Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Engineering Sustainability 162
March 2009 Issue ES1
Pages 23–34
doi: 10.1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23
Paper 700034
Received 2/11/2007
Accepted 01/09/2008 Ian C. Mell
Keywords: PhD candidate, University of
government/infrastructure planning/ Newcastle, UK
sustainability
Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
I. C. Mell MSc
In 2000, a UK government white paper promoted the
prospect of an urban renaissance in the UK to be
developed through a series of urban renewal initiatives to
create better places for living, working and recreation.
Eight years on, there continues to be a policy drive
promoting better quality environments through integra-
tive design, social inclusion and public participation.
However, whether urban renewal can succeed without a
progressive integration of multi-functional green spaces
into the urban matrix is still uncertain. This paper
proposes that green infrastructure can play a pivotal role
in urban renaissance by providing a complementary green
matrix of spaces that offer multi-level benefits for human
populations. Green infrastructure can also be viewed as
simultaneously providing natural resource sinks to assist
urban climate control, water management and provide
important green networks in an increasingly urbanised
Britain. Due to the potential of green infrastructure to be
‘retrofitted’ into most environments, this paper argues
that green infrastructures can be delivered across diverse
urban environments in the UK to promote sustainable
communities and landscape management. Overall, this
paper will address how green infrastructure can be
planned within urban environments to promote increased
human integration, ecological sustainability and eco-
nomic regeneration. Finally, it is suggested that the
broader implications for climate control and economic
regeneration delivered by green infrastructure integra-
tion will, in the long term, provide a base for a continued
urban renaissance.
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2000, the UK government department in charge of transport,
social and environmental infrastructures—the Department for
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)—released its
vision for the regeneration of urban areas. This urban
renaissance1 was proposed as an agenda to create better places
in which to live and work and for recreation. The primary focus
of the DETR’s vision was to develop places that fulfilled the
environmental, financial and social needs of the population and
keyed into both the DETR and other government agendas by
promoting urban areas in Britain as thriving and vibrant places.
Consequently, the urban renaissance agenda outlined a set of
implementation strategies aimed at developing a cohesive and
structured urban living environment.1 These strategies were to
Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1
be achieved using guidelines outlined in urban renaissance
documents that constituted a number of ‘visions’ and utilised the
fundamentals of regeneration and sustainability as a driving
force behind urban renewal. The urban renaissance agenda also
placed a high value on the development of appropriate
infrastructures (ecological, financial and social) and noted that,
to fulfil its aims (Ref. 2, p. 57)
…[achieving] urban integration means thinking of urban open spaces
not as an isolated unit—be it a street, park or a square—but as a vital
part of the urban landscape with its own specific set of functions.
In order to deliver such an agenda, the DETR and more recently
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and its
subsequent departmental successor the Department for
Communities and Local Government (DCLG) developed addi-
tional programmes based on comparable criteria to those
outlined in the urban renaissance. With these additional
initiatives, the ODPM and DCLG have reinforced the roles that
social and environmental justice must play in developing better
environments for people to live.3 The DETR and the DCLG both
state that this shows a progression in government policy
thinking towards a more holistic view of urban planning.
However, this is not necessarily a universal view; some authors
regard the visions of the urban renaissance as too little for areas
of greatest social and economic deprivation. The progression of
different areas of government thinking concerning urban
renaissance has, however, promoted a number of other
principles relating to collaborative development policy and
practice. This process has been promoted as a way of translating
the conceptual ideas behind the urban renaissance into
deliverable implementation or development plans. Within the
DETR’s work, the role of public participation, diverse landscape
management practices and the development of partnerships
were viewed as essential processes vital to the success of the
urban renaissance agenda—policy ideas that have been
expressed in other initiatives as an effective way of engaging the
public with the complex issues of urban regeneration.
Since its initial development, urban renaissance has been
mirrored in other initiatives highlighting the role of developing
multi-actor partnerships. Both the Thames Gateway develop-
ments and the Northern Way growth corridor project empha-
sised the role of public consultation and social interactions.
Thus, by promoting multi-actor management partnerships, the
DETR and other organisations (e.g. the Thames Gateway
Development Corporation) have stated that towns and cities are
Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell 23
 able to develop sustainably and put in place mechanisms for the
successful implementation of urban renewal.1
The role of integration in the development of appropriate and
innovative urban green design will form one of the main
arguments proposed in this paper. This will focus on how green
infrastructure can be used to deliver the values of urban
renaissance at a number of contrasting scales—from local street-
level programmes to larger municipal or regional projects.
Although the differences in delivery scale vary, this paper will
suggest that green infrastructure offers a greater level of
development flexibility to be retrofitted into existing spaces
compared with other green space planning techniques and
should be implemented as an integral part of new developments.
The paper will go on to outline how green infrastructures are
being discussed as a mechanism for social inclusion and
combating the effects of climate change. However, the main
focus of this paper will be to outline how, and indeed whether,
green infrastructures can contribute positively to the urban
renaissance agenda and create ‘public spaces [that] work best
when they establish a direct relationship between the space and
the people who live and work around it’ (Ref. 2, p. 57). This
paper will attempt to highlight whether green infrastructure can
promote urban sustainability and, if so, examine the best
approaches for achieving this goal.
2. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Throughout this paper, the terms green infrastructure and
sustainability will be used to discuss the development of urban
sustainability and the urban renaissance. Green infrastructure
has been described as holding a number of overarching
principles that have underpinned both its concept and practice.
These principles have been drawn from landscape ecology,
greenways and multi-functionality literature, as well as
reviewing sustainable communities and green urban design.
These sources have been used to promote the roles of access,
connectivity, multi-functionality and strategic planning as
essential elements of green infrastructure thinking. A review of
the available literature on green infrastructure highlights the
research of Benedict and McMahon,4,5 CABE Space,6 Davies et
al.7 and Heritage Conservancy8 as leading figures in the concept
development. One of the most recent attempts to review this
literature was presented by the Countryside Agency9 who stated
that green infrastructure
comprises the provision of planned networks of linked multi-
functional green spaces that contribute to protecting natural habitats
and biodiversity, enable response to climate change and other
biosphere changes, enable more sustainable and healthy lifestyles,
enhance urban liveability and wellbeing, improve the accessibility of
key recreational and green assets, support the urban and rural
economy and assist in the better long-term planning and manage-
ment of green spaces and corridors.
The work9 outlines a number of key elements expressed in the
green infrastructure literature and expresses the view that
ecological, economic and social actors must be able to benefit
from green space planning. Consequently, in this paper, green
infrastructure will be used to outline an approach that focuses
on supporting different interests by maintaining landscape
resources across urban, urban-fringe and rural areas in order to
develop resilient landscapes that support ecological, economic,
and human interests by maintaining the integrity of, and
24 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
promoting landscape connectivity, whilst enhancing the quality
of life, place and the environment across different landscape
boundaries.
The role of green infrastructure planning therefore aims to act as
a synthesis of a number of other areas of planning (greenways,
green spaces, high-density planning) to promote a coherent
discipline for future development. Due to the inclusionary focus
of the green infrastructure concept, it provides opportunities to
bring together a diverse range of knowledge, experience and
information in order to develop best-practice techniques for
development.10,11 Multi-actor partnerships and the delivery of
multi-functional benefits are thus crucial components of a green
infrastructure approach. This view also supports the role of
green infrastructure as a facilitator for the provision of
economic, recreational and social amenities for diverse demo-
graphic groups. Green infrastructure is therefore proposed as a
landscape management process that can meet the diverse needs
of different landscape planning scenarios.12
In conjunction with the use of green infrastructure terminology,
the principles of sustainability will also be used throughout this
paper. Historically, sustainability has been discussed (within
similar parameters to green infrastructure) as a discipline that
integrates ecological, economic and social influences within a
process of equitable use.13,14 The diverse meaning attributed to
sustainability has led to a range of principles being associated
with the term in relation to landscape management. This paper
will refer frequently to sustainability, and in particular land-
scape sustainability, using the DETR’s vision of sustainability as
a framework for use. The DETR suggested that sustainability is
about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone—now and for
generations to come.2 The role of sustainability as a facilitator
for the use of more appropriate techniques of landscape
development that are resilient to adverse ecological, economic
and social change will be used throughout this paper.14
However, under the ‘global sustainability scenario’ outlined by
Ekins,15 sustainability also relates to the ways in which people
aspire to higher levels of welfare within their communities, more
equal distribution of economic and social capitals, and an
understanding of how human–environmental relationships
affect the long-term sustainability of a resource.
Consequently, this paper will outline how sustainability
principles can be used to promote a multi-faceted approach to
green infrastructure planning and examine how sustainable
planning practices can meet a number of the most important
issues in current planning—climate change, liveability and the
development of sustainable spaces. Although the use of such a
definition of sustainability bases its foundations in more
traditional interpretations of sustainable development, the ideas
are still valid in terms of green infrastructure development.4,8 By
reviewing landscape change in terms of ecological, economic,
political and social influences, it is possible to assess the factors
under which green infrastructure can prosper as a coherent and
adaptive planning process.
Throughout this paper, questions will be raised regarding the
value of green infrastructure planning as a process for meeting
the changing needs of UK landscapes. Green infrastructure’s role
in developing quality green spaces within the economic and
social fabric will demonstrate how the regeneration of urban
Mell
landscapes through the urban renaissance agenda can benefit
from this planning approach. Through a review of how the
conceptual ideas underpinning green infrastructure can be
translated into actual planning practice, this paper will outline
how green infrastructure can potentially be seen as holding the
key to meet these challenges in planning policy and subsequent
practice.
3. EIGHT YEARS ON: THE ROLE OF
URBAN RENAISSANCE
Eight years on from its initial presentation, the urban
renaissance agenda still focuses policy on vital areas of urban
planning. Since its release, the values of public participation,
increased opportunities for sustainable living, and creating and
sharing prosperity have been integrated in a number of other
policies produced by the UK government and a number of non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and delivery partners.
Government departments like the DCLG, the Department of
Health (DoH)16,17 and the Department of Culture, Media and
Sport (DCMS)18 are utilising elements of the urban renaissance
as a way of promoting better standards of living across the UK.
The transition of DETR urban renaissance ideas into other policy
areas has yielded a wider debate on sustainable land use. The
roles of economic and social equity have been at the centre of
this process and DoH and DCMS agendas have employed
components of the urban renaissance to engage the public with
issues relating to health, education, housing and employment.
However, although the focus of these agendas may differ from
those outlined in the urban renaissance, the issue that forms the
basis for these polices is the need to develop functional and
amenable landscapes. By utilising the principles outlined in
urban renaissance—reviewing social inclusion, environmental
sustainability and the development of well-kept cities—the DCLG
has been able to develop its role as a delivery organisation for
‘cohesive communities that offer a safe, healthy and sustainable
future’.19 This has been made possible by the UK government’s
drive to develop communities that are socially and economically
prosperous and provide more opportunities for social inclusion.
Due to the broad scope of the urban renaissance initiative, it has
been possible to adapt its visions into a number of high-profile
urban renewal programmes. From the development of better
quality homes to the provision of a higher standard of services,
the ethos of the urban renaissance has been incorporated into
contemporary planning policy by regional and national delivery
agencies. With its focus on providing people with better quality
environments, the urban renaissance has used the foci of
community, opportunity and prosperity as a way of driving
forward the sustainability agenda.1
Following publication and subsequent use of the urban
renaissance agenda, it has possibly become more relevant
because of a continued government drive to increase social
inclusion and provide citizens with a better standard of living.
Better urban design and the development of more efficient
service infrastructures (e.g. schools, medical services, green
spaces) have thus become of paramount importance in
achieving these targets. This remit has also been written into
other initiatives, including the sustainable communities agenda
developed by the ODPM.20 The sustainable communities
programme promotes several urban renaissance key issues and
Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
looks to improve the sustainable relationship between people
and the environment. ODPM literature states that sustainable
communities are achievable through better understanding of the
needs of their target populations. Thus, by balancing and
integrating the economic, environmental and social components
of communities’ needs, the aim is to create inclusive, safe, well-
designed and environmentally sound landscapes.21,22
Each of the three main pillars of sustainability (economy,
environment and society) compares favourably with the visions
set out in the urban renaissance agenda. Achieving them,
however, is a more difficult process. Two projects that have
looked at combining the policy focus of urban renaissance and
sustainable communities with realistic delivery are the Northern
Way growth corridor and the Thames Gateway. Both projects
offer an insight into how pan-regional or multi-partner working
partnerships can be developed to meet the ecological, economic
and social needs of a spatially diverse landscape and a diverse
range of populations.
3.1. The Thames Gateway
The Thames Gateway has been described by the DCLG as holding
enormous potential assets that, if developed appropriately, could
bring the area up to the growth standards of the rest of South-
East England.23 The programme provides a good example of
how a multi-agency project can be run effectively to rejuvenate
a region that has underperformed in an area of otherwise
progressive economic performance. Within its remit, the project
aims to enhance the existing infrastructures of the region by
analysing the needs of local populations and increasing the
area’s overall liveability.20 This is being achieved through a
combination of integrative design, a balancing of environmental
and ecological functions and an overall enhancement of the
physical and social infrastructure.22 In short, the Thames
Gateway Partnership has provided a set of visions promoting
cooperation and integration at landscape scale to develop a
more cohesive set of liveable places. It has also been argued
that the Thames Gateway has the potential to become an
important centre for international trade and enterprise and will
provide multi-scaled economic benefits locally, regionally and
nationally.24
Due to its location in the south-east growth area, the Thames
Gateway has been the beneficiary of extensive central govern-
ment funding and is more likely to achieve it renewal targets
than other regions. The role of the Thames Gateway as an
exemplar intensive regeneration initiative, however, does not
necessarily mean that sustainability targets are being met.
Although a strong governance framework that promotes a high
level of policy and practice integration is in place for the
Thames Gateway, the actual delivery of sustainable infrastruc-
ture is still contested.25 The development of new homes,
transport links and service infrastructure is not universally
noted as promoting sustainability targets because of the
ecological costs involved.
3.2. The Northern Way growth corridor
In contrast to the Thames Gateway, the Northern Way does not
have the same level of government financial support, nor as
strong a strategic policy framework to support urban renais-
sance. The Northern Way covers a geographically larger area
that includes north-east England, north-west England, Yorkshire
Mell 25
 and Humberside, all of which are landscapes currently in
different stages of post-industrial renewal. The overarching aim
of the programme is to promote economic growth through a
decentralised approach to regional planning.26 A subsidiary aim
of the Northern Way is to rejuvenate the post-industrial cities of
the region by promoting economic growth, attracting capital
investment and encouraging people to settle in the region in the
long term.26 It aims to achieve these goals through urban and
economic renewal, both of which have been strongly empha-
sised in Northern Way documentation.27 However, whether
these targets are achievable in such a diverse and potentially
fragmented physical and social landscape is unclear.
The Northern Way offers an example of a pan-regional
approach to decentralised governance. By developing a
regionally focused framework promoting economic develop-
ment, regional development agencies (RDAs) have used the
Northern Way as a way of redressing the disparity seen between
local and regional development.28–30 Focusing social and
economic progress on a geographical growth corridor, the
Northern Way has been developed as a multi-scale, multi-
organisation initiative working across both administrative and
physical landscape boundaries to provide a forum for the
discussion of local and wider territorial interests.26
Consequently, the Northern Way has allowed centralised spatial
strategies to be interpreted through specific regional visions
rather than as a broader top-down governmental agenda.
The Northern Way initiative also offers a framework through
which RDAs, the regional assembly and regional government
offices can work collaboratively to promote a pan-regional
agenda that can challenge the economic influence of the South-
East. It may, therefore, be argued that the Northern Way can
provide a greater level of support for policy implications
because of the increased levels of cooperation, involvement and
forethought in developing the North’s city regions and larger
growth corridor.29 There is, however, the alternative view that
such a disparate area as the Northern Way does not lend itself to
the development of a functional and polycentric economic
environment. Instead, as noted by Goodchild and Hickman,26
the Northern Way may be viewed as simply a reinforcement of
previous RDA policy, leading to concentrated planning objec-
tives promoting local authority agendas and not the broader
aims of the Northern Way region. In terms of green
infrastructure, the Northern Way does provide an indication that
large-scale initiatives can work if every partner believes in the
outcomes.
The economic targets of both the Northern Way and the Thames
Gateway rely on their ability to implement renewal through
innovative landscape change. However, differences in political
will, scale, funding and focus between the two projects suggest
that, although they promote similar ideals, they cannot be seen
as comparable. The Thames Gateway has political and financial
support because of its geographical and economic importance to
the growth of the South-East. The Northern Way relies more
readily on regional cooperation and goodwill to improve the
economy of the pan-regional area. It is hoped that the removal
of barriers to development such as economic stagnation, social
fragmentation or lack of capital funding in the case of the
Northern Way will enable urban renewal to take place. Both
programmes acknowledge that, in order to deliver their visions,
26 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
the lives of those who reside in the regions must be improved.
Thus, to achieve these targets both the physical and social
environment of an area must be considered to be of equal
importance to its residents as they affect its economic growth
and long-term liveability.
4. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND
LIVEABLE SPACES
Green infrastructures are the spaces in and around urban areas
that provide ecological, economic and social benefits, promote
sustainable living and support appropriate urban develop-
ment.31 They offer spaces that hold multi-functional benefits for
a broad range of demographic groups and can be located in all
areas of the urban–rural matrix. However, there are a number of
fundamental principles that underpin a green infrastructure
planning approach. Authors including Benedict and
McMahon4,5 have promoted the ecological function of green
infrastructure as a tool supporting conservation goals and
highlight its role as a connective ecological element. Heritage
Conservancy8 notes the role green infrastructure can play in
providing ecological sinks for the management of environ-
mental resources such as water at a broader landscape scale.
Both conservation and resource accumulation principles are
important if long-term sustainable land use is to be promoted.
Research in North America on green infrastructure has most
frequently focused on the ecological functions of the landscape
as its underlying principle.11,12 In contrast in the UK, Davies et
al.,7 the ODPM32 and Green Infrastructure North West33 have
placed a greater value on landscape multi-functionality and the
use of green infrastructure as a way of connecting people with
the environment by developing better access to green spaces
across urban and urban-fringe areas.
Davies et al.,7 the Town and Country Planning Association
(TCPA)31 and Kambites and Owen34 assessed the work of the
Countryside Agency and Groundwork35 and highlighted the
potential that green infrastructure holds for providing a number
of multi-scale benefits. It could therefore be suggested that the
countryside in and around towns (CIAT) principles could
underpin the development of guidance in terms of a green
infrastructure typology. A typology of this nature could
promote and emphasise the following principles outlined in the
green infrastructure research: connectivity, access, strategic
thinking and planning, appropriate scale, multi-functionality,
and a holistic integration of ecological, economic and social
influences.5,7,34,36 The utility of a green infrastructure typology
would focus on its value to researchers and landscape managers
as a principles checklist. A checklist approach could be used to
assess the appropriateness of developments in terms of
(a) access to green spaces
(b) developing places for exercise and recreation
(c) linking people to local heritage
(d) regeneration
(e) access to education
(f) social cohesion
(g) creating attractive places to live.
This approach, which has been used in Sweden10 and is being
developed in the UK, shows parallels with the systems
underpinning the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Mell
Design (Leed) and Building Research Establishment environ-
mental assessment method (Breeam) standards in which a
checklist approach has been successfully developed to assess the
sustainable characteristics of buildings and developments.37–40
Each of these benefits complements the ideas outlined by the
DoH,11 ODPM32 and DCMS18 where health, education and
regeneration were all seen as elements supporting healthier
living standards in relation to urban renaissance.
The production of a green infrastructure checklist may therefore
provide a feasible way of developing an overarching set of
principles. At present, the fragmented nature of green infra-
structure research in the UK, North America, Europe and even
Asia does not provide a firm or static grounding.6,13,41 Although
the need for a definition of green infrastructure has been
discussed elsewhere, a set of principles would allow research to
be guided more effectively. A typology approach based on a set
of agreed principles covering as wide a range of green
infrastructure types as possible (e.g. the UK national land-use
database (NLUD)) would therefore provide a defined framework
for future green infrastructure developments and research. The
principles outlined earlier have been debated as holding key
values in this process.7 If these are related to current typologies
or hierarchal green space standards such as NLUD or English
Nature’s accessible natural green space standards) then guidance
on size, composition, function and location for green infra-
structure development may become easier.42 Current research in
Bedfordshire and Luton, the Tees Valley and the River Nene
region have utilised this approach in an effort to develop their
green infrastructure resource base.
In practice, green infrastructures are being used in the UK,
Europe and North America to fulfil a number of urban and
ecological policies (e.g. smart growth or sustainable commu-
nities). Research by the TCPA and Community Forests Network
in the UK has tried to synthesise conceptual and typology
debates into a programme of deliverable and sustainable
landscape management practices. England’s community forests
have embraced green infrastructure not only as a way of further
promoting core remits of participation, land care and urban-
fringe renewal, but also as a mechanism for simultaneously
addressing broad social and ecological change.43 In doing so,
the Community Forests Network has been one of the main
protagonists delivering the CIAT agenda as a way of developing
multi-functional and accessible spaces. The Mersey Forest
provides an example of how this process can be achieved.
Alongside community forests, there have been a number of
organisations attempting to deliver landscape diversification
though innovative design.44 The work of the North East
Community Forest (NECF) in conjunction with the Countryside
Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and
Groundwork is one such group where green infrastructure has
been discussed as offering an innovative landscape management
process to create diverse and inclusive landscape opportunities.7
NECF’s green infrastructure planning guide is the primary
outcome of this research and focuses on providing guidance
notes for landscape development to meet the complex planning
of different landscapes.
In contrast, research from the USA shows that green infra-
structure is being developed to conserve and protect landscapes
from overdevelopment and further landscape degradation.8
Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
Green infrastructure plans have been developed at different
planning scales, from federal to county level. In Maryland,
county-level programmes have been developed to promote a
number of exemplar conservation and landscape assessments
projects highlighting the sustainable benefits of green infra-
structure.41 This multi-scaled approach has allowed active green
infrastructure researchers to develop an evidence base that they
have used to promote the concept to state and federal
organisations. The role of evidence has since been relayed in
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and American
Planning Association (APA) literature stating that the green
light may now be on for state, metropolitan and county level
green infrastructure developments.5,12
In light of these examples, if green infrastructure is to be
regarded as a major contributor to urban renaissance, then the
concept needs to be seen as of equal importance as housing,
services or transport. The role of green infrastructure as a
facilitator of increased mobility, health and education therefore
needs to be central to this translation. By developing these
values into existing or new policies, planning authorities at
different scales would have a legal obligation to integrate green
infrastructure principles within their urban renewal plans.
Unfortunately, for those championing green infrastructure, there
still appears to be a strong focus on landscape planning
primarily for economic growth. This is viewed by some as
decreasing the potential of regional and local level agents to
deliver green infrastructures because they may not be viewed as
economically viable.45 However, within the DETR’s initial urban
renaissance document, it was stated that funding would be made
available for alternative infrastructure projects. The DETR claims
that 65% of transport infrastructure expenditure would be
moved to fund projects that prioritise walking, cycling and
public transport.1 Although this funding may not have been
granted directly for green infrastructure projects, it is a move
towards alternative planning scenarios that promote sustainable
living—policies in which green infrastructure may play a major
part.
There thus appears to be a need in green space research to
discuss the value of green infrastructure in terms of what
developments need in relation to environmental and social
sustainability. Many researchers argue that a proportional
increase in green infrastructure resources would provide a
proportionally larger number of ecological, economic and social
benefits.7 However, there are issues of quality versus quantity of
space. In terms of meeting the visions of urban renaissance,
quality appears to be a more appropriate measure of sustainable
landscape development. Consequently, the quality of a green
infrastructure composition may meet the needs of space more
appropriately than an increase in its actual size.6 The role of a
green infrastructure development needs to fulfil the needs of the
space itself and the wider needs of the overall landscape by
providing appropriate opportunities for human–environment
interactivity.34 This process has been viewed by the DCLG as a
way of meeting the multi-scaled needs of a given landscape due
to the flexible nature of green infrastructure to be retrofitted in
diverse landscape contexts.20
Further research needs to focus on diversity of thinking within
green infrastructure research as a way of meeting the needs of
an ever-changing environment. A typology or checklist
Mell 27
 approach may therefore be a viable option. This view has been that urban, urban-fringe and rural landscapes have in combat-
supported by Beatley13 who suggests that green infrastructure ing climate change also suggests that a review of the causal
holds an important role at the interface between urban nature between environmental change and human actions needs
development and the acceptable level of green space people to be assessed. Consequently, the roles of housing, transport,
need to live comfortable or sustainable lives. Others46,47 have agriculture and municipal infrastructure developments need to
also proposed such an argument, stating that the proportional be assessed in order to review the extent to which human
value of a green infrastructure far outweighs its actual size or impacts may be mitigated by proportional increases in green
cost as green spaces meet a broader number of needs than infrastructure resources.
traditional grey infrastructure.
Figure 1 highlights this process.8 Work by the Heritage
5. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND Conservancy notes that development must be discussed in
CLIMATE CONTROL conjunction with environmental targets and information.
As green infrastructure has gained support by being viewed as a Figure 1 also outlines how public service provision needs to
multi-scale landscape management process, the concept has also work closely with ecological systems if a sustainable level of
been increasingly debated as holding a potential role in land use is to be achieved. Heritage Conservancy draws on
combating the effects of climate change. The work of Benedict landscape ecology by stating that a systems approach to climate
and McMahon5 supports this view and highlights how green change adaptation is one way of calibrating economic and
infrastructures can be developed as environmental sinks of social needs with available ecological resources. The systems
ecologically important resources. These authors and Davies et approach to green infrastructure implies that there is an
al.7 note that the creation and maintenance of green spaces essential relationship between the value and utility of an
allow ecological resources to be maintained that provide ecological resource and the needs of human populations. By
ecological sinks to mitigate environmental change. This, they developing projects that maintain ecological resources while
state, can be achieved by developing larger expanses of flora meeting human needs, Heritage Conservancy8 and others13,48
and fauna, water or green spaces, and also by developing state that such a resource will have equal flows into and out of
pockets of ecologically important infrastructure within urba- the overall system. Sustainable drainage systems (Suds) are one
nised areas. Thus, trees, gardens, play areas and parks all area where this process is visible. By developing systems that
potentially hold substantial ecological value. If discussed in manage water resources, Suds allow a greater level of control
terms of the broader green matrix of urban and urban-fringe over the ecological resource. Consequently, humans are able to
landscapes, such resources highlight how creating and con- adapt their own activities in tandem with Suds in order to
necting green spaces can provide a level of compensation for manage excessive and low flows to maintain equilibrium.49–51
some of the effects of climatic change.8 Highlighting the roles Heritage Conservancy adopts a systems approach as a way of

ACQUIRE LAND OR
STATE GAME LANDS HUB FORESTED HILL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
TO PROTECT WILDLIFE
ENDANGERED
SPECIES HUB

ENDANGERED
SPECIES HUB
ROUTE 10
MAIN ST.

CRE
EK
CR
CULTIVATED FARMLAND
CO

EE
K
RR

LANDSCAPE T
IDOR
CORRIDOR

ACQUIRE CONSERVATION L N T RIG H T S ESTABUSH WELLHEAD

EASEMENTS AND PME
IMPROVE CREEK BANKS PRIME AGRICULTURAL E EVE L O PROTECTION AREA
SOILS HUB D
ER
B

CLEAN WATER
F
S

HUB
AN
TR

RAIL
ER A IL T
EAT DISTURBED VILLAGE
CR

CONNECT TO RIDOR
LANDSCAPE KEY
C OR
COUNTY TRAIL EAM
STR R
RIDO Homes
CONVERT VACANT COR
AM
OR

LOTS TO STRE
N

PRIME AGRICULTURAL
POCKET PARKS
ID

SOILS HUB Public well

R

R
E
O
K C

LINK PARKS
AND SCHOOLS WITH Paint factory
E BROWNFIELD
EE

TRAIL AND CREEK WETLANDS

R

C TO CREATE A HUB
R GREENWAY Bridge
RESTORE WETLANDS
G ESTABLISH
BACKYARD CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS Store
WILDLIFE IMPROVE WASTE TO ALLOW FOR
TRANSFER
PROGRAMME STREETSCAPES REDEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
School

Park

Street trees

8
Figure 1. Linking green infrastructure concepts with climate control (Source: Growing with Green Infrastructure E 2008 by Heritage
Conservancy. All rights reserved)

28 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell
highlighting how the interactions of capitals (ecological,
economic and social) have a cumulative impact on both
landscape resources and opportunities afforded to human
populations for development.
By reviewing the value of ecological resources in this way,
Heritage Conservancy proposes that green infrastructure
resources have a relatively higher value in economic and social
terms. Benedict and McMahon5 also state that the integration of
a systems approach to conservation with a better understanding
of environmental design would promote a more sustainable use
of the resource base. By effectively reviewing the role ecological
resources can play in urban developments, Heritage
Conservancy,8 Fábos,52 Ahern11 and Gill et al.53 all suggest that
the resource itself has a greater proportional effect on climate
change adaptation because it explicitly contrasts with more
traditional impervious infrastructure. Handley54 supports this
view, suggesting that sustainable land use can be achieved
through green infrastructure development, especially when
discussed in terms of scale, strategic focus and appropriate
scenario development (p. 50).
The work of Brown and Gillespie55 develops this view further;
they outline how the use of pocket parks, street trees and urban
greening projects in New York have stabilised or lowered the
surrounding air temperatures. This effect has long been
associated with the role of water resources, but Brown and
Gillespie’s work highlights how green spaces or infrastructures
of all sizes can provide climatic stability beyond their immediate
boundaries. Brown and Gillespie’s work thus offers an indication
of the broader value that a small area of green infrastructure can
provide for its surrounding environment. By reviewing the
potential cooling effects of trees and green spaces in terms of
distance travelled and temperature lowered, their work high-
lights concentric cooling promoted by greenery.56 If this view is
expanded to municipal or regional scale, then green infra-
structures could be discussed as providing large-scale con-
tributions to climate control.5
In areas such as London, urban renewal is becoming an
increasingly important way of attempting to influence the
liveability of urban environments. The integration of green
infrastructure resources within developments such as the
Thames Gateway is therefore being used in an attempt to
balance the cumulative affects of development over time.
London’s parks (e.g. Regents, Hyde, St James) provide spaces
that accommodate a significant proportion of visible green
spaces and thus play a key role in stabilising the temperature of
the city and filtering excess pollution and rainfall that would
otherwise cause increasingly negative climatic effects. Each of
these spaces therefore provides areas where gardens, grass
pitches, lakes and trees control the micro-climate of the
increasingly polluted streets of London. However, they also
provide spaces that can be viewed as part of the wider London
green infrastructure matrix providing ecological sinks across the
city and into the urban-fringes of Middlesex, Essex and Surrey.
(A further example is the Thames Gateway green infrastructure
network.33) This scaled cooling effect may thus potentially
benefit a higher proportion of people than indicated by the
actual size of the space itself. Green infrastructure subsequently
provides a typology of landscape elements that can be
Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
hierarchal in size and value with ecological benefits that can aid
localised climate control.25 However, green infrastructure can
also extend across wider municipal regions and mitigate against
wider climatic issues such as flooding by working within a
network of green infrastructures designed to cope with such
environmental stresses. To meet the challenges of climate
change, green space or green infrastructure strategies will
require a suite of complimentary measures to realise their full
adaptation potential. This is particularly important in relation to
interception functions, e.g. flood control, stormwater storage,
and infiltration and release systems.54
6. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE
URBAN RENAISSANCE
Research has highlighted some areas noted as being valuable
outlets for green infrastructure planning. However, if green
infrastructure is to be planned to enable increased human
integration, ecological sustainability and economic regenera-
tion, a broad range of ecological, political and social factors
must be taken into account. Increased concentrated develop-
ment of urban areas has given little consideration to thoughtful
design and planning57 and the traditional value of cohesion and
integration in some urban areas has been lost.
Green infrastructure is potentially a process that can reinstate
these values, in support of urban renaissance, by providing
spaces that can promote communal inclusion and use. However,
to be successfully integrated into urban land matrices, green
infrastructures must firstly be planned with the functions they
are to fulfil in mind. Designing landscapes that do not provide a
number of beneficial functions for their target populations may
hinder patronage and lead to the development of exclusionary
spaces.35 Landscape functionality must therefore be seen as an
essential component of development if people are to use a space.
Green infrastructures may be a way of achieving this goal as
they have the ability to provide a number of simultaneous
functions (including health, recreation and general wellbeing)
that promote social inclusion.37,58 Therefore, through a sys-
tematic approach to green infrastructure development, there is
the potential to increase awareness, use and subsequent own-
ership of spaces and develop long-term sustainable use.59 This
in turn promotes a number of the principal features of the urban
renaissance—by increasing public use of green spaces and
allowing people to feel part of a space’s wellbeing they make the
spaces safer and more attractive to others.60
As mentioned in Section 4, green infrastructure also has a role
to play in addressing issues of climate change. This process
works in two ways. Firstly, it assumes that urban environments
have an increasingly modified climate compared with urban-
fringe or rural areas because of the composition of built
infrastructure.13 Consequently, urban areas are assumed to have
a lower tolerance to climate change because they are composed
of a number of closed systems. Green infrastructure can thus
offer microclimatic controls in urban areas by providing spaces
that intercept rainfall, absorb solar radiation and increase the
urban cooling effect.38 This is important in large cities and areas
in arid or hot climates where shade has been shown to provide a
better quality of life by relieving heat stress and fatigue.55
Secondly, at a broader scale, green infrastructures can act as
ecosystem manager and natural resource sink. Green infra-
Mell 29
 structure acts as a buffer to climate change by increasing the
proportion of ecological resource and providing spaces that can
adapt or control extreme variations in climate such as flooding
or drought.54 This can be achieved by providing spaces where
excess rainwater can be stored and then dispersed (e.g. the
proposed Airedale Nature Reserve, West Yorkshire). Within the
context of current estimates that suggest that extreme weather
conditions will increase, this makes large-scale green infra-
structure projects more viable options for landscape managers.5
This level of landscape integration can be achieved by creating
networks of spaces that allow the flow of energy (water or
pollutants) to pass from different danger points into sink areas
for storage, diffusion and release. The North East Strategy for the
Environment heavily emphasises the role of ecosystem man-
agement as a way of developing the north-east to protect
against climatic change through such a systems approach.61
Contextualising these two points of view against urban
renaissance suggests that there is a strong link between potential
climate change mitigation and green infrastructure. At micro
(city) and macro (municipal) levels, green infrastructures can aid
both small- and larger-scale climate control by providing
landscape elements that provide a better quality of life. This can
be achieved by relieving the stresses associated with tempera-
ture and humidity and also by using large-scale green
infrastructure projects to manage climate change through
natural green space functions.
Green infrastructure also provides a process that can aid urban
renaissance through economic renewal. As seen in the Northern
Way growth corridor, landscape plays a major role in attracting
business and economic renewal to regions in decline.26 The
north-east RDA, One NorthEast, has been one of the main
proponents of this process using iconic green infrastructure of
the region as a main driver in promoting the region across the
UK. The DETR has pointed out that attractive and well-designed
spaces are able to attract business because people want to live in
such areas.2 This view is strongly supported by the UK
Community Forests Network—attractive places to live develop
through a combination of better services, recreational facilities
and attractive functional landscapes, and economic regenera-
tion is a process linked directly to landscape. In previous
generations this link was related to the value of natural
resources, but contemporary research relates it to the quality of
life people can expect in any given location.62 Likewise, in the
Thames Gateway project, green infrastructure development has
been seen as a vital part of achieving sustainable communities
and promoting social inclusion.20
The focus of the DETR’s drive towards urban renaissance is
shown in Figure 2,2 which highlights how green infrastructure
can be developed in conjunction with transport and other ‘grey’
infrastructure to form a matrix of mixed-use, accessible spaces
that offer different amenities and activities. It also shows that by
using a hierarchy of spaces (local, neighbourhood, metropoli-
tan), different spaces can provide different functions depending
on what is needed by the local population. Figure 2 also shows
that green infrastructure can be effectively integrated within a
high-density mixed-use development. This is an important facet
of green infrastructure research—in the reconstruction and
redevelopment of spaces in post-industrial locations, green
infrastructure is proposed as being a useful process to meet
30 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
different needs. The ability of green infrastructure to be
retrofitted into existing landscapes therefore links with the
ideals of urban renaissance as it provides scope for redeveloping
spaces in a more sustainable manner. However, the development
of green infrastructure is still in its formative stages and there
needs to be a balance between its supporters and tangible or
achievable benefits that can actually be delivered.
The political climate of the UK still places much emphasis on the
economic value of landscapes. Unfortunately, health benefits or
physiological wellbeing are not readily seen to hold the same
value as financial recuperations from housing development. All
too often, landscapes and their ecological and social functions
are underestimated compared with the economic incentives of
development.45 A further problem is that there is still a lack of
coherent dialogue between land managers and policy officials
relating to green infrastructure. This has led to a number of
contrasting policy streams being developed—from local
authorities to government agencies.26 This in turn has meant
that landscape developments do not always promote best land
use, but potentially the best interests of developers. Therefore,
dialogue between all stakeholders—including the public—is
needed if, as the urban renaissance claims, people are to share
the future.1
This is an important area for green infrastructure research.
Through recognition of its values in planning policy, green
infrastructure can become a mainstream landscape management
process. Therefore, if green infrastructure is to be discussed as
such a process, planners and developers need to review the long-
term viability of developments. Large-scale municipal projects
such as the Emerald Necklace in Boston or Central Park in New
York have been viewed in terms of the broader benefits they can
deliver across a number of scales.52,63 Both these projects
viewed the city as a system with inputs and outputs and were
developed as a way of providing environmental access for all. If
green infrastructure is to succeed in the UK, it needs to be
viewed by planners as a way of linking people and landscapes
with the long-term aim of creating sustainable places. By
engineering places in which people want to live, the visions of
urban renaissance may be achievable.
However, there are still questions of who is responsible for
the management and financing of green infrastructure
developments. With national planning policy starting to
acknowledge green infrastructure values and its discussion
within the latest round of regional spatial strategies, different
planning scales are being engaged. This, however, does not
necessarily constitute financial support for capital works or
green infrastructure projects. Consequently, although green
infrastructure has been proposed as a practical mechanism for
supporting the strategic planning of sustainable spaces,7 there
are still discussions over who will actual pay for such works. The
costs of such works have been discussed45 as an area where
investments in green infrastructure may falter. The UK
sustainable transport charity Sustrans recently carried out cost–
benefit analyses of several of its projects; it noted that the
benefits of alternative transport routes provided a 20:1 benefit–
cost ratio.64 The DoH has reported similar findings, stating that a
proportional increase in green infrastructure development and
use could save the National Health Service £8?2 billion
annually.16,18 These figures place into context the value of green
Mell
 Rail/bus stop
Neighbourhood central square
Tram/light rail or main bus route

Integrated transport systems

An hierarchy of open space Local bus stop
Local bus route
Pocket park
with play
Neighbourhood street
Local
The local links Local distributor
Tr
square am segregated cycle and footpaths

Access road
Toddlers' combines cycle and paths
greens
Local
Canal links
corridor Local
bus
links

Local
links
Neighbourhood
road links

a
a re
Bus 500m

od
rh o
ou
hb
ig

Provide good local facilities

Ne
A vibrant mix of uses

Shops
Neighbourhood
Mixed working areas to district links
Local Primary school
links

Higher density housing and some working

Places of worship

Predominantly residential areas Community facilities such as – pub, crêche etc.

Figure 2. Green infrastructure elements and their fit with urban renewals strategies.2 (Source: Andrew Wright Associates.
Parliamentary material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO on behalf of Parliament)

infrastructure to the UK economy. Financial support could be
made available from central government for national, regional
and local level developments if the emphasis is placed on the
benefits rather than the costs of green development.36
7. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AS A FRAMEWORK
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
With the rise in green infrastructure research, there has been an
increase in the number of guidelines linking the concept with
urban sustainability. A plethora of guidelines, toolkits and
checklist approaches have been developed outlining require-
ments for measuring sustainable urban developments. These
guidelines relate to a range of ecological, economic and social
influences and propose a number of areas—including water
retention, Suds, size and scale of resources, links to other related
systems and the promotion of alternative transport techniques—
where green infrastructure could be used to promote sustain-
ability. The development of such guidelines aims to place the
onus of more sustainable development on planners and
developers by outlining systems or approaches where sustain-
able design and building status can only be attributed if specific
criteria are met.
Leed in North America and Breeam in the UK, as well as the
NECF green infrastructure planning guide and the north-west
green infrastructure guide all provide practical guidelines for
assessing and developing sustainable places. These guidelines
represent a contextualisation of the research into green
infrastructure and propose a number of areas where it can be
used. These checklists and guides outline how, where and what
constitutes appropriate design and can be linked with the
principles of urban renaissance to highlight what can be classed
as inclusive, appropriate and sustainable. Consequently, by
promoting a number of underlying sustainability principles, the
use of a framework of development criteria can be utilised
within a given development. The use of such guidelines
emphasises that the development of sustainable places would
fall on developers if they wish to have their work accredited
with recognised sustainability targets. It may also allow
planners to develop policies that provide guidance for green
infrastructure developments based on the typologies proposed
by Ahern,65 Davies et al.7 or in Section 4 of this paper.
8. CONCLUSION
This paper has discussed green infrastructure as a provider of a

Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell 31
 number of ecological, economic and social benefits by assessing
how green infrastructure can meet spatial and planning policy
considerations using a systems approach that supports the
historical context of a space.57 This paper has suggested how
green infrastructure can be viewed as a process through which
adaptations to climate change can take place. It has also
reviewed a number of practices for adaptation, all of which
could provide multi-scale benefits depending on how climate
change is strategically planned for. The paper also examined the
broader social and economic benefits outlined in current
government policy and how these relate to green space planning
and urban renewal. Overall, the UK government’s urban
renaissance agenda aimed to create places for sustainable living
that allowed people to develop links with their environments
and to create and share economic and social prosperity. Green
infrastructure has been suggested as a delivery mechanism, with
a number of appropriate foci that can aid this process but only if
developed appropriately.
Like many green space planning approaches, green infrastruc-
ture planning must take into account the needs of the
environment in terms of social justice, exposure to innovative
green spaces or simply the ability to move freely within and
around the environment. Landscape managers and developers
must therefore be careful when developing green infrastructure
not to develop spaces that work within too confined a remit.
When discussing urban design, Gehl66 noted ‘first life, then
spaces, then buildings’, proposing that liveable spaces are at the
heart of the acceptance and continued use of spaces. Thus,
socially inclusive landscapes spaces cannot be retrofitted
without appropriate public consultation to determine commu-
nity wants and needs. In areas such as the Thames Gateway, this
process has been adopted and subsequent development of
housing, transport and green infrastructures has been imple-
mented successfully and with local support.20 In terms of the
Northern Way, there is still room for further development of
these links.
If urban renaissance is to be achieved alongside other
programmes such as the sustainable communities agenda, the
following should be considered.
(a) Developments must take into account the different ecolo-
gical, economic and social influences when decisions of
appropriate design are being made. They must take the view
that each of these areas are of equal importance in meeting
the targets set by the DoH, the DCMS and the DCLG. If
developers do not take health, social inclusion and service
provision into account, the long-term viability of urban
renewal may be an unrealistic goal.
(b) As a mechanism for delivering these and other potential
positive effects for climate change, green infrastructure
must be developed at an appropriate scale and with a
relevant focus. Any underestimation of the complexity of
green spaces within the urban–rural matrix could under-
mine the value of the space itself and consequently hinder
its function.6,59,67 Therefore, a strategic systems approach is
proposed as an effective mechanism for a fuller under-
standing of the ecological interactions and functions of any
given landscape.
(c) As an appropriate mechanism for delivering urban renais-
sance, green infrastructure is not a quick-fix solution but
32 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
should be viewed as part of a long-term process of
developing liveable spaces. Designed appropriately and
developed with ecological, economic and social factors in
mind, green infrastructure can be a valuable component of
urban development for successful renewal.
Finally, this paper proposed the question can green infrastruc-
ture promote urban sustainability? In terms of promoting an
integrated system of land use management, green infrastructure
has been suggested as a mechanism for effecting positive
environmental change and sustainable development. Green
infrastructure has been linked with mitigating climate change
effects, sustainable urban development and issues of social
equity, all of which promote a number of the underlying
principles of sustainability. However, these discussions can only
progress the debate so far. There are still some who question
whether green infrastructure thinking is an attempt to refocus
land use issues in the UK rather than actually deal with them.
This paper and the examples outlined within it have aimed to
highlight some of the most recent green infrastructure research
in order to answers these questions. There is, however, scope for
more in-depth research to determine the role green infrastruc-
ture can play in promoting urban sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research undertaken for this paper was funded by an
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) CASE studentship
award in conjunction with North East Community Forests.
REFERENCES
1. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS.
Our Towns and Cities: Delivering the Urban Renaissance.
DETR, Weatherby, 2000.
2. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS.
Towards an Urban Renaissance. DETR, London, 1999.
3. FINCO A. and NIJKAMP P. Pathways to urban sustainability.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2001, 3, No. 4,
289–302.
4. BENEDICT M. A. and MCMAHON E. D. Green infrastructure:
smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable
Resources Journal, 2002, Autumn, 12–17.
5. BENEDICT M. A. and MCMAHON E. D. Green Infrastructure:
Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press,
Washington, DC, 2006.
6. CABE SPACE. Planning Green Infrastructure. CABE Space,
London, 2003.
7. DAVIES C., MCGLOIN C., MACFARLANE R. and ROE M. Green
Infrastructure Planning Guide Project: Final Report. NECF,
Annfield Plain, 2006.
8. HERITAGE CONSERVANCY. Growing with Green Infrastructure.
HC, Doylestown, PA, 2003, See www.heritageconservancy.
org for further details. Accessed 01/01/2007.
9. COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY. Countryside In and Around Towns: The
Green Infrastructure of Yorkshire and the Humber. CA,
Leeds, 2006, p. 1.
10. SANDSTRÖM U. G. Green infrastructure planning in urban
Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 2002, 17, No. 4,
373–385.
11. AHERN J. Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial
dimension. In Cities for the Future—Towards Integrated
Sustainable Water and Landscape Management (NOVOTNY V.
Mell
 and BROWN P. (eds)). IWA Publishing, London, 2007, pp.
265–283.
12. DALPITO DUNN A. and STONER N. Green light for green
infrastructure. The Environment Forum, 2007, May/June,
i–iv.
13. BEATLEY T. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities.
Island Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
14. SELMAN P. Environmental Planning, 2nd edn. Sage, London,
2000.
15. EKINS P. Building economic and social information for
examining the effects of climate change (BESEECH). In
Building Knowledge for a Changing Climate: Collaborative
Research to Understand and Adapt to the Impacts of Climate
Change and Infrastructure, the Built Environment and
Utilities (WALSH C. L. et al. (eds)). Newcastle University,
Newcastle, 2007, pp. 14–21.
16. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Choosing Health? Choosing
Activity: A Consultation on How to Increase Physical
Activity. DoH, London, 2004.
17. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. Choosing Activity: A Physical Activity
Action Plan. DoH, London, 2005.
18. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT. Game
Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government’s Sport and
Physical Activity Objectives. DCMS London Strategy Unit,
London, 2002.
19. See http://www.communities.gov.uk
20. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. Creating Sustainable
Communities: Greening the Gateway Implementation Plan.
ODPM, London, 2005.
21. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. What is
a Sustainable Community? 2005. See http://www.communities.
gov.uk/index.asp?id51139866 for further details. Accessed
01/01/2007.
22. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Thames
Gateway Evidence Review: Executive Summary. DCLG,
Weatherby, 2006.
23. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Thames
Gateway Interim Plan: Key Points. DCLG, Weatherby, 2006.
24. RACO M. A step change or a step back? The Thames gateway
and the re-birth of the urban development corporations.
Local Economy, 2005, 20, No. 2, 141–153.
25. DIXON T. The property development industry and sustainable
urban brownfield regeneration in England: an analysis of
case studies in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester.
Urban Studies, 2007, 44, No. 12, 2379–2400.
26. GOODCHILD B. and HICKMAN P. Towards a regional strategy for
the North of England? An assessment of ‘The Northern Way’.
Regional Studies, 2006, 40, No. 1, 121–133.
27. NORTHERN WAY STEERING GROUP. Moving Forward: The
Northern Way—First Growth Strategy Report Summary. ONE
NorthEast, Newcastle, 2004.
28. GIRARDET H. Creating Sustainable Cities. Schumacher
Briefings No. 2. Green Books, Bristol, 1999.
29. TWEDYR-JONES M. and MCNEIL D. The politics of city-region
planning and governance: reconciling the national, regional
and urban in the competing voices of institutional
restructuring. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2000,
7, No. 2, 119–134.
30. RYDIN Y. The enabling local state and urban development:
resources, rhetoric and planning in East London. Urban
Studies, 1998, 35, No. 2, 175–191.
31. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSOCIATION. Biodiversity by
Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability?
Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities. TCPA,
London, 2004.
32. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. Sustainable
Communities: Building for the Future. ODPM, London, 2003.
33. See http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/html/index.
php?page5index
34. KAMBITES C. and OWEN S. Renewed prospects for green
infrastructure planning in the UK. Planning Practice and
Research, 2007, 21, No. 4, 483–496.
35. COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY/GROUNDWORK. The Countryside in and
around Towns: A Vision for Connecting Town and Country in
the Pursuit of Sustainable Development. CA, Wetherby, 2005.
36. MELL I. C. Green infrastructure planning: what are the costs
for health and well-being? Journal of Environment, Culture,
Economic and Social Sustainability, 2007, 3, No. 5, 117–124.
37. KLOSS C. and CALARUSSE C. Rooftops to Rivers: Green
Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and Combined Sewer
Outflows. Natural Defense Council, USA, 2006.
38. SCHEUER C. W. and KEOLEIAN G. A. Evaluation of LEEDTM
Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2002.
39. VIJAYAN A. and KUMAR A. A review of tools to assess the
sustainability in building construction. Environmental
Progress, 2005, 24, No. 2, 125–132.
40. FARR D. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature.
Wiley, New York, 2008.
41. WEBER T., SLOAN A. and WOLF J. Maryland’s green
infrastructure assessment: development of a comprehensive
approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 2006, 77, No. 1–2, 94–110.
42. PAULEIT S., SLINN P., HANDLEY J. and LINDLEY S. Promoting the
natural greenstructures of towns and cities: English Nature’s
accessible natural greenspace standards model. Built
Environment, 2003, 29, No. 2, 157–170.
43. BLACKMAN D. and THACKRAY R. The Green Infrastructure of
Sustainable Communities, England’s Community Forests,
2007. See www.roomfordesign.co.uk for further details.
Accessed 01/01/2008.
44. ENGLAND’S COMMUNITY FORESTS. Quality of Place, Quality of
Life. ECF, Newcastle, 2004.
45. ECOTEC. City Regions Green Infrastructure Strategic Planning:
Raising the Quality of the North’s City Regions, Ecotec, Leeds,
2006. See www.ecotec.com for further details. Accessed 01/
01/2007.
46. BENTON-RENNIE L. and RENNIE SHORT J. Cities and Nature.
Routledge, New York, 2008.
47. BARTON H. (ed.) Sustainable Communities: The Potential for
Eco-Neighbourhoods. Earthscan, London, 2000.
48. JONGMAN R. H. G. and PUNGETTI G. (eds). Ecological Networks
and Greenways: Concept, Design and Implementation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
49. FERGUSON B. K. Stormwater management and stormwater
restoration. In Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and
Design (FRANCE R. L. (ed.)). Lewis Publishing, New York,
2002, pp. 11–29.
50. PAUL M. J. and MEYER J. L. Stream in the urban landscape.
Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 2001, 32, 333–365.
51. HOUGH M. Sharing common experiences: The Don River,
Toronto, Canada. In Hydropolis: The Role of Water in Urban
Planning. Proceedings of the International UNESCO-IHP
Workshop (VAN ENGEN H., KAMPE D. and TJALLINGII S. (eds)).
Backhuys, Leiden, 1995, pp. 68–81.
Mell 33
 52. FÁBOS J. G. Greenway planning in the United States: its
origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 2004, 68, No. 2–3, 321–342.
53. GILL S. E., HANDLEY J. F., ENNOS A. R. and PAULEIT S. Adapting
cities for climate change: the role of green infrastructure.
Climate Change and Cities, 2007, 33, No. 1, 115–133.
54. HANDLEY J. Adaptation strategies for climate change in the
urban environment (ASCCUE) In Building Knowledge
for a Changing Climate: Collaborative Research to Understand
and Adapt to the Impacts of Climate Change and Infrastructure,
the Built Environment and Utilities (WALSH C. L. et al. (eds)).
Newcastle University, Newcastle, 2007, pp. 44–53.
55. BROWN R. D. and GILLESPIE T. J. Microclimatic Landscape
Design: Creating Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency.
Wiley, New York, 1995.
56. MCPHERSON E. G. and SIMPSON J. R. Potential energy savings in
buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2003, 2, No. 2, 73–86.
57. THWAITES K., PORTA S., ROMICE O. and GREAVES M. Urban
Sustainability through Environmental Design: Approaches to
Time–People–Place Responsive Urban Spaces. Routledge,
London, 2007.
58. SIBLEY D. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in
the West. Routledge, London, 1995.
59. CABE SPACE. Start with the Park: Creating Sustainable Urban
Green Spaces in Areas of Housing Growth and Renewal.
CABE Space, London, 2005.
60. BURGESS J., HARRISON C. M. and LIMB M. People, parks and the
urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for
open spaces in the city. Urban Studies, 1988, 25, No. 6, 455–
473.
61. ENVIRONMENT FORUM NORTH EAST. North East Strategy for the
Environment: Consultation Draft. Natural England,
Newcastle, 2006.
62. BENNETT K., BEYNON H. and HUDSON R. Coalfield Regeneration:
Dealing with the Consequences of Industrial Decline. Policy
Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol, 2000.
63. HISS T. The Experience of Place. Vintage Books, New York,
1991.
64. SUSTRANS. Economic Appraisal of Local Walking and Cycling
Routes, 2004. See http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/
general/Economic%20appraisal%20of%20local%20walking
%20and%20cycling%20routes%20-%20summary.pdf for
further details. Accessed 01/01/2005.
65. AHERN J. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 1995, 33, No. 1–3, 131–155.
66. GEHL J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Von
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987.
67. CABE SPACE. What Are We Scared Of? The Value of Risk in
Designing Public Space. CABE Space, London, 2005.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

34 Engineering Sustainability 162 Issue ES1 Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Mell