The gradually decreasing connectivity of habitats threatens biodiversity and ecological processes valuable to humans. Green infrastructure is promoted by the European Commission as a key instrument for the conservation of ecosystems in the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Green infrastructure has been defined as a network of natural and semi-natural areas, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. We surveyed Finnish experts' perceptions on the development of green infrastructure within the existing policy framework. Our results show that improving the implementation of existing conservation policy instruments needs to be an integral part of developing green infrastructure. Despite the potential of green infrastructure to benefit biodiversity, existing conceptual ambiguity of green infrastructure with rather complex role of ecosystem services – and the possible interpretation of this in practice – raises concerns regarding its ability to contribute to biodiversity conservation.
ApostolopoulouEAdamsWM (2015) Neoliberal capitalism and conservation in the post-crisis era: The dialects of “green” and “un-green” grabbing in Greece and UK. Antipode47(1): 15–35.
2.
ApostolopoulouEPaloniemiR (2012) Frames of scale challenges in Finnish and Greek biodiversity conservation. Ecology & Society17(4): 451–484.
3.
BaiettiAShlyakhtenkoALa RoccaR (2012) World Bank Studies: Green Infrastructure Finance: Leading Initiatives and Research, Washington, DC: World Bank.
4.
BalvaneraPSiddiqueIDeeL (2014) Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: Current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. BioScience64(1): 49–57.
5.
BenedictMAMcMahonET (2002) Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal20(3): 12–17.
6.
BenedictMAMcMahonET (2006) Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities, Washington, DC: Island Press.
ButchartSHMWalpoleMCollenB (2010) Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science328: 1164–1168.
9.
CarletF (2015) Understanding attitudes toward adoption of green infrastructure: A case study of US municipal officials. Environmental Science & Policy51: 65–76.
10.
CostanzaRd'ArgeRde GrootR (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387: 253–260.
11.
CowellRLennonM (2014) The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land-use planning: Drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32: 263–282.
12.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3): 297–334.
13.
DempseyJRobertsonMM (2012) Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography36(6): 758–779.
14.
DirzoRYoungHSGalettiM (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science345(6195): 401–406.
15.
EC (2011) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: An EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244 final, 3 May. Brussels: European Commission.
16.
EC (2012) The multifunctionality of green infrastructure. Science for Environmental Policy. In depth report, European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service and Science Communication Unit (eds), the University of the West of England, Bristol, March.
17.
EC (2013a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital. COM(2013) 249 final, 6 May. Brussels: European Commission.
18.
EC (2013b) Commission Staff Working Document. Technical Information on Green Infrastructure. Accompanying the Document COM(2013) 249 Final. SWD (2013) 155 final, 6 May. Brussels: European Commission.
19.
EEA (2011) Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. Technical report No 18, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Available at: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion (accessed 15 February 2016).
20.
EEA (2013) CICES V4.3. European Environment Agency. Available at: http://cices.eu/ (accessed 24 February 2016).
21.
European Parliament (2013) European Parliament resolution of 12 December 2013 on Green Infrastructure – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital (2013/2663(RSP).
22.
Finnish Government (2012) Government Resolution on the Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland for the years 2012–2020, ‘Saving Nature for People’ 20 December.
23.
Garmendia E, Apostolopoulou E, Adams WM, et al. 2016. Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure in Europe: Boundary object or ecological trap? Land Use Policy in press. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.003.
24.
Gómez-BaggethunERuiz PérezM (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography35(5): 613–628.
25.
HanskiI (2005) Landscape fragmentation, biodiversity loss and the societal response. EMBO Reports6(5): 388–392.
26.
HanskiIvon HertzenLFyhrquistN (2012) Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109(21): 8334–8339.
27.
HorwoodK (2011) Green infrastructure: Reconciling urban green space and regional economic development: Lessons learnt from experience in England's north-west region. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability16(10): 963–975.
28.
JordanARusselD (2014) Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? The utilisation of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy32: 192–207.
29.
KambitesCOwenS (2006) Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Planning Practice & Research21(4): 483–496.
30.
KettunenMApostolopoulouEBormpoudakisD (2014) EU green infrastructure: Opportunities & the need for addressing scales. In: HenleKPottsSGKuninWE (eds) Scaling in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, Sofia: Pensoft Publishers, pp. 128–132.
31.
KopperoinenLItkonenPNiemeläJ (2014) Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: An insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecology29: 1361–1375.
32.
KotiahoJHalmeP (2014) Aggregating protected habitats embraces implicit habitat conservation triage. Proceedings of Peerage of Science1: e5.
33.
KumarP (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, London: Earthscan.
34.
LennonM (2015a) Explaining the currency of novel policy concepts: Learning from green infrastructure planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy33: 1039–1057.
35.
LennonM (2015b) Green infrastructure and planning policy: A critical assessment. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability20(8): 957–980.
36.
LennonMScottM (2014) Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning: Reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green infrastructure approach. Town Planning Review85(5): 563–587.
37.
LindenmayerDBFischerJ (2006) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in Ecology & Evolution22(3): 127–132.
38.
LiqueteCKleeschulteSDigeG (2015) Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study. Environmental Science & Policy54: 268–280.
39.
LöfvenhaftKBjörnCIhseM (2002) Biotope patterns in urban areas: A conceptual model integrating biodiversity issues in spatial planning. Landscape and Urban Planning58: 223–240.
40.
McCauleyDJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature443(7): 27–28.
41.
MaesJBarbosaABaranzelliC (2015) More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use change in Europe. Landscape Ecology30: 517–534.
42.
MarcucciDJJordanLM (2013) Benefits and challenges of linking green infrastructure and highway planning in the United States. Environmental Management51: 182–197.
43.
MatthewsTLoAYByrneJA (2015) Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning138: 155–163.
44.
Mazza L, Bennett G, De Nocker L, et al. (2011) Green infrastructure implementation and efficiency. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels and London, 22 December. Available at: www.ieep.eu/assets/898/Green_Infrastructure_Implementation_and_Efficiency.pdf (accessed 12 February 2016).
45.
MellIC (2013) Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of green infrastructure development. Local Environment18(2): 152–166.
46.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, Washington, DC: Island Press.
47.
MoilanenAHanskiI (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos95(1): 147–151.
48.
MurciaCAronsonJKattanGH (2014) A critique of the ‘novel ecosystem’ concept. Trends in Ecology & Evolution29(10): 548–553.
49.
Naumann S, McKenna D, Kaphengst T, et al. (2011) Design, implementation and cost elements of green infrastructure projects. Final report to the European Commission DG Environment, Ecologic Institute and GHK Consulting, 16 December. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf (accessed 12 February 2016).
50.
NiemeläJSaarelaS-RSödermanT (2010) Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation19: 3225–3243.
51.
PrimmerEFurmanE (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?Ecosystem Services1: 85–92.
52.
RedfordKHAdamsWM (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology23(4): 785–787.
53.
RockströmJSteffenWNooneK (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature461: 472–475.
54.
RybickiJHanskiI (2013) Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters16: 27–38.
55.
SchröterMvan der ZandenEHvan OudenhovenAPE (2014) Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters7(6): 514–523.
56.
SnällTLehtomäkiJArponenA (2016) Green infrastructure design based on spatial conservation prioritization and modeling of biodiversity features and ecosystem services. Environmental Management57(2): 251–256.
57.
SussamsLWSheateWREalesRP (2015) Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future?Journal of Environmental Management147: 184–193.
58.
TaylorPDFahrigLHeneinK (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos68(3): 571–573.
59.
ThomasKLittlewoodS (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Planning, Practice & Research25(2): 203–222.
60.
TischendorfLFahrigL (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos90: 7–19.
61.
TittensorDPWalpoleMHillSLL (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science346: 241–244.
62.
TurnerWRBrandonKBrooksTM (2007) Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience57(10): 868–873.
63.
TzoulasKKorpelaKVennS (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning3: 167–178.
64.
ViraBAdamsWM (2009) Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: Beware the silver bullet. Conservation Letters2(4): 158–162.
65.
WrightH (2011) Understanding green infrastructure: The development of a contested concept in England. Local Environment16(10): 1003–1019.
66.
YoungRZandersJLieberknechtK (2014) A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. Journal of Hydrology519: 2571–2583.
