A typology for urban Green Infrastructure to guide multifunctional planning of nature-based solutions

Archetypes of social-ecological-technological systems for managing ecological infrastructure

“…We argue that to bridge the gap and to alleviate the disconnect from the ecological to the social and technological subsystems, it is necessary to restore and integrate nature into the built environment, particularly in the Concrete Jungle and Urban Fringe archetypes. To provide the broad range of demands of NCPs and biodiversity to residents, designing and managing multifunctional EI in urban settings should be prioritized (Jones et al 2022). Stakeholders identified several potential strategies for incorporating nature into the Concrete Jungle, such as the selection and introduction of appropriate species, the creation of large parks, the planting of trees, the reduction of individual mobility, the provision of food production gardens, and the reduction of impermeable surfaces.…”

“…The acceptance of archetypes is key to generating actionable knowledge (Piemontese et al 2022). In order to achieve acceptance, archetypes should demonstrate internal coherence (Jones et al 2022) as well as ownership over and commitment to the archetypes, best accomplished through participatory and transdisciplinary research efforts (Piemontese et al 2022). While archetypes are useful in identifying management recommendations, they rely on a counterpart for allocating specific locations of ecological interventions, which is crucial for addressing environmental challenges (Jones et al 2022).…”

“…In order to achieve acceptance, archetypes should demonstrate internal coherence (Jones et al 2022) as well as ownership over and commitment to the archetypes, best accomplished through participatory and transdisciplinary research efforts (Piemontese et al 2022). While archetypes are useful in identifying management recommendations, they rely on a counterpart for allocating specific locations of ecological interventions, which is crucial for addressing environmental challenges (Jones et al 2022). To allocate interventions effectively, spatially explicit bluegreen-infrastructure maps (Donati et al 2022) and spatial conservation prioritization maps (Lanzas et al 2019, Honeck et al 2020 could additionally be used in the stakeholder process.…”

Understanding Urban Green Spaces Typology’s Contribution to Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Planning: A Study of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia

“…The ESS scoring for some types of designed green spaces (e.g., private gardens and parks) is subjective and dependent on the quality of the design and the design approach. However, the general rate for each category was defined based on the results of interviewees' discussions and a study conducted by Jones et al, 2022 [44], which scored different types of green spaces according to the ESS they offer. The cultural ESS not only includes physical and experiential interactions but also acknowledges the symbolic values of Canberra as the national capital of Australia.…”

“…The incorporation of industrial sites into the overall UGI plan can influence adopting a biophilic design approach to reduce the number of hard surfaces in those areas and push the owners to take responsibility to cooperate with the government in reducing the UHI impacts. For example, by creating green roofs and walls, and using permeable pavements and rain gardens, industrial sites can reduce UHI and the risk of flooding and improve air and water quality [44]. Moreover, incorporating industrial sites into UGI planning can lead to improving the health and wellbeing of the community by providing green spaces.…”