Do Built Environment Assessment Systems Include High-Quality Green Infrastructure?

  • Danielle SinnettEmail author
  • Tom Calvert
  • Nick Smith
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)


Green infrastructure is understood to be a critical feature of sustainable cities, providing numerous benefits to people and wildlife. However, there are challenges associated with its planning, design and delivery related to skills and knowledge in the built environment sector and the importance placed on green infrastructure in the development process. The sector often turns to assessment systems to ensure that new developments are sustainable, with the standards and criteria they include being used to inform those responsible for delivering commercial and residential developments. This chapter examines thirteen systems commonly used internationally against the key characteristics of green infrastructure including its form as a multifunctional network, relationship with the strategic objectives for the area and functions for improving health and well-being, climate change resilience and nature conservation. The findings suggest that the majority of systems do not provide a robust assessment of green infrastructure against these characteristics. Although they do recognise many of the functions that green infrastructure can provide, they miss opportunities for the additive benefits that can be provided through a multifunctional network. Many of the systems will accredit developments to some degree with very little or no consideration of green infrastructure, giving the impression that it is not an essential component of new development. Built environment assessment systems play an important role in setting the standard for the sector and, as such, could contribute to  improving the quality of green infrastructure in the future.



This work was funded through the Natural Environment Research Council Green Infrastructure Innovation Fund (grant NE/N016971/1).


  1. Ajuntament de Barcelona (2013) Barcelona green infrastructure and biodiversity plan 2020. Summary. Ajuntament de Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert C, von Haaren C (2014) Implications of applying the green infrastructure concept in landscape planning for ecosystem services in peri-urban areas: an expert survey and case study. Plan Pract Res. Scholar
  3. Ameen RFM, Mourshed M, Li M (2015) A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environ Impact Assess Rev 55:110–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BRE [Building Research Establishment] (2012) BREEAM Communities. Technical Manual. BRE. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  5. BRE (2015) Home quality mark. Technical Manual.–England–2015_SD232_r1.0.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  6. BRE (2017) Evolving the ecological category in BREEAM communities. BRE.–new-factsheets-Aug-2017-/SEF-FactSheet—Communities-v.2.0.pdf. Accessed 25 Ap 2018
  7. BRE (2018) BREEAM UK new construction. Non-domestic buildings (United Kingdom). Technical Manual. BRE. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  8. Building for Life Partnership (2016) Building for life 12. 2016 edn. Nottingham Trent University: CADBE for the building for life partnership. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  9. Connop S, Vandergert P, Eisenberg B, Collier MJ, Nash C, Clough J, Newport D (2016) Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environ Sci Policy 62:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies C, Lafortezza R (2017) Urban green infrastructure in Europe: is greenspace planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy 69:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EC [European Commission] (2013) Green infrastructure (GI)—enhancing Europe’s natural capital. EC, Brussels, Belgium. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  12. Gavrilidis AA, Niță MR, Onose DA, Badiu DL, Năstase II (in press) Methodological framework for urban sprawl control through sustainable planning of urban green infrastructure. Ecol Indic. Scholar
  13. GBCA [Green Building Council of Australia] (2016) Green star communities scorecard v.1.1. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  14. GORD [Gulf Organisation for Research and Development (2017) GSAS Technical Guide 2017. GORD. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  15. Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (2015) Envision rating system for sustainable infrastructure. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  16. Kambites C, Owen S (2006) Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Plan Pract Res 21(4):483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khoshkar S, Balfors B, Wärnbäck A (2018) Planning for green qualities in the densification of suburban Stockholm—opportunities and challenges. J Environ Plan Manage. Scholar
  18. Lennon M (2015) Green infrastructure and planning policy: a critical assessment. Local Environ 20(8):957–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc Urban Plan 159:62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metro Vancouver (2015) Connecting the dots: regional green infrastructure network resource guide. Metro Vancouver. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  21. Natural England (2009) Green infrastructure guidance. Natural EnglandGoogle Scholar
  22. Nowak DJ, Stein SM, Randler PB, Greenfield EJ, Comas SJ, Carr MA, Alig RJ (2010) Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the edge report. In: General technical report NRS-62. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 27 pGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Neil JA, Gallagher CE (2014) Determining what is important in terms of the quality of an urban green network: a study of urban planning in England and Scotland. Plan Pract Res 29(2):202–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pakzad P, Osmond P (2016) Developing a sustainability indicator set for measuring green infrastructure performance. Procedia—Social Behav Sci 216:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roe M, Mell I (2013) Negotiating value and priorities: evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development. J Environ Plan Manage 56(5):650–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanström UG (2002) Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Plan Pract Res 17(4):373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinnett D, Jerome G, Burgess S, Smith N, Mortlock R (2017) Building with nature—a new benchmark for green infrastructure. Town Ctry Plan 86(10):427–431Google Scholar
  28. Sinnett D, Calvert T, Smith N, Burgess S, King L (2018) The translation and use of green infrastructure evidence. Proc ICE-Water Manag 171(2):99–109Google Scholar
  29. Steiner F, Simmons M, Gallagher M, Ranganathan J, Robertson C (2013) The ecological imperative for environmental design and planning. Front Ecol Environ 11(7):355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sustainable Sites Initiative (2014) SITES v2 rating system for sustainable land design and development. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  31. USGBC [US Green Building Council] (2018a) LEED v4 for neighbourhood development. USGBC. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  32. USGBC (2018b) LEED v4 for homes design and construction. USGBC. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  33. USGBC (2018c) LEED v4 for building design and construction. USGBC. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  34. VGBC [Vietnam Green Building Council] (2015) LOTUS non-residential rating tool. Version 2.0. Technical manual. VGBC. Accessed 25 Apr 2018
  35. VGBC (2017) LOTUS homes. Version 1.0. Technical manual. VGBC. Accessed 25 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable Planning and EnvironmentsUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations