Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin ... › bitstream › 10197 › 7835 › 1 › Lenn… · Mick Lennon Page 3 of 46 A comparably recent development in such

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.

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?via=ucd_oa&text=DOI%3A10.1080%2F13549839.2014.880411&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhdl.handle.net%2F10197%2F7835

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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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,



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



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,



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,



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



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



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.



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



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



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).



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,



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



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



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



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,



...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



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



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



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



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



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



(“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)



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Documents

Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin ... › bitstream › 10197 › 7835 › 1 › Lenn… · Mick Lennon Page 3 of 46 A comparably recent development in such