GI planning approachmay be conceived as an extension of the
ecological modernisation paradigm into Irish land use policy formulation. This is
conventionallyunderstoodas“apotentialbasisforreconcilingeconomicdevelopment
with ecology and providing “win-win” outcomes for nature and economy” (Thomas
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page27of46
andLittlewood,2010,212).Theecologicalmodernisationparadigmismostcommonly
seenasfacilitatingsynergiesbetweennatureconservationandeconomicdevelopment
(Redclift et al., 2000) via the application of technocratic solutions to environmental
problems (Hajer,1995)orasa“restructuringof themarketeconomy” (Carter,2007,
227). In this sense, integrating GI into planning policy may be seen to offer the
prospect of addressing numerous green space issues without challenging the
orientation of a planning system focused on development facilitation (Kitchin et al.,
2012). As such, calls for a GI approach to Irish land use policy formulationmay be
understoodtoreflectabroaderinternationalmovetowardsthe“positive-sumgame”
(Hajer,1995,26)ofecologicalmodernisation.
DeliveringGI
PerpetuatingTechnocracy?
Should Irish GI planning represent a national instantiation of the ecological
modernisation paradigm, this may perpetuate existing technocratic approaches to
environmentalissues.Thisisbecauseecologicalmodernisation“doesnotcallforany
structural change but is, in this respect, basically a modernist and technocratic
approach to theenvironment that suggest that there is a techno-institutional fix for
thepresentproblems” (Hajer,1995,32). Suggestionsthat thismaybeoccurringare
supplied by the pervasive association of GI with conventionally conceived forms of
“infrastructure”. This association prompts conceptual correlations with “systems”,
“mechanics”andthe“scientific”(IntervieweeA2) instimulatingviewsonhowGIcan
be“planned”,“designed”,“delivered”and“managed”(KCC,2011,Chp.14,19)inways
thatreconcileecologicalconservationwithanthropocentricutility. Inthissense,aGI
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page28of46
approachtogreenspaceplanningisperceivedasarationalprocessutilisingacoherent
scientificmethodologyinthedeductionofconclusions(IntervieweeE4).Asanactivity
resonantwith “the traditional view” (In't Veld, 2009, 121) of landuse planning as a
technically and rationally grounded endeavour (Owens, 2005; Owens et al., 2004),
suchaninterpretationpromptsassumptionsastowhatconstitutes“aproperplanning
process” (Interviewee A10). Accordingly, reasoning from associationwith theword
‘infrastructure’ buttresses scientific framings of “evidence-based policy” and gives
forcetospecialisttechnocraticperspectivesonhowproperplanningcanandshouldbe
conducted(Throgmorton,1993).
In this sense, Irish approaches to GImaywell reflect broader issues in attempts to
recalibrate land use governance towards greater ecological sensitivity. Such issues
centreontheperceivedneedtolegitimisepolicyproposalsbyframingthemwithina
discourse that assumes the veracity of conclusions derived by methods typically
employedinthenaturalsciences(Adelleetal.,2012). Thisrequirementtonegotiate
implicit “hierarchies of evidence” (Pawson, 2006) which privilege quantitative
approaches by equating them with objectivity, thus prompt discourses of technical
expertise in theadvocacyofnewplanningapproaches. Here,beliefsconcerning the
necessity and feasibility of separating science from social complexity resonates
strongly (Fischer, 2009; Forsyth, 2003), as “scientific” practices which eschew local
social context advance a “postpolitical” perspective of environmental governance in
which “ideological or dissensual contestation and struggles are replaced by techno-
managerial planning, expert management and administration” (Swyngedouw, 2010,
312). For example, in a review of several case studies employing quantitative
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page29of46
(“objective”)ecosystems servicesapproaches inplanning,ErnstsonandSörlin (2013)
show how such approaches frequently silence local ecological knowledge and
disregard user perceptions of their environment. Similarly, in the context of recent
debatesconcerningurbanplanningforresilientsocial-ecologicalsystems(Ahern,2011;
Davoudietal.,2012;Wilkinson,2012),Evanscautionsthat“thescientificassumptions
of resilience ecology run the risk of political foreclosure” (2011, 232). Here, it is
contendedthatconceivingurbanenvironmentsassocial-ecologicalsystems“threatens
to de-politicise urban transformation...by constraining governance within a
technocraticmode that remains inured to the tropesof scientific legitimacy” (Evans,
2011,233).
ConsensusandConflict
Given the multitude of issues that GI planning is seen to address, many of those
interviewed felt that implementing the concept requires a departure from
conventional administrative arrangements wherein “ritual and routine tend to
predominate in the definition and handling of problems” (Torgerson and Paehlke,
2005,6). Hence, formany, implementingGI isconceivedas“aboutgettingtheright
expertisearoundthe table…working together, listening toeachother,understanding
eachother’sperspectivesandworkingwiththecommunity”(IntervieweeA7).Inthis
sense, several of those interviewed asserted the view that amendments to present
conventionsofpolicy formulationand implementationare required to facilitatenew
forms of collaborative planning where interlocutors would “develop skills in
translation, inconstructivecritique,andincollective inventionandrespectfulaction”
(Healey, 1993, 248). This necessity to “work in a different way” (Interviewee C8)
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page30of46
results from the widely held belief that “local authority structures are so
fragmented...theydon’ttalktoeachother”(IntervieweeE4).Someperceivedthis“silo
approachtoplanning”(IntervieweeB14)asaprospectiveimpedimenttothedelivery
of GI as local authorities are the tier of land use governance identified by most
intervieweesascrucialtotherealisationoftheGIplanningapproach.
WhilealmostallplanningauthoritiesreferencingaGIplanningapproachhaveretained
traditional functional delineations within their administrative arrangements, Fingal
County Council (FCC) in north County Dublin has undertaken a self-initiated
reorganisationofitsdisciplinarydivisions.Thisreorganisationwasinstigatedwiththe
intent of facilitating greater collaboration between the array of council professions
deemedpertinenttolanduseplanningactivities.Inessencetherefore,itwasinitiated
toredressthe“siloapproachtoplanning”(IntervieweeB20andB217).
FCCisacomparativelyneworganisationhavingbeenestablishedin1994whenthree
newlocalauthorities8werecreatedfollowingthedissolutionofDublinCountyCouncil
(Oireachtas, 1993). Officers within the council suggest that this relative youth
engendersperceptionsof innovativepossibilitieswherein roleshavenotyetbecome
“sedimented”(Peters,2005;Scott,2008). Moreover, intervieweesalsoidentifiedthe
ageprofileofthecouncil’sstaffasanimportantfactorintheinstitution’sreceptivityto
newpolicyconcepts.AsnotedbyoneofficialwithrespecttoGIplanning,
Fingal has a lot of young staff, very young staff compared to some
other localauthorities I knowof thathavea lotofolder staff,and I
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page31of46
generally find older people far less receptive to new ideas or doing
thesesortofthings[GI]thanyoungeronesdo.(IntervieweeB22)
All FCC officials interviewed offered a similar assessment that the council’s more
recent establishment and age profile results in greater organisational dynamism
relativetoolderlocalauthoritieswhereinfunctionaldelineationsareconsideredmore
entrenched. Consequently, thoseoperatingwithinFCCopine that theorganisation’s
receptivitytonewpolicyconceptsmayexceedthatofotherlocalauthorities.Thisself-
awareness of dynamic potential stimulates an organisational identity of pioneering
pride in which experimentation is favourably received rather than criticised
(IntervieweeB21,B24).Recentacademicliteraturediscussingtheideaofresiliencein
planningstressthatsuchawillingnesstoexperimentiskeytotherealisationofmore
ecological sensitive and holistic forms of planning (Ahern, 2011; Evans, 2011; Scott,
2013).Indeed,consequentofthereorganisationoftraditionalfunctionaldelineations,
thosewithinFCCperceive that there isnowagreater requirement,opportunityand
desireformulti-disciplinarycollaborationinplanningpolicyformulation.Asnotedby
onecouncilofficial,
Isupposethere’s lessofanemphasisnowonplanners justgoingoff
writing the LAP [local area plan] on their own...because we have
engineersandthewaterpeopleinthedepartment,there’smoreofa,
‘wellletssynchronisetransportwithwater,withplanning,withparks’.
(IntervieweeB20)
This attempt to institutionalise multi-disciplinary collaboration has helped move
activitiessurroundingGIplanningbeyondrelativelyundemandingassertionsofgreen
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page32of46
spacemultifunctionalityandnewwaysofworking.Rather,therequisiteinvolvement
of various disciplines resulting from this reorganisation has necessitated confronting
and resolving interpretive divergence of what constitutes GI when seeking to
formulatepolicy.ThishasyieldedresultsasFCCiscurrentlythemostadvancedlocal
authoritywithrespect toGIplanning in Ireland,having formulatedseveral localarea
plansthatpromotemultifunctionalgreenspacesasakeypolicyelementframingarea
based development strategies (FCC, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Such openness to new
ideassuggestsanacceptanceoftheshortcomingsof“thetraditionalview”(In'tVeld,
2009) of planning by advancing more adaptive forms of governance wherein
consciousnessofknowledgelimitationspromotes“learningtomanagebymanagingto
learn” (Bormannetal,1994,1). In this sense,movingbeyond the“siloapproach to
planning” has entailed “a transformation of the structural context and factors that
determinetheframeofreference”forplanningactivity(Pahl-Wostl,2009,359).
Nevertheless, the case of FCC is conspicuous in its exceptionality asmost Irish local
authorities continue to operate on the basis of a ‘silo approach to planning’. The
persistence of this functional fragmentation coupled with the promotion of GI as a
solution for an array of different policy issues risks a situation in which numerous
agents perceive GI as representing their discrete objectives. Thus, while nominally
acknowledgingthemultifunctionalconceptualunderpinningofGI,agentsofparticular
professional disciplinesmay approach the concept from specific perspectives rather
than addressing the functional integration of several land uses. Nonetheless, those
seeking involvement in GI planning policy formulationmay be able to cooperate by
virtue of the term’s vagueness. As noted by one interviewee, “there are many
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page33of46
differentfunctionsthatcanbeachievedthroughgreeninfrastructure…thedifficultyis
literally youhaveameetingwherepeopleare talkingabout crosspurposesbecause
they’re using a term that means completely different things to all of them”
(Interviewee C3). A potential dilemma of GI planning discourses is here identified.
Although GI discourses may facilitate apparent communication and cooperation
betweenarangeofagentsfromaspectrumofinterests,suchdiscoursesmayconceal
theactualitythatthosedeployingtheGIconceptarediscussingsomethingdifferent.
However,inthecontextofa“siloapproachtoplanning”,GIpolicymayechodebates
over themeaningof sustainable development (Carter, 2007;Dryzek, 2005),wherein
“any attempt to define the concept precisely...would have the effect of excluding
those whose views were not expressed in that definition” (Robinson, 2004, 374).
Consequently, in the absence of concerted efforts to facilitate and engage with
collaborative working practices, the latitude for interpretation regarding GI may
eventuallyleadtoagentdisagreementastowhosepolicyobjectivesandprofessional
interests are representedby theGI concept. Thiswas alluded toby an interviewee
whenindentifyingtheparticularmomentduringtheGIConferenceinNovember2008
whenthepossibilityofsuchdisagreementbecameapparenttohim,
The potential conflict was already arising at the conference. I can
remember the chairman or previous chairman of the Landscape
Institutestoodupontheseconddayoftheconferenceandmadequite
a rousing defence of the landscape architect’s role in green
infrastructure and his fear was very much that green
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page34of46
infrastructure…would become an ecological planning mechanism, as
opposedtoalandscapeplanningmechanism.(IntervieweeA2)
Thus,asexperiencedwithmanyattemptstorealisesustainabledevelopment(Blewitt,
2008), in the case ofGI, theremay exist a paradoxwhereby the coalition of agents
promoting it “can only be kept together by virtue of its rather vague story-lines”
(Hajer,1995,14).Withoutawillingnesstoexperimentwithnewideasandnewways
of working (Ahern, 2011), attempting the move beyond the vagueness of this
discursive sphere into the realm of implementation may induce contested
interpretationsastowhatGImeans(OwensandCowell,2011).Specifically,disputes
mayemergeas towhopossesses thecorrectprofessionalexpertiseand institutional
mandate legitimating participation in the formulation of GI policy (Roe and Mell,
2013).Insuchasituation,thecoalitionofsupportforGImaydissolveintoastruggle
for the right to enunciate on the concept consequent of “different interests with
different substantive concerns trying to stake their claims” (Dryzek, 2005, 146).
Success by any party in such a contest would undermine the multifunctionality
promotedbymanyasakeystrengthoftheGIconcept.
Conclusion
Thispaper identifiesandendeavourstoaddressaknowledgegapregardingacritical
appraisaloftheGIconceptinplanningpolicy.Thepaperdoesnotseektocondemnor
condoneGI.Rather,itunpacksthe‘blackbox’(Latour,2005)oftheconcept’smeaning
andprovidesacriticallyinformedlensonitsdeployment.Indoingso,itisshownhow
GI’sallureasa solution toa rangeofcomplexandmultifacetedplanning issuesmay
represent another turn in attempts to deliver sustainability through the planning
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page35of46
system by presenting a new way to address the old problem of reconciling
environmentalprotectionwithgrowth(OwensandCowell,2011).Thepaperdiscusses
is how the legitimation of GI by connotation with conventionally conceived
“infrastructure”gavetractiontotheconceptinIrishplanningpolicyformulation.Also
described is how this was consequent on the perceived resonance of GI with
presumptionsofplanningasaformof“technical-rational”(Owensetal.,2004,1945)
activity.
However, it issuggestedthatthe“essenceofclaimstorationality isthatsuchclaims
embody certain assumptions about what is the appropriate, even logical course of
action”(Rydin,2003,4).Consequently,itispostulatedthatinterpretingGI’smeaning
throughtheprismoftraditionallyconceived“infrastructure”maypromptperceptions
of GI as a “techno-institutional fix” (Hajer, 1995, 32) that perpetuates rather than
challenges conventionalmodes of planning. Moreover, it is suggested that such an
approach risks confining GI to a discourse of engineering expertise that frames the
concept as a mechanical design endeavour, and as such, de-politicises ecologically
focused policy formulation by foreclosing consideration of issues beyond technical
solutions. This paper conjectures that should such technical-rational discourses be
institutionalised as the approach to green space governance, planning practicemay
runcountertothoseobjectivesmotivatingtheinitialintroductionoftheconceptinto
policy debates as a means to promote greater ecological sensitivity. Here, the
development enabling orientation of traditional infrastructure may present GI as a
“sustainabilityfix”thatfacilitatesdevelopment“byaccommodatingbothprofit-making
and environmental concerns” (Temenos and McCann, 2012, 1389), but implicitly
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page36of46
emphasiseseconomic,physical and socialdevelopmentabove thatofenvironmental
conservation.
Inthissense,thereappearstobeaninherenttensioninpromotingaGIapproach.The
concept was originally seen as a means to raise the profile of ecological issues in
planningbyadvancinga“narrativeofnecessity”throughassociationwithconventional
“infrastructure”. However, the very associations that give the concept its currency
mayunderminetheinitialimpetusforitsdeploymentasitmayresultinarevaluation
of nature towards development enablement at the expense of conservation.
Furthermore, by easily integrating with existing modes of operation and failing to
challenge working practices characterised by disciplinary segregation, the concept’s
usemayultimatelydwindleasirresolvabledisputeemergesoverwhohastherightto
pronounceonitsmeaningandapplicability.
ByreferencetotheinnovativeworkofFingalCountyCouncil,thispapersuggeststhat
overcomingthesepotentialthreatsinvolvesopennesstoexperimentandreceptivityto
agreatervarietyofpositions(Ahern,2011;Evans,2011).Assuch,itspeakstobroader
debatesinecologicalfocusedplanningtheoryconcerningtheneedtoencouragenovel
waysofthinkinganddoingplanning(Erixonetal.,2013;Ernstson,2013;Scott,2013;
Wilkinson, 2012). In particular, it is suggested that a commitment to the ecological
dimensionsofGIplanningrequireswillingnesstoproactivelyengage innewformsof
multidisciplinaryworkingthatseekcollaborativelyderivedandsharedunderstandings
ofwhat the conceptmeans,where it is applicable and how it can be implemented.
Thus, rather than de-politicising deliberations by isolating GI within a range of
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page37of46
segregated technical discourses, this paper recommends opening debate on GI to a
broadbaseofactorsandapluralityofperspectives.Accordingly,itproposesinclusive
and doubtlessly arduous deliberations on whose objectives should be given
representationinlandusepolicy.Indoingso,itbothacknowledgesandforegroundsa
viewthat“theproductionofsocio-environmentalarrangementsimpliesfundamentally
political questions, and has to be addressed in political terms” (Swyngedouw, 2010,
314).
Acknowledgements
TheauthorwouldliketothankDrRichardCowellforhisconstructiveadviceonearlier
draftsofthispaper.Theauthoralsowishestothankthetwoanonymousrefereesfor
theirinsightfulcomments.Allobservationsgreatlyimprovedthepaper.
References
ABBOT, J. 2012.Green Infrastructure for SustainableUrbanDesign inAfrica,Oxford,England,U.K.,Earthscan.
ADELLE,C.,JORDAN,A.&TURNPENNY,J.2012.Proceedinginparallelordriftingapart?A systematic review of policy appraisal research and practices. EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy,30,401-415.
AGMA2011.GreenInfrastructureFramework,Manchester,England,U.K.,AssociationofGreaterManchesterAuthorities.
AHERN,J.2007.Greeninfrastructureforcities:thespatialdimension.In:NOVOTNY,V.&BROWN,P.(eds.)CitiesfortheFuture:towardsintegratedsustainablewaterandlandscapemanagement.London,England,U.K.:IWAPublishing.
AHERN, J.2011.Fromfail-safe tosafe-to-fail:Sustainabilityandresilience in thenewurbanworld.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,100,341-343.
ALLEN,W.L.2012.Advancinggreeninfrastructureatallscales:fromlandscapetosite.EnvironmentalPractice,14,17-25.
AMATI, M. & TAYLOR, L. 2010. From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. PlanningPracticeandResearch,25,143-155.
BARRY,J.2007.EnvironmentandSocialTheory,Oxford,UK,Routledge.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page38of46
BENEDICT,M.&MCMAHON,E.2002.GreenInfrastructure:SmartConservationforthe21stCentury.RenewableResourcesJournal,20,12-17.
BENEDICT, M. & MCMAHON, E. 2006. Green Infrastructure: linking landscapes andcommunities,London,England,U.K.,IslandPress.
BERG, B. L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods, London, England, U.K., PearsonEducationInc.
BLEWITT, J. 2008. Understanding Sustainable Development, London, England, U.K.,Earthscan.
BORMANN,B.T.,CUNNINGHAM,P.G.,BROOKES,M.H.,MANNING,V.W.&COLLOPY,M.W. 1994.Adaptive ecosystemmanagement in thePacificNorthwest.Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341 Portland, Oregan, U.S.A., US Department ofAgriculture,ForestService:PacificNorthwestResearchStation.
BROWNANDCALDWELL,HNTB&TETRATECHINC2011.DeterminingthePotentialofGreenInfrastructuretoReduceOverflowsinMilwaukee,Milwaukee,Wisconsin,U.S.A.,MilwaukeeMetropolitanSewerageDistrict.
BUTLER, R. 2012. Park Atlantic Urban Parks and Green Areas Action Plan, Limerick,Ireland,Mid-WestRegionalAuthority&EuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund.
CABE2009.GreytoGreen:howweshiftfundingandskillstogreenourcities,London,England,U.K.,CommissionforArchitectureandtheBuiltEnvironment(CABE).
CARTER, N. 2007. The Politics of the Environment, Cambridge, England, U.K.,CambridgeUniversityPress.
CF 2007. Cecil County, Maryland: Green Infrastructure Plan, Annapolis, Maryland,U.S.A.,TheConservationFund.
CGIF2011.CambridgeshireGreenInfrastructureStrategy,Peterborough,England,U.K.,CambridgeshireGreenInfrastructureForum&LDADesignConsultingLLP.
CHARMAZ, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: a practical guide throughqualitativeanalysis,London,England,U.K.,SagePublicationsLtd.
CHAU,H.-F. 2009.Green Infrastructure for LosAngeles: addressingurban runoff andwatersupplythroughlowimpactdevelopment,LosAngeles,California,U.S.A.,CityofLosAngelesStormwaterProgram.
COMHAR2009.TowardsaGreenNewDeal.Dublin,Ireland:ComharSDC.COWELL,R.&OWENS,S.2006.GoverningSpace:planningreformandthepoliticsof
sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 403-421.
DAVIES,C.,MACFARLANE,R.&ROE,M.H.2006.GreenInfrastructurePlanningGuide,2Volumes:FinalReportandGIPlanningNewcastle,England,U.K.,UniversityofNorthumbria, North East Community Forests, University of Newcastle,CountrysideAgency,EnglishNature,ForestryCommission,GroundworkTrusts.
DAVOUDI,S.,SHAW,K.,HAIDER,L. J.,QUINLAN,A.E.,PETERSON,G.D.,WILKINSON,C., FÜNFGELD, H., MCEVOY, D. & PORTER, L. 2012. Resilience: A BridgingConceptoraDeadEnd?“Reframing”Resilience:ChallengesforPlanningTheoryand Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a PastureManagementSystem inNorthernAfghanistanUrbanResilience:WhatDoes itMeaninPlanningPractice?ResilienceasaUsefulConceptforClimateChangeAdaptation?ThePoliticsofResilienceforPlanning:ACautionaryNote.PlanningTheory&Practice,13,299-333.
DCC 2010. Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, Dublin, Ireland, Dublin CityCouncil.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page39of46
DCLG 2010.Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement: Planning for aNaturalandHealthyEnvironment,London,England,U.K.,DCLG.
DCLG2012.NationalPlanningPolicyFramework,London,England,U.K.,DepartmentofCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(DCLG).
DOE(NI) 2013. Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage, Belfast, NorthernIreland,DepartmentoftheEnvironmentforNorthernIreland(DoE(NI)).
DOEHLG2008.TheEconomicandSocialAspectsofbiodiversity:benefitsandcostsofbiodiversityinIreland.Dublin,Ireland:GovernmentofIreland.
DRA&MERA 2010. Regional PlanningGuidelines for theGreater Dublin Area 2010-2022 Dublin, Ireland: Mid-East Regional Authority and Dublin RegionalAuthority.
DRYZEK, J. S. 2005.ThePolitics of the Earth: environmental discourses,Oxford,U.K.,OxfordUniversityPress.
EC2011.Our life insurance, ournatural capital: anEUbiodiversity strategy to2020:CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:COM(2011)244,Brussels,Belgium,EuropeanCommission.
EC 2012.TheMultifunctionality ofGreen Infrastructure,Brussels, Belgium, EuropeanCommission.
EC 2013. Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital:CommunicationfromTheCommissiontoTheEuropeanParliament,TheCouncil,The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee Of TheRegions[COM(2013)249final],Brussels,Belgium.,EuropeanCommission.
EEA2011.TechnicalReportNo.18/2011:Greeninfrastructureandterritorialcohesion:The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies usingmonitoringsystems,Luxembourg,Belgium,PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.
ENGEL, S., PAGIOLA, S. &WUNDER, S. 2008. Designing payments for environmentalservicesintheoryandpractice:anoverviewoftheissue.EcologicalEconomics,65,663-674.
EPA 2010. Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for ManagingStormwaterwithGreenInfrastructure,Washington,D.C.,U.S.A.,EPA(USA).
ERICKSON, D. 2006.Metrogreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities,Washington,D.C,U.S.A.,IslandPress.
ERIXON, H., BORGSTRÖM, S. & ANDERSSON, E. 2013. Challenging dichotomies –exploringresilienceasan integrativeandoperativeconceptual framework forlarge-scaleurbangreenstructures.PlanningTheory&Practice,14,349-372.
ERNSTSON, H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: A framework forstudying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanizedlandscapes.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,109,7-17.
ERNSTSON,H.&SÖRLIN, S. 2013. Ecosystemservices as technologyof globalization:Onarticulatingvaluesinurbannature.EcologicalEconomics,86,274-284.
ESCOBAR,A.2011.EncounteringDevelopment:themakingandunmakingoftheThirdWorld,Princeton,NewJersey,U.S.A.,PrincetonUniversityPress.
EVANS, J. 2007.Wildlife corridors: anurbanpoliticalecology.LocalEnvironment, 12,129-152.
EVANS, J. P. 2011. Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city.TransactionsoftheinstituteofBritishGeographers,36,223-237.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page40of46
FÁBOS,J.G.2004.GreenwayplanningintheUnitedStates:itsoriginsandrecentcasestudies.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,68,321-342.
FCC2011.FingalCountyDevelopmentPlan2011-2017.Dublin, Ireland:FingalCountyCouncil.
FCC2013a.Baldoyle-Stapolin LocalAreaPlan,Swords,Dublin, Ireland, Fingal CountyCouncil.
FCC2013b.OldtownLocalAreaPlan,Swords,Dublin,Ireland,FingalCountyCouncil.FCC2013c.PortmarnockSouthLocalAreaPlan,Swords,Dublin,Ireland,FingalCounty
Council.FISCHER,F.2009.DemocracyandExpertise:reorientingpolicyinquiry,Oxford,England,
U.K.,OxfordUniversityPress.FISHER, B., TURNER, R. K.&MORLING, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystems
servicesfordecisionmaking.EcologicalEconomics,68,643-653.FLICK, U. 2007. Designing Qualitative Research, London, England, UK, SAGE
PublicationsLtd.FORSYTH, T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: the politics of environmental science,
London,England,U.K.,Routledge.GILL, S., HANDLEY, J., ENNOS, A. & PAULEIT, S. 2007. Adapting cities for climate
change:theroleofthegreeninfrastructure.BuiltEnvironment,33,115-133.GILL,S.,HANDLEY,J.,ENNOS,R.&NOLAN,P.2009.PlanningforGreenInfrastructure:
adaptingtoclimatechange.In:DAVOUDI,S.(ed.)PlanningforClimateChange:strategiesformitigationandadaptationforspatialplanners.London,England,U.K.:Earthscan.
GLA 2012.Green Infrastructure andOpen Environments: The All LondonGreenGrid,London,England,U.K.,GreaterLondonAuthority(GLA).
GÓMEZ-BAGGETHUN,E.,DEGROOT,R.,LOMAS,P.L.&MONTES,C.2010.Thehistoryofecosystemservices ineconomic theoryandpractice: fromearlynotions tomarketsandpaymentschemes.EcologicalEconomics,69,1209-1218.
GRANT,G.2012.EcosystemServicesComeToTown:GreeningCitiesbyWorkingwithNature,Chichester,England,U.K.,JohnWiley&SonsLtd.
HAJER,M.1995.ThePoliticsofEnvironmentalDiscourse:ecologicalmodernisationandthepolicyprocess,Oxford,U.K.,OxfordUniversityPress.
HAJER,M.2003.Aframeinthefields:policymakingandthereinventionofpolitics.In:HAJER,M.&WAGENAAR,H. (eds.)DeliverativePolicyAnalysis:understandinggovernance in the network society. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.
HANDLEY, J., PAULEIT, S. & GILL, S. 2007. Landscape sustainability and the city. In:BENSON,J.F.&ROE,M.(eds.)LandscapeandSustainability.London,England,U.K.:Routledge.
HANNIGAN,J.2007.EnvironmentalSociology,NewYork,USA,Routledge.HASSE, D. 2010. Multicriteria assessment of green infrastructure and green space
patterns in shrinking cities - a challenge for planning and design of an urbanecological network.Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference of UrbanBiodiversityandDesign.Nagoya,Japan:URBIO2010.
HEAL,G.2000.NatureandtheMarketplace:capturingthevalueofecosystemservices,Washington,DistrictofColumbia,U.S.A.,IslandPress.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page41of46
HEALEY, P. 1993. The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In: FISCHER, F. &FORESTER, J. (eds.)TheArguementative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning.London,England,U.K.:DukeUniversityPress.
HENNINK,M.,HUTTER, I.&BAILEY,A. 2011.QualitativeResearchMethods,London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublicationsLtd.
HERRING, R. J. 2007. Political Ecology from Landscapes to Genomes: science andinterests.In:PRETTY,J.,BALL,A.,BENTON,T.,GUIVANT,J.,LEE,D.R.,ORR,D.,PFEFFER, M. & WARD, H. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Environment andSociety.London,England,U.K.:SAGEPublicationsLtd.
HERZOG,C.2010.Planninganddesignofagreeninfrastructureasadefensivestrategyto protect biodiversity and minimize climatic changes on a coastal urbanenvironmentinSouthernBrazil.Proceedingofthe2ndInternationalConferenceofUrbanBiodiversityandDesign.Nagoya,Japan:URBIO2010.
HORWOOD,K.2011.Greeninfrastructure:reconcilingurbangreenspaceandregionaleconomicdevelopment:lessonslearntfromexperienceinEngland’snorth-westregion.LocalEnvironment,16,963-975.
IGNATIEVA, M. 2010. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas.Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference of Urban Biodiversity andDesign.Nagoya,Japan:URBIO2010.
IN'TVELD,R. J. 2009.Willingly andKnowingly: The rolesof knowledgeaboutnatureandtheenvironmentinpolicyprocesses.In:IN'TVELD,R.J.(ed.)RMNO-seriesPreliminary studies and Background studies (Number V.15e) The Haag, TheNetherlands: RMNO (Advisory Council for Spatial Planning, Nature and theEnvironment).
IRWIN,A.2001.SociologyandtheEnvironment,Cambridge,England,U.K.,PolityPress.JENKS,M.,BURTON,E.&WILLIAMS,K.1996.TheCompactCity:a sustainableurban
form?,London,England,U.K.,E&FNSponLtd.JONGMAN,R.H.G.&PUNGETTI,G.(eds.)2004.EcologicalNetworksandGreenways;
Conception, Design, Implementation, Cambridge, England, U.K.: CambridgeUniversityPress.
KALLIO, T. J., NORDBERG, P. & AHONEN, A. 2007. 'Rationalizing sustainabledevelopment'-Acriticaltreatise.SustainableDevelopment,15,41-51.
KAMBITES,C.&OWEN,S.2006.RenewedprospectsforgreeninfrastructureintheUK.PlanningPracticeandResearch,21,483-496.
KARHU, J. 2011.Green Infrastructure Implementation: Proceedings of the EuropeanCommission Conference, 19 November 2010, Brussels, Belgium, EuropeanCommission.
KAZMIERCZAK,A.,CARTER, J.,CAVAN,G.&HANDLEY, J.2010.Green infrastructure -contribution to adaptation to climate change in Greater Manchester.Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference of Urban Biodiversity andDesign.Nagoya,Japan:URBIO2010.
KCC 2011. Kildare County Development Plan 2011-2017. Naas, Co. Kildare, Ireland:KildareCountyCouncil.
KILBANE, S. 2013. Green infrastructure: planning a national green network forAustralia.JournalofLandscapeArchitecture,8,64-73.
KITCHIN,R.,O'CALLAGHAN,C.,BOYLE,M.,GLEESON,J.&KEAVENEY,K.2012.Placingneoliberalism: the rise and fall of Ireland's Celtic Tiger. Environment andPlanningA,44,1302-1326.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page42of46
KOSOY, N. & CORBERA, E. 2010. Payments for ecosystems services as commodityfetishism.EcologicalEconomics,69,1228-1236.
KRUUSE,A.2011.TheGreenSpaceFactorandGreenPoints.Town&CountryPlanning,80,287-290.
KVALE, S. 1996. InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing,London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublicationsLtd.
LATOUR, B. 2005.Reassembling the Social: an introduction to actor network theory,Oxford,England,U.K.,OxfordUniversityPress.
LCRP 2010.Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Leeds City Region Leeds, England,U.K.,LeedsCityRegionPartnership&LDADesign.
LI2013.GreenInfrastructure:anintegratedapproachtolanduse-LandscapeInstitutepositionstatement,London,England,U.K.,LandscapeInstitute(UK).
LITTLE, C. E. 1990.Greenways for America: creating the North American landscape,Baltimore,Maryland,U.S.A.,TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
MARCUCCI, D. & JORDAN, L. 2013. Benefits and Challenges of Linking GreenInfrastructure and Highway Planning in the United States. EnvironmentalManagement,51,182-197.
MEA2005.MillenniumEcosystemsAssessment (MEA): Ecosystems andHumanWell-being:synthesisreport,WashingtonD.C.,U.S.A.,IslandPress.
MELL,I.C.2008.GreenInfrastructure:conceptsandplanning.FORUMEjournal,8,69-80.
MELL, I.C.2009.Cangreen infrastructurepromoteurbansustainability?ProceedingsoftheInstituteofCivilEngineers-EngineeringSustainability,162,23-34.
MELL,I.C.2013.Canyoutellagreenfieldfromacoldsteelrail?Examiningthe“green”ofGreenInfrastructuredevelopment.LocalEnvironment,18,152-166.
NE2009.GreenInfrastructureGuidance,Sheffield,England,U.K.,NaturalEngland.NE2010.‘NatureNearby’:AccessibleNaturalGreenspaceGuidance,Sheffield,England,
U.K.,NaturalEngland.NOVOTNY,V.,AHERN,J.&BROWN,P.2010.WaterCentricSustainableCommunities:
Planning,RetrofittingandBuildingtheNextUrbanEnvironment,Hoboken,NewJersey,U.S.A.,JohnWiley&Sons.
NWCCP2011.GreenInfrastructuretoCombatClimateChange:AframeworkforactioninCheshire,Cumbria,GreaterManchester,Lancashire,andMerseyside,Salford,England,U.K.,NorthwestClimateChangePartnership.
NYC2010.NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan:asustainablestrategyforcleanwaterways,NewYorkCity,NewYork,U.S.A.,NYCEnvironmentalProtection.
O'MAHONY, P. & KEOHANE, K. 2011. Irish Environmental Politics After theCommunicativeTurn,Manchester,England,U.K.,ManchesterUniversityPress.
O'NEILL, J. 2007. Markets, Deliberation and Environment, London, England, U.K.,Routledge.
OIREACHTAS 1993. Local Government (Dublin) Act. Number 31 of 1993. Ireland:Oireachtas.
OPDAM, P. 2002. Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In:GUTZWILLER,K.J.(ed.)ApplyingLandscapeEcologyinBiologicalConservation.NewYorkCity,NewYork,U.S.A.:Springer-VerlagNewYorkInc.
OPDAM, P., STEINGRÖVER, E. & ROOIJ, S. V. 2006. Ecological networks: A spatialconcept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape andUrbanPlanning,75,322-332.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page43of46
OWENS,S.2005.Makingadifference?Someperspectivesonenvironmentalresearchandpolicy.TransactionsoftheinstituteofBritishGeographers,30,287-292.
OWENS, S. & COWELL, R. 2011. Land and Limits: interpreting sustainability in theplanningprocess,NewYorkCity,NewYork,U.S.A.,Routledge.
OWENS, S., RAYNER, T.& BINA,O. 2004.New agendas for appraisal: Reflections ontheory,practice,andresearch.EnvironmentandPlanningA,36,1943-1959.
PAHL-WOSTL, C. 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity andmulti-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. GlobalEnvironmentalChange,19,354-365.
PATTON,M.Q.2002.QualitiativeResearchandEvaluationMethods,London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublicationsLtd.
PAWSON,R.2006.Evidence-BasedPolicy:ARealistPerspective,London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublications.
PCC 2010. Plymouth's Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan: positive planning for thenaturalenvironment,Plymouth,England,U.K.,PlymouthCityCouncil.
PCSD 1999. Towards a Sustainable Future: advancing prosperity, opportunity and ahealthy environment for the 21st century, Washington D.C., U.S.A., U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.
PEET, R. & WATTS, M. (eds.) 2004. Liberation Ecologies, London, England, U.K.:Routledge.
PETERS,G.B.2005. Insitutionaltheoryinpoliticalscience:the"NewInstitutionalism",London,UK,Continuum.
PETERSON,M. J.,HALL,D.M., FELDPAUSCH-PARKER,A.M.&PETERSON,T.R.2010.Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystems servicesconcept.ConservationBiology,24,113-119.
PINCETL, S. 2013. Urban Ecology and Nature’s Services Infrastructure: PolicyImplicationsoftheMillionTreesInitiativeoftheCityofLosAngeles.In:BOONE,C. G. & FRAGKIAS, M. (eds.) Urbanization and Sustainability. SpringerNetherlands.
RAPLEY, T. 2007. Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis, London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublicationsLtd.
RAYNER,J.P.,RAYNOR,K.J.&WILLIAMS,N.S.G.2010.Façadegreening:acasestudyfrom Melbourne, Australia. In: PROSDOCIMI GIANQUINTO, G. & ORSINI, F.(eds.) Acta Horticulturae 881: II International Conference on Landscape andUrban Horticulture. Bologna, Italy: International Society for HorticulturalScience.
REDCLIFT, M., SHOVE, E., VAN DER MEULEN, B. & RAMAN, S. (eds.) 2000. SocialEnvironmental Research In The European Union, Cheltenham, England, U.K.:EdwardEdgarPublishing.
ROBERTSON, M. M. 2004. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetlandmitigationbankingandproblemsinenvironmentalgovernance.Geoforum,35,361-373.
ROBINSON, J. 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainabledevelopment.EcologicalEconomics,48,369-384.
ROE,M.&MELL,I.2013.Negotiatingvalueandpriorities:evaluatingthedemandsofgreen infrastructure development. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement,56,650-673.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page44of46
ROUSE,D.C.&BUNSTER-OSSA,I.F.2013.GreenInfrastructure:ALandscapeApproach,Washington,D.C.,U.S.A.,AmericanPlanningAssociation.
RUBIN, H. J. & RUBIN, I. S. 2005.Qualitative Interviewing: the art of hearing data,London,England,U.K.,SAGEPublicationsLtd.
RYDIN, Y. 2003. Conflict, Consensus, and Rationality in Environmental Planning: AnInstitutional Discourse Approach, Oxford, England, U.K., Oxford UniversityPress.
SANDSTRÖM, U. G. 2002. Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. PlanningPracticeandResearch,17,373-385.
SANDSTRÖM,U.G.2008.BiodiversityandGreen Infrastructure inUrbanLandscapes:TheImportanceofUrbanGreenSpaces,Saarbrücken,Germany,VDMVerlagDr.Mueller.
SCHÖN, D. A. 1991. The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action,London,England,U.K.,AshgatePublishingLimited.
SCHWARTZ-SHEA,P.&YANOW,D.2012.InterpretiveResearchDesign,NewYorkCity,NewYork,U.S.A.,Routledge.
SCOTT,M.2013.Resilience:aConceptualLensforRuralStudies?GeographyCompass,7,597-610.
SCOTT,W.R.2008.Institutesandorganisations:ideasandinterests,London,UK,SagePublications.
SELMAN, P. 2012. Sustainable Landscape Planning: the reconnection agenda,Abingdon,England,U.K.,Routledge.
SERA 2010. Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-East Region 2010-2022.Clonmel,Co.Tipperary,Ireland:South-EastRegionalAuthority.
SG 2011. Green Infrastructure: design and placemaking, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.,ScottishGovernment.
SG 2012. Making the most of communities' natural assets: green infrastructure,Edinburgh,Scotland,ScottishGovernment.
SILVA, J. P., TOLAND, J., JONES, W., ELDRIDGE, J., HUDSON, T., O’HARA, E. &THÉVIGNOT, C. 2010. LIFE: Building up Europe’s Green Infrastructure:addressing connectivity and enhancing ecosystem functions, Luxembourg,Luxembourg,EuropeanUnion.
STENNING, E. 2008. An Assessment of the Seattle Green Factor: Increasing andImproving the Quality of Urban Green Infrastructure. Unpublished Thesis forMasterofUrbanPlanning,UniversityofWashington.
SUNDSETH, K. & SYLWESTER, A. 2009. Towards Green Infrastructure for Europe:Proceedings of EC workshop 25-26March 2009,Brussels, Belgium, EuropeanCommission.
SWYNGEDOUW, E. 2010. Trouble with Nature: 'Ecology as the New Opium for theMasses'.In:HILLIER,J.&HEALEY,P.(eds.)TheAshgateResearchCompaniontoPlanningTheory: ConceptualChallenges for Spatial Planning. Surrey, England,U.K.:AshgatePublishingLtd.
SYLWESTER, A. 2009. Green Infrastructure: supporting connectivity, maintainingsustainabililty,Brussels,Belgium,EuropeanCommission.
TAYLOR, G. 2005.Negotiated Governance and Public Policy in Ireland,Manchester,England,U.K.,ManchesterUniversityPress.
TCPA2011.TheGRaBSProjectIssue:greenandbluespaceadaptationforurbanareasandecotowns.TheJournaloftheTownandCountryPlanningAssociation,80.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page45of46
TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming theEconomics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions andrecommendationsofTEEB.,Malta,ProgressPress.
TEMENOS,C.&MCCANN,E.2012.TheLocalPoliticsofMobility:learning,persuasion,andtheproductionofamunicipalsustainabilty fix.EnvironmentandPlanningA,44,1389-1406.
TEP2011.GreenInfrastructureFrameworkforNorthEastWales,CheshireandWirral,Warrington,England,U.K.,TEP.
THOMAS,K.&LITTLEWOOD,S.2010.FromGreenBeltstoGreenInfrastructure?Theevolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatialstrategies.PlanningPracticeandResearch,25,203-222.
THROGMORTON, J. A. 1993. Survey research as rhetorical trope: electric powerplanning arguements in Chicago. In: FISCHER, F. & FORESTER, J. (eds.) Thearguementative turn in policy analysis and planning. London, England, U.K.:DukeUniversityPress.
TORGERSON, D. & PAEHLKE, R. 2005. Environmental Administration: revising theagenda of inquiry and practice. In: PAEHLKE, R. & TORGERSON, D. (eds.)ManagingLeviathan:environmentalpoliticsand theadministrative state.2nded.Plymouth,England,U.K.:BroadwiewPressLtd.
TUBRIDY,M. & O RIAIN, G. 2002. Preliminary study of the needs associated with aNational Ecological Network. Wexford, Ireland: Environmental ProtectionAgency.
TZOULAS,K.,KORPELA,K.,VENN,S.,YLI-PELKONEN,V.,KAŹMIERCZAK,A.,NIEMELA,J.& JAMES, P. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areasusingGreenInfrastructure:Aliteraturereview.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,81,167-178.
UCD,DLRCC,FCC&NATURA2008.GreenCityGuidelines.Dublin,Ireland:UCDUrbanInstitute.
UF& IEEM2010.Green Infrastructure: a quality of life issue.Dublin, Ireland:UrbanForumandtheInstituteofEcologyandEnvironmentalManagement.
USEPA 2004. Protecting Water Resources with Smart Growth, Washington, D.C .,U.S.A.,UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
WALMSLEY, A. 2006. Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,76,252-290.
WEBER,T.,SLOAN,A.&WOLF,J.2006.Maryland’sGreenInfrastructureAssessment:development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,77,94-110.
WILKINSON, C. 2012. Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planningtheory.PlanningTheory,11,148-169.
WILLIAM,L.A.2012.AdvancingGreen InfrastructureatAllScales: fromlandscapetosite.EnvironmentalPractice,14,17-25.
WILLIAMS,N.S.G.,RAYNER,J.P.&RAYNOR,K.J.2010.Greenroofsforawidebrownland: opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia UrbanForestry&UrbanGreening,9,245-251.
WILSON,O.&HUGHES,O.2011.UrbanGreenSpacePolicyandDiscourse inEnglandunderNewLabourfrom1997to2010.PlanningPracticeandResearch,26,207-228.
LocalEnvironment(2014)acceptedbutnotcopy-edited
MickLennon Page46of46
WRIGHT, H. 2011. Understanding green infrastructure: the development of acontestedconceptinEngland.LocalEnvironment,16,1003-1019.
YANOW,D.2000.ConductingInterpretivePolicyAnalysis,London,England,U.K.,SagePublications.
1 These documents were identified through three rounds of review. The initial review entailedinspectionoftwohundredandthreedocumentsidentifiedaspotentiallypertinenttothestudy.Ofthisnumber,a totalofonehundredandseventy Irishplanning relateddocumentsweredeemed relevantandcollated to formapreliminary ‘archive’. This includedalldevelopmentplans for the twenty-ninecounty councils, five city councils and five borough councils in Ireland, in addition to the guidelinesproduced and/or operative within the eight Irish regional authorities between November 2008 andNovember 2011. Each document was subsequently reviewed several times so as to determine itspotential relevance to the emergence and evolution of the GI story in Ireland. This facilitated thereduction of the archive to one hundred and twenty seven items prior to commencement ofinterviewing.The‘initial’codingprocesswasconductedhere.Duetotheongoingcollationofpertinentmaterial as it became available, the archive increased to one hundred and thirty-one items byconclusionof the interviewingperiod inNovember2011. It is not considered that the contentof theadditionalfouritemsaddedtothearchivefollowingtheinitialcodingwouldhaveinfluencedthedesignofthemasterinterviewguide.2“Anecologicalnetworkistodayrecognisedasaframeworkofecologicalcomponents,e.g.coreareas,corridorsandbufferzones,whichprovidesthephysicalconditionsnecessaryforecosystemsandspeciespopulations to survive in a human-dominated landscape. The goal should be considered twofold: tomaintainbiologicalandlandscapediversity,butalsotoserveasanetworkassistingpolicysectorsintheconservationofnaturalecosystems”(JongmanandPungetti,2004,3).3Hajer’s(2008)analysisfocusesoncontestedpolicyissuessurroundingGIratherthananappraisalofGIintheNetherlands.4 The EU is used here in reference to the organs of the European Union, including the EuropeanCommissionandthevariousDirectorates-General(Departments),ServicesandAgenciesassociatedwithit.5Therearetwentysevenheritageofficers in Ireland,each located inadifferent localauthority. Theywork on a broaddefinitionof ‘heritage’. Their function is to promote local heritage conservationby
helping coordinate and provide input to numerous council activities ranging from environmental and
archaeology issues throughtobuiltandculturalheritagematters. Assuch, theiractivities frequently
interact with the local planning policy process. The ability of these individuals to disseminate and
promote newheritagemanagement conceptswithin the local authority inwhich they are situated is
assistedby knowledgeexchangebetweenheritageofficers. This is facilitatedby theHeritageOfficer
Network.ThisnetworkiscoordinatedbytheIrishHeritageCouncilwhichoperatesasastatefundedbut
independentheritagemanagementandadvocacybody. 6Forexample,seeMell(2013,160)withregardtoissuesof“valuing”GIintheUK.7Personalcommunicationon27August2011.8FingalCountyCouncil,SouthDublinCountyCouncilandDunLaoghaire-RathdownCountyCouncil.
top related