8/14/2019 2012-16-

1/6

An Overview of Green Infrastructures Contribution to Climate Change Adaptation

Sadahisa KATO

Institute for Global Change Adaptation Science (ICAS), Ibaraki University

Abstract: This paper has summarized and synthesized the state-of-the-art understanding of the potential

contributions of green infrastructure (GI) to climate change (CC) adaptation by asking the following

questions: How does GI help us adapt to CC? What GI functions and services are useful for adapting to

the impacts of CC? What issues need to be resolved for planning GI for CC adaptation? GI with multitude

of benefits serves as a basis for developing resilient and sustainable landscapes. CC adaptation (CCA) is

defined as options and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual

or expected CC effects. GI can help mitigate and/or take advantage of various observed and projected CC

impacts in Japan. For example, GI can provide better stormwater management by improving rainwaterinfiltration and reducing run-off. GI can provide functional corridors for plant and animal migration. GI

can be a useful countermeasure to the urban heat island effect, expected to be exacerbated by CC. GI can

also provide CO2sinks and buffer zones against sea level rise. Barriers for GI implementation for CCA

include a lack of watershed-based planning, high uncertainty of the climate projection and CC impacts at

a municipal/site scale where land-use planning decisions are made, and a lack of coordination between

land-use plans for different sectors at the prefectural and city/town scale. Possible solutions to

overcoming these obstacles include applying the concepts such as learn by doing and safe-to-fail,

taking into account co-benefits, and utilizing several holistic planning frameworks. In Japan GI planning

is arguably most suitable at the regional (prefectural and multi-prefectural) scale, using greenspace master

plans developed by local and regional governments.

Keywords: green infrastructure, climate change adaptation, multifunctionality, co-benefits, greenspace

master plan

1. Introduction

Green infrastructure (GI) is an umbrella, greenspace conservation planning concept, advancing

other related planning concepts such as greenways and ecological networks. The increasing popularity of

GI applications in various regions of the world underscores its multitude of benefits2), 6), 11), 15), 19), 20).

Meanwhile, climate change (CC) has emerged as a global issue with the increase in global greenhouse gas

emissions due to human activities being attributed to the recent global warming10)

. The aspect of GI

contribution to CC has begun to be documented6), 15)

yet there are few studies that systematically reviewed,

focusing on this aspect. This paper intends to fill in the gap by reviewing the latest literature on the

potential roles which GI can play for adapting to CC. In particular, this paper aims to answer the

following questions: How does GI help us adapt to CC? What GI functions and services are useful for

adapting to the impacts of CC? What issues need to be resolved for planning GI for CC adaptation?

2. Green infrastructure definition

8/14/2019 2012-16-

2/6

GI in this paper is defined as an interconnected network of open and green spaces, both natural

and designed, that can provide multiple functions and services such as water and air purification,

aesthetics, cultural and socio-economic benefits, recreation, and habitat2), 6), 15), 20)

. GI exists at various

scales (e.g., region, city/town, and site) and functions across jurisdictional boundaries

2), 15)

. Therefore, GIis not limited to urban greening but GI planning should be considered at multiple scales and in various

planning contexts such as urban, regional, and rural planning. GI has its precedents in the Parks,

Parkways and Boulevard System, and linking conservation areas to counter habitat fragmentation2), 11), 15)

.

GI is to be distinguished from conventional built infrastructure such as roads, sewers, utility lines,

hospitals, schools, and prisons. Connectivity is a key planning concept for GI, for many of the benefits of

GI can be truly realized by an interconnected network of its constituting elements.

3. Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Adaptation and mitigation are two primary ways in which societies can respond to CC.Societies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation), thereby reducing the rate and magnitude of

change. Also, societies can adapt to its impacts via adaptation options/measures. Adaptation is defined as

the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their

effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities9)

. We need both mitigation and

adaptation: we must try our best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while adapting to already occurring

and projected CC impacts.

4. Specifically linking green infrastructure contributions to climate change

(1) Observed and projected climate change impacts in Japan

A variety of observed and projected CC impacts in Japan are documented in various sectors

such as food, water environment and resources, natural ecosystems, coastal areas and disaster prevention,

public health, and tourism4)

. For example, observed and projected CC impacts include: increase in the

range of fluctuation in annual precipitation; increase in the frequency of short-term, concentrated extreme

rainfalls; sea level rise; increased intensity of typhoons; increase in heat stroke patients; and shifts of

many animal and plant species to higher altitudes and more northerly locations4)

.

(2) Roles of green infrastructure in adapting for climate change

GI, owing to its multifunctional characteristic, can help mitigate and/or take advantage of these

impacts. Examples of CC adaptation measures through GI by sector are summarized in Table 1. A caveat

here is that these examples include the effects of individual greening and/or open spaces as well as those

that are characteristic to GI, a greenspace network. Unique roles of GI in adapting for CC are attributable

to its physical feature: an interconnected network of open and green spaces. For example, GI can provide

flood storage, improve rainwater infiltration, reduce run-off, and improve water quality1), 5), 6), 8)

. By

strategically developing a network of GI, these GI functions can be enhanced toward a planning goal of

improved stormwater management and regaining natural water cycle. For example, more storm water can

be collected and treated on-site by increasing opportunities for infiltration and detention as water moves

from one GI to another in a network, thereby reducing run-off with added benefits of cleaning polluted

water5), 8). In the US reports show that connected green spaces usually cost less to install and maintain

8/14/2019 2012-16-

3/6

than conventional methods of dealing with storm water21)

. Moreover, the reports show that GI can capture,

retain, infiltrate, or evapotranspirate 90% of run-off from excessive rainfall21)

. Furthermore, in the US

monitoring studies show that GI practices retain or remove up to 90% of run-off pollution, depending on

the pollutant and the particular practice

21)

.Another example of GIs potential contribution for CC adaptation (CCA) is providing

functional corridors for plant and animal migration, for shifts of many animal and plant species to more

northerly locations are expected. GI can also provide buffer zones against sea level rise and high tides1), 9)

.

GI in this case needs not to be networked but since sea level rise is a major consequence of CC, this role

of GI in coastal areas is worth mentioning.

Table 1. Examples of GI-based, planned adaptation strategies and benefits by sector

Sector Adaptation option/strategy

Water Expanded rainwater harvesting; water storage and conservation techniques; stormwater

management (e.g., increase in rainwater infiltration and reduction in run-off); water

re-use; protection and conservation of forests at a water source and of wetlands

Agriculture Improved land management (e.g., erosion control and soil protection through tree

planting)

Infrastructure/settlement

(including coastal zones)

Land acquisition and creation of marshlands/wetlands as buffer against sea level rise

and flooding; protection of existing natural barriers; providing alternative evacuation

routes

Human health Reduction in temperatures; reduction in vulnerability to extreme summers and heat

waves; safe water and improved sanitation; reduce air pollution; urban greening to

provide shade and mitigate the urban heat island effect

Tourism Diversification of tourism attractions and revenues (e.g., ecotourism, farm-stay);

protection of forests and wetlands

Energy Green roofs; provide shade by green curtain (climbing/hanging vines); energy

efficiency; incorporating CC in design standards

Biodiversity Protection of endangered ecosystems; providing species migration routes; protection

and conservation of a habitat

(Sources: 1), 5), 8), Table 4.1. in 10), and 19)

5. Issues need to be resolved and possible solutions

(1) Barriers for green infrastructure implementation for climate change adaptation

There are several issues which need to be resolved for a more systematic integration of GI into

Japanese land-use planning and for further implementation of GI planning to contribute to CCA. My

points below are toward Japans National Spatial Strategies (at the national, prefectural [regional], and

city/town scale) and prefectural master land-use plans17)

. A prefectural land-use plan is intended for

place-based land-use regulations according to the designated use of the land such as for urban,

agricultural, forest, nature parks, and nature conservation areas17)

. Some criticize these strategies and

8/14/2019 2012-16-

4/6

plans to be more of a vision than a strict regulation to guide and control overall land uses. Barriers for GI

implementation for CCA include a lack of watershed-based planning (a land-use planning appropriate for

the target natural cycle), high uncertainty of the climate projection and CC impacts at a municipal/site

scale where land-use planning decisions are made, and a lack of coordination between land-use plans fordifferent sectors (e.g., urban, agricultural lands, forest areas) at the prefectural and city/town scale. To

begin with, there are few city/town scale comprehensive land-use plans that can effectively regulate and

guide land uses. Second, except for a few large cities such as Yokohama City3)

, municipal administrative

boundaries do not match the scale of natural water cycle; regaining natural water cycle is a major goal of

GI planning and helps us adapt to CC.

(2) Some ways to advance green infrastructure planning for climate change adaptation

While land-use planning decisions are made at the site and local scales, uncertainties about

future climatic conditions remain high at this fine scale. How can we deal with the uncertainty under the

pressure to act now? The ideas and planning methods of adaptive planning13)

and safe-to-fail14)

mayhelp. Adaptive planning applies the concept of adaptive management to landscape planning by

continuously monitoring before, during, and after landscape plan implementation with feedback loops to

learn by doing13)

. The safe-to-fail concept is similar in principle. Rather than developing a landscape plan

that is fail-safe (often requiring years of scientific data accumulation), implementing small-scale projects

that can safely fail, but with precautions and the best scientific knowledge of the time and built-in

mechanisms to learn from these pilot projects treated as experiments, may be a more reasonable approach

to dealing with uncertainties. The adaptive approach is promising for GI because the knowledge to plan

and implement these systems is evolving. If experimental applications can be practiced routinely,

empirical knowledge can be accumulated by turning uncertainties into opportunities to learn from them.

Since GI is an interconnected system that transcends administrative and political boundaries,

cross-jurisdictional coordination is necessary to implement its plans1)

. At the same time, coordination

across planning scales (neighborhood, city, regional) is necessary1), 12)

. Regional planning such as the

Tokyo Capital Regional Plan, spanning across several prefectures, and greenspace master plans16)

developed by local and prefectural governments would be good scales and policies where the concept of

GI can be implemented in Japan. The greenspace master plans facilitate greening and conservation of

green spaces (including water bodies but not agricultural lands) in a comprehensive and planned

manner16)

. To further implement GI in Japan, recommended planning bodies are regional-scale entities

(not necessarily the prefectural scale bounded by prefectural borders but cross-prefectural coordination is

needed), conducting GI at the regional scale. In Japan GI can then be implemented through policies such

as the greenspace master plans at the city/town scale. The plans developed by local governments need to

be well coordinated with those by prefectural governments. The greenspace master plans16)

should be

modified to include agricultural lands as part of green spaces and the area focus should expand beyond

urban areas so that various green spaces in different sectors (e.g., urban, agricultural lands, forest areas)

can be considered together to develop an interconnected network. The planning should be based on a

watershed scale if all possible.

GI does include individual green features but GI networks can be best used for developing

natural drainage systems and migration corridors for plants and animals. Encouraging connection to

8/14/2019 2012-16-

5/6

existing GI at the site scale as well as city-wide would increase integration and connectivity of GI,

improving its effectiveness for CCA. One way to develop a GI network is to integrate GI into existing

streets and road networks by adding vegetated swales, street trees, and permeable pavement5), 6), 21)

. Green

streets have added benefits of improving aesthetics, traffic-calming, and pedestrian experience

21)

. In Japanwe lack local regulations, accompanied by design specifications to ensure designed GIs hydrological

effectiveness, to give clarity to landscape planners and designers on acceptable approaches. What needed

are mechanisms such as regulations and incentives to integrate GI practices into a wide range of public

and private spaces at both new developments and existing sites5), 21)

.

Multifunctionality of GI conveys co-benefits such as micro climate remediation and aesthetics.

Therefore, to seek GIs contribution for CCA, we need to take other GI benefits than CCA into account.

More strategically, although we may emphasize visible benefits such as recreation and aesthetics, to

facilitate GI planning for CCA, appropriate planning scales, bodies, and policies should be chosen so that

plans would generate CCA benefits irrespective of whether or not CCA is the major planning objective.

6. Conclusions

Land uses through local and regional planning policies affect local climate18)

. GI integrated into

land uses can therefore have impacts on local climate regulation. In this paper, I have shown observed and

projected impacts of CC in Japan and how GI can contribute to mitigating and/or taking advantage of

these impacts. GI is shown to be useful for CCA in various sectors (see Table 1). Tzoulas et al.s20)

conceptual framework links these various GI benefits to human health and ecosystems. In this paper, I

have organized GI benefits through the lens of CCA.

GI in Japan can be best implemented at the regional (prefectural and multi-prefectural) scale

within greenspace master plans developed by local and prefectural governments. Modifications of the

plans are necessary to include agricultural lands and expand the scope beyond urban areas. Better

integration of the plans developed by cities and towns into prefectural plans is also necessary. The

approaches and concepts of adaptive planning13)

, safe-to-fail14)

, and co-benefits can be useful for

coordinating planning across jurisdictional boundaries and across planning scales, and dealing with scale

mismatches and uncertainties. Also, Gill et al.s7)

urban characterization mapping technique as well as

greenspace conservation planning frameworks such as Katos12)

landscape planning meta-model and

Abunnasr and Hamins1)

GI transect approach will be useful for advancing GI planning for CCA.

References:

1) Abunnasr, Y. and Hamin, E.M. (2012) The Green Infrastructure Transect: An Organizational Framework for MainstreamingAdaptation Planning Policies. In Resilient Cities 2 (K. Otto-Zimmermann, ed.), Local Sustainability 2, pp.205-217, Springer,

New York.

2) Benedict, M.A. and McMahon, E.T. (2006) Green infrastructure: Linking landscape and communities, Island Press,Washington, D.C.

3) City of Yokohama (2007) Blue and Green Master Plan. Available athttp://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/etc/jyorei/keikaku/mizumidori/. (in Japanese) Accessed on July 26, 2012.

4) Committee on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research (2008) Wise Adaptation to Climate Change -Report by the

8/14/2019 2012-16-

6/6

Committee on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research -, pp.1-70, The Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

5) Endo, A. (2011) A study of the green infrastructure planning as stormwater management policy in American cities: in case ofthe long term stormwater control plan in City of Philadelphia, PA, Journal of the City Planning Institute of Japan 46(3),

649-654. (in Japanese)

6) Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, A.R., and Pauleit, S. (2007) Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the GreenInfrastructure, Built Environment 33(1), 115-133.

7) Gill, S.E., Handley, J.F., Ennos, R., Pauleit, S., Theuray, N., and Lindley, S. (2008) Characterising the urban environment ofUK cities and towns: A template for landscape planning, Landscape and Urban Planning 87(3), 210-222.

8) Inoue, K., Sugimoto, M., Shimizu, H., Onishi, A., Murayama, A., and Otsuki, A. (2011) Effect of perviousness oriented streetsdesign in Nagoya city: applying the concept of Green Infrastructure, Transactions of AIJ. Journal of Architecture and Planning

76(660), 335-340. (in Japanese)

9) IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Assessments and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der

Linden and C.E. Hanson, eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

10) IPCC (2007b) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A., eds.),

pp.1-104, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

11) Ishikawa, M. (2011) Green infra-structure as social common capital, Civil Engineering 66(10), 10-15. (in Japanese)12) Kato, S. (2010) Greenspace Conservation Planning Framework for Urban Regions Based on a Forest Bird-Habitat

Relationship Study and the Resilience Thinking. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 212.

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/212.

13) Kato, S. and Ahern, J. (2008) Learning by doing: Adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning, Journalof Environmental Planning and Management 51(4), 543-59.

14) Lister, N.-M. (2007) Sustainable large parks: Ecological design or designer ecology? In Large parks (J. Czerniak and G.Hargreaves, eds.), pp.35-57, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

15) Mell, I.C. (2008) Green Infrastructure: concepts and planning, FORUM Ejournal 8, 69-80.16) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan. Greenspace Master Plans. Available at

http://www.mlit.go.jp/crd/park/shisaku/ryokuchi/keikaku/index.html. (in Japanese) Accessed on July 24, 2012.

17) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan. Land and Real Property in Japan. Available athttp://tochi.mlit.go.jp/seido-shisaku/tochi-riyou. (in Japanese) Accessed on July 26, 2012.

18) Schwarz, N., Bauer, A., and Haase, D. (2011) Assessing climate impacts of local and regional planning policies Quantification of impacts for Leipzig (Germany), Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(2), 97-111.

19) Science for Environment Policy (2012) The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure, The European Commission, DGEnvironment , pp.1-40. Accessed on June 18, 2012.

20) Tzoulas, K, Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kamierczak, A., Niemela, J., and James, P. (2007) Promoting ecosystemand human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review, Landscape and Urban Planning 81(3),

167-178.

21) Wise, S. (2008) Green Infrastructure Rising, Planning 74(8), 14-19.