preprints.org > social sciences > urban studies and planning > doi: 10.20944/preprints201701.0056.v1

Preprint Essay Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Version 1 : Received: 10 January 2017 / Approved: 11 January 2017 / Online: 11 January 2017 (07:44:52 CET)

In the quest for more sustainable urban landscape development, the concept of ‘green infrastructure’ (GI) has become central in policy documents and as a multifunctional general planning tool. GI is not however a simple and unambiguous solution. While there in policy documents are claims for more and connected GI, actual urban development takes another direction. The densifying imperative is hard to combine with an increased and more connected GI. This paper argues for a critical and diversified approach to the concept of GI, to facilitate its implementation in urban planning and management. While GI most often is seen as a common asset and a public good, the actual land use negotiations and management responsibilities cannot be limited to a public service discourse, but should address more clearly a variety of actors. Linguistic as well as spatial definitions of the two relevant dichotomies of ‘green-grey’ and ‘public-private’ are crucial in GI location, design, construction and management, it is argued. Overarching representations of GI will be needed, but also – and linked to it – a spatial storm water plan and an overall plan for public space. The development over time will need an intersectorial implementation and management program. Thus some of the GI intentions may be implemented in planning processes, some through reorganisation and redesign of public space, and some by agreements with landowners.

green infrastructure; sustainable urban development; urban planning; landscape representations

Social Sciences, Urban Studies and Planning

* All users must log in before leaving a comment