Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00178-8

TOPICAL COLLECTION

Designing a green infrastructure network for metropolitan areas:

a spatial planning approach
Georgia Pozoukidou1

Received: 22 December 2019 / Accepted: 20 June 2020 / Published online: 16 July 2020
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
Climate change and environmental pressures in urban areas have created the need for new concepts and tools for the man-
agement of urban development that ensure the protection of natural and cultural resources while also enhancing urban resil-
ience. Green infrastructure (GI) is often associated with sustainable goals that cities strive to achieve through a combination
of natural approaches. A key concept in these approaches is the inherent capacity of the natural environment to carry out
several functions, meaning that it can provide a variety of ecosystem services and deliver a wide range of policy objectives.
Nevertheless, recent studies on the integration of GI into spatial planning have reported limited acknowledgement of the
ecosystem services that GI can offer and a lack of a territorial perspective. This paper therefore provides a methodology that
facilitates a spatial planning approach to GI planning in metropolitan areas. Based on the definition of GI proposed by the
European Commission, which suggests that connectivity and multifunctionality are key to the effective implementation of
GI, a two-step methodological approach to GI planning is proposed. This approach is spatially centered, thus promoting the
desired territorial perspective, while it also acknowledges the notion of an ecosystem service as a basic design principle.
When applied to the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki in Greece, the methodology was found to facilitate the prioritization
of competing planning priorities and to promote certain planning objectives, thus enhancing urban resilience and helping to
improve the efficiency of land and resource use.

Keywords Green infrastructure · Spatial planning · Ecosystem services · Functional assessment

Green infrastructure and spatial planning provide a wide variety of societal benefits through nature-
based solutions. The original GI concept had its roots in
Interest from researchers in including green infrastructure ecosystem conservation efforts, so GI was defined as parks,
(GI) in spatial planning has grown rapidly over the last two forests, wetlands, green zones, and flood zones in and around
decades. This is due to the fact that climate change and envi- cities—any area that enhances quality of life or provides
ronmental pressures in urban areas have created a need for ecosystem services (e.g., water filtration and flood control).
new concepts and tools for managing urban development However, GI has recently acquired new roles that are often
in a manner that protects natural and cultural resources and related to the environmental or sustainability goals that
enhances urban resilience (Ahern 2007; Foster et al. 2011; cities strive to achieve through a combination of natural
Beatley 2000). approaches (Foster et al. 2011).
The main aim of GI is to enhance the health and resil- In 2013, the European Commission (EC) put forward a GI
ience of ecosystems while simultaneously ensuring that they strategy to ensure that the protection, restoration, creation,
and enhancement of GI become standard and integral parts
of spatial planning and territorial development whenever
Communicated by Dimitra Vagiona, Lead Guest Editor. they complement or offer a better alternative to standard
gray choices (European Commission 2013). The benefits of
* Georgia Pozoukidou
[email protected] GI and its potential contribution to the implementation of
various policies are now recognized. These benefits occur
1
Faculty of Engineering, School of Spatial Planning because implementing GI requires an integrated view of
and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ecosystem services, which in turn encourages a balanced
54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
40 Page 2 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

approach that emphasizes the multifunctional nature of a ter- 2016; Lin et al. 2015; Tzoulas et al. 2007; Eckart et al. 2017;
ritory. Therefore, GI is considered to foster a more coherent ESPON EGTC 2019). Thus, the ES concept offers a valu-
approach to decision making when attempting to integrate able method of linking humans and nature (i.e., human well-
ecological and sustainability concerns into spatial planning. being with current and potential environmental conditions;
Authorities that are responsible for land planning play a European Commission 2013), and provides extra impetus
critical role when implementing GI. A recent analysis of pol- to conserve and restore natural ecosystems (Benedict and
icy and planning for GI in EU states highlighted the limited McMahon 2006).
deployment and underused potential of GI (ESPON EGTC There are many definitions of GI, such as those proposed
2019). Insufficient understanding amongst stakeholders of by Benedict and McMahon (2012), Kambites et al. (2006),
the way that natural ecosystems function and the limited Ahern (2007), Dapolito (2010), and Naumann et al. (2011),
capacity of decision makers are reported to be major deploy- as it is a relatively new concept in the field of spatial plan-
ment bottlenecks. ning. Embracing the ecosystem concept, the EC defined
Acknowledging the limited integration of GI into spatial GI in 2013 as a “strategically planned network of natural
planning processes as well as the knowledge gap regarding and semi-natural areas with other environmental features
the application of the GI and ES approach and the scales designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem
and phases of the planning process at which it is feasible to services (ES). It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic
use this approach, this paper provides a methodology that ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in
facilitates a spatial planning approach to GI planning in met- terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land,
ropolitan areas. As GI has the ability to provide multiple GI is present in rural and urban settings.” This definition is
ecosystem services within a single policy objective (i.e., based on three key features that are important for the effec-
mitigating climate change, maintaining biodiversity, etc.) tive implementation of GI in sectoral policies: connectivity,
or across policy objectives and human activities (economic, multifunctionality, and links to spatial planning (ESPON
social, and cultural), the methodology provides a systematic EGTC 2018).
approach to prioritizing competing priorities within the spa- Here, connectivity refers to biodiversity enhancement and
tial planning process across scales. habitat provision (an ecosystem service). It relates to the
This paper starts by presenting the basic aspects of GI, ability of species to move between areas, and can be struc-
focusing on the notion of ecosystem services and its links to tural (i.e., habitat continuity) or functional (i.e., the ability
spatial planning processes. Based on the three key features of landscapes to allow various species to move and expand
that are crucial to the effective implementation of GI into to new areas without them necessarily being physically con-
spatial planning, a review of the Greek GI policy setting nected) in nature (Baró et al. 2015). A lack or loss of con-
and spatial planning system is then presented. Since the case nectivity reduces the ability of organisms to move, interfer-
study elaborated in the paper considers a Greek metropolitan ing with pollination, seed dispersal, wildlife migration, and
area, the review aims to highlight implementation gaps and breeding, which also impacts ecosystem services at various
bottlenecks in the Greek spatial planning realm. After that, scales. In contrast, improving bioconnectivity enhances eco-
the proposed methodological approach for planning a GI logical connectivity and networks, which in turn promotes
network is presented, addressing the issues of spatial dis- biological diversity and ecological processes. This concept
tribution, functional assessment, and required data sources. represents an innovative territorial and governance perspec-
The last section of the paper describes the application of the tive (Cronato et al. 2019; Tsaligopoulos et al. 2019).
methodology to the study area: the metropolitan area of the Multifunctionality is the ability of GI to provide not only
city of Thessaloniki in Greece. habitat (ecological) services but also many other ecosys-
tem services (e.g., ecological/regulating, social/cultural,
and/or economic/provisioning services) simultaneously in
Basic concepts and aspects of green one locale (Mell 2017). Ensuring healthy ecosystems and
infrastructure maintaining the long-term delivery of multiple ecosystem
services within a well-connected GI network supports the
The basic underlying principle of GI is that the same land objectives of numerous EU policy sectors, such as cohe-
area can offer a variety of benefits, such as environmen- sion, water, energy, transport, agriculture, climate, and
tal, social, cultural, and economic benefits, provided its biodiversity.
ecosystems are in a healthy condition. Ecosystem services It is believed that GI should ideally be an integral part of
(ES) refer to the benefits that can be derived from ecosys- spatial planning and territorial development policies. Spatial
tems, such as the provision of food, materials, clean water, planning involves integrating various public policies (eco-
clean air, climate regulation, flood prevention, pollination, nomic, environmental, and societal) that affect the spatial
and recreation (Bartesaghi et al. 2018; Camps-Calvet et al. organization of activities and the governance of a region.

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 3 of 15 40

GI has historically usually been perceived as a sectoral an approach that alleviates habitat fragmentation through
policy for spatial planning (in a similar way to transporta- the implementation of appropriate land-use regulations.
tion and housing), and therefore as one of the objectives of It also highlights the multifunctional nature of GI and the
spatial planning (Slätmo et al. 2019). On the other hand, benefits of an ecosystem-based adaptation approach (Action
there are cases where GI is considered to result from an 4—Land Use Regulations, p. 34). The Greek climate change
integrated approach to planning where developmental pri- adaptation policy includes Regional Adaptation Plans to Cli-
orities and environmental protection are balanced (ESPON mate Change, which are regional in scale (NUTS 2) and
EGTC 2019). Regardless of how GI is approached, it is gen- must comply with the NCCAS. These plans draw from the
erally accepted that integrated spatial planning should be National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, the National
informed by ecological processes in order to achieve sus- Spatial Planning Framework, and the respective Regional
tainable and resilient environmental, economic, and societal Spatial Plans (Ministry of Environment and Energy 2017c).
development. As such, they emphasize the need to protect ecosystem func-
In this context, GI could provide the framework for prior- tion in natural areas while highlighting the significance of
itizing and assessing various ecosystem services, their spa- natural and manmade landscapes such as archaeological
tial patterns and distribution. In this regard, a GI approach and historical sites, forests and forested areas, seashores
could be used for benchmarking alternative planning scenar- and beaches, rivers, lakes, streams, as well as areas falling
ios, utilizing GI and ES as planning criteria. Furthermore, under the remit of the national system of protected areas.
GI enhances strategic thinking and incorporates ES and their The National Operational Program Environment—Sus-
benefits as relevant planning criteria for more resilient ter- tainable Development 2007–2013 includes a section on the
ritorial development. protection of natural environment and biodiversity (Prior-
ity 9) that aims to protect against loss of biodiversity by
ensuring that satisfactory conditions are achieved and main-
GI in the Greek spatial planning realm tained for habitats and populations of endangered species
and areas of ecological interest. Goal specifications and rel-
The GI policy setting evant actions indicate that there is an emphasis on enhancing
landscape diversity, establishing networks, increasing acces-
There is no national or comprehensive GI policy or strategy sibility to key protected areas, and creating thematic strat-
at any spatial level in Greece, and there is no EU directive egies for wetlands, forests, mountain ecosystems, coastal
that enforces the compliance of any national legislation with ecosystems, and rural areas.
the EU GI strategy activated in 2013. Therefore, GI solu- European Union project funds that promote GI-related
tions and approaches are embedded in various national and policy include the European Regional Development Fund,
sectoral policies and strategies. the Cohesion Fund, the LIFE program, and Horizon 2020
The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (ESPON EGTC 2019). While not directly implementing GI,
adopted in 2014 refers to GI as a different approach to these projects and initiatives have the potential to support
biodiversity conservation that “changes our perception of basic features of GI such as connectivity and multifunction-
ecosystems, because it highlights the services they provide, ality and to help facilitate green infrastructure in Greece.
which might be replaced by manmade means, but with
greater financial cost compared to the cost of protecting GI in the context of the Greek spatial planning
ecosystems. Essentially, it is a network of natural agricul- system
tural, freshwater and marine areas, including national parks,
forests and other areas, which, as a network, regulate the This section explores the insertion of GI into Greek planning
water cycle, have a role in temperature regulation, decrease texts by incorporating its design principles (connectivity and
the risks of flooding, improve air quality, etc.” This strategy multifunctionality) and acknowledging the ecosystem ser-
acknowledges the multifunctional benefits of GI and pri- vices that GI provides. Furthermore, it focuses on the spatial
oritizes the promotion, establishment, and maintenance of plans that are generally drawn up to regulate areas outside
natural GI in rural and urban areas (Target 13). Furthermore, settlements or urban centers (periurban areas) in Greece:
it considers a GI approach to be a means of avoiding habitat Local Spatial Plans, Special Spatial Plans, Regional Spatial
fragmentation (Target 5.5.2), promoting ecosystem restora- Plans, and Master Plans.
tion (Target 5.5.3), and establishing synergies between GI It should be noted that the Ministry of Environment and
and tourism services (Ministry of Environment and Climate Energy (2016a) is responsible for devising spatial policy,
Change 2014). preparing plans and programs, and overseeing their imple-
On the other hand, in the National Climate Change Adap- mentation. It is also in charge of developing and imple-
tation Strategy (NCCAS) adopted in 2016, GI is defined as menting environmental policy. At the decentralized level,

13
40 Page 4 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

regional and municipal authorities exercise (within their activities, walking routes, paths, beaches, swimming, etc. It
areas) certain spatial competences and assure the speciali- is worth noting that these zones can include agricultural land
zation and localization of national and regional plans to local and other areas that contain valuable natural resources that
plans and ordinances. Table 1 depicts the structure of the could be essential elements of a GI network. However, LSPs
spatial planning system in Greece. do not provide a framework of land-use principles or specific
Local Spatial Plans (LSPs; Law 4447/2016; Ministry of design properties (i.e., connectivity and multifunctionality)
Environment and Energy 2016b) and the respective imple- as part of the implementation strategy for and amongst the
mentation guidelines (Ministry of Environment and Energy protected areas.
2017a) do not make any specific reference to the concept There is no explicit reference to GI in Special Spatial
of GI or tools for implementing it. Nevertheless, there are Plans either. The implementation guidelines for the facilita-
references to the protection and enhancement of the natural tion of such plans (Ministry of Environment and Energy
and environmental features of cities, settlements, and sub- 2017b) describe the structure and the content of such plans
urban areas. In this sense, it could be argued that this law but do not define a framework of essential principles for the
represents a relatively comprehensive approach to natural development of GI. Nevertheless, just as for LSPs, the desig-
areas and landscapes at all elaborated scales, although it nation of protected areas and appropriate land-use allocation
mainly focuses on the protection rather than the utilization could be used to develop and implement a GI network.
of these areas as part of a multifunctional network. A critical At the strategic level, Regional Spatial Plans and their
element of these plans that could be utilized as a mecha- implementation guidelines (Ministry of Environment and
nism to help implement GI is the designation of protected Energy 2018) do not explicitly mention GI or provide tools
areas that include significant natural and manmade areas and for implementating it. Nevertheless, it could be argued that
landscapes such as archaeological and historical sites, for- recent developments in the perception of the landscape as a
ests and forested areas, seashore and beaches, rivers, lakes, complex socioecological system that links nature to culture
and streams, as well as areas that fall under the remit of the (Kyvelou and Gourgiotis 2019) have provided the ground-
national protection system. According to the implementa- work for incorporating GI into spatial planning through
tion guidelines for LSPs, the aim of these zones is to protect landscape policies. According to Kyvelou and Gourgiotis
and promote networks of natural and cultural resources in (2019), the ratification of the European Landscape Conven-
order to protect and/or promote special tourism and leisure tion by the Greek state and the incorporation of landscape

Table 1  The structure of the Greek spatial planning system according to Law 4447/2016: Spatial planning—sustainable development and other
provisions Source: Law 4447/2016; table created by the author

Strategic spatial planning

National spatial plans The National Spatial Planning Strategy (NSPS). This plan is the basis for the coordination of the Strategic Spatial
Plans, the individual investment plans and programs of the state and local authorities, public legal entities, frame-
works, plans, and programs that have significant implications for the development and cohesion of the national
territory. In particular, the National Spatial Planning Strategy may include the national strategic directions for a
whole range of topics overarching all levels of spatial plans
Sectoral Special Spatial Plans (SSSPs). These specify directions at the national level for certain productive
sector(s). They are harmonized with the NSPS. Spatial plans for industry, tourism, aquaculture, renewable energy,
prisons, and mineral raw materials are currently being compiled
Special Spatial Framework Plans (SSFPs). These specify directions at the national level for certain types of ter-
ritories. No such plans are currently being compiled
Regional spatial plans Regional Spatial Plans (RSPs). These plans take into account the principles, aims, and guidelines of the NSPS
and provide guidelines for spatial development at the regional administrative level (NUTS 2). They need to be
harmonized with the Special Spatial Plans
Master Plans (MPs). These are plans for complex urban systems such as metropolitan areas and functional areas of
large urban centers
Regulatory spatial planning
Local spatial plans Special Spatial Plans (SSPs). These define the spatial organization and development of areas—regardless of
administrative boundaries—that may act as recipients of plans, projects, and programs of a supralocal or strategic
scale, or areas that require special land uses and developmental regulations and terms
Local Spatial Plans (LSPs). These define the spatial organization and development of urban functions, land uses,
building regulations, and any other measure, condition, or restriction required for the comprehensive spatial
development and organization of an area at the municipal level
Urban Plans (UPs). These constitute implementation plans, and are subject to the LSP or SSP at the urban/settle-
ment scale. They accurately indicate land uses, open and green spaces, public facilities, infrastructure networks,
and building regulations

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 5 of 15 40

policies into spatial planning have meant that the landscape enhance certain ecosystem services, such as improving
can now be considered a “space regulator i.e., a parameter ecological resilience and increasing public health out-
to be taken in a systematic way into account by spatial plan- comes.
ning processes, promoting the harmonious integration to it • When GI is integrated into environmental planning, it is
of all the changes imposed by socio-economic change and generally not linked in to spatial planning. This approach
environmental processes.” The new RSPs (which are cur- ignores the fact that spatial plans directly affect aspects
rently in the process of being legislated) encompass an inte- of the natural and manmade environment.
grated approach to the landscape in which social, economic, • GI is not considered using a territorial perspective. Sec-
and environmental components are closely interlinked. In toral policy is usually expressed and promoted through
the search for operational tools to facilitate landscape poli- spatial tools, and more specifically through Regional and
cies, GI presents a great opportunity to foster a landscape Local Spatial Plans, their directions, and measures for
approach, promote ES, and accomplish the aims of RSPs: implementing these plans.
to protect, promote, and interconnect natural and cultural • There is only a limited understanding that implementing
heritage in order to improve quality of life and achieve sus- GI requires land, which is not always abundant, espe-
tainable economic activity. cially in urban areas and in intensely developing regions.
Last but not least, Master Plans are plans for complex Thus, competition amongst land uses is a critical influ-
urban systems such as urban agglomerations and functional ence on the successful implementation of GI.
urban areas that include at least one large urban center and • A lack of understanding that GI is a scale-dependent con-
a functional periurban area. In Greece, there are two major cept. For example, the core elements of the GI network
metropolitan areas: Athens and Thessaloniki. The initial for green urban areas in a cityscape will differ from the
Master Plans for both of these areas were approved in the core GI network elements (e.g., Natura-protected sites)
1980s, although there was an attempt to revise them in the for periurban areas.
2000s. The Master Plan for Athens was approved in 2014, • The lack of land-use principles for spatial planning that
whereas that for Thessaloniki has not been approved. Nev- are based on the key features of the GI concept (connec-
ertheless, according to Papageorgiou and Gemenetzi (2018), tivity, multifunctionality, and a multiscale approach).
the plans have the same philosophy and guidelines for the
urban environment and green spaces. Their aims are to Hence, the multifunctional character of GI, a limited
enhance green spaces, develop a network of green areas in understanding of the ES-based approach, and a lack of a
urban and periurban areas, and to incorporate open spaces, coherent spatial planning approach that includes all planning
natural landscapes, and areas of cultural interest. Thus, scales make the planning and management of GI in Greece a
despite the fact that they do not explicitly reference the con- challenging process. Therefore, considerable work is needed
cept of GI as defined in the present paper, both plans incor- to formulate and implement territorial policies that incor-
porate the underlying features of GI network development. porate ES-based approaches into spatial planning as well as
In summary, it is evident that mainstreaming GI into to support the governance of GI across scales. To this end,
the Greek spatial planning system will be challenging. The Table 2 presents recommended actions that could provide a
absence of a national or comprehensive green infrastructure pathway for integrating the concept and design principles of
policy that could provide the strategic vision for embedding GI into the Greek spatial planning system.
GI into sectoral policies and spatial planning has led to the
indirect and fragmented integration of GI into several envi-
ronmental policies and spatial plans. More specifically, the
main issues that have been identified as bottlenecks in the Planning a GI network: a territorial
application of an integrated GI spatial policy in Greece are: perspective

• The lack of a European directive that would enforce the Recognizing the need to compose processes that enable GI
compliance of Greek national legislation with the EU deployment within spatial planning will lead to the develop-
GI policy. This has in turn led to an absence of common ment of a methodology that facilitates such processes. Based
goals and integrated planning for GI development nation- on the definition of GI proposed by the EC in 2013, which
ally, regionally, and locally. suggests that connectivity and multifunctionality are key fea-
• Limited acknowledgement of the ES that GI can offer tures of GI, a two-step methodological approach to planning
and ignorance of their potential in nature-based solutions. a GI network is proposed below. This approach is spatially
More specifically, GI is currently mainly considered only centered and focuses on the landscape level (NUTS 3 or
in the context of the conservation of green areas, rather subdivisions of NUTS 3), thus promoting a much-needed
than in functional approaches that aim to preserve or territorial perspective, and it acknowledges the notion of

13
13
40 Page 6 of 15

Table 2  Recommended actions to achieve the integration of GI into the Greek spatial planning system Source: Table created by the author
Spatial plan Territorial planning level Current state Recommendations

Strategic spatial planning

National spatial plans National Spatial Planning Strategy National No reference to the GI concept Incorporate GI as part of the wider landscape and
social cohesion policy
Sectoral Special Spatial Plans National Absence of a national or comprehensive green Develop a national spatial strategy for GI that will
infrastructure spatial strategy provide the strategic vision for embedding GI into
sectoral policies and spatial plans
Regional spatial plans Regional Spatial Plans Regional No explicit reference to GI within the scopes of Incorporate GI as an operational tool to facilitate
the plans, and no provision of implementation landscape policies and foster an integrated land-
tools scape approach
Master Plans Metropolitan Plans encompass the underlying qualities needed Enhance the GI concept by promoting an ecosys-
for the development of a GI network tem-based approach and incorporating a frame-
work of essential principles and specifications for
their development
Regulatory spatial planning
Local spatial plans Special Spatial Plans Supralocal No explicit reference to GI within the scopes of Incorporate a framework of essential land-use plan-
the plans, and no provison of implementation ning principles and specifications that promote
tools connectivity and multifunctionality
Local Spatial Plans Local No explicit reference to GI within the scopes of Use protected areas as a tool to promote the GI
the plans, and no provision of implementation concept and incorporate a framework of land-use
tools principles and specifications that promote con-
nectivity and multifunctionality
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 7 of 15 40

ES as a basic design principle. The steps comprising the following three structural elements: hubs, corridors, and
proposed methodology are now described. transition points (Fig. 1).
Step 1: GI identification and spatial distribution analysis The hubs are homogeneous terrestrial or marine areas of
involves selecting and classifying the elements that consti- all shapes and sizes that differ from the surrounding land-
tute the network. This process leads to better utilization of scape and may serve different purposes. For instance, hubs
the individual characteristics of GI elements as structural could be:
components of the network and it enables the desired func-
tional flows to be established. • Natural reserves. Extensive protected areas such as
There are two classification models for GI elements: national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, whose main func-
the Benedict and McMahon model and the Ahern model. tion is to preserve biodiversity.
According to the Benedict and McMahon model (Benedict • Regional parks and natural landscapes. Less extensive
et al. 2012), there are three distinct elements that comprise areas of regional ecological importance that provide eco-
a GI network: hubs, corridors, and links. The hubs and the logical benefits, help preserve biodiversity, and at the
corridors are the most important parts of the network, but same time offer significant recreation opportunities.
without the links there would be no network integration • Cultural/historical/recreational areas. Public/private
that maximizes the environmental and societal benefits of parks or cultural/historical sites that provide leisure
GI. Special criteria for assessing the feasibility of integrat- opportunities while highlighting the heritage of a place.
ing natural areas into the GI network are also documented.
Due to the complexity of the relations and connections that The corridors are linear areas of a particular type of land
develop between natural areas and between natural areas and cover that differ in content and physical structure from their
the built environment, a number of features are listed and surrounding environment but contribute to the creation of
considered as criteria to apply when selecting the areas that the GI network via connectivity and accessibility. Corridors
will be incorporated into the GI network. Examples of cri- can occur in both terrestrial and marine landscapes. For
teria include ecosystem function, accessibility and distance instance, terrestrial or marine corridors could be:
from the main urban center, areal size, amount of existing
infrastructure, degree of multifunctionality, and complemen- • Landscape links. Extensive protected natural areas that
tary function with other hubs. are linear and provide links between preexisting parks
Ahern (2007) argues that the matrix-patch-corridor or and natural areas, thus conserving biodiversity, and
mosaic model is almost universally accepted as a means serve as corridors between ecosystems and manmade
to describe and understand spatial landscape formation in landscapes. Landscape links can also be used to protect
landscape ecology. This model uses three fundamental ele- historic sites and to facilitate human activities such as
ments to determine the structure of the landscape: patches, hunting, fishing, canoeing, and hiking.
corridors, and a grid. A patch is a relatively homogeneous
nonlinear space that differs from the surrounding landscape.
In the urban environment, patches are incorporated as dis-
continuities in the dominant landscape (e.g., a green area
in an extensive residential, commercial, or leisure area). A
corridor is a linear area with a particular type of land cover
that is different in content and physical structure from its
surroundings. The grid is the dominant type of land cover or
land use in the landscape in terms of extent, degree of con-
nection, continuity, and control over the landscape dynam-
ics. The layout or structural form of the grid, patches, and
corridors that make up the landscape is a very important
influence on functional flows and movements within the
landscape and the evolution of its structure and processes
over time (Forman 1995).
The Benedict and McMahon typology was developed to
classify areas and improve the application of GI as a tool,
while the mosaic model is a more general model that is used
to analyze GI spatially. Therefore, for the purposes of this
study, a typology derived from a combination of the two Fig. 1  The structural elements of a GI network. Source: Figure cre-
approaches has been developed. This typology includes the ated by the author

13
40 Page 8 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

• Conservation corridors. Less extensive linear areas, such of the GI elements in supporting a specific policy objec-
as rivers and streams, that encourage biodiversity and tive at each locale. In a more complex assessment, support
may provide additional opportunities for compatible out- for multiple policy objectives is evaluated based on relevant
door leisure activities. spatial policies. Hence, assuming that the evaluation process
• Green zones. Natural or agricultural areas that serve as a includes more than one policy objective, there are two steps
framework for growth while contributing to the conserva- in the functional assessment process: (1) identifying the ES
tion of natural ecosystems and the organization of urban supplied at each locale per policy objective, and (2) multi-
and suburban development. plying the number of ES supplied by the number of policy
• Trails. Designed routes—such as railroad tracks and objectives served. Thus, locales that serve multiple objec-
green corridors—that provide access to the natural land- tives have higher scores. It should be noted that even if an
scape and other green areas. They present a variety of ecosystem service aids multiple policy objectives, it is still
resources that can be utilized for outdoor entertainment, counted only once to avoid multiple counts. The following
and enhance our understanding of historical sites and simple function can be used to calculate the multifunctional-
cultural diversity. Designed routes can include linear ity score (MFS) per locale (the GI elements with the highest
open spaces that host moderate-to-intense recreational scores are those with the strongest functional performance):
activities for residents and visitors. ∑
• Usage corridors. Linear formations such as power lines, MFS = Fij Nj ,
ducts, and canals can provide a way of connecting the
entertainment, cultural, or physical aspects of the system. where i is the function identified, j is the number of ES sup-
plied by i, and Nj is the number of policy objectives served
Transition points are areas that serve as attraction points by those ES.
and thus points of origin and destination for operational An important issue that precedes and greatly affects the
flows. Transition points include selected ecological, rec- calculation of the MFS is the process of linking the func-
reational, or cultural/historical areas that are equipped with tions associated with a locale to the ES supplied. There
appropriate services for visitors, serve as points of origin or are several readily available classification systems that can
destination, and are connected by routes. These sites may be be employed for this process. In this paper, the Common
located in rural, agricultural, or residential areas. International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES;
Based on the abovementioned typology, this methodo- version 5.1/18.03.2018) is employed. CICES is designed to
logical step includes (a) identifying the individual natural help measure, account for, and assess ecosystem services.
and cultural elements to use as GI components (links, hubs, Although it was developed in the context of work on the
and transition points) and (b) mapping the components to System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (which
create land-use patterns that can be checked for any mean- is being led by the United Nations Statistical Division), it
ingful spatial configurations (i.e., concentrations). Physical has subsequently been widely used in ecosystem services
mapping and spatial pattern recognition are key to pro- research to design indicators, for mapping, and for valuation
moting connectivity and establishing functional flows and (Haines-Young et al. 2018).
movements within the landscape. The subsequent step—the
functional assessment of each element—is critical to the
establishment of the network. Data sources
Step 2: GI functional assessment was mentioned earlier
that multifunctionality is the ability of GI elements (hubs, The proposed two-step methodological approach to planning
links, and transition points) to provide multiple ecosystem a GI network can be applied at different geographical scales
services (ecological and recreational services) at the same (national, regional, urban, periurban, local, etc.), while it is
locale. The functional assessment step involves evaluating important to understand that ES identification and function-
the potential multifunctionality of the land, either within ality assessment are strongly related to the policy, objectives,
a single policy objective (i.e., mitigating climate change, and priorities that are adopted as an evaluation framework.
maintaining biodiversity, etc.) or across policy objectives In practical terms, two types of geographical datasets—
and human activities (economic, social, and cultural). The land use/cover and ES—are needed to apply the proposed
potential multifunctionality of the land can be calculated methodology. Land-use and land-cover data provide the
as the number of ES supplied by the GI network at a spe- basis for the potential GI network mapping and are used to
cific location, as each ES can support one or more policy identify the three components of the GI network (the hubs,
objectives. links, and transitional points) and to evaluate their connec-
In practice, a simple summation of the ES supplied at tivity. These datasets are available from the Natura Network
a locale can be used to assess the functional performance database, CORINE Land Cover, the Urban Atlas (for urban

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 9 of 15 40

and periurban areas), and the Copernicus High Resolution Nevertheless, there are significant natural areas that shape
Layer, all of which are provided by the European Environ- the physical and artificial flows of this urban system. In the
mental Agency. Land-use data can also be acquired from the northern part of the MATH is the suburban forest of Seich
relevant Local Spatial Plans for the area under study. Schou, an extensive forested area that is protected both as
In the second methodological step, data on ES are used a Natura site and as a Landscape of Outstanding Natural
to measure the multifunctionality of the GI. BISE (the Bio- Beauty. With a height of 1201 m, Mount Chortiatis over-
diversity Information System for Europe) provides data and looks the MATH from the north and is part of the local
information on biodiversity to support the implementation ecosystem. To the southwest, there is an extensive river delta
of the EU biodiversity strategy. BISE proposes a set of ES consisting of the rivers Axios, Aliakmonas, Loudias, and
indicators based on ecosystem condition and an ecosystem Gallikos and the plain of Chalastra. This delta is protected by
services assessment. These indicators are supposed to be several national and international treaties and is designated
available for every EU country, although this is not always a National Environmental Park. While it is a wildlife sanc-
the case. For instance, according to the latest technical tuary, it also has significant engineered ecosystems such as
report, Deliverable of LIFE-IP 4 Natura Project, updated rice paddy fields and aquaculture. Less extensive but equally
in September 2018 (Dimopoulos et al. 2018), there are no significant areas that serve as wildlife habitats are located in
such data for Greece. Due to the lack of appropriate data, an the southeastern part of the MATH: the lagoons of Epanomi
alternative approach was employed. This approach involves and Angelochori. Other significant green elements are two
recognizing possible ES based on the policy texts that are linear features: the canals east and west of the dense urban
used to set the evaluation framework (i.e., the National Cli- core of Thessaloniki. The eastern one (the Regional Trench)
mate Change Adaptation Strategy) or the respective spatial is artificial and was constructed to protect the city from
plans (national, regional, local). Detailed inspection of the floods, whereas the western one (Dendropotamos) is a tor-
policy and strategy plans enabled the assignment of several rent that suffers from serious environmental pollution arising
ES per locale (hub, link, or transition point), thus facilitating from the industrial area adjacent to the canal. Even so, both
the functional assessment (step 2) described above. of these canals are significant green elements that play an
important role in alleviating the risk of flooding in the city.

The strategic and regulatory spatial planning

Case study of the metropolitan area framework for the MATH
of Thessaloniki, Greece
This section briefly presents the context of the spatial plans
The metropolitan area of Thessaloniki (MATH), which has that have been used as overarching policy texts for the
over 1 million inhabitants, is the second largest in Greece development of the GI network as well as, where applica-
after the metropolitan area of Athens. The MATH is located ble, useful and readily available sources of information that
in the northern part of the country, in the region of Central facilitate the identification of GI elements of metropolitan
Macedonia, and covers an area of 400 ­km2. It constitutes a significance.
major economic, commercial, transport, and cultural hub in
the Balkans as well as the wider region of Southeast Europe. Strategic spatial planning
The MATH consists of several municipalities in a mono-
centric urban system. It is dominated by the city of Thes- In the context of protecting and enhancing the natural envi-
saloniki (a dense urban center) as well as several smaller ronment, the Regional Spatial Plan for the region of Central
urban centers and settlements. The structural and functional Macedonia promotes the conservation and promotion of
organization of this urban system is a result of continuous protected areas, endangered species, and the ecosystem ser-
expansion over the last 40 years. The key feature in this vices they maintain. Part of the plan’s objective is to ensure
development process has been the construction of high- ecological continuity of protected areas, maintain or secure
speed highways (in conjunction with no investment in pub- new ecological corridors that will link the network of pro-
lic transit systems), shopping centers, R&D facilities, and tected areas together, reduce strong pressures that are placed
company headquarters unregulated across the periurban on coastal protected areas by tourism and residential devel-
area. Furthermore, suburban housing has developed next opment, promote the systematic management of all forest
to existing settlements. Due to the outdated Master Plan, ecosystems, and finally increase the size and quality of the
no provision was made for the preservation and protection forested ecosystems. To preserve and promote the cultural
of necessary open space and surrounding agricultural land. environment, the plan aims to strengthen the networking
The chaotic development process has therefore resulted in qualities of cultural resources as well as the protection of
fragmented open space in most parts of the MATH. traditional settlements.

13
40 Page 10 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

Within the context of the Regional Spatial Plan, the strat- part of the local landscape (usually through their designation
egy for the landscape is to end practices that degrade the as protected areas); there is no mention of the use of GI as a
value of its elements, take preventive and curative measures tool for the management and utilization of natural resources
that will improve its overall quality, and highlight it as a in an interconnected and multifunctional network.
key resource for the sustainable development of the region. Information on all ten municipalities and from their LSPs
Based on the landscape typology identified in the RSP, par- were utilized to designate the key GI elements of metropoli-
ticularly prominent landscapes within the MATH include the tan importance.
landscape of wine roads, the mountainous landscape, as well A Special Spatial Plan for a large part of the coastal area
as the rural landscape of the plain of Thessaloniki. both inside and outside the dense urban center of Thessalon-
The Master Plan for Thessaloniki provides key informa- iki is currently being elaborated. Since the plan is currently
tion on green areas of metropolitan significance within the being prepared, there is not enough data for it to be useful
dense urban environment and the periurban area. Detailed in this analysis. However, as already noted, the implemen-
work by Papageorgiou and Gementzi (2018) has shown that tation guidelines in this plan do not promote GI or include
green areas were planned with several intentions: “to form any principles that would encourage the development of GI.
a green buffer zone for the city and in terms of promoting
‘multi-functionality’ and ‘leisure opportunities.’” Neverthe- Development of the GI network for the MATH
less, they also note that “green spaces within the city, even
though they tend to correspond to the national standards, are Following the analysis of the spatial planning framework,
unequally dispersed, whilst their small size can hardly serve the two-step methodology described earlier was used to
the ‘multi-functionality’ feature.” Although the Master Plan develop the GI network for the MATH.
for Thessaloniki was never approved, the scale of the plan Step 1: GI identification and spatial distribution.
and the perspective adopted on the multifunctional manage- Although a detailed description of all GI elements used
ment of key natural and cultural resources as valuable land- in the network for the MATH is not possible in this paper,
scape elements provided a useful reference for the current Table 3 presents a list of the 38 elements that were consid-
study. To this end, the study Revision of Strategic Plan for ered in the proposed GI network. The elements, which are
Thessaloniki and Environmental Protection Program (phase either natural or manmade, are classified into six categories:
A—2nd chapter) was an important reference work for the significant natural landscapes, coastal and marine ecosys-
current study (Master Plan Agency of Thessaloniki 2006). tems, water corridors, built environment, productive land-
scape, and accessibility infrastructure. This list is dynamic
Regulatory spatial planning and can change at any time, and in practice it is imperative
to incorporate local stakeholders and community at every
According to the Local Spatial Plans, the study area consists step of the planning process. It should be noted that this
of ten municipalities. For the needs of the present study, the paper mainly considers the elements that are outside of the
approved LSPs were scoured for information on existing or dense urban core and settlements. Nevertheless, in order to
potential GI elements. As already mentioned, the LSPs focus achieve an integrated network, crucial natural and seminatu-
on the regulation of both urban and suburban areas. Due to ral elements (the peripheral ditch, military camps, etc.) and
the reference scale of the present work (metropolitan), our significant infrastructure (cultural, recreational, etc.) that are
search through the LSPs concentrated mainly on the subur- located within the main urban core were also considered.
ban area, except for identifying GI elements of metropolitan Structural classification was performed based on the
importance within urban areas. three structural elements of the proposed typology: hubs,
As an example, the relatively recently approved LSP for corridors, and transition points (Table 3, column “Structural
the municipality of Pylaia-Chortiatis, and the municipal unit classification”). This process was completed by mapping the
of Pylaia in particular, was studied (Ministry of Environment elements, thus highlighting their spatial distribution and
and Energy 2017d). It should be noted that, due to its adja- physical structure. It was crucial at this point to identify
cency to the dense urban center of Thessaloniki, the munici- probable missing links between the GI elements. As con-
pal unit of Pylaia includes natural resources of supralocal nectivity is a key GI feature, the creation of new functional
significance, such as the peripheral ditch, part of the Sheich corridors to link currently unconnected hubs or transition
Sou forested area, and part of the metropolitan coastal front points was considered as a means to enhance functional
system. This plan is short-sighted in that it does not discuss flows and movements.
the implementation of a GI network or the integration of Step 2: GI functional assessment. In the second step, a
existing GI and natural resources into an organized GI net- functional assessment was attempted. It was initially nec-
work. Areas of special ecological, aesthetic, and cultural essary to identify the functions that the assessment would
value are only considered in the context of their protection as be based on. Guided by the literature (Kazmierczack et al.

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 11 of 15 40

Table 3  Classification, functional assignment, and MFS values for the GI elements Source: Table created by the author

Source: processed by the author

2010; Davies et al. 2006; Foster et al 2011; Naumann et al. GI management and performance. Columns 2–18 in Table 3
2011; The Mersey Forest 2018; The Northwestern Green present the functions assigned to the study area’s GI ele-
Infrastructure Think Tank 2019) as well as the profile and ments. Existing functions are highlighted in light green,
characteristics of the study area, 16 types of functions were while darker green indicates a potential function as part of
identified. These functions were quite general; some of them the GI network. The existing and potential functions were
are relevant when GI is considered at a macro scale (e.g., assigned based on the data provided by the spatial plans for
food production, flood prevention, etc.) while others are the area.
associated with the locale itself. It is also possible for mul- Next, the process of linking the identified functions to ES
tiple functions to coexist in a GI, leading to multifunctional- was performed. Based on the CICES classification, Table 4
ity, which allows multiple policy objectives to be achieved presents the links between functions, ecosystem services,
through spatial integration of land uses and development and policy objectives. Note that, since the purpose of this
activities. As explained earlier, multifunctionality is desir- section is to demonstrate the proposed methodology, the
able, as it encourages efficient land use, offers wider public policy objectives presented here are only a selection of the
benefits, and contributes to partnerships, leading to better multiple policy objectives set in the context of applicable

13
40 Page 12 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

Table 4  Links between

functions, ecosystem services, FUNCTION ECOSYSTEM POLICY OBJECTIVE
and policy objectives Source: SERVICE (selected)
Table created by the author
Recreation
Nature Based Recreation
Recreation with restrictions Promote Social Inclusion
Viewpoint/Standpoint
Outdoor Recreation
Sport activities Increase Recreation
Opportunities
Alternative Tourism
Micro/regional Climate
Network Connectivity regulation
Network accessibility
Maintenance of
Cultural asset Maintenance of genetic Biodiversity
diversity
Cultural infrastructure
Habitat for wildlife Mitigation of Climate
Food Protection Change
Protected area
Special Aesthetic Value
Cultural Interactions
Productive activities
Reduce Land Take
Food Production (Fisheries-
Habitat Provision
Agriculture)
Learning / Experiential
Water quality and quantity
Education
Landscape and Habitat
Fragmentation
Source: processed by the author

spatial plans for the area (LSPs, RSP) and the Master Plan starting point for the further development of the network at
(which has not been approved). Having established the links, all scales (local, metropolitan, and regional). In practice, the
the subsequent functional assessment was relatively simple. coastal corridor functions as an integrating element for the
The multifunctionality score (MFS) was calculated using plain of Chalastra, the endpoints of the green corridors of the
the function presented earlier. The MFS per GI/locale is Dendropotamos Torrent, the Regional Trench, the Anthe-
presented in the last column of Table 3, which shows that mountas River, the Lagoon of Epanomi, and the Lagoon of
the MFS values ranged from 0.2 to 3.2. An overview of the Aggelohori (Fig. 2).
scores achieved per locale indicates that elements within The estuary and river delta of the rivers Axios, Loudias,
or close to the built environment show greater potential for and Aliakmonas (1.4) is a large region containing river estu-
multifunctionality. As an example, the Regional Trench aries, agricultural areas, and natural vegetation. While this
scored 1.2 due to the multiple ES it supplies (outdoor rec- region is connected to some extent with the rest of the GI
reation, microclimate regulation, and maintenance of genetic network via the coast, it would be useful to develop a over-
diversity), which in turn results in the realization of multi- land connection to the rest of the GI network in order to
ple planning objectives (promote social inclusion, increase improve accessibility and exploration options in the area
opportunities for recreation, maintain biodiversity, and miti- (i.e., develop more cycling routes). On the eastern side of
gate climate change). the dense urban center, the Anthemountas River (1) crosses
Based on the structural classification introduced in step a fragmented, flood-prone agricultural landscape. This indi-
1 and the multifunctional score per locale calculated in step cates that a multifunctional green corridor would be useful
2, spatial development of the GI network was attempted. for alleviating floods and increasing connectivity to the rest
Special emphasis was placed on the coastal zone extend- of the GI system.
ing from Kalohori to Angelochori, which yielded the high- The green corridors that extend along the Regional
est MFS value (3.2). Due to its length, influence, and the Trench (1.6) and the Dendropotamos Torrent (1.6) as well
significance of the recreational uses hosted in this area, it as the hubs represented by the suburban forest of Seich
was proposed that this zone should be the main route for Sou (1.4) and the former military camps within the dense
interconnecting hubs and corridors and should also act as a urban environment of the city of Thessaloniki (Stavroupoli,

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 13 of 15 40

Epanomi’s vineyards (0.8), with their multiple ecosys-

tem services (nature-based recreation, habitat provision, and
regional climate regulation), are proposed to be the focal hub
for the eastern part of the metropolitan area. Due to their
attractions, these vineyards could provide the perfect link
between the metropolitan area and the eastern coastal front.
The water dams of Thermi and Triadi (1), along with
the water corridor of Anthemountas (1), provide significant
flood prevention infrastructure for a large and important area
in which food is produced for the city of Thessaloniki. In
an effort to increase the multifunctionality of the dams, it
is proposed that their interconnectivity should be enanced
by improving and developing the walking and cycling paths
between the two natural areas. Moreover, it is proposed that
Thermi’s dam should be connected with the coastal front,
meaning that there is a link through the settlement of Thermi
to the two dams.
Finally, the scattered transition points are important man-
made or natural attractors to the network. Their role is to
serve as entry points to the network, so appropriate infra-
structure is required to achieve this function. The structure
of the proposed GI network is shown in Fig. 2.

Conclusions

Until recently, GI development was perceived as a solution-

oriented and cross-sectoral approach to spatial planning, due
Fig. 2  Spatial and functional configuration of the GI network.
Source: Figure created by the author to the fact that it was associated with ecological resilience
and focused mainly on preservation. Today, GI has been
reinvented as a framework or even a strategy that identifies
Pavlou Mela) (1.2) are critical elements of the GI network interventions which can help tackle major environmental and
due to their proximity to the city center. Thus, a coherent socioeconomic needs and capitalize on opportunities. The
link between the coastal zone, the green corridors, and the key concept in this approach is the capacity of the natural
suburban forest is recommended in order to facilitate the environment to carry out several functions, meaning that it
unobstructed movements of pedestrians and cyclists and can supply a variety of ecosystem services and fulfill a wide
the development of recreational activities lengthwise along range of policy objectives.
the zone, while also providing much-needed infrastructure Despite the undoubted benefits of treating GI as an infra-
for water management and flood alleviation. In addition, structural resource and an integral component of spatial
new links to integrate the military camps into the system policies, recent studies of the integration of GI into spatial
are proposed. The purpose of these links (both existing and planning have reported limited acknowledgement of the eco-
proposed) is to create a GI network within the urban envi- system services that GI can offer and a lack of a territorial
ronment that will be of metropolitan importance and will perspective. More specifically, a review of the Greek spatial
greatly improve the aesthetics, quality, and functionality of planning framework indicated that there is no national or
the dense urban landscape. comprehensive GI policy that can provide a strategic vision
In addition, the proposed GI network connects the sub- for embedding GI into territorial policies, and it highlighted
urban forest of Seich Sou (1.4) with the mountain shelter of the fragmented integration of GI into the spatial planning
Hortiatis, which is a transitional point of low significance system. Furthermore, the review found that there is only a
(0.2). Nevertheless, this link is proposed to be a natural limited understanding of the basic GI aspects of connectivity
mountain path, while the development of more natural routes and multifunctionality, and there is a general ignorance of
and shelters around the metropolitan area is advised in order the potential they have to provide ecosystem services and
to encourage outdoor activities. nature-based solutions.

13
40 Page 14 of 15 Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40

To this end, the proposed methodology aims to facilitate a Beatley T (2000) Green urbanism: learning from European cities.
territorial approach to GI planning at the metropolitan scale. Island, Washington, DC
Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, Gómez-Baggethun E
Apart from categorizing GI elements into the structural com- (2016) Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barce-
ponents of such networks (i.e., hubs, corridors, and transi- lona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Environ Sci Policy
tion points), the functional classification and assessment of 62:14–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsc​i.2016.01.007
these elements is crucial to the development of the network. Coronato M, Prezioso M (2019) The network of protected areas
(NPA) as an instrument to implement cross-border public ser-
The proposed functional assessment, which is based on the vices. Urban Sci 3(3):97
ecosystem services provided by the GI elements as well as Dapolito A (2010) Siting green infrastructure: legal and policy solu-
the corresponding policy objectives, was shown to facilitate tions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communi-
the prioritization of competing planning priorities and to ties. Boston Coll Environ Aff Law Rev 37(1):41–66
Davies C, MacFarlane R, McGloin C, Roe M (2006) Green infra-
promote planning objectives and a territorial perspective. structure planning guide. Anfield plain: North East Community
The proposed methodology can clearly be improved Forest. Routledge, Abingdon
in many ways. For instance, the incorporation of priority Dimopoulos P, Mallinis G, Kokkoris I, Bekri E, Chrysafi E, Verde
weights into the policy objectives would enable objec- N, Staboulidis T (2018) LIFE-IP 4 NATURA: integrated actions
for the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, spe-
tives to be weighted according to how important they are cies, habitats and ecosystems in Greece. In: Deliverable Action
to each policy priority. Another improvement could be the Α.3: technical-methodological guide on the determination and
incorporation of other objectives derived from policy areas assessment of the ecosystem types in Greece and their ecosys-
such as climate change, sustainable agriculture, and disaster tem services at national, regional and local scale. University of
Patras/Democritus University of Thrace, Patras/Komotini
risk reduction. Last but not least, a better understanding of Eckart K, McPhee Z, Bolisetti T (2017) Performance and imple-
the links between functions and ecosystem services would mentation of low impact development—a review. Sci Total
enhance the effectiveness of the prioritization procedure and Environ 607–608:413–432. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
the design process in general. tenv.2017.06.254
ESPON EGTC (2018) Territorial potentials for green infrastructure
To conclude, it is essential to integrate GI into spatial (working paper). ESPON European Grouping on Territorial Coop-
planning at all spatial scales. GI must be treated as a funda- eration, Luxembourg
mental infrastructural resource that is necessary to achieve ESPON EGTC (2019) GRETA—green infrastructure: enhancing
balanced spatial development, since it promotes the goals biodiversity and ecosystem services for territorial develop-
ment. ESPON European Grouping on Territorial Cooperation,
of an ecosystem-service-based approach and supports sus- Luxembourg
tainable land management, which are essential for resilient European Commission (2013) Green infrastructure (GI)—enhancing
territorial development. Europe’s natural capital (COM(2013) 249 final). European Com-
mission, Brussels
Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding European Commission (2019) The environmental implementation
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit-sectors. review. Country report: Greece. https​://ec.europ​a.eu/envir​onmen​
t/eir/pdf/repor​t_el_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2020
Forman R (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional
Compliance with ethical standards ecology. Landsc Ecol 10(3):133–142
Foster J, Lowe A, Winkelman S (2011) The value of green infra-
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author structure for urban climate adaptation. Center Clean Air Policy
states that there is no conflict of interest. 750(1):1–52
Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Clas-
sification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on
the application of the revised structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd.,
References Nottingham
Kambites C, Owen S (2006) Renewed prospects for green infrastruc-
Ahern J (2007) Green infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. ture planning in the UK. Plan Pract Res 21(4):483–496. https​://
In: Novotny V, Brown P (eds) In cities of the future: towards doi.org/10.1080/02697​45060​11734​13
integrated sustainable water and landscape management. IWA, Kazmierczack A, Carter J (2010) Adaptation to climate change using
London, pp 267–283 green and blue infrastructure. A database of case studies. INTER-
Baró F, Haase D, Gómez-Baggethun E, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Mis- REG IVC Green and Blue Space Adaptation for Urban Areas and
matches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban Eco Towns (GRaBS) project. https:​ //www.eschol​ ar.manche​ ster.​ ac.
areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol Ind uk/uk-ac-man-scw:12851​8. Accessed Oct 2019.
55:146–158 Kyvelou S, Gourgiotis A (2019) Landscape as connecting link of nature
Benedict M, McMahon E (2006) Green infrastructure: smart conserva- and culture: spatial planning policy implications in Greece. Urban
tion for the 21st century. Renew Res J 20(3):12–17 Sci 3(3):81
Benedict M, McMahon E (2012) Green infrastructure: linking land- Lin BB, Philpott SM, Jha S (2015) The future of urban agricul-
scapes and communities. Island Press, Washington, DC ture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: challenges and next
Bartesaghi Koc C, Osmond P, Peters A (2018) Evaluating the cooling steps. Basic Appl Ecol 16:189–201. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
effects of green infrastructure: a systematic review of methods, baae.2015.01.005
indicators and data sources. Sol Energy 166:486–508. https​://doi. Master Plan Agency of Thessaloniki (2006) Revision of strategic plan
org/10.1016/j.solen​er.2018.03.008 for Thessaloniki and environmental protection program (phase

13
Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration (2020) 5:40 Page 15 of 15 40

A—2nd chapter). (in Greek). Master Plan Agency of Thessa- National Operational Programme (2020) Environment and sustainable
loniki, Thessaloniki development 2007–2013. https​://www.epper​aa.gr/el/Pages​/axone​
Mell I (2017) Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and sprot​eraio​thtas​.aspx. Accessed 24 Mar 2020
future praxis. Landsc Res 42:135–145 Naumann S, McKenna D, Timo K, Mav P, Matt R (2011) Design,
Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works (2008) implementation and cost elements of green infrastructure pro-
General framework for spatial planning and sustainable develop- jects. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment,
ment. Official Gazette 28/A/03.07.2008. National Printing House Ecologic Institute, and GHK Consulting. Ecologic Institute/GHK
of Greece, Athens Consulting, Brussels/Brussels
Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (2014) Papageorgiou M, Gemenetzi G (2018) Setting the grounds for the green
National biodiversity strategy and action plan (Official Gazette infrastructure in the metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessa-
2383/A/08.09.2014). Ministry of Environment, Energy and Cli- loniki: the role of green space. Eur J Environ Sci 8(1):83–92
mate Change, Athens Slätmo E, Nilsson K, Turunen E (2019) Implementing green infrastruc-
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2016a) National climate change ture in spatial planning in Europe. Land 8(4):62–83. https​://doi.
adaptation strategy. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Athens org/10.3390/land8​04006​2
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2016b) Law 4447/2016. Spatial The Mersey Forest (2018) Liverpool: green infrastructure strategy.
planning-sustainable development and other provisions. Official Action plan 1.0. https​://www.green​infra​struc​turen​w.co.uk/liver​
Gazette 241/A/23.12.2016. National Printing House of Greece, pool/Actio​n_Plan.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2019
Athens The Northwestern Green Infrastructure Think Tank (2019) Northwest
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2017a) Ministerial Decision Green Infrastructure Guide V1.1. https​://www.green​infra​struc​
27016/06.06.2017. Technical specifications for local spatial plans turen​w.co.uk/resou​rces/GIgui​de.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2019
of law 4447/2016. Greek Government, Athens Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A, Nie-
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2017b) Ministerial Decision mela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health
27022/06.06.2017. Technical specifications for special spatial in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review.
plans of law 4447/2016. Greek Government, Athens Landsc Urban Plan 81:167–178. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu​
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2017c) Content specialization rbpla​n.2007.02.001
of regional adaptation plans to climate change. Official Gazette Tsaligopoulos A, Karapostoli A, Radicchi A, Economou E, Kyvelou
873/B/16.03.2017. National Printing House of Greece, Athens S, Matsinos Y (2019) Ecological connectivity of urban quiet
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2017d) Revision of the Gen- areas: the case of Mytilene, Greece. Cities Health. https​://doi.
eral Urban Plan of the Municipal Unit of Pylaia, Municipality of org/10.1080/23748​834.2019.15990​93
Pylaia - Chortiatis (Prefecture of Thessaloniki). Official Gazette
123/AAP/09.07.2017. National Printing House of Greece, Athens
Ministry of Environment and Energy (2018) Ministerial Decision
39459/683/16.06.2018. Technical specifications for the regional
spatial plans of law 4447/2016. Greek Government, Athens

13