Green infrastructure (GI) has been identified as a promising approach to help cities adapt to climate change through the provision of multiple ecosystem services. However, GI contributions to urban resilience will not be realized until it is more fully mainstreamed in the built environment and design professions. Here, we interrogate five key challenges for the effective implementation of GI: (1) design standards; (2) regulatory pathways; (3) socioeconomic considerations; (4) financeability; and (5) innovation. Methods include a literature review, case studies, and interviews with resilience managers. We propose a people-centred and context-dependent approach to advance effective implementation of GI in urban planning. We highlight two underlying currents that run across all of the challenges-(1) the role of political will as a precondition for tackling all challenges holistically; and (2) the role of stakeholder engagement in achieving public support, harnessing funding, and maintaining and monitoring GI in the long term. Highlights: The effective implementation of GI is context-specific and should adhere to the basic principles of appropriate technology. Continuous community engagement is needed to ensure the inclusivity and multi-functionality of GI. Challenges to successful GI are intersectional and therefore cannot be addressed singly in isolation.

After briefly reviewing key resilience engineering perspectives and summarising some green infrastructure (GI) tools, we present the contributions that GI can make to enhancing urban resilience and maintaining critical system functionality across complex integrated social-ecological and technical systems. We then examine five key challenges for the effective implementation of GI that include (1) standards; (2) regulation; (3) socioeconomic factors; (4) financeability; and (5) innovation. We highlight ways in which these challenges are being dealt with around the world, particularly through the use of approaches that are both context appropriate and socially inclusive. Although progress surmounting these challenges has been made, more needs to be done to ensure that GI approaches are inclusive and appropriate and feature equally alongside more traditional 'grey' infrastructure in the future of urban resilience planning. This research was undertaken for the Resilience Shift initiative to shift the approach to resilience in practice for critical infrastructure sectors. The programme aims to help practitioners involved in critical infrastructure to make decisions differently, contributing to a safer and better world.

The Value Stream Mapping (VSM) method was applied to a case study in the iron and steel industry in Southern Africa as a supporting management tool to identify, demonstrate, and evaluate industrial waste and comprised of three steps. The first step included collecting and verifying waste generation and flow data as the VSM data input step. The second step comprises three phases: mapping waste generation and fractions and horizontal and vertical performance analysis. The third step is comprised of actual and future state maps compilation. Following the first year of implementation, waste was reduced by 28%, and waste removal cost by 45%. Implementing the VSM method demonstrated cost savings and reduced waste flow within the study’s first year. The initial waste generation reduction target of 5% per annum was exceeded. The VSM method application proved to be a practical method for the iron and steel industry to visualize and analyze waste flows, identify opportunities and challenges in waste management operations, reduce waste, promote lean manufacturing, and achieve an environmentally responsible zero-waste environment.

Urban resilience emerges not only from 'what' is done in relation to critical infrastructure systems, but in the 'how' of their conception, co-creation and integration into complex socio-ecological-technical systems. For green infrastructure, where ownership and agency may be distributed amongst organisations and diverse communities, inclusiveness and appropriateness require embedding in engineering assessments of green infrastructure and resilience. Through consideration of past, present and future engineering and resilience assessmentsfrom monetising, through greening, to humanisingthis paper examines the ways in which GI may be or has already contributed to enhancing urban resilience and types of assessment and indicators that have been or could be used. We suggest that enhancing visibility of the 'whos' (individuals, communities) is crucial to fully diversifying assessments. We also suggest some ideas for additional indicators and assert that co-production of future indicators needs to be undertaken with appropriate professionals (e.g. social impact assessment professionals).

No abstract