Methods For Identifying Green Infrastructure

Review Paper
Methods for identifying green infrastructure

Erica Honeck1 · Arthur Sanguet1,2 · Martin A. Schlaepfer1,3 · Nicolas Wyler2 · Anthony Lehmann1,3
Received: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 22 September 2020 / Published online: 28 October 2020
© The Author(s) 2020 OPEN
Abstract
Nature forms interdependent networks in a landscape, which is key to the survival of species and the maintenance of
genetic diversity. Nature provides crucial socio-economic benefits to people, but they are typically undervalued in politi-
cal decisions. This has led to the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI), which defines an interlinked network of (semi-)
natural areas with high ecological values for wildlife and people, to be conserved and managed in priority to preserve
biodiversity and ecosystem services. This relatively new concept has been used in different contexts, but with widely
diverging interpretations. There is no apparent consensus in the scientific literature on the methodology to map and
implement GI. This paper serves as an informed primer for researchers that are new to GI mapping understand the key
principles and terminology for the needs of their own case-study, and as a framework for more advance researchers will-
ing to contribute to the formalization of the concept. Through a literature review of articles on creating GI networks, we
summarized and evaluated commonly used methods to identify and map GI. We provided key insights for the assessment
of diversity, ecosystem services and landscape connectivity, the three ‘pillars’ on which GI identification is based accord-
ing to its definition. Based on this literature review, we propose 5 theoretical levels toward a more complex, reliable and
integrative approach to identify GI networks. We then discuss the applications and limits of such method and point out
future challenges for GI identification and implementation.
Keywords Green infrastructure · Spatial conservation prioritization · Biodiversity · Ecosystem services · Connectivity
1 Introduction deteriorate our health and threaten our social-economic

well-being [39, 103, 135].
1.1 Context It has been estimated that 68% of the world’s growing
population will live in urban areas by 2050 [154], which
Climate change and biodiversity loss are two of the most will inevitably increase the pressure to develop the “grey”
urgent challenges of our time [71, 73, 74, 153]. Biodiversity infrastructure for housing, mobility and economic use.
at all levels is declining worldwide at an unprecedented Along with other human activities, urbanization continues
rate, due mainly to land and sea use changes, direct exploi- to have serious consequences for biodiversity and the pro-
tation of organisms, climate change, pollution and invasive vision of ecosystem benefits to people. Growing demand
alien species, and are expected to continue declining if no for new residential areas is a major policy driver in urban
concrete actions are taken [73, 111, 158]. Ecosystems are land use planning and management, and road construc-
losing their resilience to maintain their functions, which tions also represent a global threat to biodiversity [107].
will ultimately jeopardize our food and water security, Despite numerous efforts devoted to nature conservation
* Erica Honeck, erica.honeck@unige.ch; * Arthur Sanguet, arthur.sanguet@unige.ch | 1enviroSPACE Lab, Institute for Environmental
Sciences, University of Geneva, Bd Carl‑Vogt 66, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. 2Conservatory and Botanical Garden of the City of Geneva,
Switzerland, 1 ch. de l’Impératrice, 1292 Chambésy, Switzerland. 3Department F.‑A. Forel of Environmental and Aquatic Sciences, University
of Geneva, Bd Carl‑Vogt 66, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:1916 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03575-4
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Paper SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:1916 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03575-4
and the expansion of protected areas, we are failing to GI addresses multiple demands and contributes to find-
meet the Aichi Targets for 2020 set by the UN Convention ing solutions for a range of environmental, social and
on Biological Diversity [73, 151]. We now face the urgent economic pressures [110]. Da Silva and Wheeler [38] have
need for a credible agenda and well-defined action plan traced the history of the concept of ecosystems as an infra-
to safeguard the survival of species and restore the eco- structure and synthesized the concept of GI as a network
systems on which we depend [97]. of natural, semi-natural areas that are designed and man-
aged at different spatial scales for the preservation of bio-
1.2 The concept of green infrastructure diversity and a wide range of ecosystem services, to ensure
resilient ecosystems and societies.
Nature conservation schemes traditionally focused on pre- To implement a conservation action, planners must
serving species and intact wilderness, but have recently know where the most urgent needs are and where
evolved to adopt a more holistic “people and nature” actions will deliver optimal results. For this, it is necessary
approach [95], where the landscape is managed to sup- to identify areas where the landscape ensures ecological
port biodiversity and humanity on the long term [79]. resilience and habitat quality, helps people and species
This new paradigm takes into consideration the numer- adapt to climate change and enhances people’s physical
ous interactions between people and nature and analyzes and mental health. Visualizing priority conservation areas
social, economic and ecological systems as a whole. This will support decision-makers to optimally allocate lim-
novel framing illustrates our dependence upon ecosys- ited resources for ecosystems preservation. Having such
tems and emphasizes that people are part of nature, not priority areas mapped out in advance also saves time by
apart from it [96]. avoiding conflicts when a key resource or environmental
As land degradation is one of the major threats to natu- concern is brought up after a development project has
ral habitats and biodiversity [6, 14, 72, 73], the importance been initiated [56].
of our natural capital in decision-making must be better However, there is no consensus, neither on its compo-
emphasized to improve the sustainability of landscape nents nor on the method to identify and map GI [160].
management [22]. This recognition has led to the concept Consequently, the concept of GI has been formulated and
of ‘Green Infrastructure’ (GI) [20] to help preserve a func- interpreted in divergent ways, and various concepts and
tional ecosystem network through land-use planning. GI names have emerged to refer to the same idea (e.g., green-
describes an interconnected network of natural and semi- prints, natural asset maps, ecological networks, green,
natural areas designed and managed to deliver a wide blue, brown, black corridors) [56]. Inconsistent definitions
range of ecological, social and economic benefits [20, 52]. can lead to misunderstandings among stakeholders and
GI are increasingly being considered as a nature-based hinder efforts to mainstream GI into sustainable develop-
solution [33] or natural and cost-effective alternative ment actions and policy agendas. Operational definitions
to grey infrastructure to help mitigate environmental of GI vary both in the type of habitat they include, but also
impacts, adapt to climate change and build resilient socie- the biological value-sets that are incorporated. A typology
ties. Considering environmental resources as infrastructure of GI could help provide an overview of this variation.
allows us to recognize their role in our livelihoods, and also Some have used the GI concept as a strictly urban
to point out that ecosystem services (ES) also require main- greening method or architectural element that can also
tenance to sustain their capacity to provide clean water be considered as nature-based solutions [69, 75, 76, 98].
and air, aesthetic benefits, physical and mental health, Others limit the GI to a network of natural and semi-nat-
wildlife conservation and other community values. GI has ural core areas for preserving biodiversity and the supply
gained credibility among land planners and policy makers of ES, with links between these areas to ensure ecological
as a strategic tool to promote sustainable development connectivity [45, 84, 92, 144].
and to assess synergies and trade-offs between conserva- GI that focus only on biodiversity indicators may not
tion goals and other conflicting land-use interests [86]. It fully capture societal values that may resonate with a
has been integrated into national, regional and continen- larger fraction of the population. In fact, while the supply
tal environmental agenda [42, 51, 53]. of ES implies a minimal level of biodiversity, spatial syner-
One of the main assets of GI is its focus on landscape gies among different ES or between ES and biodiversity
multifunctionality, i.e., promoting spatial areas that can may be weak [32]. In some specific eco-regions, areas with
serve more than one purpose, such as biodiversity con- high species diversity provide more ES than areas with low
servation, climate change mitigation, the creation of rec- levels of diversity [99], but this is not always the case [100].
reational green spaces and supplying employment oppor- In addition, implementing conservation actions based
tunities [52]. While grey infrastructure is often designed for only on habitats or abiotic surrogates may lack coverage
a single function (e.g., habitation, transport or economy), of rare or functionally important species, since similar
Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2020) 2:1916 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03575-4 Review Paper
habitats can be biologically different [157]. As ES locations 2 Methods

may differ from where they are supplied to where they are
consumed, their integration in GI requires special care on 2.1 Articles selection
the type of connectivity involved in their treatment [82].
Therefore, priority areas for ES supply and biodiversity dis- We focused our articles on search results from Web of Sci-
tribution should be analyzed separately, as they are not ence (searched on the 24.03.2020) using the following
appropriate surrogates for each other. topic keywords: “ecosystem service*” AND “biodiversity”
In this paper, we explore how a multidimensional GI, AND (“corridor*” or “connect*”) AND “green infrastructure*”.
which integrates both numerous biodiversity and ES indi- We then filtered out articles defining GI as strictly urban
cators, could be implemented. Snäll et al. [144] and the greening methods or architectural elements and used
European Environment Agency [52] among others have those that interpret GI as a strategically planned network
argued that a functional GI network will require the inte- of interlinked natural and semi-natural areas to preserve
gration of three main aspects, which we will call ‘pillars’: (1) biodiversity and ES, to compare different GI identification
the diversity of species and habitats (commonly referred to approaches. We then looked at how many case-studies
as “biodiversity”), (2) ecosystem services (also referred to as explicitly performed a separate assessment of each of
nature’s contributions to people) [46] and (3) the structural the three pillars for their GI design: (1) biological diver-
and functional connectivity of the landscape. Biodiversity sity (habitats, species occurrences, species distributions),
is the variability of living organisms at various scales from (2) ES (relations between vegetation types and services,
genes, to species and landscapes [30]. ES are nature’s ben- modeling of ES), and connectivity (functional connectivity
efits and contributions to our society and our well-being with species dispersion and resistance maps, landscape
[35, 106]. Functional connectivity measures the relative structure). The full dataset of references is available in the
ease of mobility between landscape patches for selected additional resources (“Appendix 1”).
species [148, 163], whereas structural connectivity (also
named “connectedness”) refers to the structural links or 2.2 Evaluation methods
topological distance between landscape features [150].
We focused our analysis of different GI identification
1.3 Objectives approaches on our review of the literature (“Appendix
1”). The methodological review consisted in analyzing for
This paper serves as an informed primer for researchers each pillar the type of data used as input, the software
that are new to GI mapping understand the key principles and methods used, the quality and quantity of items cal-
and terminology for the needs of their own case-study, culated, modeled or mapped, the choice of surrogates, the
and as a framework for more advance researchers will- conceptual approach, the representativity and reliability of
ing to contribute to the formalization of the concept. We the results in the context of nature conservation. Follow-
provide a structured catalogue (typology) of existing GI ing the foundations and recommendations of GI identifi-
methods, and a guide toward possible tool choices for the cation by Snäll et al. [144] and our review of the literature
needs of their own case-study. Were viewed the different (“Appendix 1”—articles with similar GI definition), we then
GI identification approaches used in case-studies that have classified GI identification approaches into 5 levels, accord-
the same GI definition as mentioned above. Following the ing to the complexity of their methods. The lower level
foundations and recommendations of GI identification by methods would represent a GI identification considering
Snäll et al. [144], we analyzed if and how the case-studies one or two pillars, a few surrogates and simplified analysis,
included the three pillars (diversity, ES and connectivity), and higher-level methods would consider all pillars, many
and how the areas were selected to be integrated in the GI surrogates, and a complex methodology to identify GI. We
network. We then evaluated the methods used to assess discussed these complexity levels and their relevance in
the three pillars and the identification of GI itself. We sum- the discussion.
marized these approaches in levels according to their Having a common baseline to identify and map GI is
representativeness and reliability in order to help future necessary, since there are as many methods as articles in
researchers identify the appropriate method for their own the literature. The aim of this work is not to evaluate the
work. We also discussed some hypotheses explaining the quality of GI identification method for each article, but to
observed tendencies in the method’s choice, as well as point out general, theoretical, conceptual and methodo-
future challenges for GI identification and mapping. logical directions to assess each pillar to reach a more reli-
able, functional and efficient GI network.
Vol.:(0123456789)
3 Results SCP is widely used in systematic conservation plan-

ning by conservation biologists who are also confronted
3.1 Bibliographic search with finding optimal areas to allocate protected areas or
restoration actions [81, 108].The main advantage of SCP
The topic keywords search in Web of Science resulted in 67 tools is their capacity to account for trade-offs and syner-
articles (“Appendix 1”). Those defining GI as strictly urban gies among multiple components in a landscape, and to
greening methods or architectural elements were filtered present alternative solutions to spatial planning, which is
out, leaving 32 articles that interpret GI as a strategically not straightforward with other methods such as overlay
planned network of interlinked natural and semi-natural analyses using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) [21,
areas to preserve biodiversity and ES. We excluded reviews 48, 128, 144].
and conceptual papers, even if they considered the impor- SCP software use computational methods to opti-
tance of the three pillars, to only keep case-studies for the mize the selection of priority areas in a landscape for a
evaluation of GI mapping methods. Among them, only 7 given target. Weights can be attributed to some features
case-studies explicitly took all three pillars into account— to influence the outcome in order to account for factors
biological diversity, ES, and connectivity—for their GI such as species rarity and ecological connectivity. In addi-
design (Table 1). tion, opportunity costs, opposing land use interests, land
Once the three pillars are calculated, they must be com- ownership and other restrictions can be considered in
piled to perform a spatial selection of most ecologically the analysis in order to create more realistic solutions. As
valuable areas in order to build a GI network. This kind weights accorded to input data may significantly influence
of map highlights priority ecological areas where habitats the prioritization result, expert knowledge and stakehold-
should be conserved and land development avoided, and ers’ consultation are strongly advised.
identifies areas where land changes would have minimal The most widely used prioritization software include
impact on the ecosystem. Although many use conven- Marxan [13] and Zonation [108]. Marxan was created to
tional overlay analyses by combining GIS data, [144] argue identify a set of planning units to meet conservation tar-
that priority areas could be optimized with a spatial con- gets for selected biodiversity features while minimizing
servation prioritization (SCP) method. Despite SCP tools the total cost. The tool’s optimization algorithm is based
being appropriate for GI network mapping, case-studies on simulated annealing for a fast and relatively simple
applying them to solve the challenges of spatial planning way to solve minimum set problems of different types
remain scarce. In fact, among the 7 selected case-studies and sizes, and find the best fit among multiple alternative
that identified GI based on all three pillars, only 4 used a solutions [13]. Marxan can be used to analyze trade-offs
prioritization method to identify their GI, including 2 using between biodiversity features, boundary length, area and
the SCP tool Marxan. costs by varying the representational targets in the input
There is a research gap in the literature of studies using files [127]. The tool takes into consideration connectiv-
SCP methods for GI identification: even when including ity between selected planning units, but cannot include
conceptual GI papers, only 9 papers used or mentioned species-specific connectivity requirements. It can account
“spatial prioritization” (Fig. 1). However, among the 27 for ecological processes, site condition or socio-political
papers that have used all keywords except the term “green influences (private parcels or culturally important sites).
infrastructure”, some have similar approaches while using Zonation was created to address the maximum util-
other terms such as “protected area(s) network” [3, 12, 90] ity problem, i.e., maximize the conservation value for the
instead. selected species or biodiversity features within limited
resources [108]. The main output is a hierarchical map of
3.2 Box 1: Spatial conservation prioritization ranked conservation priority. It does not require setting a
and its benefits specific target and can be used to evaluate the adequacy
of proposed protected areas or to specify where to expand
Methods commonly used for mapping GI include over- conservation or restoration areas [108]. Zonation uses
lay analyses with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), information on different types of features such as species
morphological spatial pattern analysis, minimum path presence/absence, abundance, probabilities of occur-
model and landscape-functional units [112]. Yet, these are rence and costs/constraints to prioritize sites according
not well suited for maximizing synergies and minimizing to their representativeness and persistence. The tool’s cell
trade-offs between ES and biodiversity, which is the aim removal rules are based on core-area zonation for empha-
of efficient conservation planning [31]. sizing rare features, additive benefit function for selecting
richer areas, or target-based planning for specifying spe-
cific conservation targets for each feature. The algorithm
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 1 Approaches used in the 7 case-studies identifying GI with all three pillars
Article Hermoso et al. [67] Capotorti et al. [27] Lanzas et al. [86] Capotorti et al. [28] Hu et al. [68] Cannas et al. [25] Liquete et al. [92]
Information on the study

Scale Continental/national Local Regional Local (city) Regional Regional Continental
Resolution 10 km2 2 km2 1 km2 1.5 km2 30 m2 25 m2 1 km2
Method for final GI Prioritization Prioritization Prioritization Overlap analysis Prioritization with Prioritization Maximum value of
network identifica- overlay pixels for the pillars
tion
Species and habitat diversity pillar
Type of data Species occurrences, Occurrences (trees, Species distribution Vegetation map Habitat map Habitat map Habitats (for large
vegetation map shrubs), species maps, LULC map mammals)
distribution maps,
natura2000 pro-
tected sites, LULC
map
Surrogates 767 vertebrate spe- Species richness and Birds of interest, Vegetation types Habitat types Habitat types Large mammals
cies, 229 habitats conservation con- habitats of interest
cerns of vascular
plants, mammals,
birds, Amphibians
and reptiles
Software/methods Compilation of exist- Compilation of exist- Compilation of exist- Vegetation species InVEST’s “habitat Conservation value Compilation of exist-
ing data ing data ing data recognized for quality” tool based on a regional ing data
their performance report, natural
in provision of air value including
purification service ecological integrity
with InVEST’s “habi-
tat quality” tool
ES pillar
Type of data Raster maps LULC habitats map CORINE LULC and Vegetation map Habitat map LULC, habitat types, Maps of indicators
Remote Sensing threats raster map,
maps sources of degrada-
tion
ES types considered 5 ESsupplies of Supply of cultural, 10 ES supplies of Air purification “biodiversity service Cultural services (rec- 8 ES supplies of regu-
cultural, support- supporting and regulating, cultural service (supply and equivalent” includ- reation, anthropic lating, supporting
ing and regulating regulating services and provisioning demand) ing recreation and heritage) services
services services agriculture
Software/methods None, used the maps ES supplies of each None, used the maps Overlap between China ecosystem Conservation value Proxy measures
directly as inputs vegetation type directly as inputs recognized critical services evaluation and natural value
for Marxan (biophysical table for Marxan ecosystems, popu- indicator based on including levels of
method) lation density and surveys ecosystem func-
the particulate mat- tions and capac-
ter mean annual ity to provide ES
concentrations (InVEST’s“habitat
Vol.:(0123456789)
quality” tool)
Review Paper
Table 1 (continued)
Article Hermoso et al. [67] Capotorti et al. [27] Lanzas et al. [86] Capotorti et al. [28] Hu et al. [68] Cannas et al. [25] Liquete et al. [92]
Structure and connectivity pillar

Review Paper
Type of data Species, ES supplies LULC Results from bio- Vegetation map Habitat map Habitat suitability Habitats quality
Vol:.(1234567890)
and habitat maps diversity and ES map based on lit-
assessments erature, resistance
map based on the
inverse of habitat
suitability
Structural/functional Structural Structural and func- Structural Structural and func- Structural Functional-> corri- Functional
tional tional dors (and struc-
tural)
Software/methods Marxan Zones Structural connectiv- Marxan zones Vegetation species Conefor Sensinode Expert opinion, Habitats quality rank-
ity with FRAGSTAT’s composition and resistance map, ing
Euclidean Nearest- planting patterns, least-cost path with
Neighbor Distance biogeographic ArcGIS Linkage
index, and func- representativity, Mapper Cost-
tional connectivity dispersal poten- Weighted distance-
with plant dispersal tial. Use of Mean based
and plant-animal Nearest Neighbor
interactions Distance and Prox-
imity Index with
FRAGSTAT
The table lists the scale of the study, the resolution of the resulting maps, the approach used to compile the pillars into a final GI map, the type of data and methods used for the assess-
ment of each pillar, as well as the surrogates used
of red list species, use of species distribution models

together with complementary indices including specific
richness/hotspots, naturality, etc.). This section presents
different assessment approaches for each pillar to help
find the optimal balance between the required informa-
tion and the resources necessary to acquire it.
3.3.2 Species and habitat diversity
Using perimeters of existing protected areas or (semi-) nat-

ural areas in a broad sense (such as forests) is sometimes
used to map biodiversity, but this remains a rough estima-
tion of how diversity is distributed in the study area. Con-
Fig. 1 Research gaps in GI studies using SCP. Numbers represent sidering a broad range of biodiversity surrogates would
the quantity of results obtained in Web of Science using the corre-
sponding combination of keywords. See “Appendix 2” for the exact enable to integrate multiple aspects of biodiversity. Using
query species distribution models of multiple groups of fauna
and flora species, precise habitat maps, and diversity indi-
ces such as specific richness, Shannon index, and Simpson
uses accelerated stepwise heuristic, which starts from the index [58, 137, 142] would increase the representativity of
whole landscape and iteratively removes cells with the the pillar.
smallest marginal loss over the total conservation value Species distribution modeling is a powerful method to
[108]. Zonation can also account for corridors using an model species’ realized ecological niches in a landscape
additive penalty method in spatial priority ranking. This and to extrapolate corresponding geographic distribu-
method does not rely on habitat patches, resistance coef- tions (Fig. 2) [65, 118, 136, 144, 165]. This method has sev-
ficients or species targets, and uses two key parameters— eral advantages, since the distribution of all species cannot
penalty strength and corridor width—to control trade-offs be monitored exhaustively in space and time. A precise
between connectivity and other factors in conservation and updated data sample of species’ locations or observa-
planning [123]. tion points are needed for these analyses.
Other softwares include C-Plan and ConsNet Portal, A large number of methods exist to model species dis-
which are used to solve the minimum area problem (rep- tribution. The MaxEnt software [121] based on the maxi-
resenting all biodiversity surrogates with minimum area) mum entropy approach has become very popular because
and the maximum representation problem (represent- of its ease of use. The R software packages [126] have
ing the maximum number of surrogates in a constrained proven to be an efficient environment for statistical mod-
area) [108]. The choice of prioritization tools will depend eling and prediction of species distribution with regres-
on the objectives of the project as well as available data sion methods such as: Generalized Linear Models (GLMs)
for inputs. However, several studies have indicated that fitting linear responses of predictors for different distribu-
different tools could lead to similar results and that the tions of responses (e.g., presence-absence, abundance,
most important factor in SCP assessments is the quality richness, biomass); Generalized Additive Models (GAMs)
of the input data [41]. are extending GLMs by fitting nonlinear response shapes
based on smooth functions; Multivariate Adaptive Regres-
3.3 Approaches to GI mapping sion Splines (MARS) are further extending GAMs by allow-
ing multiple responses and fitting more easily interactions
3.3.1 Pillars assessment methods and dimensions between predictors; Boosted Regression Trees (BRT) and
of a holistic GI Random Forest (RF) [10, 50, 65] are addressing the prob-
lem of small datasets by using shrinkage techniques to
The complexity and precision of the evaluation of each fit a series of small models and integrate them at the end
GI pillar will depend on the objectives of each case-study, without violating the available degrees of freedom. Finally,
the needs of the map’s end-users, as well as the allocated ensemble forecasting are combining all the above meth-
time and resources. The precision of each pillar will be ods to explore the uncertainty associated to the choice of
determined by the source and quality of data (up to date modeling techniques and input variables [5, 149].
and adequate resolution), the approach and a sufficient Species distribution maps can be aggregated in order
number of surrogates representing the pillar (for instance, to map species richness (alpha diversity) and identify
supply and demand of various ES, separate consideration “hotspots”, i.e., areas where many species live relative to
Vol.:(0123456789)
Fig. 2 Example of a SDM workflow for the species diversity pillar
the study area [88, 136]. However, considering only alpha as well as their spatial flow from where the service is sup-
diversity might lead to rare, specialist, endangered or iso- plied to where it is consumed [82]. The choice of services
lated species being overlooked and could miss most of the included in the GI design will be influenced by the type
global diversity in computer simulations [93]. A specific of landscape (coastal, mountainous, urban, etc.), and the
modeling and assessment of such species could be benefi- most relevant services to communicate to the targeted
cial. Although relatively uncommon in conservation plan- users or audience. Cultural and provisioning ES should,
ning [104], beta diversity, the change of diversity between however, be integrated with caution as they may be in
areas, could also be calculated and mapped [145]. opposition with biodiversity and connectivity conserva-
tion [144]. Conserving biodiversity and connectivity may
3.3.3 ES supply and demand benefit cultural and provisioning services indirectly and/or
in the long-term but including them for the GI design may
Ecosystem services (ES) represent the benefits people lead to too many trade-offs or contradictory messages.
obtain from nature [35, 106], and their value corresponds ES mapping approaches can roughly be categorized
to the relative contribution of ecosystems to a commu- into five types [101]: (1) the “lookup tables” method links
nity’s goal [152]. In other words, ES refer to benefits to land-cover classes with values derived from the literature
human well-being produced by natural capital combined to estimate ES supply (natural capital) or ES demand; (2)
with built capital and/or human and social capital [35]. The the “expert knowledge” method relies on specialists to
‘cascade model’ from Haines-Young and Potschin [66] is rank land cover classes based on their potential to provide
often used to describe the flow of ES from the environ- services; (3) the “causal relationships” method incorporates
ment to people. It is important, however, to consider the statistics and existing knowledge from the literature to cre-
socio-ecological system as a whole (Fig. 3) including the ate spatial proxies of ES; (4) the “extrapolation of primary
stock-flow (supply–demand) relationships for a better data” method associates weighted field data with land
management of natural resources [96]. cover and other cartographical data; (5) the “regression
ES are sometimes included solely as potential co-ben- models” method combines biophysical information from
efits of identified high-ecological areas, without separate field data and the literature into a quantitative ecological
assessment of specific services. Yet, this may result in over- system model.
looking areas providing important ecosystem functions, as Modeling is widely applied for ES assessment. In addi-
the distribution of ES and biodiversity are not appropriate tion to the methods described above, process-based
surrogates for each other [100]. To have a better represen- models are typically used to evaluate key environmen-
tation of ES provided by a territory, multiple services of tal systems such as air, water (Soil and Water Assessment
both regulating and supporting ES should be assessed, Tool—SWAT; swat.tamu.edu) or soil (Revised Universal
Vol:.(1234567890)
Fig. 3 Illustration of socio-ecological systems. People benefit from the interactions between natural systems and socio-economic systems
that co-function within the same landscape
Soil Loss Equation—RUSLE). Many models have specifi- spatially unconnected landscape elements (e.g., low con-
cally been developed to analyze ES. For instance, IMAGE, nectedness) may represent strong constraints for species
EcoPath and ARIES [156] can project future changes in ES; with low vagility [37], but may not necessarily reduce
InVEST and TESSA are two static models which describe connectivity for flying species [17]. Corridors structur-
the state of ES at points in time [70]; and NAIS and Eco- ally connecting two patches may also be too narrow to
system Valuation Toolkit are designed for monetary valu- have any functional connectivity values for some species.
ation of ES [11]. Grêt-Regamey et al. [64] have proposed a Considering only one or the other in a broad sense risks
three tiered-approach for assessing ES in function of policy overlooking important corridors, and the pillar would lack
needs. representativity of ecological processes and functions.
Analyzing landscape connectivity for multiple species
3.3.4 Structural and functional landscape connectivity groups (mammals, insects, birds, etc.) helps identify cor-
ridors that are more frequently used, to ensure connec-
Ensuring species movement through a connected land- tions between natural patches of habitats, and allow gene
scape helps increase the genetic diversity in a metap- exchanges among populations.
opulation, which raises the chances of species’ survival Tracking animals can be difficult and costly but remains
by improving their resilience against climate change and the best method to collect data on the actual use of the
other perturbations [117]. Species use the landscape’s landscape. Modeling species connectivity is a suitable
structure in different ways according to their specific eco- alternative (or complement) to animal radio tracking.
logical niches, lifestyles and dispersion abilities. GI builds Information regarding reproduction, habitat preference
on these principles to account for habitat shapes and sizes, and dispersion ability is collected to identify suitable hab-
as well as edge areas surrounding a habitat serving as a itats for each species. Results from species distribution
buffer. models can also be used to help identify habitat prefer-
Spatial structure refers to the topological distance ences. A resistance map can be created based on identified
between landscape features [150] and the spatial arrange- core areas, a land use—land cover (LULC) map and expert
ment of landscape elements and determines the mosaic of knowledge. This resistance map attributes a score to each
contiguous land cover types [20]. Functional connectivity LULC class representing the difficulty of the selected spe-
refers to the relative ease of mobility between landscape cies to travel across it (Fig. 4). Appropriate parameters
patches for a specific species [148, 163]. For instance, and thresholds for modeling corridors and connectivity
Vol.:(0123456789)
Fig. 4 Representation of species’ least cost path between core habitat patches estimated with the friction of landscape features to species’
movement
must be selected with care, because the resistance level org), Circuitscape [24], Conefor [134] and Graphab [57].
of a LULC class varies among species, since an ecological FRAGSTAT [102] is also a widely used spatial pattern analy-
barrier for a species can be physical (e.g. roads, lakes) or sis program to calculate various landscape pattern indices.
non-physical (e.g. noise, light and chemical pollution) [16].
Commonly used metrics for modeling functional con- 3.3.5 Overall GI identification approaches
nectivity include Euclidean distance (centrality analysis),
least-cost path length and cost (an extension of graph Based on the literature review and the precision of each
theory), and circuit theory’s resistance [105]. Popular cor- pillar’s assessment, we identified 5 broad levels of GI iden-
ridor modeling tools include Linkage Mapper Connectivity tification (Fig. 5). Case-studies corresponding to levels 1
Analysis Software (www.circuitscape.org/linkagemapper) and 2 without separate analysis of the pillars or with only
[19], GuidosToolbox (forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/ one or two pillars are often more biocentric-focused,
software/guidos/), Corridor Design (http://corrid ordes ign.
Fig. 5 Representation of levels in GI identification approaches
Vol:.(1234567890)
whereas case-studies including all three pillars are more distribution or habitats), especially for large-scale stud-
polycentric. ies (see discussion).
Level 4 Thorough analysis of all three pillars. GI is iden-
Level 1 No separate analysis of the pillars. The GI is identified on the separate assessment of all three pillars,
tified with existing protected areas and natural spaces, using a broad range of surrogates. Consideration of
or based on a matrix of qualitative values for each land many representative natural habitats and species
cover type estimated with expert opinions and the groups (birds, mammals, insects, amphibians, flowering
literature. This approach may be quick and simple to plants, pteridophytes, coniferous, etc.), several ES, and
compute but lacks representativity and reliability to the evaluation of structural and functional landscape
distinguish key areas to protect biodiversity, ES and connectivity. The results from the pillars are sufficiently
connectivity. representative of Nature’s multi-aspects, but no prior-
Level 2 Based on one or two pillars. GI is identified using itization method is used to select area to include in the
one or two of the three pillars while mentioning the final GI network.
co-benefit for the remaining one(s), such as habitat dis- Level 5 In addition to the conditions of level 4, use of
tribution and species corridors, or species distributions spatial prioritization on the three pillars instead of an
and ES. Some high-quality areas could be missed if the overlap analysis, in order to rank each pixel of the map
three pillars are not assessed equally and separately, according to their multifunctional quality (see Box 1).
and the resulting GI network may not effectively pre- The resulting map would theoretically represent the
serve resilient natural processes. most valuable areas to optimize the conservation of
Level 3 Based on a simplified representation of the three natural entities, processes and functions. Below is an
pillars. GI is identified through the separate assessment illustration of a framework that would correspond to
of all three pillars, but without using a broad range of this type of GI identification (Fig. 6).
surrogates. For example, using existing reserves to iden-
tify biodiversity-rich areas, or a limited number of ES.
This type of GI risks missing important corridors, buffer
zones around core areas, or interesting (semi-)natural
areas for ES supply or biological diversity (rare species
Fig. 6 Example of a framework for a case-study requiring precise and detailed GI map, corresponding to a level 5 GI identification approach
described above
Vol.:(0123456789)
4 Discussion and conclusion necessarily integrate ecosystem functions, and ecological

processes that generate and maintain biodiversity, such as
Views about the relationships between people and nature meta-populations dynamics and large effective population
have evolved throughout the years, moving from a dis- sizes. If the concept of GI seeks to support a conservation
course simply about nature conservation to focusing on plan for enhancing the sustainability of a landscape, it is
sustainable use of the environment [114]. The ideal of important to search for synergies and trade-offs when set-
‘Nature for itself’ and ‘Nature despite people’ has carried ting priority areas for conservation.
on to this day [96], but as the pressure on ecosystems Several hypotheses may help explain the scarcity of arti-
continues to increase, there are multiple advantages of cles relying on a separated assessment of the three pillars,
integrating nature’s benefits for people into conservation a wide range of surrogates and spatial prioritization. (1)
planning. In fact, the concept of ES brings together all the The restricted availability and accessibility of qualitative
values and benefits people attribute to their landscape data (species occurrences, LULC map etc.) is often a major
[59]. Stakeholders in landscape planning may regard GI obstacle to fulfill the numerous inputs required to run a
as irrelevant to them, if the concept is primarily associ- complete analysis (levels 3 to 5) of the proposed meth-
ated with restrictive nature reserves and legally binding odologies. In fact, compiling data from flora and fauna
measures. By identifying shared values and opportunities, monitoring or atlas and creating a precise LULC map with
introducing nature’s benefits for people can better com- several natural habitat categories are the first and funda-
municate how landscape changes affect individual or col- mental steps in GI identification (Fig. 3). (2) Cooperation
lective well-being, and better align actors with different among many scientific fields is necessary to cover the
interests [159]. This improves acceptance of local policy wide knowledge and skills set required to use the com-
decisions and favors collaboration and collective actions, plex methods and software, such as Geographic Informa-
which are vital for successful sustainable landscape man- tion Systems (GIS), species distribution and ES models, as
agement [87]. well as field data acquisition (for cultural ES, species occur-
Mapping GI networks is an important step toward rences, etc.). Thus, the identification and implementation
actual operationalization, because spatially explicit of GI networks is a transdisciplinary approach that would
approaches are essential to support spatial planners’ deci- greatly benefit from creating and maintaining a solid col-
sions. The involvement of stakeholders in a participatory laboration between stakeholders, landscape planners,
process, the use of scientifically sound methods and qual- technicians and scientists from various fields. (3) Pre-pro-
ity data will also increase acceptance and the likelihood cessing data and running models are time-consuming and
of effective implementation [15, 89]. As this methodology require a specific skill set that may not be readily available
moves away from pure biodiversity conservation through in a team. (4) The use of spatial prioritization methods has
protected areas toward the selection of multi-functional a steeper learning curve than overlay methods and may
landscapes, many more stakeholders will be involved, typi- not be as widespread outside conservation biologists.
cally in the selection and weighting of input data. The levels proposed in this paper represent steps
The different definitions of GI in the scientific litera- toward methodological complexity and an integrative
ture have led to highly variable assessment methods and approach. The more complex the method, the more inputs
results. GI are sometimes interpreted as interlinkages and data must be integrated, the more processing time
between core areas for species [67, 86], and in other cases and skills are required to run the analyses, and the more
it is applied to identify areas of interest for specific groups multidisciplinary collaboration is necessary for the imple-
of organisms such as pollinators [130]. The GI concept is mentation of the resulting GI network. There is a tradeoff
adaptable and can be used from local scales and urban between complexity, representativeness, quantity and
contexts [27, 28] to a regional/continental scales and in quality of inputs and surrogates on the one hand, and
mosaic landscapes [67, 78, 92]. Yet, such analyses and pur- the accessibility, feasibility and comprehensibility of the
pose widely differ from one another, making it difficult to methods and results on the other hand. The choice, com-
compare their methods and the identified networks. plexity and precision of GI identification methods will ulti-
To identify GI networks, most studies have relied on a mately depend on the needs of the end-users, as well as
few selected ecosystem functions or services, sometimes the allocated time and financial resources. In fact, a policy-
including habitats in a broad sense, without considering maker may have tight deadlines and only need to have an
a wider range of ES and species [160]. Used in this way, GI approximate idea of the distribution of natural capital in a
is suited to address specific environmental concerns such territory, whereas a conservation practitioner may wish to
as storm water management or coastal erosion control. retrace which species and ecosystem functions are behind
GI based solely on habitat and species richness would not certain priority conservation areas identified in the GI map.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Overly complex models that are too difficult to explain We believe this work would clarify conceptual aspects
to decision-makers may not be desirable or suitable for a of GI identification and serve as a primer for researchers
‘real-world’ application [132]. Yet nature is complex and and practitioners that are new to GI mapping, and as a
includes genetic, species, habitat diversity as well as inter- framework for more advanced researchers willing to con-
actions between organisms, ecosystem functions, indi- tribute to the formalization of the concept. It provides an
vidual mobility and functional traits. An overly simplified overview of different approaches to guide practitioners
model will not capture enough facets of the natural world. toward the most appropriate tool choices for the needs
For example, Kujala et al. [80]] showed that considering of their own case-study.
many different species increase the stability of modeled
conservation areas in spatial prioritization models. But Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to Pascal
Martin, Benjamin Guinaudeau, Claude Fischer, Bertrand von Arx and
even when many species are considered, the addition of Michelle Price for their comments and expertise.
a few randomized rare species in the models could still
greatly alter the final result. It is therefore recommended Funding Open access funding provided by University of Geneva This
to add as much pertinent information and data as avail- project has received partial funding from the European Union’s Hori-
able in the GI identification process, if they fit the global zon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agree-
ment No 689443 (ERA-PLANET/GEO Essential project) and Swiss Fed-
aim of the study [60]. eral Office of the Environment (Grant RPT to the Canton of Geneva).
Future challenges of GI identification and mapping
include: (1) Approving on a common baseline and defi- Compliance with ethical standards
nition of GI to move from a theoretical framework to an
applicable and testable approach. GI as urban nature- Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
based solutions and architectural elements and GI follow- interest.
ing the definition presented in this paper should be dif-
ferentiated in particular to avoid potential confusions. (2) Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
A closer collaboration among scientific fields and between tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
research and policy, in order to share skills and knowledge long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
among researchers, conservation practitioners, landscape source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
planners, decision-makers and other stakeholders. Since if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
biodiversity loss is a global problem and a threat to the indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
resilience of our societies, nature’s conservation can- included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
not be efficient without an integrative and transdiscipli- use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
nary approach. (3) A better accessibility to software and use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons
updated data to integrate as many aspects of diversity, .org/licenses/by/4.0/.
ES and connectivity in GI identification and mapping for
landscape planners as possible. Improving data sharing
between countries and institutions, and ensuring the avail- Appendix 1
ability of spatially and temporally relevant data would also
be beneficial to expand this effort. (4) Creating a common The articles are sorted by their GI definition then by year
set of variables to improve the comparability of different of publication. We analyzed whether the authors con-
studies and their inputs that can have various data sources. sidered each pillar in a broad sense, even if they do not
This can be done by identifying essential variables for GI as specifically assess the pillar in the study. We verified if the
an intermediate value between environmental policy indi- authors were interpreting GI as an architectural element or
cators and their data sources [129]. This has been done to a nature-based solution tool for urban greening, or if they
prioritize the monitoring of Earth systems, namely climate were using the same GI definition than the one presented
[23], biodiversity [120] and oceans [34]. in this paper. We also categorized each type of article
Finally, a GI map should not be static solution, as eco- (review, case study or conceptual paper).
systems and socio-ecological systems are dynamic. In See Table 2.
fact, implementation of GI should aim at preserving bio-
diversity and ES in the long run. Future urbanization plans
can be used to predict the evolution of a GI network and
potential threats. Considering future climatic scenarios
and predicting species migrations will also enable adapt-
ing the design of current GI to efficiently protect ecological
values under future conditions.
Vol.:(0123456789)
Table 2 67 articles found using the following keywords in Web of Science on the 24.03.2020: “TOPIC: (“ecosystem service*”) AND TOPIC:
(“biodiversity”) AND TOPIC: (“corridor*” or “connect*”) AND TOPIC: (“green infrastructure*”) Timespan: All years”
Article Year Title Pillars consideration Similar GI Article type
definition
ES Diversity Connectivity Review Case study Conceptual
Hermoso et al. [67] 2020 Designing a network of green Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes (Yes)
infrastructure for the EU
Wanghe et al. [162] 2019 Assessment of Urban Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
Space Based on Bio-Energy
Landscape Connectivity: A
Case Study on Tongzhou
District in Beijing, China
Cunha et al. [36] 2019 Methodology for mapping Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
the national ecological net-
work to mainland Portugal:
A planning tool toward a
green infrastructure
Capotorti et al. [27] 2019 Local scale prioritization of Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
green infrastructure for
enhancing biodiversity in
peri-urban agroecosystems:
a multi-step process applied
in the metropolitan City of
Rome (Italy)
Gocheva et al. [62] 2019 Ecosystem restoration in Yes No No Yes No No Yes
Europe: Can analogies
to Traditional Chinese
Medicine facilitate the cross-
policy harmonization on
managing socioecological
systems?
Lanzas et al. [86] 2019 Designing a network of green Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
infrastructure to enhance
the conservation value of
protected areas and main-
tain ecosystem services
Carlier and Moran [29] 2019 Landscape typology and eco- No No Yes Yes No Yes No
logical connectivity assess-
ment to inform Greenway
design
Svensson et al. [147] 2019 Landscape trajectory of Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
natural boreal forest loss
as an impediment to green
infrastructure
Capotorti et al. [28] 2019 Biodiversity and ecosystem Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
services in urban green
infrastructure planning: a
case study from the metro-
politan area of Rome (Italy)
Hu et al. [68] 2018 Integrated methods for Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
determining restoration
priorities of coal mining
subsidence areas based on
green infrastructure: A case
study in the Xuzhou urban
area, of China
Vasiljević et al. [155] 2018 The concept of green infra- Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
structure and urban land-
scape planning: a challenge
for urban forestry planning
in Belgrade, Serbia
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 2 (continued)
definition
de la Fuente et al. [40] 2018 Natura 2000 sites, public for- No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
ests and riparian corridors:
The connectivity backbone
of forest green infrastruc-
ture
Cannas et al. [25] 2018 Green infrastructure and eco- Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
logical corridors: a regional
study concerning Sardinia
Albert et al. [1] 2017 Applying network theory No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
to prioritize multispecies
habitat networks that are
robust to climate and land-
use change
Elbakidze et al. [49] 2017 A bottom-up approach to Yes No No Yes No Yes No
map land covers as poten-
tial green infrastructure
hubs for human well-being
in rural settings: a case
study from Sweden
Bellamy et al. [18] 2017 A spatial framework for tar- Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
geting urban planning for
pollinators and people with
local stakeholders: a route
to healthy, blossoming com-
munities?
Pelorosso et al. [119] 2017 PANDORA 3.0 plugin: a new Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
biodiversity ecosystem
service assessment tool for
urban green infrastructure
connectivity planning
Salomaa et al. [133] 2017 Can green infrastructure help Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
to conserve biodiversity?
Angelstam et al. [4] 2017 Gap analysis as a basis for Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
strategic spatial planning
of green infrastructure: a
case study in the Ukrainian
Carpathians
Capotorti et al. [26] 2016 Combining the conservation Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
of biodiversity with the pro-
vision of ecosystem services
in urban green infrastruc-
ture planning: critical
features arising from a case
study in the metropolitan
area of Rome
Kukkala and Moilanen 2017 Ecosystem services and con- Yes Yes No Yes NO No Yes
[82] nectivity in spatial conserva-
tion prioritization
Garmendia et al. [61] 2016 Biodiversity and Green Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Infrastructure in Europe:
Boundary object or ecologi-
cal trap?
Green et al. [63] 2016 Insurance Value of Green Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Infrastructure in and Around
Cities
Vol.:(0123456789)
Table 2 (continued)
definition
Lynch [94] 2016 Is It Good to Be Green? Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

Assessing the Ecological
Results of County Green
Infrastructure Planning
Snäll et al. [144] 2016 Green infrastructure design Yes Yes Yes Yes No (Yes) Yes
based on spatial conserva-
tion prioritization and mod-
eling of biodiversity features
and ecosystem services
Liquete et al. [92] 2015 Mapping green infrastruc- Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
ture based on ecosystem
services and ecological
networks: a Pan-European
case study
Fichera et al. [55] 2015 Application, validation and No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
comparison in different
geographical contexts of
an integrated model for
the design of ecological
networks
Dupras et al. [47] 2015 Toward the Establishment Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
of a Green Infrastructure
in the Region of Montreal
(Quebec, Canada)
Kopperoinen et al. [78] 2014 Using expert knowledge in Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
combining green infrastruc-
ture and ecosystem services
in land use planning: an
insight into a new place-
based methodology
Phillips et al. [122] 2020 Ecosystem service provision Yes No No No Yes No No
by road verges
Roeland et al. [130] 2019 Toward an integrative Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
approach to evaluate the
environmental ecosystem
services provided by urban
forest
Wang et al. [161] 2019 Spatial patterns of urban No No Yes No No Yes No
green infrastructure for
equity: a novel exploration
Knapp et al. [77] 2019 Biodiversity Impact of Green Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
Roofs and Constructed
Wetlands as Progressive
Eco-Technologies in Urban
Areas
Park et al. [116] 2019 Urban food systems that Yes No No No Yes No No
involve trees in Northern
America and Europe: a scop-
ing review
Donaldson et al. (2019) 2019 Using green infrastructure to Yes No No No No Yes No
add value and assist place-
making in public realm
developments
Diduck et al. [44] 2020 Pathways of learning about No No No No No Yes No
biodiversity and sustainabil-
ity in private urban gardens
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 2 (continued)
definition
Pirnat and Hladnik [124] 2019 A tale of two cities-from sepa- Yes Yes No No No Yes No
ration to common green
connectivity for maintaining
of biodiversity and well-
being
Lahde et al. [85] 2019 Can we really have it all? Yes Yes No No No Yes No
Designing multifunctional-
ity with sustainable urban
drainage system elements
Suchocka et al. [146] 2019 Transit versus Nature. Depre- Yes Yes No No No Yes No
ciation of Environmental
Values of the Road Alleys.
Case Study: Gamerki-
Jonkowo, Poland
Ferreira et al. [54] 2019 Impact of the urbanization Yes No No No No Yes No
process in the availability
of ecosystem services in a
tropical ecotone area
Auerswald et al. [9] 2019 HESS Opinions: Socio- Yes No No No No Yes No
economic and ecological
trade-offs of flood manage-
ment—benefits of a trans-
disciplinary approach
Zhang et al. [166] 2019 Enhancing landscape con- No No Yes No No Yes No
nectivity through multifunc-
tional green infrastructure
corridor modeling and
design
Lin et al. [91] 2019 Establishing priorities for No No No No No No Yes
urban green infrastructure
research in Australia
Shi and Qin [138] 2018 Research on the optimization No No Yes No No Yes No
of regional green infrastruc-
ture network
Dhyani et al. [43] 2018 Ecosystem based Disaster Yes No No No No Yes No
Risk Reduction approaches
(EbDRR) as a prerequisite for
inclusive urban transforma-
tion of Nagpur City, India
Rolf et al. [131] 2018 Farmland—an Elephant in the No No Yes No No Yes No
Room of Urban Green Infra-
structure? Lessons learned
from connectivity analysis in
three German cities
Singh et al. [143] 2018 Simulating stream response Yes No No No No Yes No
to floodplain connectiv-
ity and revegetation from
reach to watershed scales:
Implications for stream
management
Artmann and Sartison 2018 The role of urban agriculture No No No No Yes No No
[8] as a nature-based solution:
a review for developing
a systemic assessment
framework
Vol.:(0123456789)
Table 2 (continued)
definition
Qu et al. [125] 2018 Identifying conservation Yes No No No No Yes No

priorities and management
strategies based on eco-
system services to improve
urban sustainability in
Harbin, China
Zefferman et al. [164] 2018 Knoxville’s urban wilderness: Yes Yes No No No Yes No
moving toward sustainable
multifunctional manage-
ment
Schifman et al. (2017) 2017 Situating green infrastructure Yes No No No No Yes No
in context: a framework for
adaptive socio-hydrology
in cities
Angelstam et al. (2017) 2017 Green infrastructure develop- No Yes Yes No No Yes No
ment at European Union’s
eastern border: effects of
road infrastructure and for-
est habitat loss
Brill et al. (2017) 2017 Methodological and empirical Yes No No No No Yes No
considerations when assess-
ing freshwater ecosystem
service provision in a devel-
oping city context: making
the best of what we have
Nilon et al. (2017) 2017 Planning for the future of Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No
urban biodiversity: a global
review of city-scale initia-
tives
Sikorska et al. [140] 2017 High biodiversity of green Yes Yes No No No Yes No
infrastructure does not
contribute to recreational
ecosystem services
Artmann et al. [7] 2017 Using the concepts of green Yes No No No No Yes No
infrastructure and eco-
system services to specify
Leitbilder for Compact and
Green Cities-The Example
of the Landscape Plan of
Dresden (Germany)
Ochoa et al. (2017) 2017 Vegetation conservation to Yes No No No No Yes No
reduce hidrometeorological
risks on a border metropoli
Bujs et al. (2016) 2016 Active citizenship for urban Yes No No No No No Yes
green infrastructure:
fostering the diversity and
dynamics of citizen con-
tributions through mosaic
governance
Säumel et al. (2016) 2016 Toward livable and healthy Yes No No No No Yes No
urban streets: Roadside veg-
etation provides ecosystem
services where people live
and move
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 2 (continued)
definition
Fattorini et al. (2016) 2016 Role of urban green spaces No Yes No No No Yes No
for saproxylic beetle con-
servation: a case study of
tenebrionids in Rome, Italy
Wang et al. (2016) 2016 Urban Watershed Framework Yes No No No No Yes No
Plan for Conway, Arkansas:
A Reconciliation Landscape
Opdam et al. [113] 2015 Framing ecosystem services: Yes No No No No Yes Yes
affecting behavior of actors
in collaborative landscape
planning?
Orsini et al. [115] 2014 Exploring the production Yes No No No No Yes No
capacity of rooftop gardens
(RTGs) in urban agriculture:
the potential impact on
food and nutrition security,
biodiversity and other eco-
system services in the city of
Bologna
Shwartz et al. [139] 2014 Outstanding challenges for No Yes No No Yes No No
urban conservation research
and action
Kuttner et al. [83] 2014 Do landscape patterns Yes No Yes No No Yes No
reflect ecosystem service
provision?—A comparison
between protected and
unprotected areas through-
out the Lake Neusiedl
region
Andrade et al. [2] 2013 Assembling the pieces: a No No No No No Yes No
framework for the integra-
tion of multi-functional
ecological main structure in
the emerging urban region
of Bogota, Colombia
Mörtberg et al. [109] 2012 Urban ecosystems and Yes No No No No Yes Yes
sustainable urban develop-
ment-analyzing and assess-
ing interacting systems in
the Stockholm region
Vol.:(0123456789)
Appendix 2: Number of results in Web

of Science using a combination of keywords
(1st of May 2020)
Vol:.(1234567890)
References 19. Belote RT, Dietz MS, McRae BH, Theobald DM, McClure ML,
Irwin GH, McKinley PS, Gage JA, Aplet GH (2016) Identifying
corridors among large protected areas in the United States.
1. Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A (2017) Apply-
PLoS ONE 11:e0154223
ing network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks
20. Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2006) Green infrastructure: linking
that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol
landscapes and communities. Island Press, Washington, DC
31(6):1383–1396
21. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding
2. Andrade GI, Remolina F, Wiesner D (2013) Assembling the
relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett
pieces: a framework for the integration of multi-functional eco-
12:1394–1404
logical main structure in the emerging urban region of Bogotá,
22. Blaikie P, Brookfield H (2015) Land degradation and society.
Colombia. Urban Ecosyst 16(4):723–739
Routledge, London
3. Andrew ME, Wulder MA, Cardille JA (2014) Protected areas in
23. Bojinski S, Verstraete M, Peterson TC, Richter C, Simmons A,
boreal Canada: a baseline and considerations for the contin-
Zemp M (2014) The concept of essential climate variables in
ued development of a representative and effective reserve
support of climate research, applications, and policy. Bull Am
network. Environ Rev 22:135–160
Meteorol Soc 95:1431–1443
4. Angelstam P, Yamelynets T, Elbakidze M, Prots B, Manton M
24. Braaker S, Moretti M, Boesch R, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Bontadina
(2017) Gap analysis as a basis for strategic spatial planning of
F (2014) Assessing habitat connectivity for ground-dwelling
green infrastructure: a case study in the Ukrainian Carpathians.
animals in an urban environment. Ecol Appl 24:1583–1595
Écoscience 24(1–2):41–58
25. Cannas I, Lai S, Leone F, Zoppi C (2018) Green infrastructure
5. Araújo MB, New M (2007) Ensemble forecasting of species dis-
and ecological corridors: a regional study concerning Sardinia.
tributions. Trends Ecol Evol 22:42–47
Sustainability 10:1265
6. Arthington AH, Dulvy NK, Gladstone W, Winfield IJ (2016)
26. Capotorti G, Del Vico E, Anzellotti I, Celesti-Grapow L (2016)
Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: status,
Combining the conservation of biodiversity with the provision
threats and management. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst
of ecosystem services in urban green infrastructure planning:
26:838–857
critical features arising from a case study in the metropolitan
7. Artmann M, Bastian O, Grunewald K (2017) Using the concepts
area of Rome. Sustainability 9(1):10
of green infrastructure and ecosystem services to specify Leit-
27. Capotorti G, De Lazzari V, Alós Ortí M (2019) Local scale prior-
bilder for compact and green cities—the example of the land-
itisation of green infrastructure for enhancing biodiversity in
scape plan of Dresden (Germany). Sustainability 9(2):198
peri-urban agroecosystems: a multi-step process applied in the
8. Artmann M, Sartison K (2018) The role of urban agriculture as
metropolitan City of Rome (Italy). Sustainability 11:3322
a nature-based solution: a review for developing a systemic
28. Capotorti G, Alós Ortí MM, Copiz R, Fusaro L, Mollo B, Salva-
assessment framework. Sustainability 10(6):1937
tori E, Zavattero L (2019) Biodiversity and ecosystem services
9. Auerswald K, Moyle P, Seibert SP, Geist J (2019) HESS opinions:
in urban green infrastructure planning: a case study from the
socio-economic and ecological trade-offs of flood manage-
metropolitan area of Rome (Italy). Urban For Urban Green
ment–benefits of a transdisciplinary approach. Hydrol Earth
37:87–96
Syst Sci 23(2):1035–1044
29. Carlier J, Moran J (2019) Landscape typology and ecological
10. Austin MP (2002) Spatial prediction of species distribution: an
connectivity assessment to inform Greenway design. Sci Total
interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling.
Environ 651:3241–3252
Ecol Model 157:101–118
30. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. CBD, Rio de
11. Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A com-
Janeiro
parative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem
31. Chan KM, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC
services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:27–39
(2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS
12. Balbar AC, Metaxas A (2019) The current application of ecologi-
Biol 4:e379
cal connectivity in the design of marine protected areas. Glob
32. Cimon-Morin J, Darveau M, Poulin M (2013) Fostering synergies
Ecol Conserv 17:e00569
between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation
13. Ball IR, Possingham HP, Watts M (2009) Marxan and relatives:
planning: a review. Biol Conserv 166:144–154
software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Spatial conser-
33. Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Maginnis S, Janzen C (2016)
vation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational
Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges.
tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–195
IUCN, Gland
14. Baur B, Erhardt A (1995) Habitat fragmentation and habitat
34. Constable AJ, Costa DP, Schofield O, Newman L, Urban ER Jr,
alterations: principal threats to most animal and plant species.
Fulton EA, Melbourne-Thomas J, Ballerini T, Boyd PW, Brandt
GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 4:221–226
A (2016) Developing priority variables (“ecosystem Essential
15. Beazley KF, Baldwin ED, Reining C (2010) Integrating expert
Ocean Variables”—eEOVs) for observing dynamics and change
judgment into systematic ecoregional conservation planning.
in Southern Ocean ecosystems. J Mar Syst 161:26–41
In: Trombulak SC, Baldwin R (eds) Landscape-scale conserva-
35. Costanza R, dArge R, deGroot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B,
tion planning. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–255
Limburg K, Naeem S, ONeill RV, Paruelo J et al (1997) The value
16. Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRAE B (2011) Toward best
of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv
387:253–260
Biol 25:879–892
36. Cunha NS, Magalhães MR (2019) Methodology for mapping the
17. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the chal-
national ecological network to mainland Portugal: a planning
lenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995
tool towards a green infrastructure. Ecol Indic 104:802–818
18. Bellamy CC, van der Jagt APN, Barbour S, Smith M, Moseley
37. D’Eon RG, Glenn SM, Parfitt I, Fortin M-J (2002) Landscape con-
D (2017) A spatial framework for targeting urban planning
nectivity as a function of scale and organism vagility in a real
for pollinators and people with local stakeholders: a route to
forested landscape. Conserv Ecol 6:10
healthy, blossoming communities? Environ Res 158:255–268.
38. da Silva JMC, Wheeler E (2017) Ecosystems as infrastructure.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.023
Perspect Ecol Conserv 15:32–35
Vol.:(0123456789)
39. Dawson TP, Jackson ST, House JI, Prentice IC, Mace GM (2011) 58. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes
Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
climate. Science 332:53–58 59. Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the
40. de la Fuente B, Mateo-Sánchez MC, Rodríguez G, Gastón A, de role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning:
Ayala RP, Colomina-Pérez D, Melero M, Saura S (2018) Natura proposing a balanced score card. Landsc Ecol 29:1435–1446
2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: the connectiv- 60. García-Díaz P, Prowse TA, Anderson DP, Lurgi M, Binny RN, Cas-
ity backbone of forest green infrastructure. Land Use Policy sey P (2019) A concise guide to developing and using quanti-
75:429–441 tative models in conservation management. Conserv Sci Pract
41. Delavenne J, Metcalfe K, Smith R, Vaz S, Martin C, Dupuis L, 1:e11
Coppin F, Carpentier A (2012) Systematic conservation plan- 61. Garmendia E, Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM, Bormpoudakis D
ning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan (2016) Biodiversity and green infrastructure in Europe: bound-
and Zonation decision-support tools. ICES J Mar Sci 69:75–83 ary object or ecological trap? Land Use Policy 56:315–319.
42. DETA, DGAN, and CCDB (2018) Stratégie Biodiversité Genève https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.003
2030 (SBG-2030). République et canton de Genève 62. Gocheva K, Lü Y, Li F, Bratanova-Doncheva S, Chipev N (2019)
43. Dhyani S, Lahoti S, Khare S, Pujari P, Verma P (2018) Ecosystem Ecosystem restoration in Europe: can analogies to traditional
based Disaster Risk Reduction approaches (EbDRR) as a prereq- Chinese Medicine facilitate the cross-policy harmonization
uisite for inclusive urban transformation of Nagpur City, India. on managing socio-ecological systems? Sci Total Environ
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 32:95–105 657:1553–1567
44. Diduck AP, Raymond CM, Rodela R, Moquin R, Boerchers 63. Green TL, Kronenberg J, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Gomez-Bag-
M (2020) Pathways of learning about biodiversity and sus- gethun E (2016) Insurance value of green infrastructure in and
tainability in private urban gardens. J Environ Plan Manag around cities. Ecosystems 19(6):1051–1063
63(6):1056–1076 64. Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe S-E, Zulian G (2015)
45. Di Minin E, Soutullo A, Bartesaghi L, Rios M, Szephegyi MN, A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst
Moilanen A (2017) Integrating biodiversity, ecosystem ser- Serv 13:16–27
vices and socio-economic data to identify priority areas and 65. Guisan A, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE (2017) Habitat suitabil-
landowners for conservation actions at the national scale. Biol ity and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge
Conserv 206:56–64 University Press, Cambridge
46. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson 66. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiver-
RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA et al sity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst Ecol
(2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science New Synth 1:110–139
359:270–272 67. Hermoso V, Morán-Ordóñez A, Lanzas M, Brotons L (2020)
47. Dupras J, Drouin C, André P, Gonzalez A (2015) Towards the Designing a network of green infrastructure for the EU. Landsc
establishment of a green infrastructure in the region of Mon- Urban Plan 196:103732
treal (Quebec, Canada). Plan Pract Res 30(4):355–375 68. Hu T, Chang J, Liu X, Feng S (2018) Integrated methods for
48. Egoh BN, Reyers B, Carwardine J, Bode M, O’farrell PJ, Wilson KA, determining restoration priorities of coal mining subsidence
Possingham HP, Rouget M, De Lange W, Richardson DM (2010) areas based on green infrastructure: a case study in the Xuzhou
Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Little urban area, of China. Ecol Indic 94:164–174
Karoo, South Africa. Conserv Biol 24:1021–1030 69. Ignatieva M, Ahrné K (2013) Biodiverse green infrastructure for
49. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Yamelynets T, Dawson L, Gebrehiwot the 21st century: from “green desert” of lawns to biophilic cit-
M, Stryamets N, Johansson K-E, Garrido P, Naumov V, Manton M ies. J Archit Urban 37:1–9
(2017) A bottom-up approach to map land covers as potential 70. IPBES (2016) The methodological assessment report on sce-
green infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural set- narios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
tings: a case study from Sweden. Landsc Urban Plan 168:72–83 Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
50. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson PR, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn
A, Hijmans JR, Huettmann FR, Leathwick J, Lehmann A (2006) 71. IPBES (2018a) Media release: biodiversity and nature’s contri-
Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions butions continue dangerous decline, scientists Warn | IPBES-6
from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151 plenary
51. European Commission (2013) Green infrastructure (GI)— 72. IPBES (2018b) The IPBES assessment report on land degrada-
enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. COM(2013)249 tion and restoration. In: Montanarella L, Scholes R, Brainich A
52. European Environment Agency (2014) Spatial analysis of green (eds) Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat-
infrastructure in Europe. Technical report No 2/2014. EEA form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany
53. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) (2017) Action plan 73. IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assess-
for the Swiss Biodiversity Strategy. Bern ment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
54. Ferreira LMR, Esteves LS, de Souza EP, dos Santos CAC (2019) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
Impact of the urbanisation process in the availability of and Ecosystem Services
ecosystem services in a tropical ecotone area. Ecosystems 74. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contri-
22(2):266–282 bution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
55. Fichera CR, Laudari L, Modica G (2015) Application, validation Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
and comparison in different geographical contexts of an inte- [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC,
grated model for the design of ecological networks. J Agric Eng Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp
46(2):52–61 75. Irga PJ, Braun JT, Douglas ANJ, Pettit T, Fujiwara S, Burchett MD,
56. Firehock K (2015) Strategic green infrastructure planning—a Torpy FR (2017) The distribution of green walls and green roofs
multi-scale approach. Island Press, Washington, DC throughout Australia: do policy instruments influence the fre-
57. Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated quency of projects? Urban For Urban Green 24:164–174
to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Softw
38:316–327
Vol:.(1234567890)
76. Jayasooriya VM, Ng AWM, Muthukumaran S, Perera BJC (2017) 97. Mace GM, Barrett M, Burgess ND, Cornell SE, Freeman R,
Green infrastructure practices for improvement of urban air Grooten M, Purvis A (2018) Aiming higher to bend the curve
quality. Urban For Urban Green 21:34–47 of biodiversity loss. Nat Sustain 1:448
77. Knapp S, Schmauck S, Zehnsdorf A (2019) Biodiversity impact 98. Maes J, Jacobs S (2017) Nature-based solutions for Europe’s
of green roofs and constructed wetlands as progressive eco- sustainable development. Conserv Lett 10:121–124
technologies in urban areas. Sustainability 11(20):5846 99. Maestre FT, Quero JL, Gotelli NJ, Escudero A, Ochoa V, Delgado-
78. Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Niemelä J (2014) Using expert knowl- Baquerizo M, García-Gómez M, Bowker MA, Soliveres S, Escolar
edge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem ser- C (2012) Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctional-
vices in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based ity in global drylands. Science 335:214–218
methodology. Landsc Ecol 29:1361–1375 100. Manhães AP, Mazzochini GG, Oliveira-Filho AT, Ganade G, Car-
79. Kremen C, Merenlender AM (2018) Landscapes that work for valho AR (2016) Spatial associations of ecosystem services and
biodiversity and people. Science 362:eaau6020 biodiversity as a baseline for systematic conservation planning.
80. Kujala H, Moilanen A, Gordon A (2018) Spatial characteristics of Divers Distrib 22:932–943
species distributions as drivers in conservation prioritization. 101. Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Methods for mapping
Methods Ecol Evol 9:1121–1132 ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst
81. Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2013) Core concepts of spatial pri- Serv Manag 8:17–25
oritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev 102. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial
88:443–464 pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps
82. Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2017) Ecosystem services and con- 103. McGill BJ, Dornelas M, Gotelli NJ, Magurran AE (2015) Fifteen
nectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropocene. Trends Ecol
32(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0446-y Evol 30:104–113
83. Kuttner M, Schneidergruber A, Wrbka T (2014) Do landscape 104. McKnight MW, White PS, McDonald RI, Lamoreux JF, Sechrest
patterns reflect ecosystem service provision? A comparison W, Ridgely RS, Stuart SN (2007) Putting beta-diversity on the
between protected and unprotected areas throughout the map: broad-scale congruence and coincidence in the extremes.
Lake Neusiedl region. J Prot Mt Areas Res Manag 6:13–20 PLoS Biol 5:e272
84. Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk van den Bosch 105. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit
C (2013) Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial plan- theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and con-
ning in European urban regions. IForest Biogeosci For 6:102 servation. Ecology 89:2712–2724
85. Lähde E, Khadka A, Tahvonen O, Kokkonen T (2019) Can we 106. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis.
really have it all?—Designing multifunctionality with sustain- Island Press, Washington DC
able urban drainage system elements. Sustainability 11(7):1854 107. Meijer JR, Huijbregts MAJ, Schotten KCGJ, Schipper AM (2018)
86. Lanzas M, Hermoso V, de-Miguel S, Bota G, Brotons L (2019) Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Envi-
Designing a network of green infrastructure to enhance the ron Res Lett 13:064006
conservation value of protected areas and maintain ecosystem 108. Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (2009) Spatial conserva-
services. Sci Total Environ 651:541–550 tion prioritization: quantitative methods and computational
87. Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, Paracchini ML, Piorr tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford
A, Zasada I (2015) Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public 109. Mörtberg U, Haas J, Zetterberg A, Franklin JP, Jonsson D, Deal
good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J Environ B (2013) Urban ecosystems and sustainable urban develop-
Plan Manag 58:2088–2112 ment—analysing and assessing interacting systems in the
88. Lehmann A, Leathwick JR, Overton JM (2002) Assessing New Stockholm region. Urban Ecosyst 16(4):763–782
Zealand fern diversity from spatial predictions of species 110. Naumann S, Davis M, Kaphengst T, Pieterse M, Rayment M
assemblages. Biodivers Conserv 11:2217–2238 (2011) Design, implementation and cost elements of Green
89. Lehtomäki J, Moilanen A (2013) Methods and workflow for spa- Infrastructure projects. Final Rep Eur Commun, Bruss, p 138
tial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ Model 111. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA,
Softw 47:128–137 Börger L, Bennett DJ, Choimes A, Collen B et al (2015) Global
90. Liang J, He X, Zeng G, Zhong M, Gao X, Li X, Li X, Wu H, Feng effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature
C, Xing W et al (2018) Integrating priority areas and ecological 520:45–50
corridors into national network for conservation planning in 112. Niedźwiecka-Filipiak I, Rubaszek J, Potyrała J, Filipiak P (2019)
China. Sci Total Environ 626:22–29 The method of planning green infrastructure system with the
91. Lin BB, Meyers JA, Barnett GB (2019) Establishing priorities for use of landscape-functional units (Method LaFU) and its imple-
urban green infrastructure research in Australia. Urban Policy mentation in the Wrocław functional area (Poland). Sustain-
Res 37(1):30–44 ability 11:394
92. Liquete C, Kleeschulte S, Dige G, Maes J, Grizzetti B, Olah B, 113. Opdam P, Coninx I, Dewulf A, Steingröver E, Vos C, van der Wal
Zulian G (2015) Mapping green infrastructure based on eco- M (2015) Framing ecosystem services: affecting behaviour of
system services and ecological networks: a Pan-European case actors in collaborative landscape planning? Land Use Policy
study. Environ Sci Policy 54:268–280 46:223–231
93. Lyashevska O, Farnsworth KD (2012) How many dimensions of 114. Opdam P (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem services
biodiversity do we need? Ecol Indic 18:485–492 and landscape planning. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish
94. Lynch AJ (2016) Is it good to be green? Assessing the ecological R, Turner RK (eds) Routledge handbook of ecosystem services.
results of county green infrastructure planning. J Plan Educ Res Routledge, Abingdon, pp 564–567
36(1):90–104 115. Orsini F, Gasperi D, Marchetti L, Piovene C, Draghetti S, Ramaz-
95. Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345:1558–1560 zotti S, Bazzocchi G, Gianquinto G (2014) Exploring the produc-
96. Mace G (2016) Ecosystem services: where is the discipline tion capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture:
heading? In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK the potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiver-
(eds) Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. Routledge, sity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food
Abingdon, pp 602–606 Secur 6(6):781–792
Vol.:(0123456789)
116. Park H, Kramer M, Rhemtulla JM, Konijnendijk CC (2019) Urban assemblages? Community optimisation might hold the answer.
food systems that involve trees in Northern America and Methods Ecol Evol 9:2155–2166
Europe: a scoping review. Urban For Urban Green 45:126360 137. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of com-
117. Pauls SU, Nowak C, Bálint M, Pfenninger M (2013) The impact of munication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
global climate change on genetic diversity within populations 138. Shi X, Qin M (2018) Research on the optimization of regional
and species. Mol Ecol 22:925–946 green infrastructure network. Sustainability 10(12):4649
118. Pearson RG, Dawson TP (2003) Predicting the impacts of cli- 139. Shwartz A, Turbé A, Julliard R, Simon L, Prévot A-C (2014)
mate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate Outstanding challenges for urban conservation research and
envelope models useful? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:361–371 action. Glob Environ Change 28:39–49
119. Pelorosso R, Gobattoni F, Geri F, Leone A (2017) PANDORA 3.0 140. Sikorska D, Sikorski P, Hopkins RJ (2017) High biodiversity of
plugin: a new biodiversity ecosystem service assessment tool green infrastructure does not contribute to recreational eco-
for urban green infrastructure connectivity planning. Ecosyst system services. Sustainability 9(3):334
Serv 26:476–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.016 141. Simpkins CE, Dennis TE, Etherington TR, Perry GL (2017) Assess-
120. Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M, Geller GN, Jongman RHG, ing the performance of common landscape connectivity met-
Scholes RJ, Bruford MW, Brummitt N, Butchart SHM, Car- rics using a virtual ecologist approach. Ecol Model 367:13–23
doso AC et al (2013) Essential biodiversity variables. Science 142. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature
339:277–278 163(4148):688–688
121. Phillips SJ, Miroslav D, Schapire RE (2019) Maxent software for 143. Singh NK, Wemple BC, Bomblies A, Ricketts TH (2018) Simulat-
modeling species niches and distributions (Version 3.4.1) ing stream response to floodplain connectivity and revegeta-
122. Phillips BB, Bullock JM, Osborne JL, Gaston KJ (2020) Ecosystem tion from reach to watershed scales: Implications for stream
service provision by road verges. J Appl Ecol 57(3):488–501 management. Sci Total Environ 633:716–727
123. Pouzols FM, Moilanen A (2014) A method for building corridors 144. Snäll T, Lehtomaki J, Arponen A, Elith J, Moilanen A (2016)
in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc Ecol 29:789–801 Green infrastructure design based on spatial conservation
124. Pirnat J, Hladnik D (2019) A tale of two cities—from separation prioritization and modeling of biodiversity features and eco-
to common green connectivity for maintaining of biodiversity system services. Environ Manag 57:251–256
and well-being. Land Use Policy 84:252–259 145. Socolar JB, Gilroy JJ, Kunin WE, Edwards DP (2016) How should
125. Qu Y, Lu M (2018) Identifying conservation priorities and man- beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends Ecol
agement strategies based on ecosystem services to improve Evol 31:67–80
urban sustainability in Harbin, China. PeerJ 6:e4597 146. Suchocka M, Blaszczyk M, Juźwiak A, Duriasz J, Bohdan A, Sto-
126. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statisti- larczyk J (2019) Transit versus nature. Depreciation of environ-
cal computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna mental values of the road alleys. Case study: Gamerki-Jonkowo,
127. Regan HM, Ensbey MJ, Burgman MA (2009) Conservation prior- Poland. Sustainability 11(6):1816
itization and uncertainty in planning inputs. Oxford University 147. Svensson J, Andersson J, Sandström P, Mikusiński G, Jons-
Press, Oxford son BG (2019) Landscape trajectory of natural boreal forest
128. Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Nel JL, Wilson K (2012) Expanding the con- loss as an impediment to green infrastructure. Conserv Biol
servation toolbox: conservation planning of multifunctional 33(1):152–163
landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27:1121–1134 148. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is
129. Reyers B, Stafford-Smith M, Erb K-H, Scholes RJ, Selomane O a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573
(2017) Essential variables help to focus sustainable develop- 149. Thuiller W, Lafourcade B, Engler R, Araújo MB (2009) BIOMOD—
ment goals monitoring. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:97–105 a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions.
130. Roeland S, Moretti M, Amorim JH, Branquinho C, Fares S, Morelli Ecography 32:369–373
F, Niinemets Ü, Paoletti E, Pinho P, Sgrigna G (2019) Towards an 150. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement
integrative approach to evaluate the environmental ecosystem of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19
services provided by urban forest. J For Res 30:1–16 151. Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SLL, Boyce DG, Britten GL, Burgess
131. Rolf W, Peters D, Lenz R, Pauleit S (2018) Farmland–an Elephant ND, Butchart SHM, Leadley PW, Regan EC, Alkemade R et al
in the Room of Urban Green Infrastructure? Lessons learned (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international
from connectivity analysis in three German cities. Ecol Indic biodiversity targets. Science 346:241–244
94:151–163 152. Turner KG, Anderson S, Gonzales-Chang M, Costanza R, Cour-
132. Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva ville S, Dalgaard T, Dominati E, Kubiszewski I, Ogilvy S, Porfirio
P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA et al (2015) L et al (2016) A review of methods, data, and models to assess
Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degrada-
service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ tion and restoration. Ecol Model 319:190–207
115:11–21 153. UN Environment (2019) Global environment outlook: GEO-6:
133. Salomaa A, Paloniemi R, Kotiaho JS, Kettunen M, Apostolopou- healthy planet, healthy people. Cambridge University Press,
lou E, Cent J (2017) Can green infrastructure help to conserve Nairobi
biodiversity? Environ Plan C-Polit Space 35(2):265–288. https 154. United Nations (2019) World urbanization prospects—popula-
://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16649363 tion division
134. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software pack- 155. Vasiljević N, Radić B, Gavrilović S, Šljukić B, Medarević M, Ristić
age for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for land- R (2018) The concept of green infrastructure and urban land-
scape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139 scape planning: a challenge for urban forestry planning in Bel-
135. Scheffers BR, Meester LD, Bridge TCL, Hoffmann AA, Pandolfi grade, Serbia. IForest-Biogeosci For 11(4):491
JM, Corlett RT, Butchart SHM, Pearce-Kelly P, Kovacs KM, Dudg- 156. Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Johnson GW, Portela R, Honzák M,
eon D et al (2016) The broad footprint of climate change from Batker D (2014) A methodology for adaptable and robust eco-
genes to biomes to people. Science 354:aaf7671 system services assessment. PLoS ONE 9:e91001
136. Scherrer D, D’Amen M, Fernandes RF, Mateo RG, Guisan A 157. Virtanen EA, Viitasalo M, Lappalainen J, Moilanen A (2018)
(2018) How to best threshold and validate stacked species Evaluation, gap analysis, and potential expansion of the finnish
Vol:.(1234567890)
marine protected area network. Front Mar Sci. https://doi. 163. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity
org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00402 and population distributions in heterogeneous environments.
158. Visconti P, Bakkenes M, Baisero D, Brooks T, Butchart SHM, Oikos 78:151–169
Joppa L, Alkemade R, Marco MD, Santini L, Hoffmann M et al 164. Zefferman EP, McKinney ML, Cianciolo T, Fritz BI (2018) Knox-
(2016) Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future ville’s urban wilderness: moving toward sustainable multifunc-
development scenarios. Conserv Lett 9:5–13 tional management. Urban For Urban Green 29:357–366
159. Von Haaren C, Albert C, Galler C (2016) Spatial and landscape 165. Zhang G, Zhu A-X, Windels SK, Qin C-Z (2018) Modelling spe-
planning: a place for ecosystem services. Routledge, London cies habitat suitability from presence-only data using kernel
160. Wang J, Banzhaf E (2018) Towards a better understanding of density estimation. Ecol Indic 93:387–396
green infrastructure: a critical review. Ecol Indic 85:758–772 166. Zhang Z, Meerow S, Newell JP, Lindquist M (2019) Enhancing
161. Wang J, Xu C, Pauleit S, Kindler A, Banzhaf E (2019) Spatial pat- landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infra-
terns of urban green infrastructure for equity: a novel explora- structure corridor modeling and design. Urb For Urb Green
tion. J Clean Prod 238:117858 38:305–317
162. Wanghe K, Guo X, Luan X, Li K (2019) Assessment of urban
green space based on bio-energy landscape connectivity: a Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
case study on Tongzhou District in Beijing, China. Sustainability jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
11(18):4943
Vol.:(0123456789)

Methods For Identifying Green Infrastructure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods For Identifying Green Infrastructure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods For Identifying Green Infrastructure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Paper