Green Infrastructure Typologi

Journal of Hydrology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / jhydrol

A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.0480022-1694/� 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 201 216 3549.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Fassman-Beck).

Please cite this article in press as: Young, R., et al. A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. J. Hydrol. (2014),dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.048

Robert Young a, Julie Zanders b, Katherine Lieberknecht a, Elizabeth Fassman-Beck c,⇑a Community and Regional Planning Program, University of Texas at Austin, 310 Inner Campus Drive B7500, Austin, TX 78712-1009, USAb Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92109, Auckland 1142, New Zealandc Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Ocean Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history:Available online xxxx

Keywords:Green infrastructureUrban planningTypologyStormwater management

During a National Science Foundation (US) funded ‘‘International Greening of Cities Workshop’’ in Auck-land, New Zealand, participants agreed an effective urban green infrastructure (GI) typology should iden-tify cities’ present stage of GI development and map next steps to mainstream GI as a component of urbaninfrastructure. Our review reveals current GI typologies do not systematically identify such opportunities.We address this knowledge gap by developing a new typology incorporating political, economic, and eco-logical forces shaping GI implementation. Applying this information allows symmetrical, place-basedexploration of the social and ecological elements driving a city’s GI systems. We use this informationto distinguish current levels of GI development and clarify intervention opportunities to advance GI intothe mainstream of metropolitan infrastructure. We employ three case studies (San Antonio, Texas; Auck-land, New Zealand; and New York, New York) to test and refine our typology.

� 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction and background We chose three cities (New York, Auckland, and San Antonio) as

In December 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF)funded the ‘‘Greening of Cities International Workshop on GreenUrban Infrastructure’’ in Auckland, New Zealand. Workshop orga-nizers invited practitioners and researchers from North America,Asia, and Oceania to initiate a discussion around ‘‘the potentialfor incorporating Green Infrastructure [GI] into cities.’’ Participantswere charged with identifying research needs and strategies to‘‘provide the knowledge needed to better understand how greeninfrastructure can benefit. . .its communities.’’ Specifically, partici-pants were to locate ‘‘knowledge gaps’’ slowing mainstreamingof urban GI (NSF, 2012).

During the meeting, consensus emerged that absence of aneffective urban GI development typology was a primary gap. Par-ticipants agreed existing typologies were of limited value in tworespects. First, they provided little assistance in comparing relativelevels of GI development between cities and second, they wereinadequate as strategic tools for advancing GI. A more robust typol-ogy would enable cities to identify their present stage of GI devel-opment and more effectively map out next steps and interventionsfor mainstreaming GI. In this paper we critically review existing GItypologies and attempt to develop a more robust format address-ing participant concerns.

case studies to explore both the value of the typology and datacompiled in urban GI plans. City selection was not intended to becomprehensive but rather an exploratory sample from differentsocial and ecological settings. New York City and Auckland are bothdominant global cities in their respective countries while San Anto-nio represents a rapidly growing regional metropolitan center. Theformer cities are situated in deciduous, temperate forest biomes(one in the northern and the other in the southern hemisphere)while the latter is located in a drier, forest/grassland setting. NewYork and San Antonio have recently been subject to pronouncedecological disturbances while Auckland currently faces more dif-fuse ecological pressures.

1.1. Defining GI

While the fundamental concept and practice of urban GI datesback to the earliest emergence of cities, it gained particularmomentum responding to the Industrial Revolution’s social andecological impacts and subsequent rise in urbanization (Pötz andBleuze, 2012; McHarg, 1992; Mumford, 1961; Young, 2009).

As these trends continue, numerous researchers and practitio-ners have more explicitly refined GI’s meaning. Benedict andMcMahon’s (2006) definition has been widely adopted, identifyingGI as ‘‘an interconnected network of natural areas and other openspaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sus-tains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits topeople and wildlife’’ (Benedict and McMahon, 2006, p. 12).

http://

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.048

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221694

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol



2 R. Young et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Other definitions, such as promulgated by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA), go beyond ecologicalsystems to include human technology, identifying GI as an ‘‘adapt-able term used to describe an array of products, technologies, andpractices that use natural systems – or engineered systems thatmimic natural processes – to enhance overall environmental qual-ity and provide utility services’’ (USEPA, 2013b). The NSF AucklandWorkshop adopted a similar definition labeling GI: ‘‘Natural andengineered ecological systems which integrate with the built envi-ronment to provide the widest possible range of ecological, com-munity, and infrastructure services’’ (NSF, 2012, p. 5).

These latter definitions incorporate ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘human engi-neered’’ components (ecological and social elements) as funda-mentally defining GI. Another element they share is defining GIas much by its production of ecosystem services as by its existenceas physical artifact. Like other structural components supportingmetropolitan systems, GI is only infrastructure through its abilityto deliver goods and services. As a result, our critical explorationincludes both ecosystem service and GI typologies. We felt thisappropriate to developing a more robust urban GI typology inclu-sive of both social and ecological elements.

Indeed, as researchers note, merely cataloguing separate socialand ecological processes is insufficient. Rather, they argue, to planand develop them effectively it is vital to understand whatFreudenburg (1995) term their ‘‘conjoint constitution’’: the factthat social and ecological spheres not only influence but co-createeach other (Dow, 2000; Freudenburg, 1995; Goldman andSchurman, 2000; Pickering, 1996). As Freudenburg et al. note,‘‘What we take to be ‘physical facts’ are likely to be strongly shapedby social construction processes, and at the same time, what wetake to be ‘strictly social’ will often have been shaped in part bytaken-for-granted realities of the physical world’’ (Freudenburg,1995, p. 361). Thus ecological and social phenomena, while oftenstudied separately, are in fact two parts of a singular co-creativeprocess or conjoint constitution.

GI, by its very nature, occupies an amplified position at thissocio-ecological crossroads: combining ecological and social pro-cesses within planning to simultaneously enhance social and eco-logical health. Successfully uniting these forces requires a similarlyunified method. As Redman et al. note, ‘‘[i]t is no longer tenable tostudy ecological and social systems in isolation from one another’’thus invoking an ‘‘urgent need to construct new approachesthat emphasize an integrative framework equipped with compre-hensive models’’ (Redman et al., 2004, p. 161). Constructing a GIplanning typology, consistently encompassing social and ecologi-cal factors, is fundamental to this framework.

1.2. Typologies

Developing such a framework poses a particular set of chal-lenges. Social and ecological dynamics are immensely complex.This attribute is further amplified by efforts to integrate them(through GI) to transform the functionality of metropolitanlandscapes.

Challenges of complexity confront many arenas. In response,‘‘typology as a scientific discipline and method of research is usedextensively in various fields’’ (Vujicic, 2011, p. 1). Typologies, clas-sifications grouped according to general types, constructively har-ness this intricacy: ‘‘The complexity of. . .phenomenon. . .points tothe necessity to create a theoretical basis as a starting point fromwhich to direct the process of their transformation. The first stepneeded to achieve this goal is to systematize the knowledge of thisarea and subject matter. In that sense, typological classification asa scientific discipline and method represents a solid tool which canenable the systematization of the knowledge that exists, obtainmore easily the information and facts which are still unknown,

Please cite this article in press as: Young, R., et al. A comprehensive typologydx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.048

and connect the old with the newly acquired knowledge into a sin-gle system’’ (Vujicic, 2011, p. 1).

Typologies have long provided this function in both the physicaland social sciences (Linnaeus, 1735; Park et al., 1925; Harris et al.,2005). They also offer cross-disciplinary opportunities for moreholistic comprehension of particularly intricate issues.

This shared understanding becomes the basis for more accurateplanning and policy interventions. For example, in 1998 the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a nationalfarming typology for ‘‘statistics portraying the characteristics ofthe ‘average farm’ are not representative of most farms’’ (Hoppeand MacDonald, 2013, p. 1). The typology presented ‘‘a more effec-tive policy development tool’’ for advancing agricultural productiv-ity and resilience (Hoppe et al., 2000, p. 1).

Typologies are widely employed to identify planning and policyopportunities in industry, e-commerce, architecture, agriculture,neighborhood development, river management, forestry, and greeninfrastructure (Brown, 2000; Hoppe et al., 2000; Lopez et al., 2008;Lupton et al., 2011; Markusen, 1996; Mell, 2009; Turak and Koop,2008; Zook, 2002). Their strength derives from the fact that ‘‘thedevelopment of typologies based on multiple factors takes accountof far more complexity in its analysis than simpler categoriza-tions. . .while producing an end product – the types of areas –which is relatively simple.’’ (Lupton et al., 2011, p. 8). Researchersnote typology used as planning tools ‘‘were likely to increase, asdepartments sought more sophisticated evidence for policy, publicfunding constraints became tighter, and responsibilities wereincreasingly devolved to more local levels’’ (Lupton et al., 2011,p. 11).

Devising a typology encompassing social and ecological factors,while organizing their complexity in a coherent manner, can assistplanners and policy makers in shaping more targeted metropolitanGI strategies. Munich offers an example. German researchers, crit-ical of rigid urban planning systems observed that, ‘‘in the 1980s,an alternative green space planning typology was developed. . .thatwas closer to the themes of green infrastructure. . .The use of thistypology in Munich provided German planners with an alternativeview of infrastructure development that allowed greenspace plan-ning to be discussed outside the normal restraints of planning pol-icy.’’ As a result, ‘‘by using an alternative process for greenspaceplanning, Munich was able to highlight the value of its resourcebase and improve its provision of connective networks of greenspace’’ (Pauleit et al., 2003; Mell, 2010, p. 214).

2. Critique of existing GI typologies

Researchers have attempted a number of GI and ecosystem ser-vices typologies (Ahern, 1995; Davies et al., 2006; De Groot et al.,2002; Dunnett et al., 2002; European Environment Agency (EEA),2011; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005; Naumannet al., 2011; Tzoulas et al., 2007). These attempts derive from stake-holder and academic driven processes and include field research aswell as syntheses of existing data. They encompass ecological andsocial components through a variety of scales and approaches,from global ecosystems to specific ecosystem services and GImechanisms. Despite differences in scope and approach all eventu-ally aim at enhancing GI outputs through improved social and eco-logical planning. However, as noted below, existing typologies areweak in several categories critical to GI planning including politi-cal, economic, and ecological factors such as ownership and mar-kets (i.e., who benefits from GI mechanisms). As a result, existingtypologies function as descriptive tools but provide limited insightinto intervention strategies for advancing GI adoption.

Ahern’s typology (1995), derived from greenways research inthe US and Netherlands is useful, in part, for identifying a GI

for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. J. Hydrol. (2014), http://



R. Young et al. / Journal of Hydrology xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

system’s overall elements. Organized around scale, goals, land-scape context, and strategy it notes, in general terms, possiblepolitical jurisdictions over variously scaled GI. However the typol-ogy provides little information regarding where investments inpolicy and planning could advance community GI to subsequentlevels of complexity or service delivery.

De Groot et al.’s typology (2002) proposes to provide ‘‘classifica-tion, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods andservices’’ generated by GI. The authors divide ecosystems accord-ing to functions, i.e. regulatory, habitat, production, and informa-tion (de Groot et al., 2002, p. 395).

While treating GI outputs more specifically than Ahern, deGroot et al.’s approach remains abstract from specific ecosystem/GI types. Examples of ecosystem process and potential benefitsare proposed, however, the authors do not relate them to any par-ticular ecological/GI formations (e.g., grassland, wetlands, greenroofs, bioswales). In addition, although de Groot et al. clearly linkecological processes to potential social benefits, they do notinclude social and ecological drivers influencing these processesand benefits (e.g., political and ecological disturbance regimes,grassroots demands, ecological context).

The typology developed by Dunnett et al. (2002) moves in con-tradistinction to that of de Groot et al. (2002). Like de Groot, Dun-nett divides green space into four main categories: amenity greenspace, functional green space, semi-natural habitats, and lineargreen space (subsequently divided into 26 sub-categories), how-ever, they lack the consistency of de Groot et al.’s focus on function.

Instead, Dunnett et al.’s groupings alternate ambiguous con-cepts of human benefit (‘‘amenity,’’ ‘‘functional’’) with description(‘‘semi-natural’’) and spatial configuration (‘‘linear’’). The typol-ogy’s sub-categorizations also lack consistency, distributed acrossa mixture of socially-based meaning (i.e. ‘‘recreational greenspace,’’ ‘‘institutional grounds,’’ etc.) and ecosystem descriptors(i.e. ‘‘wetland,’’ ‘‘woodland,’’ etc.).

The authors’ primary focus is to provide ‘‘a reporting frameworkfor information about the extent of different types of green space’’(Dunnett et al., 2002, p. 9). While this inventory could tally totalacres of various, possibly interrelated, categories of green space itleaves potential ecological value, services, or markets unaddressed.

The authors do reference ownership patterns, highlightingissues of access and maintenance, but do not apply them consis-tently. For instance, the subcategory ‘‘private green space’’ includesonly ‘‘domestic gardens’’ while other green space categories remain‘‘value free’’ in terms of ownership, investment, or appropriated(captured) benefit. In an appendix cataloging a hypothetical com-munity’s urban green space, however, the authors apply ownershipand access to all green space categories revealing more than half thecity’s green space under private control and, it can be assumedregimes of private investment and appropriation. While this, ironi-cally, runs independent of their typology, it provides some frame-work for analyzing potential interventions to advance urban GI.

The United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessmenttypology (2005) has been widely promulgated. It offers a well-articulated understanding of ecological and social ‘‘conjointconstitution’’ introducing, in a more conceptually comprehensivemanner than Dunnett et al., the importance of property relationsin determining GI systems.

The MEA’s typology identifies four GI ecosystem services cate-gories (supporting, e.g., primary production and soil formation; pro-visioning, e.g., food, water, fiber, fuel; regulating, e.g., climate andflood regulation; and cultural, e.g., spiritual and aesthetic). In addi-tion, it recognizes five social constituents (security; basic materialinputs to a good life, e.g., shelter and adequate food; good social rela-tions, e.g., social cohesion and mutual respect; health; and freedomof choice and action) affected by GI outputs and driving social andecological change.


The MEA inventories ecosystem-based GI outputs and supports‘‘response options’’ to ecosystem degradation. The MEA recognizestheir typology’s insufficiencies regarding local ecological context,ecosystem health, relationships between GI outputs and humanwell-being, and social science research, noting ‘‘significantadvances are needed in models that link ecological and social pro-cesses’’ (MEA, 2005, p. 102). In response, the MEA includes somesub-global assessments.

Davies et al.’s (2006) typology is similar to Dunnett et al. (2002).Stakeholders in Northeast England developed a ‘‘Green Infrastruc-ture Planning Guide’’ ‘‘to provide a more informed and systematicway to consider the competing priorities of green infrastructurewithin the spatial planning process’’ (Davies et al., 2006, p. 1). Thisguide generated Davies et al.’s typology.

Like Dunnett et al., the typology’s components are defined, in nodiscernable order, by a variety of means including ecological desig-nation, social function, and status: e.g. ‘‘inter-tidal zone,’’ ‘‘orch-ard,’’ and ‘‘active and disused mineral workings and quarries’’(Davies et al., 2006, p. 2). The result is an extensive list (42 catego-ries) lacking clear classifications through which planners couldidentify strategic GI interventions.

Tzoulas et al. (2007) harnessed GI typology ‘‘to formulate a con-ceptual framework of associations between urban green space andecosystem and human health’’ (Tzoulas et al., 2007, p. 2). Theirtypology’s approach is drawn largely from Dunnett et al.’s (2002)report to the UK’s Department for Transport ‘‘because it includesgreen spaces of all types of origin, ownership and function’’(Tzoulas et al., 2007, p. 24). However, as noted above, these catego-ries, as presented, are often inconsistent, abstract, and of limitedvalue in determining specific cultural or political strategies foradvancing urban GI.

The European Environment Agency’s (EEA) report ‘‘Green infra-structure and territorial cohesion’’ supports ‘‘the European processtoward territorial cohesion and green infrastructure development’’(EEA, 2011, p. 6). Mirroring de Groot et al.’s four principal catego-ries (regulatory, habitat, production, and information) with similardesignations (regulatory, habitat, provisioning and cultural) andsubsequent sub-categories drawn from the MEA, the EEA outlines‘‘benefits of green infrastructure grouped according to main eco-system service types’’ (EEA, 2011, p. 10).

While the EEA does not identify the role of specific GI systemsproducing these benefits, it acknowledges potential opportunitiesand conflict between EU policies and GI ecosystem service produc-tion (for example, directives to increase biofuel production’spotential damage to forest cover, ecosystem multifunctionality,and habitat). The report takes closest aim at the policy level, leav-ing issues of specific strategies, ecological drivers, markets, owner-ship, and appropriation of GI value beyond the inquiry’s scope.

Naumann et al.’s (2011) typology derived from a report to theEuropean Commission, seeks to identify ‘‘key parameters. . .to facil-itate an increased understanding of differences in focus, emphasis,and characteristics between initiatives [rather] than to identify dis-tinct types of categories of green infrastructure projects’’(Naumann et al., 2011, p. 2).

The ‘‘parameters, sub-categories, and definitions’’ proposed inNaumann’s report encompass a robust set of factors. These includeObjectives (e.g. clean water or biodiversity conservation), Actions(e.g. spatial planning or increasing public awareness), Green infra-structure elements (e.g. protected areas, reforestation zones or tech-nology implementation), Ecosystem covered (e.g. forest, grassland,and rivers), Sectors affected (e.g. agriculture, forestry, transport,and urban and regional planning), Setting (e.g. rural, urban, orperi-urban), and Geographic scale (e.g. local/regional/national ortransnational).

Naumann’s typology goes a considerable distance in acknowl-edging and integrating the social and ecological factors





constituting GI projects and policies. While the categorization of GIprojects currently in Europe is well met, it leaves unexplained thesocial and ecological forces driving different GI efforts into being.Furthermore, it leaves issues of ownership, markets, and appropria-tion of value generated by GI programs unaddressed. As a result,while offering strong descriptive tools for identifying levels of GIdevelopment in communities, the typology provides GI advocatesand planners limited insight into intervention strategies for advanc-ing GI adoption.

Dobbs et al. (2011) proposes to refine previous typologies bydeveloping ecosystem output indicators for forest-related urbanGI. Like its antecedents, Dobbs et al. highlight connections betweenecological functions and social processes. Acknowledging such‘‘conjoint constitution,’’ they argue, could create more useful tools,dependent, however, upon ‘‘socio-political as well as biophysicalcontexts’’ (Dobbs et al., 2011, p. 197). This context, they observe,is often overlooked. Citing Segnestam (2002), Dobbs et al. noteassigning values to GI ecosystem services ‘‘does not provide infor-mation on the causality behind the value assigned.’’

While acknowledging this common gap in previous typologies,Dobbs et al. remark a lack of information about social and ecolog-ical drivers limits their own framework (Dobbs et al., 2011, p. 197).In addition, similar to typologies discussed above, Dobbs et al.leave specific issues of ownership, markets, and the appropriationof GI benefits largely unaddressed.

In sum, existing typologies function to varying degrees as toolsfor describing levels of GI development. However, lacking informa-tion on social and ecological context, drivers, markets, and valueappropriation, current GI typologies provide planners, policy mak-ers, and the general public with limited insight into how toadvance GI adoption. Our typology seeks to fill this gap.

3. Planning and urban GI

Mell (2013) observes ‘‘the role green infrastructure holds inurban planning practice’’ is to placing ecological tools within theplanning process (Mell, 2013, p. 29). As a result, ‘‘human interac-tions with this process are central to the success of green infra-structure investments’’ (Mell, 2013, p. 30). However, divisionsbetween GI policy formulation (occurring largely at national levels)and implementation (occurring largely at regional or city levels)result in ‘‘an ongoing debate assessing the value of such policy intranslating Green Infrastructure principles into practice’’ (Mell,2013, p. 36).

As the MEA notes, a cause of this disconnect is translating gen-eral, global, or abstract categories into on-the-ground assessmentsand intervention strategies. Another cause is under-articulation ofcritical social factors including political power, markets, propertyrelations, and appropriation of GI-related value. While, as Mellargues, a ‘‘green infrastructure approach to planning has providedplanners with a far greater scope to review the interactionsbetween people, the landscape and the resource base of a givenurban area,’’ not articulating these factors undercuts its planningpotential (Mell, 2013, p. 36). GI typologies failing to identify theseconnections cannot bridge the theory/policy gap to support strate-gic implementation.

4. Toward a new typology of urban GI

In response we propose a new typology for urban GI. We do soassuming there is interest in GI systems becoming fundamental tometropolitan infrastructure. We also assume GI capable of produc-ing quantifiably equivalent or superior technical and social out-comes compared to grey infrastructure, thus providing significantcomponents of a city’s service-delivery systems (De Sousa et al.,


2012; Dunn, 2010; Wise, 2008). As a result our typology seeks togather information required to support decision-making andinvestment necessary to transform GI into a mainstream mecha-nism of urban infrastructure.

As noted, typologies require ‘‘a theoretical basis as a startingpoint from which to direct the process of. . .transformation’’(Vujicic, 2011, p. 1). To transition to metropolitan-scale GI, the the-ory must reconceptualize large-scale anthropomorphic systems toencompass a broader ecological basis, identifying a variety offorms, and acknowledging their evolutionary capability (Benedictand McMahon, 2006; Costanza et al., 1997; Geddes, 1915).

We draw from Marcel Mazoyer and Laurence Roudart’s theoryof agrarian systems to inform our approach (Mazoyer andRoudart, 2006). Mazoyer and Roudart characterize agriculture ‘‘asa complex ecological and economic object, composed of severalcategories of production units that exploit different types of terrainand diverse species of cultivated plants and animals’’ to producesocially useful results (Mazoyer and Roudart, 2006, p. 21). Thiscomplexity manifests in ‘‘observable forms’’ which ‘‘vary accordingto place’’ and as conditions change, evolve over time. ThroughMazoyer and Roudart’s approach, ‘‘the evolution of social struc-tures and technologies is described as a succession of crises andthe discoveries to overcome them’’ providing ‘‘a major contributionto the. . .reflection on the long-term economic, social, and environ-mental development of society’’ (Griffon, 2008, pp. 609, 610).

GI can be typified in a similar manner. It is a complex systemencompassing social and ecological elements evolving in responseto local and general challenges such as flooding, urban heat islandeffect, climate change, and public health issues. Its drivers andcharacter vary according to region and social priorities. Further-more, it is capable of transforming anthropomorphic systems toencompass broader ecological dynamics in the production ofsocially useful outputs. As a result, we view Mazoyer and Roudart’stheory as a valuable starting point to critically comprehend andanalyze different GI systems.

Our approach recognizes GI systems as ecological and socialobjects composed of several categories of production unitsresponding to different social and ecological conditions and engag-ing diverse labor processes, GI strategies, and built forms. We iden-tify specific ecological forces influencing GI formations and includein our investigation social forces incorporating political power andkey economic elements such as labor processes, ownership, mar-kets, and appropriation regimes. In this manner we hope to providethe basis for a typology useful in mainstreaming GI systems.

4.1. Trajectory of GI development

It is important to understand a significant part of our typologyviews GI as dynamic and evolutionary rather than as fixed systemsisolated from social and ecological change. Thus the interaction ofsocial and ecological relationships present in a given GI systemcontinually determines its present level of development.

Mirroring Mazoyer and Roudart we suggest four main develop-ment categories: general, unequal, contradictory, and in-crisis(Table 1). These categories reflect potential trajectories for GI sys-tems. Their purpose is to provide GI planners, advocates and policymakers the ability to situate the present direction of their overallGI efforts and compare it with other cities’ trajectories. Suchlarge-scale categorization is used in many other planning fields.Indicators including GNP, consumer confidence, unemploymentrates, or the Dow Jones Industrials provide benchmarks that allowother states, companies, communities, and investors to roughlylocate their position in relation to other entities and trajectoriesof change. While a rising GNP or consumer confidence ratingmay not reflect similar advancements by individual companies orcommunities it allows their performance to be situated in relation




Table 1Green infrastructure system development trajectory.

Development stage Production unit dynamics

General development Social and ecological production units makingprogress, by� Acquiring new means of production� Developing their operations� Increasing their economic size and income

Unequal Some units making progress more quickly thanothers

Contradictory Some units progressing while others are regressingIn-crisis Every type of production unit is in regression and

tending toward disappearance


to overall trends. Strategies altering individual trajectories in rela-tion to larger trends can then be developed.

In our framework, communities can reference more finelydetailed information in the typology’s examination of social andecological settings, drivers, production systems, etc. (see below)to determine where investments are necessary to advance theirparticular program. While finer levels of information will not pre-scribe whether or where a particular green roof (for example)should be installed, it will help identify broader planning initia-tives such as whether to investigate greater incentives for privatesector involvement, ramp up efforts to secure more state or federalsupport, or create more comprehensive regulatory or reportingmechanisms to identify and capture the value generated by GIsystems.

General development reflect GI systems whose social and ecolog-ical production units are gaining new ecological and social meansof production, growing their operations, and increasing their eco-nomic size and income. Acquiring new means of productionincludes expanding the scale of GI systems (e.g., magnifying GIplanning from individual buildings to whole neighborhoods orwatersheds) and volume of production (e.g., expanded initiativesin planting street trees, installation of green roofs, rain gardens,urban forests, etc.). This category also includes increasing accessto different types of land ownership (e.g., both private and publicland).

Operations growth includes expansion and intensification ofmaintenance and stewardship regimes as well as diversificationof GI methods appropriate to a city’s biome. It also includes diver-sification and elevation of the social status of its labor process andinstitutionalization of effective GI-related governance and deci-sion-making.

Increasing the economic size and income of GI systems includesfactors such as expanding the scope and volume of GI benefits.Coupled to this is creating institutionalized market feedback mech-anisms to propel further GI development. Markets are not confinedto the private sector but can include public and community sectormarkets as well. Connected to market development is institution-alizing effective means for capturing the ecosystem services valuegenerated by GI. Therefore, increasing income also includesincreasing the breadth of the population appropriating value fromGI development.

Unequal development describes GI systems where some socialand ecological components of the program’s production units aredeveloping more quickly than others but are doing so within a gen-eral advancement of the system as a whole. Contradictory develop-ment represents GI systems where some of production units aredeveloping while others regress. Finally, GI systems are deemedin-crisis when all of a GI system’s social and ecological productionunits are in regression and tending toward disappearance.

Since dynamic interaction of GI systems’ social and ecologicalfactors continually determine development levels, understandingthe character and trajectory of settings, drivers, and production


systems that provoke and distinguish such systems is vital (See fig-ure two below).

4.2. GI social system

4.2.1. Setting and driversDetermining a GI system’s social setting and drivers is funda-

mental to understanding GI context and motivation. Politicalpower is a key force shaping social settings within which GI canadvance. Thus our typology includes information on specific gover-nance regimes surrounding GI efforts. Furthermore, determiningsocial components driving particular GI systems both externallyand in situ strengthen a typology’s analytical power. For example,understanding local governance structures enabled Chicago GIadvocates to develop more effective coalitions. Bringing togethergrassroots organizations with the city’s ‘‘strong mayor’’ form ofgovernment enabled GI planners to rapidly place GI on agendasof city agencies who had no previous commitment to its imple-mentation (Young, 2010). In New York City and Philadelphia lever-aging external federal clean water mandates enabled GI advocatesto make major innovations in large-scale GI innovation (Madden,2010; Pires, 2004).

4.2.2. Social production systemIdentifying social production systems characterizing GI includes

describing specific GI production units at levels of scale and meansof production. Determining specific GI systems social configura-tions including status of GI-related labor, property ownership,and modes of access is also necessary.

For instance, experimenting with diverse sources of communitylabor enabled Los Angeles and New York City GI planners to accel-erate tree-planting operations while building neighborhood-levelsupport for GI. Meanwhile, Denver’s inability to induce significantprivate landholder participation limited the initial reach of thecity’s GI programs (Young, 2011).

Understanding decision-making is also fundamental to graspingthe social dynamics of GI production systems. Determining thedegree of hierarchical or decentralized decision-making and insti-tutionalized feedback loops for program re-calibration, as reflectedin Chicago’s experience, is central. Also, identifying specific public,community, and private sectors roles in each is essential to per-ceiving the trajectory and appropriate intervention points of givenGI systems.

Comprehending external social relationships surrounding GIsystems is also important. Cataloguing upstream inputs such asfunding, policies, and labor can help categorize drivers influencinga program. Identifying downstream outputs are equally important.Components such as local and external consumption of GI ecosys-tem services, existing markets for those services, and the nature ofthe appropriation of their value are necessary to locating a pro-gram’s level of development and influence.

New York City’s regional clean water strategy illustrates thispoint on a grand scale. Understanding the value of ecosystem ser-vices generated in the Catskill region and appropriated down-stream by the City enabled New York City to promote and securefederal recognition of their regional GI strategy, thus avoiding hun-dreds of millions of dollars of federally mandated grey infrastruc-ture costs (NYDEC, 2013).

4.3. GI ecological system

4.3.1. Setting and driversIdentifying GI systems’ existing ecological context can provide

significant insight about the challenges, possibilities, and purposesof a GI system. This can inform understanding of ecological forces(both in situ and external) driving investments in GI. These forces





can include recent disturbance events and longer-term ecologicaltransformations.

A case in point is Albuquerque, New Mexico where efforts toadvance the city’s urban forestry program brought resistance fromcitizens who doubted that type of GI intervention was appropriatein a high-desert setting. Meanwhile, GI has gained new support inNew Orleans and New York where deployment of tidal marshesand riparian and wetland restoration are now seen, in the wakeof significant regional ecological disturbance, as important toolsin the region’s infrastructure development (Young, 2011;Gunther, 2014).

4.3.2. Ecological production systemComprehending GI programs’ ecological units of production;

systems of management, maintenance, and appropriation of eco-system services; and the relation of cultivated and non-cultivatedaspects of GI systems to ‘‘external’’ ecosystems can help identifya community’s level of GI development and potential opportunitiesfor intervention. It also illuminates GI systems’ external ecologicalimpacts (Table 2).

While understanding individual social and ecological factorshas helped cities move components of their GI programs closerto the mainstream of urban infrastructure, lacking a systematicapproach often results in piecemeal implementation. Unifyingthese factors into a comprehensive typology, however, offers amechanism for planners, advocates, and decision makers to deviseand implement more inclusive GI strategies with greater chancesof on-the-ground success.

5. Findings: Case studies

We use three case studies (New York City, San Antonio, Texasand Auckland, New Zealand) to test our typology. We chose these

Table 2Green infrastructure system typology.

Social system Ec

Setting SeType of existing social system (e.g., regional government, municipal government,

mayor/city manager, strong executive/weak executive, strong/weakneighborhood councils)

Ty

Drivers DrSocial components driving the GI system (in situ and external) (e.g., recent

elections, social unrest, new state/federal regulations, fed/state/local policies,funding, community needs)

Ecdicl

Social production system CuGI production units� Scale (building, block, neighborhood, city-wide, metropolitan region)

� Means of production (e.g., street trees, green roofs, wetlands, swales, rain gar-dens, open grassland, permeable pavement, etc.)

GI social configuration of labor� Social status of its labor (e.g., familial, wage, cooperative, volunteer, coerced [i.e.

inmates])� Status of property ownership (e.g., public, private, non-profit/community

lands)� Mode of access to the land (owner occupied, permitted access to public lands,

permitted access to private lands, illegal access to public or private lands)GIsocial configuration of decision-making� Hierarchical/decentralized� Community, private sector, and public sector roles� Institutionalized feedback loops for program re-calibration

External relationshipsUpstream (input) relationship analysis� Funding� Policy� Labor (e.g., outside contract labor/consulting)

Downstream relationship (output) analysis� Consumption of ecosystem services (local/external)� Markets of ecosystem services (local/external/in-kind/none)� Appropriation of value from ecosystem services (centralized/decentralized,

public/private, reinvested/expropriated)


cities not as a comprehensive set but as diverse ground to explorethe typology’s potential value and the sufficiency of data reflectedin urban GI plans. New York City and Auckland are principal citiesin their respective countries as well as located in deciduous, tem-perate forest biomes. San Antonio is located in a forest/grasslandbiome and part of the ‘‘Texas Triangle’’ – the fastest growing con-urbation in the United States. While San Antonio and New Yorkexperienced significant ecological impacts associated with climatechange in 2011 (drought killing over 300 million trees in Texas andHurricane Sandy in New York), Auckland considers itself facingdeteriorating environmental indices and significant populationgrowth, but more diffuse climate change challenges (Antheset al., 2006; Peterson et al., 2012; Trenberth, 2012; The AucklandPlan, 2012b; Texas A&M, 2012).

5.1. Case study-New York City

5.1.1. Social system5.1.1.1. Setting and drivers. New York City’s municipal governmentis organized under a City Charter providing a ‘‘strong’’ form ofmayor-council governance. As a result, the political setting of thecity is more centralized than most other US cities. Public education,public safety, recreational facilities, sanitation and water supplyare all among municipal government’s portfolio of responsibilities.

New York City’s Charter provides local representation through59 neighborhood Community Boards. The Boards serve an advisoryrole on issues of service delivery and public development withintheir neighborhoods. Community Boards must be consultedregarding most land use and development proposals prior to place-ment of public facilities or zoning changes in their districts. TheCity Council is required to review Community Board recommenda-tions. The city’s Charter also enables Boards to initiate their owndistrict growth and quality of life plans.

ological system

ttingpe of existing ecological system: (e.g., desert biome, forest biome, etc.)

iversological components driving the GI system (in situ and external) (e.g., recentsturbance event [flood, drought, pest, fire, etc.], longer-tem ecological change [e.g.imate change], etc.)ltivated ecosystem� GI subparts (e.g., forests, meadows, gardens, etc.)� System (schedule and level of technology) of management, maintenance, and

‘‘harvesting’’ (capturing ecosystem services, e.g., potable water)� Connection/relation of cultivated ecosystem to ‘‘external’’ ecosystems (e.g.,

connects to greenbelt, natural riparian ways)

External relationships� Impact of ecosystem services on other green infrastructure/ecological systems





Social drivers of NYC’s GI program include external and internallegislation and planning. External factors include the 1972 CleanWater Act (and its amendments) empowering the USEPA to issueregulations to reduce pollution in national waterways. Subse-quently, the USEPA’s 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Con-trol Policy tightened municipal CSO discharge management,requiring immediate minimum controls and long-term controlplanning (USEPA, 2013a,b) and was amended by the 106th Con-gress’s Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000 (US Congress,1999).

At the state level, New York State’s Department of Environmen-tal Conservation enforcement of the federal Wet Weather QualityAct enables municipalities to deploy GI as an abatement strategy(NYSDEC, 2013).

Internal social drivers include New York City’s ‘‘plaNYC’’ com-prehensive planning agenda initiated by Mayor Bloomberg. Theplan encourages the City to ‘‘explore the potential of more naturalsolutions to cleanse and filter our waterways’’ (plaNYC, 2007 p. 50).The plan specifies strategies to ‘‘expand efforts to harness our envi-ronment as a natural water filter’’ including enhancing NYC’s‘‘Bluebelt’’ system engaging wetlands, stream restoration, outletstilling basins, and sand filters; planting one million trees; andredesigning streetscapes to slow and filter additional rainfall(plaNYC, 2007 p. 50).

5.1.1.2. Social production system. NYC’s GI programs are currentlydeployed through neighborhood-scale interventions. There aretwo major exceptions. First is NYC’s program to secure the qualityof its regional water supply through conservation easements, landpurchases, and nutrient management education in the Catskill andlower Hudson Valley watersheds supplying NYC. The second isNYC’s Million Tree planting initiative to plant one million treescitywide over 20 years augmenting canopy cover and increasingwater retention and runoff control. A third, minor exception isNYC’s distribution of 2000 rain barrels in four of the City’s five bor-oughs (NYC Green Infrastructure Plan Update, 2011).

Beyond regional and citywide programs, NYC is introducingbuilding, block, and neighborhood level GI interventions. Examplesinclude three Neighborhood Demonstration Areas launched ‘‘totest the effectiveness of green infrastructure systems on a largerscale’’ in the Bronx River, Jamaica Bay, and Newtown Creek water-sheds (NYC Green Infrastructure Plan Update 2011, p. 15). Theseinterventions are mainly deployed on public lands and rights-of-way including streets and public schools and housing.

5.1.1.3. Means of production. New York City currently deploys andis expanding a full suite of GI means of production including streettrees, green roofs, protected wetlands, bioswales, rain gardens,urban farms, and permeable pavement with the objective of man-aging 10% of NYC’s combined sewer tributary areas through GI by2030. These efforts include planting one million new trees;increasing Greenstreets from 204 to 239 acres; constructing 92stormwater wetlands to service 13,700 acres; and constructing5900 new bioswales (plaNYC, 2007).

5.1.1.4. Social status of labor. Predominately public sector laborconstructs and maintains NYC’s GI projects. However, the city iscreating a community-based ‘‘Stewardship Corps’’ to enable neigh-borhood-level GI maintenance. The city also issued regulationsprompting private developers ‘‘to capture more storm water run-off, to provide additional capacity in the combined sewer system,and to reduce street flooding. Enhancing an already existingrequirement to manage stormwater, the rule means that develop-ers will employ more green roofs, blue roofs, rain gardens, anddetention techniques, and will also minimize impervious areas to


the extent possible’’ (NYC Green Infrastructure Plan Update 2011,p. 9).

5.1.1.5. Status of property ownership. The majority of NYC GI projectinstallations has taken place and is planned on public lands andrights-of-way. Some new regulations and grant programs requireor enable, respectively, private developers and property ownersto implement GI methods.

5.1.1.6. Mode of access to the land. Most NYC GI development con-sists of public agencies and employees accessing public land toimplement and maintain GI projects. Private companies andemployees are induced, indirectly through regulation, to includeGI systems in ‘‘new construction and major building alteration pro-jects’’ (NYC Green Infrastructure Update 2011, p. 9).

5.1.1.7. Configuration of decision-making. Traditional top-downpublic sector planning generates the vast majority of NYC’s GIdevelopment. Mandates of an agreement between NYC and NewYork’s Department of Environmental Conservation regarding theCity’s CSO abatement are the central driver of the City’s GI efforts.The Mayor’s Office and various city agencies including the Parks,Transit, Public Housing, and Environmental Protection depart-ments have been responsible for selecting, planning, and executingthe majority of GI projects related to meeting the mandates.

While planning and decision making resides predominatelywithin NYC’s municipal government, the city has established sev-eral adjunct bodies to enable input from and communication withcitizen, community, and private sector representatives. Theseinclude the Green Infrastructure Citizen’s group, the Green Infra-structure Steering Committee to ‘‘foster stewardship of green infra-structure’’ (NYC Green Infrastructure Update 2011 p. 23).

5.1.1.8. Inputs. New York City developed a ‘‘Green InfrastructureFund’’ encumbering $187 million through fiscal year 2015; the Cityalso included $735 million in its 10-year capital budget, ‘‘and isprepared to commit $1.5 billion through fiscal year 2030’’ (NewYork City Green Infrastructure Plan Update 2011, p. 3).

5.1.1.9. Outputs. Ecosystem services generated by NYC’s GI systemsare consumed primarily at the local, neighborhood level. However,as the system grows more robust, municipal agencies responsiblefor environmental quality will become increasing consumers ofecosystem services predominantly through projected avoidedcosts.

Municipal government largely appropriates the value (actualand potential) generated by NYC’s GI projects as avoided coststhrough elimination ($1.4 billion) and deferral ($2 billion) ofstate-mandated grey infrastructure investments. No mechanismscurrently exist to capture the value of outputs such as carbonsequestration, pollution or wetland mitigation.

NYC’s GI systems’ market value is currently captured by central-ized public and decentralized community-based appropriation.The centralized public appropriation is manifested in (consider-able) avoided costs of meeting state and federally mandated cleanwater requirements through grey infrastructure. The decentral-ized, community-based appropriation is manifested in use-valueextracted by residents from the greening of their neighborhoods(i.e., reduced flooding incidents, community beautification, etc.).

The GI grant program has recently financed some non-profitand private sector GI investments that may generate increased realestate values privately appropriated by these organizations.

5.1.2. Ecological system5.1.2.1. Setting and drivers. New York City is in a coastal, estuary,temperate forest biome standing approximately 33 feet above





sea level. The city contains seven watersheds connecting to twomajor rivers and the Atlantic Ocean. The Hurricane Sandy floodshad significant ecological impact, driving the acceptance of GI aspart of NYC’s infrastructure planning.

5.1.2.2. Cultivated ecosystem. As noted, NYC’s GI program includesadding one million trees to the urban forest, expanding the acreageof meadow-like green roofs and traffic medians, wetlands, rain gar-dens, and, at an experimental scale, developing a 40,000 squarefoot rooftop farm.

To manage this urban ecosystem, NYC trained its Parks Depart-ment workers to maintain the new GI interventions until 2015. Inaddition, the city is developing community-based organizationssuch as the ‘‘Stewardship Corps’’. The few GI systems paid for byNYC Green Infrastructure grants are to be maintained by the grantrecipients. Currently, there are no plans to ‘‘harvest’’ materials gen-erated by the GI systems either publicly or privately.

The connection/relation of NYC’s GI ecosystems with ‘‘external’’ecosystems is predominantly focused on water quality. As noted,NYC sits at (and developed because of) the nexus of major river,estuary, and Atlantic Ocean ecosystems. All water-related GI pro-jects are focused on relieving pollution discharges into thesebodies.

NYC has also incorporated habitat into its plans. For example,the city recently grant funded a green roof to study connectionsof bird migration and breeding habitats with GI.

5.1.3. GI development trajectoryNew York City’s GI program is currently in general develop-

ment, deploying a wide variety of systems and types of interven-tions. These systems are socially driven primarily through federaland state regulatory clean water regulations and ecologically bythe ramifications of Hurricane Sandy. As a result they are receivingincreased funding and resource commitments primarily throughthe public sector where a majority of GI decision-making powerresides.

Despite this growth in public sector engagement, private sectorinvolvement is still embryonic as are market mechanisms for eco-system services generated by NYC’s GI systems. The public sectorhas appropriated the value of these systems through avoided costsand the public at large through use values while NYC’s private sec-tor has yet to significantly drive additional private investments inGI.

5.2. Case study-San Antonio

5.2.1. Social system5.2.1.1. Setting and drivers. Neither San Antonio’s Department ofPlanning and Community Development, its Department of Parksand Recreation, nor its Office of Sustainability yet have a published,integrated GI plan for the city. However, San Antonio has twoexamples of plans or aggregations of policies with significant GIcomponents. One was the City South Management Authority’s(CSMA) annual strategic re-development plan (the CSMA was dis-solved in January of 2014, henceforth referred to in the past tensein this article); the other is an aggregation of several of the SanAntonio Water System (SAWS)’s policies and programs. In addition,the City of San Antonio has a tree planting initiative, housed underits Office of Sustainability and the Department of Parks and Recre-ation; given the small scale of this program (5735 trees plantedsince 2010), this case study will not focus on San Antonio’s treeplanting initiative as a form of GI.

In 2005, Texas created the CSMA, a governmental entity andstate political subdivision, to oversee sustainable re-developmentof a 63 square mile area south of San Antonio (in short, a regionalplanning process overseen by a state division). After a 2012


assessment ordered by Texas Senate Bill 1493, San Antonioproposed dissolving the CSMA and annexing most of the acreage,returning the rest to county control. The CSMA was subsequentlydissolved in January of 2014; 25 square miles of the area is nowunder limited-purpose annexation and is schedule to be fullyannexed by the City of San Antonio in 2017 (City of San Antonio,2014; Moravec, 2013).

Before dissolution, San Antonio’s mayoral leadership and CityCouncil drove GI planning efforts in the CSMA. San Antonio hasseen low-density, high infrastructure sprawl development to thenorth and northwest; the south side has remained more ruraland undeveloped. Former San Antonio Mayor Ed Garza developedthe idea of CSMA and advocated the planning process in order topromote sustainable economic development. Area residents havebeen reported as skeptical of these efforts (Place, 2004; Gray,2013).

A major driver of the early planning process was realization thatexisting development patterns in the northern part of San Antoniowas undesirable for numerous reasons (social, economic, and envi-ronmental). In response, there was a desire by the San Antonio gov-ernment to do things differently in the southern area of the city. Themayor, who holds a degree in land development, was familiar withsustainable development frameworks and GI concepts.

In addition to the curtailed GI implementation in the CSMA,metropolitan San Antonio has a more successful GI example inthe San Antonio Water System (SAWS)’s land acquisition and waterconservation programs. SAWS is a department of San Antonio’smunicipal government. Although San Antonio does not have a for-mal water plan, SAWS is acknowledged throughout the US as a suc-cessful and early adapter of municipal-scaled water conservation(BBC Research and Consulting, 2003; SAWS 2014). In addition,SAWS also oversees a watershed land protection program, similarto many other US municipalities.

A key component of their water conservation program includeswater-conserving landscaping and xeriscape education materials(such as plant lists, drought-tolerant turf suggestions, wateringinformation) for residents and commercial/residential builders, inaddition to water-conserving landscaping rebates for residents.As a result of SAWS education, outreach, and rebate efforts, SanAntonio has a lower outdoor water use rate than any other majorsemi-arid Texas city (67 gallons/per household/per day outdoorwater use vs. 125 gallons/household/day in Dallas, 97 gallons/household/day in Fort Worth, and 89 gallons/household/day inAustin) (Hermitte and Mace, 2012).

In addition to being early adopters of water conservation, SAWSalso oversees a Sensitive Land Acquisition Program (fee simple andconservation easement) program to protect its drinking watersource, similar to many other municipalities. To date, SAWS hasprotected 9140 acres of land; this program also fulfills San Anto-nio’s obligation to protect the Edward’s Aquifer endangered species(SAWS, 2014).

San Antonio’s early adoption of water-conserving landscapingas a tool to bring about water conservation, as well as itswatershed land acquisition program, was driven by a federal man-date to comply with the Endangered Species Act. San Antonio is thelargest US municipality dependent upon an aquifer for a municipalwater source. In the 1990s, the Sierra Club sued San Antonio (inaddition to several other municipalities and institutions), arguingthat San Antonio’s use of groundwater from the Edward’s Aquiferresulted in the ‘‘taking’’ of the endangered Texas Blind Salamander,which lives in the aquifer (Abernathy, 2013). In response, the Stateof Texas formed a political subdivision, the Edwards AquiferAuthority, which works with San Antonio to ensure that SAWS’water withdrawals do not impair endangered species habitat. Insum, water-conserving landscaping GI systems put into place bySAWS, in addition to its watershed land acquisition program, are





municipal programs driven by enforcement of a federal law, underoversight by a political subdivision of the State of Texas.

5.2.1.2. Social production system. For the CSMA, the 2012–2013Annual Strategic Plan was the primary planning document encom-passing GI tools and using the term GI, so while not a specific GIplan, it did encompass some of the planning work needed for regio-nal GI implementation (CSMA, 2012). The plan included goals forlow impact development (LID), conservation development to keeplarge tracts of open space undeveloped, and increasing protectedopen space through purchase and establishment of parks.

SAWS does not have a published overall plan for GI or for theirwater system as a whole, but their social production system forwater quality and quantity GI includes education and economicincentives focused on water-conserving landscaping at the resi-dential, commercial and institutional scales, as well as the pur-chase of fee simple lands and conservation easements to protectthe aquifer recharge area.

5.2.1.3. Means of production. Because of the slow development ofthe CSMA area, there were few opportunities to build housingdevelopments incorporating LID or conservation lands acquisition.Two privately-owned conservation subdivisions were planned andbuilt, using private-sector wage labor. For these two subdivisions,the conserved land will either be held by the private homeownersassociation or by private, non-profit land trusts. In addition, until itwas dissolved, the CSMA had zoning and bonding authority to reg-ulate private land and purchase public land; however, no publicconservation land appears to have been purchased.

In regards to the SAWS programs, citizens and institutions vol-untarily participate in the water-conserving landscaping program,which is implemented on both private and public land. Public sec-tor employees manage the land acquisition and water conservationprograms. Any land purchased by SAWS for aquifer recharge pro-tection becomes public land; land associated with conservationeasements remains privately held. Some fee simple lands areaccessible to the public; in general, conservation easements landsare not publically accessible (Lieberknecht, 2009).

5.2.1.4. Configuration of decision-making. CSMA’s decision makingwas public sector driven. There seemed to be agreement in the pri-vate sector that incentives for development were needed, but lessagreement that zoning and other regulations were needed.

In the SAWS case the public sector is also driving the decision-making, in response to legal cases brought by the community sec-tor and federal regulations.

5.2.1.5. Inputs. No external funding was provided for CSMA imple-mentation. The CSMA had authority for bonding, sales tax and spe-cial tax districts. Although the CSMA policies, for the most part,were driven by the City of San Antonio, the Urban Institute (UI),a national think tank, was hired in 2005 to do the initial assess-ment, and development scenarios for the area were derivative ofUI’s assessment document. The Annual Strategic Plan was writtenby paid staff and overseen by an appointed board.

In general, SAWS funding is provided by water rates and fees. Inaddition, a 2000 bond measure increased sales tax by 1/8% to raisefunds for the watershed land acquisition program. SAWS has part-nered with regional and national land conservation groups in addi-tion to Texas Parks and Wildlife to leverage funds for land andconservation easement acquisition.

5.2.1.6. Outputs. Conserved land in the form of CSMA conservationsubdivisions most directly benefits local residents, but also in amore diffused manner, regional residents (more permeablesurfaces, better water quality, etc.). Ecologically both local and


external wildlife populations such as migrating birds benefit fromthese GI efforts.

Aquifer recharge lands acquired through SAWS most directlybenefit regional residents who depend on the aquifer for drinkingwater, in addition to the endangered species and other wildlife thatdepend on the aquifer. SAWS water conservation programs benefitwater users (residents but also private sector businesses), regionalresidents outside of San Antonio who also use the aquifer, and localand regional wildlife populations. Water conservation reduceswater bills for residents and businesses in the short term (due toreduction of water use). However, there is some concern that waterconservation will result in increased water rates over time, sinceSAWS (or any other water utility that implements water conserva-tion) will be selling less water. SAWS maintains that overall waterbills will decrease over time, even if rates rise, since the need forextra fees to support new water infrastructure and acquire newwater sources will decline (BBC Research and Consulting, 2003).

5.2.2. Ecological system5.2.2.1. Setting and drivers. The southern part of San Antonio is inthe South Texas Plains/South Texas Brush Country Biome (semi-arid forest/grassland). The LID sections of the CSMA plans weredriven by cycles of drought in the San Antonio area resulting inattention to water conservation and using stormwater for on-sitewater needs. The conservation subdivision/open space protectionGI components were driven by desires for water quality protection,viewshed protection, and access to recreation lands.

San Antonio’s semi-arid climate, and the likelihood that droughtevents will increase with climate change, also drive the need forwater-conserving landscaping programs and the watershed landacquisition program. In addition, land protection also functionsto protect groundwater quality, which, given the slow movementof groundwater in some areas, can be extremely sensitive to pollu-tion and difficult to mitigate.

5.2.2.2. Cultivated ecosystem. Policy documents do not deal withdetails of long-term management of LID design, nor long-termstewardship and management needs associated with protectedopen space either through conservation subdivisions or publicacquisition of parkland. Language in the Annual Strategic Plandid indicate awareness of the need to link protected lands in con-servation subdivisions and parks with existing open space.

No policy documents available through SAWS’ website give anoverview of SAWS’ approach to long-term management and stew-ardship of their acquired lands and conservation easements. How-ever, it is likely that given their partnerships with state andnational conservation groups and agencies, SAWS is following bestpractices regarding management and stewardship. Regionalgroups such as LadyBird Johnson Wildflower Center are developingdata about long-term maintenance costs and needs of water-con-serving landscaping.

5.2.3. GI development trajectorySan Antonio could currently be considered in a stage of contra-

dictory GI development. While social and ecological factors gener-ated by San Antonio’s growth pattern motivated the mayor’s officeand some citizenry to argue that GI systems are an important infra-structure option, the limited aspect of CSMA’s engagement with GIand abandonment of its regional planning component indicateboth resistance and regression on the issue. The absence of long-term management plans for deployed GI components and lack ofany organized mechanisms or means for public or private marketsand appropriation of the ecosystem services values generated byCSMA GI further indicates the low level of program development.

On the other hand, SAWS is considered to be a national leader inregards to water conservation; their water-conserving landscaping





education and rebate program comprises part of this success story(Texas Living Waters, 2014). And although SAWS’ aquifer rechargeprotection program is not as extensive as other national examples,outside groups have recognized its success (AWWA, 2004). In par-ticular, the 2000 bond measure for land acquisition, given threeother bond measures on the same ballot failed, indicates a stronglevel of public support.

5.3. Case study–Auckland

5.3.1. Social system5.3.1.1. Setting and drivers. Auckland’s semi-hierarchical gover-nance structure is comprised of an elected mayor and councilors(‘Auckland Council governing body’) and non-elected AucklandCouncil organization overseeing the city’s day-to-day manage-ment. In addition, 21 elected Local Boards represent local commu-nities and make decisions with the Auckland Council and a numberof council-controlled organizations (CCOs). Despite the CCOs’name, the Auckland Council has little direct influence over CCOsbeyond negotiating statements of intent guiding each CCO’s strate-gic direction. The mayor of Auckland is responsible for promotingand leading a vision for Auckland.

Auckland’s social drivers include population growth, Auckland’scontribution to New Zealand’s economy, external and newly devel-oped internal legislation, and the regional economic importance ofAuckland’s natural environment (local recreation and tourism).As New Zealand’s largest city, home to around one third ofNew Zealand’s population it is ‘‘predicted to take up to 60 per centof New Zealand’s population growth over the next thirty years’’potentially adding a further 1 million people to its population of1.3 million (Auckland Council 2012b; Department of InternalAffairs, 2011). Likewise, Auckland generates over a third of nationalGDP (Auckland Council 2012b, p. 19).

Major governmental restructuring in 2010 created opportuni-ties for unified governance across the Auckland region. Entirelynew policies covering all aspects of city planning were developedto enable the mayor’s vision of ‘‘the world’s most livable city’’ pro-jecting ‘a green Auckland’ as one of several key outcomes. Achieve-ment requires transforming Auckland Council to ‘‘strongly committo environmental action and green growth’’ (Auckland Council2012b, p. 31).

In Auckland’s planning documents, interpretation of ‘green’ and‘green growth’ depends on the public sector involved. It may meanphysical greening (i.e. the increase of vegetated and natural sys-tems, i.e. GI) but often refers to green technology outcomes e.g.greenhouse gas reductions, renewable energy, reduced water con-sumption, or expanded public transport.

Newly issued stormwater management requirements providesome statutory support for larger scale GI implementation(Auckland Council 2013b). Additionally, a number of spatial plan-ning and strategy documents explicitly incorporate GI in projectsat block or neighborhood scales in the city center (WaterfrontAuckland, 2012; Auckland Council, 2012c; Auckland Council2013a).

The 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA) is the principle stat-ute governing natural resource management in New Zealand influ-encing planning at local levels. Compliance to the RMA is enforcedthrough the Environment Court. However, New Zealand’s govern-ment perceives the RMA as restricting economic growth. As aresult, urban tree protection has been reduced and reform propos-als change relative weightings of environmental and economicconsiderations (which may erode environmental protection) andrequire councils to ensure ‘‘adequate land supply to provide forat least 10 years of projected growth in demand for residential landin their plans’’ challenging Auckland’s ability to constrain urban


sprawl (Gibson, 2013; Environmental Defense Society 2013;Ministry for the Environment 2013; Wright, 2013).

5.3.1.2. Social production system. Most water-related GI projects inAuckland are neighborhood or building scale, aimed at solving iso-lated local flooding or water quality issues. However, a few larger-scale projects have been implemented. For example: AucklandCouncil-owned Albany Lakes Civic Park incorporates rain gardens,tree pits, and permeable pavement among other technologies tomitigate water quality impacts in ‘‘high quality’’ environmentsdownstream from large commercial development. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Housing New Zealand Corporation (theagency responsible for social housing across New Zealand) hasmade voluntary commitments to GI across an entire 167 ha, 3000unit development west of the city. Waterfront Auckland, the CCOdirecting re-development of Auckland’s waterfront on WaitemataHarbour has implemented GI throughout the Wynyard Quarterwith plans for further development (Waterfront Auckland, 2012).Likewise GI is planned for major road re-development by theWaitemata Local Board (2013) and re-development of Auckland’scentral business district is planned to include extensive GI throughlinear parks linking existing parks in a green network (AucklandCouncil, 2012c).

Nonetheless, other GI projects are meeting resistance. North ofthe city, a private 160 ha, 2000 unit development is under con-struction incorporating GI by Environment Court mandate. In cen-tral Auckland, finalized planning documents reduced tree plantingby an order of magnitude (Auckland Council, 2011; AucklandCouncil, 2012c).

5.3.1.3. Means of production. Auckland has implemented a full suiteof GI: permeable paving, street trees, rain gardens, roadside swales,rainwater harvesting, and green roofs, scattered mostly in isolatedprojects throughout the city (Auckland Council, 2012b,c;Waterfront Auckland, 2012). Several sites serve as demonstrationprojects with Auckland Council investing in research for refiningand understanding GI technologies in local contexts, and leadingto revision of technical design manuals (Borne et al. in press a,b,2013; Fassman and Blackbourn 2010, 2011; Fassman andSimcock 2012; Fassman et al. 2013; Fassman-Beck et al. 2013).

5.3.1.4. Social status of labor. Most of Auckland’s GI design, con-struction, and maintenance projects are contracted to private com-panies – including Auckland Council’s GI projects. However,initiatives involving ‘‘tree planting programs may be undertakenin partnership with private landowners, schools, and local commu-nity groups’’ (Auckland Council 2012b, p. 208).

5.3.1.5. Status of property ownership. Auckland Council is the mainproponent of GI, planning and implementing projects on publicland to resolve local water, particularly flooding, issues. Somenew zoning and environmental conditions induce private develop-ers and owners to comply with regulations through GI (AucklandCouncil 2013b).

5.3.1.6. Mode of access to the land. Most GI projects in Auckland areon public land; however, the Auckland Council reserves the right tomonitor GI on private land.

5.3.1.7. Configuration of decision-making. Auckland’s GI is largelydriven by public sector decision-making. However public sectordepartments involved in public access-ways, economic and urbandevelopment, and tourism typically do not regard ‘a green Auck-land’ as a primary outcome to their activities (Auckland Council2012a, vol. 2). The CCOs ‘‘operate at arm’s length to the council’’under governance of their boards of directors or trustees and as





business concerns (Auckland Council 2012a, vol. 5). CCOs responsi-ble for water, wastewater services, and transportation do not prior-itize GI (Watercare Services Ltd. 2012; Auckland Council 2012a,vol. 2, p. 97). Only one of 21 local boards explicitly advocateswater-related GI initiatives, while two other local boards refer tocreating greenways (Auckland Council 2012a, vol. 4).

5.3.1.8. Inputs. No external funding has been provided for GI imple-mentation in Auckland. Public sector GI is funded through rates(local taxes) and financial contributions required by legislation.Where GI is implemented in private developments, the costappears to be bundled with property prices and passed on directlyto buyers.

5.3.1.9. Outputs. GI benefits Auckland’s ‘green’ image by producing(unquantified) benefits for Auckland’s tourism industry. No clearfinancial benefits to Auckland Council or Auckland’s residents havebeen publicized.

5.3.2. Ecological system5.3.2.1. Setting and drivers. Auckland is situated within 2400 km ofmarine coastline on an isthmus between Manukau and WaitemataHarbors, extending along the Hauraki Gulf. It has a subtropical cli-mate, averaging 137 ‘‘wet’’ days (precipitation of at least 1 mm)delivering 1240 mm of precipitation relatively evenly over the year(NIWA Science 2007). Public beaches line the city’s coastline, withswimming and fishing popular activities even in the central city.

External ecosystem impact is a key driver for urban GI. Forexample: Waterfront Auckland strives to ‘‘[m]aintain and improvewater quality of the Waitemata Harbour through ongoing invest-ment in stormwater initiatives, low-impact and water-sensitivedesign approaches and aquatic habitat restoration where applica-ble’’ (Waterfront Auckland 2012, p. 112). State-of-Environment2013 ‘‘Report Cards’’ for Auckland’s marine environments showpoorest water and sediment quality in generally the regionallymost densely populated and oldest neighborhoods (AucklandCouncil 2013c). The isthmus, which includes the central city, isnoted as one of the poorest terrestrial environments with almost90% urban landcover and only 3% native forest/scrub landcover(Auckland Council 2013a). Researchers have identified heavy met-als and nitrogen as pollutants in stormwater runoff, contributing toadverse effects on the region’s social, cultural, and economic value(Auckland Regional Council 2003; Boston Consulting Group 2004;Hauraki Gulf Forum 2011). CSOs cause public health concerns inisolated catchments, however alleviating overflow using only greyinfrastructure is projected to cost NZ$800 million in a single area ofthe city (Watercare Services 2012).

5.3.2.2. Cultivated ecosystem. A cohesive plan for Auckland-wide GIdoes not exist. The cultivated ecosystem will evolve as new areasare developed or redeveloped. Retrofits focus on neighborhood-scale or block-scale issues, rather than watershed management.Despite the recognized opportunities, policy documents do notdeal with long-term GI management details.

5.3.3. GI development trajectoryDespite ecological indications of need for intervention, Auck-

land fits best within the contradictory stage of GI development.Evaluation of the social system suggests the mayor’s vision andhigh-level plans for the city appears to strongly support GI. How-ever, while some public agencies actively engage GI as forward-thinking best practice, other agencies appear unaware of GI’spotential and associated benefits, or simply do not regard ‘agreen Auckland’ as their mandate. The absence of financial orinvestment information in planning documents suggests tenuouscommitment to GI since most are likely to be local, small-scale


projects. Information on community involvement is also limited,as is private sector GI implementation. This information’s frag-mented nature indicates the piece-meal, experimental approachto GI currently characterizing Auckland.

6. Discussion

Typologies discussed in Section 2 approach GI from a variety ofperspectives encompassing health, economic analysis, reportingand stock-taking, policy initiatives, and specific GI methodologiessuch as urban greenways and forests. Despite this diversity, eachrecognizes GI at the nexus of social and ecological forces. Addition-ally, each typology’s motivation resides in believing such tools cansupport broader GI implementation. Despite this consensus, theyinsufficiently address fundamental patterns and processes under-pinning GI formation and implementation.

While the authors identify the importance of social factors increating the need and opportunity for GI, they frequently overlookor leave underdeveloped the most influential social forces deter-mining GI (or any other) initiatives. Political power is undeniablycentral to any social process. Ahern (1995), the MEA (2005) andthe EEA (2011) provide partial recognition of this fact, eitherincompletely or at a level of abstraction (i.e. global, continental)well above the needs of metropolitan decision makers. This is espe-cially acute given a majority of GI efforts focused at the city andregional level.

The second social component severely underrepresented inexisting typologies is economic factors including markets, landownership, labor, and appropriation (value capture) regimes. Eco-nomic influences should be fundamental to any GI typology. WhileDe Groot et al. (2002) acknowledges the importance of GI’s eco-nomic dimension and Dunnett et al. (2002) the relevance of prop-erty ownership affecting GI, they discuss these factors in generalterms without reference to specific market or appropriationregimes. GI benefits are frequently referred to in this manner,reflecting the supposition that infrastructure benefiting the generalgood should and will therefore be implemented. This rather naïveanalysis ignores that existing metropolitan infrastructure servesspecific constituencies and interests connected to specific propertyand appropriation regimes. To leave issues of political power andeconomic influence unspecified eliminates the possibility of ananalysis that might develop a sophisticated strategy for main-streaming urban GI.

The influence of ecological forces is also largely overlooked.Although some authors reference GI’s ecological benefits, theyrarely seek out the ecological setting and drivers of particularmetropolitan GI systems. Typologies lacking specific, place-basedunderstanding of these elements are of limited value for GI advo-cates seeking to understand and leverage vulnerabilities andopportunities of their metropolitan areas. Scale also contributesin this regard. As most GI implementation happens at the metro-politan or sub-metropolitan level, abstract global or continentaltypologies are difficult to translate into metropolitan real-politik.Including political and economic factors into GI typologies bringsvulnerabilities and leverage points into clearer focus. The socialand ecological drivers of federal and state water quality regulationand Hurricane Sandy are fundamental to understanding the rapidimplementation trajectory of New York City’s recent GI efforts.Equally important is the strong-mayor orientation of the city’s gov-ernance regime that made GI an accepted component of NewYork’s infrastructure options. Less developed ecological driversand social governance structures helps identify the intermittentand contradictory nature of GI implementation in Auckland andSan Antonio.





The combination of strong environmental regulation and may-oral leadership has also created public markets for widespread GIimplementation in New York. The financial realities resulting fromstate interventions and mayoral vision have provided clear oppor-tunities for reaping large-scale grey infrastructure avoidance coststhat in turn contribute to extensive GI planning commitments inNew York while those in Auckland and San Antonio lag behind.New York’s regulatory and market opportunities generated clearlydefined, measurable objectives and timelines in GI implementationwhile other cities’ remain amorphous. By the same token, emer-gence of strong public sector markets for GI in New York outlinesthe embryonic level of private GI markets, offering GI advocatesa target for expansion.

This type of analysis also highlights opportunities to shift Auck-land’s trajectory. Planning documents need a clear definition of‘‘green Auckland’’ solidifying GI’s place in Auckland’s infrastructureplanning. The city’s institutional structure needs to identify spe-cific responsibility for GI implementation and maintenance asAuckland’s current governance fragmentation (namely throughCCOs) precludes unified citywide planning.

External influences to Auckland’s GI systems are more challeng-ing to address. For example, the federal government’s potential toseek increased density through allocating future housing areas andits proposed reforms to the RMA could, if not appropriatelydesigned, undermine large-scale GI in Auckland. For Auckland toadvance from a contradictory to general trajectory, the AucklandCouncil must contest constraints imposed by the central govern-ment’s RMA reform proposals which fundamentally challengeachieving ‘‘a green city.’’

Similarly, San Antonio’s private sector development modelremains uncommitted to GI. In the CSMA case, this ambivalencehas resulted in some retrenchment regarding GI. This is especiallypoignant in the wake of the recent drought that destroyed over 5million urban trees in Texas. On the other hand, the public sector(SAWS) has shown moderate success in promoting and imple-menting some GI technologies for water quality and quantity pro-tection. Advocates need to work on illustrating andinstitutionalizing specific and potential economic values generatedby GI, connecting them to the city’s future resiliency in the face offurther ecological drivers such as drought cycles and climatechange.

These are a few examples of strategic and tactical informationthat can be drawn from the typology we present in this paper.Hopefully its use lies in assisting communities to define andadvance GI systems within the specific context of their communi-ties. We offer it as a starting point toward developing the tools nec-essary to bring GI into the mainstream of metropolitaninfrastructure. In doing so we hope to contribute toward establish-ing the living city as the centerpiece of modern urbanization.

References

Abernathy, Chip., 2013. The Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Program.<http://www.acectx.org/texas_cec_chapters/documents/EAA-ACECHCPPresentation.pdf> (retrieved 03.05.14).

Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape urban plan. 33 (1),131–155.

Anthes, Richard A., Corell, Robert W., Holland, Greg., Hurrell, James W., MacCracken,Michael C., Trenberth, Kevin E., 2006. Hurricanes and global warming—potentiallinkages and consequences. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 87, 623–628.

Auckland Council, 2011. Draft City Centre Masterplan. Released for publicconsultation September 2011.

Auckland Council, 2012a. Long-term Plan 2012–2022, Volumes 1–5. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/Long_term_plan/Pages/documents.aspx> (retrieved 05.07.13).

Auckland Council, 2012b. The Auckland Plan. Published March 2012. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/Pages/theaucklandplan.aspx> (retrieved 17.07.13).


Auckland Council, 2012c. City Centre Masterplan. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ccmp/Pages/documents.aspx> (retrieved 05.07.13).

Auckland Council, 2013a. Draft Parks & Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan. Releasedfor public consultation May 2013. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/HaveYourSay/Documents/draftparksopenspacestrategicactionplan.pdf> (retrieved 29.07.13).

Auckland Council, 2013b. Auckland Unitary Plan stormwater managementprovisions: Technical basis of contaminant and volume managementrequirements, Prepared by Auckland Council. Auckland Council technicalreport, TR2013/035. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx> (retrieved 01.10.13).

Auckland Council, 2013c. Top and bottom sites across Auckland for freshwater,marine, air quality and terrestrial reporting areas (2013). <http://stateofauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/> (accessed 27.09.13).

Auckland Regional Council, 2003. Stormwater Management Devices: DesignGuidelines Manual. Technical Publication 10 <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx>(retrieved 01.09.13).

American Water Works Association, 2004. Protecting the source: conserving foreststo protect water. Opflow 30 (5), 1–7.

BBC Research and Consulting, 2003. SAWS Water Conservation Savings. Denver,Colorado: BBC Research and Consulting.

Benedict, M., McMahon, E., 2006. Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes andcommunities. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Borne, K., Fassman, E.A., Tanner, C.C., 2013a. Floating treatment wetland retrofit toimprove stormwater pond performance for sediment, copper and zinc. Ecol.Eng. 54, 173–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.031.

Borne, K., Fassman, E., Tanner, C., 2013b. Stormwater nitrogen removal performanceof a floating treatment wetland. Water Sci. Technol. 68 (7), 1657–1664.

Borne, K., Fassman-Beck, E., Tanner, C., 2014. Floating treatment wetland influencesfate of metals in road stormwater retention ponds. Water Res. 48 (1), 430–442.

Boston Consulting Group, 2004. Auckland regional stormwater project and actionplan to deliver improved stormwater outcomes. Final report for the AucklandRegional Council and Infrastructure Auckland: Auckland, New Zealand.

Brown, R., 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forestplanning. Forest Sci. 46 (2), 240–247.

City of San Antonio, 2014. ‘‘City Council A Session.’’ <http://legistar.granicus.com/sanantonio/meetings/2014/1/1029_A_City_Council_A_Session_14-01-09_AGENDA.pdf> (retrieved 04.03.14).

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Naeem, S.,Limburg, K., Paruelo, J., O’Neill, R., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. Thevalue of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.

City South Management Area, 2012. Annual Strategic Plan, 2012–13. City SouthMangement Area: San Antonio, TX.

Davies, C., MacFarlane, R., McGloin, C., Roe, M., 2006. Green Infrastructure PlanningGuide. North-East Community Forests, Durham, Marea Britanie. <http://www.aughty.org/pdf/green_infrastruct_planguide.pdf> (retrieved 30.09.13).

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., 2002. A typology for the classification,description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol.Econ. 41 (3), 393–408.

De Sousa, M., Montalto, F., Sabrina, S., 2012. Using life cycle assessment to evaluategreen and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 (6),901–913, Special Issue: Sustainable Urban Systems.

Department of Internal Affairs, 2011. ‘‘Auckland Spatial Plan GovernmentPosition Papers: Overview’’ published by the Department of Internal Affairs,New Zealand Government. <http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/AKCab00Overview/$file/AKCab00Overview.pdf> (retrieved 19.08.13).

Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F., Zipperer, W., 2011. A framework for developing urbanforest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape Urban Plann.99 (3–4), 196–206, <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204610002793>.

Dow, K., 2000. Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst. 4(4), 255–275.

Dunn, A., 2010. Siting green infrastructure: legal and policy solutions to alleviateurban poverty and promote healthy communities. Environ. Affairs 37 (41), 41–66.

Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., Woolley, H., 2002. Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas,and Open Space. Department of Transport Local Government and Regions,London.

European Environment Agency, 2011. Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion.Technical report number 18/2011. <http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion> (retrieved 30.09.11).

Environmental Defense Society, 2013. Media Release: ‘‘Government’s announcementon RMA reforms are troubling’’, 10 August 2013. <http://www.eds.org.nz/content/documents/pressreleases/130810%20RMA%20reforms%20PR.pdf> (retrieved12.08.13).

Fassman, E.A., Blackbourn, S., 2010. Urban runoff mitigation by a permeablepavement system over impermeable soils. J. Hydrol. Eng. 15 (6), 475–485.

Fassman, E.A., Blackbourn, S., 2011. Runoff water quality mitigation by permeablepavement. J. Irrig. Drain. 137 (11), 720–729.

Fassman, E.A., Simcock, R., 2012. Moisture measurements as performance criteriafor extensive living roof substrates’. J. Environ. Eng. 138 (8), 841–851.

Fassman, E.A., Simcock, R., Wang, S., 2013. Bioretention Media Specification’Auckland UniServices Technical Report to Auckland Council. Auckland Council


http://www.acectx.org/texas_cec_chapters/documents/EAA-ACECHCPPresentation.pdf

http://www.acectx.org/texas_cec_chapters/documents/EAA-ACECHCPPresentation.pdf

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0022-1694(14)00412-0/h0010





http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/Long_term_plan/Pages/documents.aspx



http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/theaucklandplan/Pages/theaucklandplan.aspx



http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ccmp/Pages/documents.aspx



http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/HaveYourSay/Documents/draftparksopenspacestrategicactionplan.pdf



http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx


http://www.stateofauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

http://www.stateofauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx





http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.031







http://www.legistar.granicus.com/sanantonio/meetings/2014/1/1029_A_City_Council_A_Session_14-01-09_AGENDA.pdf






http://www.aughty.org/pdf/green_infrastruct_planguide.pdf

http://www.aughty.org/pdf/green_infrastruct_planguide.pdf







http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/AKCab00Overview/$file/AKCab00Overview.pdf

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/AKCab00Overview/$file/AKCab00Overview.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204610002793

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204610002793









http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion

http://www.eds.org.nz/content/documents/pressreleases/130810%20RMA%20reforms%20PR.pdf

http://www.eds.org.nz/content/documents/pressreleases/130810%20RMA%20reforms%20PR.pdf










TR2013/011. Auckland, New Zealand. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/planspoliciesprojects/reports/technicalpublications/Pages/home.aspx>(accessed 14.03.2014).

Fassman-Beck, E.A., Simcock, R., Voyde, E.A., Hong, Y.S., 2013. 4 Living roofs in 3locations: does configuration affect runoff mitigation? J. Hydrol. 490 (2013), 11–20.

Freudenburg, W., 1995. Beyond the nature/society divide: learning to think like amountain. Sociol. Forum 10 (3), 361–392.

Geddes, P., 1915. Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town PlanningMovement and to the Study of Civics. Williams and Norgate, London.

Gibson, A., 2013. ‘‘Tree protection rules axed in rethink by Auckland Council’’, TheNew Zealand Herald, January 22, 2013. <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10860552> (retrieved 13.08.13).

Goldman, M., Schurman, R., 2000. Closing the ‘‘great divide’’: new social theory onsociety and nature. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26, 563–584.

Gray, Roger, 2013. ‘‘San Antonio should pay for the land it ‘took’ in City South.’’ SanAntonio Express News, December 12, 2013. <http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/San-Antonio-should-pay-for-the-land-it-took-in-5059214.php>(retrieved 03.05.14).

Griffon, M., 2008. Marcel Mazoyer and Laurence Roudart: a history of worldagriculture from the Neolithic age to the current crisis. Human Ecol. 36 (4),609–610.

Gunther, Abraham, 2014. Personal communication. Chief of Forestry, Horticulture,and Natural Resources for the New York City Parks Department.

Harris, R., Sleight, P., Webber, R., 2005. Geodemographics: Neighbourhood Targetingand GIS. Wiley, Chichester.

Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2011. State of Our Gulf Report. Auckland Council. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/haurakigulfforum/Pages/home.aspx> (accessed 01.10.13).

Hermitte, Sam Marie, Mace, Robert E., 2012. The grass is always greener. . .outdoorresidential water use in Texas. Texas Water Development Board: Technical Note12-01. <https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/technical_notes/doc/SeasonalWaterUseReport-final.pdf> (retrieved 03.05.14).

Hoppe, R., MacDonald, J., 2013. The revised ERS farm typology: Classifying U.S.farms to reflect today’s agriculture. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-may/the-revised-ers-farm-typology-classifying-us-farms-to-reflect-todays-agriculture.aspx#.UvqjGvaiRAe>.

Hoppe, R., Perry, J., Banker, D., 2000. ERS farm typology for a diverse agriculturalsector. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. (AIB-759) September.

Lieberknecht, Katherine, 2009. Public access to U.S. conservation land trustproperties: results from a national survey. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 75 (4), 479–491.

Linnaeus, C., 1735. Systema naturae, sive regna tria naturae systematice propositaper classes, ordines, genera, & species. Haak, Leiden.

Lopez, C., Valino, J., Perez, M., 2008. Typology, classification and characterization offarms for agricultural production planning. Spanish J. Agric. Res. 1, 125–136.

Lupton, R., Fenton, A., Tunstall, R., Harris, R., 2011. Place typologies and their policyapplications: a report prepared for the Department of Communities and LocalGovernment. <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43805/1/CASEreport65.pdf>.

Madden, S., 2010. Choosing green over gray: Philadelphia’s innovative stormwaterinfrastructure plan. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Department of Urban Studies and Planning: MIT.

Markusen, A., 1996. Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts.Econ. Geogr. 72 (3), 293–313.

Mazoyer, M., Roudart, L., 2006. A History of World Agriculture. Monthly ReviewPress, New York.

McHarg, I., 1992. Design With Nature. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.Mell, I., 2009. Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proc. Inst.

Civil Eng. Eng. Sustain. 162 (March), 23–34 (ES1).Mell, I.C., 2010. Green infrastructure: concepts, perceptions and its use in spatial

planning.Mell, I.C., 2013. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the ‘‘green’’

of Green Infrastructure development. Local Environment 18 (2), 152–166.Ministry for the Environment, 2013. ‘‘Improving our resource management system.

A discussion document’’. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, February2013. <http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/improving-our-resource-management-system-discussion-document.pdf> (retrieved 12.08.13).

Moravec, Eva Ruth, 2013. ‘‘City South’s days are numbered.’’ San Antonio ExpressNews, November 13, 2013. <http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/City-South-s-days-are-numbered-4981829.php#/0> (retrieved 04.03.14).

Mumford, L., 1961. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and ItsProspects. MJF Press, New York.

Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Mav Pieterse, M., and Rayment, M., 2011.Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects.Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no.070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting.

National Science Foundation, 2012. Greening of Cities International Workshop onGreen Urban Infrastructure. Auckland: New Zealand. <http://www.greeningofcities.org/workshop/about-workshop/>.

New York City Green Infrastructure Update. City of New York, 2011.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2013. Combined sewer

overflow. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/48595.html> (retrived 31.08.13).


Park, R., Burgess, E., McKenzie, R., 1925. The City. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J., Lindley, S., 2003. Promoting the naturalgreenstructures of towns and cities: English natures accessible naturalgreenspace standards model. Built Enviro. 29 (2), 157–170.

Peterson, T., Stott, P., Herring, S., 2012. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93 (7), 1041–1067.Pickering, A., 1996. Further beyond the nature/society divide: a comment on

Freudenburg, Frickel, and Gramling. Sociol. Forum 11 (1), 153–159.Pires, R., 2004. Watershed protection for a world city: the case of New York. Land

Use Policy 21 (2), 161–175.Place, Paula Syptak, 2004. Zoning of the south side. San Antonio Bus. J. 1, November

14, 2004 <http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2004/11/15/focus1.html> (retrieved 31.08.13).

PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York. City of New York, 2007.Pötz, H., Bleuze, P., 2012. Urban Green-blue Grids for Sustainable and Dynamic

Cities. Coop for Life, Delft.Redman, C., Grove, J., Kuby, L., 2004. Integrating social science into the long-term

ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change andecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7, 161–171.

San Antonio Water System, 2014. Sensitive Lands Acquisition Program. <https://www.saws.org/environment/ResourceProtComp/aquifer_protection/acquisition.cfm> (retrieved 03.05.14).

Texas Forest Service, 2012. Drought takes toll on urban forest, millions of treesdead, Texas A and M. <http://www.texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/popup.aspx?id=15126> (retrieved 23.09.13).

Texas Living Waters, 2014. Case study: Water conservation in San Antonio. <http://texaslivingwaters.org/water-conservation/san-antonio-case-study/> (retrieved03.06.14).

Trenberth, K., 2012. Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change.Clim. Change 115, 283–290.

Turak, E., Koop, K., 2008. Multi-attribute ecological river typology for assessingecological condition and conservation planning. Hydrobiologia 603, 83–104.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Ylipelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A. Niemela, J., James,P., 2007. Conceptual framework integrating Green Infrastructure, ecosystemand human health. <http://usir.salford.ac.uk/9497/1/Tzoulas_et_al_2007.pdf>.

United States Congress, 1999. House of Representatives bill 828. <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr828rh/pdf/BILLS-106hr828rh.pdf> (retrieved31.08.13).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Greening EPA Glossary.<http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/glossary.htm#g>.

USEPA, 2013. National pollutant discharge elimination system: Combined seweroverflows CSO control policy. <http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm?program_id=5> (retrieved 31.08.13).

Vujicic, T., 2011. Urban and architectural typology of industrial structures versustheir photographic typology – a comparative analysis. <http://www.academia.edu/3859022/Vujicic_Tijana_URBAN_AND_ARCHITECTURAL_TYPOLOGY_OF_INDUSTRIAL_STRUCTURES_VERSUS_THEIR_PHOTOGRAPHIC_TYPOLOGY_A_COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS_EN>.

Waitemata Local Board, 2013. Draft Ponsonby Road Masterplan. Released forpublic consultation July 2013. <http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/Councilstrategies/Pages/draftponsonbyroadmasterplan.aspx> (retrieved 29.07.13).

Watercare Services, Ltd., 20120. Central Interceptor Main Project Works. ResourceConsent Applications and Assessment of Effects on the Environment. Part A-AEEReport. <http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-watercare/projects/central-interceptor/Pages/default.aspx> (accessed 14.03.14).

Watercare Services Ltd., 2012. Central Interceptor Main Project Works ResourceConsent Applications and Assessment of Effects on the Environment. August.<http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-watercare/projects/central-interceptor/Pages/default.aspx> (retrieved 28.09.13).

Waterfront Auckland, 2012. The Waterfront Plan 2012. Published August 2012.<http://www.waterfrontauckland.co.nz/getmedia/68b631ad-87ef-4501-b8cc-3083698b70da/39347-WAKL-Waterfront-Plan_Y.pdf.aspx> (retrieved 17.07.13).

Wise, S., 2008. Green infrastructure rising: Best practices in stormwatermanagement. Planning, American Planning Association, August/September.<http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/water/documents/waterservices/greeninferstruc.pdf>.

Wright, J., 2013. Improving our resource management system: A discussiondocument, Submission to the Minister for the Environment by Dr Jan Wright,Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2 April 2013. <http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-MfE-RMA-DiscussionDocumentfinal.pdf> (retrieved 12.08.13).

Young, R., 2009. Interdisciplinary foundations of urban ecology. Urban Ecosyst. 12(3), 311–331.

Young, R., 2010. The greening of Chicago: environmental leaders and organizationalchange. Environ. Plann. Manage. 53 (8), 1051–1068.

Young, R., 2011. Planting the living city. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 77 (4), 368–381.Zook, M., 2002. Hubs, nodes and by-passed places: a typology of e-commerce

regions in the United States. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie93 (5), 509–521.










http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3%26objectid=10860552

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3%26objectid=10860552



http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/San-Antonio-should-pay-for-the-land-it-took-in-5059214.php

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/San-Antonio-should-pay-for-the-land-it-took-in-5059214.php






http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/representativesbodies/haurakigulfforum/Pages/home.aspx



https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/technical_notes/doc/SeasonalWaterUseReport-final.pdf

https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/technical_notes/doc/SeasonalWaterUseReport-final.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-may/the-revised-ers-farm-typology-classifying-us-farms-to-reflect-todays-agriculture.aspx#.UvqjGvaiRAe









http://www.eprints.lse.ac.uk/43805/1/CASEreport65.pdf












http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/improving-our-resource-management-system-discussion-document.pdf

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/improving-our-resource-management-system-discussion-document.pdf

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/City-South-s-days-are-numbered-4981829.php#/0

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/City-South-s-days-are-numbered-4981829.php#/0



http://www.greeningofcities.org/workshop/about-workshop/

http://www.greeningofcities.org/workshop/about-workshop/

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/48595.html











http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2004/11/15/focus1.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2004/11/15/focus1.html






https://www.saws.org/environment/ResourceProtComp/aquifer_protection/acquisition.cfm



http://www.texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/popup.aspx?id=15126

http://www.texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/popup.aspx?id=15126

http://www.texaslivingwaters.org/water-conservation/san-antonio-case-study/

http://www.texaslivingwaters.org/water-conservation/san-antonio-case-study/





http://www.usir.salford.ac.uk/9497/1/Tzoulas_et_al_2007.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr828rh/pdf/BILLS-106hr828rh.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr828rh/pdf/BILLS-106hr828rh.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/glossary.htm#g

http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm?program_id=5

http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy.cfm?program_id=5

http://www.academia.edu/3859022/Vujicic_Tijana_URBAN_AND_ARCHITECTURAL_TYPOLOGY_OF_INDUSTRIAL_STRUCTURES_VERSUS_THEIR_PHOTOGRAPHIC_TYPOLOGY_A_COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS_EN




http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/Councilstrategies/Pages/draftponsonbyroadmasterplan.aspx



http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-watercare/projects/central-interceptor/Pages/default.aspx




http://www.waterfrontauckland.co.nz/getmedia/68b631ad-87ef-4501-b8cc-3083698b70da/39347-WAKL-Waterfront-Plan_Y.pdf.aspx

http://www.waterfrontauckland.co.nz/getmedia/68b631ad-87ef-4501-b8cc-3083698b70da/39347-WAKL-Waterfront-Plan_Y.pdf.aspx

http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/water/documents/waterservices/greeninferstruc.pdf

http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/water/documents/waterservices/greeninferstruc.pdf

http://www.pce.parliament.nz/assets/Uploads/PCE-MfE-RMA-DiscussionDocumentfinal.pdf













Green Infrastructure Typologi

Documents

Transcript of Green Infrastructure Typologi