Growing recognition has developed between policy-makers and practitioners that green infrastructure (GI) provides an approach to planning for effectively integrating ecosystems, biodiversity, socio-economic and political factors into a coherent framework for environmental management. While there has been progressive development of the concept, a deeper analysis demonstrates that this process has been disjointed. We identify four factors or ‘axes’ related to: temporal, geographic, scalar and disciplinary variation, which have shaped how GI is promoted and implemented. This paper traces coalescence and divergence across GI planning, using these four axes to map the concept’s development. It also questions whether the lack of alignment between GI research and Impact Assessment (IA) is grounded in existing disciplinary mentalities or related to governance or geographical variation. From this analysis, we identify that these factors interact with socio-political and economic drivers shaping the terminology used, but this is not translated into effective evaluative practice. Although flexibility is one of the main strengths of GI, we argue that some degree of harmonisation will help advance the use of GI in environmental planning and assessment.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

This paper explores how health aspects connected with the planning of urban green space are currently supported through two types of impact assessments: health impact assessment (HIA) and environmental assessment, including strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects. Seven HIAs and five EIAs/SEAs from the UK, the US, the Netherlands, Austria and Germany are reviewed, using an analytical framework designed on the basis of a literature review. An important finding is that whilst all HIAs follow a problem-/objectives-driven approach, designing guidelines for potential future projects, all EIAs/SEAs use an impact-driven approach, focusing on the impacts of planned and concrete action. HIAs therefore approach policy, plan, programme and project-making exercises from the outside, making suggestions to those working on them to consider certain aspects in the future, rather than working with them on improving things within a decision-making process, as is usually is usually the case with EIAs/SEAs.

Effective governance of social‐ecological systems (SES) is an enduring challenge, especially in coastal environments where accelerating impacts of climate change are increasing pressure on already stressed systems. While resilience is often proposed as a suitable framing to re‐orient governance and management, the literature includes many different, and sometimes conflicting, definitions and ideas that influence how the concept is applied, especially in coastal environments. This study combines discourse analysis of the coastal governance literature and key informant interviews in Tasmania, Australia, demonstrating inconsistencies and confusion in the way that resilience is framed in coastal governance research and practice. We find that resilience is most often framed as (1) a rate of recovery from disturbance or (2) the process of acting in response to, or anticipation of, a disturbance. A third framing considers resilience as an emergent property of SESs. This framing, social‐ecological resilience, accounts for multiple configurations of SES, which necessitates adaptation and transformation strategies to address changes across temporal and spatial scales. Coastal managers recognised the value of this third framing for governing coastal SESs, yet the confusion and inconsistency in the literature was also evident in how they understood and applied resilience in practice. Expanding the use of social‐ecological resilience is essential for more effective coastal governance, given the dynamics of coastal SESs and the intensity of social, economic, and environmental drivers of change these systems face. However, this requires addressing the unclear, confused, and superficial use of resilience‐oriented concepts in research and policy discourse.